Chris Bambery’s Marxism lies a-mouldering in the grave
Sacha Ismail on the Socialist Workers Party pamphlet Iraq: why the troops must get out now by Chris Bambery
[From Solidarity 3/62, November 2004]
SWP-watchers will be aware that leading cadre Chris Bambery has recently taken time out from his busy schedule of leather trouser-shopping and goatee-trimming to assume the editorship of Socialist Worker. Here he maintains the high standards he has established at that publication by producing fifty pages of populist, non-socialist, anti-American (“anti-imperialist”) babble. Despite providing clear evidence of the SWP’s deepening political degeneration, however, this is a difficult one to get your teeth into.
This is partly because it has no clear structure: Bambery has opted for a shambling, stream-of-consciousness-style rant, dipping in and out of his argument at apparently random points. After several reads, it is still not clear that the pamphlet has a logical argument to make. But this is also because — in keeping with the SWP’s general approach — Bambery is clearly reluctant to state his case in positive terms. His method is as follows: make a negative statement that no socialist, consistent democratic or even basic humanitarian could disagree with; then, without further argumentation, proceed to a conclusion which the original statement in no way justifies.
In his first section, for instance, Bambery uses a string of arguments that are part of the common stock of the revolutionary left: that Bush and Blair lied about WMDs; that the US government is unconcerned about the huge civilian casualties resulting from its brutal war-drive; that the torture of captives by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib was an outrage; and that the Democrats are basically no different from the Republicans (though in this garbled populist version, Bambery hints that they might be supportable if only they opposed the occupation of Iraq!) It is good for political newcomers to be educated about these things; what is not good is Bambery’s use of the facts to justify support for Iraq’s so-called “resistance”.
His approach is totally apolitical. Rather than making any attempt to analyse the overall political character of the Islamist/neo-Ba’thist militias, Bambery fills his pages with anecdotal evidence about individual “resistance” leaders (apparently one mujahid was well disposed to the US government before the war — what a top bloke!) and “corroborating” quotations from bourgeois opinion pieces. This is followed by a passage reminding us of what “occupation” has achieved elsewhere, as if the occupations Bambery cites – Iraq, Bosnia, Kosova, Afghanistan – were all identical examples of pre-1945-style high colonialism. Here, too, the SWP’s selective humanitarianism rears its ugly head; we are told that 200,000 Serbs and Roma have been driven out of Kosova since NATO’s occupation began, as if the murder and displacement of millions of Kosovar Albanians under Serbian occupation would have been preferable.
The pamphlet continues in this vein for many pages. Bambery points out the Allawi regime has little popular support and that elections are unlikely to be really democratic; that over the last two decades the US has shown sub-zero concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people; that Britain has a history of imperialist intervention in the region and so on. But once again these important observations are used to defend the indefensible, with no attempt at political analysis.
The last pages of the pamphlet contains two examples of the SWP’s incoherence and hypocrisy.
Rightly attacking Bush’s claim to be carrying through a democratic revolution that will guarantee human rights in Iraq, Bambery cites the Iraqi Governing Council’s Law 137, which partially repeals Iraq’s secular 1958 personal status law and replaces it with a system of sharia courts, as evidence of how far the occupiers are from creating a “free, democratic and secular Iraq”. This from a man who has just spent thirty pages arguing that socialists should support the theocratic gangsters of the “resistance”!
In his sole attempt to reference his “argument” to the Marxist tradition in any way, Bambery cites Lenin and Trotsky’s support for colonial liberation movements even under undemocratic leadership, and more recently socialist support for the Vietnamese national struggle despite its domination by Stalinism — again without any attempt to actually prove that Iraq 2004 equals India 1919 or Vietnam 1968. Not content with this “analogy”, however, he goes on to compare those leading the Iraqi “resistance” to Oliver Cromwell and, better yet, to John Brown, the radical-democratic Christian leader who was executed by the Southern slaveholders after attempting to organise an armed slave rebellion on the eve of the US civil war in 1860.
Now, perhaps Bambery seriously believes that Moqtada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are the modern equivalents of those who fought feudalism and slavery in the 17th and 19th centuries, leaders of giant steps in human progress. Or perhaps he just isn’t that interested in ideas any more. In either case, we are a very long way from anything resembling Marxism. The worst thing about this very bad pamphlet is that it doesn’t once mention the Iraqi working class, let alone stress the importance of Iraqi workers’ struggle to re-establish a labour movement after forty years of totalitarian repression. For Bambery and his like, “anti-imperialism” is everything; the working class simply doesn’t exist any more.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Debate
Once again, I particularly enjoy the fact that Bill is so keen to debate us online, but when it comes to an invitation to discuss ideas face-to-face in a public forum, his group runs a mile.
So we can work together or at least exchange information on industrial disputes, deportation/immigration controls, council housing, the Labour Party and women's liberation, all areas where we share at least some agreement, but there is literally NO point debating us on imperialism. The typical left (Stalinist) attitude to debate combines with the Workers Power tradition of bluster/cowardice...
Talking of debates…
Comrades,
It's all very well criticising PR for not wanting to debate and their lack of openness but then the restrictions your org is placing on Dave Broder speaking at the CPGB school would suggest that you have your own foibles on openness and no-holds-barred debate. Yes, I appreciate that you are willing to attend but only with SM as a speaker. Why is your (significant) minority on 'troops out' being gagged in this way? Surely your organisation's reputation will only suffer if comrade Broder is not allowed to attend. I write as someone who genuinely can't understand your org's problem with this issue.
Lawrence, Rotten Elements
No buts
The initial e-mails were not sent to the AWL, but to David Broder. Your point about the CPGB not wanting to recruit is naive, and belies the character of their paper and the source of most of their members. It's the CPGB's methods that are underhand and that's why we took it up with them vociferously.
Paul
Yes buts
Dear Paul,
I wasn't suggesting the CPGB don't wish to recruit, just that they can be very lax about it. This following from my main point that (unless something has radically changed in the last couple of years) they don't just yank people out of orgs. I can name a number of people down the years off the top of my head who they have encouraged to stick in orgs (me, for one). As The Leninist they stuck in the 'official' CPGB to the very end and also had members in Scargill's SLP long after the other revolutionary orgs had quit. What actually would be achieved by yanking a small group out of the AWL?
Given that Mark F has raised somewhat angular, hostile criticisms of the AWL's 'soft' minority in the WW I can't really square this with this "underhand" thing. If I was going to foment a split to do you maximum damage I would actually be given it the softly, softly, 'hey guys you're great' one, not accusing the minority of being lilly-livered and inconsistent. A very strange "lothario", indeed.
Sorry to go on, I do have some time for your org but I think you've handled this one really badly.
L
But…
Dear Paul,
thank you for your reply but it only raises more issues in my mind.
I went to the event yesterday and saw your picket on the door. As I arrived I think it was you having a heated discussion with Peter Manson (a CPGB leader who chaired the debate). But the comrade was inviting you in to speak from the floor and, actually, I think the audience, CPGB and non-CPGB, were very disappointed that you did not take up the offer, and also that David had not been allowed to speak. So the CPGB didn't bottle anything as far as I am saw it. The letter in this week's paper makes it clear they are keen to organise a joint debate with your majority (Sean M), so I'm stumped as to your 'bottled it' line.
You give the strong implication that a debate between Yassamine Mather (HOPI), Mark Fischer (CPGB) and Dave Broder (AWL) is not a serious discussion, but a discussion between Sean Matgamna and Mark and Yassamine is. This is less than complimentary to your significant minority on Iraq and to the audience who chose to turn up to yesterday's event.
In reply to your point about political relations with other groups I don't think the CPGB leadership was that happy about (I think) Manny Neira speaking as a CPGB oppositionist circa 2003–004 (I can't remember the date) at your school. However, to the CPGB's credit they did not stop that comrade speaking even though it caused them some discomfort. Gagging Manny would have made them look stupid.
I'm not party to the emails being sent by the CPGB to your group. The only thing I would say is that if they are angling for a split then this would mark a significant U-turn for them. My feeling is that the CPGB is extremely lax about pursuing new recruits/sympathisers. When I was a member we did not angle for a split unless it was clear that a comrade was a member of a moribund organisation (which the AWL is clearly not) such as the NCP — but even here the emphasis would have still been on fighting and not walking. This, in my eyes, has made the CPGB somewhat reticent about recruitment and chasing people, and I agreed with their recent opposition (Red Platform) about this point. So, really I would need some convincing on this score.
In short, while the picket didn't bother me (that's your right), I am very disppointed with the AWL's actions over this issue on a number of levels. A compromise would have been to put forward both Sean and David to speak on the platform — I'm sure the CPGB might have gone for this (it was its event and its right to plan it how they saw it).
Regards,
Lawrence, Rotten Elements
Piss off, Bilge, etc.etc.etc.
People need to remind themselves why the AWL are so rude. It's to cover up the fact that they support the occupation. They claim they don't. But then of course they demand troops stay and occupy Iraq, which rather blows their cover doesn't it?
And so its back to the swearing.
People are welcome to comment on the PR site, they're just not welcome to be rude on it.
So what's your reason for
So what's your reason for being rude then Bill?
What after you told me to "fuck off" you mean?
What after you told me to "fuck off" you mean?
Not really answered the
Not really answered the question, but what's new?
I don't want to drag this out, but you turn up on the AWL Board, giving out a load of abuse, which if I'm being honest, reads like you'd posted after a long session in the pub.
You then refuse to debate the AWL publicly, and on it goes, more abuse. Now I know two decades in WP does things to people, so it seemed only a "fuck off" would do. Shame you didn't listen, but that's no surprise, is it?
So, and I'm repeating myself here, put up or shut up.
So it was after you told me to fuck off.
As I said - the AWL are rude and people need to ask why. The only political explanation is that it is a result of your shameful defence of the occupation of Iraq.
To say that's not rude its true.
No you're right Bill.
No you're right Bill. Thanks for pointing that out.
I feel better now.
BTW, I'm not in the AWL.
So you're just rude then
So you're just rude then. Still you're in good company.
We were happy to debate, the CPGB bottled it
Lawrence,
We were happy to debate yesterday, the CPGB withdrew the invite. We've not gagged anyone - David referred the matter to the office and its perfectly normal for political relations with other groups to be assessed by the centre.
In fact, normally we would allow minorities to speak on such platforms. However in this case the CPGB have been shit-stirring, advising minority comrades to "clear out the leadership scabs" with private e-mails, i.e. formenting a split.
What we've done is to assert ourselves as an organisation that wants to discuss politics seriously, something all AWL comrades agree is important, whatever the different views on Iraq.
Paul
Some Sympathy
Bill,
I have some sympathy for your predicament, though not with your position. It appears the AWL are going downhill fast, much to my sincere disapointment. Not satisfied with hurling abuse on those they debate with they have now resorted to the tactics of other sects in censoring the contributions of those that disagree with them, even those like me that have supported their positions in debates with you and others.
Not only have they deleted my user account, but also deleted all of my posts going back more than two years, which to my mind is like electronic book burning, including all those posts where I defended the AWL's position as against yours (where I was wriiting as Arthur Bough).
No reasons for their actions has been given on this wbsite, and the only epxlanation I have been given to my personal blog was that my posts were too numerous and too long, preventing others from contributing. That of course did not seem to prevent the long discussions you and I held. In fact the reasons given had a ring of the reasons the Stalinists gave for trying to silence Trotsky during the debates of the mid twenties. I have to say I am not too surprised by that from people that attempt to cling to Leninism, the first stage of Stalinism.
To What Limits
Bill, you say people are welcome to comment on the PR site. I am curious to know what limits if any you place on that other than that people not be rude.
Before I began posting to the WL site I spent a couple of years arguing against (mainly) US Libertarians. There were hundreds of posters to the site, and posts went into the hundreds. Unlike my recent experience with the AWL I was never asked to censor my comments by the Board owners despite their politics, and despite the length of my posts as I was usually arguing against up to a dozen Libertarians on each issue. Interestingly, the only people that used this as an argument were those on the losing end of the arguments. In contrast I received e-mails from a number of other contributors, including one from a member oft he ACLU, thanking me for taking on their right-wing ideas, and asking me to take part in other discussions.
I stopped contributing apart from the odd post basically because I thought it was poitless argfuing against people whose ideas I wasn't going to change, and that there was at least some point discussing sensibly with other socialists. It appears such discussion is no longer possible on this site, so I would be interested if such discussion were possible on yours.
I fear of course, it will not be because you suffer from the same Leninism as the AWL, and as Lenin set out in "What is to be Done?" Leninists really do not beleive in "Freedom of criticism".
Terrible article
What a terrible article. It starts off with a review of Bamberry's wardrobe, which has got what to with it? And carries on in the same insulting, "ironic" and over blown vein.
It claims Bamberry's approach is "apolitical" clearly completely untrue even by the definition of the author, who after all manages to rant on about his politics for long enough.
But there is of course a purpose to this method, to conceal the AWL's disgraceful support for the occupation and their stooge government behind a load of phrases. Who are you trying to kid?
Terrible response
Who are you trying to convince, bilge? Do you think if you keep lying about the AWL long enough, perhaps someone will believe you? Go and play with your "resistance" friends.
Bilge?
See it's all of a piece. You think that by insulting anyone who disagrees with you then your quite shameful position will go unnoticed.
As if people aren't going to notice that you support the occupation and the stooge government, which by recollection were responsible, according to the Lancet, for around 650,000 deaths getting on for a year ago.
So they'll have been another 100,000 since then no doubt.
How many more dead will it take to convince you?
More Bilge
At least 17 killed as U.S., Iraqi forces battle Shiite militia
CNN report (July 27th): At least 17 people were killed Friday when U.S. and Iraqi forces battled "rogue" Shiite militia members in Karbala after a raid, the U.S. military said. A hospital official said earlier that the dead included two women and that 25 people were wounded in the fighting, including women and children.
NY Times adds (July 28th): Iraqi hospital officials accused the Americans of killing nine civilians and wounding 26 others in the operation, which occurred in Al Askari district in western Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad.
Horrendous crime committed against three citizens in Samarra
Haq report (July 22nd): A HAQ agency correspondent in the city of Samarra north of Baghdad reported, quoting eyewitnesses, that the American occupation forces committed a terrible crime against three citizens when the soldiers - in cold blood - executed them in front of their families.
He said that the American forces carried out a campaign of raids and searches of houses in Samarra and stopped three citizens near the wall of a house which they stormed into, then opened fire on them.
Killing of 14 People from One Family
AMSI reports (July 29th): American occupation F-16 aircraft bombed the home of Ramzi Abdul Dulaimi in Diwaniyah on 26 July 2007. This savage bombing killed 14 family members and shrapnel struck houses near the place of the bombing, which resulted in the death of another person and a number of others seriously wounded.
A Little Easier to Occupy from the Air
IPS report (July 31st): Many Iraqis believe the dramatic escalation in U.S. military use of air power is a sign of defeat for the occupation forces on the ground.
U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft dropped five times as many bombs in Iraq during the first six months of this year as over the first half of 2006, according to official information. The Air Force has also been expanding its air bases in Iraq and adding entire squadrons.
"Our area is under threat of air raids all the time," Mahmmod Taha from the Arab Jboor area southwest of Baghdad told IPS. "Each time they bombed our area, civilians were killed by the dozens, and civilians' houses were destroyed. They could not fight the resistance face to face, and so they take revenge from the air."
Go away
Honestly, Bill; piss off.
Unlike your own organisation's website, we do allow people to publicly comment on our material. You'll notice no-one's censored or deleted your ridiculous comments. So we're clearly in favour of open debate.
But that's not what you're offering; you don't set out any kind of critique of the position of either the AWL majority or minority on Iraq (probably because you don't know what they are); you just post abusive comments on article after article about how "shameful" and "disgraceful" this alleged position (which you mysteriously never back up with any quotes or references to actual AWL literature) is. It seems that no matter how many times either faction of the AWL sets its position out, you are only capable of responding by figuratively sticking your fingers in your ears and essentially accusing us of wanting Iraqis to die. It's hard not to insult someone who is so boneheadedly, pathologically incapable of engaging in serious political argument.
Despite your repeated temper-tantrums on this website, and as was mentioned on another thread, we've offered several times to publicly debate your organisation (Permanent Revolution) on this issue. The offer was turned down.
Your pathetic slurs don't get anyone anywhere, so just give it up. Your wasting your own time as much as anything else. As Thumper from Bambi almost said, "if you ain't got nothing worthwhile to say, don't say nothing at all."
What is Awl position on troops out?
The above contribution seems to claim that there is some ambiguity about the AWL position on troops out. I thought the majority position was clear- they oppose calling for troops out. If that's so why not say so clearly- if it isn't then please clarify.
As long as the AWL refuse to support troops out then that is a terrible position and it deserves to be said.
Permanent Revolution does allow people to post comments on the website and, along wth the AWL, should be congratulated on this open approach. It would be good to see the SWP and SP follow suit.
Missing the point
Bill clearly doesn't know what the position of either AWL faction is, hence his repeated (and now incredibly boring) nonsense about "supporting the stooge government" and positively backing the occupation.
Neither faction positively supports the presence of troops, both want them to leave, both think they exacerbate sectarian tension. The dispute is over what demands the labour movement - inside and outside of Iraq - should raise to build itself as an independent force capable of forcing the end of the occupation.
No-one with a rational brain cell in their head could suggest that Bill's approach to "debate" is in anyway constructive. He doesn't bring any kind of critique of the AWL position (which would, as I say, rely on him actually knowing it). All he's got is bluster, slander and lies. If that's all he's got then I repeat that he should stop wasting his own time and ours.
Doesn't he have anything better to do?