Another old article for reference - Chris Bambery resigns

BAMBERY RESIGNS On Chris Bambery’s Resignation from the SWP On Sunday 10 April Chris Bambery, former SWP National Secretary and Socialist Worker editor, resigned from both the Central Committee and the SWP. In this article I wish to comment on and respond to Bambery’s resignation letter (which is appended below). The first and most striking feature of this letter is its low political level. The past year has developments in the class struggle of the highest importance: eight general strikes in Greece; mass struggles over pensions in France; a general strike in Spain; the government brought down in Portugal; the Icelandic government brought down and its successor defeated in two referenda on the IMF bail-out: a riot at the ballot box in Ireland involving the election of 5 United Left TDs (1 SWP) ; the great student revolt of late 2010; the biggest trade union march in history on 26 March; mass workers struggle in Wisconsin; and above all the amazing and ongoing Arab Revolutions. Together they constitute the biggest wave of working class and revolutionary struggle for at least thirty years. Yet none of these events merits even a mention in Bambery’s letter. Does he agree or disagree with the SWP’s line in or on any of these struggles, or the line of the International Socialist Tendency (IST), of which the SWP is a leading part? We are given no indication at all. Indeed the IST is never even considered, despite the fact that its Arab supporters are currently involved in, and in some cases playing a serious role in a revolution of epic proportions. Obviously these matters are considered to be of little significance compared to the central question which is how Chris Bambery is being treated by the SWP Central Committee. To say this smacks of egotism is to put it mildly. The second striking feature of the letter is the way it levels accusations at the CC without explaining or substantiating them. It says ‘The relentless factionalism in the organisation, driven by the leading group on the CC, shows no sign of ceasing and is doing enormous damage to the party’. But what factionalism is being talked about here? Normally in Revolutionary parties a faction is a grouping within the party organised (sometimes openly, sometimes secretly) to oppose or change the policy and/or leadership of the party in some way. Since the departure of the Left Platform (of John Rees and Lindsey German) to found Counterfire ,over a year ago, no such [open] faction has been operating in the SWP. At the SWP conference in January 2011 there was no evidence of any factional activity. Chris Bambury’s letter does not enlighten us on this score. It does not say who the faction or factions are, or what they stand for . It states that the factionalism is ‘driven by the leading group on the CC’ but does not say who constitutes this leading group or what they are factionalising about. If these issues had been raised previously this might be understandable but they have not. Consequently what we are forced to conclude is that by factionalism Bambery simply means criticism of or hostility to himself. Unfortunately if you occupy a leading position in a political organisation and make mistakes or do not do a good job you must expect to be criticised. It’s called accountability or even democracy. In addition to this there is a major irony in the situation. Given that, immediately following Chris Bambery’s letter of resignation, a very similar letter was received from 39 of his supporters in Scotland which also announced the formation of a new Marxist organisation in Scotland, it is absolutely clear that he, Bambery, had been organising a secret faction there. Moreover, it seems very likely that the reason he has chosen to resign now is precisely because he was confronted about his factional activity on the CC. This, I presume, is what was being referred to when he was accused at the CC of a ‘foul role in Scotland’. And on this score let’s be clear : using your position on the CC to organise a secret faction and prepare a split without once raising any of the political issues at Party Conference, or in the pre-conference discussion, or at National Committee or Party Council is a clear violation of both the formal constitution of the SWP and its long established norms of behaviour of which Bambery himself was very well aware. In truth he has played a dishonest and cowardly double game with both his fellow CC members and the membership of the SWP as a whole – cowardly in the sense that he has never been willing to advance his arguments in open debate before the members.[This repeats what he did during the argument with The Left Platform , when he never took or argued a clear position in any of the SWPs forums for debate] Another notable feature of Bambery’s letter is that he resigns simultaneously from the CC and the SWP as a whole. Not for a second does he consider leaving the CC and becoming an ordinary rank-and-file member of the party (despite the fact that many people have done this in the past – for example, Sheila McGregor, Andy Strouthous, Phil Marfleet, John Rose, Viv Smith ). In this respect – and in others – he follows the pattern established by John Rees and Lyndsey German last year. Personally I find this arrogance, this attitude of only being part of the party if you can be a leader, extremely distasteful and unbecoming of a revolutionary but there is also a wider political point involved here that needs spelling out as part of the education of newer members. The SWP as part of the International Socialist Tendency stands for a number of fundamental political ideas and principles. These include the classical revolutionary Marxist tradition, the self emancipation of the working class, Leninism, Trotskyism, the theory of state capitalism and deflected permanent revolution (as developed by Cliff), the critique of the trade union bureaucracy and reformism and so on. Central to these ideas was and is the project of building a mass revolutionary party. As we know from our experience in Britain and our experience internationally this is not easy to achieve. The British SWP, for all its faults and problems, has been as successful as anyone and more successful than most in holding together and building such an organisation. If one agrees with the basic ideas, which Chris Bambery (as National Secretary and SW editor) presumably did, one should not leave, still less encourage others to leave , on the basis of episodic or tactical disagreements eg disagreements about the emphasis to be put on particular campaigns or united fronts, disagreements about the analysis of the specific conjuncture, or disagreements about the composition of leading bodies. These kinds of issues which continually arise in the course of the struggle and must arise if the party is interacting with the real world, should be argued out within the party in a hard but comradely way with majority decisions being implemented in a unified fashion. Any other approach is simply irresponsible, and in this case it seems, again, highly egotistical and self regarding. Finally it is necessary to consider the damage this defection will do to the SWP. From Dublin, where I now live, this is hard to assess but it is obvious that Bambery’s position as Secretary of the Right to Work Campaign will cause some problems, especially if he chooses to try to use it in that way, which I have to say seems likely. Given that in reality he owes that position almost entirely to the SWP he ought, in principle, to resign from that too – but I doubt that he will – so this matter will have to be resolved in some way. Beyond that, and the situation in Scotland, the effect ought to be minimal. Opponents of the SWP, especially those circling in the blogosphere, will doubtless seize on it suggest a) that Bambury is a victim of the horrible SWP leadership; b) that his ‘forced resignation’ is evidence that it is difficult to be a ‘dissident’ in the SWP; c) that his departure is symptomatic of the party’s decline and imminent demise. These suggestions are all radically false. Far from being a ‘victim’ of the CC, Bambery was indulged and protected by the CC (for too long in my opinion, but that’s a different matter). His resignations far from being ‘forced’ were entirely voluntary. Far from it being difficult to raise disagreements in the SWP it is now much easier then it was in the days when Bambery was National Secretary. And far from it being a symptom of the SWP’s decline it is rather unfinished business from the struggle against Rees/German/Bambery regime which in my opinion was the pre-condition of the party’s recovery from the severe crisis into which we were plunged by the splitting and abandonment of local branch organisation in the late nineties and early noughhties. At present I think the British SWP and the IST are, in general, doing reasonably well . Of course it is uneven and of course there are problems but the objective situation is undoubtedly more favourable than it has been for years, so it should be possible for us to grow quantitatively and qualitatively in the coming months and years. Certainly we should not permit Bambery’s departure and machinations to deflcct us from the need to seize the time. Appendix: Chris Bambery’s Resignation Letter Letter to CC and SWP 10 April Dear Charlie, After 32 years membership of the Socialist Workers Party, during which I was National Secretary for 17 of them and editor of the Socialist Worker for five, I am resigning forthwith both from the Central Committee and the Socialist Workers Party. The relentless factionalism in the organisation, driven by the leading group on the CC, shows no sign of ceasing and is doing enormous damage to the party . It is a cancer eating away at its heart. At the special CC held on Friday 8 April I was told by Martin Smith I played a ‘filthy’ and ‘disgraceful’ role in the party, a ‘foul role in Scotland’ and despite the CC ‘fighting hard’ to integrate me I had ’spent the last year and a half organising against the CC.’ Such accusations were repeated by Martin’s supporters and were not refuted by yourself as National Secretary. While not recognising the reality of such slanders, I pointed out if you believed them immediate action would be required against any CC member believed to be involved in such behaviour. None followed. It is simply untenable to sit round a table or work with people who believe, and are spreading, such slanders. These slanders are not just aimed at me but those who have worked closely with me in building the party and wider initiatives, particularly so in Scotland which I’ve held responsibility for since 1988 until I was asked to step aside this year to help prevent ‘factionalism’. This step was criticised at a Scottish steering committee by some members who argued my role in the significant development of the Scottish districts, particularly amongst younger members, had been important. They too have been subject to similar slanders. The party has been afflicted by factionalism for four years and grips the leading group on the CC who seem addicted to it. It has damaged our united front work in all the campaigns - Right to Work most obviously but in all others. Stop the War is now treated with derision by leading CC members. In recent weeks there has been no lead or drive from the CC in turning the party towards building the growing anti-cuts movement. The current article in Socialist Review and the post 26th party notes on the way forward after 26 March both have virtually nothing to say on anti cuts campaigns. Martin Smith has attempted to blame me personally for the weaknesses of Right to Work despite the internal arguments which have held it back from its inception and which have brought it near to derailment. While all of us wanted to see the party grow the stress on party building has increasingly meant ‘intervening’ from the outside rather than recruiting whilst working alongside those who are building the movement. Since Friday’s CC I have been made aware that a major factional attack was being once more orchestrated against myself. The SWP prided itself on being free from factionalism and on its record in helping initiating and building strong and genuine united fronts. That has been damaged. I was one of the only two remaining CC members who had worked with Tony Cliff in a leadership role. Having worked closely with him on a daily basis for many years with, I believe the CC’s current approach goes against everything he stood for. His analysis of Lenin’s ideas laid great emphasis on taking a firm grip on the ‘key link in the chain’. Its been clear for some time that the question of austerity would dominate the political scene, yet we’ve failed to position ourselves at the heart of the anti-cuts movement and our influence is not what it could of been. This is not the place to go into detail about the party’s recent history, but Right To Work was initiated in bizarre circumstances (I learned the news from Party Notes) and the CC as a whole has never applied systematic pressure to push the formal position through the party. For all of my 32 years as a member I have given everything into building this party, even making serious financial sacrifices including loaning considerable sums of money during the financial crisis which has affected the party in recent years, money I am still owed. A revolutionary party is an instrument for making a revolution. If it is blunted or broken another must be built. I maintain the firm conviction that a party rooted in working class struggle that fights constantly for Marxist ideas whilst building unity on the basis of action is essential for the battle for socialism. For that reason, to take this road is not an easy decision, but it is one I have been forced to take. Yours sincerely, Chris Bambery