Talk:Jack Barnes (politician)

message: Some good points here, some of which are accounted for very well on the page about the SWP US. It seems better that this entry on Barnes remain focussed on Barnes himself rather than the SWP.
DICTATORSHIP OR DEMOCRACY - It's an excellent point to say that it's pointless and misleading to demonise Barnes. Clearly, there was a qualitative change in the politics of the SWP during the 1980s. Barnes clearly played a leading role in this process, but had the national committee majority behind him. Most would also say that the SWP organisational and democratic norms changed: those who were expelled, such as the Fourth Internationalist Tendency, argued it was done undemocratically and wrong-headedly.
BREAKING WITH TROTSKYISM - This seems a fair description of the SWP's evolution. However, if the SWP feel it unfair, it would be better to write of a "break with Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution and the struggle to build the Fourth International." In so far as Trotsky agrees with the Leninism, and opposition to Stalinism and the third period, the SWP agree with him. However, Trotskyism clearly refers to the politics of the movement that Trotsky and the SWP founded: the FI. The defining aspects of that movement: permanent revolution in the developing world; anti-bureaucratic revolution in the workers' states and the notion of socialist democracy. Of course, the SWP no longer calls itself Trotskyist and the word is dropped, for example, from the title of Joseph Hansen's book on Cuba.
CASTROISM - Similary, it is mistaken to call the SWP a Castoist party. The SWP's 'New International' strategy in the 1980s and 1990s was one of convergence with the Castroist current. However, it's clear that the SWP has its own ideology.
--DuncanBCS 19:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reaction to the above comment 

message: You know, I am looking for info on Jack Barnes the Australian biolgist
----------------------------------
PARTY'S TURN AWAY FROM SECTARIANISM IN THE 1980s  A STEP FORWARD
As someone who was a member of the SWP as a youth and who left it disenchanted for both personal and political reasons in the mid-70s, I found myself-in the wake of capitalism having made my "turn" for me as it does for most workers-in a somewhat ironic position in the early 1980s, several years after my departure from the group, having apparently a distinctly minority view among ex-members in viewing the party's evolution in that period as a step forward. 
First thing to keep in mind is that many of those who left the Party in this period were hardened party functionaries in their own right who, like the hacks purged by Stalin, showed little compunction in harrassing those who didn't toe the party line when they were in favor.  Thus little sympathy is merited for them as ostensible victims.
Secondly, and this more important point is almost always left out in discussions of this period, there was a deeper change in the party's line at this time as during the 70s the SWP became under the influence of a subtle and sophisticated form of right opportunism of the social democratic type (worthy of Max Schactman) in which sectarian dogma covered for abstention from and right wing hostility to what were viewed as "ultraleft," "reformist" and "Third World Stalinist" struggles.  Concomitant with that was, unfortunately all too typical of trotskyites, a drift towards anti-communism with the SWP supporting the right-wing mobilizations in Portugal and opposing the Angolan revolution (until correctly reversed later) and increasingly displaying hostility to Cuba and VietNam.  It is important to note in that connection that Ed Heisler who had risen to a central leadership position of the party and insinuated himself into Barnes' intimacy was later revealed to be a long-time FBI plant and informant.  
Thus the US government had subtly managed to influence the party's political line in attempt to marginalize it as a dogmatic sect like the SLP. Therefore it can be seen that the turn toward industry was also, most laudibly, coupled with an abandonment of this anti-communist like line and adoption of solidarity and support for the revolutions in Nicaragua and Grenada, something I was very pleasantly surprised to find they had done, as I expected presicely the opposite: embittered right-wing hostility of the 'Lyndon LaRouche Lite' type that animates so many Old Left sects.  
The fact that these yuppie critics had a different line and intitially even refused to take the Sandinista Revolution seriously but rather viewied it as something meriting scorn and jest, as they did the plight of workers more generally for whom they had little respect, is something that needs to viewed very seriously not so much in analyzing their critique of the SWP but in assessing these individuals and their milieu more generally.
Moreover, one would think that intellectual honesty would dictate a least a grudging respect for the party's turn to industry from those among the disenchanted who had precisely called for that policy years before in 1971.  The fact that they haven't can only make one think that we are dealing with philistines who are into differences for differences sake and contrived arguments typical of the narcissistic mentality of so many intellectuals.  Unfortunately, the formalistic, parliamentarian (and yes, downright bureaucratic)      concepts of democracy that the SWP had were a breeding ground for those kind of people. However,they and that process has little to do with a party that is part of a mass movement.
The Fall 1983 issue of New International is an excellent one that in addition to the article by Barnes has an excellent one by Mary Alice Waters about the history of the Paris Commune that I found very informative and inspiring at the time as this was an historical episode I knew little about.  "Permanent Revolution," without parsing all of its obscure tenets basically evolved into a mystical shibboleth that even those propounding it didn't understand and was emblematic of the "trotskyist movement" having devolved into an ossified and irrelvant talmudic sect or set of sects.  It is to the credit of the Party that they split from this mode.  Unfortunately it is a process that has not gone far enough and I would point to, while I have some political differences with them as well, Workers World Party as more of an activist model both organizationally and politically for a socialist party to take.  Tom Cod
A Turn TOWARD Sectarianism
What happened leading up to and after Their Trotsky and Ours was total abstentionism from *any* movement. In the unions we were reduced to selling The Militant and *avoiding* wherver possible, actual union work, trying to provide leadership, analysis of strikes, participation as elected shop stewards or involvement in union elections. A complete reversal of the 50 years of *consistent* Trotskyist involvement in the unions. All gone.
Secondly, the SWP, after violance-baiting the Workers World Party lead May 3 demonsration in 1981 around Central America pulled out of ALL anti-war work with the exception of some involvement in the Bay Area's Jobs, Peace and Justice Coalition, which was lead by ex-SWP members who rejected the sterile abstentionism of Jack Barne's leadership. The same was true duing the 1980s P-9 strike where they actually lost members over the inability of the SWP to touch base with rank-and-file workers...again, completely out organized by ex-SWPers then organized into Socialist Action.
The turn toward the Barnesian version of Fidelismo had nothing to do with Cuban communism but with a leadership bent on preserving a hold over it's increasingly isolated and dwindling membership. Sounds familiar?216.203.27.99 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Barnes [Australian] 

message: I have cut the comment below from the page. 
Jack Barnes' leadership has been beyond any serious challenge for over two decades, since the purging of many old Trotskyist cadre in the early 80s and the simultaneous rapid shrinkage in membership precipitated by the ill-advised 'turn to industry'. Today the U.S. SWP numbers less than 200 core members, with several dozen other cadre scattered over Canada, Scandinavia, Great Britain, France, New Zealand and Australia. Jack Barnes, together with his partner Mary-Alice Waters and college buddy Steve Clark, form the leadership of the SWP, exempted from working in difficult industrial jobs and yet remarkably unproductive as intellectuals of the working class. Over the years, Barnes' ideological ticks have become more random and eclectic. For instance, Barnes and the SWP have abstained totally from the movement against the war in Iraq, mimicking Bush administration language in denouncing the Iraqi resistance as nothing more than "Baathist remnants" even when the attacks are carried out by clearly Islamist elements. 
ratonale for the cut: It does not reflect a neutral point of view. Some comments
-- No SWP secretary faced a serious challenge since 1952
-- Comments on the SWP are better placed on the SWP page
-- SWP leadership probably more than three people.
-- Point about not taking the turn is good. Certainly work including, also comment that Waters is partner also useful if true.
--DuncanBCS 12:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Insignificant sect" 

message: I'm not sure what the basis is for cutting the mention of the condo, and the suporting reference. I think this is well documented, isn't it. I dont think there's anything to suggest the party owned the condo. --Duncan 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condo 

message: Barnes has only one arm and is careful to be photographed in a way that obscures that, which is fine.  I'm curious as to the genesis of that disablity, however, which was a hush-hush issue within the SWP.  While not something to be dwelled upon, as with FDR's paralysis, it is something that it is not off-limits for public knowledge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.169.234 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: one arm

message: "From the 1990s to the present, Barnes has directed his party to support the governments of North Korea and Equatorial Guinea; has instructed the party to abstain from antiwar or anti-racist activism; and in January 2016 lent his support to the occupation of federal lands, in Oregon, by white supremacists."
The source provided for the statement doesn't mention any of this, and the statement that the [Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge] was done by white supremacists is incorrect. 
Liebensraum (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced Claims?