Socialist Standard No. 1382 October 2019
- This topic has 38 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Not making a distinction is shooting yourself in the foot , putting off the very people most likely to join the SPGB from joining the SPGB. That’s just not rational thinking, frankly”
There’s not a shred of evidence to suggest that so-called ‘fellow-travellers’ are the “very people most likely to join the SPGB” or they are somehow being put off joining. Where do you conjure up these notions? It can’t be by speaking to any of these people. From my experience and that of several other comrades, these so-called ‘fellow-travellers’ are, almost without exception, airy-fairy, wishy-washy fantasists appealing to governments to take action. Is that position closer to a definition of rational thinking?
<i>Robbo “No one is suggesting we have to see eye to eye with fellow travellers on everything. The salient thing is that they and us have the same goal.”</i> <i>No doubt an individual expressing the following viewpoint, could be classified as a fellow traveller, as their goal is the same as ours:</i>
Hi Bijou
Stalin may have described socialism or communism more or less as we would in this particular quote you provide But does that qualify him as a fellow traveller having the same goal? I dont think so. Its pretty clear what Stalin’s goal was and it clearly ws not socialism or communism as we understand the term.
I think we have got to be sensible and more discriminating about what we mean by fellow traveller in this context and not go over the top with examples like this
Here is an example of a fellow traveller which I came across just yesterday who much more deserve the title than ever Stalin did
From my experience and that of several other comrades, these so-called ‘fellow-travellers’ are, almost without exception, airy-fairy, wishy washy fantasists appealing to governments to taken action. Is that a definition of rational thinking?
And who would these people be that you describe as “so called fellow travellers”? Perhaps we have a different interpretation of this term. I am talking about people who explicitly call for and advocate a non market , wageless classless and stateless alternative to capitalism. I encounter loads of these people in my forays on FB . As you know I engage in lots of FB debates almost on a daily basis and get to meet a lot of people that way
You wouldn’t to suggest that in advocating this kind of alternative to capitalism such people are just a bunch of ” airy-fairy, wishy washy fantasists” for doing so, would you? Surely not!
Robbo, that’s the perfect amendment to that confusing resolution that was carried:
Delete “political fellow-travellers (e.g. anarchists, libertarian socialists etc.) and insert “those who explicitly call for and advocate a non-market, wageless classless and stateless alternative to capitalism”.
That will clarify things. “Fellow traveller” was never a good term to use in view of its association with state-capitalist Russia’s “useful idiots” as Lenin called them.
It would also separate the sheep (those who want socialism) from the goats (eg. XR).
Hi ALB
Yes I would be quite comfortable with what you suggest as a clarification of what is meant by “fellow traveller” in this context if it helps to expedite things. I have to say though that I have always understood the term to mean people who share the same basic goal as us but differ perhaps in how to go about realising this goal. This was why I was a little puzzled by Dave’s suggestion that these so-called ‘fellow-travellers’ are, almost without exception, airy-fairy, wishy washy fantasists appealing to governments to taken action. Not so in my experience. Many of these I have encountered put forward ideas that are almost identical to ours and in ways that we ourselves would thoroughly approve of. Look at the link I posted above as an example. This could very easily be published in the Socialist Standard!
We need to become more aware of just how many more people there are around who share our vision of the future. We should be happy that this is the case rather than cynical. The thought that the only socialists around are the few hundred members that comprise the WSM would , if true, be enough to make anyone give up the struggle as pointless. If we have only got this far in 115 years then socialism would indeed appear to be a lost cause.
But I dont think it is and I draw comfort from the fact that many more real socialists or fellow travellers around than we might imagine. So should all comrades
Robbo, Lenin and the Bolsheviks would seem to qualify as ‘fellow travelers’ under your definition since they also had the same goal as us – only it was via a one party dictatorship whose goal was relegated to a far distant future. Many leftists pay lip service to common ownership and democratic control but don’t really ever believe it to be possible.
I think you should have done a bit of research before nailing “No body’s driving” as a fellow traveller who is a good example of who we should be targeting, here is a quote from what he/she has written about the need to avoid being dragged into the morality debate, which actually demonstrates the kind of regimes she/he favours when discussing the conditions in which decisions are made and what a Socialist Society must recognise:
“Further, it must organize itself taking into account these conditions, and provide a response based on a realistic analysis rather than a moralizing rejection of these conditions. A socialist society cannot survive by merely morally decrying the conditions it faces, it must recognize them as they are and act accordingly. The Soviet Union did not enter the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact out of a preference, but because it was seeking to delay war as long as it could so it could continue in the development of its productive capacity and survive as a socialist society. The Communist Party of China did not enter an alliance with the Nationalists during WWII because it desired this in a generalized manner, but because this was called for by the conditions of Japanese imperialist invasion. We socialists cannot simply act according to what we want to do in a generalized way, we must act according to what is necessary in a particular context if we seek the victory of socialism.We socialists cannot simply act according to what we want to do in a generalized way, we must act according to what is necessary in a particular context if we seek the victory of socialism.”
Are these the kinds of ideas you want to associate yourself with, I know I don’t. Doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of difference between what No Body’s driving has to say and what Stalin had to say.
I think the clown you have identified as a useful fellow traveller illustrates exactly why we should not get ourselves too excited about whatever new kid is on the block
Bijou
To be honest I had not really done any research into the political background of this individual you refer to or looked into any other stuff he or she may have written. I simply refered to the article I linked to as illustrative of what a fellow traveller might say. Sentiments like this:
So, one may ask, what do socialists propose in the place of the wage system? Do you lazy socialists just not want to work and have everything given to you for free? Contrary to popular belief, no. We socialists seek that labor should be used for its use-value, to be used for its immediate benefit to society, rather than sold so that one can purchase necessities. We seek for labor to be used to directly produce necessities, which are not sold but simply used by the community. We want to be able to use our labor to directly meet our needs rather than go about the roundabout way of the wage system
If it turns out that writer happens to be a Leninist of some kind then I would indeed be disappointed. But there are plenty of non Leninists who would endorse such a statement aren’t there?
Perhaps that might call for a somewhat tighter definition of what is meant by a fellow traveller from our point of view to exclude for example vanguardism as a principle. But I repeat again this does not mean we have to see eye to eye with our fellow travellers on everything .
That seems to be a misconception that is being bandied about by some comrades opposed to the idea of calibrating our response to individuals according to their political proximity to our own ideas and supportive instead of applying uniform blanket hostility to all and sundry regardless of their their views. I think thats nuts personally speaking and makes for very poor PR
There is a video of an XR leader explaining their strategy of attracting people. There he drew a scheme of 3 circles, small at the top, a bit bigger under it, and the biggest at the bottom. He said, “The top is us, highly political people who want to do something. The middle is the highly political left who don’t want to do anything because they are so hell-bent on their little differences (he meant us, along with some other left-leaning people). And the bottom is the non-political people who also want to do something. We need to skip the middle circle and work directly with the bottom one”.
Now, I will not comment on the general strategy here, this is beside the point. But I would just like to say that this description of the splintered left is rather accurate; and that this SPGB hostility towards anyone who expresses slight deviations from the “party line” is quite disheartening. That “clown”, as you put it, Bijou, that “No body’s driving” may not always hold this view – people change, and their views change. Yet we don’t want to give them a chance, do we? By taking this hard-line approach, we reject a possibility to start a conversation, to have a debate, to inspire, to unite, to make progress.
I acknowledge that a lot of people in XR probably do not have a vision of a money-less, border-less future we aspire to. A lot of them are not even politically active at all, or even well-informed, for that matter. But I believe that we should not condemn them for it; they might just not know how such a future is possible, not have enough information or faith. I am not saying we should immediately invite them to join the party. I merely suggest that instead of criticism and rejection, we might consider a dialog, an offer of a solution, an open hand.
I personally believe that socialism has a good chance of coming true. But I am not sure it will be established by the “purists”. Most likely, it will be a messy process with various groups of people having slightly differing views on the way to achieve it. And while they will be fighting for this future, we will be sitting in our armchairs and criticizing their imperfect views and pathetic struggles. I am no longer sure in which group I would rather be.
Revealing piece here on Trotskyist (SWP) attempt to infiltrate XR. I expect other Trot groups will be doing the same. No wonder the XR leaders don’t like them, They are right.
http://londongreenleft.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-socialist-workers-party-is.html?m=1
Firstly we’re not the left, let alone part of the “splintered left”.
The working class, being the revolutionary class, the capitalists have had their revolution. We are manifestly the revolutionary movement, for Socialism. This differentiates us from all other parties, we are unquestionably unique on the political front.
Our role is to make socialists, we don’t condemn fellow workers as you put it? We seek to educate them, about the urgent need for socialism.
We expose those and attack the left or right wings of capitalism, who seek to hold back Socialism. There lies the difference. If you want us to hold out our hand of friendship to such scoundrels, you are on a very slippery slope. In the end we are respected for being honest.
There’s not a shred of evidence to suggest that so-called ‘fellow-travellers’ are the “very people most likely to join the SPGB” or they are somehow being put off joining. Where do you conjure up these notions?
Just as a matter of curiosity, Dave, what kind of person do you think is most likely to join the SPGB. What sort of political profile would such a person have? Perhaps this is an area where the Party does not to undertake some serious research in order to make recruitment drives more effective. I dont think people just join randomly irrespective of political background. Some might but I suspect there is a pattern at work. Some people are more predisposed to join than others
“Just as a matter of curiosity, Dave, what kind of person do you think is most likely to join the SPGB. What sort of political profile would such a person have?”
a) a member of the working class.
b) someone who genuinely understands the class nature of society and wants to replace capitalism rather than just attempt to reform it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.