Socialist Standard No. 1382 October 2019
- This topic has 38 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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.So really someone who is a fellow traveller, technically speaking, and who had not really heard of us before actually encountering us.
“So really someone who is a fellow traveller, technically speaking, and who had not really heard of us before actually encountering us.”
Nope, that’s your interpretation, not mine. I realise you’re desperate to describe anyone who claims to want socialism as a “fellow-traveller” but those who use the term are invariably speaking of those individuals and groups outside the SPGB and who disagree with us on how to achieve it. They are better described as opponents.
Applicants for Party membership are almost exclusively those who have either previously been members of capitalist parties, have never been a member of any political group or party and a small number who have arrived at an understanding of the socialist case quite independently of the SPGB.
I shall jump for joy the day any of your so-called “fellow-travellers” joins the Party.
My own experience was that I had identified with ‘socialism’, it consisted of fair do’s for the workers, but I could not understand why Labour in office couldn’t deliver more equitable outcomes.
Their propaganda chimed with me, but their actions in office belied this.
I was an active trade unionist and a recently made shop steward, but my head was scrambled.I still thought there could be ‘a fair days pay’ etc. but was disabused of this notion by a fellow worker, who didn’t elaborate much further at the time, that there would be no wages in socialism. (He must have heard it from us, but this was alien to my thinking even as I had come across left activists.)
I realised I was speaking nonsense and making up things, to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. A weird and uncomfortable realisation.
It wasn’t until I stumbled across an outdoor party platform some years later that this was made explicable and all the pieces began to fall into place as I investigated further.
I have to say at times in the process I suffered extreme embarrassment as some of my own naive answers to questions were dealt with in the course of my learning curve.
One blushing example, I had thought that small shopkeepers would still exist. (Cringe).
Nope, that’s your interpretation, not mine. I realise you’re desperate to describe anyone who claims to want socialism as a “fellow-traveller” but those who use the term are invariably speaking of those individuals and groups outside the SPGB and who disagree with us on how to achieve it. They are better described as opponents.
Well fair enough, Dave, if its not your interpretation of what a fellow traveller is but I still think it makes more sense to describe such a person as someone who basically supports and advocates the same goal as we do even if he or she differs from us with respect to how one goes about realising this goal. Insofar as there is such a difference in that respect you could say such a person is an “opponent” but there is no contradiction between this and calling such a person also a fellow traveller . One can be both an opponent of the Party vis a vis some aspect of the Party’s case and a fellow traveller in endorsing its objective
The point of this exercise is not simply to identify what we mean by a fellow traveller but also to calibrate a response to such a person that would best facilitate or encourage him or her to join. We cannot adopt the same uniformly hostile response to such a person as we might to say a nationalist or racist who fully supports capitalism. That would be foolish and short-sighted in the extreme. Members understand this and this is why that particular resolution was overwhelmingly carried at conference 2019. And a good thing it was as well!
Applicants for Party membership are almost exclusively those who have either previously been members of capitalist parties, have never been a member of any political group or party and a small number who have arrived at an understanding of the socialist case quite independently of the SPGB.
I shall jump for joy the day any of your so-called “fellow-travellers” joins the Party.I suspect quite a few members where fellow travellers in my sense of the term prior to joining. Haven’t there been a number of ex anarchists who joined the Party over the years for example
The way you put it, it sounds like joining the SPGB is some of sort Road to Damascus epiphany. I just dont believe people in the main pick up a copy of the Socialist Standard and are irresistibly swept up by the rhetoric into joining. I’m convinced that there are factors that predispose individuals to join (and this is something the Party needs to seriously research). Since the SPGB is essentially defined by its objective it seems almost axiomatic to me that becoming a fellow traveller will almost always precede applying for membership. Nobody is going to join the Party if they are not first of all convinced by the soundness of the goal that the Party stands for – irrespective of their views of other aspects of the Party’s case
I’m convinced that there are factors that predispose individuals to join (and this is something the Party needs to seriously research).
I think there are lots and lots of factors which predispose individuals to join the party. However what predisposes one in not what predisposes another. The latest idea of buddying up to Extinction Revolution, is a different cover version of a song that’s long been heard. In the sixties it was CND, in the seventies it was Rock against racism and the anti fascist movement, in the eighties it was anti poll tax, in the nineties it was the anti globalisation movement, in the 2000s it was Occupy, now it’s XR.
I think some members think there is a magic bullet out there, that if we just approach such and such a group they will heed our call, join the party and hey presto, mass party.
Yes there will be some workers who are involved with XR that might be open to our case, I think the vast majority are so involved in their single issue view of life that they will dismiss us without a second thought. I do think however, by putting up a case which counters the XR view of things we have more chance of attracting sceptical, questioning workers, who have a feeling that something ain’t right, but also have a feeling that XR ain’t that right either.
“One can be both an opponent of the Party vis a vis some aspect of the Party’s case and a fellow traveller in endorsing its objective.”
Really? Any fool can endorse “its objective”, i.e. socialism, but if the route taken is the wrong one the resulting destination will be other than that intended; catastrophic even. The Bolshevik ‘coup’ is a case in point. Irksome though it may be for some to hear repeated, but the means cannot be separated from the ends.
Really? Any fool can endorse “its objective”, i.e. socialism, but if the route taken is the wrong one the resulting destination will be other than that intended; catastrophic even. The Bolshevik ‘coup’ is a case in point. Irksome though it may be for some to hear repeated, but the means cannot be separated from the ends.
Dave, its not a question of “endorsing” socialism, Christ, I have even met Tories who say socialism is a “nice idea” – a form of endorsement – but is not feasible for x, y and z reasons. I am talking about people who actively and explicitly advocate for socialism. You reckon the Bolsheviks did that? I thought the whole point of Bolshevik ideology was that socialism was not on the cards and had to be put on the back boiler while the regime focussed on building up state capitalism. Lenin himself said the number of people in Russia who understood socialism at the time was absolutely minuscule and so could not happen. The Bolsheviks were not actively working to establish socialism but to establish state capitalism which they wrongly assumed was a precondition for socialism
Also, you keep misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT disputing that the “ends and the means cannot be separated”. I actually agree with you on that point. What I am trying to argue is something quite different. Almost everyone who becomes a socialist engages in a kind of internal struggle to reach a certain point in his or her understanding when he or she can move on take the decisive decision to join the socialist movement, Understanding and actively desiring the socialist alternative – not just endorsing it – is key here. This is what, in my view, defines a fellow traveller.
It does NOT denote 100% agreement with everything the SPGB has to say. To advocate bypassing the political state, for example, as an anarchist might, may very well result in adverse even disastrous consequences for socialism but that does not mean the person advocating it is not a fellow traveller in this sense. The point is to be able to connect with this fellow traveller in a constructive manner to help him or her to see that what they are advocating is not the way to achieve socialism
I am very much against this kind of Road to Damascus sudden conversion model of how people become socialists. That’s just not realistic. The process by which individuals become a socialist is a gradual one assisted – or alternatively retarded – by certain predisposing factors which as Bijou right says can vary from one individual to the next.
The stage before one takes the step to join our movement is accurately described in my view as one in which one is effectively a fellow traveller and the whole point of this argument about fellow travellers is that it is quite absurd to treat them in the same way as one might an overt and hostile opponent of socialism. This is true even if the fellow traveller concerned entertains certain ideas that may actually be damaging to the socialist case. The point of the exerise is to coax them out of these ideas displamtically and without unduly alienating them
“I am talking about people who actively and explicitly advocate for socialism. You reckon the Bolsheviks did that? I thought the whole point of Bolshevik ideology was that socialism was not on the cards and had to be put on the back boiler while the regime focussed on building up state capitalism.”
I didn’t say the Bolsheviks actively and explicitly advocated socialism. In that respect they were precisely like your fellow-travellers – most of the Bolsheviks, including Lenin, used the term socialism without describing in any detail what they meant by it. However, there was at least one exception to that rule:
“Future society will be socialist society. This also means that with the abolition of exploitation, commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed – there will be only free workers…Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need also for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power” (J.V.Stalin – ‘Anarchism or Socialism?’ 1906).
“Also, you keep misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT disputing that the “ends and the means cannot be separated”. I actually agree with you on that point.”
I am categorically NOT misunderstanding what you are saying. Every member I know who uses the description “fellow travellers” does so to describe groups and parties who claim to have a similar goal to ours but disagree on the means to achieve it. In that sense, the means and ends are undeniably separated. The people in those organisations, because of their own entrenched ideological positions, are very unlikely to join the SPGB. We have to, and indeed do, cast our nets elsewhere.
I didn’t say the Bolsheviks actively and explicitly advocated socialism. In that respect they were precisely like your fellow-travellers – most of the Bolsheviks, including Lenin, used the term socialism without describing in any detail what they meant by it. However, there was at least one exception to that rule:
But I defined fellow travellers as groups or individuals who actively and explicitly advocate socialism as we understand it. You suggest the Bolsheviks didn’t do this. So how then can you say the Bolsheviks were fellow travellers in my sense of the term . That doesn’t make sense , Dave….
Also Lenin did say a fair bit about what he called socialism which bears no comparison with what we call socialism. For example, he called it a form of state capitalist monopoly run in interests of the whole people (allegedly). He also equated socialism with the lower phase of communism and said all workers would be employees of the state in this “socialism” of his. That’s more than enough detail to know that this socialism of is his is definitely not what we call socialism
I am categorically NOT misunderstanding what you are saying. Every member I know who uses the description “fellow travellers” does so to describe groups and parties who claim to have a similar goal to ours but disagree on the means to achieve it. In that sense, the means and ends are undeniably separated. The people in those organisations, because of their own entrenched ideological positions, are very unlikely to join the SPGB. We have to, and indeed do, cast our nets elsewhere.
Sorry but you ARE misunderstanding what I am saying. I know full well that the means and the ends need to harmonise but that does not mean a person cannot be right about the ends but wrong about the means of achieving it does it? People are not always 100% rational about everything – even comrades! What you are really trying to saying is that people who are wrong about the means of achieving socialism will not achieve socialism for that reason. That may be true enough but that very clearly does NOT stop them nevertheless still actively advocating for a non market stateless alternative to capitalism. And that is the point isn’t it? That is how I define a fellow traveller.
I have encountered many such people in my countless discussions on Facebook and elsewhere (and I am not talking here about Trots or Leninists ). A lot of them are very enthusiastic about the idea of socialism as we understand and fully side with us in countering arguments about human nature being against socialism and so on. Its just that quite a few of them are sceptical about using the parliamentary approach as a means to achieving socialism
I would unhesitatingly call these people fellow travellers even if I disagree with their views on parliament. Sorry Dave but I dont concur with your assessment that these people because of “their own entrenched ideological positions, are very unlikely to join the SPGB“. I think it is possible to encourage them to shift from that position but you are not going to do that if you come across as overly hostile, unfriendly and dogmatic. In so many ways these people are very close to our way of thinking but it takes a more subtle and gentle approach to winning them over completely to our position. You achieve nothing by alienating them, except lose a few more potential members
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.