robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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.
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
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
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
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!
<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
In this country the Socialist Party of Great Britain has stood alone in its insistence that ends and means cannot be separated; that the wrong means must inevitably lead to wrong ends.”
Yes but I am not talking about the outcome of using wrong means leading to wrong ends. That may well be the case but this is not the issue. The issue is the proximity of the persons political outlook to our outlook and what that means for us in terms of how we relate to this person as opposed to someone who is overtly hostile to socialism.
It is pretty obvious, Dave, that there is a huge difference between a Fellow Traveller and an anti-socialist. Not least there is the fact that what we have to debate about, as far is the former is concerned, is considerably diminished , meaning we have a lot more in common. For example we dont have to go through the whole rigmarole of explaining why human nature is not against socialism
The difference between us is reduced in most cases to a disagreement over the technical means of achieving socialism and even here the contrast is not as stark as you imagine. As I said many FTers accept the need for a bottom-up democratic transformation but dont see the point in using parliament
In other words they agree with 95% of what we say with the remaining 5 % being a bone of contention. I am NOT suggesting we brush this 5% under the carpet and ignore it. But I am suggesting that our whole demeanour and approach to people in this position has to be different to say a virulent nationalist who loves Trump.
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
The problem with so-called ‘fellow-travellers’ is that whereas they often claim to have socialism/communism as their goal, their means of achieving it is either unstated, extremely vague or insurrectionist, which puts them totally at variance with the SPGB, which has always held the view, encapsulated in its declaration of principles, that the means cannot be separated from the ends
That’s going too far Dave. Having different means to achieving socialism does not make fellow travellers “totally” at variance with the SPGB, only “partially” at variance. 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. That is crucially important. This is what defines a fellow traveller. Some of these fellow travellers do support democratic means of achieving socialism but dont think this can be done through parliament. I dont agree with them but still that makes their position even closer to ours and a solid basis for friendly discussion and debate.
This is the whole point: You cannot reasonably treat fellow travellers in the same way as you might hostile opponents of the case for socialism. That would be completely daft not least because FTs are by far and way the most like recruits to the WSM in the future. PR matters and a sensitive discriminating approach will bear fruit, I’m convinced
That said I am not entirely sure that XR are fellow travellers. Some might be but does the movement as a whole advocate for socialism as we understand it?
In fact, most of the movement’s participants recognize that implementing the “net Zero by 2025” is not realistic within the capitalist framework, and therefore expect Citizens Assemblies to advise government to “Change System”- their common slogan. If abolishing capitalism is a reform – I am all for such reformism! In which case, we should be standing with the XR, not criticize their approach.
Hi Schekn
Just to clarify – are you saying XR’s approach is to try to exert pressure via CAs on capitalist governments to “Change System” when the very function of these governments is to uphold and maintain the system that is a largely responsible for anthropogenic climate change. If so, I dont see the point in this. If its not realistic to implement net “Zero by 2025” then it is most certainly not realistic to expect capitalist governments to abolish capitalism!
Also, I vaguely remember having touched on this before but what do members of XR mean by “The System” and what do they propose to put in its place? I strongly suspect most members of XR think capitalism equates with the free market or neoliberalism and that the alternative to capitalism is just more state intervention albeit of a benevolent greenish kind. Am I wrong in suspecting this? I hope so but the depressing thought occurs to me that I may not be all that far of mark….
Hi Brian
Yes I think labour share generally refers to the income of the total labour force which includes both productive and unproductive workers (the latter being financed out of surplus value). If you look only at productive workers such as in the case of manufacturing sector I mentioned above, the difference between the value of what they receive in wages and the value of what they produce will be significantly higher meaning their percentage share of their value added product will be significantly lower compared with “labour share”. This is because some of this surplus value will have to go towards financing unproductive workers who themselves dont produce value but are nevertheless vital to operate capitalism
I wonder if you or anyone else have specific links that can through light on this matter. I am trying to put together a thoroughly convincing case based on empirical data to demonstrate the reality of capitalist exploitation. Capitalist apologists of course seek to deny this by claiming that an economic surplus is required to purchase non labour inputs such as machinery forgetting that these non labour inputs are only made by the workers in other industries. The money which the capitalists appropriate through the sale of commodities does not conjure a machine out of thin air. It has to be produced using labour
But then capitalism’s apologists seem incapable of being able to see the wood for the trees and so they will only focus on what is going on in a single firm not the wider economy
LBird All Matt was suggesting was bring the matter up under another topic heading.. Perhaps make a new thread if you cant find an old one that suits
