robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Nansir1111
I think there is a growing awareness of the limitations of the capitalist monetary system and an increasing advocacy of a world without or beyond money. This is not just limited to the small numbers of genuine socialists around, it seems to extend to movements and groups that really self-identify as being socialist at all.
I suppose a particular problem we seem to have with the latter is that they dont seem to adopt a particularly structural or class-based analysis of contemporary society and tend to be more technocratic in their view of the future society. This unfortunately renders them less able to identify those (class) forces in society that obstruct or alternatively facilitate movement in the direction of the goal they espouse. For instance I have seen a lot of commentary which seems to place inordinate emphasis on the malign role of banks in the creation of global problems. But this is mistaking the symptoms for the cause which is essentially the capitalist monopoly of the world’s natural and industrial resources which serves to frustrate and block a rational solution to these problems.
I dont think this is an insurmountable problem and I believe we socialists have an important role to play in encouraging more and more people such as these to join up the dots and join with us in the struggle for a socialist future. I am encouraged by the fact that there does seem to be an upsurge in what I call “fellow travellers” people who think roughly along the same lines as us with the respect to the kind of post capitalist world they want. Enthusiasm for old fashioned left wing state capitalism seems to thankfully on the decline. It was never going to be a “stepping stone” to socialism and I think the penny s finally beginning to drop in that case.
We need to connect with these people in a sympathetic and positive manner and try to help them to move away from certain serious pitfalls and shortcomings in their approach to changing society. There has been a more propitious time to start making these connections and if we get things right, this could mark the start of a genuine renaissance of our movement
robbo, is it possible that my interventions are driving people away from the forum?
I dont think the low participation in discussions on this forum has been the result of your interventions LBird and I am not quite sure why you think it might be. No this is a more general problem with the Party. Its not just evident in the case of this forum but across the board
Its paradoxical that the membership seems to be slightly growing, almost entirely because of applications via the internet, but activity is on the decline. The Party seriously needs to sit down and have a fundamental think about what is going wrong here. Because something is going seriously wrong in the way the organisation engages with its membership and sympathisers. We can’t go on like this…
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
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
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?
