Talk:Fellow traveller

Sputnik?

To what degree does the term "fellow traveller" (in reference to Russian-backed communism) owe much of its Cold War usage to Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, launched by Russians in 1957 and upstaging America? The "Sputnik" name is Russian for "fellow traveller" IIRC, and the term kept turning up in the McCarthy witchhunt of the era to refer to (alleged) Russian-communist sympathisers? --carlb 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a myth. The words in Russian are different: poputchik is "fellow traveler" in the relevant sense, the satellite is sputnik. Languagehat (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, these two words do not mean exactly the same thing. If I am not mistaken, "poputchik" (попутчик) is someone who happens to be travelling along the same way, possibly only part of the way; "sputnik" (спутник) is someone who is intentionally one's travelling companion. 151.198.251.10 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

McCarthy Section Biased

I think that the section about McCarthy "turning the 5th Amendment on its head seems more of an opinion than fact. If it is to be cited as a fact, perhaps it should be cited from a reputable source...El cid1010 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is POV

With few citations and so few sources, this article is wildly biased. There is no explanation about why intelligent people might have allied themselves with communists in various countries at various times. Using just a 1958 book by Hoover is limiting.--Parkwells (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? One needn't explain why someone did something to describe the usage of a word that was used to describe them. Subjugator (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The reasons why intelligent people might have allied themselves with communists are irrelevant to the article, which is about the use of the term "fellow traveler." Languagehat (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative definition?

In addition to the stub article, I would further categorise a fellow traveller as someone who ignores particular policies of a given political entity, precisely because it backs up other shared policies deemed more important in the immediate political debate.

Take, for example, the UK pressure group "the countryside alliance." The alliance is/was a mix-match of dozens of groups, many with central tenets in direct opposition to each other but focussed on on one principal cause, ie the disenfranchisement of the rural population by governmental legislation. In other words, each group in the alliance was fellow travelling with each other over the one issue.

Take further the extreme left's support of the Iraqi "insurgency" and refusal to acknowledge its constituency of baathists and islamists. The anti-imperialist agenda is viewed as more important than traditional socialist values such as solidarity and anti-fascism, hence the "fellow travelling."

This is not a commonly accepted use of the word and should not be in the article. Languagehat (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to get this sucker cleaned up

I've been polishing things up. I'm going to pull down the POV tag shortly unless someone shrieks. If you have concrete complaints, please make them — but the POV tag has been up for over a year without resolution and it's time to get this thing done. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More generic sense?

Couldn't the term be used in a more generic sense, applicable to sympathizers with any or all political viewpoints? I am in particular thinking of the really modern phenomenon of atheistic Objetivists and Libertarians being fellow travelers with the theocratic Christian Tea Party movement and Republican Party in the United States. I suppose if I could find it in an exterior source, I could use it, right? Or is there some other reason that will obstruct this endeavor, since it would so drastically alter the paradigm that it will forever be exclusively (only) a historical term used to portray Communist sympathizers, to be bandied about by right-wingers only? Shanoman (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What economic and social problems in the us and the world in the 1920s

• "Given the economic and social problems in the U.S. and the world in the 1920s" -- pick one. The US did very well economically and socially in the 1920, boffo economy, women's suffrage. Fix up this thought or I'll likely remove, the logic is much too soft headed. 10stone5 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

adding to Fellow Traveller Article.

Hello, I was trying to find out what the motivations were for Americans to be Communist Sympathizer's. I was looking for something to explain why many American's would want communism in the U.S. but I didn't see anything on that. Maybe a paragraph explaining why people were attracted or was it anti-democracy rhetoric. Thank You Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.34.138.192 (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, under communism, there will be official democracy and there was no term parasites, it was personally invented by Suvorov, no other KGB officer remembered this and the term Mitläufer was not translated as a fellow traveler, he was originally in German at least since the 17th century,as well as in the Russian language, it was also in the pre-revolutionary period and it is worth noting that in the Soviet politics it was only at an early stage and played only a small role 37.54.230.242 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

pejorative?

The article itself mentions there were/are multiple situations in which "fellow traveller" didn't have a negative connotation. Though it's frequently pejorative, it seems there are enough contexts in which it's neutral or positive that the word "pejorative" shouldn't be a definitive adjective in the opening sentence. M-1 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I decided to be bold and change the opening line. M-1 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Moreover, the 'pejorative' acception is already mentioned in the article, there is no need to put it in the opening sentence. I removed it (again, as it was added back since you removed it).  Done -- William Di Luigi (talk)

Mitläufer

The usage of the German term Mitläufer is of poor choice and seems rather out-of-place, not only because the term is usually restricted exclusively to right-wing contexts (while the perjorative use of fellow traveler is usually restricted to Leftists), and it was never common to translate the perjorative term "fellow traveler" specifically as Mitläufer. A much more similar Cold War, perjorative German term for such Leftist and liberal, but explicitely not card-carrying sympathizers of Communism is that of de:Sympathisant, although it only appeared as late as the 1970s. Franz Josef Strauss and his conservative followers used it as succesfully in McCarthyist witch-hunts as McCarthy himself had used "fellow traveler" in the 50s. The German WP article for Sympathisant even remarks upon the critical difference between a Mitläufer and a Sympathisant: A Mitläufer will say that they only acted out of fear of being punished, while a Sympathisant, much like a fellow traveler, acts out of their own heartfelt conviction. --2003:71:4E6A:B411:E09D:717F:6D2:5C4F (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Communist dupe"

Given J. Edgar Hoover was a fairly conventional conservative anti-communist figure, it is highly unlikely he would refer to a "Communist dupe" as "someone who opposes Red-baiting" as per this article. "Red-baiting" is not a term anti-communists would use. Does anyone have access to the primary source referred to - this - to see what the actual phrasing is? Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Comsymp

The word "Comsymp" is redirected here, but this article doesn't discuss it at all. Also, there's inconsistency between "traveller" (UK spelling) and "traveler" (US spelling)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be traveler as this article is mainly about U.S. politics. I don't know about the other issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)