Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism

[jke]

A case study from the political left.

About a week ago I resigned from a Trotskyist organisation. I felt a bit lost afterwards and was disillusioned with political organisations. A couple of days ago I stumbled upon -- by complete chance -- a case study on the Socialist Party of England and Wales (CWI). It puts into words the experience I went through.

DEFINITELY worth the read. I think I am now some kind of anarchist:laugh:

Can't post links yet so just search "ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism" in google and it will be the first link (on rickross dot com). Written by Dennis Tourish.

Thoughts? Experiences?

[The Idler]

It was mentioned a month ago by a commenter at Another Green World (http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2011/04/chris-bambery-resigns-from-swp.html?showComment=1302608031682#c80382830483477 06588) on the post about Chris Bambery's resignation.

[jke]

It was mentioned a month ago by a commenter at Another Green World on the post about Chris Bambery's resignation.This essay should be read by everyone on the far left, IMO.

I'm thinking about sending a provocative email to a few former comrades.... :p

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I am in the CWI and I haven't noticed any of the things mentioned. The CWI is light years away from Marlene Dixon's DWP or whatever it was called. Instead of posting links to an article which seems more than a little politically suspect why don't you detail your own experiences in the CWI? That would make for much better discussion.

The article seems a variation on the "all Trotskyist groups are cults" meme developed by Tim Wohlforth, after he himself helped to make a cult.

[black magick hustla]

there is nothing wrong with intransingence revolutionary zealotry till the day i die motherfuckers

[Wanted Man]

The article, for anyone who hasn't read it: http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html

It is kind of interesting, but what strikes me about it is that you can find any number of parties discussed in this light (cultism). Not just the "crazies" like the DWP mentioned, but also apparently the CWI, SWP, etc. (see here (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Sectariana/Articles.html)). Most of them obviously come from disillusioned ex-members. But I find it strange, because surely nobody can seriously suggest that some old sect in the US, the SPEW and the Cultural Revolution-era CP of China are all simply different kinds of cults. Surely there are qualitative differences between them.

One possible way to generalise all these vastly different experiences is to blame everything on "democratic centralism" (or, if feeling charitable, "bureaucratic centralism"). But, undoubtedly to the annoyance of party disciplinarians all over the world, there are almost as many different applications of "democratic centralism" as there are parties. Picking out a small amount of particularly bad examples does not lead anyone with a critical mind to believe that there is one unified current of "Leninism" that is making people do horrible stuff to each other.

The article itself has some interesting things about it though, mostly as examples of what not to do as a communist organisation. But a lot of the horrible examples in these kinds of articles exist in all sorts of organisations, not just supposedly ideologically unified radical groups.

[The Idler]

Its worth mentioning on the far-left, the main libertarian socialist organisations don't subscribe to democratic centralism at all and would agree with the observations made of democratic centralist organisations.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Its worth mentioning on the far-left, the main libertarian socialist organisations don't subscribe to democratic centralism at all and would agree with the observations made of democratic centralist organisations.And yet many parallels to the "sins" of democratic centralism can also be found in non-democratic centralist Marxist and anarchist groups.

Electoral general membership parties have developed into cults of personality or just cults, anarchist groups that were supposedly egalitarian in principle also degenerated into cults. I think many groups have misused democratic centralism (often just taking "democratic" out of the equation) but the falut is not in the method of organizing but in the top-down politics and policies. Maoist groups in the 70s or Communist Parties in the 1930s had to justify the swings in policies of the supposed "true socialism" of Russia or China and defend those lines. Since often these policy swings were irrational from the perspective of working class politics, dissent could not be tolerated or reasonably argued with and so conformity to whatever was the argument of the day became the way these parties operated.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i read it during my last few days in the cwi and i have to say that it did influence my decision.

give me autonomy any day. dogma, sectarianism, arrogance and a lack of debate (accept the party line!) are the results i see from democratic centralism - i'll go into it later. the trm 'cult' isn't such a bad term in this instance, i think the article uses it fairly well.

[RedSunRising]

give me autonomy any day. dogma, sectarianism, arrogance and a lack of debate (accept the party line!) are the results i see from democratic centralism - i'll go into it later. the trm 'cult' isn't such a bad term in this instance, i think the article uses it fairly well.

CWI members do tend to be rather arrogant, also they suffer from cults of personality and "guruism" (something Maoism to be fair also have suffered from but is in the process of correcting), they dont have much at all in the way of internal debate or democracy, but I think thats more to do with them than with Democratic Centralism as such.

[Ravachol]

"1. Controlling an individual’s social and psychological environment, especially the person’s time.
2. Placing an individual in a position of powerlessness within a high-control authoritarian system.
3. Relying usually on a closed system of logic, which permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by executive order.
4. Relying on unsophistication of the person being manipulated (that is, the person is unaware of the process), and he or she is pressed to adapt to the environment in increments that are sufficiently minor so that the person does not notice changes.
5. Eroding the confidence of a person’s perceptions.
6. Manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences to promote new learning or inhibit undesired previous behaviour. Punishments are usually social ones, for example, shunning, social isolation, and humiliation (which are more effective in producing wanted behaviour than beatings and death threats, although these do occur)"


Wow, sounds an awfull lot like Capitalism to me... :rolleyes:

[jke]

Instead of posting links to an article which seems more than a little politically suspect why don't you detail your own experiences in the CWI? That would make for much better discussion.
I agree that the article might be "politically suspect" but the content itself resonates with the experiences I had. And I wasn't in the CWI. I was in an Australian Trotskyist organisation roughly aligned with SWP (UK) and ISO (US).


The article seems a variation on the "all Trotskyist groups are cults" meme developed by Tim Wohlforth, after he himself helped to make a cult.Two ad homs in the one sentence... :laugh:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I agree that the article might be "politically suspect" but the content itself resonates with the experiences I had. And I wasn't in the CWI. I was in an Australian Trotskyist organisation roughly aligned with SWP (UK) and ISO (US).

Two ad homs in the one sentence... :laugh:

Most Marxists have a different conception of the need for leadership than anarchists. In anarchist organisations its often been observed that a "non-hierarchal structure", an attempt to create a decentralized open ended leadership structure can often turn into its exact opposite. Brandon Darby ring any bells?

Of course I'm not saying all anarchist organisations are like that but then neither are all Trotskyist organisations. I have been in the ISO, the US version of the UK SWP and I did have deep misgivings about the organisational structure myself. It could have been the branch I was in. I find my current organisation does not have the issues that I felt existed in my previous one.

(Jimmy Higgins, in this thread, is a very good poster and is probably an excellent activist. He's in the ISO. We'd have to agree to disagree.)

An organisation is best when it trains its members and gives them the tools necessary to function as effective activists. If you don't find this in one organisation, find another one. Most socialists though would say that its important to be in an organisation to be effective.

Tim Wohlforth was the author of "The Prophet's Children" which essentially said that all Trotskyist organisations are cults. This is considered ironic by many because he himself was instrumental in creating both the Sparts and the Worker's League, considered by many to be a cult like organisations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wohlforth

Again, instead of painting with broad strokes why don't you share the specific issues you had with your former organisation?

Perhaps I'm over reacting a bit to the slander that "all Trot groups are cults" which really really is not true.

[Aurora]

I read that article years ago and it was terrible, there are very legitimate criticisms of the current model of 'democratic' centralism and of the CWI or IST or any other group and that article managed to miss them all.

[The Idler]

And yet many parallels to the "sins" of democratic centralism can also be found in non-democratic centralist Marxist and anarchist groups.

Electoral general membership parties have developed into cults of personality or just cults, anarchist groups that were supposedly egalitarian in principle also degenerated into cults. I think many groups have misused democratic centralism (often just taking "democratic" out of the equation) but the falut is not in the method of organizing but in the top-down politics and policies. Maoist groups in the 70s or Communist Parties in the 1930s had to justify the swings in policies of the supposed "true socialism" of Russia or China and defend those lines. Since often these policy swings were irrational from the perspective of working class politics, dissent could not be tolerated or reasonably argued with and so conformity to whatever was the argument of the day became the way these parties operated.
Most of the Marxist and Anarchist groups criticizing democratic centralism are simply democratic rather than centralist at all. Rather than develop into cults (or cults of personality) they seem to be increasing membership where democratic centralist organisations seem to be losing it. Without centralism there would have been no Stalin and no Gorbachev.

[jke]

Of course I'm not saying all anarchist organisations are like that but then neither are all Trotskyist organisations. I have been in the ISO, the US version of the UK SWP and I did have deep misgivings about the organisational structure myself. It could have been the branch I was in. I find my current organisation does not have the issues that I felt existed in my previous one.That's true. I thought it would be useful to post the article so people in an organisation would know what to look out for. It wasn't an attack on Trotskyist organisations per se.


An organisation is best when it trains its members and gives them the tools necessary to function as effective activists. If you don't find this in one organisation, find another one. Most socialists though would say that its important to be in an organisation to be effective.It is true that the experience of being in an organisation has given me skills required to be an effective activist. But I'm not going to be looking for another organisation too soon though. I think I'll try to come to a more definite conviction before I commit myself to the work that is required to be in an organisation.


Again, instead of painting with broad strokes why don't you share the specific issues you had with your former organisation?I found it hard to do enough reading outside of the Trotskyist tradition (material for reading groups, the monthly publication, the organisations pamphlets and journals always had to be prioritised) which made it almost impossible to come to any conclusions which contradicted our 'party line'. If I raised any question or objection a more experienced member would easily convince me of the organisation's position because I could find no counter-argument (lack of outside reading). Having members who are paid by the organisation to edit the magazine, organise meetings, analyse political situation etc. on a full time basis gives rank and file membership much less of a chance to contribute to the organisation's activity and politics.

I don't have time to write a more extended response but those were the immediate reasons for why I left the organisation.

[Binh]

I found it hard to do enough reading outside of the Trotskyist tradition (material for reading groups, the monthly publication, the organisations pamphlets and journals always had to be prioritised) which made it almost impossible to come to any conclusions which contradicted our 'party line'. If I raised any question or objection a more experienced member would easily convince me of the organisation's position because I could find no counter-argument (lack of outside reading). Having members who are paid by the organisation to edit the magazine, organise meetings, analyse political situation etc. on a full time basis gives rank and file membership much less of a chance to contribute to the organisation's activity and politics.

I don't have time to write a more extended response but those were the immediate reasons for why I left the organisation.

I hope you decide to elaborate a little bit more on your experience and why you left. There are perils to having an organization of full-time revolutionaries just as there are benefits; one of the perils is that the rank and file sometimes don't get as much of a chance to write more in-depth analytical/polemical pieces because that is seen as the "job" of the full-timers.

[Jose Gracchus]

That piece starts out okay but then just turns into an all-out ideological attack upon communism conceptually. Once more, the 'ideas' are seen as the fundamental fount of misery, with the implicit corollary that we must do as close as one can in a society with some degree of functional political and social freedoms to render such thoughts as heresy and expunge, purge, and condemn them, and ostracize those who wish to share them.

Of course without Marxism, there would never (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanon) have been any other cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology) during this phase of social breakdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE). Oh wait.