'Marxist' cults.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

There are numerous political cults in the world, yet for some reason so many of them tend to be 'Marxist' inspired in some shape or form, or more specifically certain tendencies like Maoism or Trotskyism.

My question is...what exactly is it about Marxism (and those specific tendencies) that seems inspire all of these destructive groups?

Furthermore, and this is just a suggestion....perhaps we need to make a list of some of these cults so that young comrades will be able to avoid them.

[bropasaran]

What is a political cult?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

What is a political cult?

Political groups that, for all intents and purposes, operate in a similar matter to a religious cult.

[Art Vandelay]

What Marxist organizations do you consider cults? What is your experience with them, or what knowledge do you have about their internal culture? I'm not saying that they don't exist (maybe they do), just that I think that accusation gets thrown around way too often and appearing 'cult like' can be attributed to lots of small group of individuals who are passionate about their convictions.

[Sasha]

I think this is mostly a legacy and a coincidence of the 60's where many midle class/studenty groups "dropped out" and became cults which happened to coincide with a narxist/maoist fad in those circles at that time. If they would have come into being closer to the milenium they would have been doomsday cults just as easily. Being "marxist" or 'maoist" was just the anti-establishment fad of the day.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I think that accusation gets thrown around way too often and appearing 'cult like' can be attributed to lots of small group of individuals who are passionate about their convictions.

That's true. I think, though, that this is referring mainly to Jim Jones's "People's Temple" and anything similar.

In short, cults do make demagogic appeals to alienated or downtrodden individuals, and superficially "Marxist" or "leftist" language can help that appeal. If religious figures and bourgeois politicians can hijack socialist phrases for popular appeal, there's nothing to stop cult leaders from attempting the same.

[Art Vandelay]

I really haven't heard about many of these supposed Marxist cults; op makes it sound like there are a number of them. The only organization I've ever heard seriously accused of cult like activity is the RCP-USA. Which, in all honesty, is something that I can't really comment on. My only experience with the RCP was a member who tried to sell me their paper, he was certainly very excited about comrade Bob's new synthesis, but was also nice enough. That same weekend I also met and had a few conversations with Mike Ely who had been a longstanding member of the RCP, before forming Kasama and have nothing but good things to say about him.

Maybe the RCP, or other organizations accused of such behavior, do operate in a manner somewhat similar to cults, or maybe they don't. What I am fairly certain of though, is that most people I've seen making such accusations on this site probably don't have any actual experience with, or inside info on the organizations and are most likely just regurgitating things they've heard others say.

[#FF0000]

At this point I think it's a straight up result of Leninism. I've really yet to see a Trotskyist or Maoist or M-L organization that I wouldn't call a cult and I think weird strict adherence to dumb ideas like Lenin's ultra-centralized, top-down and frankly militaristic "party of a new type" in a time where there isn't a whole lot of working class militancy in general is going to end up giving you lame "communist" grouplets and political cults.

I'd also say treating a lot of Lenin's concepts like universal principles instead of tactical positions that made sense in Lenin's time and place lends to this kind of thing too (but it isn't as if Leninists are the only ones guilty of that).

[consuming negativity]

The difference between a cult and a religion is size.

[Sinister Intents]

The difference between a cult and a religion is size.

And mainstream acceptance

[Five Year Plan]

At this point I think it's a straight up result of Leninism. I've really yet to see a Trotskyist or Maoist or M-L organization that I wouldn't call a cult and I think weird strict adherence to dumb ideas like Lenin's ultra-centralized, top-down and frankly militaristic "party of a new type" in a time where there isn't a whole lot of working class militancy in general is going to end up giving you lame "communist" grouplets and political cults.

I'd also say treating a lot of Lenin's concepts like universal principles instead of tactical positions that made sense in Lenin's time and place lends to this kind of thing too (but it isn't as if Leninists are the only ones guilty of that).

So any small group that adheres to a set of principles is a cult now?

[#FF0000]

So any small group that adheres to a set of principles is a cult now?

That's a bizarre reading of what I said. What I was trying to get across is that its the principles they adhere to that lead to these groups ending up being cult-like. For what it's worth, though, I don't think communists should have many principles. We should have tactics.

[Five Year Plan]

That's a bizarre reading of what I said. What I was trying to get across is that its the principles they adhere to that lead to these groups ending up being cult-like. For what it's worth, though, I don't think communists should have many principles. We should have tactics.

You referred to centralism. A group of seven debates whether to attend a demonstration, and five vote to do so. All of them are bound to attend by the nature of the rules in the group. That is democratic centralism, a Leninist principle. The people who don't want to adhere to the decision are free to leave. This is a 'cult' how exactly? According to what definition?

[#FF0000]

You referred to centralism. A group of seven debates whether to attend a demonstration, and five vote to do so. All of them are bound to attend by the nature of the rules in the group. That is democratic centralism, a Leninist principle. The people who don't want to adhere to the decision are free to leave. This is a 'cult' how exactly? According to what definition?

Lenin's "Part of a New Type" wasn't "of a new type" because they had voting, dude. The Leninist party is one that is highly regimented, and very much top-down in structure, with cadres handing down the orders to the rank and file.

I was discussing this topic just a minute ago with someone else, and it's a good thing, because they brought up a very, very good point -- that one could say the way Leninists see principles is inherently cult like, because agreeing principles in a Leninist party means agreeing with a theory rather than with "a programme with programmatic conclusions" in their words.

[Five Year Plan]

Lenin's "Part of a New Type" wasn't "of a new type" because they had voting, dude. The Leninist party is one that is highly regimented, and very much top-down in structure, with cadres handing down the orders to the rank and file.

You seem to be confusing Leninist democratic centralism with something entirely different. In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about.

[#FF0000]

You seem to be confusing Leninist democratic centralism with something entirely different. In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about.

oh yeah my bad i must be confusing it for what the Bolsheviks meant by democratic centralism during the civil war.

[Five Year Plan]

oh yeah my bad i must be confusing it for what the Bolsheviks meant by democratic centralism during the civil war.

Looks more like trolling rather than confusion.

[#FF0000]

Looks more like trolling rather than confusion.

It was. "Democratic centralism" meant different things to the Bolsheviks at different points in time, like from 1918-1921 where they made structured the part in a, like I said, a highly regimented top-down quasi-military fashion.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Democratic centralism as it's mostly understood(it meant different things at different times but that is mostly forgotten) is the kinda top-down structure that were forced upon bolsheviks in civil war and then over-theorised and enforxed on other parties with bolshevisation of comintern. Bad ideas actualized[sic.] is right.

Edit: Great minds think alike

[Five Year Plan]

It was. "Democratic centralism" meant different things to the Bolsheviks at different points in time, like from 1918-1921 where they made structured the part in a, like I said, a highly regimented top-down quasi-military fashion.

If your definition of cult includes any group that restricts democracy during times of intense military conflict, then there are probably few groups that wouldn't qualify.

[#FF0000]

If your definition of cult includes any group that restricts democracy during times of intense military conflict, then there are probably few groups that wouldn't qualify.

Creep already kind of addressed this when he mentioned how this structure was then "over-theorized and enforced on other parties" as if this was the one right way to do things in every situation around the world with the 21 Conditions.

[Five Year Plan]

Creep already kind of addressed this when he mentioned how this structure was then "over-theorized and enforced on other parties" as if this was the one right way to do things in every situation around the world with the 21 Conditions.

A resolution which says, "The parties belonging to the Communist International must be built on the basis of the principle of democratic centralism. In the present epoch of acute civil war the communist party will only be able to fulfil its duty if it is organised in as centralist a manner as possible, if iron discipline bordering on military discipline prevails in it..."

Yeah, no context-dependence there. I suppose this is what happens when you base your trolling off a second-hand interpretation of a second-hand interpretation by one of the Weekly Wanker crowd.

[#FF0000]

A resolution which says, "The parties belonging to the Communist International must be built on the basis of the principle of democratic centralism. In the present epoch of acute civil war the communist party will only be able to fulfil its duty if it is organised in as centralist a manner as possible, if iron discipline bordering on military discipline prevails in it..."

Why does a party in Italy need to structure itself according to what the Russians are doing because of their civil war? There is no context dependence there and parties could only join the International if they adhered to these conditions regardless of their local circumstances.

[Five Year Plan]

Why does a party in Italy need to structure itself according to what the Russians are doing because of their civil war? There is no context dependence there and parties could only join the International if they adhered to these conditions regardless of their local circumstances.

Three pieces of context. 1) No party in Italy needs to structure itself this way. No party was required to seek affiliation with with the Comintern.

2) The resolution itself was crafted to refer to the period of intense class conflict engulfing the European content in the late 1910s and early 1920s in the aftermath of the first world war and the Russian Revolution. This is what is meant by "epoch of acute civil war."

3) The resolution states that democratic centralism was to remain the cornerstone of the discipline, not the subversion of democracy. Democracy was in fact curtailed within Russian society (though not, to a significant degree, within the party) during the Russian Civil War. The significant curtailment of democracy within the party actually traces to the initiation of the ban on factions with the beginning of the NEP. There was a curtailment of democracy within Russian society during the war, but unless your argument is that the country of Russia was a cult, this is neither here nor there.

[#FF0000]

Three pieces of context. 1) No party in Italy needs to structure itself this way. No party was required to seek affiliation with with the Comintern.

What a lame cop-out. The problem is that any party that didn't structure themselves in this way would have been rejected because it didn't adhere to what the Bolsheviks thought was the "one right way" based on decisions their party made in their specific situation.


3) The resolution states that democratic centralism was to remain the cornerstone of the discipline, not the subversion of democracy. Democracy was in fact curtailed within Russian society (though not, to a significant degree, within the party) during the Russian Civil War. The significant curtailment of democracy within the party actually traces to the initiation of the ban on factions with the beginning of the NEP. There was a curtailment of democracy within Russian society during the war, but unless your argument is that the country of Russia was a cult, this is neither here nor there.It's bizarre how you manage to miss my point so completely, again and again and again. I am saying that this centralized, top-down, regimented structure that the Bolsheviks made a universal requirement to join their clubhouse that still persists today results in political cults. I don't care how italicized and underlined and bolded the "democratic" in "democratic centralism" is when in any of these organizations that adhere to some kind of it, be they Trot or Maoist or M-L, relegate the rank and file to hawking papers and "activism" based on what the leaders on top decide is the "Party Line", which the rank and file has no input on.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Bad Ideas is right about the rank and file/party leaderhip stuff. the leninist cults are cults in two (or even three senses tho). First the agreement on a set of theories instead of programme. There is bureaucratisation because of top-down structure. Because there is no clear short programme (AWL says its record since its start in the seventies is their programme, SWP has manifesto, first for congresses comintern yada yda yada etc. etc. in short it requires years of historical research to really understand) the politics come down to trusting the leadership since they have been around longest know most etc. no opposition is possible because they have that position and because in such a structure leads to whole carreers being depended on the party doing well any bad news (opposition, rape scandals) gets covered up to save careers bureaucracy. This is not building a healthy organisation. That's building a cult around gurus. Can't blame it all on Lenin or the Bolsheviks but yeah their policies were a big part in creating this age of the confessional sect and leads to all kinds of crap.

[Five Year Plan]

It's bizarre how you manage to miss my point so completely, again and again and again. I am saying that this centralized, top-down, regimented structure that the Bolsheviks made a universal requirement to join their clubhouse that still persists today results in political cults. I don't care how italicized and underlined and bolded the "democratic" in "democratic centralism" is when in any of these organizations that adhere to some kind of it, be they Trot or Maoist or M-L, relegate the rank and file to hawking papers and "activism" based on what the leaders on top decide is the "Party Line", which the rank and file has no input on.

I take your point. It's just wrong. Have you considered that possibility?

[#FF0000]

I take your point. It's just wrong. Have you considered that possibility?

I've considered it. Haven't seen a good takedown of it yet, though.

[Five Year Plan]

Bad Ideas is right about the rank and file/party leaderhip stuff. the leninist cults are cults in two (or even three senses tho). First the agreement on a set of theories instead of programme. There is bureaucratisation because of top-down structure. Because there is no clear short programme (AWL says its record since its start in the seventies is their programme, SWP has manifesto, first for congresses comintern yada yda yada etc. etc. in short it requires years of historical research to really understand) the politics come down to trusting the leadership since they have been around longest know most etc. no opposition is possible because they have that position and because in such a structure leads to whole carreers being depended on the party doing well any bad news (opposition, rape scandals) gets covered up to save careers bureaucracy. This is not building a healthy organisation. That's building a cult around gurus. Can't blame it all on Lenin or the Bolsheviks but yeah their policies were a big part in creating this age of the confessional sect and leads to all kinds of crap.

Citing the British SWP as an example for what Leninist democratic centralism leads to is pretty dishonest, in light of the fact that the SWP rejects essential components of Bolshevism, including a formalized program, the transitional method, a focus on building a working-class base rather than a student base, the restriction of membership to experienced cadres capable of keeping the leadership in check through democratic mechanisms, and so on.

In my past I have been in an actual Leninist organization, and have been pretty close to another. I can attest that the bureaucratization of which you speak was not present in either organization, though there was centralism. Which reminds me: it amazes me that the people coming forward as experts on democratic centralism and Leninism seem not to have been involved in a Leninist organization at any point in their lives, and are just regurgitating bad Lihite talking points. The epitome of revleft radicalism, I suppose.

[Five Year Plan]

I've considered it. Haven't seen a good takedown of it yet, though.

Since you literally have no evidence for your claims about how Leninist parties and organizations function (specifically in the bolded part), it's difficult to take anything down, apart from just pointing out that your claims seem plucked from thin air and that my own experiences have contradicted them. But since you've already admitted to trolling in this thread, as you have a habit of doing around the forum, none of this is really surprising.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'm afraid to say I've seen my fair share of leninist organising and grew quickly disillusioned with it's cult-like workings. Not that it is relevant. You can identify a cult without being part of one. Thank god, otherwise we couldn't attack scientology or other religious sects because welp haven't been a member now have you. You can perfectly fine identify it because it's blindingly obvious these are cult-politics.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

As for the SWP thing, I merely used it as one example of an organisation with a programme that is not a programme. I'll leave infighting between sects to you 1917 reenactment societies. I'm a grown-ass man with better shit to do.

[Five Year Plan]

As for the SWP thing, I merely used it as one example of an organisation with a programme that is not a programme. I'll leave infighting between sects to you 1917 reenactment societies. I'm a grown-ass man with better shit to do.

As opposed to Lihite 1914 re-enactment societies? Have fun with that, grown-ass man.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

No, as opposed to the cults of 1917 I learn from the past instead of cherrypicking a historical tendency and acting like we can just repeat their libe. It's called politics, it's pretty fun.

[#FF0000]

Since you literally have no evidence for your claims about how Leninist parties and organizations function (specifically in the bolded part), it's difficult to take anything down, apart from just pointing out that your claims seem plucked from thin air and that my own experiences have contradicted them. But since you've already admitted to trolling in this thread, as you have a habit of doing around the forum, none of this is really surprising.

Uhhh this is from my own experience as well. I've seen the ISO work (the ISO is like the poster child for this), I've seen the IMT work, I see how SAlt works, I see how the PSL works, I got all sorts of lurid details of how (I think it was) the Workers Party in New Zealand worked. Hell, you can see it in how the ICC works, I think.

I hear this all the time whenever I criticize a party. "Ah it doesn't really work like that", they say to me, until they burn out and complain about how cultish the group was.

[Five Year Plan]

No, as opposed to the cults of 1917 I learn from the past instead of cherrypicking a historical tendency and acting like we can just repeat their libe. It's called politics, it's pretty fun.

I would be curious to hear your analysis of what Leninists supposedly haven't learned from history. In the mean time, I think there is quite a bit to be learned from the history of Kautskyite capitulation to the bourgeoisie in revolutionary situations, as a result of misguided attempts to build mass formations around minimal programs not centered on grassroots class struggle.

[Five Year Plan]

Uhhh this is from my own experience as well. I've seen the ISO work (the ISO is like the poster child for this), I've seen the IMT work, I see how SAlt works, I see how the PSL works, I got all sorts of lurid details of how (I think it was) the Workers Party in New Zealand worked. Hell, you can see it in how the ICC works, I think.

I hear this all the time whenever I criticize a party. "Ah it doesn't really work like that", they say to me, until they burn out and complain about how cultish the group was.

You are entitled to generalize from your own experiences, and so am I. The fact that my experiences with "Leninism" differ dramatically from yours at least suggests that the problem isn't with abstract formulations about party organization per se, but with their functional application.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I agree there is much to be learned. I don't think you have read much of the "weekly wanker" though if you think they stand for re-attempting 1914 kautskyist betrayal

[Five Year Plan]

I agree there is much to be learned. I don't think you have read much of the "weekly wanker" though if you think they stand for re-attempting 1914 kautskyist betrayal

I have, and I do.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You are entitled to generalize from your own experiences, and so am I. The fact that my experiences with "Leninism" differ dramatically from yours at least suggests that the problem isn't with abstract formulations about party organization per se, but with their functional application.

kinda problematic if your abstract formulations fucking blow when applied functionally innit

[#FF0000]

Off topic a little bit, but I think someone should start a thread like this about why Anarchist groups become "scenes"

[Five Year Plan]

kinda problematic if your abstract formulations fucking blow when applied functionally innit

If they always blow, then yes. If they only blow sometimes, and at other times make the difference between leading a working-class revolution or lining up behind the capitalists in an imperialist world war, then it's a risk I'm willing to take. While I certainly haven't been close a revolutionary situation, my experience with the application of Leninist principles has been far from "blowing" and has actually built more solidarity and comradeship than I have seen in the supposedly "alternative cultures" fostered by anarchists. And it has been orders of magnitude more democratic, too.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think cults are pretty interesting and pretty frightening in a way whether they legit snake handling, poison drinking groups or ones of personality and what have you. In a way, I don't think this is necessarily reactionary or detrimental in the sense that, exactly do you define 'cult' and also, where do you draw the line betwixt what acceptable and what is not? You know.

[consuming negativity]

I think cults are pretty interesting and pretty frightening in a way whether they legit snake handling, poison drinking groups or ones of personality and what have you. In a way, I don't think this is necessarily reactionary or detrimental in the sense that, exactly do you define 'cult' and also, where do you draw the line betwixt what acceptable and what is not? You know.

The biggest differentiation is that a "cult" can only be described as such relative to a predominant moral or theoretical framework, which is something often lacking from fictional portrayals. Cults are deviant from the mainstream, and therefore they are necessarily small. They are also characterized by membership that has a lot less to do with what's being said than who is saying it. Most people join them through friends or family who have already joined, rather than seeking them out themselves, because they're not really so much interested in what's being said as being part of the community... which means accepting the in-place belief structure and recognizing the same people or ideas as authoritative within the community. It isn't even really a pejorative term until it is used with all of the "brainwashing" baggage and such in a colloquial sense, but really, the criticism being levied ITT is that Marxist groups are unable to adapt to modernity and grow significantly in numerical strength due to dogmatism and internal drama. I never really liked the term "Marxist" anyway... what's wrong with being communists?

[Tim Cornelis]

Calling all religion and all Leninism a cult is simply inaccurate and childish. Simply look up what a cult is, how a leadership exerts control, and how it operates -- it prevents you from making similar claims in the future.

There were some "Marxist" cults around the world, and not only the Bob Avakian one. All of them were Maoists as far as I remember, and maybe the Sparts (Trotskyists) are some pseudo-cult -- or maybe I'm just conflating it with crazy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Bad Ideas is right about the rank and file/party leaderhip stuff. the leninist cults are cults in two (or even three senses tho). First the agreement on a set of theories instead of programme. There is bureaucratisation because of top-down structure. Because there is no clear short programme (AWL says its record since its start in the seventies is their programme, SWP has manifesto, first for congresses comintern yada yda yada etc. etc. in short it requires years of historical research to really understand) the politics come down to trusting the leadership since they have been around longest know most etc. no opposition is possible because they have that position and because in such a structure leads to whole carreers being depended on the party doing well any bad news (opposition, rape scandals) gets covered up to save careers bureaucracy. This is not building a healthy organisation. That's building a cult around gurus. Can't blame it all on Lenin or the Bolsheviks but yeah their policies were a big part in creating this age of the confessional sect and leads to all kinds of crap.

Except neither the AWL nor the SWP are good examples of a Leninist propaganda group, the former because their programme - and it does exist, and everyone knows what it is even though perhaps they haven't written it down - has nothing to do with Leninism, in fact even the usual pretence of Leninism is missing, and the latter because it is a student-based group with a revolving-door membership structure.

And sorry, as vile as their actual politics are, the AWL are not a "cult around a guru" since the theoretical "contributions" of O'Mahoney-Matgamna are negligible at best.

So why this Weekly Corker-esque bile toward splits along principled programmatic lines? Because, you see, these are "confessional sects", and the Weekly Corker readers would like a "broad church", some form of "left unity" on a social-democratic programme that the mean old Leninists don't care for.

I have been a contact of the International Communist League ("the Sparts"), an organisation sometimes slandered as a "cult" (mostly by people who outright admit that they haven't read anything by the ICL or its sections), and my experience is - not overwhelmingly - exclusively positive. Not only did the comrades I've spoken to go out of their way to avoid telling me what to do, they were initially worried because I appeared to question the line too little. And the tattoo of Comrade Robertson doesn't hurt at all!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think Marxist groups need to have an active guru to transform into a cult, there are more than enough dead gurus to go around. From my experience though, more often than not radical groups take on a form more fitting a pyramid scheme than a religious cult. The leaders use the organization's money as a personal slush account to go on fun activist trips so they can, you know "build the movement" ie take it easy for a few years before they're forced to get real jobs, while you have the privilege listening in on some stupid fucking conference call once a month in between being hassled for paper sales.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

The difference between a cult and a religion is size.

The difference between mainstream theism and atheism is the idol. Same holiness, different object.

So anything Leninist is holy.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Idk why weekly worker gets brought up here so much since I didn't mention them once but please if you bring it up portray there actual politics accurately. got no time for strawman bullshit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Idk why weekly worker gets brought up here so much since I didn't mention them once but please if you bring it up portray there actual politics accurately. got no time for strawman bullshit.

The Weekly Corker has been brought up because the vast majority of that paper is spent:

(1) criticising Leninist groups for being "sectarian" ("sectarian" in the CPGB sense) and for forming "confessional sects";
(2) shilling for "left unity";
(3) apologising for all the things they got wrong and/or couldn't prove in the previous issue.

And given how enthusiastically the Weekly Corker and the CPGB support "Left Unity" in Britain, I don't see how I've portrayed their politics incorrectly.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The Weekly Corker has been brought up because the vast majority of that paper is spent:

(1) criticising Leninist groups for being "sectarian" ("sectarian" in the CPGB sense) and for forming "confessional sects";
(2) shilling for "left unity";
(3) apologising for all the things they got wrong and/or couldn't prove in the previous issue.

And given how enthusiastically the Weekly Corker and the CPGB support "Left Unity" in Britain, I don't see how I've portrayed their politics incorrectly.

well maybe your mischaracterisation of their conception of programme, the part where they are clear that unity must happen on a programmatic basis, 3 is complete nonsense.

i know you wingnuts have trouble with reading comprehension but fuck sakes

[Tim Cornelis]

You're so clever with your consistent word plays. Almost as clever as Maoist Third Worldists. Also a symptom of a cult-brain, incidentally, not really incidentally.

[Rafiq]

And mainstream acceptance


More importantly social legitimacy - how effective they are in reproducing existing conditions.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

well maybe your mischaracterisation of their conception of programme, the part where they are clear that unity must happen on a programmatic basis, 3 is complete nonsense.

i know you wingnuts have trouble with reading comprehension but fuck sakes

They are "clear" that unity must happen on the basis of a programme (the "communist platform") that is horrifyingly vague and doesn't address a lot of things - and is in fact the CPGB programme pared down to the extent that it's agreeable to most social-democrats, minus the r-r-revolutionary rhetoric.

Last I heard the Matgamnaites successfully sued the Weekly Corker, followed by a TUSC officer. That is to be expected, since they don't really do much fact-checking and put their paper out once a week even though they have, maybe, thirty members.

[Tim Cornelis]

>r-r-revolutionary rhetoric.
>Weekly Corker
>U$A
>Amerikkka

Mindless reiteration of this type is, as I said, a symptom of a cult mentality. So I suppose 870 holds to key to why some "Marxist" groups are cults.

[Five Year Plan]

>r-r-revolutionary rhetoric.
>Weekly Corker
>U$A
>Amerikkka

Mindless reiteration of this type is, as I said, a symptom of a cult mentality. So I suppose 870 holds to key to why some "Marxist" groups are cults.

It's pretty cowardly that you and creep on this thread are basically masking political criticisms under the sub-political accusation of being a "cult." But I suppose this is what I would expect from your lot. Always the path of least resistance. At any rate, it removes any sympathy I might have for complaints about when others here are taking sub-political jabs, as I have done, when those jabs don't rise to the level of your non-sense.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's pretty cowardly that you and creep

Well only me I'd say.


on this thread are basically masking political criticisms under the sub-political accusation of being a "cult." But I suppose this is what I would expect from your lot.

lol, and who is "my lot"?


Always the path of least resistance. At any rate, it removes any sympathy I might have for complaints about when others here are taking sub-political jabs, as I have done, when those jabs don't rise to the level of your non-sense.

I don't really care about what you think or your sympathy, so....

I don't mind engaging in political debate on content, but then, it's 870, who does nothing but lie, slander, using annoying rhetoric (r-r-r-), and use 'sub-political' arguments himself. So I don't see the point in debating him fairly. He's too far gone. Basically, when he went on about how I'm a racist, sexist, transphobic, petty bourgeois Proudhonist and then denouncing Marx' conception of communism (freely associated producers), and therefore Marx, as "Proudhonist" I just figured you cannot debate with this bloke, he's too deeply influenced by Spart politics to not disingenuous. So I decided to stoop to his level basically.

[Five Year Plan]

I don't mind engaging in political debate on content, but then, it's 870, who does nothing but lie, slander, using annoying rhetoric (r-r-r-), and use 'sub-political' arguments himself. So I don't see the point in debating him fairly. He's too far gone.

If you don't see 870 making political criticisms of the Lihites and other social-dem left-unity types in this thread, then there's little I can say here apart from wishing you all the best in your mindless personal attacks.

[Tim Cornelis]

If you don't see 870 making political criticisms of the Lihites and other social-dem left-unity types in this thread, then there's little I can say here apart from wishing you all the best in your mindless personal attacks.

Yeah and if I were to engage him seriously, he'd go "something something Proudhonist something something r-r-revolutionary something something reformist something something misreading what you wrote, misinterpreting what you say, strawman of your actual position something something sexist"

You can basically make a Bingo card out of 870's rhetoric.

[Rafiq]

Tim is beyond correct in his accusation that 870 espouses cult rhetoric. 870 is a sympathizer of the Spartacus League, if there was ever an organization that embodied what we call 1960's "Marxist cults" it would be them. Fact of the matter is that this is not a personal attack - It's something that goes beyond 870.

Funny that he is allowed to mindlessly accuse others of being social democrats (All because the word social democrat had different connotations a hundred years ago - I guess Lenin, Luxemburg and so on are social democrats too) and all sorts of slanderous filth and yet this is casually passed off as legitimate political discussion and not "sub political jabs". I guess petty bourgeois Trotskyist cults are immune from legitimate criticism while the CPGB is predisposed to appeal to social democrats. And saying that organizations like the Sparts have cultish tendencies is NOT slander, it is a most obvious truth if one understands any meaningful sense of the word cult.

More importantly however, I think that we should understand all cults (which did not exist before the counter-culture) as being inherently petty bourgeois in nature, as reactionary. Communists do not "drop out" of the social conditions of life, rather Communism is a result of the contradictions of the social conditions of life. Therefore to drop out is to drop out of the class struggle. Of course several obscure post modern degenerate 'Marxist' theories would have it so somehow conditions post WWII are somehow special in that it is merely a battle between capitalism and humanity, or that everything that is a part of bourgeois society, everything about our present condition is bad including "decadent" mass media (music, etc.) is poisonous and counter-revolutionary unless it is derived from the cult itself.

[Rafiq]

If you don't see 870 making political criticisms of the Lihites and other soci...

Yes, such baseless, slanderous attacks with no bearing in reality are "political criticisms" while the legitimate assertion that the organizations which he considers genuinely revolutionary possess cult like characteristics is a 'personal attack'. Well very well then, it would appear that personal attacks are infinitely more substantial and meaningful as criticisms than what you call "political criticisms".

[Five Year Plan]

Tim is beyond correct in his accusation that 870 espouses cult rhetoric. 870 is a sympathizer of the Spartacus League, if there was ever an organization that embodied what we call counter culture "Marxist cults" it would be them. Fact of the matter is that this is not a personal attack - It's something that goes beyond 870.

Funny that he is allowed to mindlessly accuse others of being social democrats (All because the word social democrat had different connotations a hundred years ago - I guess Lenin, Luxemburg and so on are social democrats too) and all sorts of slanderous filth and yet this is casually passed off as legitimate political discussion and not "sub political jabs". I guess petty bourgeois Trotskyist cults are immune from legitimate criticism while the CPGB is predisposed to appeal to social democrats. And saying that organizations like the Sparts have cultish tendencies is NOT slander, it is a most obvious truth if one understands any meaningful sense of the word cult.

More importantly however, I think that we should understand all cults (which did not exist before the counter-culture) as being inherently petty bourgeois in nature, as reactionary. Communists do not "drop out" of the social conditions of life, rather Communism is a result of the contradictions of the social conditions of life. Therefore to drop out is to drop out of the class struggle. Of course several obscure post modern degenerate 'Marxist' theories would have it so somehow conditions post WWII are somehow special in that it is merely a battle between capitalism and humanity, or that everything that is a part of bourgeois society, everything about our present condition is bad including "decadent" mass media (music, etc.) unless it is derived from the cult itself.

I'm sure this post, in which you conveniently accuse the organization with which 870 sympathizes of being a cult, has nothing whatsoever to do with the bad blood that exists between you two. :rolleyes: And coming as it does from a person who rambles on and on about baptism and being reborn and communist spirits and the like, the accusation of being a cult is particularly rich.

[Five Year Plan]

Yes, such baseless, slanderous attacks with no bearing in reality are "political criticisms" while the legitimate assertion that the organizations which he considers genuinely revolutionary possess cult like characteristics is a 'personal attack'. Well very well then, it would appear that personal attacks are infinitely more substantial and meaningful as criticisms than what you call "political criticisms".

870 made a criticism of the CPGB's program. That is a political criticism. If you are too bone-headed to see that, it's your problem.

[Rafiq]

I'm sure this post, in which you conveniently accuse the organization with which 870 sympathizes of being a cult, has nothing whatsoever to do with the bad blood that exists between you two. :rolleyes: And coming as it does from a person who rambles on and on about baptism and being reborn and communist spirits and the like, the accusation of being a cult is particularly rich.

Actually the bad blood began as a result of my accusation that organizations like the Sparts were cults, so your implication is plainly wrong.

Once again, you have proven that you are only capable of straw-men arguments. This has been observed in other threads too, and I'm not the first person to recognize it (Jimmie Higgins, etc.). I have never spoken of "baptism", I spoke in terms of philosophy - the Christian logic of being reborn (as opposed the pagan logic of knowing your place within the hierarchical order) as something which is not worth renouncing for Communists.

But of coarse this is washed off as "mysticism" and "Spirits blah blah blah". You're incapable of comprehending words and understanding them within their respective contexts.


A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

These are the first words of the Communist Manifesto. Marx, among several other Marxists referred to the Communist spirit or the "spectre" of Communism. But of coarse 870 would interpret this as literally an actual ghost that Marx believed Communism took the form of. In his inability to confront words for what they mean, he must construe other meanings in order to create a viable argument.

[Rafiq]

870 made a criticism of the CPGB's program. That is a political criticism.

The only criticism he made was that it was "too vague". in criticizing the program of the organization he sympathizes with, and the countless others which posses similar characteristics - we claim that they are reflective of a greater ideological pathology. That is not a personal attack.

[Five Year Plan]

Actually the bad blood began as a result of my accusation that organizations like the Sparts were cults, so your implication is plainly wrong.

Once again, you have proven that you are only capable of straw-men arguments. This has been observed in other threads too, and I'm not the first person to recognize it (Jimmie Higgins, etc.). I have never spoken of "baptism", I spoke in terms of philosophy - the Christian logic of being reborn (as opposed the pagan logic of knowing your place within the hierarchical order) as something which is not worth renouncing for Communists.

But of coarse this is washed off as "mysticism" and "Spirits blah blah blah". You're incapable of comprehending words and understanding them within their respective contexts.



These are the first words of the Communist Manifesto. Marx, among several other Marxists referred to the Communist spirit or the "spectre" of Communism. But of coarse 870 would interpret this as literally an actual ghost that Marx believed Communism took the form of. In his inability to confront words for what they mean, he must construe other meanings in order to create a viable argument.

Where Marx would occasionally employ a well-placed metaphor in his writings, you smother your posts with this non-sensical verbiage. People who want an example can see my signature. You are a parody of everything they stood for, really.

As for your accusations of cult-hood, I would simply ask what I have asked everybody else here. Define cult, and show your evidence that the Spartacist (not Spartacus) tendency fits it.

[Five Year Plan]

The only criticism he made was that it was "too vague". in criticizing the program of the organization he sympathizes with, and the countless others which posses similar characteristics - we claim that they are reflective of a greater ideological pathology. That is not a personal attack.

Yes, and that "only criticism" was a political criticism. The criticism is that the CPGB waters down its program to the point where it is no longer advancing a struggle for communism, but instead is only dipping its toe in mass reformist struggles. Your "criticism" of the SL is that it's a cult. Now who here is being sub-political and ideologically "pathological"?

[Rafiq]

Where Marx would occasionally employ a well-placed metaphor in his writings, you smother your posts with this non-sensical verbiage. People who want an example can see my signature. You are a parody of everything they stood for, really.

Yes but the Communist spirit is not a metaphor, apparently, it is a signification that I actually believe in supernatural phenomena. Only someone as theoretically adept in the profession of truthfully dissecting my posts could come to such a conclusion, excuse everyone else who has not run amok with such nonsensical accusations.


As for your accusations of cult-hood, I would simply ask what I have asked everybody else here. Define cult, and show your evidence that the Spartacist (not Spartacus) tendency fits it.


A cult is an organization with an idea system in place, practices, traditions and rituals that operates outside of the confines of society. Furthermore such an organization develops not as a result of a social relationship to production that refuses to be integrated into a larger one (I.e. like remote tribes in the Amazon) but from those that "drop out" of real-existing society.

It's much more complicated than that, but this is how I would define a cult. And the Spartacists fit perfectly within this paradigm. The pre-requisites for mass mobilization are non-existent, instead the organization is reserved from those "class concious revolutionaries" who agree with the ultimately exclusive doctrine of the organization. Further practices, such as the regulation of personal lives (in matters such as marriage) are also reflective of this. The whole of society, the whole of our present condition, including its contradictions is deemed "reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary".

These cult-like organizaitons are the modern emulation of petty bourgeois socialism


This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.


There are a few differences - sexual morality is one of them. Another important thing to remember is that while they do not seek to retort to a previous mode of production, they do seek to retort to a previous condition - pre-neoliberal - dare I say pre-WWII capitalism in the sense that this is where they derive all of their ideological rhetoric - within our present condition it can only take a petty bourgeois character.

[Rafiq]

Your "criticism" of the SL is that it's a cult. Now who here is being sub-political and ideologically "pathological"?

Very well then, so if all criticism that is based on the class character of said organizations (in this case, I claim the Spartacists are petty bourgeois) - then 870 must recognize that the CPGB are proletarian in nature, as anything otherwise would render such a criticism as "sub political".

Yes I do not criticize the SL as a means of "constructive criticism". They are a petty bourgeois cult - they are reactionary in nature with no place in the future of Communism. I don't care if you want to write that off as a personal attack, truth is truth.

[Five Year Plan]

Very well then, so if all criticism that is based on the class character of said organizations (in this case, I claim the Spartacists are petty bourgeois) - then 870 must recognize that the CPGB are proletarian in nature, as anything otherwise would render such a criticism as "sub political".

Yes I do not criticize the SL as a means of "constructive criticism". They are a petty bourgeois cult - they are reactionary in nature with no place in the future of Communism. I don't care if you want to write that off as a personal attack, truth is truth.

Your evidence that the CPGB is proletarian, that the SL is petty bourgeois? What is your definition of a cult?

You are flinging around claims with more rapidity than you are mystical turns of phrase, which is quite an accomplishment from you. Back them up if you want anybody to take them seriously.

EDIT: okay, I see where you have defined cult:


A cult is an organization with an idea system in place, practices, traditions and rituals that operates outside of the confines of society. Furthermore such an organization develops not as a result of a social relationship to production that refuses to be integrated into a larger one (I.e. like remote tribes in the Amazon) but from those that "drop out" of real-existing society.

It's much more complicated than that, but this is how I would define a cult. And the Spartacists fit perfectly within this paradigm. The pre-requisites for mass mobilization are non-existent, instead the organization is reserved from those "class concious revolutionaries" who agree with the ultimately exclusive doctrine of the organization. Further practices, such as the regulation of personal lives (in matters such as marriage) are also reflective of this. The whole of society, the whole of our present condition, including its contradictions is deemed "reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary". Where is your evidence that the SL exists or operates "outside the confines of society"? What does that even mean, that they have a compound in Waco, where they are stockpiling weapons?

The rest of your argument is just that you are peeved that the SL doesn't accept into its organization every worker that goes on strike or attends a demonstration. That's different than "operating outside the confines of society," however. It's a political criticism, but since you know you don't have the theoretical chops to pursue that argument to its conclusion, you wrap it up in subpolitical slander.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm starting to think the prerequisite for being a 'Marxist cult,' in the minds of most here, is to be an organization comprised of principled Leninists. Suppose I'll side with the 'cults' in that case.

[Rafiq]

Where is your evidence that the SL exists or operates "outside the confines of society"? What does that even mean, that they have a compound in Waco, where they are stockpiling weapons?

The rest of your argument is just that you are peeved that the SL doesn't accept into its organization every worker that goes on strike or attends a demonstration. That's different than "operating outside the confines of society," however. It's a political criticism, but since you know you don't have the theoretical chops to pursue that argument to its conclusion, you wrap it up in subpolitical slander.

They operate outside of the confines of society not on this literal, physical sense (as though they live in outer space) but they have practices, norms and standards which only function within the confines of their organization. While any revolutionary organization posses converse practices and standards, these are derived from the revolutionary struggle itself, the proletarian movement itself which is a result of society's contradictions. A revolutionary organization therefore does not operate "outside" of society in this same sense. All other forms of deviant ideological behavior, therefore, is indistinguishable from any other backwoods cult (funny that they sympathize and support actual backwoods cults against the big bourgeois state which forcibly seeks to integrate them into the poisonous bourgeois society).

Now if the Spartacists were an honest group of intellectuals who seek to form a group to discuss their ideas, this would be another story. But they claim to be a vehicle for revolution, they claim to be a political organization. I will admit I am not entirely familar with the structure and practices of the CPGB, but what I know is that they are not a cult. They are a broad organization that recognizes its very real limitations that is open to different ideas and discussions pertaining to the revival of the Left.

[Rafiq]

I'm starting to think the prerequisite for being a 'Marxist cult,' in the minds of most here, is to be an organization comprised of principled Leninists. Suppose I'll side with the 'cults' in that case.

This is especially rich, considering that Leninism is dead and has long been dead. It is therefore recognizable that such "principled Leninism" derives not from present circumstances but from previous ones. It's for that reason that they are a cult (or partially the reason). The fact that it has no social application, that it is incapable of mass mobilization is why. The strict doctrine of the Bolsheviks, conversely, was forged in the fires of class struggle, it had derived from the conditions by which it operated within.

[Five Year Plan]

They operate outside of the confines of society not on this literal, physical sense (as though they live in outer space) but they have practices, norms and standards which only function within the confines of their organization.

What this means, functionally, is that any minority political group with ideas and practices that don't jibe with the mainstream are cults. Of course, this works very well for your politics, since it's all about cynically adapting to the "mainstream." Even as your posts, ironically, exhibit the most exotic formulations.



While any revolutionary organization posses converse practices and standards, these are derived from the revolutionary struggle itself, the proletarian movement itself which is a result of society's contradictions.You're just posing the question of how the SL's practices aren't "derived" from workers' struggles, whereas those of the CPGB-PCC are. Hurling around the label "cult" is a way of short-circuiting this discussion, because, I suspect, you are aware that you are incapable of really having it.


Now if the Spartacists were an honest group of intellectuals who seek to form a group to discuss their ideas, this would be another story. But they claim to be a vehicle for revolution, they claim to be a political organization. I will admit I am not entirely familar with the structure and practices of the CPGB, but what I know is that they are not a cult. They are a broad organization that recognizes its very real limitations that is open to different ideas and discussions pertaining to the revival of the Left.Where does the SL claim to be a "vehicle for the revolution"? You just keep making things up as you go along, don't you?

[Art Vandelay]

This is especially rich, considering that Leninism is dead and has long been dead. It is therefore recognizable that such "principled Leninism" derives not from present circumstances but from previous ones. It's for that reason that they are a cult (or partially the reason). The fact that it has no social application, that it is incapable of mass mobilization is why. The strict doctrine of the Bolsheviks, conversely, was forged in the fires of class struggle, it had derived from the conditions by which it operated within.

The ICL, like all groups who understand the limitations of minority political organizations during historic periods of reaction, don't seek to be the instigator of mass mobilizations. Organizations who seek to do so beg the question, the mobilization of whom exactly and for what? The ICL understands that it is not the clever propaganda, or properly wielded transitional demands, of communist militants which mobilizes the class, but on the contrary the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production which periodically throw the proletariat into motion. Their task, as they see it, is to not be carried along by the backward flow during periods of low class consciousness, rather to swim against the current; they attempt to accomplish this through the process of cadre development, organizational education, and the defence of what they view as the correctness of their party's programme. Now you may disagree with this approach, have political criticisms of it, etc...but a cult it does not make. It also can hardly be defined as an unprincipled approach. Now for someone who claims to only be here for principled discussion and the open exchange of ideas, accusing organizations of being cults simply because they reject the strategy of subsumming themselves into mass formations of the class (which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean groups as diverse as the ICC, ICL, LCI, etc...are all cults), stretching the definition of the word cult so far in process so as to almost render it meaningless, isn't really a productive way to go about that.

[The Idler]

Irrespective of membership numbers, I don’t believe political criticism is necessarily sectarian.

A sect is a group that, unlike a party, believes itself unaccountable to anything broader than the sect.

A sect is a group that, although it may have open recruitment, nevertheless treats non-initiates only as potential recruits or avowed enemies.

A cult is a group that, worse than a sect, denies validity of any reference from wider society. e.g. LaRouche movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement)