Maoist Cult leader on trial for being a reprehensible human shit.

[Lord Testicles]

[Trigger warning: The article below contains a lot of descriptions of sexual abuse.]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/12/cult-leader-sexually-assaulted-and-brainwashed-followers-court-told



A communist revolutionary who led a Maoist cult in Brixton in the 1970s forced his daughter to worship him “as God” while imprisoning and beating her over a 30-year period at communes across south London, a court has heard.
Aravindan Balakrishnan, who set up the Workers Institute of Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought, is accused of falsely imprisoning his daughter for 14 years until she escaped, aged 30, in 2013. He mentally and physically abused her almost from birth, claiming he was cleansing her of fascist influences, a jury at Southwark crown court heard on Thursday.

[...]

He is facing trial for false imprisonment and child cruelty against his daughter as well as rape, sexual assault and assault against two other women, who cannot be named.

[...]

His ethos combined communism and belief in the supernatural and he is said to have told his daughter he had to beat her, otherwise “Jackie”, whom he said was an invisible force with magical powers and a mind control machine that monitored all their thoughts, would kill or torture her. Jackie stood for Jehovah, Allah, Christ and Krishna, and would cause earthquakes, fires and tornadoes if anyone went against Balakrishnan.

[Hit The North]

"Jackie" was a popular girls' magazine in the 70s and 80s. It ran stories about ponies and boyfriends, make-up and deportment, and often featured photo-strip stories about how you should respect yourself in case God or your mother was watching. I bet he was behind that too.

Do you think the obvious omission of Buddah from the acronym of Jackie was because he was committed to Mao Zedong Thought or just because it didn't fit?

The guy was obviously a raving bellend but I'm not sure this story deserves to be in the politics forum.

..

[Rafiq]

The first mistake would be to draw the conclusion that this man was "using" the ideological facade of New left politics in order to realize something with no political or ideological dimension (i.e. rape, cold blooded manipulation, humiliating and sadistic abuses, the "desire for power, ETC.), to draw the ultimately postmodern liberal conclusion that "we're all human" and capable of this no matter our purported ideological commitments. This is amply false.

There is no reason to cynically assume this man did not believe what he purported to believe. One must therefore critically ask the question: HOW could this happen? At first, even I was shocked by this - absolutely shocked. But we should heed our attention to that which isn't outwardly apparent: This is NOT the result of "extremists" going too far. What do I mean? This event will perfectly conform to the pathological fear of Communism by society, its ruthless demand for subservience of all aspects of life to the cause, etc. - The truth, however is that as it is with much of the legacy of the New left in general: There is nothing NEIGHBORLY, i.e. alien, intristically "othered" about such cults. Such cults are themselves, i.e
The individual constituents of them, worshipping of the same gods as society in general. Rather than the result of "primal" forces being unchecked by some "extreme" devotion, the truth is that here you find the most extreme ideological conformism to ruling ideology - even in the terms of your average conservative. Such groups are WHOLLY petty bourgeois and reactionary - I do not say this as a stupid leftist who uses left-terminology to condemn things that are generally opposable by public sensitivity, (i.e. Saying "Joseph Kony is bourgeois"), I mean it plainly - the attitude of "OPPOSING" society as a whole, i.e. opposing "it all" and its "influences" is wholly petty bourgeois. Of course we use ruthless criticism against our rotten society, but only insofar as we too are a part of it, only insofar as we envision the possibility of a new one.

And we know this because there is nothing unique about the group vis a vis every degenerate, backwoods cult. Take Charlie Manson: what surprised me as a child about reading him is how the shock and excess of his group was not reflected in their narrative of themselves: Their ideas were no more "shocking" or unique, i.e. mysterious than those that prevail in our society.

So not to be provocative: but the lesson of such groups, of the new left, is how they are amply not radical enough, not "FANATICAL" enough even. This incident could have never occured in any of the constituent organizations our past internationals, or even in old Stalinist Communist parties. Look at how, for example, the group is almost apparentlt quasi-polytheist. These are at the level of society harmless, these are ALL ideas, in other words, which at the level of ruling ideology go, are EASY, spontaneous even, to adopt!

[Sasha]

Before he went full cult he was a pretty big player in the moist movement apperently.
And considering this is hardly the first maoist group going of the cult deep end (i know of a dutch prominent to begin with of which the other half of the split is now the socialist party) i guess its worth giving it a bit of space on the board.

[RedKobra]

"Jackie" was a popular girls' magazine in the 70s and 80s. It ran stories about ponies and boyfriends, make-up and deportment, and often featured photo-strip stories about how you should respect yourself in case God or your mother was watching. I bet he was behind that too.

Do you think the obvious omission of Buddah from the acronym of Jackie was because he was committed to Mao Zedong Thought or just because it didn't fit?

The guy was obviously a raving bellend but I'm not sure this story deserves to be in the politics forum.

..

Because Jbackie doesn't sound as good?

Seriously, though, this man is human garbage.

[Hit The North]

Before he went full cult he was a pretty big player in the moist movement apperently.


He was a moist movement, alright. But if you mean Maoist movement (and I know you do) it wouldn't take much to be a big wheel in the UK Maoist movement of the 1970s as it comprised of about 200 people and fewer braincells.

...

[blake 3:17]

I think it is important to acknowledge how badly radical Left politics can turn out and that they can be turned to evil purposes.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So not to be provocative: but the lesson of such groups, of the new left, is how they are amply not radical enough, not "FANATICAL" enough even. This incident could have never occured in any of the constituent organizations our past internationals, or even in old Stalinist Communist parties. Look at how, for example, the group is almost apparentlt quasi-polytheist. These are at the level of society harmless, these are ALL ideas, in other words, which at the level of ruling ideology go, are EASY, spontaneous even, to adopt!

I agree that this group was not "radical" enough in the sense that it remained rooted in reactionary practices. However, there is also an issue of power, but not in the sense that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". A movement with a rigid hierarchy allows for leaders who cannot be held accountable for their position and their actions. This is an extreme example, but there are less extreme ones (say, the recent SWP sexual assault scandal). We should not have parties where leaders are beyond reproach, whether we're discussing major parties or isolated Maoist cults.

[John Nada]

Why is it always a "he"? A "charismatic man and a vivid and energetic speaker". His abuse began when his influence was reduced from a hundred people to 6 females. It's like the appeal of Maoism to him wasn't a theory of liberation, but of a strong male who could control the world, in the form of Mao Zedong as he perceived it.

He's very patriarchal in addition to misogynistic. Like it's not so much the formal hierarchy(I could see a nominally horizontal organization degenerating into the same, unfortunately), but the patriarchy. I have a hard time imagining the genders being reversed.

[Comrade Jacob]

Fucking hell. Got nothing to do with Maoism though. An absolute hypocrite that would've been killed in a revolution.

[The Idler]

Why is it always a "he"? A "charismatic man and a vivid and energetic speaker". His abuse began when his influence was reduced from a hundred people to 6 females. It's like the appeal of Maoism to him wasn't a theory of liberation, but of a strong male who could control the world, in the form of Mao Zedong as he perceived it.

He's very patriarchal in addition to misogynistic. Like it's not so much the formal hierarchy(I could see a nominally horizontal organization degenerating into the same, unfortunately), but the patriarchy. I have a hard time imagining the genders being reversed.
I could not see a nominally horizontal organisation degenerating into the same and lasting three decades. Something about Trotsky's maxim - my party right or wrong - or the only true socialists can ever only exist in my group mentality, yes even something about Maoism and certainly something about secrecy and lack of transparency lends itself to cults.

[Rafiq]

However, there is also an issue of power, but not in the sense that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". A movement with a rigid hierarchy allows for leaders who cannot be held accountable for their position and their actions. This is an extreme example, but there are less extreme ones (say, the recent SWP sexual assault scandal). We should not have parties where leaders are beyond reproach, whether we're discussing major parties or isolated Maoist cults.

The point however is that leaders in major parties are effectively always susceptible to reproach, formal hierarchies notwithstanding.

In fact groups that are more 'hierarchical' tend to be less susceptible to abuse for the simple reason that leadership positions, like general secretary, give leaders a sense of accountability. In every single anarchist, post-modern, non-hierarchical oriented group I have ever encountered (or heard of for that matter), there has always been some kind of secret leader who everyone tacitly acknowledges is the master. This was even true for some of the first anarchist organisations to ever exist.

[Aslan]

I'm sorry but the only word I have for this is evil.

The arbitrary violence and misogyny this man has done to the people around him is horrific. This man uses communism as an excuse for all the vile shit he's done to his innocent children. But this goes a lot deeper that just him. This type of religious insanity is found in both left and right.

[John Nada]

I could not see a nominally horizontal organisation degenerating into the same and lasting three decades. Something about Trotsky's maxim - my party right or wrong - or the only true socialists can ever only exist in my group mentality, yes even something about Maoism and certainly something about secrecy and lack of transparency lends itself to cults.It's entirely possible for domestic violence to happen even in a nominally horizontal organization. If fact, it need not be overtly political or religious, or even anything beyond a clique or family. It shouldn't be assumed that just because one's group has the absolute most correct line on women, patriarchy and authoritarianism, that this shit can't happen.

Marxists.org (https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/#wimlmzt) has a small section on this group. It was a split from the CPE(ML). "Bala" was a student from Singapore. He got kicked out of the CPE(ML) for being a bit of a wrecker. About 10% of the party, also mostly immigrants, joined his new Workers' Institute on Mao Zedong Thought. Their theory was that the PRC under Hua Guofeng became a international dictatorship of the proletariat, UK was a Second-World country against the First-World of the US and USSR. and the UK was a fascist state. To complement the impending liberation led by the now-forgettable Chairman Hua, they sought to establish revolutionary base areas in the "weakest link of fascism". It's not common belief among Maoists, even the few still pro-China, to think there was anything special about Hua, and this group's theories have little in common modern Marxist-Leninist-Maoists.

Unlike other parties, they attempted to recruit not by workplace but by neighborhood. A memorial for Mao was set up where the supposed base area was to be. Women played a prominent role in the group(second to Bala, of course) which appealed to many of the female members driven away by the sexism of other parties. The funding came from two women's inheritance.

Nevertheless, they were regarded as a joke by other leftists(including Maoists), if not fulfilling the role of agent provocateurs out to make Marxist-Leninists look even worse, accidentally or not. They'd disrupt planned events, denounce everyone as revisionists or social-fascists and just act all around ridiculous.

However, in spite of the unintentional usefulness to the bourgeoisie, the Workers' Institute on Mao Zedong Thought was repressed by the police. A lot of members got arrested. Some deported. The Mao Memorial was shut down. This basically destroyed that already small fringe party with an completely wrong program.

This is what's bourgeois media is obscuring. It was a political movement, ridiculous as it was, suppressed by the state for holding unacceptable political positions. Many of its members were immigrants, harassed by fascists(which attracted many of them to a nominally anti-fascist group) and had the looming threat of deportation. Cops were hitting them with bullshit drug charges and resisting arrest. Those few members, which by then were essentially an unconventional family, was all that was left.

They may have had what anyone on the left would know is absurd positions, but the whole "fascists and bourgeoisie out to get ya" shit has some logical basis. This persecution, real or later imagined, led to an oppressive home environment. Not that the women and the girl were "brainwashed", but they genuinely felt there was no one who could help. It's not too different from an abusive dominating patriarchal father in other situations.

[The Idler]

Yes it is possible domestic violence in a nominally horizontal organisation but this is not domestic violence in the typical sense and what happened quite clearly was sustained for so long in part due to hierarchical organisation and an unaccountable leader which is the norm in most undemocratic organisations calling themselves socialist.

[John Nada]

Yes it is possible domestic violence in a nominally horizontal organisation but this is not domestic violence in the typical sense and what happened quite clearly was sustained for so long in part due to hierarchical organisation and an unaccountable leader which is the norm in most undemocratic organisations calling themselves socialist.This "party" of a little over dozen was not unlike a family with an abusive father. At it's peak only about 30 members tops, and most of the time while this abuse was going on less "members" than posters in this thread. That the scale of this "party's" influence.

The "unaccountable leader" was the father in the next room. I think his power derived not so much from this sect's hierarchy(though it clearly contributed), but from its complete collapse in the face of police repression creating a siege mentality. Plenty of marginal groups faces such repression and don't degenerate into this, but I think it helped sustain it.

Although I do wonder if there's something about these hierarchical groups that attracts the authoritarian male types, or feeds into that mindset.

[The Idler]

This "party" of a little over dozen was not unlike a family with an abusive father. At it's peak only about 30 members tops, and most of the time while this abuse was going on less "members" than posters in this thread. That the scale of this "party's" influence.

The "unaccountable leader" was the father in the next room. I think his power derived not so much from this sect's hierarchy(though it clearly contributed), but from its complete collapse in the face of police repression creating a siege mentality. Plenty of marginal groups faces such repression and don't degenerate into this, but I think it helped sustain it.

Although I do wonder if there's something about these hierarchical groups that attracts the authoritarian male types, or feeds into that mindset.
Please explain how the women who were not related to him, joined the "Workers Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Zedong-Thought" and in over thirty years did not ever study The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels or Marx's anthropological notes on Morgan. Otherwise, I can't just accept it was apolitical domestic violence as likely to occur in a horizontal organisation as a hierarchical one where the leader sets the reading list. I've been to tiny socialist discussion groups where anthropology and the family unit is discussed within just one year of meetings.

[John Nada]

Please explain how the women who were not related to him, joined the "Workers Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Zedong-Thought" and in over thirty years did not ever study The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels or Marx's anthropological notes on Morgan. Otherwise, I can't just accept it was apolitical domestic violence as likely to occur in a horizontal organisation as a hierarchical one where the leader sets the reading list. I've been to tiny socialist discussion groups where anthropology and the family unit is discussed within just one year of meetings.I don't know if there's statistics that say one or the other is more likely to experience this. I'd guess that the horizontal org is less likely, but I don't know.

They likely were very familiar with Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Wouldn't surprise me if they were specifically trying to make it into a family as a counter to the capitalist superstructure. Those type of utopian communes were a dime a dozen. And the hierarchy need not be official, for there can be one without officially labeling it as one. In this case, even the women were supposedly in leadership positions originally.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The point however is that leaders in major parties are effectively always susceptible to reproach, formal hierarchies notwithstanding.

In fact groups that are more 'hierarchical' tend to be less susceptible to abuse for the simple reason that leadership positions, like general secretary, give leaders a sense of accountability. In every single anarchist, post-modern, non-hierarchical oriented group I have ever encountered (or heard of for that matter), there has always been some kind of secret leader who everyone tacitly acknowledges is the master. This was even true for some of the first anarchist organisations to ever exist.

I think it has less to do with the formality of the hierarchy, and more to do with the transparency of leadership, and the capacity to criticize without the threat of punishment. I think you could have those problems with rigid state/party hierarchies, and with "decentralized" anarchist subcultures. It is inevitable that violent, exploitative individuals will seek power positions in a party or may seek to create their own parties, not to engage in revolutionary activity but to provide a cover for their abuse. Aside from criticizing pseudo-Maoist cults, it would also be wise to watch out for and ruthlessly root such people out of larger, legitimate movements.

[Invader Zim]

...Mao Zedong Thought? The man is obviously barking to engage in such a contradiction in terms. 'Mao Zedong Thought' is like 'Military Intelligence' or 'business ethics'.

[Rafiq]

Aside from criticizing pseudo-Maoist cults, it would also be wise to watch out for and ruthlessly root such people out of larger, legitimate movements.

When a Black panther engaged in some kind of abuse, his picture was put in their newspaper with a caption like "enemy of the people".

Even Eldridge Cleaver was given a lot of shit because of his previous life as a rapist, which was several years before he was "reformed" in prison.