sectarianism - what is it?

[peaccenicked]

http://www.isf.org.uk/ISFJournal/eJournal/...ectarianism.htm (http://www.isf.org.uk/ISFJournal/eJournal/TheCharacteristicsOfSectarianism.htm)

[peaccenicked]

This is really a repost

[redstar2000]

Some of the points in this piece are just common sense...any group, no matter what it's professed ideas, that celebrates a "great leader" or operates under "military discipline" is clearly to be avoided.

Past this, however, how would one characterize a small group that criticizes the larger movement? Or is public criticism of the larger movement not to be permitted under any circumstances?

Imagine, for example, that we are in Brazil. Is it "sectarian" to denounce Lula for sucking up to the IMF? Would it have been "sectarian" to predict that Lula would do exactly that, before the elections?

What is "the larger movement" if not a collection of smaller movements, jockeying for position and influence? And how exactly do these smaller currents differ from outright "sects"...except perhaps in political coherence?

I'm not convinced that sectarianism is really a "danger"...because they seem to self-destruct with regularity. In a revolutionary period, they can be a nuisance or an occasional distraction, but as a rule they are simply swept aside by the masses. In reactionary periods (like the one in the U.S. right now), they "loom large" simply because there is no general movement to compare them to.

It's always a shame to lose a good comrade to a sect, but we should simply warn him/her of what they will encounter...and then await their own good sense to do its work. They are unlikely to remain; only the leader and his most ardent disciples stay in the sect over their political lifetimes.

Also, we do have a thirst for political coherence...it makes us feel "on top of things" and can even give the illusion of "controlling events". It is a very difficult temptation to resist...especially since there are occasions when coherence should be welcomed.

:cool:

[peaccenicked]

''Past this, however, how would one characterize a small group that criticizes the larger movement? Or is public criticism of the larger movement not to be permitted under any circumstances?''

I dont think the problem lies with the ability of a sect to criticise the larger movement. We can learn from the sects to some degree, however, they claim explicitly or implicitly that they have monopoly on the truth and as such as stand outside the interests of the whole.
One of the problems with a sect is that it can have hegomonic control of immediate revolts of the mass movement.
At a meeting of the SSP for instance Tommy Sheridan of
the Scottish Socialist Party said while Socialists morally opposed the war, that its outbreak would be good for the party. The strategy of the SSP has been to concentrate on civil disobedience when the war starts, thus killing the momentum of the campaign to stop the war.
One cannot help but feel that these huge events are merely seen cynically as recruitment opportunities. It is not that sects are on the sidelines but are at the heart of the movement.
This it should be seen as a deadly enemy to be identified and combatted.
Political coherence is the goal of the movement. It is simply clarity that comes through non sectarian political dialogue.

[redstar2000]

Well, peaccenicked, I'm a long way from Scotland and I sort of have to take your word for the situation there...it really is a stretch for me to believe that the SSP could interfere in a serious way with the anti-war movement there.

Still, were I in your position, I would hardly bother with a generalized indictment of sectarianism; I would attack them straightforwardly as being wrong. Even in their own narrow terms, stopping an imperialist war before it begins is a greater victory than stopping one after it begins.

But I agree with you about the pretenses of sects...they really think they "know it all" when the evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise. One could ask them why they should ever need to perform the ritual of self-criticism...is it because they only thought they knew it all before and now they really do know it all? :cheesy:

:cool:

[peaccenicked]

Redstar.
The SSP are at the centre the Coalition for Justice not war. There are other sects involved too. Such as the CPB,the SLP and sadly enough CND seems to have gone that way too. They seem more interested in their own agenda for direct action at nuclear bases than building a mass movement in the cities and towns capable of storming the Scottish Parliament, in Edinbrugh. We really have to be very serious about stopping this war.
Standing on the sidelines criticising is so damned frustrating.:smile:
I would like to hear what it is like in your town.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:39 pm on Mar. 12, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Actually, peaccenicked, the city I live in is too small to support the existence of sects.

But I was actually a member of a Leninist party for six years (long ago, of course) and I have a lot of first-hand experience with how they function.

I can see how they sometimes "look impressive" and even "dangerous". Yet, it seems to me that they inevitably trip over their own arrogance...sooner or later they behave so outrageously that "the general movement" simply abandons them. We have a whole collection of them in the U.S. and, in some areas, they have remarkable influence. But they always manage to piss it away.

When this happens or is about to happen, they will start moaning and groaning about "anti-communism"...as if refusal to follow their dictates constitutes anti-communism...as if they were the only real communists!

I guess what I'm really getting at is that one should never allow oneself to be intimidated by the pretensions of the sects...revolution is not a branch of theology and there is no direct transmission of spiritual authority down the ages to the current great leader wannabe.

If they have a good idea, support it. If they have a bad idea, attack it. If they start strutting and puffing themselves up as the annointed successors to Marx and Engels, laugh in their faces!

From what I can see, they are all fossils. Political rebellion today seems to be moving away from formal parties altogether...there is much more initiative from "below", from informal groupings who unite on specific practical objectives. This may mean that the "masses" are about to resume a significant political role in the class struggle. Should that happen, the sects will once more be reduced to their traditional significance...running like mad at the ass end of the parade.

:cool:

[peaccenicked]

thanks brother.