Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 7
It is my opinion, then, that the excessive faith and endless toil required of Marxist
revolutionaries, coupled with the institutionalization of democratic centralism as a structural
base, create fertile ground for cultic phenomena to take hold. This combination can and most
often does breed the ultra-authoritarianism of an unchallenged leader and the concomitant
total submission of the individual to that leader’s decisions and desires.
In the WDU this process was especially enhanced by the leader’s undisputed interpretation
and instruction of communist cadre training, by the growing glorification of her leadership
abilities (both theoretical and organizational), and by the confining atmosphere of total
immersion into cadre life. Members’ unfailing devotion to their political ideals, their
unalterable faith in their leader, and their binding commitment to one another as comrades in
the struggle, all served to exacerbate the effects of this dynamic. The outcome was a
powerful combination of a sophisticated and relentless indoctrination and a profound and
binding individual and collective belief. What emerged was an extremely closed environment
with little or no critical thinking on the part of the members and an increasing separation from
the rest of the activist and intellectual Left, and from the “outside” in general. There resulted
a world with its own rules and regulations, its own ethical and moral standards, its own
language and belief system.
Historical Backdrop
In the 1960s much political and social activism was in response to “a profound crisis in values
defined by unprecedented affluence on the one hand and potential thermonuclear holocaust
on the other” (West &Singer, 1980, p. 3247). Such was the dilemma facing the youth (and
some adults) of that era. Eventually, “many fled to form colonies, [or] communes. Others
turned to the apparent security of paternalistic religious and secular cults” (p. 3247). Both the
spirit of hopefulness (“love power”) of the hippie counter-culture and the spirit of rebellion
(“people power”) of the activist New Left waned with the deaths of role models such as John
F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy, with the student deaths
at Kent State, and with the shock of the Water-gate episode. Disillusionment, despair, and
disgust with the so-called American Dream were commonly felt emotions among an entire
generation of once idealistic youth.
Thus, in the early to mid-1970s, politically active North Americans found themselves in a
“post” period. The heyday of the hippie movement, the antiwar movement, the Civil Rights
movement, the New Left, and the women’s movement had all passed. For those who wished
to hold onto a leftist vision, particularly in urban centers such as New York, Chicago, Seattle,
Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, there arose a flurry of activity, self-defined as anti-
imperialist, socialist feminist, nationalist, or radical Marxist. This activity took place primarily
in the form of reading, study groups, and forums to discuss and debate what type of political
work would best serve to bring about social change. Much of this discussion centered on the
study of classical Marxist-Leninist texts, along with what had now become the highly regarded
work of Mao Tse-tung. In addition, people were learning more about Third World liberation
movements --in Cuba, Angola, Vietnam, Korea, Mozambique, Eritrea, to name the most
popular. More than anything else, perhaps, knowledge of these movements made a profound
impact on this generation of leftists. What greater proof of the correctness of their thinking
and the direction they were heading than seeing, for example, the tiny country of Vietnam
win against the strongest of world powers? The “little man” could win! --with the right beliefs
and an unswerving commitment to the struggle. This gave renewed fervor to the wavering
faith of some left-wing idealists.
Yet, for many, there were bitter memories of recent participation in the New Left, the antiwar
movement, or the women’s movement. Countless activists came away from those
experiences with the notion that within the Left in the U.S. there was a lack of honest and
accountable leadership and a lack of organizational structure and theoretical development
It is my opinion, then, that the excessive faith and endless toil required of Marxist
revolutionaries, coupled with the institutionalization of democratic centralism as a structural
base, create fertile ground for cultic phenomena to take hold. This combination can and most
often does breed the ultra-authoritarianism of an unchallenged leader and the concomitant
total submission of the individual to that leader’s decisions and desires.
In the WDU this process was especially enhanced by the leader’s undisputed interpretation
and instruction of communist cadre training, by the growing glorification of her leadership
abilities (both theoretical and organizational), and by the confining atmosphere of total
immersion into cadre life. Members’ unfailing devotion to their political ideals, their
unalterable faith in their leader, and their binding commitment to one another as comrades in
the struggle, all served to exacerbate the effects of this dynamic. The outcome was a
powerful combination of a sophisticated and relentless indoctrination and a profound and
binding individual and collective belief. What emerged was an extremely closed environment
with little or no critical thinking on the part of the members and an increasing separation from
the rest of the activist and intellectual Left, and from the “outside” in general. There resulted
a world with its own rules and regulations, its own ethical and moral standards, its own
language and belief system.
Historical Backdrop
In the 1960s much political and social activism was in response to “a profound crisis in values
defined by unprecedented affluence on the one hand and potential thermonuclear holocaust
on the other” (West &Singer, 1980, p. 3247). Such was the dilemma facing the youth (and
some adults) of that era. Eventually, “many fled to form colonies, [or] communes. Others
turned to the apparent security of paternalistic religious and secular cults” (p. 3247). Both the
spirit of hopefulness (“love power”) of the hippie counter-culture and the spirit of rebellion
(“people power”) of the activist New Left waned with the deaths of role models such as John
F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy, with the student deaths
at Kent State, and with the shock of the Water-gate episode. Disillusionment, despair, and
disgust with the so-called American Dream were commonly felt emotions among an entire
generation of once idealistic youth.
Thus, in the early to mid-1970s, politically active North Americans found themselves in a
“post” period. The heyday of the hippie movement, the antiwar movement, the Civil Rights
movement, the New Left, and the women’s movement had all passed. For those who wished
to hold onto a leftist vision, particularly in urban centers such as New York, Chicago, Seattle,
Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, there arose a flurry of activity, self-defined as anti-
imperialist, socialist feminist, nationalist, or radical Marxist. This activity took place primarily
in the form of reading, study groups, and forums to discuss and debate what type of political
work would best serve to bring about social change. Much of this discussion centered on the
study of classical Marxist-Leninist texts, along with what had now become the highly regarded
work of Mao Tse-tung. In addition, people were learning more about Third World liberation
movements --in Cuba, Angola, Vietnam, Korea, Mozambique, Eritrea, to name the most
popular. More than anything else, perhaps, knowledge of these movements made a profound
impact on this generation of leftists. What greater proof of the correctness of their thinking
and the direction they were heading than seeing, for example, the tiny country of Vietnam
win against the strongest of world powers? The “little man” could win! --with the right beliefs
and an unswerving commitment to the struggle. This gave renewed fervor to the wavering
faith of some left-wing idealists.
Yet, for many, there were bitter memories of recent participation in the New Left, the antiwar
movement, or the women’s movement. Countless activists came away from those
experiences with the notion that within the Left in the U.S. there was a lack of honest and
accountable leadership and a lack of organizational structure and theoretical development
