Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1997, page 92
problems. (Monty Python‟s Life of Brian springs to mind!) To adapt an old political joke from
Ireland, it would indeed appear that whenever members of a new Trotskyist grouping meet,
the first item on the agenda is “the split.” Wohlforth‟s book shows that despite their enmity,
these groups all subscribed to two central notions which ultimately condemned them to
shout in a common wilderness.
The first is the expectation of imminent economic catastrophe, which it is assumed will
result in a particular form of radicalization which only the Trotskyist groups can anticipate,
understand, and lead. Other writers have termed this “catastrophism,” and such views, in
one form or another, are common to many cultic groups. Clearly, an immediate
(convenient) effect is to create enormous commitment on the part of the members,
expressed in demonic levels of activity. Wohlforth describes this in terms that will be
familiar to anyone involved in cult-watching:
We followed up each successful campaign with a new and more ambitious one.
Comrades pushed harder, draining their bank accounts and their energies. We were
all so proud of our achievements. But each of us was burning fuel that could not be
replenished. Some- where way in the back of our minds we said to ourselves: “I
can do this just a little while longer. Just one more campaign. Soon our dream will
come true, very soon because I can‟t go on this way forever. This is for the
duration, but the duration cannot last too much longer.”
The second belief each competing group held in common was that a revolutionary party in
its own image was essential to create a new society. This fed illusions of indispensability and
infallible insight. Dissent was seen as imperilling the future of humanity, while dissenters
were little better than conscious agents of capitalism and imperialism. Wohlforth‟s book
brings this poisonous process vividly to life. A number of gurus strut across the pages, each
convinced that he possessed a uniquely powerful vision for society and that mass parties
capable of realizing this vision could be constructed-if only the disciples would turn over
their time, their money, and their minds to the guru, and, incidentally, work harder.
And yet the recurrent perspective of calamity followed by redemption through each group‟s
own triumph was constantly disappointed by events. How did they cope with this? One
major response was a denial that “the objective situation” was so unfavorable. Healy, in
particular, simply kept reiterating that catastrophe was imminent, or already happening.
This meant that the only explanation for failure was the personal inadequacy of the group
members (“the subjective factor”). The problem could never be the underlying ideology of
the group itself! As a result, there were intensive self-criticism sessions-a major device of
social control. Wohlforth gives many examples of this, particularly in the WRP. Healy
frequently reduced leading members to tears at central committee meetings, organized
gatherings of members during which some miscreant would be pilloried in turn by everyone
present, and, on occasion, resorted to physical force. The effect was that
comrades were kept inwardly turned, separated from each other, concentrating on
their own purported weaknesses and thus blind to those of the leadership. Those
comrades who could not adapt to Healy‟s methods found themselves forced out of
the party individually before they could organize an opposition. Should a comrade
wish to form an opposition, he would soon find out that he had already confessed
to sufficient “crimes” to give Healy the ammunition he needed to isolate the person.
One victim, in particular, was a woman who worked for many years as Healy‟s personal
assistant, while also servicing his sexual needs (in common, it later emerged, with scores of
others). At one point she suffered a spinal injury, when Healy smashed a chair over her
back. In at least one demonstration of justice, it was her decision to publicize such incidents
that led to Healy‟s downfall. She brought his conduct to the attention of party members,
Healy was expelled, and the organization exploded into competing fragments. It helped that
problems. (Monty Python‟s Life of Brian springs to mind!) To adapt an old political joke from
Ireland, it would indeed appear that whenever members of a new Trotskyist grouping meet,
the first item on the agenda is “the split.” Wohlforth‟s book shows that despite their enmity,
these groups all subscribed to two central notions which ultimately condemned them to
shout in a common wilderness.
The first is the expectation of imminent economic catastrophe, which it is assumed will
result in a particular form of radicalization which only the Trotskyist groups can anticipate,
understand, and lead. Other writers have termed this “catastrophism,” and such views, in
one form or another, are common to many cultic groups. Clearly, an immediate
(convenient) effect is to create enormous commitment on the part of the members,
expressed in demonic levels of activity. Wohlforth describes this in terms that will be
familiar to anyone involved in cult-watching:
We followed up each successful campaign with a new and more ambitious one.
Comrades pushed harder, draining their bank accounts and their energies. We were
all so proud of our achievements. But each of us was burning fuel that could not be
replenished. Some- where way in the back of our minds we said to ourselves: “I
can do this just a little while longer. Just one more campaign. Soon our dream will
come true, very soon because I can‟t go on this way forever. This is for the
duration, but the duration cannot last too much longer.”
The second belief each competing group held in common was that a revolutionary party in
its own image was essential to create a new society. This fed illusions of indispensability and
infallible insight. Dissent was seen as imperilling the future of humanity, while dissenters
were little better than conscious agents of capitalism and imperialism. Wohlforth‟s book
brings this poisonous process vividly to life. A number of gurus strut across the pages, each
convinced that he possessed a uniquely powerful vision for society and that mass parties
capable of realizing this vision could be constructed-if only the disciples would turn over
their time, their money, and their minds to the guru, and, incidentally, work harder.
And yet the recurrent perspective of calamity followed by redemption through each group‟s
own triumph was constantly disappointed by events. How did they cope with this? One
major response was a denial that “the objective situation” was so unfavorable. Healy, in
particular, simply kept reiterating that catastrophe was imminent, or already happening.
This meant that the only explanation for failure was the personal inadequacy of the group
members (“the subjective factor”). The problem could never be the underlying ideology of
the group itself! As a result, there were intensive self-criticism sessions-a major device of
social control. Wohlforth gives many examples of this, particularly in the WRP. Healy
frequently reduced leading members to tears at central committee meetings, organized
gatherings of members during which some miscreant would be pilloried in turn by everyone
present, and, on occasion, resorted to physical force. The effect was that
comrades were kept inwardly turned, separated from each other, concentrating on
their own purported weaknesses and thus blind to those of the leadership. Those
comrades who could not adapt to Healy‟s methods found themselves forced out of
the party individually before they could organize an opposition. Should a comrade
wish to form an opposition, he would soon find out that he had already confessed
to sufficient “crimes” to give Healy the ammunition he needed to isolate the person.
One victim, in particular, was a woman who worked for many years as Healy‟s personal
assistant, while also servicing his sexual needs (in common, it later emerged, with scores of
others). At one point she suffered a spinal injury, when Healy smashed a chair over her
back. In at least one demonstration of justice, it was her decision to publicize such incidents
that led to Healy‟s downfall. She brought his conduct to the attention of party members,
Healy was expelled, and the organization exploded into competing fragments. It helped that
