Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998, page 24
recruits was instituted, to “integrate” the newcomer into party life. This confirmed the new
recruit‟s perception that
submission to the organization was the ruling principle. There was intense
pressure to conform. Any group meeting was one obvious place where this came
into play and the tone was set. For example, the leadership would give a
presentation on a change in the direction of some work or would open up a
denunciation of a comrade for some error. Once the leadership finished, each
militant would be expected to say how much he or she agreed with the
presentation or the criticism. Ideally, each person was to say something different
from what had already been said but more to the point each person was
expected to agree with (“unite with”) whatever was going on. Questions, should
there be any, had to be couched within an overall agreement. After years of this
kind of participation, people were quite incapable of any kind of creative or
critical thinking, could only parrot each other, and had shrunken vocabularies
riddled with arcane internal phraseology. (Lalich, 1992, p. 47)
Underlying these practices were the cardinal assumptions that social, economic, and political
catastrophe lay on the immediate horizon, that a vanguard revolutionary party was
essential to lead the working class back from this abyss and toward the conquest of power,
and that the nucleus of such a party was at hand in the form of the DWP. This encouraged
illusions of correctness, unanimity, and total political prescience. As Lalich (1992) explains
it: “There was always a correct answer for everything. It was a black and white world, even
though at times black was white. Nevertheless, the party had the answer and the party was
always right” (p. 71).
These accounts, building on the definitions of cults discussed above, suggest that political
cults tend to be characterized by the presence of the following traits.
1. A rigid belief system. In the case of left-wing political cults, this suggests that all social,
natural, scientific, political, economic, historical, and philosophical issues can only be
analyzed correctly from within the group‟s theoretical paradigm--one which therefore claims
a privileged and all-embracing insight. The view that the group‟s belief system explains
everything eliminates the need for fresh or independent thought, precludes the possibility of
critically appraising past practice or acknowledging mistakes, and removes the need to seek
intellectual sustenance outside the group‟s own ideological fortress. All such thinking is
dismissed as contaminated by the impure ideology of bourgeois society.
2. The group’s beliefs are immune to falsification. No test can be devised or suggested
which might have the effect of inducing a reappraisal. The all-embracing quality of the
dominant ideology rules out reevaluation, since it implies both omniscience and infallibility.
Methods of analysis that set themselves more modest explanatory goals are viewed as
intrinsically inferior. Those who question any aspect of the group‟s analysis are branded as
deviationists bending to the “pressures of capitalism,” and are driven from the ranks as
heretics.
3. An authoritarian inner party regime is maintained. Decision making is concentrated in
elite hands and gradually dismantles or ignores all formal controls on its activities. Members
are excluded from participation in determining policy, calling leaders to account, or
expressing dissent. This is combined with persistent assurances about the essentially
democratic nature of the organization, and the existence of exemplary democratic controls -
-on paper.
4. There is a growing tendency toward the abuse of power. The leaders begin to act in
arbitrary ways, accrue personal power, perhaps engage in wealth accumulation from group
members or in the procurement of sexual favors. Activities that would provoke censure if
recruits was instituted, to “integrate” the newcomer into party life. This confirmed the new
recruit‟s perception that
submission to the organization was the ruling principle. There was intense
pressure to conform. Any group meeting was one obvious place where this came
into play and the tone was set. For example, the leadership would give a
presentation on a change in the direction of some work or would open up a
denunciation of a comrade for some error. Once the leadership finished, each
militant would be expected to say how much he or she agreed with the
presentation or the criticism. Ideally, each person was to say something different
from what had already been said but more to the point each person was
expected to agree with (“unite with”) whatever was going on. Questions, should
there be any, had to be couched within an overall agreement. After years of this
kind of participation, people were quite incapable of any kind of creative or
critical thinking, could only parrot each other, and had shrunken vocabularies
riddled with arcane internal phraseology. (Lalich, 1992, p. 47)
Underlying these practices were the cardinal assumptions that social, economic, and political
catastrophe lay on the immediate horizon, that a vanguard revolutionary party was
essential to lead the working class back from this abyss and toward the conquest of power,
and that the nucleus of such a party was at hand in the form of the DWP. This encouraged
illusions of correctness, unanimity, and total political prescience. As Lalich (1992) explains
it: “There was always a correct answer for everything. It was a black and white world, even
though at times black was white. Nevertheless, the party had the answer and the party was
always right” (p. 71).
These accounts, building on the definitions of cults discussed above, suggest that political
cults tend to be characterized by the presence of the following traits.
1. A rigid belief system. In the case of left-wing political cults, this suggests that all social,
natural, scientific, political, economic, historical, and philosophical issues can only be
analyzed correctly from within the group‟s theoretical paradigm--one which therefore claims
a privileged and all-embracing insight. The view that the group‟s belief system explains
everything eliminates the need for fresh or independent thought, precludes the possibility of
critically appraising past practice or acknowledging mistakes, and removes the need to seek
intellectual sustenance outside the group‟s own ideological fortress. All such thinking is
dismissed as contaminated by the impure ideology of bourgeois society.
2. The group’s beliefs are immune to falsification. No test can be devised or suggested
which might have the effect of inducing a reappraisal. The all-embracing quality of the
dominant ideology rules out reevaluation, since it implies both omniscience and infallibility.
Methods of analysis that set themselves more modest explanatory goals are viewed as
intrinsically inferior. Those who question any aspect of the group‟s analysis are branded as
deviationists bending to the “pressures of capitalism,” and are driven from the ranks as
heretics.
3. An authoritarian inner party regime is maintained. Decision making is concentrated in
elite hands and gradually dismantles or ignores all formal controls on its activities. Members
are excluded from participation in determining policy, calling leaders to account, or
expressing dissent. This is combined with persistent assurances about the essentially
democratic nature of the organization, and the existence of exemplary democratic controls -
-on paper.
4. There is a growing tendency toward the abuse of power. The leaders begin to act in
arbitrary ways, accrue personal power, perhaps engage in wealth accumulation from group
members or in the procurement of sexual favors. Activities that would provoke censure if
