Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998, page 25
engaged in by rank-and-file members (e.g., having a reasonable standard of living, enjoying
time off, using the organization‟s funds for personal purposes) are tolerated when they
apply to leaders.
5. Leader figures, alive or dead, are deified. In the first place, this adulation tends to center
on Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, or other significant historical figures. It also increasingly
transfers to existing leaders, who represent themselves as defending the historical
continuity of the “great” ideas of Marxist leaders. In effect, the new leaders are depicted, in
their unbending devotion to the founders‟ ideals, as the reincarnation of Marx, Trotsky, or
whomever. There is a tendency to settle arguments by referring constantly to the sayings of
the wise leaders (past or present), rather than by developing an independent analysis. Even
banal observations are usually buttressed by the use of supporting quotations from
sanctified sources.
6. There is an intense level of activism, preventing outside interests. Social life and
personal “friendships” revolve exclusively around the group, although such friendships are
conditional on the maintenance of uncritical enthusiasm for the party line. Members acquire
a specialized vocabulary (e.g., they call each other “comrade”), which reinforces a sense of
distance and difference from those outside their ranks. The group becomes central to the
personal identity of members, who find it more and more difficult, if not impossible, to
imagine a life outside their organization.
A number of features of extreme left-wing political organizations are now considered,
particularly as they apply to the CWI, with a view to identifying the most salient features of
its guiding ideology and organizational practice, and assessing the extent to which they
match the criteria suggested above.
The Concept of a Vanguard Party and Its Effect on Conformity
A central tenet of Trotskyist politics is its insistence that a “vanguard party” is required to
guide the working class to power. This is conceived as an organization of professional
revolutionaries, steeped in Marxist ideology, tightly organized, and determined to win the
leadership of the working class. The idea was most forcefully advanced by Lenin at the turn
of the century (Cliff, 1975 Deutscher, 1954), and justified by reference to the particular
needs of a revolutionary movement operating under an autocratic regime (Volkogonov,
1994). As Milliband (1977) has pointed out, this was a departure (Leninists would describe
it as an extension) from the original ideas of Marx, who was much more inclined to argue
that the task of liberating the working class was the task of the working class itself.
Ironically, Trotsky himself initially resisted Lenin‟s views (Poole, 1995). He argued that a
vanguard party would inevitably seek to substitute its own activity and insights for the
activity of the working class. “The party organization (the caucus) at first substitutes itself
for the party as a whole then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization
and finally a single „dictator‟ substitutes himself for the Central Committee” (cited in
Deutscher, 1954, p.90).
However, during 1917, Trotsky finally accepted the Bolshevik model of organization and
defended it with increasing insistence until his assassination in 1940 (Deutscher, 1963
Trotsky, 1975). In the last year of his life, he wrote that “in order to realize the
revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralized party is indispensable” (Trotsky, 1973, p.
141).
From the perspective of this discussion, a number of important consequences follow. First,
the notion of a vanguard party inherently predisposes its adherents to view themselves as
the pivot on which world history is destined to turn. Revolution is seen as the only route by
which humanity can avoid annihilation, but revolution is only possible if a mass party is built
around a group of “cadres” --that is, devotees of the party with a particularly deep insight
engaged in by rank-and-file members (e.g., having a reasonable standard of living, enjoying
time off, using the organization‟s funds for personal purposes) are tolerated when they
apply to leaders.
5. Leader figures, alive or dead, are deified. In the first place, this adulation tends to center
on Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, or other significant historical figures. It also increasingly
transfers to existing leaders, who represent themselves as defending the historical
continuity of the “great” ideas of Marxist leaders. In effect, the new leaders are depicted, in
their unbending devotion to the founders‟ ideals, as the reincarnation of Marx, Trotsky, or
whomever. There is a tendency to settle arguments by referring constantly to the sayings of
the wise leaders (past or present), rather than by developing an independent analysis. Even
banal observations are usually buttressed by the use of supporting quotations from
sanctified sources.
6. There is an intense level of activism, preventing outside interests. Social life and
personal “friendships” revolve exclusively around the group, although such friendships are
conditional on the maintenance of uncritical enthusiasm for the party line. Members acquire
a specialized vocabulary (e.g., they call each other “comrade”), which reinforces a sense of
distance and difference from those outside their ranks. The group becomes central to the
personal identity of members, who find it more and more difficult, if not impossible, to
imagine a life outside their organization.
A number of features of extreme left-wing political organizations are now considered,
particularly as they apply to the CWI, with a view to identifying the most salient features of
its guiding ideology and organizational practice, and assessing the extent to which they
match the criteria suggested above.
The Concept of a Vanguard Party and Its Effect on Conformity
A central tenet of Trotskyist politics is its insistence that a “vanguard party” is required to
guide the working class to power. This is conceived as an organization of professional
revolutionaries, steeped in Marxist ideology, tightly organized, and determined to win the
leadership of the working class. The idea was most forcefully advanced by Lenin at the turn
of the century (Cliff, 1975 Deutscher, 1954), and justified by reference to the particular
needs of a revolutionary movement operating under an autocratic regime (Volkogonov,
1994). As Milliband (1977) has pointed out, this was a departure (Leninists would describe
it as an extension) from the original ideas of Marx, who was much more inclined to argue
that the task of liberating the working class was the task of the working class itself.
Ironically, Trotsky himself initially resisted Lenin‟s views (Poole, 1995). He argued that a
vanguard party would inevitably seek to substitute its own activity and insights for the
activity of the working class. “The party organization (the caucus) at first substitutes itself
for the party as a whole then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization
and finally a single „dictator‟ substitutes himself for the Central Committee” (cited in
Deutscher, 1954, p.90).
However, during 1917, Trotsky finally accepted the Bolshevik model of organization and
defended it with increasing insistence until his assassination in 1940 (Deutscher, 1963
Trotsky, 1975). In the last year of his life, he wrote that “in order to realize the
revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralized party is indispensable” (Trotsky, 1973, p.
141).
From the perspective of this discussion, a number of important consequences follow. First,
the notion of a vanguard party inherently predisposes its adherents to view themselves as
the pivot on which world history is destined to turn. Revolution is seen as the only route by
which humanity can avoid annihilation, but revolution is only possible if a mass party is built
around a group of “cadres” --that is, devotees of the party with a particularly deep insight
