Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998, page 27
Given what is now known of social influence, this approach is almost certainly destined to
prevent genuine internal discussion. First, it is not at all clear when “full freedom to criticize”
can actually be said to disturb the unity of a defined action. The norms of democratic
centralism confer all power between conferences onto a central committee, allowing it to
become the arbiter of when a dissident viewpoint is in danger of creating such a
disturbance, normally presumed to be lethal. The evidence suggests that they are strongly
minded to view any dissent as precisely such a disruption, and respond by demanding that
dissidents cease their action on pain of expulsion from the party. It should be borne in mind
that the leadership of Trotskyist groupings views itself as the infallible interpreter of sacred
texts which are seen as essential for the success of world revolution, which in turn is seen
as vital if the world is to be saved from complete barbarism. This “all-or-nothing” approach
to political analysis reinforces the tendency to view dissent as something which
automatically imperils the future of the planet, and a justification (perhaps unconscious) of
whatever measures are required to restore the illusion of unanimity. The following
quotation, from a document written by some members expelled in 1992, suggests that such
unanimity was endemic to the CWI method of working:
The immense authority of the leadership created an enormous degree of trust....
In reality, the leadership of this tendency enjoyed more than trust. It had
virtually a blank check (even in the most literal sense of the word) to do what it
liked, without any real check or control. No leadership, no matter how honest or
politically correct, should have that amount of “trust.”... We built a politically
homogeneous tendency. Up to the recent period there did not appear to be any
serious political disagreements. In fact, there have been disagreements on all
kinds of political and organizational matters, but these were never allowed to
reach even the level of the CC (Central Committee) or IEC (International
Executive Committee). Nothing was permitted to indicate the slightest
disagreement in the leadership.... There was uniformity, which at times came
dangerously close to conformism.... The tendency became unused to genuine
discussion and debate. To be frank, many comrades (including “leading
comrades”) simply stopped thinking. It was sufficient just to accept the line of
the leadership.... We have a situation where the leadership enjoys such trust
that it amounts to a blank check where there is uniformity of ideas, in which all
dissent is automatically presented as disloyalty where the leadership is allowed
to function with virtually no checks or accountability, under conditions of
complete secrecy from the rank-and-file.”
The document just quoted, independent testimony from journalists and other observers,
and my own interviews and conversations with ex-members, all support the view that
intense fear of real debate and discussion was a defining characteristic of the CWI. All
resolutions at party conferences would either come from the leadership or be completely
supportive of its position. If branches or members submitted resolutions which were
insufficiently enthusiastic about the general line, CWI leaders exerted enormous pressure
for the resolutions to be withdrawn. They invariably were. The leading role in the elimination
of dissent appears to have been played by the CWI‟s General Secretary, determined to
inherit the mantle of Lenin and Trotsky in modern-day Britain. The “Oppositionist” document
quoted in the above paragraph recounts on this issue that
to cross the General Secretary would result in a tantrum or some kind of
outburst. Comrades became fearful of initiative without the sanctions of the
General Secretary. Incredibly, even the opening of a window during an EC
(Executive Committee) meeting would not go ahead without a nod from him!
Under these conditions, the idea of “collective leadership” is a nonsense.... The
Given what is now known of social influence, this approach is almost certainly destined to
prevent genuine internal discussion. First, it is not at all clear when “full freedom to criticize”
can actually be said to disturb the unity of a defined action. The norms of democratic
centralism confer all power between conferences onto a central committee, allowing it to
become the arbiter of when a dissident viewpoint is in danger of creating such a
disturbance, normally presumed to be lethal. The evidence suggests that they are strongly
minded to view any dissent as precisely such a disruption, and respond by demanding that
dissidents cease their action on pain of expulsion from the party. It should be borne in mind
that the leadership of Trotskyist groupings views itself as the infallible interpreter of sacred
texts which are seen as essential for the success of world revolution, which in turn is seen
as vital if the world is to be saved from complete barbarism. This “all-or-nothing” approach
to political analysis reinforces the tendency to view dissent as something which
automatically imperils the future of the planet, and a justification (perhaps unconscious) of
whatever measures are required to restore the illusion of unanimity. The following
quotation, from a document written by some members expelled in 1992, suggests that such
unanimity was endemic to the CWI method of working:
The immense authority of the leadership created an enormous degree of trust....
In reality, the leadership of this tendency enjoyed more than trust. It had
virtually a blank check (even in the most literal sense of the word) to do what it
liked, without any real check or control. No leadership, no matter how honest or
politically correct, should have that amount of “trust.”... We built a politically
homogeneous tendency. Up to the recent period there did not appear to be any
serious political disagreements. In fact, there have been disagreements on all
kinds of political and organizational matters, but these were never allowed to
reach even the level of the CC (Central Committee) or IEC (International
Executive Committee). Nothing was permitted to indicate the slightest
disagreement in the leadership.... There was uniformity, which at times came
dangerously close to conformism.... The tendency became unused to genuine
discussion and debate. To be frank, many comrades (including “leading
comrades”) simply stopped thinking. It was sufficient just to accept the line of
the leadership.... We have a situation where the leadership enjoys such trust
that it amounts to a blank check where there is uniformity of ideas, in which all
dissent is automatically presented as disloyalty where the leadership is allowed
to function with virtually no checks or accountability, under conditions of
complete secrecy from the rank-and-file.”
The document just quoted, independent testimony from journalists and other observers,
and my own interviews and conversations with ex-members, all support the view that
intense fear of real debate and discussion was a defining characteristic of the CWI. All
resolutions at party conferences would either come from the leadership or be completely
supportive of its position. If branches or members submitted resolutions which were
insufficiently enthusiastic about the general line, CWI leaders exerted enormous pressure
for the resolutions to be withdrawn. They invariably were. The leading role in the elimination
of dissent appears to have been played by the CWI‟s General Secretary, determined to
inherit the mantle of Lenin and Trotsky in modern-day Britain. The “Oppositionist” document
quoted in the above paragraph recounts on this issue that
to cross the General Secretary would result in a tantrum or some kind of
outburst. Comrades became fearful of initiative without the sanctions of the
General Secretary. Incredibly, even the opening of a window during an EC
(Executive Committee) meeting would not go ahead without a nod from him!
Under these conditions, the idea of “collective leadership” is a nonsense.... The
