Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998, page 28
EC as a whole --which is supposed to be a subcommittee of the CC --is out of
control. In 99% of cases the CC is simply a rubber stamp for the EC.
The picture that emerges is of elected bodies usurping the normal democratic rights of
members and becoming increasingly removed from formal controls. It was reported in early
1992 that more than two years had elapsed between party conferences, during which time
the leadership was effectively removed from all practical accountability to the membership
for its actions. It also appears that power continued to flow upwards to the General
Secretary and the full-time staff, which the General Secretary had ample scope to mold in
his image. The Oppositionist document quoted above recounts:
No decisions of any significance are taken without the full knowledge and
consent of the General Secretary, and that the great majority of them are taken,
either on his initiative, or at least with his active participation.... The full-timers
tend to order and bully the comrades, instead of convincing them. They rely
upon the political authority of the leadership handed down from the past, in
order to get their way. If you do not accept the targets handed down by the full-
timer, you are “not a good comrade,” you are “conservative,” and so on.
Second, Cialdini (1993) reviews a variety of studies that show that when people take a
public position in defense of a proposition, there is then a strong tendency for their private
attitudes to shift so that they harmonize with their public behaviors. In short, if people tell
others that they support X (for whatever reason), their belief system will begin to agree that
indeed they do support X. The more public such declarations have been, the more likely it is
that such a shift will take place. This will then contribute to future public activities in line
with a now firmly held belief. Such findings suggest that if, in the name of democratic
centralism, party members publicly uphold the party line, it becomes increasingly difficult to
hold a private belief at variance with attitudes publicly expressed. The evidence suggests
that it is not possible to have a group of people presenting a conformist image to society at
large while maintaining an inner party regime characterized by frank and full discussion.
Conformity in public tends to equal conformity in private.
The Gospel of Catastrophism
It has been widely noted that apocalyptic images pervade the ideology of cultic groups.
Cultic religious groupings routinely predict the end of the world (Richie, 1991). Some cultic
psychotherapy groups also claim that unless their methods of producing rationality are
widely adopted, global catastrophe is assured (e.g., Jackins, 1990). What some writers have
termed “catastrophism” (Callaghan, 1984, 1987) pervades the ideology of Trotskyist
groupings (e.g., Cannon, 1969). A leading Trotskyist theorist expressed this position thus:
Monopoly capitalism ...considerably limits the development of the forces of
production.... Crises become longer and more frequent, from the beginning of
the twentieth century. Monopoly capitalism becomes more and more a fetter on
the development of the productive forces. Henceforward its parasitic character
explodes in the world‟s face in a new epoch of history, filled with convulsions:
the age of capitalist decline, the age of war, revolutions and counter-revolutions.
(Mandel, 1962, p. 437)
This mode of analysis is the norm rather than the exception in Trotskyist circles. A 1981
CWI document, written by a leader with a penchant for death analogies, anticipates the
closing decades of this century in the following terms:
On a world scale capitalist economies not only find themselves in a crisis, they
find themselves ensnared in an epoch of crisis, stagnation and decline ...short-
lived half-hearted booms, followed by downturn and recession in an ever
tightening cycle --these are the characteristics of the new period of general
EC as a whole --which is supposed to be a subcommittee of the CC --is out of
control. In 99% of cases the CC is simply a rubber stamp for the EC.
The picture that emerges is of elected bodies usurping the normal democratic rights of
members and becoming increasingly removed from formal controls. It was reported in early
1992 that more than two years had elapsed between party conferences, during which time
the leadership was effectively removed from all practical accountability to the membership
for its actions. It also appears that power continued to flow upwards to the General
Secretary and the full-time staff, which the General Secretary had ample scope to mold in
his image. The Oppositionist document quoted above recounts:
No decisions of any significance are taken without the full knowledge and
consent of the General Secretary, and that the great majority of them are taken,
either on his initiative, or at least with his active participation.... The full-timers
tend to order and bully the comrades, instead of convincing them. They rely
upon the political authority of the leadership handed down from the past, in
order to get their way. If you do not accept the targets handed down by the full-
timer, you are “not a good comrade,” you are “conservative,” and so on.
Second, Cialdini (1993) reviews a variety of studies that show that when people take a
public position in defense of a proposition, there is then a strong tendency for their private
attitudes to shift so that they harmonize with their public behaviors. In short, if people tell
others that they support X (for whatever reason), their belief system will begin to agree that
indeed they do support X. The more public such declarations have been, the more likely it is
that such a shift will take place. This will then contribute to future public activities in line
with a now firmly held belief. Such findings suggest that if, in the name of democratic
centralism, party members publicly uphold the party line, it becomes increasingly difficult to
hold a private belief at variance with attitudes publicly expressed. The evidence suggests
that it is not possible to have a group of people presenting a conformist image to society at
large while maintaining an inner party regime characterized by frank and full discussion.
Conformity in public tends to equal conformity in private.
The Gospel of Catastrophism
It has been widely noted that apocalyptic images pervade the ideology of cultic groups.
Cultic religious groupings routinely predict the end of the world (Richie, 1991). Some cultic
psychotherapy groups also claim that unless their methods of producing rationality are
widely adopted, global catastrophe is assured (e.g., Jackins, 1990). What some writers have
termed “catastrophism” (Callaghan, 1984, 1987) pervades the ideology of Trotskyist
groupings (e.g., Cannon, 1969). A leading Trotskyist theorist expressed this position thus:
Monopoly capitalism ...considerably limits the development of the forces of
production.... Crises become longer and more frequent, from the beginning of
the twentieth century. Monopoly capitalism becomes more and more a fetter on
the development of the productive forces. Henceforward its parasitic character
explodes in the world‟s face in a new epoch of history, filled with convulsions:
the age of capitalist decline, the age of war, revolutions and counter-revolutions.
(Mandel, 1962, p. 437)
This mode of analysis is the norm rather than the exception in Trotskyist circles. A 1981
CWI document, written by a leader with a penchant for death analogies, anticipates the
closing decades of this century in the following terms:
On a world scale capitalist economies not only find themselves in a crisis, they
find themselves ensnared in an epoch of crisis, stagnation and decline ...short-
lived half-hearted booms, followed by downturn and recession in an ever
tightening cycle --these are the characteristics of the new period of general
