Many Marxists now agree that the revolutionary left’s protracted crisis is rooted in its failure to escape the “sect” form. As Hal Draper has explained, revolutionary sects are defined less by size than by their mode of organisation: a top-down culture, a haughty and exclusivist attitude towards others on the left, and a puritanical fixation on a “perfect” programme enforced by an intransigent leadership. Such groups prioritise their own growth over the needs of the wider movement and, because their unity rests on rigid doctrinal agreement, have a tendency to repeatedly split over relatively minor theoretical differences. This sect form has become the norm among Marxist organisations, leaving revolutionaries scattered across many small, largely irrelevant groups.
Revolutionary sects have also long been accused of being cult-like. When I was part of Trotskyist groups myself, I laughed off these accusations as hyperbolic and anti-Marxist. However, several demoralising splits later, I began to take the idea more seriously. Reading the psychological and sociological literature on cultic groups has helped me not only explain my own behaviour but also shed light on the sect phenomenon more broadly.
In this series of articles, I will draw on sociological and psychological research to argue that revolutionary sects can be understood as a form of cultic group. This is not to suggest that the causes of the sect phenomenon are purely psychological. Comrades are rightly wary of the crude psychologising often found in academia, individualising systemic issues for ideological purposes. Yet, although Marxists frequently talk about the “subjective factor” in historical processes, in my experience, there is an aversion to examining the subjective contribution to sectarianism. I contend that this psychological dimension is an under-appreciated component of the processes driving sectarianism. Understanding how these psychological dynamics interact with historical material conditions, and our particular organisational histories, can help us develop a more holistic analysis of the sect phenomena. It is this psychological component of the problem I hope comrades to take seriously as we work together to find a way forward in developing healthier democratic cultures within the revolutionary left.
In this first article, I will argue that revolutionary sects can be understood as forms of “High Control Group” (HCGs), an academic umbrella concept (explained below) for organisations that display cultic features to varying degrees. Based largely on the work of cult expert Jania Lalich, I will examine High Control Groups’ three core features: the ‘charismatic leader’, ‘transcendental belief system’, and ‘systems of control’. I will draw comparisons with classical cults and religious sects to evidence their similarity in structure and culture to contemporary Trotskyist groups.
Later pieces will explore the sociological conditions and psychological processes that reinforce high-control dynamics, showing how they appear within revolutionary organisations, and suggest ways new revolutionary groups might limit these tendencies. My focus will be on Trotskyist groups in the UK, as this is my own experience and knowledge base, but as I will make clear, these patterns are common across all traditions within the revolutionary left, as well as many notorious, standalone cultic Marxist groups.
What is a ‘Cult’? An intro to High Control Groups
Definitions of cults are contested by activists and academics in the field, partly due to the sheer variety of different groups displaying similar characteristics. The term ‘cult’ is often not favoured due to its vagueness and stigmatising history. In the academic literature, ‘New Religious Movement’ (NRM) is often chosen over ‘cult’ to describe the new forms of spiritual groups which sprung up in the 19th and 20th centuries. Sociologist Bryan Wilson even draws a distinction between religious ‘sects’ and religious ‘cults. Sects, such as the Latter Day Saint Movement (Mormons), are isolated breakaway groups from mainstream religions often based around a charismatic leader with differences over interpretation of religious doctrine.
Other scholars and anti-cult organisations use the term ‘High Control’ or ‘High Demand’ Group as a broader term to describe any organisation which has features of cultic groups, whether in the field of religion, politics, or business. I prefer to use the term High-Control Group (HCG) because it highlights the central feature of these organisations, control, while also recognising they exist on a continuum. HCG traits can vary in degree, and this is certainly true of Marxist sects. A common mistake on the left has been to treat the most extreme examples as exceptional, assuming that these differences mean our own groups do not share the same dynamic. I also agree with academic John Kelly, whose deep study of Trotskyism led him to describe the movement as part religious sect (or HCG in the terminology I’ll be using), part political party, and part social movement. These latter components are features that both alleviate the worst excesses of the HCG and offer potential answers for creating a healthier organisation.
The Charismatic Leader
HCGs are commonly based around a central figure—the “Charismatic Leader.” This individual defines the organisation’s core ideas, identity, and day-to-day leadership. They possess an ability to inspire others to their cause, usually with exceptional communication skills, narcissistic personality traits, and high levels of superficial empathy, which help galvanise devotion in members.
A classic example of a charismatic leader is the notorious Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple Church. As outlined by Amada Montell in the book ‘Cultish’, Jones was known for his incredible oratory ability and capacity to shift his style of communication. He often opportunistically moved between religious and political rhetoric in order to manipulate members. However, HCGs can lose their reliance on a single leader, particularly after their death, but the remaining leadership group will usually claim its legitimacy through its connection to that individual. In any case, power is always highly centralised around the leader or leading group.
Examples within Trotskyism
Some of the similarities with Trotskyism here are quite striking. Each of the leading Trotskyist organisations in Britain has been based around a strong central figure: Gerry Healy of the Workers Revolutionary Party, Ted Grant of the Militant Tendency and later Socialist Appeal, Tony Cliff of the Socialist Workers Party, and later Peter Taaffe of the Committee for a Workers International & Socialist Party. Even smaller organisations such as the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and Workers Socialist League have also been based around a single figure.
Subsequently, one trait these organisations all share is the almost comical length of tenure for general secretaries. In most cases, for several decades until they are close to death. This indicates both personal arrogance and a lack of democratic process within the organisation. The pattern also suggests new leaders representing new ideas are held back, something that should be impossible in a truly democratic organisation.
Authority Through Ability vs. Emotional Control
While leaders in the Trotskyist movement base their authority on their abilities and ideas, in more extreme HCGs, loyalty is gained more through forms of emotional manipulation. Consequently, classical cult leaders usually create a devotion that is qualitatively different from that seen in Trotskyist groups, with greater levels of control over members’ lives and higher levels of abuse. Heaven’s Gate, another notorious suicide HCG, had two leaders, Bonnie Nettles and Marshall Applewhite, who commanded incredible devotion in members via their absolute belief in their messianic mission.
“I knew I was linked to them in a way that I couldn’t explain. It was such an intense experience… After the second meeting, I went outside and cried for joy.”
Another former member said,
“I just felt drawn to them. You could feel the goodness.”
(Quote from Heaven’s Gate members in Janja Lalich’s ‘Bounded Choice’)
Although some have argued that this authoritarianism runs on a spectrum even within Trotskyism. Gerry Healy was particularly tyrannical as abuse was rife in the WRP, and he inspired a more extreme devotion from members.
Charismatic Authority as a Social Relationship
However, regardless of the particular characteristics of the leader themselves, ‘charismatic authority’, as Janja Lalich puts it, is a particular type of social relationship between membership and leadership: ultimately, it is the way the membership idealises the leader, adorning them with almost magical qualities, that defines the unhealthy HCG form of authority.
My experience of the 2019 CWI split was typical of this culture. Peter Taaffe, clearly a highly talented organiser and leader, was also terribly grandiose. He had previously been reported to have made less than humble remarks, such as “the future of the British Revolution rests on my shoulders”, and his behaviour was even worse during the dispute. The devotion from the membership was also clear, as speaking badly of Taaffe, such as suggesting a 78-year-old man might not be best placed to lead an organization of world revolution, was seen as sacrilege. Ex-members of many groups, such as the WRP, SWP, and IMT, have reported a similar internal culture of deference to their leadership.
The Transcendental Belief System and Doctrine
In HCGs, the magical qualities given to leaders rest on an all-encompassing and all-explaining belief system that offers members a route to ‘salvation.’ Janja Lalich established the importance of the ‘transcendental belief system’ in cults by looking at commonalities across HCGs, including the ‘Democratic Workers Party,’ a Maoist-Feminist HCG she was a leading member of.
“It is ‘transcendent’ because it offers a total explanation of past, present, and future, including a path to salvation. Most importantly, the leader/group also specifies the exact methodology (or recipe) for the personal transformation necessary to qualify one to travel on that path.”
(Janja Lalich ‘Bounded Choice’).
The leadership and group alone, therefore, have the special insights and methodology which can lead to salvation. ‘Salvation’ for Lalich can be either political or personal in nature. We see this demonstrated in the quote below, taken from a political perspectives document of the Trotskyist 4th International and is typical of Trotskyist groups.
“The only organization on the left with a clear understanding of the situation in which the working class now finds itself with clear proposals as to how the movement can go forward.”
United Secretariat of the Fourth International – 4th International Perspectives 1973
This idea of a perfect ‘salvation’ is incredibly dangerous due to the “the ends always justify the means” mentality it breeds. This is essential to members justifying the abusive forms of behaviour common in HCGs.
Specialness of the Group & Doctrinal Thinking
Adherents to the group are made to feel unique due to their insights via the transcendental method. Members of the Unification Church or ‘Moonies’ were regularly reminded of their special mission in the world and profound insights bestowed via their leader, Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
“God has anointed me to fulfil His will on earth. I have been sent to complete the task of salvation and to establish His kingdom. As True Parents, my wife and I stand in the position to restore all things.”
Reverend Sun Myung Moon, leader of ‘the Moonies
In religious sects, this transcendental belief system is encoded in a set of doctrines. Splits occur in sects over differences of interpretation of the core doctrine and a perceived lack of “purity” in the old organisation, usually as they enter into more mainstream society.
Again, we see interesting similarities with sectarian attitudes common in Trotskyism. The ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky are put on a pedestal, with the core issues facing revolutionaries argued to have been largely already worked out by these thinkers. This is why we see a great deal of debate in the Trotskyist movement focused on interpreting key texts in support of arguments, rather than more open debate and systematic study of empirical evidence. Debates within the movement are therefore marked by accusations of other organisations or internal factions having deviated from real Marxism. This “real Marxism” is presumed to be something that only their organisation and leadership truly understand.
“The ideas, methods, and traditions of Trotsky and the left opposition… you can only find these in our tendency, Socialist Appeal… we have kept the banner flying… and we were the only ones left to do so.”
Ted Grant, Socialist Appeal
Deviation from purity is therefore a major driving force in the obsessive hatred that Trotskyist groups have for each other. This is particularly pronounced during the process of splits. As opposed to seeing the differences of opinion as being a natural part of analysing an incredibly complex world, disagreements over tactics or theory become personalised assaults on others’ integrity. One group flies the flag for true Marxism (defending the pure ‘transcendental’ method and their special role) while the others are traitors to this cause. During the CWI split of 2019, I was stunned to hear one leading member of the Socialist Party accuse another, unironically, of “not being a true disciple of Trotsky”. Defence of purity is about defending the specialness of the particular leadership and membership in their historical mission based on the transcendental method.
Bad Perspectives
Another sign of doctrinal thinking is the unhealthy use of political perspective documents, as seen in the quote from the 4th International. Rather than serving as the basis for discussion with the membership to help set a course for action, perspective documents are utilised to display to the membership the all-seeing power of the Marxist method. John Kelly’s study of Trotskyism has quite humorously documented how every Trotskyist group has perspective documents proclaiming that it was their predictions alone which have been borne out by events.
“Since it was published, we have not received a single article which challenges the main lines of this book…this allows us to conclude that our analysis is vindicated.”
Peter Taaffe, in Marxism in Today’s World
This isn’t to say that all political differences are thrashed out via doctrinal interpretation—this was certainly not my experience of the CWI or International Socialist Alternative (ISA)—but that this is a clear, unhealthy feature of debates that limits original thinking and is largely about justifying the authority of the leadership.
The fanaticism in the ‘transcendental belief system’ is, however, more moderated in Trotskyist groups than in more extreme HCGs. Jania Lalich has theorised a psychological process known as ‘Bounded Choice’ to explain how ordinary people become ensnared in a self-reinforcing entrapment so deep it can lead members to feel they have no choice in escaping, leading to events such as mass suicides.
Nevertheless, this doctrinal mentality still prevails enough to curtail creative thinking. Tactics from other organisations or ideas from different intellectual disciplines are usually dismissed. We see this in the pattern of reading material encouraged in Trotskyist groups, which focuses almost entirely on Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and Engels, with each group promoting their own leaders’ work as the only worthy addition. This control over ideas and information is another central feature of HCGs.
Mechanisms of Control
In order to maintain control of members and defend Doctrine, HCGs use a number of formal and informal control mechanisms. Steve Hassan, therapist and anti-cult activist, has coined the BITE (Behaviour, Information, Thought, and Emotions) model to describe the different areas HCGs control. For example, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), an HCG which was the focus of a recent Netflix documentary, had incredibly strict rules typical of many HCGs. These dictated dress code, working life, marriage, financial contributions to the group, and sexual favours with the leadership, including underage girls. Deviations from these rules could result in punishments such as public shaming, forced labour, and ultimately excommunication. These types of rules are typical of the already mentioned groups, such as the People’s Temple or Heaven’s Gate.
This is where we see more divergence between Trotskyism and more extreme HCGs. There are reports of certain groups, such as the AWL and WRP, having rules over members’ requirements to attend meetings and paper sales, with some formal punishments handed out; these are not consistently found across the groups and certainly were not my experience. Although it’s difficult to say without comprehensive data, levels of abuse in more extreme HCGs appear to be higher, with Janja Lalich estimating that up to 40% of female survivors she has worked with have been sexually assaulted.
Informal Control Mechanisms
Where we do see more similarities is with more ‘informal’ soft controls. For example, this can be seen in how HCG leaders keep certain information from the majority of the membership. The ability to have access to all information about the group is both a mechanism for firming up members’ support and for generating feelings of ‘specialness’ for individuals within the organisational hierarchy. Informational control also involves shunning ideas from other organisations and forbidding interaction with ex-members and with other groups. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Elders (the leadership body) are taught to stop members from having independent thoughts by discouraging other reading material and interactions with ex-members named “apostates.”
As a Trotskyist apostate myself, I see some clear comparisons. Internal debate and discussions were met with fear in the CWI, and later in the ISA, as disagreements between leading members and different international sections were largely hidden from the membership. Members were even discouraged from discussing ideas over social media within different international sections. When debate was taken to local branches as requested, often a culture of “not in front of the new people” was used to discourage open disagreement as something that would confuse new members. These same excuses were used not to publish the internal debate on organizational website, displaying a patronising attitude toward members of the public.
The Importance of Language
The use of language is also important in HCGs. Special ‘in-group’ language is created, which new members must learn to be accepted. This ‘in-group’ language is common to many subcultures and groups that are not HCGs; the difference is that in HCGs, language is used to control thinking and demonise outsiders. For example, in many Trotskyist groups, current members are called ‘comrades’; while former members are called ‘ex-comrades,’ and are often not spoken about once they have left. This is typical of HCGs, and ironically defeats the purpose of the term “comrade”, a word promoted to create solidarity across the whole labour movement rather than designate a member of one ‘special’ group within it.
Another softer form of control is the use of Robert Lifton’s “thought-terminating cliché”. This is an ‘in-group’ word or phrase which superficially deals with questioning of doctrine but instead functions to stifle independent thinking. These phrases can become a type of self-disciplining mechanism as ‘in-group’ language is internalised. Trotskyism has many of these phrases, such as naming independent ideas as “petit bourgeois” (middle class) or claiming others’ thinking to be ‘un-dialectical’, both of which could be true, but are frequently used superficially, and primarily to simply shut down debate.
A good example of how this operates comes from the Canadian section of the SWP. In 1976, they successfully ousted a layer of their leadership for their misogynistic and sexually inappropriate culture. One member describes how the visiting SWP British section leadership blamed ‘petit bourgeois’ tendencies within the organisation, rather than exploring deeper-seated sexism in the wider organisation, something we saw tragically play out with the Comrade Delta incident in the same organisation a few decades later.
Behavioural Control
Expectations and pressure over behaviours are also commonplace in HCGs. Many groups expect members to work tirelessly for the “higher cause” of the transcendental belief system. Within Trotskyist groups, this is seen in the pressure to devote a huge amount of time and money to the organisation. In my experience, the more you are committed, the more respect you gain, while wanting more time for other interests or external friends is less rewarded. This type of control is subtle but very powerful, as the combination of members’ deep commitment to changing society with the desire for respect from other members, particularly the leadership, pushes many to centre their entire lives around the organisation. Commitment is, of course, a healthy necessity of any successful organisation; however, emotional burnout and high turnover of members are rife across all Trotskyist groups, in part due to these unhealthy informal behavioural control traits.
Concluding remarks
Marxist ideas offer us a powerful tool in analysing society and developing political struggle against capitalism. Many of the traits described in this article, such as dedication, self-belief, and a strong sense of collective identity, are natural positive bulwarks that any countercultural group looking to change society must foster. However, we must remember that the tasks faced by revolutionaries are incredibly emotionally challenging. Under the extreme material and social pressures that revolutionary groups face, these same positive traits – if uncritically promoted – can warp an organisation into a cult-like sectarian form.
This is why we see such clear parallels between Trotskyist groups and other HCGs. How precisely we categorise these similarities is open to debate. Trotskyism has been argued to be a less extreme form of the HCG, in which the various traits of HCGs are present, but at the lower end of the possible spectrum. Alternatively, there is John Kelly’s argument that Trotskyist groups are a discrete form of “cult-like” organisation with their own unique combination of characteristics: namely, that they are also able to act like political parties and build mass campaigns. That either of these characterisations of Trotskyist groups has any serious merit at all should be alarming to anyone on the revolutionary left. It is central that our movement truly faces up to this problem. We must recognise that there are deep-seated issues in all our organisations which represent the antithesis of our movement’s democratic ideals and political goals.
The tendency to treat Marxism as a transcendent all-seeing belief system that only a select few, embodied in an “elite” leadership, can really understand, is a harmful trait which we share with religious sects, cults, and other HCGs. The idea that only a specific group carries through this “real” understanding of Marxism is the nub of sectarianism. Having acknowledged that there are indeed problematic and dangerous tendencies towards cultism in revolutionary organisations, next we must ask how and why these tendencies have emerged and grown prevalent, and how we can build cultures and political practices in our movement to resist them. I will turn to this in future articles in this series, and invite others to contribute their ideas, reflections and criticisms too.
