cult
Apr 23 2006 19:43
Quote:
There is no point in arguing politics with groups like the ICC because they are cult like
Which organisation is not a ‘cult’? What is a cult? What is wrong with cults?
All organisations have certain features common to them all: inclusion/exclusion of members, proper/improper behaviours, an account of itself (which nobody else shares), an account of the world (which nobody else shares), the attempt to exert a defined discipline within its borders, the attempt to export/expand itself as far as possible, for an organisation to persist it must raise capital, it also must exercise ownership of its objects.
These aspects are common to all structures from religious sects to corporations. But I have given an a-historic account, I suppose then it is appropriate to also consider differences between organisations, for example, why the ICC is not a cult.
What strikes me most about this ICC dirty laundry is how events amongst say, a couple of dozen individuals, is remembered twenty five years later. Organisations/cults are therefore defined by the ownership, and persistence, of memory. Stalin invented the card index as capital.
pilpil
Apr 23 2006 20:01
#2
What group?
Apr 23 2006 20:44
#3
Here's a defintion of a cult:
CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian
leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming
from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be
the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full
Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform
or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their
members.
It is from this website:
Apr 23 2006 21:02
#4
The Revolutionary Communist Party is the height of cultish behavior in modern leftist politics. The openly espouse that they want people to form a cult of personality around their leader, Bob Avakian. I was listening to one of their members on the Ru Sirius Show a few weeks back, and he sounded like an automaton spitting out Avakian quotes.
Cults would be fine if our leaders were infallible, but they aren't. In the RCP, opposition to Avakian's position can result in ejectionf rom the Party. Indeed, Avakian has even gone so far as to defend Stalin and Mao, and the RCP has supported him in that.
Cult-like organizations not only hurt the movement internally my crushing freethought, but they also give us a bad image and conjure up memories of folks like Stalin.
The Zapatistas have had one the best strategies for stopping a cult of personality of forming around their leaders, as Subcommandante Marcos conceals his identity.
Apr 23 2006 21:16
#5
Fucking great piece on cults + socialism:
http://libcom.org/library/jonestown-brinton
About the Jonestown mass "suicide for socialism" in Guyana. Fucked up stuff...
Apr 23 2006 21:26
#6
Say anyone ever read "man in revolt" by Albert Camus? It argues that revolutionary politics served as an atheistic substitute for religion after religion became outed as a corrupt and unscientific practice. This kinda shit sorta shows how revolutionary politics can become a sort of substitute for religion.
Oh and we can’t forget my old favorite article on militant tendency.
Apr 24 2006 00:33
#7
Catch 22 wrote:
Say anyone ever read "man in revolt" by Albert Camus? It argues that revolutionary politics served as an atheistic substitute for religion after religion became outed as a corrupt and unscientific practice. This kinda shit sorta shows how revolutionary politics can become a sort of substitute for religion.
In left wing circles atheism is de rigeur - I agree with the point, it seems that how atheists deal with their atheism often comes out in their political fascinations.
I'm not religious, but im no atheist either (i humbly admit i cannot possibly know what deeper truth can be told of the universe and beyond) and speaking from personal experience i feel that i am far less inclined to consider myself a member of any political movement as a result, despite deep sympathies. Its hard to know what the connection is exactly, but atheism perhaps gives human agency more credit than it deserves - I see humans as infinitely fallable, and political dogmas always limited.
I also think that I am more tolerant of those of opposite political persuasions, united as we are by our humanity (even those who dont seem to show any) - atheists are far more concrete about who is good and who is bad - perhaps this is why "the left" is so prone to infighting?
--Another issue arising from this is, to what extent does "the left" in its broadest terms, need a leader? - The greatest libertarian revolutions always involved strong leadership: Ghandi and the reluctant Martin Luther King are two obvious examples.
I think that there is a real lack of leadership at the moment, and a lack of rallying around common and agreed objectives. The atheist left may have cultish tendencies, but they are also very sceptical of leaders, and are quick to knock down anyone who "rises to the top".
Apr 24 2006 00:45
#8
kiwi hirsuta wrote:
The greatest libertarian revolutions always involved strong leadership: Ghandi and the reluctant Martin Luther King are two obvious examples.
just to pick you up on one pont (tho there are others) Ghandi was no way a libertarian revolutionary - he was a reactionary fuck, religious nationalist, colonialist aide (when not directly, indirectly) and totally ignored the issue class (which is why he was never in anyway revolutionary). He was also sexist, traditonalist and a romanticist and an Orientalist, oh and he supported hierarchal caste divisions.
Here's some more on the bastard:
http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/gandhi-national-liberation/index.php
Quote:
I think that there is a real lack of leadership at the moment, and a lack of rallying around common and agreed objectives. The atheist left may have cultish tendencies, but they are also very sceptical of leaders, and are quick to knock down anyone who "rises to the top".
Why would we need anyone to rise to the top? Thats the whole point of the libertarian left! Leadership comes from below, from the people involed, making descisions collectively.
Have you read many posts on this forum?
Apr 24 2006 00:55
#9
Ghandi wrote:
Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted fascism…True democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from below by the people…
Sounds pretty libertarian to me. But I disagree about the need for specific leaders. Free thought, debate and ideas should provide our guide. Millions of minds are better than one.
Apr 24 2006 01:00
#10
sam_frances wrote:
Ghandi wrote:
Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted fascism…True democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from below by the people…
Wheres that from? Yeah im not denying he came out with stuff like that. But his whole philosohpy was based on anti-industrlisation, anti-technology. He believed in a golden age of India in the past. He wanted a united Indian (Hindu) people based on some bizarre idea of a "common culture" which existed within all Indians, regardelss of class or caste oppression.
Apr 24 2006 01:03
#11
How about after the Chauri Chaura riot, when he called for those involved to turn themselves in; their families ought to if the individuals would not; and the Congress certainly would if the families would not!
Gandhi has the blood of revolutionaries on his hands.
Apr 24 2006 01:30
#12
I found it on the Znet quote archive. I am not sure of the original source. But to advacate an artisan economy, a form of worker self-management, is not unlibertarian, although it might not be all that sensible. I was under the impression that he was anti-caste, in that he ignored caste divisions in his interactions with others, but I may be wrong.
Apr 24 2006 01:33
#13
sam_frances wrote:
I found it on the Znet quote archive. I am not sure of the original source. But to advacate an artisan economy, a form of worker self-management, is not unlibertarian, although it might not be all that sensible.
i couldn't give a fuck if it was libertarian or not, it would be reactionary impossible bollocks.
this is what pisses me off with so much anarchism, it's completely unhistorical, the artisans existed within a particular epoch, their freedoms can not be decontextualised into some ideal.
Apr 24 2006 01:38
#14
sam_frances wrote:
But to advacate an artisan economy, a form of worker self-management, is not unlibertarian, although it might not be all that sensible.
I think advocating something is impossible and just a romanticasation of religious mythologies kinda makes the question of whether it was libertarian or not a secondary issue as it was totally removed from reality. In theory yes he may have belived in some 'good' stuff but so do loads of people who are arseholes.
It was simply other tool he used to create a "culturally unified" movement of people to try and achive his aims.
Quote:
I was under the impression that he was anti-caste, in that he ignored caste divisions in his interactions with others, but I may be wrong.
By ignoring caste divisions which concretely existed (not least because of the Orientlaist image of India he pushed) he legitamised them being there. If he was anti-caste he would tackle the issue head on not ignore.
Apr 24 2006 07:31
#15
kiwi hirsuta wrote:
- The greatest libertarian revolutions always involved strong leadership: Ghandi and the reluctant Martin Luther King are two obvious examples.
Neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King "led" revolutions, libertarian or otherwise.
Apr 24 2006 08:15
#16
Depends what you mean by ignoring. Remember, that higher caste people are not supposed to associate with those of a lower caste as equals, so if ignoring this means treating those of a lower caste as equals then it is an act against this.
Apr 24 2006 08:20
#17
PaulMarsh wrote:
kiwi hirsuta wrote:
- The greatest libertarian revolutions always involved strong leadership: Ghandi and the reluctant Martin Luther King are two obvious examples.Neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King "led" revolutions, libertarian or otherwise.
.... and as I always point out on threads mentioning Gandhi, his espousal of non-violence didn't extend as far as his personal relationships. The wife-beating fuck.
Apr 24 2006 09:54
#18
well, as always it is nice to see libcom'ers being trademarkly thorough thru and thru - when i mentioned Ghandi and MLK i had a sneaky fealing something like this would happen - I take on board all the points made - my point was broader and in relation to cults - Ghandi's and MLK's "cult of personality" were significant factors in these uprisings, and the extent to which they would have achieved what they did without those leaders is debatable, but I tend to think they were crucial.
If I remember rightly Weber has done much classic sociological analysis on this kind of thing - the role of the individual within political social movements and power struggles - he found that at times individuals had a huge influence, and applied his findings as a critique to Marxism and other forms of determinism (have I got that right?)
MLK is an interesting one, for as I understand it, he did not want to be the leader of the civil rights movement, but colleagues in the church begged him to become a figurehead, impressed as they were with his oratory skills. MLK after much pestering gave in, and lead from the front - he was crucial in confronting authority, and his elequence and personality won many battles without the need for violence.
I think charasmatic individuals are crucial in both bringing on board the majority of people and also in explaining often complex arguments and thereby creating rallying points of common interest.
-Just to recap though and maybe move the thread on, I think we have an atheist left with cultish tendencies and a phobia/distrust of leaders. This anti-leadership thinking is probably ideological, but I think it halts progress. modern politics especially is about politicians rather than politics itself.
Apr 24 2006 20:50
#19
Quote:
MLK is an interesting one, for as I understand it, he did not want to be the leader of the civil rights movement, but colleagues in the church begged him to become a figurehead, impressed as they were with his oratory skills. MLK after much pestering gave in, and lead from the front - he was crucial in confronting authority, and his elequence and personality won many battles without the need for violence.
MLK’s authority also destroyed the movement once he was taken out. The great danger of leadership is that no matter how “good” they are, said leaders are irreplaceable. All the state needs to do is assassinate one or two and the whole movement comes to a screeching halt. With MLK eliminated his followers deactivated, joined up forces with idiots like Jesse Jackson or fell in with the black nationalists. Had MLK not been killed, he could have completed a reapproachment with the radicals. Together there could have been a real synthesis of struggles, creating a united anti war, pro civil rights and anti capitalist front. But of course without their “leader” people panicked and the civil rights movement fragmented.
As for his non violence? Peh! A strict use of non-violence weakened his movement and made it vulnerable to collaboration with white politicians and the black capitalist class. A flexible use of both non-violence and forcible self-defense would probably have yielded better results.
Quote:
I think charasmatic individuals are crucial in both bringing on board the majority of people and also in explaining often complex arguments and thereby creating rallying points of common interest.
Yes and no, charisma and oratory skills are certainly useful in getting people on board, but that doesn’t necessarily confer leadership. Spokesmen are spokesmen, they don’t have to control anything.
Quote:
-Just to recap though and maybe move the thread on, I think we have an atheist left with cultish tendencies and a phobia/distrust of leaders.
Yes and no. I think most of the left isn’t atheistic, as it is agnostic and anti clerical. We don’t really care about the next life, because we’ve got too much to worry about right now. My problem resides in a bunch of old men in funny clothing telling people what is “good” and “evil”. Those assholes have got to go.
The problem of cultistism tends to reside in more of the authoritarian left. Here leadership and a reliance on authority fills the old void that religion once occupied. Religion isn’t so much about faith in a higher power, as it is giving someone a sense of purpose, a community to take part in, and an overarching dogmatism that answers all. The authoritarian left meets all of these criteria. Cadre leaders are the holy priests, the party program is the holy scripture, and revolution the holy purpose.
anti leadership? That only resides in the libertarian left, every other stripe of leftism fetishizes leaders and leadership.
Apr 25 2006 14:36
#20
Catch 22 wrote:
Had MLK not been killed, he could have completed a reapproachment with the radicals. Together there could have been a real synthesis of struggles, creating a united anti war, pro civil rights and anti capitalist front. But of course without their “leader” people panicked and the civil rights movement fragmented.
You make many good points, and I go along with them all - however Im not sure how sucessful the civil rights movement would have been without MLK - yes, it was a weakness in some ways, but it was also a great strength in others. I guess you could say strong leaders and a mixed blessing.
However, lets look at the current anti-war movement - so much momentum existed and its not unfsair to say, was lost. A strong charsmatic leader would have been, IMO, very useful at that time, and would have been better able to focus the energy and anger that existed - I think a focus on "Blair Out!" for example would have been succesfull.
Instead what we had was a ragtag bunch of suspects - no problem with that, but it would have been better IMO with one figure up front.
Quote:
anti leadership? That only resides in the libertarian left, every other stripe of leftism fetishizes leaders and leadership.
...hmmm, maybe - not sure - I guess the bigger the organsiation the more important to have a strong leader. Smaller groups are better able to act democratically it would seem to me.
Apr 25 2006 14:50
#21
The Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade wrote:
The Empire is shakin', follow Bob Avakian!
Apr 25 2006 18:58
#22
the button wrote:
and as I always point out on threads mentioning Gandhi, his espousal of non-violence didn't extend as far as his personal relationships. The wife-beating fuck.
It didn't stop him from helping recruit for the British in WW1 either. And the only thing that stopped him in WW2 was the fact the British bourgeoisie wouldn't meet his demands for Indian independence.
As for the question of "leaders", Marxism has always defended the self-activity of the working class. It is not a question of fetishising leadership or being anti-leadership. It's about the working class collectively pushing forward its struggle and making use of every resource available to it - the other side of the coin is militants offering their talents and abilities to the movement. Now, obviously people differ in their abilities - I have no talent speaking at meetings, but I can help sell political papers and that's how I support the ICC, the organisation I sympathise with. Some comrades have exceptional theoretical or speaking abilities and put those at the service of the class in the appropriate arena. The talents of specific comrades may encourage others to regard their contributions with a particular respect - but ultimately, the only "authority" that communists respect is grasp of the marxist method and the will to defend it.
Finally, regarding the "Blair Out" slogan suggested above, this is exactly the method employed by leftists. It serves to distract from the real cause of the war in Iraq and elsewhere - the capitalist system! In a very real sense then, the leftists of the Stop The War coalition are the modern heirs of Ghandi and MLK, in that they offer false solutions (black nationalism, national independence) for a capitalism in terminal crisis and work to prevent the only true threat to the bourgeois order: the independent struggle of the international working class.
Apr 25 2006 19:21
#23
Phew, that's that one solved then.
Apr 25 2006 19:38
#24
MikeSchafer wrote:
Indeed, Avakian has even gone so far as to defend Stalin and Mao, and the RCP has supported him in that.
That's funny!!! The RCP has always been openly Maoist/Stalinist, which does not seem to deter a layer of US Anarchists from being drawn to them like flies to shit. "Its right to rebel" always went along on posters with "Mao more than ever".
chris
Apr 25 2006 21:22
#25
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Finally, regarding the "Blair Out" slogan suggested above, this is exactly the method employed by leftists. It serves to distract from the real cause of the war in Iraq and elsewhere - the capitalist system! In a very real sense then, the leftists of the Stop The War coalition are the modern heirs of Ghandi and MLK, in that they offer false solutions (black nationalism, national independence) for a capitalism in terminal crisis and work to prevent the only true threat to the bourgeois order: the independent struggle of the international working class.
Thats fair enough - I agree to a certain extent, and to suggest that the only point of having an anti-war movement is in order to unseat the PM is clearly limited - but I think you are missing something here.
Here we have a democracy - we elect our public officials - they go to war - 2million people protest peacefully (incidentally if it was a riot things may have been different), the largest protest in British history - they are ignored.
This fundamentally undermines democracy - none of the elected officials have stood down from their posts over what I consider war crimes, but lets call them terrible errors of judgement leading to the loss of life - the only one given the boot was some sadsack BBC journalist.
I presume from your post that strong leadership from STW could have brought down TB - lets say it could have. The effect of this would not have been trivial - it would have given protestors (aka the public) a sense of power and also landed a moral victory...this momentum can be kept up for other revolutionary goals as people see fit.
There was so much momentum there that has fizzled out, leadership would have better directed - and a victory creates further momentum, and then another and then another - people convert and start to believe in their own political power - but this must be channeled.
Instead what happend was a dissing of the public and a sense of pointlessness in protest and political action inflicted on many.
HAving said all that, and for the record, I believe in the primacy of bottom-up power struggles, but I still think that key figures help things along no end - so long as they are ultimately disposble mind, and not put on plinths and seen as the embodiement of this or that, just as elequent representatives of the people dem.
Apr 26 2006 01:06
#26
The World Can't Wait wrote:
The World Can't Wait! Drive Out The Bush Regime!
Is that what you support then? Cause they will sell you the exact same argument - and it's a hard sell. In an area like the one I'm in, where it's quite a struggle just to militate in something not dominated by the RCP or WWP, it was really tempting. Then I remembered that
The RCP wrote:
The Choice of the Future is Between Bush and Bob Avakian.
Apr 26 2006 01:55
#27
Quote:
You make many good points, and I go along with them all - however Im not sure how sucessful the civil rights movement would have been without MLK - yes, it was a weakness in some ways, but it was also a great strength in others. I guess you could say strong leaders and a mixed blessing.
Yes but did MLK have to lead he movement? While his influence was useful, it lost the war for the sake of a few battles. Without a genuine dialogue amongst the black population, the movement stagnated without a figurative “general on a horse” to give the masses guidance.
While MLK may have been a good civil rights leader he was also deeply flawed. Much like Cesar chavez, MLK forced out substantive discussion if it didn’t fit neatly inside the nonviolent/Christian paradigm. As I see, we would have all been better off if the man kept at the bully pulpit and stayed out of movement politics.
Quote:
However, lets look at the current anti-war movement - so much momentum existed and its not unfsair to say, was lost. A strong charismatic leader would have been, IMO, very useful at that time, and would have been better able to focus the energy and anger that existed - I think a focus on "Blair Out!" for example would have been successful.
We had a similar situation here in the US. The movement deactivated in order to accommodate the liberals. But no leader would have fixed that, as liberals dominated the movement anyway. Had the movement gained some grand leader he or she would tow the most inclusionary, moderate mishmashy line possible. Unless the anti war movement suddenly shed itself of its liberal majority, it wouldn’t have mattered who’s was in charge, they’d all do the same thing.
Apr 26 2006 01:58
#28
OliverTwister wrote:
The World Can't Wait wrote:
The World Can't Wait! Drive Out The Bush Regime!Is that what you support then? Cause they will sell you the exact same argument - and it's a hard sell. In an area like the one I'm in, where it's quite a struggle just to militate in something not dominated by the RCP or WWP, it was really tempting. Then I remembered that
The RCP wrote:
The Choice of the Future is Between Bush and Bob Avakian.
Gah I can't stand the RCP, bunch of fucking whack jobs. Anyone ever read this interview? Absolutely hilarious. You can tell she’s not just enamoured with Chairman Spongebob’s rhetoric. She wants something else too.
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/9119/index.php
Apr 26 2006 02:13
#29
Someone pointed out to me that from the outside/fringe, it seems like they're just promoting a cute girl who is not gifted with many theoretical/speaking skills...
Apr 26 2006 02:27
#30
OliverTwister wrote:
Someone pointed out to me that from the outside/fringe, it seems like they're just promoting a cute girl who is not gifted with many theoretical/speaking skills...
1. She doesn't look too cute
2. You're right about the oratory skills. She's horrid.
I would call many leftist groups 'cult-like' (not cults). This is to do with how they treat their members, how they expect their members to act, often paternalistic attitudes for example. Also its to do with how they present themselves to others. That is to say the impression others get of them because of their behaviour/writing.
You cant pin down a definition, but you can establish a shared understanding in specific situations of what it might mean in reference to specific groups.
Take group XXX, its a small group which also acts a primary social network for the people involved. It is made up of two layers of people - those older with "experience" (also aligned to another group which is only made up of older people with "experience"), and those who are younger and really have no idea what is going on. In group XXX the way the older group of people exert their influence over the younger group of people is quite worrying when looked at from the outside (the group). They are highly domaneering, patronising, ignore what they say when it comes to what they do, maniuplative and totally disconnected from a common-denominator reality (i know you'll like that bit so i threw it in just for you
).
Thats based on personal experience.