“I've found that other organizations have similar problems whatever the subject
matter. People split off into other groups when their particular problems
aren't addressed.”
That is of course quite true. But what holds the sect together, is not the same
as other types of organizations. Typically the sect requires mostly
unquestioning allegiance to a basic doctrine.
The point of honour of the sect is not what it has in common with its purported
constituency, but the criteria it has that distinguish it from its
constituency. There's got to be insiders and outsiders. If the sect wasn't
different from its constituency, there would be no need for anybody to join the
sect. And if it did not differentiate itself continuously, the sects identity
and existence would be drawn in question. Hence, the sectarian typically does
not really see organization as a tool to achieve a purpose, but as an end in
itself.
The aim of the sect is not just to organize people in line with the correct
idea, but to organize people “on the basis” of the correct idea, and this
requires a conversion to a systematic and usually Manichean ideology. Also, if
the sect did not differentiate itself from its constituency in a systematic
pattern, then it could just join its purported constituency; but the whole
point is, that the sect's idea is different and unique, that is what justifies
its existence. The existing relations of its constituency are not accepted as
they are, that's the point. That non-acceptance is the basis for the sect’s
formation.
Building a viable new political movement is by all accounts a difficult
process, that usually takes decades (short of some massive political upheaval
that very quickly polarizes political opinions). The evidence suggests that it
cannot be done on the basis of demanding allegiance to a readymade doctrine
(such as Marxism), since that would only result in a sect that could attract
only a small number of people. Instead it has to be done on the basis of
articulate shared values, and an articulate shared experience of supporters,
arrived at through a constant living political dialogue and reevaluation, and
with the aim of creating leaders, not followers.
However, sectarians don’t offer any genuine dialogue, it’s usually only
monologues asserting the beliefs of the sect (with the hope of attracting
followers). The point of departure of sectarians is basically “idealist”, it
exaggerates the power of ideas. Idealism in this specific sense has its source
in the development of ideas in abstraction from practical experience, and
removed from an adequate disciplining of mental schemes by practical
experience. This leads to continual overestimation and underestimation,
exaggerated expectations and unjustified disappointments, and often a
superpoliticisation (every trivial thing seems to have a political
significance). Because the sect maintains its beliefs regardless of experience,
it is hardly able to learn anything new from new experience. It simply
assimilates new experience to the categories and concepts of the readymade
doctrine, by means of some or other analogy.
The biggest problem of the Marxist-Leninist groups (of all stripes) is that, to
this very day, the experience of the Soviet Union and similar societies remains
an intellectual and political enigma. If Marxists cannot even agree whether and
when these social experiments were “capitalist” or “socialist” or something
else, and if they cannot even agree what exactly were the successes and
failures of these experiments, how then can anything useful be learnt from
these experiences, and more importantly, how can they offer any kind of real
political orientation today?
If you seek to build a movement on the basis of the glorious Russian revolution
(or another glorious revolution) you are only asking for trouble and, most
likely, defeat. By contrast, a successful political movement bases itself on
truths and values in the here and now which nobody can deny, at least not if
they are in their right mind. It picks fights it really has a chance of
winning, rather than fighting to assert its ideology regardless of outcome.
There are certainly plenty Marxists who, faced by the difficulty of persuading
or converting any large number of ordinary people to their political idea, look
for a short-cut solution: “regrouping” the Left. Their aim is to unite groups
with very similar political beliefs in one big organization. It sounds very
laudable, lofty and worthwhile, not to say “unsectarian.” There is certainly
something beautiful about the acknowledgement and the wish, that we are all
part of “one big political family”.
But in reality the regroupments are rarely successful. Why?
The first main reason is that since the different groups are usually already
more or less sectarian in their separate constitution, the problems of
sectarianism only proliferate, so that the new formation sooner or later
disintegrates again, or at least suffers big losses.
The second main reason, which is really more important, is that there is no
genuine understanding of what all these people (could) have in common anyway,
what their basic motivations are, and how radicalization and activism processes
actually occur. The reason why the separate groups emerged separately is,
because in the details they have quite different motivations for doing what
they do, and the formality of a political unification can rarely cancel that
out. They attracted quite different personalities for whom they made sense.
Sooner or later the old differences reassert themselves again, in some or other
form.
The baseline things which are required for any successful and growing
organization are no particular secret by now. There is a lot of research and
experimentation available on that. But the regroupment initiatives frequently
fail, simply because the initiators do not even heed the most elementary human
requirements that can make it succeed. They have a ton of ideological
constructions, but only an ounce of profound human insight. In that sense, John
Lennon famously quipped “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t
gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”
J.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
