There’s no gaslighter like a Trotskyist gaslighter. There is no liar like a Trotskyist liar. There is no bigot like a Trotskyist bigot. And all of that is being brought to light by this blog.
On my last post, I discussed the emotional trauma that results from being in, and breaking with, a political cult. I also talked about how ex-members need to accept the validity of their pain, in the face of attempts to delegitimise their suffering. Most attempts to denigrate the experiences of survivors are, predictably, made by those who are still in the cult. Anyone who leaves the camp of the righteous and returns to the real world will, sure enough, face accusations from cultists of acting in bad faith, being motivated by bitterness and resentment, and of lying and working for the evil bourgeoisie. This is only to be expected. It is possible that you will cave in, that you will start to internalise the cultish attacks and think that perhaps they are right. Perhaps you are a bad person. Perhaps you are distorting the facts. Maybe you are being too hard on your former comrades. Well, I should make it quite clear that I have come to see through such gaslighting behaviours, thanks to what I now know about cults, and what mental resilience I have been able to draw upon. And I think that if anything, I have not been hard enough on these loathsome organisations. It is probably because for a while I still thought of myself as sympathetic to their political goals. Moreover, my own involvement in the International Marxist Tendency/Socialist Appeal means that I still feel some personal bonds of affection with certain individuals I knew and liked, and so have been tempted to hold my fire. There is also my own conscience. What does it say about me if this organisation is as horrible as it seems to have been? It suggests that I am no better than the people in the cult. It suggests that I deserve all the vicious attacks that are now being made upon me for having taken the path of renegacy. Now and then, I still hear the voices of reproach in my head, condemning me for deserting the cause. A year on from leaving the cult, and I have learned to live with them, and to fight back against them. Here are some of the common, gaslighting attacks that have been made on me, or have been made against others, when they leave the fold.
Anger
I have been told on more than one occasion by members of the IMT that my break with the organisation owes more to my own anger than to rational reflection. That is to say, I have allowed my bitterness towards the organisation to cloud my judgement and lead me to make remarks I don’t really mean, or seek to slander the organisation out of a desire for vengeance.
Firstly, I think it is worth pointing out that any anger I feel towards the IMT is perfectly justified. It is a disgusting cult which corrupts the youth and robs them of some of the best years of their lives. It forces its recruits to fritter away valuable time, money and energy into a false cause which will not bring about the liberation promised, but the exact opposite. These pioneering fanatics, slaving away for a glorious future, must live in a penurious and oppressive present, all the time with the Central Committee hovering over the heads and scrutinising them for wrongthink. They are made to suppress their critical faculties, engage in mind-numbing activities such as paper-selling and giving rote ‘lead-offs’ putting forward the party line, are deprived of free time, are pressured to read from a narrow reading list, are subjected to psychological abuse, bullying and ostracism for disagreement and are slandered and demonised when they dare to question authority or, heaven forfend, leave. Shock, horror, in any human being whose emotions have not been numbed completely, this would lead to a burst of righteous anger. Why is it perfectly acceptable to feel anger at the injustices of capitalism, but not at the injustices and abuses suffered at the hands of far-left ideologues? This double standard has always existed on the far-left. One of the great ironies of the Marxist mindset is that they vacillate between emotionally condemning capitalism and criticising emotion as an obstacle to Marxist ‘science’, which is supposed to be a dispassionate study of the world’s ills. Often these ‘scientific’ judgements are really a projection of their hatred of capitalism onto the rather mundane reality, which leads them to see revolution and crisis everywhere, and preclude a more sober analysis.
This brings me to my second point, which is that, however angry I may be towards the IMT, this does not prevent me from making an intellectual analysis of the organisation – both its doctrine and its internal regime. Just as Marxists have been able to provide the world some useful nuggets of knowledge (despite the bigotry and fanaticism that comes with the ideology), so I am able to provide useful, objective analysis of the cult despite no longer being a member or sympathetic to Marxist politics. Indeed, ex-members of cults are far more reliable than those who are in the cult. They have less incentive to lie to protect the cult’s image. They have everything to gain in revealing the trauma that they have been through.
Class Traitor
Those who leave the fold are invariably referred to as ‘class traitors’, ‘renegades’, ‘working for the bourgeoisie’, and foul abuse of that kind. I have endeavoured to reclaim ‘renegade’ as a respectable title. Nothing gives me greater pride than knowing that I deserted a false and evil cause to uphold the banner of individualism, critical thinking and Western civilisation against its mortal enemies on the totalitarian, knuckle-dragging, millenarian far-left. By such people, I am proud to be called renegade, I am proud to be called reactionary. These Lilliputian Leninists believe themselves to be heroic class warriors, with good on their side. Anyone who is opposed to their false belief system must, in some way, be depraved or corrupt, particularly if they are ex-adherents. Often our criticisms will be dismissed as ‘bourgeois propaganda’, as if this is a substitute for serious argument and intellectual criticism. We are treated like the ones who have acted in bad faith, even though we were the ones who were victims of trickery and charlatanry. We were given a belief system which claimed to explain everything, even though pretty much all the cornerstones of its doctrine have been refuted. We were promised that our sect would one day lead the working-class and seize power, but that we had to work like donkeys to bring this about. Invariably, we found that no revolution was on the horizon, and so, our illusions pierced, took our leave from the ‘class struggle’. We were made to give up our entire lives for a false cause. We endured misery, tyranny and intellectual stultification. We had leaders who lied to us, withheld information from us, decided things behind the backs of the membership, rigged ‘perspectives’ documents to heighten our excitement and chiliastic fervour, and generally treated us like dirt. After all these sacrifices, and after so much arbitrary behaviour and abuse of power by those who claimed to be leading us into a brighter future, we are told that we are the ones who are the bad guys for speaking out. We are giving succour to the enemy apparently. Of course, if ‘the cause’ is so fragile as to fall apart because of the incisive criticisms of ex-adherents, then it was not much of a cause to begin with.
If Marxism produces so many disgruntled ex-adherents, there must be something wrong with Marxism. It cannot be that we are all paid by the bourgeoisie. We believed, sincerely and wholeheartedly, in the cause of Marxism, and the cause of Marxism let us down. It will often be said that those who leave were never ‘true’ Marxists in the first place, but this defines a ‘true’ Marxist as someone who never gives up the faith – a definition suitable to a religion, but not to a political ideology, unless Marxists are conceding that their ideology has religious undertones, in which case, Marxism can be described as a form of political religion. This definition means that anyone who leaves the fold can be a priori dismissed as having never really understood the doctrine in the first place. This applies to you whoever you are. Whether you are Leszek Kolakowski, once Poland’s leading Marxist philosopher-turned-renegade, or James Burnham, rising star of the Trotskyist movement-turned-deserter, your arguments can be dismissed automatically, regardless of how strong your intellectual credentials might be. The most incisive critics of communism were ex-Communists. How could it be otherwise? Those who once studied the ideology’s precepts with such fervour and dedication have the best knowledge of its strengths and weaknesses. Nietzsche says in Human All-Too Human that the deeper we look into a thing, the more likely we are to become disillusioned by it. There are few belief systems with which this has proved to be truer than Marxism. To decide in advance that anyone who comes to reject Marxism never really understood it is a sure-proof way of protecting your belief system from falsification, for the uncomfortable prospect of a heretic being correct about something is too distressing for any true believer to bear.
In order to ‘prove’ that heretics must never have been true believers in the first place, it is common practice for Marxists to read backwards into all the words and deeds of their opponents’ lives an anticipation of their vile renegacy. Richard Seymour does this in his hatchet-job biography of Christopher Hitchens. It was also something Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin did to their opponents, which often led them to see things which were not there. Indeed, Trotskyist sects are remarkably quick to dig up dirt on anyone who leaves, with past mistakes being resurrected (or simply made up) and used to drag their name through the mud, and people’s personal histories being used against them. I remember a member of the American section telling me on Facebook that I had abandoned Trotskyism because of latent religious sympathies as a result of my Christian upbringing – a hilarious accusation considering the chiliastic aspects of Marxism, and the fact that the organisation has a leader who is fond of quoting the Bible at every opportunity.
A narrative is thereby constructed according to which the heretic’s life fits into a neat little pattern, artificially connecting both speech and acts, forcing them into a literary Procrustean bed that constitutes one, endless drama of betrayal and deviation. All of the complexity, contradiction and nuance that makes up a person’s essential humanity is missing. Instead, people are turned into ciphers for impersonal class forces, and the ideas that are central to this ‘class struggle’. It is thereby demonstrated that this individual was never acting in good faith, or was acting in good faith up to a point, but showed signs of insidious intellectual and moral corruption, after which he turned bad, meaning there is no longer any reason to take anything he says seriously. I do not believe I need to explain why this is a terrible approach to take.
False Assurances of Democracy
When I was a member of the IMT, I was constantly assured of the democratic credentials of the sect by members of the organisation. In time I would discover the unfortunate reality – that it was a cult, which did not encourage democratic discussion or debate in any way, shape or form. Yet even before I left, I was gaslighted about the essentially democratic nature of the organisation, even as I was being denied the right to make criticisms of the sect. When I made my differences on the issue of the Russian Revolution clear to the secretary of my branch, he strongly discouraged me from raising my differences in branch, for fear that I would ‘miseducate’ the new members He simultaneously assured me that it was my ‘democratic right’ to do so if I so wished, but that he ‘strongly recommended’ that I not do it! The regional full-timer was more forthright. Under no circumstances was I to tell anyone in the organisation about my disagreements unless they were within the small circle of ‘leading comrades’ (myself, the branch secretary, the regional full-timer and one other member) who were sanctioned to be part of the ongoing discussions. This would be a breach of discipline. He did not have to tell me what my sanction would be if I broke it – in all likelihood, some sort of suspension or expulsion. This was all part of a process whereby I was being isolated from other members of the organisation, the better to deal with my heresy. Under no circumstances could the infection be allowed to spread.
Overwrought by it all, I opted to take a break from attending branch for a while, to which my branch secretary agreed. On the minutes for the next branch meeting, which I did not attend, I saw that the topic of the Russian Revolution had now been tabled as part of an emergency discussion, in which my ‘heresy’ was possibly brought up. After being told I should not raise my disagreements in branch, now it was clear that the question over which I had expressed doubt was being discussed in my absence! The new members had to be steeled against my heresy. Of course, I could have chosen to turn up to the branch and raise my differences, but the likely outcome of that would be expulsion from the organisation. Soon after, I left the cult.
All of this happened, and everyone who seeks to raise differences gets similar treatment, but this has not prevented IMT members gaslighting me by insisting upon the democratic credentials of their organisation. According to their false narrative, I was offered a chance to raise my differences through the ‘democratic channels’ of the organisation, but chose to leave instead. I therefore have no one but myself to blame. Of course, what they do not answer is why so many people choose to leave their sect if they are as democratic as they claim to be. If it is so easy to raise differences, why do people simply throw in the towel? Which brings me to one other accusation levelled at ‘renegades’ like myself.
Cowardice
Those of us who leave are often accused of ‘cowardice’ for not wanting to stay behind and discuss our differences using the ‘democratic’ channels. Of course, the ‘democratic’ channels of the organisation are a sham, as I have already shown. This does not prevent Trotskyist cultists from impugning the bravery and integrity of ex-members, who supposedly showed a lack of fortitude in fighting for their ideas.
The truth is that anyone who steps out of line is showered with the most disgusting abuse, lies and bigotry. A hostile environment is created in which the rank-and-file members are mobilised for an intensive campaign of demonisation against the heretic, who is accused of seeking to disrupt or destroy the organisation. Full-timers go round spreading lies on behalf of the organisation’s leadership. Dissident members are pressured to keep their ideas to themselves, and are isolated from other members to stop the infection of ‘alien class ideas’ spreading to other members. The morale of dissidents is worn down through repeated denunciations and attacks on their character. Maoist-style struggle sessions are utilised to break down the resistance of unyielding members. Threats are made, warnings issued. Some leave the organisation in disgust. Others battle on until they are either expelled or reach the end of their tether. Often people will be told that the organisation does not have time to discuss their criticisms, or that they have made their criticisms in the ‘incorrect’ manner and they must use the ‘proper channels’ to do this. You are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don’t. As Dennis Tourish, a former full-timer for Militant in Northern Ireland, said:
‘There is never is a right way to go about raising dissent in the CWI, or any similar organisation. You inquire about how to openly raise an issue, but the big guns of the leadership try to talk you out of it, and tell you that you risk the destruction of your political credibility if you carry it forward. You talk to people informally (a perfectly normal activity) – this is a conspiracy. You write to them instead – you are by-passing official structures. You raise it on a committee – you should have informally discussed it first, rather than risk disorientating the membership. You submit a critical article to the Internal Bulletin, but are denounced for not discussing it informally (at the risk of starting a conspiracy!), before committing your views to writing. But whatever you do, it will be wrong. The trick is to make your despicable behaviour in how you express your dissent the issue, rather than engage with the dissent itself. The full weight of the apparatus is then mobilised to destroy the person concerned.’
If anyone is guilty of cowardice, it is the leaders of these cults, who are terrified of disagreement and do everything they can to shut it down. Those who are brave enough to leave the cult and endure the ostracism and judgment from their peers for doing so are to be commended.
Conclusion
Gaslighting is a deliberate tactic used by cultists and other abusive individuals to make their victims doubt their judgment and powers of memory. Ex-members of far-left cults are made to feel insane, stupid or confused for daring to point out obvious deficiencies in the internal regime of these organisations. We are assured of the democratic nature of these cults when we know they are loathsome tyrannies, and we are accused of cowardice for leaving a toxic environment. If we raise criticism, we are disruptive and bad. If we choose to give up the fight, then we apparently lack courage! If we believed fervently in the doctrine at one point but change our mind later, we were never really true believers in the first place and therefore our criticisms can be discarded. It is impossible for a ‘renegade’ to make rational criticisms of the ideology – rather, we are blinded by anger and bitterness. Such is the response of the cultist to ex-members. An impenetrable ideological force field succeeds in making the doctrine unfalsifiable in the eyes of the true believer, even if the renegade can produce compelling evidence demonstrating the correctness of his or her beliefs. Even seasoned intellectuals, who have made the life of the mind their main practice, are to be dismissed as corrupted by bourgeois ideology and incapable of questioning the doctrine in good faith. Discussion is only worthwhile within the camp of Marxists and true believers. All this guarantees the impotence of Marxism for the foreseeable future.