Marxism has a long history of influence on working-class movements, economics, and sociology. It also has a record of trending towards characteristics one would observe in cults. The ideology itself is named and framed around a singular figure. Karl Marx did not refer to himself as a Marxist but interchangeably used the terms communist and socialist. His influence on the group known as the International Workingmen’s Association led to him and his followers eventually expelling those critical of the idea of seizing state power. Despite Marxism as a concept rejecting the idea that singular great men influence history in favor of the material conditions of the time, it shows itself to have a tendency to rely on great men figures. After Marx passed his cult of personality would later shift to Vladimir Lenin. Like Marx, he also saw the seizure of state power as necessary for socialism and supported centralization. The Bolshevik party was effectively built around the personality of Lenin. Democratic centralism proved to be a useful tool to ensure top-down control. Under Lenin, the Bolsheviks would take advantage of the revolutionary sentiment of 1917 Russia to take power. They proved brutal towards the peasantry and rolled back the revolutionary gains of the working class to maintain their own grip on power. By the end of the war, their promises for revolution faded in favor of a new centralized state that would take on many of the same characteristics as any other capitalistic and imperialistic nation. Marx was a god with Lenin and his party as the prophets who needed to lead the masses. This new centralized political system proved useful combined with the predisposition of Marxism to focus on singular personalities in helping contribute to the tyranny of Joseph Stalin. Under his rule, the ability to criticize the state and its leader became further diminished. Stalin was presented by the state press and his followers as a great father figure necessary for the USSR. Portraits of Stalin and his name were displayed everywhere throughout the nation. Those opposed to him or who lost favor were effectively erased from the public or sent to the infamous gulags to work as slave labor in poor conditions. From the start, it can be seen how Marxism has a remarkable tendency towards idolizing leader figures to an unhealthy degree. Many more examples can be given of obvious dictators influenced by such an ideology. Though there exist a few much smaller cases that also deserve attention.
Japanese Red Army Purge
Time after time Marxist organizations demonstrates their tendency towards cult behavior. The United Red Army of Japan demonstrates this most horrifically with the purge that occurred within the group in 1972. The nature of such Marxist organizations to focus on their top-down leadership would prove lethal under Mori Tsueneo and Nagata Hiroko. The organization, finding itself in a mountainous region of Japan and pursued by the police, deemed it necessary to enforce a sense of self-criticism and initiate a purge of members. Dubious accusations would be lobbed between members. Harsh punishments were enforced on members. Mob mentality began to take hold leading the accused to find themselves in punishments with no foreseeable escape. Members would turn on each other leading to twelve young students dying from tortures enforced as a means to prove their devotion. Comrades turned on each other in paranoia and did not speak out against the violence committed. Members were punished from a range of demonstrating a lack of devotion to participating in sexual relations. Any excuse was given to deliver punishment and their comrades would participate in the torture to prove their own loyalty. The purge committed by the United Red Army would prove to be one of the main reasons for the eventual failure of the radical student movement in Japan. It effectively demonstrated one of the main issues with Marxist organizations. Devotion and dogmatism were prioritized heavily. Complete obedience to central leadership and conditions of groupthink ensured that such an organization would inevitably take on aspects of a dangerous cult.
Shining Path of Peru
The Shining Path organization in Peru was one of the more violent Marxist militant organizations to exist. They have often been described as a death cult known for being extremely brutal to the peasantry of Peru. The existing government of the time also had a history of extreme violence towards civilians but this is not a justification for the actions of Shining Path. Again like other Marxist groups, the Shining Path had a tendency towards forming a cult around an individual figure known as Abimael Guzmán. The ideology and power of the Shining Path centered around Guzmán. He was referred to as Chairman Gonzalo with the ideology of Shining Path framed as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo thought. Just as Marxism was framed around Marx and Leninism was framed around Lenin, so too did the chairman attempt to frame the ideology around themselves. One of the most prominent examples of the violent character of this organization would be the 1983 Lucanamarca Massacre. The Shining Path took over a town and proceeded to treat the inhabitants with brutality. The government itself, also known to be brutal and ineffective, led to vigilantes taking it upon themselves to kill the Shining Path commander in charge of the town. The Shining Path responded with brutal reprisal under orders of Guzmán. Sixty-nine indigenous people were murdered. Eighteen were children with the youngest being six months old. Shining Path demonstrated a remarkable tendency towards violent actions that isolated themselves from the main population for obvious reasons. The organization was solely built around the cult of personality of Guzmán. With his capture in 1992, the Shining Path dwindled from having thousands of members to current estimates numbering around 350.
The Cult of Bob Avakian
Bob Avakian is known primarily as an American involved in activism to try and sell his books. Even by the standards of other Marxists he is fringe in his beliefs and described as a social fascist. Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, he continues to this day in his sad attempt of creating a cult of personality. Accusations from other Marxists against Bob Avakian’s RCP include attacking and disrupting other leftist groups who do not accept their leadership. The organization is formed specifically to capitalize on social unrest for the benefit of Bob Avakian. While not violent compared to the other examples it displays similarities with these previous groups in having both the organizational structure and ideology centralized around a singular figure. While other cults are dangerous for their violent actions, what makes the Revolutionary Communist Party dangerous is how they effectively prey on unsuspecting and well-meaning activists for profit. While there is notable criticism from other Marxists of the RCP the overall ideology of the group is not too different from previous iterations of Marxism. Again we see that a group calling for a classless society implemented through the seizure of state power and centralized organization ends up focusing on a singular personality. Much like these past movements and organizations it also demonstrates the opposite of what it claims to want with a focus on trying to prepare a cult of personality around a new leader for the masses to serve. A lack of analysis of hierarchical relationships and an inability to address groupthink serves to fuel such organizations. A growing amount of political discontent in America may lead to such groups being able to gain more influence and siphon energy away from meaningful change in the future.
The Cult of Caleb Maupin
Caleb Maupin is a correspondent for Russia Today and like Bob Avakian tries to frame himself as an activist while attempting to push his books and create a cult of personality. The Center of Political Innovation is a political organization that was effectively formed around the personality of Maupin. The organization itself is effectively an ideological mix of American patriotism and admiration for the aesthetics of the Soviet Union. In a relatively recent revelation, it has been revealed by members of the organization that Caleb Maupin was taking financial and sexual advantage of them. Furthermore, Maupin used his political influence and the organization as a means of turning his victims against each other. Had he been more competent or his victims unwilling to come forward he would have been able to cause even more harm. Again it is shown how a Marxist organization that focuses around idolizing leadership and maintaining a sense of fervent devotion towards the group has enabled an abuser to hold power over others.
Conclusion
Frequently it can be demonstrated throughout history and in current times that Marxist organizations and movements have a tendency towards cult-like behavior. Cult characteristics such as blind obedience, tyrannical leaders, and groupthink show up in other various ideologies but show up at a far greater rate and in more extreme forms in Marxist-influenced organizations. While a good amount of blame can be levied on the part of having poor leadership it is undeniable that the very structures of these groups played a key role in allowing such abuses to occur. A failure to address hierarchical relationships and instead embrace a centralizing focus around leadership leads to dangerous conditions where top-down abuse is tolerated. Despite some strands of Marxism supposedly encouraging self-criticism, these functionally do not work to create a safer environment but to ensure members are ideologically loyal and obedient. This in turn helps create conditions for groupthink to take hold. The sense of strict dogma or total loyalty helps contribute to irrational and harmful decisions. This tendency towards exploitative behavior can also be seen in the very idea Marx puts forward of implementing socialism through the state. The writings of Marx and Lenin assume that the state can effectively be used as a tool to suppress the capitalist class and bring about a stateless classless society. Yet the state itself as an organization is reliant on the existence of a class-based society. It will not simply wither away because the state seeks to preserve itself. The centralizing nature of the state also ensures that power and authority are in turn preserved. Those at the top are seen as the most qualified to lead and coordinate the masses. In these same conditions is where dictators can and already have seized power. Corruption and abuse are often inevitable and made much more dangerous within centralized top-down systems.