CHAPTER 1

ANTI-CAPITALIST SECTARIANISM

1.1 Defining the term

Sectarianism has a degree of popular currency, yet its multiple characteristics and varied effects are rarely described or evaluated. This is a formidable deficiency, particularly where such a lack exists within the anti-capitalist movement. Sectarianism there, as elsewhere, is divisive, degenerative and it sabotages the struggle against capital. More than that sectarianism distorts and disgraces the search for a more humane form of post-capitalist society. This chapter will explore how and why it has these effects.

The word, 'sectarian', is most often used to describe patterns of behaviour that are typified by nastiness, unfairness and even violence by individuals belonging to one group against those belonging to another. In the UK the media have popularised the term in relationship to the Catholic and Protestant divide in Northern Ireland. It is not this particular form of sectarianism which is the subject of this chapter, although the religious aspect will be touched upon, for it does share some similarities with the political form and in many cases the religious forms take up an overt political agenda.

For the purposes of this critique, the word 'sect' will be generally used to describe a group of people who organise themselves into a distinctive and separate unit within a larger community or organisation, because of some definite ideas or practices, and who see themselves as radically different and superior. For the present purposes, the term sectarianism will be used to cover the general behaviour and characteristics which members of such sects display or otherwise exhibit; characteristics which, moreover, arise and are displayed in relation to each other and to those outside their particular group.

As indicated, there are essentially two forms of sect: religious and political, both of which contain elements of the other. This is because both types of sectarianism are forms of organised, highly motivated, protest against the 'real' world, or aspects of it, in the name of certain key ideas. Both types propose and project elitist and dogmatic solutions to certain social and economic problems of the world. Membership of a sect demands a degree of self-sacrifice, varying levels of dedication and even on occasion generates a desire for martyrdom. In some cases, but by no means all, the sectarian ideas and practices which unite the sect are pursued with a degree of fanaticism and occasionally accompanied by acts of terror against their perceived enemies.

1.2 The sources for a definition

Because I wish to examine the question of sectarianism from the standpoint of revolutionary anti-capitalist politics, where it is starkly revealed and documented, the main points for this chapter will be drawn from the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. The inclusion of the latter two authors may seem surprising, for in later chapters I am extremely critical of both Lenin and Trotsky. However, this later criticism is mainly with regard to the role they played as hierarchical 'leaders' and promoters of inhumane and elitist politics in the formation of a party and state after the Russian revolution of 1917. Their earlier views on capital and on sectarianism are in general correct, even though their post-capitalist aspirations led them down the same sterile path. In fact, as we shall see later, a considerable number of characteristics of sectarianism are quite apparent in Lenin and Trotsky regardless of their denunciation of other aspects of the phenomenon. Despite this contradiction, their comments on sectarianism remain important because they were the result of first hand observations, and they post-date those made by Marx and Engels. An additional reason for the inclusion of Lenin and Trotsky is that, along with Marx and Engels, they still attract a following among some contemporary revolutionary anti-capitalists. These particular anti-capitalists are a part of the audience I wish to reach in the hope of persuading them to reconsider their sectarian inheritance by a much closer attention to its detail.

In my view, discussion, evaluation, and increased unity of the forces opposed to the capitalist system, in advance of and during any further revolutionary upheavals within the capitalist system, can only really begin when sectarianism has been seriously studied and undermined, if not entirely overcome. This is because the characteristics of political sectarianism prevent useful discussion or evaluation and act as an impenetrable barrier to increased unity within the anti-capitalist movement. Nonetheless, as religious forms of sectarianism have once again reappeared and even in political forms, sectarianism retains a religious flavour, it is worth commencing with a short sketch of these characteristics.

1.3 Religious Sectarianism

Sects are known to have existed for much of recorded history. The dominant Western religion, Christianity, started out as one such religious sect, among many others. It arose in opposition to mainstream Judaic religion and Roman oppression. Such opposition has often taken the form of religious dissent and the creation of alternative religious movements. Sometimes they have been broad in scope, as with the followers of Martin Luther and John Calvin (or indeed as in the case of the Puritan movement as a whole), or much narrower, as with a multitude of small sects which sprang up at various times in later periods. For example, it has been estimated that during the 17th century there were over 190 such sects within England alone. The mainspring of all these 'alternative' religious movements was the generalised struggle of individuals and groups, for some form of freedom from exploitation or oppressive domination. The inspirational origins of these religious sectarian movements, therefore, more often than not included a strong humanist element, but shrouded in mystical forms. That is to say their original aspirations were to create more humane social conditions for themselves and others. However, as we shall see, sectarianism quite often quickly distorts this origin into its inhumane opposite. In this latter context, scriptural justification for religious sectarianism is all to easy to secure. For example, in contrast to the humane precepts of 'thou shall not kill; bear false witness; steal' etc., in the Christian bible, we read:

"And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death..." (Leviticus 24 v 16. Peshitta version of the Bible.)

"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying. Avenge the children of Israel.....and they slew all the males....And they burned all their cities. And Moses said to them. Why have you let all the women live?...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the female children, who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31. verses 1,2,7,15,17 & 18 Peshitta version.)

The sectarian author of Leviticus advocates to his followers that they should be prepared to kill anyone who curses the name of that particular sect's God, whilst the sectarian author, or authors, of Numbers, gives clear instructions to murder innocent men, women and children in pursuit of their God's word. In fact the Christian Church's Old Testament is replete with violence, vengeance, conquests, annexations, slavery and death. Very few of its 900 or so pages are free from such matters, and according to the authors of the various books, these all appear in the sacred texts, we are told, with God's direct or indirect approval. The 'chosen people' of the Old Testament were thus free to carry out any kind of sectarian act of terror or atrocity. The only time they spoke out against violence and oppression was when it was directed against themselves. For the most part, the Old Testament is a theoretical manual of racist, sexist, homophobic and sectarian style ethnic-cleansing ideas and practices against all who did not share their particular beliefs and rituals. Those in modern times who choose to believe in this scriptural tradition can still use its biblical writings as justification for all kinds of torture and terrorist (including state-terrorist) activity against other human beings.

In fact all the books from Genesis to Malachi and Mathew to Revelation, bear the hallmarks of the writings of a religious sect. It was a religious sect in fierce and bloody competition for supremacy with other religious groupings - many within the tribes of Israel. Dozens of these worshipped other gods such as Baal, Ashtaroth, Rimmon, Nergal, Ashima, Jibzah, Nisroch, Beth-aon, Aon, and other graven images. True, in a later period, some of the Christian sects clearly distanced themselves from many, but not all, of the old laws and actions of Moses or the other prophets, but they have never, to my knowledge, condemned them. Such terrorist acts and sectarian beliefs remain firmly planted in their scriptures as part of the received 'holy' wisdom of their god's word. A similar picture emerges from another Holy book, the Qur'an. For example:

"12.....I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 13. This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle - then surely Allah is severe in requiting [evil]." (Surah V111. verses 12 &13. Holy Qur'an trans. M.H. Shair. Pub. Ansariyan.)

The Islamic Qur'an shares a number of the Old Testament stories and characters such as Musa (Moses), Nuh (Noah), Ayyub (Job) and even Jesus (Isa) suggesting a considerable degree of common ancestral experience between the Jewish and Christian religions. Although the Qur'an contains less evidence of sectarian violence than the Christian Bible the above quote is no isolated example. Within its 114 chapters, there are many more examples of advocating severe sectarian punishments and torture to those who disbelieve the Islamic version of appropriate worship. If modern mainstream religions retain such a clear and indelible link with their sectarian past, then it is not surprising that such ideas, and the practices which appear to stem from them, continue to surface from time to time.

The members of such sects wished to separate from the mainstream religion and follow their own particular view of god and god's will. In a study of radical ideas during the English Revolution of 1640, Christopher Hill concludes that members of the various Protestant sects were:

"...highly motivated, and they carried to its logical conclusion the principle of individualism which rejects all mediators between man and God." (C. Hill, The World Turned Upside Down, Pelican Books, p. 42)

This provides a description of the typical leader of a religious sect. Hill considers that a sectarian leader was a highly motivated individual who was opposed not only to some forms of oppression and exploitation, but to any 'living' mediator between their own sense of what was right and wrong and how they wanted to live. The description provided by Hill indicates the type of individuals who emerged and put themselves forward as the leaders of such groupings. Incidentally, this description equally fits the profile of old testament characters such as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Hosea etc., as they are portrayed in the Bible.

Whilst religious sects are usually initiated by individuals, another element is clearly necessary. To develop, a sect needs members who not only wish to be part of it, but who are also prepared to be guided or led by its leaders. In a study of mainly religious and communistic sects in the United States, Charles Nordhoff concludes:

"The `leading character' is sure to be a man of force and ability, and he forms the habits, not only of daily life, but even of thought, of those whom he governs.." (C. Nordhoff, The Communistic Societies of the United States, Dover Publications, p. 396)

This additional observation makes clear another factor: a sectarian leader was often a man of 'force and ability', who formed the thoughts and habits of his followers. Nordhoff also indicates that sectarian leaders most often like to 'govern' their followers. This is again consistent with the Old Testament figureheads such as Moses, David, Solomon etc. Actually, the above use of the male pronoun is not entirely correct, for although the overwhelming majority were men in Nordoff's study, many women also became leaders: Ann Lee, Jane Leade, Mary Carey, Joanna Southcote and Lucie Buchan to name just a few. Male and female alike were invariably religious dissenters from the mainstream and some, after much persecution in England and Europe, became founders and 'leaders' of various religious communistic sects in America. They organised their followers socially, economically and provided scriptural guidance for their thought processes. In this way they shaped the lives and habits of their communities, around ideas which they insisted, could only be truly interpreted by themselves. This alleged 'true' interpretation was their primary claim to leadership. Just as in the biblical times of Moses et al., these later sects considered themselves the 'chosen' ones among their various congregations, or, as they often termed themselves in Protestant sects, an 'elect' among their rank and file followers. Interestingly it was not unusual, and in many ways it was considered necessary, for the elect to have special freedoms and privileges. As Hill comments:

"...for the practical purposes of living in society, its importance is, as a doctrine of the freedom of the elect." (C Hill, The world Turned Upside Down, p. 152) (Emphasis added)

The interesting point is that spiritual or ideological leadership of a sect brings with it certain freedoms, as well as status, for those able to promote themselves into these leadership realms. The various doctrines or belief systems were, and are, crucially important in the sense that they both justify the sects opposition to mainstream religion and act as the behavioural guidelines, or rules, for structuring their own small groups. Thus it was their religious ideology, doctrines and practices which distinguished them from the wider community. The 'elect' within many sects generally formed an intellectual elite ready and able to challenge other elites from the mainstream.

Being part of an intellectual elite was, (and is) of course, open only to those members of society who possessed a reasonable education and sufficient time to develop their intellectual powers. Access to books, manuscripts, and places to study as well as the instruments of writing, are also undoubted assets. Naturally, such good fortune was not usually available to ordinary working people and so many of these self-constituted religious 'elites' were (and are) already drawn from economic elites of one form or another. In most instances, but not all, the sectarian leaders also advocated severe moral codes and strong secular laws to keep their followers in line, whilst following a more relaxed regime themselves. Where the elect obtained considerable power, as in the case of the Calvinists in Geneva, they exerted all their influence to maintain their own freedom, whilst ensuring the existence of a strong 'police-state' to keep the ordinary citizens in line. This allowed considerable intellectual debate within the protective confines of the church for the cultured elect, but created police observation, fines and prison for those outside it - an excellent precursor of a totalitarian state.

A further characteristic of many Abrahamic religious sects was their belief in the inevitability of the Millennium. That is, the belief that Christ would return to earth and rule for a thousand years bringing peace, justice, prosperity, happiness and an end to oppression for the 'chosen ones' on earth. The nature and purpose of this hoped for holy visitation (i.e. to bring peace, justice, prosperity etc.) demonstrates a clear link between their religious mysticism and the secular, humanist yearnings which produced them. The coming of this millennium was considered beyond question and the only uncertainty was the timing of its arrival. Clear parallels exist here with some political sectarian visions (also often utopian) of the inevitable arrival of social justice and a post-capitalist society. Of course, in human affairs, very few things apart from death, are inevitable.

In the remainder of this chapter it will become evident that the religious sectarian characteristics of individualism, elitism and even millenarianism are repeated in the various political forms of sectarianism. Indeed, given the rise in anti-capitalist feeling among third-world countries with strong religious traditions, religious sectarianism, often called fundamentalism, again blossoms somewhat in the late 20th century and early 21st century. The ultimate form of this modern religious sectarianism with an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist dimension has been manifest in the various religious inspired terrorist campaigns against the most developed capitalist state, the United States of America. The suicidal flying of civilian aircraft into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 was an extreme example of the lengths to which some religiously motivated forms of sectarianism can be taken.

1.4 Political forms of Sectarianism

As we shall discover, political sectarianism has a strong and virulent history in the modern industrial epoch, particularly in relationship to the anti-capitalist struggle. This strength and virulence is no better displayed than amongst the leaders of the Chartist Movement (1836-1846). Chartism takes its name from the call for a political 'charter' of human rights for all adult males - not just those of the middle and upper classes. Although initiated by middle-class reformers there can be no doubt that the Chartist movement struck a strong, if somewhat male oriented chord, in the consciousness of working people in England. From small beginnings it quickly spread to the level of a mass movement; a movement which remained dominated by, and subjected to, the idiosyncrasies of its leaders. In speaking of one such leader, Feargus O'Conner, a disillusioned Chartist member and historian, R.C. Gamage, noted that his manner and tactics:

"..... led him to lend his influence, whenever the time arrived, to knock down every man who promised to rival him in the people's estimation. This was bad enough, but it was not the worst, for it led him not only to destroy the influence of men, but of measures, some of which were a thousand times as good as any proposed by himself. The consequence of such a policy was that the more intelligent, disgusted with such meanness and injustice, retired from the movement, thus taking from it all the real strength of which it could boast. They saw that there was no platform for honesty and independence and they at length sank back in utter despair." (R.C. Gamage, The Chartists, Batsford, p.247.)

Feargus O'Conner was undoubtedly a man of outstanding organisational ability and an exceptional leader but according to Gammage his considerable abilities were used to retain his own political hold on the Chartist movement. He did this irrespective of the effects upon the unity of the movement and upon the members of the movement. Here, as in the case of religious sectarianism, we have an example of a highly motivated 'leader' and a man of ability, who demonstrated a high degree of intolerance towards others and a man utterly convinced of his own correctness. Here we see the emergence, within a humanist-motivated political movement, of individuals whose motivation lacks a consistent humanist dimension. In summing up his view of the period, a former rank and file Chartist activist, quoted by Gamage in his book, concluded that:

"...a want of unity incapacitated us from compassing our object; and that we lacked this unity in consequence of man-worship, and the treachery and bickerings of self constituted leaders and idle adventurers. (Gamage, p.404.)

The question of unity and disunity will occur again and again. In this rank and file member's assessment of his experience within the Chartist movement, a "want of unity" incapacitated the movement, and a major factor in this lack of unity was caused by "man-worship" or following self-constituted leaders. Bickering and treachery by leaders and idle adventurers, are specifically mentioned. In this case, as in religious forms of sectarianism, we have descriptions of people of force and ability separating themselves from the rest of society, and gathering around them humanely motivated followers, who are encouraged to have an almost religious regard for their leaders. In the case of religious sects this process could arguably be seen as understandable, even desirable. However, in the event of these practices being transferred to the political sphere, as in the case of the Chartist movement, the outcome in relation to the workers' movement was clearly harmful, in the opinion of at least one rank and file activist and one historian. This is a contention supported by yet another historian of Chartism, J.T. Ward. Ward notes that Chartism was "weakened by bitter personal disputes" between leaders but he also provides us with a flavour of how some of those leaders saw their relationship to the working class. In this case one leader, Ernest Jones, declared that working class members of the Chartist movement:

"...must expect no explanations, and no long-worded programmes from us. If we say 'organise' you must organise - 'assemble', you must assemble.." (J.T. Ward, Chartism, Batsford, p.233.)

The demand for strict political and organisational obedience from their followers is most clearly expressed in the above quotation. Jones went on to say that the worst dictatorship was preferable to the squabbling of factions, but he neglected to add that the squabbling factions were the distinctive product of the competing leaders, of which he was one. Nonetheless this quotation does begin to give us some indication of the political sectarians who can easily reconcile themselves to dictatorship provided it is their own. It also indicates the clear separation between the humanist aspirations of this movement and the authoritarian methods of its leaders. Let us now see if these preliminary views of political sectarianism correspond to those of other political activists.

Chapter 1 Section 2

Contents