https://news.yahoo.com/former-smallville-actress-allison-mack-181338999.html

The WSWS has censored Democratic Power for giving attention to the Raniere Cult’s arrest and conviction for sexual barbarism against media workers and other working class victims. The WSWS has defended imperialist barbarism as a way of suppressing the united struggle of the working class using fear of a sexual oppressor. For this reason, the nano-bureaucracy must allow an investigation and punishments into its assaults and other abuses against the membership, including exacting punitive damages on the leadership, the funds going towards the creation of a Democratic Power faction that would defend the rights of the members to discuss oppositional ideas. This conviction and sentencing, and the WSWS suppressing any reports on the subject, prove that the nano-bureaucracy, like the capitalist state, does not have a strong but a weak hold on Marxist politics. That hold must be broken before it leads to the brutal suppression of the revolution as the nano-bureaucracy consciously turns its glance away.

Trotsky wrote about Cults at various points in his Revolution Betrayed. We can review all of them here:

“‘The proletariat needs a state—this all the opportunists can tell you,’ wrote Lenin in 1917, two months before the seizure of power, ‘but they, the opportunists, forget to add that the proletariat needs only a dying state—that is, a state constructed in such a way that it immediately begins to die away and cannot help dying away.’
(State and Revolution)
“This criticism was directed at the time against reformist socialists of the type of the Russian Mensheviks, British Fabians, etc. It now attacks with redoubled force the Soviet idolators with their cult of a bureaucratic state which has not the slightest intention of ‘dying away’.” Chapter 3, P. 29

“The notorious slogan: ‘The cadres decide everything’, characterizes the nature of Soviet society far more frankly than Stalin himself would wish. The cadres are in their very essence the organs of domination and command. A cult of ‘cadres’ means above all a cult of bureaucracy, of officialdom, an aristocracy of technique. In the matter of playing up and developing cadres, as in other matters, the soviet regime still finds itself compelled to solve problems which the advanced bourgeoisie solved long ago in its own countries. But since the soviet cadres come forward under a socialist banner, they demand an almost divine veneration and a continually rising salary. The development of ‘socialist’ cadres is thus accompanied by a rebirth of bourgeois inequality.” Chapter 8, P. 124

“We cannot count upon the bureaucracy’s peacefully and voluntarily renouncing itself in behalf of socialist equality. If at the present time, notwithstanding the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has considered it possible to introduce ranks and decorations, it must inevitably in future stages seek supports for itself in property relations. One may argue that the big bureaucrat cares little what are the prevailing forms of property, provided only they guarantee him the necessary income. This argument ignores not only the instability of the bureaucrat’s own rights, but also the question of his
descendants. The new cult of the family has not fallen out of the clouds. Privileges have only half their worth, if they cannot be transmitted to one’s children. But the right of testament is inseparable from the right of property. It is not enough to be the director of a trust; it is necessary to be a stockholder.” Chapter 9, P. 131

These quotes taken together show how far the nano-bureaucracy has strayed from Trotskyism. The first quote shows the danger the nano-bureaucracy poses to the construction of a workers’ state. An undying bureaucracy would naturally stand for an undying state, contrary to Marxist principles. The next reveals the connection between nano-bureaucracy, “the cult of ‘cadres’”, and the rebirth of bourgeois inequality. The final one goes further, arguing about the Soviet Union’s “big bureaucrat”, the opposite of the nano-bureaucrat and what he strives to become. Their rights as moderators of meetings and discussions, as editors and marketing budget directors, and as committee members in paid-for positions, or as journalists with access to important or official bourgeois political and cultural icons or minions, these privileges of nano-bureaucracy they do not renounce “peacefully and voluntarily… [on] behalf of socialist equality.” Only Democratic Power with the backing of the working class can force such renunciation, which should be part and parcel of any Leninist revolutionary organization.