Movements, like individuals, are not always conscious of what they are really doing or what they truly want. As with individuals, the actions of groups, including the kinds of leaders they choose and support, are a clearer indication of group intentions than the pious words of manifestos and party declarations. What people and groups do tells us more of what they are about than does what they profess to want. Movements tend to choose leaders whose character is compatible with their organizational and ideological goals. This phenomenon has been analyzed by Erik Erikson, who interprets it from the psychodynamic perspective, W. R. Bion from group dynamic observation, and Robert Michels from an institutional viewpoint with particular relevance to socialism. 1