That's a good observation. Seymour-Smith was (I seem to recall) a fan, and he certainly would have been around lots of people who were into that work. On the ot

That's a good observation. Seymour-Smith was (I seem to recall) a fan, and he certainly would have been around lots of people who were into that work. On the other hand, from Seymour-Smith's perspective, which was literary- and 20th century-centric, Gurdjieff may well belong on the list. He really did have a surprising influence on literary and artistic circles. His movement was fascinating and I don't think it has been properly studied or understood; all the good writing about it is by followers. But yes, surely nowhere near Marx or Mao.