Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 12
“The Real Thing”
Having experienced such frustration with the anarchy, machismo, and fluidity of the New Left
and feeling a compulsion to do something with their political convictions (and hence their
lives), these women in San Francisco were eager for organizational stability. They readily
accepted Baxter’s version of cadre training for them, at last, this was the real thing. They
saw themselves articulating a profound transformation of leftist politics they felt serious and
special their work took on new importance and a sense of urgency. They prided themselves
on being the founders and leaders of a new kind of Marxist group --and women’s group --
that would help bring about revolution in America, in the tradition of other great revolutionary
movements.
They had no specific timetable for this in fact, they did not believe that revolution in the
United States was something that would happen in their lifetimes. Yet, with the deepest of
convictions, they felt that their particular political understanding of the contradictions in
capitalism and their own personal experiences as women heightened their awareness of the
need for a more just society. As they saw it, this made them part of an inevitable process,
giving them a place in the history of humankind.
Whether or not, in these early months, it was outwardly acknowledged, Baxter was the leader
of this group. She brought structure and discipline and she led the study of the basic ideology.
Having floundered for some time on their own, these women, for the most part, welcomed
Baxter’s level of knowledge and decisiveness. It was quite clear that she was taking the lead
they felt a kind of elated relief, albeit with some personal trepidation because of her strong-
willed and domineering personality. As one founder stated, “She was the leadership. There
was no question about it. She was the motivating force. She was the organizer. She was the
teacher to us all --and at that time she was a very good teacher.” Another founder described
it this way: “Her role as the leader evolved. There was a need --she filled it. She wanted to
do it. And so it happened.”
By the fall of 1975 there were about 25 members and a growing recruitment pool. One year
after the founding meetings, the initial group was solidified in its commitment and Doreen
Baxter was firmly established as the theoretical and organizational leader.
A Cult in the Making
Despite her lengthy absences, Baxter was able to actively provide not only theoretical but also
organizational leadership. Besides the units she divided them into, which was certainly one
means of control, there was a great deal of telephone communication with her. There were no
independent moves on the part of the rest of the group. It became standard practice to
always check what she would think about something before proceeding on any activity. One
founder explained: “We would go to several different phone booths and make these
convoluted long-distance calls to her because of all the security we felt was needed. We would
talk with her for an hour or so and get direction on what we were doing or should do next. I
don’t think a single independent decision was made without consulting her and getting her
approval from the very beginning. We learned to do that very early on --so she wouldn’t blow
up about something.”
Returning to the Bay Area on each of her university breaks, Baxter always took charge, made
her presence known, “reclaimed the crown as it were,” said one of the founders. Invariably
she was highly critical of what they had been doing, proving once again their need for her
leadership and guidance. Indeed, she always found something or someone to “blow up
about.” These were not pleasant episodes. Baxter was big, loud, good at slamming down her
things and making a scene, expert at making the other person look stupid. She commonly
used ridicule combined with stern criticism to attack any independent decisions, that is,
decisions she didn’t have the final say in. Baxter soon became the sole arbiter of the
“The Real Thing”
Having experienced such frustration with the anarchy, machismo, and fluidity of the New Left
and feeling a compulsion to do something with their political convictions (and hence their
lives), these women in San Francisco were eager for organizational stability. They readily
accepted Baxter’s version of cadre training for them, at last, this was the real thing. They
saw themselves articulating a profound transformation of leftist politics they felt serious and
special their work took on new importance and a sense of urgency. They prided themselves
on being the founders and leaders of a new kind of Marxist group --and women’s group --
that would help bring about revolution in America, in the tradition of other great revolutionary
movements.
They had no specific timetable for this in fact, they did not believe that revolution in the
United States was something that would happen in their lifetimes. Yet, with the deepest of
convictions, they felt that their particular political understanding of the contradictions in
capitalism and their own personal experiences as women heightened their awareness of the
need for a more just society. As they saw it, this made them part of an inevitable process,
giving them a place in the history of humankind.
Whether or not, in these early months, it was outwardly acknowledged, Baxter was the leader
of this group. She brought structure and discipline and she led the study of the basic ideology.
Having floundered for some time on their own, these women, for the most part, welcomed
Baxter’s level of knowledge and decisiveness. It was quite clear that she was taking the lead
they felt a kind of elated relief, albeit with some personal trepidation because of her strong-
willed and domineering personality. As one founder stated, “She was the leadership. There
was no question about it. She was the motivating force. She was the organizer. She was the
teacher to us all --and at that time she was a very good teacher.” Another founder described
it this way: “Her role as the leader evolved. There was a need --she filled it. She wanted to
do it. And so it happened.”
By the fall of 1975 there were about 25 members and a growing recruitment pool. One year
after the founding meetings, the initial group was solidified in its commitment and Doreen
Baxter was firmly established as the theoretical and organizational leader.
A Cult in the Making
Despite her lengthy absences, Baxter was able to actively provide not only theoretical but also
organizational leadership. Besides the units she divided them into, which was certainly one
means of control, there was a great deal of telephone communication with her. There were no
independent moves on the part of the rest of the group. It became standard practice to
always check what she would think about something before proceeding on any activity. One
founder explained: “We would go to several different phone booths and make these
convoluted long-distance calls to her because of all the security we felt was needed. We would
talk with her for an hour or so and get direction on what we were doing or should do next. I
don’t think a single independent decision was made without consulting her and getting her
approval from the very beginning. We learned to do that very early on --so she wouldn’t blow
up about something.”
Returning to the Bay Area on each of her university breaks, Baxter always took charge, made
her presence known, “reclaimed the crown as it were,” said one of the founders. Invariably
she was highly critical of what they had been doing, proving once again their need for her
leadership and guidance. Indeed, she always found something or someone to “blow up
about.” These were not pleasant episodes. Baxter was big, loud, good at slamming down her
things and making a scene, expert at making the other person look stupid. She commonly
used ridicule combined with stern criticism to attack any independent decisions, that is,
decisions she didn’t have the final say in. Baxter soon became the sole arbiter of the
