Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 17
Irresponsibility in words and actions must be controlled. This control of individualism
brings strength to the organization it also improves our work with the people.
Control keeps people responsible. Control furthers the unity of our organization.
In order to have cooperation and a true collectivity, in order for it to be correct,
discipline of the highest order is required. We believe that the single cadre must
merge into the larger whole. To be a collectivity means that we cannot abide by any
act of individualism whatsoever. Individualism will disrupt or destroy the strength and
power of what we have built. Individualism and cooperation cannot coexist. Each
comrade is to constantly remind herself or himself of this guiding principle: The whole
is greater than the sum of its parts the organization always and forever comes
before the individual. There is ONLY the organization. We are nothing without it.
The duty of each cadre is to participate fully in the life of the organization, to follow
discipline, to work cooperatively and collectively, to ensure that all other cadres are
held responsible for their actions, and, of utmost importance and to be carried out
without fail, to point out errors, overcome faults, and correct mistakes. Struggle is
the life of the organization. With the resolution of each struggle comes a higher level
of development, another advancement in exemplary practice. This is how we increase
the fighting capacity of the whole organization.
The Expulsion of Baxter’s Rival
With the acceptance of the norms outlined in Baxter’s paper, the group was increasingly
bound to follow her direction. There was, however, one woman among the founders, Helene,
who from the beginning was prone to voicing her doubts and objections. Whenever Baxter
was in town she was quick to launch attacks upon Helene. The final assault came with her
move to San Francisco in the summer of 1975.
During the past year, it was clear to the rest of the group that Helene was the strongest
opposition to Baxter. Helene did not worship Baxter. She didn’t let her ride on her laurels, and
she wasn’t afraid to let this be known. Helene was not only raising theoretical questions, but
also she was asking who Doreen Baxter was and why the group always had to follow her lead.
One of the debates within the group, which took place when Baxter was out of town, centered
around what she would be doing to support herself upon relocation to San Francisco at the
end of the academic year. Would she get a job? Or would she build the party, that is, not
work and be supported by the others? Helene promoted the view that Baxter should work like
the rest, “proletarianize herself,” as she put it. Most of the others weren’t certain about this
issue. The one exception was Sandra, who supported Baxter in every way. Since Sandra was
in regular phone communication with Baxter, it is not unlikely that Baxter was kept abreast of
who within the group was and was not supporting her direction and her ideas.
With her relocation to San Francisco, Baxter moved against Helene with a vengeance. She
began with criticisms that were of a political nature, centering on what she described as the
dogmatic content of the Central Committee’s position paper (changed from “On the World
Situation” to “The Strategy Papers”). Baxter argued that the paper had been overly influenced
by Helene. She knew that Helene had friends and roommates who were with another leftist
formation. Also, she knew that, besides herself, Helene was the most studied in Marxism and
that Helene was the group’s opinion leader when she was absent. Baxter immediately labeled
Helene’s influence on the position paper as Stalinist and dogmatic --very serious and very
negative charges in this new group that was aspiring to be exactly the opposite and so
different from the rest of the Marxist-Leninist Left.
Within hours of her return to San Francisco, Baxter challenged Helene to open warfare.
Polemics were written critiques were discussed. With a mimeo machine in one of their
Irresponsibility in words and actions must be controlled. This control of individualism
brings strength to the organization it also improves our work with the people.
Control keeps people responsible. Control furthers the unity of our organization.
In order to have cooperation and a true collectivity, in order for it to be correct,
discipline of the highest order is required. We believe that the single cadre must
merge into the larger whole. To be a collectivity means that we cannot abide by any
act of individualism whatsoever. Individualism will disrupt or destroy the strength and
power of what we have built. Individualism and cooperation cannot coexist. Each
comrade is to constantly remind herself or himself of this guiding principle: The whole
is greater than the sum of its parts the organization always and forever comes
before the individual. There is ONLY the organization. We are nothing without it.
The duty of each cadre is to participate fully in the life of the organization, to follow
discipline, to work cooperatively and collectively, to ensure that all other cadres are
held responsible for their actions, and, of utmost importance and to be carried out
without fail, to point out errors, overcome faults, and correct mistakes. Struggle is
the life of the organization. With the resolution of each struggle comes a higher level
of development, another advancement in exemplary practice. This is how we increase
the fighting capacity of the whole organization.
The Expulsion of Baxter’s Rival
With the acceptance of the norms outlined in Baxter’s paper, the group was increasingly
bound to follow her direction. There was, however, one woman among the founders, Helene,
who from the beginning was prone to voicing her doubts and objections. Whenever Baxter
was in town she was quick to launch attacks upon Helene. The final assault came with her
move to San Francisco in the summer of 1975.
During the past year, it was clear to the rest of the group that Helene was the strongest
opposition to Baxter. Helene did not worship Baxter. She didn’t let her ride on her laurels, and
she wasn’t afraid to let this be known. Helene was not only raising theoretical questions, but
also she was asking who Doreen Baxter was and why the group always had to follow her lead.
One of the debates within the group, which took place when Baxter was out of town, centered
around what she would be doing to support herself upon relocation to San Francisco at the
end of the academic year. Would she get a job? Or would she build the party, that is, not
work and be supported by the others? Helene promoted the view that Baxter should work like
the rest, “proletarianize herself,” as she put it. Most of the others weren’t certain about this
issue. The one exception was Sandra, who supported Baxter in every way. Since Sandra was
in regular phone communication with Baxter, it is not unlikely that Baxter was kept abreast of
who within the group was and was not supporting her direction and her ideas.
With her relocation to San Francisco, Baxter moved against Helene with a vengeance. She
began with criticisms that were of a political nature, centering on what she described as the
dogmatic content of the Central Committee’s position paper (changed from “On the World
Situation” to “The Strategy Papers”). Baxter argued that the paper had been overly influenced
by Helene. She knew that Helene had friends and roommates who were with another leftist
formation. Also, she knew that, besides herself, Helene was the most studied in Marxism and
that Helene was the group’s opinion leader when she was absent. Baxter immediately labeled
Helene’s influence on the position paper as Stalinist and dogmatic --very serious and very
negative charges in this new group that was aspiring to be exactly the opposite and so
different from the rest of the Marxist-Leninist Left.
Within hours of her return to San Francisco, Baxter challenged Helene to open warfare.
Polemics were written critiques were discussed. With a mimeo machine in one of their
