Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 18
houses, members of the group spent much of their energy on typing, reproducing, and
distributing these documents amongst themselves.
Two Founders Attacked
In fact, Helene had greatly influenced the thinking presented in “The Strategy Papers.”
Nevertheless, this brewing controversy was recognized by the group as an obvious power
struggle between Baxter and Helene. Both saw themselves as leaders. Doreen Baxter won.
Helene’s personal style, although domineering, was not as manipulative she was clearly less
skilled as an organizer of people. Meanwhile, Baxter was a genius at using a combination of
flattery and emotional terrorism. Rather quickly Helene found herself without any supporters.
Baxter mobilized the others against Helene, whipping them into a frenzy. She called Helene a
dogmatist, a class traitor, an enemy of the people.
Miriam, a member of the Central Committee at the time, remembered it like this: “The
charges laid out against Helene were beyond anything I could have conceived of. I thought to
myself, if I were brighter I would have spotted Helene as this corrupt influence in our midst,
but clearly I didn’t understand the ramifications. The complexity of Baxter’s criticisms and her
political analysis somehow made the severity of her accusations easier to accept.”
Soon enough Miriam herself was being criticized by Baxter as a liberal and a wimp (both
harsh criticisms to a communist) and was being blamed for having allowed a renegade to
worm into their group. Thanks to Baxter’s constant reminders in the months and years to
come, Miriam (Baxter’s original connection to the group) was never able to outlive this
derogatory image. Despite having been a founder, well-read, and a hard-working activist, she
was never again given a position of responsibility in the organization. This negative
stereotyping of Miriam was the beginning of many moves by Baxter over the years to
discredit, denounce, humiliate, demote, and, in some cases, expel the 12 other founders. In
fact, eight were expelled. Three others were relegated to low-level, nonleadership positions
their images were that of the incompetent but loyal follower.
Baxter’s attacks on Helene and Miriam were also typical of the kind of power and intimidation
tactics used throughout the years. Soon it was widely known throughout the organization and
remained known over the years that one mistake could cause the kind of fall and/or disgrace
experienced by these two early comrades. Anyone could become a Helene or a Miriam.
By uniting the others against Helene, Baxter solidified the organization around her. In the
end, after several months of debate, criticism, and struggle, everyone was against Helene.
Papers called “Against Stalinism and Dogmatism” (later to be issued in a document entitled
Organizational Unity) were drafted out of the documents generated during the months of
debate. They were some of the first WDU documents, studied in great detail in the early
years. The purpose of this study was not, as one might think, to provide an understanding of
Stalinism or dogmatism. Rather, the study was meant to show that Baxter would allow no
factions, no opinions other than her own, that she was always right and she always won, and
let there be no mercy for those who got in the way.
At Baxter’s instigation, Sandra led an “investigation” of Helene. Sandra called on Lucie,
another founder and previously Helene’s best friend, to carry out this task. Using Lucie in this
assignment served a dual purpose. It ensured Lucie’s silence by forcing her to suppress any
doubts she might have had, thereby binding her into going along with the leadership’s
decisions in this matter. At the same time, seeing Lucie as the chief investigator in her case
would work to intimidate Helene, who would soon realize that even her best friend was
against her. The use of a best friend, or in some cases a spouse, as a key player in an
investigation, denunciation, trial, or expulsion became a standard technique. Not only did it
serve to separate people from one another, instilling a distrust for any and all comrades, but
also it taught the lesson of organizational allegiance above and beyond any personal loyalty.
houses, members of the group spent much of their energy on typing, reproducing, and
distributing these documents amongst themselves.
Two Founders Attacked
In fact, Helene had greatly influenced the thinking presented in “The Strategy Papers.”
Nevertheless, this brewing controversy was recognized by the group as an obvious power
struggle between Baxter and Helene. Both saw themselves as leaders. Doreen Baxter won.
Helene’s personal style, although domineering, was not as manipulative she was clearly less
skilled as an organizer of people. Meanwhile, Baxter was a genius at using a combination of
flattery and emotional terrorism. Rather quickly Helene found herself without any supporters.
Baxter mobilized the others against Helene, whipping them into a frenzy. She called Helene a
dogmatist, a class traitor, an enemy of the people.
Miriam, a member of the Central Committee at the time, remembered it like this: “The
charges laid out against Helene were beyond anything I could have conceived of. I thought to
myself, if I were brighter I would have spotted Helene as this corrupt influence in our midst,
but clearly I didn’t understand the ramifications. The complexity of Baxter’s criticisms and her
political analysis somehow made the severity of her accusations easier to accept.”
Soon enough Miriam herself was being criticized by Baxter as a liberal and a wimp (both
harsh criticisms to a communist) and was being blamed for having allowed a renegade to
worm into their group. Thanks to Baxter’s constant reminders in the months and years to
come, Miriam (Baxter’s original connection to the group) was never able to outlive this
derogatory image. Despite having been a founder, well-read, and a hard-working activist, she
was never again given a position of responsibility in the organization. This negative
stereotyping of Miriam was the beginning of many moves by Baxter over the years to
discredit, denounce, humiliate, demote, and, in some cases, expel the 12 other founders. In
fact, eight were expelled. Three others were relegated to low-level, nonleadership positions
their images were that of the incompetent but loyal follower.
Baxter’s attacks on Helene and Miriam were also typical of the kind of power and intimidation
tactics used throughout the years. Soon it was widely known throughout the organization and
remained known over the years that one mistake could cause the kind of fall and/or disgrace
experienced by these two early comrades. Anyone could become a Helene or a Miriam.
By uniting the others against Helene, Baxter solidified the organization around her. In the
end, after several months of debate, criticism, and struggle, everyone was against Helene.
Papers called “Against Stalinism and Dogmatism” (later to be issued in a document entitled
Organizational Unity) were drafted out of the documents generated during the months of
debate. They were some of the first WDU documents, studied in great detail in the early
years. The purpose of this study was not, as one might think, to provide an understanding of
Stalinism or dogmatism. Rather, the study was meant to show that Baxter would allow no
factions, no opinions other than her own, that she was always right and she always won, and
let there be no mercy for those who got in the way.
At Baxter’s instigation, Sandra led an “investigation” of Helene. Sandra called on Lucie,
another founder and previously Helene’s best friend, to carry out this task. Using Lucie in this
assignment served a dual purpose. It ensured Lucie’s silence by forcing her to suppress any
doubts she might have had, thereby binding her into going along with the leadership’s
decisions in this matter. At the same time, seeing Lucie as the chief investigator in her case
would work to intimidate Helene, who would soon realize that even her best friend was
against her. The use of a best friend, or in some cases a spouse, as a key player in an
investigation, denunciation, trial, or expulsion became a standard technique. Not only did it
serve to separate people from one another, instilling a distrust for any and all comrades, but
also it taught the lesson of organizational allegiance above and beyond any personal loyalty.
