Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 28
Indoctrination Structures
Although a variety of internal structures existed at different times in the WDU’s history, there
was a commonality to all of them. One mainstay was the weekly meeting, initially called the
Development Group, and eventually called the Branch meeting, in the tradition of other
communist parties. The average Branch had 10 to 12 members, but at times could have 20 or
more. Everyone (except General Secretary Doreen Baxter) went to the weekly meeting, either
as part of the collective leadership or as a member. As the organization grew and others were
promoted to upper- and middle-level leadership positions, Sandra also was exempt from
attending Branch. The meeting’s agenda was modeled on the typical communist party
meeting: discussions of the “practice” (that is, the current organizing work), recruitment
review, political study, one or more criticisms, and collection of dues. In the early years, the
Branch met on Saturdays, from 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. Once the WDU was more actively involved
in public work (“mass practice”) and especially electoral work, the Branch meeting was
changed to Friday nights, from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. --or later.
Other regular weekly meetings included New Members Class, Party School, and Remolding
Group. In 1975 and part of 1976, those members considered by Baxter to be particularly
resistant to change were put into a Remolding Group. For example, after Miriam was criticized
for not defending Baxter’s interests against Helene, she was removed from the Central
Committee and put in a Remolding Group for re-education. Here members were subjected to
an even more intense level of criticism and self-examination. This group was led by Brenda,
one of the founders, with detailed guidance from Baxter on what to criticize and how to carry
out the struggle sessions. Brenda gave detailed reports, in writing and verbally in Central
Committee meetings, on the progress of the Remolding Group.
Party School focused on the concentrated study of Training of the Cadre, the WDU manual
that spelled out Baxter’s version of cadre development. Party School met weekly (sometimes
biweekly). Each group had about 20 members. Unlike the Branch, which had a collective
leadership of two or three, Party School had only one person in leader-ship. Party School was
touted as elite training. Here, the criticism was to be more intense than what went on in the
Branch, going more to the core of the member’s commitment. Criticism focused more on
thoughts and feelings rather than actual mistakes or actions. Only a small, select group was
chosen to be Party School teachers. This group received special training from Sandra (in
consultation with Baxter) in how to lead the study and criticism. Party School started in 1976
and was reinstituted sporadically, for perhaps several months at a time, throughout the early
years. In later years, this type of formal, intensive cadre training was discontinued.
New Members Class was started also in 1976 to accommodate the growing membership. It
was to serve as a more organized way of impart-ing party discipline and party norms. Classes
met weekly, comprised of six to eight newly accepted members and two teachers. The goal
was to “break” the new members --that is, leadership was to concentrate on moving each
new member from the shaky, uncertain commitment normal upon joining to a firm and
unwavering devotion to the party.
All of the structures and techniques were clearly meant to change the individual member.
These methods were successful a hundred times over. Baxter created the most loyal and rigid
followership. Once at a Central Committee meeting, shortly after the Jonestown massacre, a
CC member dared to question what we were creating. “I’m afraid we’re a cult,” he said. “How
are we different from the Moonies?” he rather painfully asked. Baxter’s answer, which
afterwards got included in early party training, seemed to erase any doubts: “We are not a
cult,” she professed, “and we’re not brainwashed. Why? Because we willingly and consciously
submit to cadre transformation. Transformation is our goal!”
Indoctrination Structures
Although a variety of internal structures existed at different times in the WDU’s history, there
was a commonality to all of them. One mainstay was the weekly meeting, initially called the
Development Group, and eventually called the Branch meeting, in the tradition of other
communist parties. The average Branch had 10 to 12 members, but at times could have 20 or
more. Everyone (except General Secretary Doreen Baxter) went to the weekly meeting, either
as part of the collective leadership or as a member. As the organization grew and others were
promoted to upper- and middle-level leadership positions, Sandra also was exempt from
attending Branch. The meeting’s agenda was modeled on the typical communist party
meeting: discussions of the “practice” (that is, the current organizing work), recruitment
review, political study, one or more criticisms, and collection of dues. In the early years, the
Branch met on Saturdays, from 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. Once the WDU was more actively involved
in public work (“mass practice”) and especially electoral work, the Branch meeting was
changed to Friday nights, from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. --or later.
Other regular weekly meetings included New Members Class, Party School, and Remolding
Group. In 1975 and part of 1976, those members considered by Baxter to be particularly
resistant to change were put into a Remolding Group. For example, after Miriam was criticized
for not defending Baxter’s interests against Helene, she was removed from the Central
Committee and put in a Remolding Group for re-education. Here members were subjected to
an even more intense level of criticism and self-examination. This group was led by Brenda,
one of the founders, with detailed guidance from Baxter on what to criticize and how to carry
out the struggle sessions. Brenda gave detailed reports, in writing and verbally in Central
Committee meetings, on the progress of the Remolding Group.
Party School focused on the concentrated study of Training of the Cadre, the WDU manual
that spelled out Baxter’s version of cadre development. Party School met weekly (sometimes
biweekly). Each group had about 20 members. Unlike the Branch, which had a collective
leadership of two or three, Party School had only one person in leader-ship. Party School was
touted as elite training. Here, the criticism was to be more intense than what went on in the
Branch, going more to the core of the member’s commitment. Criticism focused more on
thoughts and feelings rather than actual mistakes or actions. Only a small, select group was
chosen to be Party School teachers. This group received special training from Sandra (in
consultation with Baxter) in how to lead the study and criticism. Party School started in 1976
and was reinstituted sporadically, for perhaps several months at a time, throughout the early
years. In later years, this type of formal, intensive cadre training was discontinued.
New Members Class was started also in 1976 to accommodate the growing membership. It
was to serve as a more organized way of impart-ing party discipline and party norms. Classes
met weekly, comprised of six to eight newly accepted members and two teachers. The goal
was to “break” the new members --that is, leadership was to concentrate on moving each
new member from the shaky, uncertain commitment normal upon joining to a firm and
unwavering devotion to the party.
All of the structures and techniques were clearly meant to change the individual member.
These methods were successful a hundred times over. Baxter created the most loyal and rigid
followership. Once at a Central Committee meeting, shortly after the Jonestown massacre, a
CC member dared to question what we were creating. “I’m afraid we’re a cult,” he said. “How
are we different from the Moonies?” he rather painfully asked. Baxter’s answer, which
afterwards got included in early party training, seemed to erase any doubts: “We are not a
cult,” she professed, “and we’re not brainwashed. Why? Because we willingly and consciously
submit to cadre transformation. Transformation is our goal!”
