Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 6
consideration, if not the decisive factor, in joining. It was the overriding ingredient in the hope
and belief that this group would be different. And much was made of this special quality,
especially in the early years. It was a recurring theme in recruitment, in criticism sessions,
and in political study. Baxter, in fact, liked to talk about the organization’s feminist founding
as “our secret weapon.” Thus, these feminist trappings were vital to the founding, evolution,
and daily inner workings.
What appeal could such a group have to numerous women and men who were dissatisfied
with their lives, just at the moment when feminism was coming into its own? What claims
could such a group make --having bestowed itself with an even greater mantle of self-
righteousness among the “politically correct” at the time? What abuses could go unchallenged
because they emanated from a female leader, a woman of the working poor --no matter how
cruel, no matter how irrational, no matter how under the influence of too much alcohol or too
much misdirected anger? What excesses could be excused to defend the existence of the
organization, in the belief that the ends justify the means --and even one step beyond? For
did it not become a matter of “revolutionary principle” to uphold the utterly unique nature of
an organization that was both feminist and Marxist, and led by a most singular female leader?
Our leader, our Lenin, our god.
This, then, is a story of the 1970s --and a story of today. From it we can learn about the
dangers of too much belief outside oneself --so much belief that one day there was nothing
left to believe in. The Empress lost her clothes.
I. The Origins
The Marxist Context
In this paper I intentionally focus less on the actual political work of the WDU than on the
techniques employed to attract members, bind them to the group, and persuade them to
stay. Since the WDU was a political group of the radical Left, I wish to make clear that this is
neither an analysis or critique of political ideologies per se, nor an attempt to conclude that
the organizational methodology of Marxism-Leninism leads necessarily to cultic formation.
There is a vast body of literature showing that restrictive groups can be and are focused
around many themes --religion, therapy, self-help, the occult, race, new-age beliefs, even
flying saucers. And it is recognized that a combination of factors is necessary to generate
what would be considered a cult, destructive or otherwise. These factors include sociopolitical
aspects, cultural milieu, a charismatic leader, and an all-embracing ideology that appeals to
vulnerable potential members. Therefore, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism is by no means a
necessary criterion nor does Marxism-Leninism per se imply cultism.
On the other hand, it would be both naive and misleading to deny or skirt the rather
controversial nature of Marxism-Leninism in practice. One merely has had to watch current
events to see that some of the world’s staunchest Marxists have been questioning, continue
to question, and, in some cases, are completely discarding previously honored premises. It is
widely recognized that any fervent belief has the ability to lead its adherents to fanaticism.
Marxists are certainly not exempt from this phenomenon in fact, perhaps, they are too well
known for it. As one Eastern European described his experience:
It was an era of great collective faith. A man who kept in step with the era
experienced feelings that were all but religious: he renounced his ego, his person, his
private life in favor of some-thing higher, something suprapersonal. True, the basic
doctrines of Marxism are purely secular in origin, but the significance now assigned
them is similar to that of the Gospel and the Biblical commandments. They have
grown into a body of thought which is inviolable and therefore, in our terminology,
inviolate. (Kundera, 1983, p. 190)
consideration, if not the decisive factor, in joining. It was the overriding ingredient in the hope
and belief that this group would be different. And much was made of this special quality,
especially in the early years. It was a recurring theme in recruitment, in criticism sessions,
and in political study. Baxter, in fact, liked to talk about the organization’s feminist founding
as “our secret weapon.” Thus, these feminist trappings were vital to the founding, evolution,
and daily inner workings.
What appeal could such a group have to numerous women and men who were dissatisfied
with their lives, just at the moment when feminism was coming into its own? What claims
could such a group make --having bestowed itself with an even greater mantle of self-
righteousness among the “politically correct” at the time? What abuses could go unchallenged
because they emanated from a female leader, a woman of the working poor --no matter how
cruel, no matter how irrational, no matter how under the influence of too much alcohol or too
much misdirected anger? What excesses could be excused to defend the existence of the
organization, in the belief that the ends justify the means --and even one step beyond? For
did it not become a matter of “revolutionary principle” to uphold the utterly unique nature of
an organization that was both feminist and Marxist, and led by a most singular female leader?
Our leader, our Lenin, our god.
This, then, is a story of the 1970s --and a story of today. From it we can learn about the
dangers of too much belief outside oneself --so much belief that one day there was nothing
left to believe in. The Empress lost her clothes.
I. The Origins
The Marxist Context
In this paper I intentionally focus less on the actual political work of the WDU than on the
techniques employed to attract members, bind them to the group, and persuade them to
stay. Since the WDU was a political group of the radical Left, I wish to make clear that this is
neither an analysis or critique of political ideologies per se, nor an attempt to conclude that
the organizational methodology of Marxism-Leninism leads necessarily to cultic formation.
There is a vast body of literature showing that restrictive groups can be and are focused
around many themes --religion, therapy, self-help, the occult, race, new-age beliefs, even
flying saucers. And it is recognized that a combination of factors is necessary to generate
what would be considered a cult, destructive or otherwise. These factors include sociopolitical
aspects, cultural milieu, a charismatic leader, and an all-embracing ideology that appeals to
vulnerable potential members. Therefore, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism is by no means a
necessary criterion nor does Marxism-Leninism per se imply cultism.
On the other hand, it would be both naive and misleading to deny or skirt the rather
controversial nature of Marxism-Leninism in practice. One merely has had to watch current
events to see that some of the world’s staunchest Marxists have been questioning, continue
to question, and, in some cases, are completely discarding previously honored premises. It is
widely recognized that any fervent belief has the ability to lead its adherents to fanaticism.
Marxists are certainly not exempt from this phenomenon in fact, perhaps, they are too well
known for it. As one Eastern European described his experience:
It was an era of great collective faith. A man who kept in step with the era
experienced feelings that were all but religious: he renounced his ego, his person, his
private life in favor of some-thing higher, something suprapersonal. True, the basic
doctrines of Marxism are purely secular in origin, but the significance now assigned
them is similar to that of the Gospel and the Biblical commandments. They have
grown into a body of thought which is inviolable and therefore, in our terminology,
inviolate. (Kundera, 1983, p. 190)
