Skip to main content

Full text of "Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, petitioner, v. the Communist Party of the United States of America, respondent. William A. Paisley [and others] for petitioner; Vito Marcantonio ..., John J. Abt, and Joseph Forer, for respondent. Modified report of the Board [December 18, 1956], docket no. 51-101"

See other formats


cKo ^illi^Jttl2LiD 


Given By 

U. S. SUri'. Oh' D'JCUxMENTS 




83d CoNGREssl QTrxTATTT' /Document 

1st Session / SENATE | No_ 4I 




HERBERT BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General 
OF THE United States 





presented by MR. McCARRAN 
April 23 (legislative day April 6), 1953.— Ordered to be printed 



32491 WASHINGTON : 1953 





reliminary statement. 

,^^,i<^inding^ of fact_ 

•^•A. World Communist movement. 
B. Policies and directives; 




Respondent's organization and leadership 



Democratic centralism and self-criticism 

Foreign representatives in the United States 

The Communist press 

Major programs 

(a) Trade-union work 

(6) Youth work 

National liberation 

Ideological versus political aims 

Conclusion as to major programs 

8. Conclusion as to foreign policies and directives 

Nondeviation i 

Financial aid 

Training and reporting 

Disciplinary power 

Secret practices 

'^-^ Secret and open members 

2. Refusal to reveal information 

Destruction and secretion of records 

Deceptive language in party writings 

Use of party names, aliases, etc 

Use of codes, couriers, etc 

False swearing 

Secret meetings of trusted members 

Reduction of committee membership for security. 

Assignment of members in small groups 

Underground plans and operation 

Infiltration of other organizations 

Purpose of secret practices 




































Appendix A. 
Appendix B. 





No. 51-101 

Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United 
States, Petitioner v. The Communist Party of the United 
States of America, Respondent 

William A. Paisley, Fraiik DeNunzio, Robert B. Gaston, Noel E. 
Story, Benjamin F. Taylor, Jr., Bourke J. Sheehan, Clifford J. Nelson, 
Nathan B. Lenvin, for Petitioner. 

Vito Marcantonio, John J. Aht, Joseph Forer, for Respondent. 

Report of the Board 

On November 22, 1950, the Attorney General of the United States, 
Petitioner herein, acting under Section 13 (a) of The Subversive Activ- 
ities Control Act of 1950, hereinafter called the Act, filed a petition 
with the Board for an order requiring the Communist Party of the 
United States of America (CPUSA), Respondent herein, to register 
with the Attorney General as required by Sections 7 (a), (c), and (d) 
of the Act. The petition alleges that Respondent is a Communist- 
action organization as defined in the Act and as measured by the stand- 
ards specified therein, and it sets forth numerous allegations of fact 
in support of its contention. 

A copy of the petition was served by Petitioner upon Respondent 
on November 24, 1950. Answer under protest was filed by Respond- 
ent on February 14, 1951, and on April 3, 1951, an amended answer 
was filed. ^ 

In the amended answer Respondent admits that it was organized in 
1919 and has been in existence continuously since that date. Other- 
wise, the substance and effect of its answer is to deny that Respondent 
fits the definition and standards of a Communist-action organization 
as alleged in the petition. 

Hearings for the purpose of taking evidence on the petition com- 
menced on April 23, 1951, before thi'ee members of the Board sitting 
as a hearing panel. 

On October 20, 1951, one member of the Hearing Panel became 
unavailable to the Board by virtue of the adjournment of Congress 
w^ithout taking action upon his nomination to the Board. The hearing 
proceeded before the remaining two members of the Hearing Panel, 
who were present and participated during the entire hearing. Re- 
spondent, on October 23, 1951, moved the Board for an order striking 
all evidence theretofore received and all proceedings theretofore held 

1 In the interim period Respondent attacked the validity of the proceeding by various motions addressed 
to the Board, which vt^ere denied, and also instituted suit in the United States District Court for the District 
of Columbia for a preliminary injunction to stay the proceeding and for a permanent injunction and declara 
tory judgment (Civil Action 419-51). A three-judge statutory court on February 28, 1951, denied Respond- 
ent's motion for a preliminary injunction {Communist Party of the United States v. McOrath, 96 F. Supp. 47) 
but on March 13, 1951, issued an order staying answer and hearings before the Board to and including March 
27, 1951, pending appeal. An extension of this stay was refused by the United States Supreme Comt on 
March 26, 1951, and Respondent voluntarily discontinued the proceeding. 


because of the failure of the Senate to confirm the one member, and 
because of alleged l)ias and prejudice of the Panel against Respondent, 
which motion was denied following oral argument thereon. Respond- 
ent thereupon instituted suit in the United States District Court to 
enjoin the hearings but was not successful.^ 

Hearings for the purpose of taking evidence on the petition, having 
commenced on April 23, 1951, terminated on .July 1, 1952. 

Briefs and proposed findings of fact were filed b}^ each party on 
July 28, 1952. On August G, 1952, reply briefs were filed by each of 
the parties, and on August 14, 1952, oral argument thereon was held 
before the Hearing Panel. 

On October 20, 1952, the Hearing Panel issued its Recommended 
Decision finding Respondent to be a Communist-action organization 
as defined in the Act and recommending that the Board issue an order 
requiring Respondent to register as such with the Attorney' General 
of the United States. 

On November 21, 1952, Petitioner filed exceptions to the Recom- 
mended Decision requesting that the Board adopt the Panel's findings 
with certain minor changes of text. On November 24, 1952, Respond- 
ent filed its exceptions to the Recommended Decision, accompanied 
by a memorandum in support thereof, and four motions. Following 
oral argument, the motions were denied in our Memoranda Opinions 
and Orders of December 23, 1952, and February 24, 1953. Oral 
argument on the exceptions to the Recommended Decision was had 
before us on January 7, 1953. 

Respondent notes 310 exceptions, most of which contain numerous 
grounds for attacking a specified portion or finding of the Recom- 
mended Decision. Illustrative of the natm'e of its exceptions is 
Exception No. 51, which reads as follows: 

Respondent excepts to the statement as to the end towards which certain 
poHcics and activities of the Respondent are directed fp. 26, 11. 29-32), as being 
unsui)i)orted by the evidence, contrai\' to tlie evidence, based on irrelevant 
matters, based on constitutionally i)rotected conduct and expression, and made 
with an improper reliance on pre-Act matters. 

In addition to taking exception to virtually every statement in the 
Recommended Decision on what amounts to a line-by-line l)asis. 
Respondent in many instances made a general exception to entire 
captioned sections of the Recommended Decision, illustrative of which 
is Exception No. 102: 

On the .same grounds [same as excei)tion Xo. 101; i. c., irrational, unsupported 
by the evidence, contrary to the evidence, beyond tlie scope of the petition, and 
based on an improper reliance on pre-Act matters] Respondent excepts to the 
entire section of the Recommended Decision which appears under the subheading 
"Trade-Union Activities" (i)p. ")0-58). 

In ad(Htion to the foregoing, Respondent, by its Exception No. 
310, attacks the Recommended Decision as a whole on the grounds 
that it is arliitrnry; eapricious; not in necordnne(> with law; contrary 
to the Constitution, including the First and Fifth Aniemhuents; made 
without the observance of procedure required by law; unsupported 
by the evidence or by a preponderance thereof; contrary to the 
(>vidence and a j)reponderance thereof; largely l)ased on incompetent 
and irrelevant evidence and on testimony not entitled to credence; 

' The I'liltcd states District Court for the District of Columbia, on February IS, 1952, entered an order 
prantiiiK the Hoard's motion to dismiss, and dismissing the nroccpdlnR boforo the court. Communist Party 
of the United Slates of America v. Peter CampbelUirowii, et al. (Civil Action 4&I8-51). 


based on evidence and findings outside the scope of the petition; and 
largely resulting from improper use of, and reliance on, matters and 
events which antedate the enactment of the Act;^ further, that the 
Panel has not performed is function of weighing, analyzing, and 
describing the evidence and contentions of the parties; that the Panel 
has obscured, concealed, and misstated what the record actually 
shows; that it has so intermingled pre-Act and post-Act evidence as 
to confuse and misstate the record and vitiate its findings and con- 
clusions; and, that the Panel's decision is clearly a product of bias and 

Respondent also preserves all exceptions which have accrued to it 
as a result of rulings adverse to it heretofore made by the Hearing 
Panel or the Board. 

Notwithstanding the general, sweeping nature of these exceptions 
and their lack of substantive specificity, we have carefully examined 
and considered each of them, as well as the matters set forth in 
Respondent's memorandum in support thereof. 

In making our findings herein, we have reviewed the entire record 
and we have appraised the Recommended Decision, and the exceptions 
taken thereto by both parties, in the light thereof. Except to the 
extent the exceptions of either party are expressly or impliedly incor- 
porated herein, they are hereby expressly overruled as being un- 
supported by the evidence or otherwise lacking in merit. 

In this report, we discuss the evidence under topical headings which 
in the main conform to the sequence of the criteria of Section 13 (e) 
of the Act which we are required to consider. This arrangement also 
substantially follows the allegations of the petition. 

In making om- findings herein, we have considered and weighed 
all the evidence of record. In weighing Petitioner's evidence, we have 
considered that certain of its witnesses fall into the category of 
"informers" and we have scrutinized their testimony accordingly; 
we have considered and resolved the inconsistencies in the testimony 
of certain of Petitioner's witnesses; we have considered the testimony 
of Petitioner's witnesses against the background of their various 
organizational positions and activities in the CPUSA which afforded 
the sources of their knowledge; and we have had the benefit of the 
Panel's observation of their demeanor while testifying. Viewing 
these considerations in the light of the whole record, we find no basis 
for disregarding the substance of their testimony. 

We have likewise w^eighed and evaluated Respondent's evidence, 
taking into account that each of its tlu'ee witnesses has a vital personal 
interest in the outcome of this proceeding; that in nature and sub- 
stance the direct testimony of two of its witnesses amounted, in a 
large degree, to conclusory denials of the allegations of the petition 
and the criteria of Section 13 (e) of the Act; that important members 
of Respondent, whom Petitioner's witnesses had identified as being 
parties to, or present at, conversations which were detrimental to 
Respondent herein, were not called to rebut such testimony; and, that 
the Hearing Panel, having observed the demeanor of its witnesses as 
they testified, had some misgivings about certain of them. 

It is noteworthy that the stenographic record herein comprises 
14,413 pages and that in addition 507 exhibits, many of which are 
entire volumes, are part of the record. To set forth and resolve herein 

3 The matters raised in the exceptions pertaining to Pre-Act evidence and Constitutional issues are dealt 
with later herein under "Legal Discussion." 


all the conflicts between the evidence of the parties would unduly 
protract tliis report. AMiore Avarranted, liowciver, we treat specifically 
with confHcts in the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses with 
regard thereto in the body of tliis report. 

Applying the foregoing considerations, we have made our findings 
])elow. Such evidence of record that is inconsistent therewith is not 

A short biographical sketch of each witness, containing information 
pertinent to this proceeding, is contained in Appendix A, and a list 
of pul)lications which are in evidence and have major importance in 
this proceeding is contained in Appendix B. 

For clarity, it is desirable that we make certain findings based on 
the evidence herein concerning Respondent's publications and its 
general nature and organizational composition preliminary to setting 
out the body of the evidence. 

Therefore, we find: That Respondent is a disciplined organization 
numbering many thousands of members, which is controlled internally 
between conventions by a National Committee; that it has organiza- 
tional units at city, county, state, and district (includes multistate) 
levels which include clubs, cells, fractions, branches, and sections, and 
committees thereof; that, in addition to the foregoing, it maintains 
other operating committees for specific purposes; that Respondent has 
been in existence in the United States since 1919; and, that it is not a 
diplomatic representative or mission of a foreign goverimient ac- 
credited as such by the Department of State. 

We also find that the following publications, issues of Avhich are in 
evidence, are or were during their existence official and controlled 
organs of Respondent: 

(a) The Daily Worker; 

(b) The Worker; this is currently the Sunday edition of the Daily 
Worker; however, in the 192b's a paper with this name fulfilled 
much the same function as the present Daily Worker; 

(c) Political Affairs, a monthly magazine; 

(d) The CommuniM; the predecessor to Political Affairs, which served 
Respondent in the same capacity prior to early 1945. The same 
title was used for a Party newspaper early in Respondent's exist- 

I. Findings of Fact 


The delinition of a Conuuunist-action organization in -Section 3 (3), 
and the terms of the several criteria in Section 13 (e) of the Act make 
desirabk'- a fin<liug })ase(l ii])on the evidence in this proceeding con- 
cerning tli(> world Communist movement, its characteristics and the 
identilication of tlu- leadei-ship of sucli movement. 

Much of the evidence which estal)lishes the aUegations of the i)eti- 
tion pertaining to the various criteria in Section 13 (e) necessarily 
shows the existence of llic world Comm-mist mov(>ment, its character- 
istics and its leader, 'i'lie evidence sustaining these allegations is 
fully set forth hereafter in this I'cport. Conse(|uently, wo now set 
foi'th in snninnirv form only the evidence adduced in this ])i-oc(>c(ling 
which substantiates the (existence of the world Conununist niovi'inent, 
describes its nature and identifies its leadei-ship. 


The Respondent in its amended answer and through the testimony 
of its witnesses admits that a world Communist movement exists in 
the sense that the CPUS A and other Communist parties in countries 
throughout the workl are guided in their activity by a concept of 
"social science" called Marxism-Leninism,'* and have as their common 
goal the establishment of "socialism." Respondent contends, how- 
ever, that the international relationship among the Comm.unist 
parties of the world is merely a fraternal one. It denies that there 
exists a world Communist movement which is substantially dominated 
or controlled by the Soviet Union and which has as its purpose the 
establishment of dictatorships of the proletariat in all countries 
throughout the world. Respondent's witness Gates testified that, in 
referring to "the world Communist movement" in his wi-itings, he 
had in mind separate autonomous movements. Respondent's expert 
witness, Dr. Herbert Aptheker, teacher and trustee of the Jefferson 
School of Social Science, Editor of Masses and Main Stream, and Man- 
aging Editor of Political Affairs, offers the explanation that in Marxist- 
Leninist literature such terms as "international solidarity," "proletar- 
ian internationalism," "working class internationalism," etc., are used 
simply to indicate the fraternal relationship among the working classes 
of the countries of the world. Respondent's witness Elizabeth Gurley 
Flynn draws an analogy with the international trade-union movement, 
asserting that this movement exists but that there is no worldwide 
trade-union; and that, similarly, a world Communist movement does 
exist, but that an international integrated Communist Party does not. 
The witness Flynn admits that Stalin is universally regarded by 
Communists as the ideological leader of world Communism ^ and as 
the leader of the senior Communist Party of the world, the Commu- 
nist Party of the Soviet Union; however, she denies that either Stalin 
or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) exercises domi- 
nation or control over Respondent or any other Communist Party in 
the world. 

We are unable to accept these contentions of respondent concern- 
ing the existence, nature, purpose, and leadership of the world 
Communist movement, as they are contrary to the clear preponder- 
ance of evidence. 

The present world Communist movement was first manifested 
organizationally by the formation of the Third Communist Inter- 
national in Moscow in 1919. This event is recorded in the History 
oj the Communist Party oi the Soviet Union {Bolsheviks) (Pet. Ex. 330), 
as hereinafter developed.® 

One year later, July 17 to August 7, 1920, the Second Congress of 
the Conmiunist International adopted and promulgated its Theses 
and Statutes setting forth its aims and purposes as later detailed 
herein,^ which includes the following: 

The Communist International is aware that for the purpose of a speedy 
achievement of victory the International Association of Workers, which is 
struggling for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Communism, 
should possess a firm and centralized organization. To all intents and purposes 
the Communist International should represent a single universal Communist Party, 
of which the parties operating in every country form individual sections. The 

* See pp. 21-44, infra, for findings re Marxism-Leninism. 

« Subsequent to the hearing herein Stalin died; he has been succeeded by Georgi M, Malenliov. 

• See p. 10, infra; see also pp. 42-43, infra, for Respondent's adherence to this work. 
' See pp. 10-11, infra. 


organized apparatus of the Communist International is to secure to the toilers of 
every country the possibility at any given moment of obtaining the maximum of aid 
from the organized workers of the ether countries. 

For this purpose the Communist International confirms the following items of 
its statutes: 

Sec. 1. The new International Association of Workers is established for the 
purpose of organizing common actiinty of the workers of various countries who are 
striving toivards a single aim: the overthrow of capitalism; the establishment of 
the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the International Soviet Republic: the 
complete abolition of classes, and the realization of socialism — the first step of 
Communist Society. [Italic supplied.] (Pet. t,x. 8, p. 5.) 

The Communist International was in fact that which these pubH- 
cations proclaim, i. e., a universal Communist Party organized and 
controlled as to policies and activities by the Soviet Union and con- 
sisting of the various Communist parties of the countries throughout 
the world, which constituted sections of the Communist International. 
The Communist International embodied an elaborate organizational 
structure, including an Executive Committee; departments on Or- 
ganization Agitation and Propaganda, and Youth; Secretariats or 
Commissions covering sections of the world, such as the Far Eastern 
Secretariat, Anglo-American Secretariat, etc., which supervised the 
Communist parties in these repsective areas; and Field Bureaus. 

Respondent joined this international Communist organization 
shortly after it was constituted and admittedly until 1940 participated 
therein. Characteristic of the Communist International's worldwide 
activities were the Profintern or Red International of Labor Unions; 
MOPR, or the International Red Aid to defend Communists; the 
maintenance of representatives in various countries, first to enforce 
and insure adherence to its policies, and further to afford guidance 
and assistance; the instruction and training of individual members of 
its section Comminiist parties and the paj^ment of expenses incident 
thereto; the rendering of financial aid to the various Communist 
parties throughout the world, either directly in money disbursed to or 
for them or indirectly through furnishing of free propaganda materials, 
publications, printing, etc.; the exercise of strict disciplinary control 
over individual members and entire Communist Party sections, 
resulting in expulsion of a member for failure to follow Soviet Union 
policies and directives; the settlement of intraparty disputes and the 
resolution of issues relating to tactics, strategy, procedure, and policy 
of Communist Party sections; the command of paramoimt allegiance 
to the Soviet Union as the leader of international Communism and 
fatherland of the world proletariat; the strict adherence to that body 
of principles and policies called Marxism-Leninism; ^ all in furtherance 
of making secure the foundation of the world proletarian revolution, 
i. e., the Soviet Union, and installing Communist dictatorships under 
the direction and domination of the Soviet Union in all countries 
throughout the world, including the United States, by activity both 
open and secret and by any means whether legal or illegal. 

As a result of the passage of the Voorhis Act in 1940 (54 Stat. 1204) 
Respondent announced a disafliliation from the Communist Inter- 
national, but did not alter fundamentally its relationship with the 
Commtniist International.'' The Commimist International was 
fornudl\- dissolved as such in 1943, at which time the United States 

«8iep|). 21-44; 120, infra. 
* See pp. 14-16, infra. 


and the Soviet Union were military allies. This formal dissolution 
was accomplished, assertedly, in order to remove the foundation for 
"Fascist" charges that the Soviet Union was meddling in the internal 
affairs of other nations. In truth and in practice the world Communist 
movement, under the hegemony of the Soviet Union, has remained as 
theretofore, despite the "dissolution" of the Communist International. 

In 1947, the Communist Information Bureau, herein sometimes 
called the Cominform, was organized ^° to facilitate the coordination 
of activities of Communist parties of various countries in the struggle 
against "imperialism"; its membership consists of a number of 
Communist parties. 

Zhdanov, then a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union, in calling for greater and closer international 
coordination of action by Communist parties at the Communist 
Party Informative Conference in Poland in September 1947 stated, 
in part, as follows: 

* * * There can be no doubt that if the situation [the tendency toward the 
isolation of individual Communist parties] were to continue it would be fraught 
with most serious consequences to the development of the work of the fraternal 
parties. The need for mutual consultation and voluntary coordination of action 
between individual parties has become particularly urgent at the present juncture 
when continued isolation may lead to a slackening of mutual understanding, and 
at times, even to serious blunders (Pet. Ex. 214-A, p. 4). 

Georgi M. Malenkov, successor to Stalin and presently leader of 
the Soviet Union, also addressed this conference laying additional 
emphasis on the necessity for coordination of international Communist 
activities. Pertinent excerpts from Malenkov's report are set forth 
herem at pp. 18-19, injra. 

In the United States, Respondent refrained from formally joining 
the Cominform, because "* * * reactionary and pro-Fascist forces 
now whipping up anti-Communist hysteria and war incitement in our 
country would undoubtedly seize upon such action * * * as a pre- 
text for new provocations and repressions against the Communists 
* * *" (Pet. Ex. 368). However, the CPUSA announced firm agree- 
ment with and approval of its formation. Notwithstanding this lack 
of formal affiliation, manifestations of the world Communist move- 
ment and Respondent's participation therein continued. Known rep- 
resentatives of the world Communist movement remained in the 
United States and continued their participation in the affairs of 
Respondent; leaders of Respondent went abroad at Party expense to 
international gatherings where they met and consulted with world 
Communist leaders; the official organ of the Cominform, For a Lasting 
Peace, jor a People's Democracy , is used by Respondent's leaders as a 
source of authoritative direction on matters pertaining to the world 
Communist movement and Respondent's participation therein; de- 
tailed "greetings" containing messages are sent and received by the 
various Communist parties of the world, including the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union and Respondent; Respondent unswervingly 
adheres to the positions taken by the Soviet Union on international 
issues; and Respondent continues to advocate, teach and apply 

Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, as its principles and precepts are 
stated in the Classics, is completely incompatible with Respondent's 

" See infra pp. 16-19, re detailed flndings concerning the Communist Information Bureau. 


contention that it and numerous other Communist parties throughout 
the world apply Marxism-Leninism individually, separately and 
autonomously. It is clear that international organization, which 
affords the coordination of activity and discipline as directed by the 
Soviet Union and which commands the subordination of all national 
duties and also requires allegiance to the Soviet Union, is the very 
essence of Marxism-Leninism as understood and practiced by 

The international integration of the world Communist movement is 
further illustrated by the perspective in which Respondent regards 
the incidents affecting, or activities of, Communist parties in other 
nations. For example, a letter sent by Respondent to the Communist 
Party of France as reprinted in the Daily Worker of June 9, 1952, 
regards the arrest of French Communist leader, Jacques Duclos, as 
an act of the men of "Wall Street." The letter states in part: 

* * * We American Comiuunists are conscious of our respoasibility to 
show the people at home that it is the Wall Street men of the trasts who are the 
real fomcntors of the present hysteria, arrests, and persecutions in your country. 
We will do everything to convince the American people that it is U. S. imperialism 
which strives to impose upon the French people the same kind of wartime dictator- 
ship they seek to impose in our own land. W e know your struggle is our struggle — 
a common fight against a common enemy — to defeat the North .\tlantic war 
alliance, to prevent the renazification [sic] and remilitarization of Western Ger- 
many, to fight for a Five-Power Pact of Peace and Friendship as the only path to 
peace and freedom * * * (Pet. Ex. 495). 

Similarly a "greeting" from Respondent to the Seventh Congress 
of the Italian Communist Party, published in the Daily Worker of 
April 4, 1951, stated: 

* * * "your work in defense of peace and socialism under the magnificent leader- 
ship of Palmiro Togliatti, ha.s a particular repercussion in our country. 

"The great battle of the Italian workers for their independence, peace, and 
social progress calls forth greatest admiration among us. We are confident that 
in fraternal battle against Wall Street, the of Italy's millions, which is our 
cause too, will triumph" (Pet. Kx. 456). 

Respondent, at its 15th National Convention held from December 
28 to 31, 1950, in New York City, received "greetings" from Com- 
munist parties in the Soviet LTnion, People's Democratic Republic of 
China, France, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, 
Rumania, German Democratic Republic, Western Germany, Austria, 
Great Britain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, Spain, Norway, Den- 
mark, The Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Fire, India, Israel, Algeria, 
Ceylon, Free Territory of Trieste. Belgium. Australia, New Zealand, 
Indonesia, and the Yugoslav Political Revolutionarv Emigrants 
(Pet. Ex. 37G). 

Many such "greetings" expressed regret that it was impossible to 
send delegates as Respondent had invitc^d, but noted in varied detail 
the problems (from a Communist viewpoint) in the particular country 
involved, as well as those facing Respondent. These "greetings" 
likewise are replete with plu-ases that reveal the characteristics and 
leadership of the world Communist movement, of which the following 
are illustrative: 

* * * all persons who ojjpose the aggressive policy of American imperialism 
and the rulo of Fascist terror, are uniting in joint resistance * * *. 

" See ".Marxlsiii-Lcninlsnn" pp. 24-25; 31-32, infra, for detailed fliidlngs to this effect. 


* * * the decisions of your Convention, taken in the Hght of the teachings of 
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, will enable you to advance forward on the road 
of unity of action * * *. 

Your successes are our successes. 

We know your struggle is difficult, but together with you, 800 million people, 
led by the invincible Soviet Union, defend peace and hberty. 

* * * your party will raise still higher the immortal banner of IVIarxism- 
Leninism and will honorably fulfill its patriotic and internationalist duty * * *. 

* * * the fight of the millions of common people for peace and democracy, 
inspired by peace-loving Soviet Union and the great Stalin, will win. 

Your fight, dear comrades, is our fight, just as the struggle of the German 
Friends of democracy and peace is your struggle. 

The invincible peace camp under the leadership of the Soviet Union and the 
great Stalin, defends the happiness of all peoples. You have a decisive place in 
the camp of peace. 

We feel closely bound up with your struggles not only because we pursue the 
same aims but also because we face the same enemy, American imperialism. 

* * * our common struggle against Anglo-American imperialism. 

Headed by the mighty Socialist Soviet Union and our friend and teacher, 
Joseph Stalin, the world camp of peace is going forward to win * * *. 

* * * your decisions will victoriously guide the American people in their 
determined struggle for the defense of the cause of peace and socialism so brilliantly 
led by Comrade Stalin. 

United by proletarian internationalism under the banner of the great Stalin, we 
will march victoriously on the road to peace and Socialism. 

* * * we are firmly convinced * * * that you will fulfill the great task of 
world significance * * *. 

Your invitation confirms that proletarian internationalism, in spite of hate, 
persecution, and terror, is a living reality. 

Our fight for peace, independence, and freedom is directed against the same 
enemy as your fight. 

Long live proletarian internationalism. 

We pledge our maximum contribution to the peace movement headed by the 
Soviet Union 

Long live the solidarity of the working people in the whole world * * * for the 
triumph of the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin! 

The foregoing statements in this section are fully supported by a 
preponderance of the evidence, which is set out in detail in our findings 
in the captioned portions of this report which follow. Based on the 
evidence adduced in this proceeding we find (1) that there exists a 
world Communist movement, substantially as described in Section 2 
of the Act, which was organized by the Soviet Union, and which has 
as its primary objectives the establishment of Communist dictator- 
ships of the proletariat in all countries throughout the world, including 
the United States, and (2) that the direction, domination, and control 
of this movement is vested in, and is exercised by, the Soviet Union. 


1. Respondent's organization and leadership 

The nature of this proceeding is such that we cannot and should 
not single out one factual situation as determining the issues, but must 
consider the record as a whole. In so doing, we have taken into con- 
sideration the evidence hereinafter summarized concerning the events 
which have resulted in Respondent's present organizational form, and 
which establishes certain facts regarding the background and activi- 
ties of Respondent's present leadership. We find this evidence tends 
to establish that Respondent is a Communist-action organization. 

Respondent was organized in 1919 and has been in existence con- 
tinuously since that date. The evidence leaves no doubt that the 
Respondent is molded organizationally and operationally along the 


lines found by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to be most 
eflFective in estabhshing the dictatorship of the proletariat in the 
Soviet Union. Such an organization and operation is in accordance 
with the strategy and tactics of Marxism-Leninism. It is also in 
accordance with the requirements of the Communist International. 

Before treating with Respondent's organization and internal admin- 
istration, it is of major importance for a clear understanding of our 
findings and of the background and bases for a number of Respondent's 
policies and activities, to review the evidence and set forth certain 
pertinent facts regarding an association or organization known as the 
Communist International (Comintern). According to Respondent's 
witness Flynn, this organization was "a federation, as it were, of 
Communist Parties, who met together, consulted together, and ex- 
changed knowledge and experience in relation to the struggles that 
they were carrying on in their particular countries.'"- The record, 
however, establishes a difi'erent nature and different characteristics 
of the Communist International. 

Upon consideration of the sizable quantity of both oral and docu- 
ment ar}- evidence relative to the matter, we find that the Communist 
International was organized in 1919 by the Soviet Union as the inter- 
national organization of Communist Parties in all countries— a World 
Communist Party^ — ^with the aim to overthrow "capitalist" states 
and to create the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet form. 
Significant evidence establishing the foregoing includes the docu- 
ments, History of the Communist Party oj the Soviet Union (Bolsheinks) ; 
Theses and Statutes of the Third (Communist) International, adopted 
July 17-August 7th, 1920; the Programme of the Communist Inter- 
national, issued at tiie Sixtli Congress in Moscow in 1928; and, Res- 
pondent's Manual On Organization, issued in the 1930's. These 
documents are further identified and discussed later in this report. 

In the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, it is 

In March 1919, on the initiative of the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, the First 
Congress of the Communist Parties of various countries, held in Moscow, founded 
the Communist International. Although many of the delegates were prevented 
by the blockade and imperialist persecution from arriving in Moscow, the most 
important countries of Europe and America were represented at this First 
Congress. The work of the congress was guided by Lenin. 


The congress adopted a manifesto (o the proletariat of all countries, calling 
upon them to wage a determined struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat 
and for the triumph of Soviets all over the world. 


Thus was founded an international revolutionary proletarian organization of a 
new tjpe — the Communist International — the iSfar.vist-Leninist International 
(Pet Ex. 330, pp. 231-232). 

The Theses and Statutes stated that — 

* * * all the events of world politics are inevitably concentrating around one 
point, namely, the struggle of the bourgeoise world against the Ihissian Soviet 
licpuhlir, which is grouping around ilsclj the Soviet movements of the vanguards 
of the workers of all countries, and all national liberation movements of the 
colonial and subject countries, which have been taught by bitter experience that 
there can be no salvation for them outside of a union with the revolutionary 
proletariat, and the triumph of the Soviet power over Imperialism." [Italic 
added.) (Pet. E.x. 8, p. 67.) 

" This Is ill siilistiinoe the same churactcrUation Respomlont placoa on the present organization of Com- 
munist Parties known us the Information Huroau of Communist and Workers' Parties or the Communist 
Information Bureau. See pp. 16-19 of this report. 



The Communist International makes its aim to put up an armed struggle for 
the overthrow of the International bourgeoisie and to create an International 
Soviet Republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State. 
The Communist International considers the dictatorship of the proletariat as the 
only means for the liberation of humanity from the horrors of capitalism (ibid,, 
p. 4). 

The Constitution and Rules of the Communist International as set 
forth in the Programme includes — 

The Communist International — the International Workers' Association — is a 
union of Communist Parties in various countries; it is a world Communist Party. 
As the leader and organizer of the world revolutionary movement * * * and the 
upholder of the principles and aims of Communism, the Communist International 
* * * fights for the establishment of the world dictatorship of the proletariat, 
for the establishment of a World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, for the 
complete abolition of classes and for the achievement of socialism — the first stage 
of Communist Society (Pet. Ex. 125, p. 85). 

Respondent's Manual on Organization defines the Communist Inter- 
national as follows, which is pertinent for comparison with the fore- 
going quotations: 

The Communist International is the international organization of Communist 
Parties in all countries. It is the World Communist Party. The Communist 
Parties in the various countries affiliated to the Comintern are called Sections of 
the Communist International (Pet. Ex. 145, p. 42). 

The record shows, in addition to the fact that the Communist Inter- 
national was organized and formed by the Soviet Union and had the 
aforestated aims, that the Soviet Union exercised complete control 
over the policies and activities of the Communist International. All 
of the heads of the Comintern that are identified in the record have 
been leading members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. 
The meetings of the governing committees and the congresses shown 
in the record have been held in Moscow. Witnesses who had been 
representatives of Respondent to the Comintern established that the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union was the leading party (section) 
in the Comintern, and its decisions were binding on the executive 
committee of the Comintern and such decisions of the Comintern 
bound all other member parties; furthermore it had five votes on the 
executive committee to one each for the other larger parties. The 
government of the Soviet Union financed the Comintern. 

The record also establishes through both oral and documentary 
evidence that as a section or member of the Communist International, 
Respondent was under the complete domination and control of the 
Communist International regarding its policies, activities, progi-ams, 
and other operations. Ilhistrations and examples of Respondent's 
acceptance of and adherence to directions and instructions from the 
Communist International are covered in the parts of this report which 
follow and include the teaching and advocacy of tlie overthrow of 
"imperialist" governments; trade union activities; work among the 
youth; and the recognition and acceptance of discipline; as well as 
details concerning Respondent's organizational structure and internal 

Also significant, and indicative of Respondent's acceptance of, or 
submission to, control over it by the Communist International, are 
various other official statements and teachings by Respondent subse- 
quent to the time that it became a part of the Communist Interna- 


tional, aiul Kespondent's acceptance and following of instructions of 
Comintern rcspresentatives sent to the United States. The activities 
in the I'nited States of Coniintei-n and other foreign Communist repre- 
sentatives is covered elsewhere in this report. With respect to the 
specific actions of Respondent and its t(>achings as evidencing the 
acceptance of domination and control by the Comintern, the record 
shows that early in 1921 , Respondent revised its program and constitu- 
tion "in conformity with the Theses and Statutes of the C. I.", and 
adopted the "twenty-one points for affiliation to the C. I."*' (Pet. 
Ex. 123, p. 1), and became an "integral part of the Communist 
International" (p. 2). In 1929, Respondent's Centrnl Committee 
issued a "Discussion Outline for Lenin Campaign" which in effect 
explains the role of the Party as that defined by tlie "Program of the 
Comintern" and states: 

One who figlits the Soviet Union and the Comintern is an agent of capitalism 
directed against our Party in its campaign to mobilize the workers against imperi- 
alist war and for defense of the Soviet Union (Pet. Ex. 108, p. 6). 

The "Thesis and Resolutions" for the Seventh National Convention 
of Respondent '* which were adopted by the Convention in 1930, refer 
to "communications" from the Cominetern in connection with various 
tasks of the Party (Pet. Ex. 132, p. 32, p. 54). The resolutions adopted 
at the 8th convention of Respondent in 1934 include the following: 

The E. C. C. I. is the Executive Committee of the Communist International- 
It is the general staff of the world revolutionary movement giving unity and 
leadership to the Communist Parties of the world. The E. C. C. I. meets in 
plenary session at intervals of between six months and one year. The body 
acting in highest authority between one pleanry session (Plenum) of the E. C. C. 1. 
and the other, is the Presidium of the Communist International. The Com- 
munist Party of the U. S. A. is the American Section of the Communist Inter- 
national (Cominetern) (Pet. Ex. 136, p. 18). 

Petitioner's witnesses Budenz, Crouch, Gitlow, Honig, Johnson, 
Kornfeder, Lautner, Meyer, and Nowell each testified concerning 
various aspects and manifestations of the control exercised over 
Respondent In^ the Communist International while these witnesses 
were members of Respondent and held various official positions. 
Gitlow was a top official of Respondent and in 1928-1929 was a member 
of the Executive Committee of the Communist International. He 
states unequivocally that the Comintern controlled all major policies 
of Respondent and cites instances such as convention arrangements 
and the policy of the party press which were based upon Comintern 
directives or instructions. Kornfeder knows of no instance during his 
membership, 1919-1934, when Respondent deviated from Comintern 
instructions and shows that the qualifications for attending Conmumist 
training schools in Moscow were set up by the Comintern, and that 
members of Resi)ondent recommended to become students at the 
schools had to be approved by the Comintern. Nowell and Honig 
both were in Moscow during the 1930's as students and representa- 
tives of Respondent and participated in the work of the Conmumist 
International, ])articularly the preparation of directives to J^espond- 
ent — which directives were carried out. Me^'er, an American citizen, 
returned to the iMiited States in 1934, having been a nuMuber of the 
British Connnunist Party, and was not re(iuired to fill out an appli- 

" Tlipsp "coiulltions" spolUvl out rigid roritiIreiTi«nts of itlleginiico to the Comlntprn with provisions for 
strict dLsclplliiL' lis well ;ks details us to the form of the Coinmuiilst I'nrtlcs and their activities. 

'< The "Thesis ami Hosoliitlons" represented the prime authority of Respondent In Its proRrams, policy 
and practical orientation for the period 1930-1034 which were applied in practlco and In Respondent's scoools. 


cation to join Respondent since he was merely transferring from one 
section of the Commimist International, or Communist movement, to 
another. Johnson, a member of Respondent from 1930 to 1940 and 
at one time on the Central Committee, was taught at Respondent's 
National Training School, and saw in operation, that under the rules 
of the Comintern no person could hold or resign from a position of 
leadership without the approval of the Comintern. He also states 
unequivocally that he knows of no single instance during his member- 
ship where Respondent ever opposed a decision of the Comintern. 

The foregoing is only a part of the considerable testimony on the 
activities of the Communist International concerning the Respondent 
in the United States but serves to illustrate Respondent's role as a 
member or part of the Communist International. 

In view of our finding that the Communist International was 
founded and controlled by the Soviet Union, and of our further finding 
that the Communist International dominated and controlled Respon- 
dent, and upon the entire record, we find and conclude that the Com- 
munist International for over twenty years constituted the organiza- 
tional instrumentality through which the Soviet Union dominated 
and controlled the Communist Parties throughout the world, including 
Respondent. ^^ 

As later herein covered, Respondent announced its "disaffiliation" 
from the Communist International in 1940, and the "dissolution" 
of that organization was announced in Moscow in 1943. It is per- 
tinent before concluding this aspect of our findings concerning the 
Communist International to note that the Communist International 
stood "wholly and unreservedly upon the ground of revolutionary 
Marxism and its further development, Leninism" (Pet. Ex. 125, p. 8). 
Because of the importance of "Marxism-Leninism" in this proceeding, 
its meaning is determined in detail later in this report. 

Concerning Respondent's organizational form and changes therein, 
we find that early in Respondent's existence, in 1924, the Communist 
International "decided" that various factions in the United States 
should amalgamate into a single party, which was done. The evi- 
dence hereinafter summarized and the entire record establishes that 
Respondent is that Party. 

We further find that in 1929 another factional dispute existed 
in Respondent which was a reflection of a struggle in the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union and in the Communist International 
between the forces led by Stalin and those led by Bukharin. Although 
a minority of only about 10 percent in Respondent, led by Foster, 
supported vStalin, whereas the majority of about 90 percent, led by 
Lovestone and Gitlow sided with Bukharin, the solution of the dis- 
pute dictated by Stalin was adopted by the Comintern and accepted 
by Respondent, representatives of the Comintern being sent to the 
United States to supervise its effectuation. The result of the "Hqui- 
dation of the factional situation in the Communist Party" (Pet. 
Ex. 126, p. 245) was the expulsion from Respondent of Lovestone, 
Gitlow and others and the placing of the leadership of Respondent 
in the Foster group. Earl Browder was recalled from China by way 

•s Respondent's witness Gates stated on cross-examination that "The Communist International was an 
actual organization of the world Communist movement and we were affiliated at one time. We are not 
afllliated now, and the organization no longer exists." 

32491—53 2 


of Moscow to become General Secretary of the Party. Foster was 
given a hif!:h position. He became a "builder of the Party" (Pet. 
E.\. 120. p. 247). This is the William Z. Foster who is presently 
National Chairman of Respondent. 

In 1940, Respondent announced its disaffiliation from the Com- 
munist International. We find that the primary reason for the 
disalRliation was to avoid registration of the Respondent as a foreign 
agent under the Voorhis Act of October 17, 1940; and that the dis- 
affiliation did not alter in any substantive way the relationship be- 
tween Respondent and the Communist International or the world 
Communist movement. Respondent's amended answer admits it 
was "affiliated" with the Communist International prior to November 
1940, and states that it "disaffiliated" from the Communist Inter- 
national in Noveml)er 1940. The amended answer and the evidence 
offered ])y Respondent seek to establish, however, that, "Since 1940, 
the Communist Party has had no international affiliation of any kind 
— although it follows with interest the experiences of other Communist 
Parties, reads their journals, and on appropriate occasions sends or 
receives fraternal greetings" (amended answer, p. 17). 

Witness Meyer was present as a member at the State Committee 
meeting when the delegation to the convention of Respondent which 
considered the disaffiliation reported back to the Illinois-Indiana 
District. The substance of the delegation's report was that the disaf- 
filiation was a matter of expediency, that it changed nothing funda- 
mentally or significantly, and that it had to be done to preserv'e the 
legality of the Party. Witness Lautner was a delegate to the con- 
vention and also describes the understanding of the convention to be 
that the disaffiliation was one of expediency which in no way affected 
the Party's attitude on the question of proletarian internationalism. 
Witness Crouch attended a convention-time meeting of the Politboro 
and district organizers where Earl Browder, then general secretary 
of the Party, said that the actual relations of the Respondent to the 
Communist International would remain exactly the same in the 
futur(> as they had in the past, that Respondent would continue to 
be guided by the Communist International and that because of the 
political development of Respondent the matter of formality m the 
relationship was no longer as necessary as it had once been. The 
district organizers were assigned the duty to go back to the respective 
districts and explain the reasons for disaffiliation which Crouch, 
being a district organizer at the time, did. 

Respondent's witness Flyim testified on cross-examination that 
she was on the National Committee of Respondent when the resolu- 
tion of disaffiliation was discussed. She says: 

* * * we were not disafTiliating in anger, or disafniiatinR to fight the Communist 
Internationale. It was, you might say, a friendly divorce (Tr. 14002). 

We find the evidence preponderates to establish that the dis- 
afliliation was for the expediency of avoiding registration as a foreign 
agent and did not alter Respondent's relationship with the Communist 
Inter-national or the world Communist movement. 

We have heretofore set forth our finding that the Communist 
International was the means or vehicle through which the Government 
an<l the Comnuinist Party of the Soviet Union directed and led the 
Communist Parties of the various countries, inchiding Respondent. 
In 1943, upon approval by the various member Communist Parties of 


a proposal by the Presidium of tlie Executive Committee, the Com- 
munist International was dissolved. ^^ Respondent, having a few 
years earlier announced its "disaffiliation" from the Communist 
International, was not ''called upon to participate in the decision" 
(Pet. Ex. 207, p. 657). It did, however, hail and support the dissolu- 
tion. Stalin, who at the time was the chairman of the Council of 
People's Commissars of the U. S. S. R, and a leading member of the 
Politboro of the Central Committee of the C. P. S. U., stated the 
dissolution was "proper and opportune" in that it facilitated the 
organization of a general onslaught against the common enemy, 
Hitlerism (Pet. Ex. 204). In supporting and hailing the dissolution 
of the Communist International, Respondent took the same line as 
that expressed by Stalin, i. e., that the dissolution "is a well aimed 
blow * * * at Hitler * * *" (Pet. Ex. 206), and pointed out in 
the Daily Worker that the "particular organizational form for inter- 
national proletarian unity * * * became a hindrance to the further 
strengthening of the national workers' parties" but that the dissolu- 
tion "must not be mistaken as a sign of weakness or of helpless 
collapse" (Pet. Ex. 205) . In view of the foregoing, and upon considera- 
tion of the subsequent manifestations of the operations of the world 
Communist movement and of Respondent's conduct and activities as 
elsewhere herein covered, and upon the entii-e record, we find and 
conclude that the dissolution of the Communist International was 
merely the termination of the use of that "particular organizational 
form," and a change in the means and the particular vehicle for 
promoting and advancing the world Communist movement. 

We find that during the year following the announced dissolution 
of the Communist International, Respondent's organizational form 
and some of its tactics underwent a change. It became known as the 
Communist Political Association from May 1944 until June 1945 ^^ 
when it was reconstituted as the Communist Party. During this 
period, there was a deemphasis on the use of some of the Marxism- 
Leninism principles and the central teaching was around the current 
documents of the Party, which put forward the so-called "Teheran 
line" that advocated, at least for the time being, a peaceful coexistence 
of the United States and the Soviet Union. We note that in becoming 
the CPA there was no substantial change: Respondent's membership 
and leadership were the same, and upon reverting to the CPUSA in 
1945, similarly, its membership was the same and, with one sub- 
stantial exception, so was the leadership. Because of his lack of 
adherence to the proper tactical line. Earl Browder was characterized 
as a "revisionist" and "deviationist," '^ and was deposed as a leader 
whereupon the full Marxist-Leninist revolutionary ideology and action 
was again reemphasized. 

Respondent's present organizational form commenced with its 
return in 1945 to the name Communist Party upon simultaneous 
dissolution of the Communist Political Association. A primary pur- 

"• Petitioner's witness Dr. Mosely considers that because of the nature of the Communist International, 
the "proposal" to dissolve it by its Presidium was regarded as a "decision" to dissolve it (Tr. 7370). 

" Foster opposed the change on the ground it was not in line with the revolutionary position of Marxism- 
Leninism. His oppostion was contained in a letter to the National Committee, which letter was suppressed 
from the membership at the time and not made known until shortly before the change back to the CPUSA. 

'8 In .Tanuary 1950, Petitioner's witness Lautner, then on Respondent's Central Control Commission, 
and Jack Kling, then National Treasurer, discussed Browder's recent pamphlet wherein he stated that dur- 
ing the fifteen years of his leadership in Respondent, all major policies put into effect had the previous 
knowledge, consent, and active support of the decisive international Communist leadership. Kling called 
it stool-pigeon work on the part of Browder. 


pose of again changing was to reeniphasize the Marxist-Leninist 
Classics, particuhirly the writings of StaUn, the llUtory of the Commu- 
nist Party of the Soviet rtiioii {I^oLshenks) and Dimitroffs Report to 
the Seventh Congress which deals with the true nature of how to con- 
duct the united front while forwanling the Communist revolutionary 

We find that in addition to this reemphasis on Marxism-Leninism, 
which it was established by the evidence in this proceeding are the 
basic laws for a world Communist revolution, the facts directly 
surrounding the reconstitution are indicative of foreign domination 
and control of Respondent. A few weeks after returning from 
Moscow to France, Jacques Duclos, a leader of the French Communist 
Party, member of the Executive Committee of the Communist'Inter- 
national until the announced dissolution of that organization, and a 
spokesman for the world Communist movement, issued a statement 
through the French Communist Party Journal, entitled "On the Dis- 
solution of the Communist Party of the United States" (Pet. Ex. 208). 
Duclos' statement appeared in the April 1945 issue of the French pub- 
lication. The substance and effect of the Duclos statement is that it 
Avas a mistake to dissolve the Communist Party of the United 
States — "in truth, nothing justifies the dissolution of the American 
Communist Party, in our opinion" (Pet. Ex. 208, p. 071); that a 
"powerful Connnunist Party" in the United wStates is necessary "in 
the struggle taking place between the progressive forces of the earth 
and Fascist barbarism" (Pet. Ex. 208, p. 072). Upon the record, we 
find that the Duclos statement represented authoritative criticism 
made by a spokesman for the workl Communist movement. 

In the month (May 1945) following the publication of the Duclos 
statement in the French Communist Party organ, Manuilsky, a lead- 
ing Soviet Union Communist, and a former ofTicial of the Communist 
International, who at the time was in the United States as Ukranian 
representative to the United Nations Conference on Organization in 
San Francisco, let it be known to Respondent that it should observe 
the guidance and counsel of the French comrades. In June, the 
National board of the Communist Political Association met and calleil 
a meeting of the National Committee for later in the month, which in 
turn called a national convention for July. It was at this convention 
that the CPUSA was reconstituted in its present form as a militant 
Marxist-Leninist party. 

As in the case of forming the Connnunist Political Association the 
year before, the same persons who had been ollicials of the Cl^A and 
the Party before that, led in reforming the Connnunist Party and, 
with the exce])tion of Browtler and a few others with minor rank, 
remained the leaders of the reconstituted party. As earlier herein 
found, Jirowder was expelled as a "revisionist" for departing from the 
orthodoxy of Marxism. Foster, upon taking over as a national 
chairman pointed out the necessity for reemphasizing the revolu- 
tionarv line of Marxism-Leninism. 

The record establishes that subsequent to the reconstitution of 
Respondent, an additional event of significance has taken place in the 
world Connnunist movement— the formation of an organization known 
as the Information Bureau of Connnunist and Workers' Parlies or the 
Comnumist informalion liureau, sometimes referred to hi the record 
as the "Cominform". The signilicance lies in respondent's attitude 


toward this organization, the sameness of views and pohcies of respon- 
dent and the organization, and Respondent's use and treatment of 
statements appearing in For a Lasting Peace, for a Peo'pWs Democracy , 
the official organ of the Cominform. 

The exact nature and characteristics of the Communist Information 
Bureau are not precisely defined on the record. The record shows 
that the organization is composed of a number of Communist Parties 
of various countries and was established as a result of a decision taken 
at a conference held in Poland tow^ard the end of September 1947. 
The record contains copies of two reports given at this founding con- 
ference, one by A. Zhdanov, then a member of the Politburo of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and principal Soviet representa- 
tive at the founding conference. The other report was given by 
Georgi M. Malenkov, then a member of the Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and secretary of the CPSU.^^ 
Based on these reports and the testimony of witnesses, we find that 
the purpose of the Communist Information Bureau is to mobilize 
forces in opposition to United States " imperialism". ^° 

Shortly after the establishment of the Cominform, Respondent 
announced publicly that "the present political situation in the United 
States is such that the Communist Party should not affiliate" with 
the new Information Bureau, but stated the establishment of the 
Bureau "is of great significance" and makes more effective the "resis- 
tance to the program of imperialist expansion." Respondent's an- 
nouncement further states that respondent "will continue to promote 
the international solidarity of all anti-fascists and anti-imperialists" 
(Pet. Ex. 368). 

Respondent's witnesses Gates and Flynn, members of the National 
Committee, in summarizing Respondent's position stated that all they 
know about the Information Bureau is what they read in the "cap- 
italist" press and the journal of the Bureau; that the Information 
Bureau never issued directives to Respondent; and, that Respondent's 
use of For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy is to see what 
is going on within various Communist Parties throughout the world 
with wdiom Respondent shares common interests. The record shows 
an attitude of arrogance and evasiveness on the part of witness 
Gates concerning the Communist Information Bureau which causes 
us to discount much of his testimony on the matter. Even after 
considerable questioning on cross-examination he was unwilling or 
unable to explain what was meant by "official documents" of the 
Cominform for which Respondent waited, before taking a position 
regarding the organization, and was unwilling or unable to explain 
why and ho\y, in that connection, Respondent's announcement that 
it would not join the Cominform was made 7 days before publication 
of the first issue of For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy, 
date_d November 10, 1947, which he had said might have been the 
official documents. Upon being asked whether issues of For a 
Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy weren't received over here 
"before they were published? Before November 10, when the first 
issue came out?" the record shows the following at page 13212: 

" Subsequent to the closing of the hearings for the purpose of taking evidence in this proceeding, and 
upon the announced death of Joseph Stalin, Malenkov has become the announced leader of the Soviet 
Union. See additional reference to Malenkov at p. 53 of this report. 

2' The Communist concept of "imperialism" and "the struggle against imperialism" is covered in detail 
at pp. 44-56 of this report. 


Answer: [by Gates]. Well, I don't believe in the supernatural, but if you do, 
that may have been possible. 

Mr. Hrown. That is unnecessary. 

The Witness. I can only answer a stupid question in such a way. 

Later, Gates was questioned regarding whether the Communist 
Party in the United States or the Daily Worker or Political Affairs 
ever deviated from the expressed views and j)ohcies of the Cominform, 
and answered to the effect that the party and Daily Worker never devi- 
ate from what they consider the best interests of the American people 
and "if we have not expressed any disagreement with any views that 
have been put forward in For a Lasting Peace, Jor a People's Democracy , 
that is because we beheve those views have not been in contradiction 
to the interests of the American peopk\" (Tr. 13226-13227). He 
was then asked to give any instances of deviation and rephed, "I have 
answered the question." The question was repeated by a Panel 
member who asked the witness if he could answer "Yes" or "No," 
to which the reply was: "[It] is a loaded question," and, upon being 
advised the panel did not consider it to be, the witness responded 
with "You may not think so, but I think so"; and, "After all, I am 
the one who is on the witness stand and not you." 

The evidence shows that the Zdhanov report, contained in the first 
issue of For a Lasting Peace, jor a People's Democracy, was studied in 
Respondent's clubs or cells as "the key to the whole movement"; 
that it was used in Respondent's schools as a major document stating 
and explaining the strategic aims of the world Communist movement. 
Malenkov's report was also studied and discussed. The record further 
shows that copies of For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy 
have been made available to functionaries and clubs or cells of Res- 
pondent. Petitioner's witness Philbrick, based on 9 years' member- 
ship and activity in the Party, states that a member of Respondent 
could not disagree with a directive or a position taken by the Comin- 
form and still remain a member of the Party. Additional facts 
concerning the Communist Information Bureau are set forth elsewhere 
in this report. 

The two aforementioned reports of Zdhanov and Malenkov com- 
prise the most direct evidence of record bearing upon the nature and 
characteristics of the Communist Information Bureau aside from what 
is contained in Respondent's announcement that it would not join the 
organization. Zdhanov's report says the Communist International 
was dissolved because "the direction ^' of these parties [what he calls 
"mass labor parties"] from one centre became impossible and inex- 
pedient." But, he continues, "experience has shown that such 
mutual isolation of the Communist Parties is wrong, harmful and, in 
point of fact, unnatural" and that "continued isolation may lead to a 
slackening of mutual understanding, and at times, even to serious 
blunders." (Pet. Ex. 214-A). 

Malenkov puts it as follows: 

The absence of contact between Communist Parties is a hindrance in coordi- 
nating the actions of Conuuunists in various countries in their resistance to the 
plans of the imperialists, particularly now, when American monopoly capital is 
organizing an nffonsivo against Communism and democracy against the U. S. S. R. 
and the new democracies, developing it.s expansionist plans with the intention^ 
under the guise of "aid", of enslaving a number of European and other countries' 

" Conipiire Z(llianov'.<; nsp of "direction" with the public nnnounccmonts that the Comintern was dls^ 
solved to help defeat Ultlerlsm (p. 15 herein) and to stop the "false charRcs" of direction from Moscow. 


and when Communists are called upon to define their attitude to these plans of 
American imperialism. 

In our opinion it is necessary to put into effect definite measures designed to 
eliminate the present abnormal situation in this respect. 

That is why we consider it necessary to discuss at the present conference both 
the international situation and the question of improving contact between Com- 
munist Parties, of establishing regular connections between them a view to 
achieving mutual understanding, exchange of experience and voluntary coordina- 
tion of activities of the Communist Parties whenever they consider this necessary 
(Pet. Ex. 367, p. 145). 

Respondent's statement characterized the Cominform as "a medium 
through which these parties can consult, and, if they deem it desiraWe, 
coordinate activity." (Pet. Ex. 368, p. 2). 

In 1943, upon approval by the member Communist Parties of a 
proposal by the Presidium of the Executive Committee, the Com- 
munist International was dissolved to stop what they called false 
charges that the International dictated directives from Moscow.^^ 
As later herein developed, a fundamental principle of the world Com- 
munist movement is to do the best possible for the cause under given 
circumstances — to charge when conditions warrant and to retreat 
when conditions require so as to marshal forces and await the sharp- 
ening of the opportunities. In view of these facts, of the foregomg 
facts concernmg the Cominform, and on the entire record, we find and 
conclude that the Communist Information Bureau represents what 
the Communists consider the best possible substitute at the present 
time for the Communist International and that Respondent's support 
of the Information Bureau, its use of For a Lasting Peace, jor a People^ s 
Democracy, and its nondeviation from the line of the Bureau, are done 
for the purpose and with the aim of advancmg the objectives of the 
world Communist movement. 

Summarized, the foregoing establishes that shortly after its forma- 
tion in 1919 Respondent became a part of the "World Communist 
Party" dominated and controlled by the Soviet Union; that in 1924 
Respondent was "amalgamated" pm-suant to instructions of the 
Soviet Union; that in 1929 a factional dispute in Respondent was 
settled by the Soviet Union and new leadership of Respondent was 
installed according to directives from the Soviet Union; that in 1940 
Respondent publicly announced "disaffiliation" from the Communist 
International (organizational form of the World Communist Party) 
and that the real reason being to avoid registration as a foreign agent 
and its "disaffiliation" was merely pro forma and represented no 
change; that from May 1944 to June 1945 Respondent's name was 
changed to the Communist Political Association and Respondent fol- 
lowed the tactical maneuver of advocating the possibility of peaceful 
coexistence between the United States and the Soviet Union; that in 
June 1945 Respondent changed its name back to the Communist 
Party under circumstances in which the Soviet Union played an 
active part; and that since June 1945 there have been no major or 
substantial organizational changes in Respondent. 

In addition to the fact that the variations in the organizational 
structure of Respondent have been based upon specific directives 
and instructions from the Soviet Union, these variations are a mani- 
festation of Respondent's foUowing the overall Marxism-Leninism 
policy of domg what is opportune at any stage of the revolution, as 
later herein developed. 

" See Note 21, supra, p. 18. 


In determining whether or not Respondent is dominated and con- 
trolled by a foreipi <j:overnment, we have taken into consideration 
certain facts estahlislied on the record concerning the careers and 
activities in their oHicial ca])acities of a nnml>er of Respondent's 
present leaders, including its national chairman, William Z. Foster. 
We have ])reviously hei'ein set forth the fact tiiat Foster became a 
leader of Respondent as a result of the solution in 1929 of the factional 
dispute in Respondent upon action by Joseph Stalin and the Com- 
nuinist International. In this connection, it is pertinent to consider 
the following statement b}' Stalin in 1929 as contained in certain 
speeches he made on the American Communist Party: 

The struggle for the winning of the niiUions of the working masses to the side 
of Communism must be intensified. The fight must be intensified for the forging 
of real revolutionary Party cadres and for the selection of real revolutionary 
leaders of the Party, of individuals capable of entering the fight and bringing the 
proletariat with them, individuals who will not run before the * * * storm and 
will not fall into i)anic, but will sail into the face of the storni (Pet. Ex. 145, p. 11 1). 

It is reasonable to conclude that the selection of Foster as a leader of 
Respondent, following the speech of Stalin, identifies Foster as the 
type of leader to whom Stalin referred. 

We further find that for a number of years prior to 1940 Foster 
was an official of the Communist International; that Foster and Jack 
Stachel, among others, represented the Respondent at the Seventh 
World Congi'ess of the Communist International in Moscow in 19.35; 
that Foster is a recognized spokesman for the world Communist 
movement; that Foster is recognized among Communists as an 
authority on and follower of Marxism-Leninism; that Foster in 1944 
did not push his objections to the formation of the Respondent as the 
Communist Political Association but rather refrained from deviating, 
for the stated reason that he would have been expelled if he had. In 
view of the foregoing, and upon the whole record, we conclude that 
William Z. Foster has been controlled in his activities as a top leader 
of Respondent by leaders of the Soviet Union and, during its existence, 
by the Communist International; and we find that this furnishes 
some evidence that Res])ondent as an organization has been and is 
controlled by the Soviet Union. 

We ftirther find that a substantial number of Respondent's present 
leaders, including Foster, Stachel, Bittelman, Green, Winter, and 
Williamson, have been to the Soviet Union on miincrous occasions on 
Party business and have been indoctrinated and trained in the Soviet 
Union on Russian strategy and policies. These leaders have taught 
in Party schools, written for the Party press, and spokcni at Party 
meetings, on various phases of Marxism-Ijeninism, including the 
leading position of the Soviet Union, the concept of proletarian inter- 
nationalism, and the necessity of revolutionary overthrow of imperi- 
alist nations, particularly the United States. We find that Foster and 
these other leaders of Respondent have accepted the views and policies 
of the Soviet Union and have cari'ied sucii views and policies into 
Resi)ondent, making them the views and j)olicies of Respondent. 
We (ind that this fact furnishes additional evidence that Respondent 
is dominated and controlled by tiie Soviet Union. 

In making the ft)regoing findings, we have taken into consideration 
the facts as to the recognition by Respondent's leaders of a disciplinary 
power in the Soviet Union, and tiie allegiance of such leadere to the 
Soviet Union, as elsewhere in this report set forth. 


The variations in the oipmizational structure of Respondent can 
very well be said to conform to the overall policy of Marxism-Leninism 
of doing what is expedient under the given circumstances at any stage 
of the revolution, as set forth in Strategy and Tactics of the Proletarian 
Eerolution (Pet. Ex. 343, pp. 21-22), one of Respondent's compilations 
of basic Marxist-Leninist material. It is pertinent at this point to 
determine the meaning of "Marxism-Leninism" as understood and 
followed by Respondent. 

2. Marxism-Leninism 

The Respondent's constitution (1948) (Pet. Ex. 374) (readopted in 
1950) states in the first sentence of its Preamble: "The Communist 
Party of the United States is a political party of the American working 
class, basing itself upon the principles of scientific socialism, Marxism- 
Leninism." Respondent's amended answer (pp. 10, 20-21) also 
admits that Marxism-Leninism is basic to the CPUSA. Marxism- 
Leninism is nowhere in the record specifically defined. It should be 
noted that we recognize that the theory of Marxism-Leninism, as 
such, is not an issue in this proceeding. Nor is it our purpose to con- 
sider the merits of Capitalism vis-a-vis Communism. However, in 
view of the fact that Marxism-Leninsim is declared to be basic to 
Respondent and because of the numerous references to it in the course 
of these proceedings, and in order to cast as much light as possible 
upon the issues involved, we have deemed it important to determine 
its actual meaning from the evidence of record. In this section, we 
present our findings of what it is, and how it is understood, used and 
followed by Respondent. We have limited ourselves here, in the main, 
to the meaning of Marxism-Leninism. The extent of Respondent's 
acceptance of it and adherence to it is more specifically treated in 
other portions of this report, wherein it is shown that adherence to 
Respondent's conception of ]\Iarxism-Leninism is evidentiary of sub- 
mission to the domination and control of the Soviet Union. 

In our determination we have had to reach certain conclusions 
concerning some of the terminology employed both in the writings 
and in the testimony of the witnesses. Where a difference in the 
meaning of any term appeared, we have given it the meaning war- 
ranted b}^ a preponderance of the evidence. 

The sources of Marxism-Leninism and also its corpus are to be found 
in the writings of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin and their collaborators, 
which writings are generalh^ referred to as the Classics. ^'^ In order 
to understand the content of these Classics, we deem it desirable to 
present something of the background in which they are produced and 
also to indicate what we consider to be the chief contributions of each 
of the above individuals to the Classics and to ]Marxism-Leninism. 

In the middle of the nineteenth century, Karl Marx, a German 
scholar, and Frederick Engels, an Englishman, developed what became 
known as Marxism. This was a form of Socialism. The basic tenet 
of Socialism is the ownership by the state of all the means of produc- 
tion and distribution. According to Marx, all society consisted of 
antagonistic classes, the principal one being the bourgeois or capitalist 
class, which, as a result of owning privately the means of production, 
exploited the propertyless working class. Marx announced particular 
interest in the propertyless factory workers whose numbers had 

'3 See Appendix B, attached. 



increased as a result of industrialization. These factory workers he 
designated as the proletariat. Marx was influenced hy the dynamic 
theories of the German ])hilosopher Hegel, and appli(>d Hegel's {heories 
to the materialistic concepts of the Greek pliilosphers and (U'veloped 
a system which he called dialectical materialism. This is a theory of 
reality assuming continuous transormation of matter and dynamic 
interconnection of things and concepts and implies social transforma- 
tion through socialism toward a classless society. Marx came to the 
conclusion that the only true value was the labor of the industrial 
woi-king class. It was his thesis that capitalism had to expand in 
order to continue to exist and, as it spread, the proletariat class would 
correspondingly increase in numbers. According to his conception 
of history, capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction and 
consequently it was inevitable that the classless state of society which 
he designated as Communism would ultimately come about. In 
order to expedite this, he theorized, it was necessary that the pro- 
letarian class, which would be greater in numbers than the bourgeoisie, 
be organized and be given leadership by a political pai'ty of all the 
workers of the world. The objective of this party would be to bring 
capitalism to an end and substitute for it a dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat in a socialist state. Eventually, according to his theor}', the 
dictatorship of the proletariat would not be necessary because the 
state would wither away as soon as its citizens hadjbecome conditioned 
to living in a one-class society. Two of his most basic considerations 
were the class struggle and the world-wide character of the revolution. 
Much of this appears from the Communist Alanifesto (Pet. Ex. 31), 
published by Marx and Engels in 1848. 

Lenin, a Russian rev^olutionist, adapted Marxism to Russian revo- 
lutionary purposes.^* He proceeded to implement it in a way that 
gave it a practical turn. He utilized slogans. Consequently, he gave 
capitalism a new name: "imperialism." The quintessence of im- 
perialism is monopoly-capitalism which "is the eve of the proletariat 
social revolution." He recognized that for the success of the proletariat 
revolution two things were most important: rigi(hty of organization 
and flexibility of policy. Organizationally, one of his first postulates 
was the necessity of creating a homogeneous group of disciplined pro- 
fessional revolutionists, among whom no factionalism or dissent would 
be tolerated, as a nucleus for the party of the proletariat. It should be 
noted that the Communist Party was formed in 1898 in Russia.-^ 
Lenin's group therein, the Bolsheviks, obtained control of that party 
in Russia because it was an intransigent body which permitted no 
deviation or compromise. 

Stalin later advanced the Marxist-Leninist ideas to a practicality 
which developed somewhat differentlv from Marxist theoretical 
schemes. He says {lUstory oj the CPSU{B)) (Pet. Ex. 330, p. 355): 

The Mar.xist-Leninist theory is the science of the development of society, the 
science of the \vorkinp, inoveincnt, the science of the proletarian revohition, 
the science of the building of the roinmiiiiist society. And as a science it does not 
and cannot stand still, hut develops and perfects itself. Clearly, in its develop- 
ment it is bound to become enriched l)y new experience and new knowledge, and 
some of its propositions and conclusions are bound to change in the course of time, 

*< Si'o foreword to H hal Is To Be PoneT (Pet. Kx. 417), by Alexander Tr:iclitoiil)orK, one of Re.spondent'3 
leaders and inanaRor of International I'ubllsliers. 
>» Trachtenberg's Foreword to What Is To lie Donef (Pet. Ex. 417). 


are bound to be replaced by new conclusions and propositions corresponding to 
the new historical conditions. 

What this means becomes clearer from what he previously stated 
(p. 355): 

The power of the Marxist-Leninist theory lies in the fact that it enables the 
Party to find the right orientation in any situation, to understand the inner con- 
nection of current events, to foresee their course and to perceive not only how and 
in what direction they are developing in the present, but how and in what direction 
they are bound to develop in the future. 

There is also clarification in what he says subsequently (p. 356) 
when he tells how Lenin altered Marxism because of his experience in 
the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The tactical aspects of 
the theory thus attains a flexibility which would appear to make it 
mean what the current leaders of the CPSU want it to mean. So re- 
garded, the theory supplies an easy explanation for all phenomena and 
furnishes a justification for any line of conduct which these leaders 
have adopted. 

Marx, Lenin, and Stalin represent the supreme authorities of what 
became known as Alarxism-Leninism as these writings constitute its 
body. All postulated the revolution on a world-wide basis. Lenin, 
and after him Stalin, proclaimed that it was not necessary to wait 
until the proletariat throughout the entire world was ready for a 
revolution, but that the attack against the capitalist world rightfully 
began by breaking its chain at the weakest linlv, which proved to be 
Russia. The Communists in Russia having succeeded, they then 
sought help from the proletariat tlu'oughout the world to support 
their victory. They also proceeded to try to foment revolution in any 
part of the world where it had a chance of being successful. The best 
example of applied Marxism-Leninism is the Communist Interna- 
national. That this organization is based on Marxism-Leninism 
appears from the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 
(Bolsheviks) (Pet. Ex. 330, pp. 231-232). (See also pp. 10 and 13, 
under Organization and Leadership, supra.) Using the Communist 
International as an instrument, the Soviet Union, as the leader of an 
integrated organization with subsidiary groups throughout the world, 
issued directives to the Communist parties in the several countries. 
What these directives were and how they applied to Respondent will 
appear in a discussion of the Classics and of the testimony of witnesses 
which follows, as well as in various other sections of this report. 

Against this background, it is pertinent to inquire why the Classics 
were written. An examination of their content discloses that they 
were intended to create, promulgate, and advance the world revolution 
of the proletariat. At an intermediate stage, they concentrated in 
large measure on Russia. At no time, however, was the main objec- 
tive forgotten and when the revolution was successful in Russia, the 
emphasis was again brought back to the revolution on an international 

It should be noted that in the summaries, paraphrases, and quota- 
tions from the Classics which follow, we have conscientiously striven, 
and, we believe, successfully so, for complete accuracy and have 
endeavored to hold closely to the essence of the material being ana- 
lyzed. Where excerpts have been quoted, we have selected those 
which we consider representative of the whole tenor of the writing 
from which they are taken. 


How basic the international and revolutionary factors of Marxism- 
Leninism are api)ears at its inception in The Communist Manifesto 
(Pet. Ex. 31); "The history of society is the history of class stnigfrles" 
(p. 9), "The bourgeoisie has placed a most revolutionary role in 
history" (p. 11). "* * * and are now to be superseded by the 
proletariat through similar means" (p. 15). The proletarians have 
become organized into a class and consequently into a political party 
(p. 18). Of all the classes op])osing the bourgeoisie, the proletariat 
alone is a really revolutionary^ class (p. 19). The Communists are a 
proletarian party whose aim is the conquest of political ])ower b}^ the 
proletariat (p. 22). The proletariat will become the ruling class and 
will use its political supremacy to wrest all capital fiu^m the bour- 
geoisie. The measures used to do this will be different in different 
countries (p. 30). The Communists everywhere must support every 
revolutionary movement against the existing order of things. Their 
ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing 
social conditions. Workingmen of all countries are exhorted to unite 
for the Communist revolution (p. 44). 

This international and revolutionary aspect is further stressed 
in the writings of Lenin and Stalin. In State and Revolution (Pet. Ex. 
139), Lenin objects to the "chauvinism" of those "leaders of Socialism" 
who would water down Marx's doctrine by limiting it to single states 
(p. o). Speaking of the Russian Kevolution of 1917, he states: "This 
revolution can be understood in its totalit}' only as a linl\ in the chain 
of Socialist proletarian revolutions called forth by the imperialist 
war" (p. 6). "A Marxist is one who extendi the acceptance^ of the 
class struggle to the acceptance of the dictatorshij) of the proletariat" 
(p. 30). In The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Pet. Ex. 423, pp. 47-48), 
one of Lenin's fundamental postulates is quoted by Stalin on the 
international (piestion: Liternational imperialism cannot live side 
by side with the Soviet Republic and the greatest diHiculty of the 
Russian Revolution is "the necessity to solve international problems, 
the necessity to call forth the world revolution." Stalin nmkes this 
thought even clearer in Foundations of Leninism. He sa\'S (at p. 9) 
that Leninism is not merely a Russian but an international phenom- 
enon; and (at p. 17) that the Russian Communists were impelled 
by the whole situation, domestic and foreign, to transfer the struggle 
to the international arena. The same thought is even more forcibly 
expressed in Stalin's definition of Leninism {Problems of Leninism, 
Pet. Ex. 138, pp. 7-9; see also p. 19). From this definition it is clear 
that the whole movenuMit based on Marxism-Leninism is regarded 
b}' its founders and chief protagonists as an interiuitionalism which 
must operate with conuuon theory and strategv and tactics in all 
countries. It is inescapable that all those workmg for the ultimate 
ends of th(» movement must work in unison aiid in one colu^sive oi'gani- 
zation on a worldwide basis. This tlu)ught is expresseil strongly in 
the Theses and Statutes of the Third (Communist) International 
(Pet.Ex. 8, p. 67): 

1. It follows from tlic fundamental princil)l(>s laid down above, that the policy 
of the Communist International on the National and Colonial questions must be 
chiefly to bring about a union of the i)roletarian and working masses of all nations 
and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle leading to the overthrow of 
capitalism, without wliieh national equality and oppression cannot be abolished. 

5. The political situation of the world at the present time has placed the ques- 
tion of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the foreground, and all the events of 


world politics are inevitably concentrating around one point, namely, the struggle 
of the bourgeois world against the Russian Soviet Republic, which is grouping 
around itself the Soviet movements of the vanguard of the workers of all coun- 
tries, and all national liberation movements of the colonial and subject countries, 
which have been taught by bitter experience that there can be no salvation for 
them outside of a union with the revolutionary proletariat, and the triumph of 
the Soviet power over Imperialism. 

The same thought suffuses the Classics throughout. It is not a 
tenet that can be accepted here and rejected there. It is integral in 
the whole texture of the material of the movement which those 
Classics represent. Like a fast dye, it colors every portion of that 
movement and cannot be eradicated because it is of its very essence. 

It would burden this report unduly to quote in extenso the refer- 
ences in the Classics to the international and revolutionary nature of 
Marxism-Leninism and the interrelation of the sections of the Com- 
munist parties in all countries which it requires. Attention is directed 
to a number of places where these references are deemed particularly 

Foundations of Leninism (Pet. Ex. 121, pp. 17-19; p. 45, last par. 
and p. 46); History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (B) 
(Pet. Ex. 330, pp. 273-75); State and Revolution (Pet. Ex. 139, pp. 
5, 6); The Theory of the Proletarian Revolution (Pet. Ex. 422, pp. 
85-89); The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Pet. Ex. 423, pp. 48-49). 

We conclude from the above that the Classics advocate a revolution 
of the proletariat on an international basis, through the instru- 
mentality of an international organization . 

The primary objective of the world revolution is the termination of 
capitalism and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
Lenin used the word "imperialism" to designate what he calls the 
parasitism and decay of capitalism at its highest stage of historical 
development {Imperialism, Pet. Ex. 140, p. 14). This imperialism is 
the arch enemy of the proletariat. 

Not the slightest progress can be made toward the solution of the practical 
problems of the Communist movement and of the impending social revolution 
unless the economic roots of this phenomenon are understood and unless its 
political and sociological significance is appreciated. 

Imperialism is the eve of the proletarian social revolution. This has been 
confirmed since 1917 on a worldwide scale. 

It should be noted that the Classics emphasize strongly the use of 
slogans. The word "imperialism" and its adjective-noun form 
"imperialist" are used therein to form a variety of slogans. Thus, it 
will be seen from The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 
(Pet. Ex. 330, pp. 167-69) that the Bolsheviks advanced the slogan of 
'^ converting the imj)erialist war into a civil ivar" and the slogan-policy of 
"the defeat of one's own yovcrnment in the imperialist war.'' As a 
corollary to this approach, wars are designated as "just" and "unjust." 
The "just" or "anti-imperialist" war is waged assertedly to liberate 
the oppressed from the yoke of imperialism. The "unjust" war is 
supposedl}^ to conquer and enslave others. Wors of the first kind, the 
Bolsheviks supported. Of wars of the second kind, the Bolsheviks 
said, a resolute struggle must be waged against them to the point of 
revolution and the overthrow of one's own imperialist government. 
From these pages it w^ill be seen that, according to Lenin, while 
capitalism is decaying and moribund, "imperialism" would not rot on 
the stalk; it could not be overthrown without a revolution. 


We conclude from this that the Classics designate as the enemy, 
against which the international revolution must be directed, that form 
of capitalism which they term "imperialism"; and that they declare 
that any war waged against such imperialism is a just war and any 
war waged in its l)ehalf is an unjust war. 

Ec|ually basic with the international and revolutionary character 
of the movement is the tenet of the dictatorship of tho proletariat. 
In view of the divergence of testimony of witnesses for Petitioner and 
those of Respondent concerning the meaning and application of this 
tenet, we have taken particular pains to ascertain its real character. 
It is best understood from the volume Dictatorship of the Proletariat 
(Pet. Ex. 423), which is one of a series of "Readings- in Leninism," 
consisting of articles and excerpts dealing with basic points of Leninist 
theory. Lenin's postulates on this question (pp. 47-54) make clear 
how important this phase of the revolution is deemed. Having once 
seized power through revolution, he states it becomes necessary that 
this power be held by a "dictatorship of the proletariat." A defini- 
tion of what this is intended to be appears on page 49: 

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of the class struggle but its 
continuation in now forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat * * * which 
has achieved victory and has seized political power, against the bourgeoisie who 
have been defeated but not annihilated, who have not disappeared, who have not 
ceased their resistance, who have increased their resistance. 

Lenin makes clear that this dictatorship is not to be confused in any 
way with "popular" and "nonclass" government. He goes on to say: 

The class that has seized political power has done so, conscious of the fact that 
it has .seized power alone. This is implicit in the concept of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat. This concept has meaning only when one class knows that it 
alone takes political power into its own hands, and docs not deceive either itself 
or others by talk about popular, elected government, sanctified by the whole 

Having seized power, the proletariat may find it necessary to enter 
into certain alliances to maintain that power. These alliances, how- 
ever, are only temporary for the purpose of consolidating the revo- 
lutionary victory. It is emphasized again on page 52 that violence 
is essential, although not exclusive. The following passages are en- 

But, of course, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not merely mean violence, 
although there is no dictatorship without violence. 

Dictatorship (says Lenin) does not mean violence alone, although it is impossible 
without violence. It likewise signifies a higher organization of labor than that 
which previously existed (Collected Works, Ru.ssian edition. Vol. XXIV, p. 305). 

It involves the concept of "exercise of violence, unrestricted by 
law" (p. 54). Also significant is the ])osition to be hold l)y the Com- 
munist Party in the dictatorshi[) of the proletariat. If is stated 
(p. 100): "The stronger the (^ommunist Parly created by us in each 
comitry the sooner will the 'Soviet idea' trhuuph." The Conmuinist 
Party has declared itself to be necessary to the working class not only 
Ix'foro the seizure of power and not only during the seizure of power, 
but before the po\v(;r has [massed into (be hands of the working class. 
It is further stated (]). 101) that the Party nmst keep in control until 
the classless societv is linall v attained. ^ 

From Prohleim of Leninism (Pet. Ex. 138, pp. 34-38) it will be 
seen what meaning Lenin and Stalin give to the dictatorship of the 
proletariat. At the core of the dictatorship is the Party which gives 


directions. These directions are carried out by the mass organizations 
of the proletariat and are fulfilled by the general population. The 
minority seizes power and controls because the exploited workers have 
not yet developed their human faculties. There is another step which 
may become necessary. If the bourgeoisie resist or there is interven- 
tion in its behalf then the active body is the proletariat as a class. 
The Party takes power, the Party governs the country, and it is the 
core of this power; but it takes power in the name and purportedly on 
behalf of the class. 

In Foundations of Leninism (Pet. Ex. 121, p. 53), the origin of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat is thus stated: 

Briefly: the dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule — unrestricted by law and based 
on force — of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, a rule enjoying the sympathy and 
support of the labouring and exploited masses {The^State and Revolution). 

From this follow two main conclusions: 

First conclusion: The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be "complete" 
democracy, democracy for all, for the rich as well as for the poor; the dictatorship 
of the proletariat "must be a state that is democratic in a new way — for *the 
proletarians and the propertyless in general — and dictatorial in a new way — against* 
the bourgeoisie * * *" (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. VII, p. 34) (Pet. Ex. 121, 
p. 53). *[my italics — J. S.] 

Second conclusion: The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot arise as the result 
of the peaceful development of bourgeois society and of bourgeois democracy; 
it can arise only as the result of the smashing of the bourgeois state machine, the 
bourgeois army, the bourgeois bureaucratic machine, the bourgeois police (Pet. 
Ex. 121, p. 54). 

We conclude that "dictatorship of the proletariat" as used in the 
Classics connotes a seizure of power by or in the name of the prole- 
tariat tlu-ough violence, if necessary, and the absolute and despotic 
rule by a minority in the name of the proletariat. 

In addition to the requnements for a rigid Party organization with 
a hard core of dedicated workers, noted above, the overall policies 
and rules for effectuating the ends and objectives of the Party are to 
be found in the Classics. These are eft'ected tlu'ough an organiza- 
tional principle known as "Democratic Centralism" and by general 
directions for strategy and tactics. 

The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) 
(Pet. Ex. 330, p. 198) states that in July and August 1917, prior to 
the successful October Kevolution, the CPSU adopted "new Party 
rules" providing that "all Party organizations shall be built on the 
principle of democratic centralism," which provided, inter alia, that 
all directing bodies of the Party shall be elected; that they give periodic 
reports to Party organizations; that there be strict Party discipline 
and the subordination of the minority to the majority; and that all 
decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies 
and on all Party members. 

Strategy and Tactics of The Proletarian Revolution (Pet. Ex. 343, 
p. 62) states: 

The Party is the vanguard of the working class, and consists of the best, most 
class conscious, most active and most courageous members. It incorporates the 
whole body of experience of the proletarian struggle. Basing itself upon the 
revolutionary theory of Marxism and representing tlie general and lasting interests 
of the whole of the working class, the Party personifies the unity of proletarian 
principles, of proletarian will and of proletarian revolutionary action. It is a 
revolutionary organization, bound by iron discipline and strict revolutionary 
rules of democratic centralism, which can be carried out owing to the class con- 
sciousness of the proletarian vanguard, to its loyalty to the revolution, its ability 


to maintain in.separablo tios with the proletarian masses and to its correct political 
leadership which is constantly verified and clarified by the experiences of the 
masses themselves. 

"Dcniocnilic Ccnirnlisin" is stilted 1)}' tlic witnesses for Resjwndont 
to rt!]jreseiit tl)e lii^liesl form of democnic-}' in tluit it provides that 
nil decisions iind policies of the Party are determined by the member- 
ship and that authority liowed up from this membersliij) through 
intermediate local and rejrional committees to the central committee. 
A decision once made, however, would ])e Innding on all members. 
Witnesses for Petitioner testified that "Democratic Centralism" was 
theoretically a two-way process by which authority flowed upward 
fi'om Party cells tlirouirh int(Mnie(liate local or regional committees 
to the top and discipline ilowed downwiirtl from the same channels. 
However, they stated that in practice the doulile process has been 
reduced to a single process in wliich discipline (lows downward with 
limited right of discussion in the lowei- echelons on matters of local 

This policy is strongly expressed m the Programme oj the Communist 
International (Pet. Ex.'l25, p. 84): 

This international Coinniunist discipline must find expression in the subordina- 
tion of the j)artial and local interests of the movements to its general and lasting 
interests and in the strict fulfillment, by all members, of the decisions pas.sed by 
the leading bodies of the Communist International. 

The idea behhid democratic centralism is best expressed by Stalin 
in Foundations oj Leninism (Pet. Ex. 121, pp. 119-121): \Miat is 
required for success is an iron party under iron discipline. A Com- 
mimist Party will oidy be able to perform its duty if its Party center 
is a powerful and authoritative organ. Xo factions are permitted — 
there must be absolute unity of will and that must emanate from the 
Party's center. All groups or factions which disagree must be 
immediately exf^elhul. 

We conclude from the \\hole record that "Democratic Centralism", 
as it is used in the Classics, is an organizational principle which con- 
templates a rigid discipline emanating from the top of the movement, 
biiKlhig on the parent and all subsidiary organizations and on all 
members of such organizations. Failure to adhere to such discii)hne 
is punishable by expidsion from the movement. 

With the organizational structure thus indicated, the Classics then 
provide strategic and tactical directions for arriving at the objectives 
of Marxism-Leninism. 

One of the characteristics of Mar.xism-Lenhiism is that in addition 
to its doctrine it also provides directives for the attainment of the 
objectives contemplated by such doctrine. Marxism-Leninism is 
declared to be a guide to action (Ilistonj of the C'PSl.' (liolshcrik)) 
(Pet. Ex. 'AW, p. 306). Whil(> the ends to "be reached are fixed, the 
maimer and methods of reaching them, it w ill be seen, are exceeduigly 

'• As witiipss KonifrdtT states it, he was tauslit that the Party's basic form of oreaiiization is a siijierceii- 
trali/.cd political party witli a hiiili dpKree of discipline. He describes it as a inilitary type of political orRan- 
izatioii with an established chain of coniniand, permittinu lower units considerable leeway ir. discussing 
local tactical problems. He states that he was tatmlit that the general staff or the eeneral headipiarters of 
the orcanization was the Coinmiinist international, in Moscow. .\t the time of which he speaks, he s:»ys 
that the Communist parties of all coimtries were alUliatcd with the Coinnuinist Witness 
I'hilbrick slated when a.sked whether a member of his croup could refuse to accept the decision of the Comin- 
forin and still continue membership in the Commnnist Party of the United States, that such member could 
not continui' as a member of the Party. Witness Lautner sj»ys that It was a breiich of democrntlc centralism 
for any Comumnist Party anywhere, Including the CPUSA, to refuse to follow the dictates of the Soviet 


flexible. What these are appear most concisely in Strategy and 
Tactics of the Proletarian Eerolution (Pet. Ex. 343). 

In summary, it states the following: The strategy and tactics Avere 
elaborated in the period of proletarian revolution when the question 
of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie became a question of immediate 
practice. Lenin brought into the light of day the ideas of Marx and 
Engels on tactics and strategy and developed them further into a 
"system of rules and jyrinciples for the leadershij) of the class struggle of 
the proletariat'' (p. 8). Communists of every country must adapt 
themselves to the peculiar features of the economics, politics, culture 
and national composition of the country in which they are operating 
(p. 14). As long as national and state differences exist among peoples 
and countries, the unity of international tactics of the Communist 
working-class movement requires, not the elimination of variety, but 
an adaptation of the fundamental principles of Communism (Soviet 
power and the dictatorship of the proletariat) to the national and state 
differences. The vanguard of the working class having been won 
over, the next step is to seek the transition or approach to the prole- 
tarian revolution (p. 15). The revolutionary class must be able to 
master all forms of social activity and must be ready to pass from 
one form to another with the utmost expedition (p. 16). The tactics 
of the Bolsheviks were correct because they were the onl}- international 
tactics and did everything possible in one country for the development, 
support and stirring up of the revolution in all countries (p. 16). 
Bolshevism has helped in a practical way to develop the proletarian 
revolution in Europe and America (p. 17). The world proletarian 
revolution has been assisted, accelerated and supported by the victory 
of the proletariat in Russia (p. 18). The objective elements of the 
working class movement are the economic development of the country, 
the development of capitalism, the disintegration of the old govern- 
ment, the spontaneous movements of the proletariat. The collision 
of classes proceeds irrespective of the will of the proletariat. But the 
subjective element, the reflection in the minds of the proletariat of 
these processes, is the subject of the directing influences of strategy 
and tactics (p, 19). 

The theory of Alarxism postulates that the fall of the bourgeoisie, 
the seizure of power by the proletariat and the replacement of capital- 
ism by socialism are inevitable (p. 20). Strategy is the determination 
of the direction of the main blow of the proletariat at a given stage 
of the revolution (p. 21) and it changes with the transition of the 
revolution from one stage to another and remains unchanged through- 
out the duration of a given stage (p. 22). Tactics are the determina- 
tion of the line of conduct of the proletariat during the ebb and flow 
of the movement, changing the forms of struggle and its slogans 
(p. 25). Thus, in the Russian revolution changes were made as the 
struggle progressed; strikes, boycotts, slogans were used and varied 
along with the forms of organization, a worker's party operated more 
or less openly, as the immediate situation required. In the earlier 
phases the Party w^as compelled to resort to tactics of retreat. When 
the revolution ebbed, operations were less open and the Party went 
underground; and cultural work and the organizations "permitted by 
law" took the place of revolutionary mass organizations. The same 
was true during later stages of the revolution (p. 26). Tactics are 

32491—53 3 


the operations suited to the concrete situation of the struggle at any 
given moment (p. 27). The successful struggle for the dictatorship 
of the proletariat presupposes the existence in every country of a 
compact Communist Party, hardened in the struggle, disciplined, 
centralized and closely linked up with the masses. The Party is a 
revolutionary organization, with these fundamental strategic aims: 
It must extend its influence over the majority of the members of its 
own class, including working women and 3'outh. It must secure 
predominant influence in the broad mass proletarian organizations, 
e. g., trade unions, factory councils, cooperatives, sport and cultural 
organizations. It is particularly important to win over the trade 
unions (p. 62). Leadership of wide sections of the toiling masses 
should be acquired by the proletariat and the membership of the 
middle classes of the peasantry must be secured (p. 63). It must 
carry on propaganda against all forms of "chauvinism" and against 
"imperialist" maltreatment of enslaved peoples and races (e. g., 
jSIegroes, "yellow labor" and anti-Semitism) (p. 64). 

In determining its line of tactics, each National Communist Party 
must take into account the concrete internal and external situation, 
the correlation of class forces, the degree of stability and strength of 
the bourgeoisie and fit slogans and methods of struggle to the circum- 
stances of the particular countr}''. Demands and slogans must be lent 
to the revolutionary aim of capturing power and overthrowing 
bourgeois capitalist society. The party is to utilize the daily needs 
and struggles of the working class as a starting point from which to 
lead the working class to the revolutionary struggle for power (pp. 
65-66). When the ruling class is disorganized, propagantla in favor 
of increasingly transitional slogans and mass action should be used. 
Strikes and armed demonstrations should be used, as well as intensified 
revolutionary work in the army and the navy (p. G6). AVhen con- 
ditions are right, it is dangerous to fail to start rebellion. "\Mien the 
revolutionary tide is at ebb, partial slogans and demands should be 
made which correspond with the everyday needs of the workers. 
United front tactics should then be used (p. 67). In this period of 
marking time, demands and slogans should be made in such spheres as 
labor, local politics, and world politics, e. g., the attitude toward the 
U. S. S. R., the struggle against "imperialism" and the war danger, 
and systematic preparation for the fight against imperial war (p. 68). 
Also systematic work must be carried on among the proletarian and 
peasant youth; and, in imperialist countries, Communist Parties must 
impair the war effoi-t against colonies (p. 69). The further consohda- 
tion of the Land of the Soviets, the mighty growth of the international 
authority of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the growth of 
the Communist International are all accelerating the ilevelopment of 
the world Socialist revolution. The capitalist world is entering a 
period of sharp clashes. The united front of the working class must 
be established. The victory of the revolution has to be prepared for 
l)y a strong proletarian revolutionary party (pp. 81-82). AVhen the 
country in which they live engages in an imperialist war in order to 
utilize the economic and political crisis, it is the duty of Communists 
to turn the war into a civil war for the overthrow of capitalism (pp. 
94-95). Sliould an imperialist war break out, the interest of the 
workers of all countries denuinds that the defense of the Soviet Union 
be considered paramount (pp. 95-96). 


From this resume, it becomes apparent that the rules for making 
the doctrine effective have within them instructions for short-range 
and long-range action and that they are intended for more than local 
application. In addition, there has been provided an elasticity which 
makes them applicable under an endless variety of circumstances. 
Considerable significance, therefore, may attach to their use by allied 
groups under given circumstances at a given time. Therefore, the 
manner and extent of then- application by the CPUSA is a factor to 
be considered in determining whether the United States Party is a 
part of a worldwide movement and whether it is dominated and con- 
trolled by the Soviet Union. 

Another factor of Marxism-Leninism which pervades the Classics 
with the same insistence as its international revolutionary character 
is the dominant position of the Soviet Union, that is to say, the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union, in the world Communist movement. 
At an earlier date, i. e., after the successful revolution in Russia, 
Stalin points out (Problems of Leninism, Pet. Ex. 138, p. 64) that for 
an ultimate victory of socialism in the world, the protection of that 
Eussian victory by workers of all countries is necessary. In Founda- 
tions of Leninism (Pet. Ex. 121 at p. 19) he quotes Lenin: 

"History has now confronted us [i. e., the Russian Marxists-J. S.] with an 
immediate task which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks that 
confront the proletariat of any country. The fulfillment of this task, the destruc- 
tion of the most powerful bulwark, not only of European, but also of Asiatic 
reaction, would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international 
revolutionary proletariat." 

In other words, the centre of the revolutionary movement was bound to shift 
to Russia. 

As we know, the course of the revolution in Russia has more than vindicated 
Lenin's prediction. 

Is it surprising, after all this, that which has accomplished such a 
revolution and possesses such a proletariat should have been the birthplace of 
the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution? 

Is it surprising that Lenin, the leader of this proletariat, became the creator of 
this theory and tactics and the leader of the international proletariat? 

In The Theory of the Proletarian Revolution (Pet. Ex. 422, p. 87) 
Stalin states it is necessary to support Russia in order to make it "the 
basis of the further unfolding of the world revolution, into the lever 
for the further disintegration of imperialism." He emphasizes this 
(p. 88) by asserting that "the victorious proletariat of Russia" should 
"after it has expropriated the capitalists and organized its socialist 
production at home," rise against the capitalist world, attract to itself 
the oppressed classes of other countries, raise insurrection in them 
against the capitalists, and even use military force against the 
exploiting classes and their states. 

Dimitroff in The United Front (Pet. Ex. 149, at pp. 279 and 280) 
restates the importance of the U. S. S. R. to the international prole- 
tariat. And in the Theses and Statutes of the Third (Communist) 
International (Pet. Ex. 8, p. 67) it will be seen that the Russian Soviet 
Republic is "grouping around itself the vSoviet movements of the 
vanguard of the workers in all countries." 

What is being advocated is an extension of Lenin's hard-core prin- 
ciple to a wider area. Wliereas in the Soviet Union the party is that 
core, in the world scheme the U. S. S. R. becomes the center. As 
such, it must be protected, and from it will emanate leadership which 


will direct and hold together the party in other countries. This 
thought is thus expressed in Strategy and Tactics of the Proletarian 
Revolution (Pet. Ex. 343, p. 81): 

In the struggle to defend against fascism the bourgeois-democratic liberties and 
the gains of the toilers, in the struggle to overthrow fascist dictatorship, the 
revolutionary proletariat prepares its forces, strengthens its fighting contacts with 
its allies and clirects the struggle toward the goal of achieving real democracy of 
the toilers — Soviet power. 

The further consolidation of the Land of the Soviets, the rallying of the world 
proletariat around it, and the mighty growth of the international authority of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the turn toward revolutionary class struggle 
which has set in among the Social-Democratic workers and the workers organized 
in the reformist trade unions, the increasing mass resistance to fascism and the 
growth of the revolutionary movement in the colonies, the decline of the Second 
International and the growth of the Communist International, are all accelerating 
and loill conlinue to accelerate the development of the world Socialist revolution. 

At pages 95 and 96, it is declared that if an imperialist war breaks 
out, the defense of the Soviet Union must l)e considered paramount. 

It will be seen from the above that allegiance to the Soviet Union 
assumes considerable proportions in the Classics of Marxism-Leninism. 
First, after the 1917 Revolution, it must be protected from outside 
intervention. Thereafter, its role as a leader of a successful world 
revolution is stressed. At all times, loyalty and assistance are due it 
in a y conflict which may arise between it and any "imperialist" 

We conclude from the Classics that the Soviet Union has a specific 
place in Marxism-Leninism; it represents the first victory of the 
proletariat; therefore, it is the center of the world proletariat and it is 
entitled to the allegiance of the proletariat everywhere. The authority 
of its Communist Party is international. The corollary of this is that 
a Communist Party which adheres to Marxism-Leninism is, of neces- 
sity, under the domination and control of the Soviet Union. 

it is also evident from the Classics that as the Soviet Union is to be 
considered the leader of the world proletariat in the class war, so the 
United States takes on a special importance as the mightiest of the 
"imperialist" powers, the arch enemy of the proletariat. Lenin, in 
Imperialism (Pet. Ex. 140, p. 125) states: "Li the United States, 
economic development in the last decades has been even more rapid 
than in Germany, and for this very reason the parasitic character of 
modern American capitalism has stood out with particular prom- 
inence." Stalin i)oints out (Foundadons of Leninism, Pet. Ex. 121, 
last par., p. 55 and 1st two pars., p. 56) that conditions in the United 
States had changed since the days of Marx and that this country 
could no longer be considered one in which there could be a "peaceful 
evolution of bourgeois democracy into a proletarian democracy." 
The United States has become definitely "imperialistic" and "tiie law 
of violent proletarian revolution" becomes apj)licable to it. This 
quotation from Lenin in this connection (p. 56) reveals how strongly 
the Soviet Union felt that action was required in this country: 

Today, said Lenin, "in 1917, in the epoch of the first great imperialist war, this 
qualification made by Mar.x is no longer valid. Botli England and .\merica, the 
greatest anrl the last repre.sentatives^in the whole world — of .\nglo-Sa\'on 
'liberty,' in the sense that militarism and bureaucracy were ab.s(>nt, have slid down 
entirely into the all-Kuroix-an, filthy, bloody of military-bureaucratic 
institutions to which evorytliing is subordinated and which trample everything 
underfoot. Today, both in England and in .\morica, the 'nn>liniinary condition 
for every real people's revolution' is the smashing, the destruction of the 'ready- 


made state machine' (brought in those countries, between 1914 and 1917, to gen- 
eral 'European imperialist perfection'" (Selected Works, Vol. VII, p. 37). 

A Resolution on the American Question (Pet. Ex. 43) issued by the 
Communist International in 1929, beg;ins with the statement that: 
''The United States of America has developed into the mightiest 
imperialist power * * *. The task of the Workers (Communist) 
Party is to form a broad united front and to intensify the struggle 
against American imperialism." (See also Tr. 619; 667-68.) Specific 
attention is directed to this aspect of the approach to be used in apply- 
ing jMarxism-Leninism to the United States. In Dimitroff's The 
United Front (Pet. Ex. 149, pp. 41-43) an anti-Fascist party is sug- 
gested. We find, at page 43, some revealing language. "Our com- 
rades in the United States acted rightly in taking the initiative for the 
creation of such a party. * * * We should develop the most wide- 
spread movement for the creation of such a party, and take the lead in 
it." The "we" who are planning parties in the United States have 
"comrades" there who have already started work in that direction. 
The Theses and Statutes of the Third {Communist) International (Pet. 
Ex. 8, p. 28) has this to say: 

The class struggle in almost every country of Europe and America is entering 
the phase of civil war. Under such conditions the Communists can have no con- 
fidence in bourgeois laws. They should create everywhere a parallel illegal appa- 
ratus which at the decisive moment should do its dutj' by the party, and in everj^ 
way possible assist the revolution. In every country where, in consequence of 
martial law or of other exceptional laws, the Communists are unable to carry on 
their work lawfully, a combination of lawful and unlawful work is absolutely 

In Strategy and Tactics of the Proletarian Revolution it is stated 

(p. 17): 

Bolshevism has helped in a practical way to develop the proletarian revolution 
in Europe and America more powerfully than any party in any other countiw has 
ever succeeded in doing. 

From these expressions, it must be concluded that the Classics 
disclose a positive attitude on the subject of the United States which 
makes it a prime objective for the activities of the Soviet Union and 
for any of its subsidiaries. 

In order fully to understand what Marxism-Leninism is, the 
significance of certain of its programs and policies must be considered. 
Certainly in the Classics themselves, these programs and policies are 
all aimed at one objective: the forwarding of the world revolution. 
That such a revolution was not an evolutionary one in the normal use 
of this term appears from Stalin's statement m the History of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Pet. Ex. 330, p. 168) which he 
presents as one of Lenin's teachings; without a revolution of the 
working class capitalism cannot be overthrown; even though capitalism 
is moribund, it must be given the coup de grace: 

Lenin showed that under inij)erialism the unevenesss of development and the 
contradictions of capitalism have grown particularly acute, that the struggle for 
markets and fields for the ex])ort of capital, the struggle for colonies, for sources of 
raw material, makes periodical imperialist wars for the redi vision of the world 

There is nothing to indicate that "The elements of a war of liberation 
from imperialism" is used in any figurative sense. The context in 
which this appears leads to a contrary conclusion. 


Consequently, while some of the policies and programs may have 
a dual character, one of the elements of each of them is ahvays the 
furtherance of the war against capitalism and of speeding the ultimate 
victory of the proletariat over the "imperialists." This we find to be 
so in work with and in labor unions, with youth and with minorities; 
it is the real purpose in resorting to secrecy, entering into united fronts, 
and in resorting to slogans; it is the motivating force in training 
Communists, requiring reports from them and insisting that they do 
not deviate from the strict Party line. 

As appears from Lenin's What Is To Be Done? (Pet. Ex. 417, pp. 
105, et seq.) the Marxist should not be interested in labor unions, as 
such, but rather from the use which can be made of such organiza- 
tions as part of the revolutionary scheme. A union can be used as 
a front for political, agitational, and revolutionary organizations. As 
Stalin points out in Frohlems oj Letiinism (Pet. Ex. 138, p. 30), they 
are the all-embracing organizations of the working class. "They 
constitute a school of Communism." "They unite the masses of the 
workers with the vanguard." In effect, what Lenin and Stalin are 
saying is: Here are ready-made groups of substantial size, made up 
of members of the class which according to the labor theory of value 
are the exploited, and consequently should belong in the revolution; 
and infiltration of such groups by a hard core of diligent workers for 
the Party ofl'ers a ready field for propaganda and proselytizing. As 
it is stated in the Theses and Statutes of the Third (Communist) Inter- 
national (Pet. Ex. 8, p. 29): 

Every party desirous of belonging to the Communist International should be 
bound to carry on systematic and persistent Communist work in labor unions, 
cooperatives, and other labor organizations of the masses. 

The same volume discusses the trade-union movement (p. 53, et 
seq.), and (at p. 57) it states: 

Consequently, the Communists must strive to create as far as possible complete 
unity between the trade unions and the Communist Party, and to subordinate 
the unions to the practical leadership of the Party, as the advance guard of the 
workers' revolutions. 

Strategy and Tactics of the Proletarian Revolution (Pet. Ex. 343, pp. 
67-68) states that one of the principal tasks of a Communist is the 
joining of a union to win the leadership in the workers' struggle. 

We conclude tluit the Classics direct Communists to engage in 
activity in trade unions in order to utilize such unions for the purposes 
of the Party and to further the world revolution. 

The Classics disclose that youth programs are considered to be 
important. Concerning the Young Communist League, Stalin says 
in Problems oj Leninism (Pet. Ex. 138, p. 31): 

Its task is to help the Party educate the younger generation in the spirit of 
socialism. It provides young reserves for all the other mass organizations of 
the proletariat in all branches of administration. 

Lenin's attitude on the necessity of particular emphasis on youth 
may be gleaned in part from two quotations in an article in Political 
Affairs (Pet. Ex. 477, pp. 86 and 88): 

Is it not natural for y<jung i)coi)le to i^redominatc in our jiarly, the party of 
revohitioii? We are tlic party of tlu; future and the future belongs to tlie youth. 
We are a jmrty of innovatcjrs and innovators arc always followed most eagerly 
by the youth. We are a i)arty of self-sacrificing struggle against the rotten old 
system, and the youth are always the first in self-sacrificing struggles. 



The youth will decide the issue of the whole struggle, the student youth, and 
still more the woi king-class youth. * * * Dq ^q^ fg^r their lack of training, do 
not tremble at their inexperience and lack of development. If you are unable to 
organize and stimulate them to action, they will turn to the Mensheviks and 
Gapons, and this inexperience of theirs will cause five times more damage. * * * 
Only you must unfailingly organize, organize and organize hundreds of circles. 
* * * Either you create new, young, fresh, energetic, militant organizations 
everywhere for revolutionary Social-Democratic work of all sorts and kinds, and 
among all strata, or you will perish, enveloped in the glory of "committee" bureau- 

Dimitroff offers another reason for enlisting the efforts of youth 
{The United Front, Pet. Ex. 149, p. 150): 

The whole antifascist youth is interested in uniting and organizing its forces. 
Therefore you, comrades, must find such ways, forms and methods of work as will 
assure the formation, in the capitalist countries, of a new type of mass youth 
organizations, to which no vital interest of the working youth will be alien, organi- 
zations, which, without copying the Party, will fight for all the interests of the 
youth and will bring up the youth in the spirit of the class struggle and proletarian 
internationalism, in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. 

There is no question that the enrolling and training of youth is 
deemed to have value in the world revolutionary movement. From the 
Theses and Statutes oj the Third {Communist) International (Pet. Ex. 
8, p. 8), it appears that the International League of Communist Youth 
was given a representative with a right to vote on the Executive Com- 
mittee of the Communist International and the Communist Inter- 
national had the right to a similar representative on the Executive 
Committee of the League. And in the Strategy and Tactics of the 
Proletarian Revolution (Pet. Ex. 343, p. 69), it is stated that "System- 
atic work must also be carried on among the proletarian and peasant 
youth. * * *" It will be seen from this that a youth program is con- 
sidered an essential part of the activities of the Party m all countries 
and is required by the dictates of Marxism-Leninism. 

We conclude that the Classics direct Communists to engage m 
youth programs for the purposes of the Party and to provide reserves 
for the world revolution. 

In Foundations oj Leninism (Pet. Ex. 121, p. 89), Stalin states that 
Lenin developed the tactics of Marx and Engels and combined them 
into a system of rules and guiding principles for the leadership of the 
class struggle. 

Among these, as noted above, is the use of slogans and their propa- 
ganda value {Strategy and Tactics of the Proletarian Revolution, Pet, 
Ex. 343, pp. 66-67); Foundations of Leninism (Pet. Ex. 121, p. 92). 
"Imperialism" is one of these; and as a corollary thereto, "anti- 
imperialism" and "just and unjust wars." "Peace" was another of 
the slogans-which eventually came into use. These slogans have been 
used b}' the Soviet Union, by the Communist Parties throughout the 
world, and by the CPUSA. Their common use, contemporaneously 
and currently by the Soviet Union and the CPUSA, is significant. 
Their use also is recommended for the purpose of forwarding the 
world revolution {Strategy and Tactics, supra). 

The same can be said to apply to united-front tactics. Throughout 
the Classics, the value of such tactics is stressed. The extent of such 
collaboration furnishes a considerable part of the texts of the WTitings 
of Lenui and Stalin. Dimitroff's The United Front (Pet. Ex. 149) 
devotes itself to that tactical prmciple. Again, it should be noted 
that united fronts, at the organizational, political and national levels, 


are to be used but not in any way that mi<rht bolster capitalism. At 
all tim(>s thoy are to be used to protect the Party in Russia, to increase 
the nunil)er of its adherents and always to promote the world revo- 
lution. Their simultaneous ado])tions by the Parties in various forms 
in various countries also cannot be ignored. 'J'his stands out particu- 
larly at th(^ time of the Soviet Union's changes of alliances before and 
durhig World Wiiv II. 

We conclude that the use of slogans as shibboleths for the purposes 
of Communist Parties, including Respondent, in order to advance 
the world revolution, is directed by the Classics. 

Secrecy and its uses also finds a place of jn'ominence in the Classics. 
(See Pet"; Ex. 343, pp. 22-26; and Pet. Ex. 417.) Respondent con- 
tends that its ])ractice by the CPUSA was not for the purpose of 
concealing foreign direction, domhiation and control or of expediting 
or promoting its objectives, but rather to protect its members from 
local hysteria or from being harassed and penalized economically for 
the holding of unpopular views. In What Is To Be Done? which 
Respondent urged its members to read as recently as 1951, Lenin 
shows how Party members can use trade unions as a front, keeping 
their identity as revolutionists secret. Stalin, in his speeches on the 
CPUSA (Pet. Ex. 109), published by the Central Committee of the 
CPUSA, in pamphlet form, speaks of tlie danger of exposing the 
"conspirative" nature of the Communist Party. The manner of use 
and timing, and the nature and degree of these practices negatives 
the contention of Respondent's witnesses. Certainly, as used in the 
Classics, secrecy was not always to be used for legal purposes {What 
Is To Done? Pet. Ex. 417, p. 107). 

We conclude that the secrecy directed by the Classics is, among 
other thhigs, for the purpose of concealing the conspiratorial nature 
of Communist Parties and for the advancement of the world revolu- 

Operationally, it will be seen that the Classics propose a strong 
central organization, on an inteniational as well as on a national 
scale. As Trachtenberg says in the hitroduction to What Is To Be 
Done? (Pet. Ex. 417): 

Only a centralized party, working according to a carefully prepared plan, 
with each member assigned a specific taslv for which ho is to be held accountable, 
could successfully lead the Russian working class in the struggle against capitalist 
exploitation and tsarist rule. 

Leinn points out that with tliis, it is necessary for the organization 
to be composed of i)rofessional revolutionists, trauied men, that no 
movement can be durable without a stable organization of leaders to 
maintam its continuity. The trahiing of cadres is thus basic in the 
movement (p. 116); and in view of the centralized nature of the 
organization, leaders and cadres once trained, can be depeniled upon 
to keep hi touch with the center of the movement and keep it in- 
formed of all that transpired by re])orts. 

We conclude that the training of leaders aiid cadres and the report- 
ing by such leatlers to the controlling l)ody of the movement is directed 
by the Classics. 

The i)osition taken by the Classics on the questions of Minorities 
and CV)lonials is also basic to the whole movement advocated by Marx 
and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, particularly the latter two. Any con- 
tributions in those directions bv their collaborators is no more than 


elaboration and amplification of the works of these four. They are 
implicit in Lenin's definition of imperialism. It will be seen from 
these and other portions of the Classics that the founders of the move- 
ment were not concerned with purely local conditions in Russia. In 
Foundations oj Leninism, cited above, it becomes clear (p. 79) that the 
national problem is part of the general problem of the proletarian revo- 
lution to be used for that purpose only to the extent that it is of ad- 
vantage to such revolution. This also appears from Strategy and 
Tactics (supra, pp. 63-65). 

We conclude that the Classics contemplate work among Colonials 
and Minorities to advance the world revolution. 

One of the requirements of Marxism-Leninism is conformity 
Discipline is considered vital. Deviation from doctrine and practice 
is not permissible except in local problems in the area of minor tactics. 
That nondeviation is abjured is patent from Foundations of Leninism 
(Pet. Ex. 121, pp. 119-21). 

The achievement and maintenance of the dictatorship of the proletariat is im- 
possible without a party which is strong by reason of its solidarity and iron 
discipline. But iron discipline in the party is inconceivable without unity of will, 
without complete and absolute unitv of action on the part of all members of the 

As stated by Stalin (p. 120), the existence of factions is incompatible 
either with the party's unity or its iron discipline. He quotes Lenin: 

"In the present epoch of acute civil war," says Lenin, "a Communist Party will 
be able to perform its duty only if it is organised in the most centralised manner, 
only if iron discipline bordering on military discipline prevails in it, and if its Party 
centre is a powerful and authoritative organ, wielding wide powers and enjoying 
the universal confidence of the members of the Partv" (Selected Works, VoL X, 
p. 204). 

The penalty for nonconformity is expulsion from the Party (p. 121). 
(See also Strategy and Tactics, Pet. Ex. 343, p. 62.) 

We conclude that the Classics require conformity on the part of all 
organizations and members in the movement and that no deviation 
from the party line is permitted on penalty of expulsion therefrom. 

From the Classics themselves, ]\Iarxism-Leninism constitutes an 
uncodified system of political philosophy and practice w^hich declares 
that it is inevitable that a classless state of society will be reached 
through an intermediate stage in which there will be socialist states 
controlled by dictatorships of the proletariat under the leadership of 
the Soviet Union. For the attainment of these dictatorships, a hard 
core of revolutionary zealots is required who operate under exceedingly 
flexible rales on an international basis. The vehicle for their operation 
is a so-called political party, the Communist Party, which is provided 
with strategic and tactical directives. The first objective is to bring 
to an end capitalistic (bourgeoisie) society. For this purpose, special 
attention must be paid to labor unions, youth, Minorities and Colonies. 
Temporary alliances, known as fronts, may be entered into, but always 
with the ultimate revolutionary goals in view. Capitalism is termed 
"imperialism." Slogans should be employed in aid of the Party's 
objectives. "Anti-imperialism" and "peace" are two of the slogans 
which may be effective. The leader of the movement, which is inte- 
grated on an international scale, must be the Soviet Union, which 
must be protected as the first country in which the dictatorship of the 
proletariat has been attained. All allegiance is due the Soviet Union 
as the leader of the vanguard of the proletariat. Force and violence 


shall be used to reach objectives if persuasion and guile are ineftective. 
Where lawful methods are eflective, these should be used; where not, 
unlawful methods should be resorted to. Secrecy, where necessary, 
should also be used. Discipline must be rigid, though a certain 
amount of latitude is permissible in local tactical matters, under an 
organizational structure designated as democratic centralism. This 
is supposed to be a two-way process but ordcre emanating from the 
top, which is the Soviet Union, may not be ignored. Operations are 
to be on a world-wide basis, including in its sphere, inter alia, the 
United States. Taken on its face, Marxism-Leninisju, as it appears 
in the Classics, is a system luider which there is to be a world-wide 
revolution for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat 
under the domination and control of the ^Soviet Union. Tliis revolu- 
tion is to take place in the various countries as conditions permit. 
kxi accepted Marxist-Leninist party is one which is a part of this 

Subjecting the content of the Classics to further scrutin}- in the 
light of the testimony of the witnesses for both sides, we are better 
able to reach a determination of the real meaning of Marxism- 
Leninism. All of the witnesses (except Petitioner's witnesses. Dr. 
Mosely, Logofet, and Carrington) testified to some knowledge of the 
Classics and of \Iarxism-Leninism. They studied it, were taught it, 
or were subject to it in practice. Admittedly, the Classics have been 
in use by the members of the CPUS A continuously to the date of the 
hearings in this proceeding. 

Respondent's chief witness concerning Marxism-Leninism was 
Herbert Aptheker, a teacher at the Jefferson School of Social Science, 
a school with a general Marxism-Leninism orientation, whom it offers 
as an expert and who savs Marxism-Leninism principles are funda- 
mental to the CPUSA. ^ 

Summarized, his testimony is to the efiect that Marxism-Leninism 
is in its inception and thereafter to be foimd in the waitings of Marx, 
Engels, Lenin, Stalin and others; that its heart is dialectic material- 
ism; that its aim is the end of capitalism and the attaimnent of a 
socialist state which will eventually dissolve into Communism; that 
it is a science, usable in all countries as such and that in this sense it 
applies to the United States which is an "impedalist" nation; that it 
only contemplates revolution in the sense of an evolutionary change 
to rule by the proletariat, and that a dictatorship of the proletariat 
means rule by that class when that class rei)resents a majority; that 
its international aspects are only fraternal and represent a similarity 
of interests of the w'orking class of all countries; that the Classics are 
used for illumination and for historical backgi-ound by Communists; 
that Marxism-Leninism i)rovides a guide for action only as a science 
would be a guide for a scientific experiment; that it contains no direc- 
tives and the CPUSA is not controlled or dominated by the Soviet 
Union thercb}'; that the name Marxism-Leninism is not used to denote 
any hidden meaning for the direction of initiates in the Communist 

What is not clear from his testmiony is the actual content of 
.Marxism-Leninism and the extent of its applicability to the CPUSA. 
It is not ])()ssiblc to detenniuc therefrom what ])ortion of the Classics 
have asserted current validity and how much of .Nfarxism-Leninism is 
aclaiowledged to be applicable in any particular place. Moreover, 


the credibility of his testimony as a whole is impaired by the inverted 
outlook it discloses. An example of this appears from his explanation 
of Lenm's use of Aesopian language (Imperialism, Pet. Ex. 140, p. 7) 
which Lenin said was used to avoid Czarist censorship when the 
pamphlet was originally written. Aptheker says, as a Marxist- 
Leninist scholar, that Marxists understood Lenin's use of Aesopian 
language not in terms of deception; Lenin was not trying to fool any- 
body, he was trying to illuminate ideas by the use of allegory. This is 
patently not so, as far as the censors were concerned. It did apply 
to the initiates of his own party. Again, his insistence that Douglas 
was right in lying to a court because that court represented what the 
witness characterized as tyrannical oppressors is indicative of a view- 
point that might permit his conscience to misstate facts if they did 
not -favor his side. His explanation that the American revolution 
was not in a real sense a revolution because the colonists were oppressed 
by England casts some doubt on his definitions of revolution and the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, these definitions are not 
m accord with those which appear in the Classics. The evasiveness 
of Aptheker's testimony, and the distorted viewpoint, indicated above, 
renders extremely questionable what he says concerning Marxism- 
Leninism and the Classics and the extent to which they apply to 
the CPUSA. 

Respondent's witness Gates adds little to the meaning to be given to 
Marxism-Leninism. He says it is a social science. He says that the 
CPUSA is an independent and completely autonomous organization. 
Concerning the Classics, he states that while Problems of Leninism 
has been used for teaching in the CPUSA schools, it is taught as 
historical writing and not as a blueprint or an order for Communists 
to follow all over the world and that it is not the program of the 

"Witness Flynn states that the Classics have been and are used in 
the Party schools as of the date of her testimony (June 26, 1952) but 
as reference books for history, and for the principles of Marxism- 

The witnesses for Petitioner,^^ all of whom, as Party members, had 
some instruction in the meaning of Marxism-Leninism and some of 
whom were officials, writers or teachers for the Party, agree with 
Respondent's witnesses only to the extent that one of the component 
parts of Marxism-Leninism is the philosophic-sociological concept that 
capitalism must and will inevitably be superseded by a dictatorship 
of the proletariat which will eventually be succeeded by a stateless 
class of society known as Communism. This original .Vlarxist doc- 
trine, they state, has superimposed on it the revisions and the supple- 
mentations of Lenin, Stalin, Dimitrov, and others which provide it 
with plans, policies, programs, and directives to bring about the end 
of the present capitalistic era, designated as "imperialism," on a 
worldwide scale and by any means, including force and violence. 
The effort to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat is an 
integrated effort of the working classes in all countries and the leader- 
ship thereof is in the Soviet Union, where it has succeeded. 

Witness Lautner states: "The leader of the world Communist 
movement is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the 

f Whose testimony we accept in this connection. 


Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin 28 * * * ^Ynd the Party he represents." 
He says adherence to Marxism-Tjcninism has impUcit in it complete 
subsorvionco on the part of all Communist Party organizations, 
whothcr in the United States or elsewhere, and on the part of the 
individual members in all strategic and most tactical matters, to the 
rulers of the Soviet l^nion. The CPI^SA adheres to Marxism- 
Leninism and consequently its Constitution is no more than a bylaw 
to Marxism-Leninism and has no valid it}' except insofar as it con- 
fonns thereto. Petitioner's witness Budenz, a former Party member 
and Editor of the Daily Worker testified when asked the meaning 
of the first sentence of the Party's 1945 Constitution (which sentence 
is identical with the first sentence of the 1948 constitution): 

Marxism-Leninism is a well-known and historical term in the Communist 
documents and discussions. It is that interpretation of so-called scientific 
socialism based on the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and which 
holds as the goal of the Communist Parties of the world the necessity for the 
violent shattering of the bourgeoisc states in order to set up in their place a com- 
pletely new state machinery, the dictatorship of the proletariat. This shall be 
achieved under Marxism-Leninism through the Party of the new type, the Bol- 
shevik Party under Bolshevik discipline, which rejects the concept of class peace 
(Tr. 11831). 

He goes on to state that the Communists in the United States at 
that tunc (1945) regarded the American government as a bourgeois 
state, and that further statements in the Preamble concerning the 
Communist Party's defense of the United States Constitution were 
not reconcilable with the sentence above quoted. He goes on to say: 

The statements cannot be reconciled. The dedication of Mar.xism-Leninisra 
is the dedication historically and categorically to the violent shattering of the 
bourgeoise state as the necessary step toward progress, and this other language 
in the light of that, since Marxism-Leninism principles prevail, is merely a window- 
dressing for legal protective purpose. It is part of the Aesopian language rec- 
ommended by Lenin 29 (Tr. 11832). 

He states further that the classics were used m his work up to the 
time he left the party (October 1945). Speaking of his use of Aesopian 
language, he states: 

I referred to Marxism-Leninism. I referred to Stalin as the leader, teacher, and 
guide, things of that sort, which was Aesopian to the extent that it presented 
Stalin as the leader, teacher, and guide, but didn't explain that he completely 
controlled the Communist movement, although I could have done it because 
Bittelman had stated in Milestones that Stalin was the leader, the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union was the leader (Tr. 12203). 

He sp,ys, concerning Comnmnist activity in the trade-union move- 
ment: "No Communist is permitted to deviate from the line set 
down for the Communists of the world * * *" (Tr. 122C7). Peti- 
tioner's witness, Lautncr, former Party member, leader, and teacher, 
tells what he was taught concerning the meaning of Marxism-Leninism, 
and at Tr. 9514, states: 

Marxisui-Leniiiism taught us that monopoly capitalism or imperialism was a 
worldwide i)henomenon, therefore there is need of a worldwide organization, an 
organization that has ties to successfully cope with this problem and eventually 
bring about the downfall of monopoly capitalism and imperialism. 

Further, that the Program of the Communist International was used 
by him in classes in 1947, 1948, and 1949 "because the program of the 

«• The record discloses no basis for any inference that the death of Stalin will terminate, lessen, or otherwise 
affect the domination of Respondent by the U. R. S. R. 
M For a definition of ".\esopian," see Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (Pet. Ex. 140, p. 7, n. 1). 


Communist International lays down the strategic aims of the Com- 
munist Parties." 

Another witness for Petitioner, Meyer, said he taught Marxism- 
Leninism m Kespondent's schools and that it was a body of doctrme 
which is first a philosophy of history, secondly, a guide to the Com- 
munist Party on the basis of that philosophy, in carrying out its 
historical role which is the overthrow of the capitalist system and its 
replacement with a dictatorship of the proletariat to establish social- 
ism which is to lead to the stage of Communism. Petitioner's witness, 
Philbrick, states he was taught this, and that the lessons of Marxism- 
Leninism were to be applied to present-day affahs as a guide to 

The witnesses for the Petitioner aver that the Classics represent a 
body of living doctrine and directives by which the Communists 
throughout the world are guided and governed. Witness Meyer testi- 
fied that the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 
(Bolsheviks) was used as a living guide to revolutionary action based 
on the experience of the Bolsheviks and the writings of Lenin and 
Stalin. He points to a speech by Trachtenberg made in Washington, 
D. C, in 1949, which declares that the leaders must know the Classics 
and be able to apply the basic principles to any current situation at 
any time. Witness Matusow says, by way of example of current 
applicability of the Classics that the Communist Manifesto, though 
100 years old, "is just as relevant today as it was in 1848 when it 
was written." He goes on to say that this was so of other pieces of 
Marxist literature, pointing out particularly The Young Generation 
by Lenin, written in 1905 and used extensively in the Labor Youth 
League in 1949. The Classics were in use by the CPUSA, to his 
knowledge, as of December 1950 (tr. 11032-33). Witness Evans 
says the Classics were used in the Marxist-Leninist Institute from 
April 1949 to June 1950. Witness Budenz testified that Trachten- 
berg, head of the cultural commission in charge of the direction of 
Communist cultural activities and in charge of the Party's general 
publishing field, stated he was not permitted to issue any Marxist 
literature, especially the Classics, without the authorization of the 
Marx Institute in Moscow. The Daily Worker used the Classics in 
its work. He states that Dennis recommended : 

A thorough return throughout the Party to the Marxist-Leninist Classics, par- 
ticularly to the writings of Stalin, the History of the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union, Foundations of Leninism, and Dimitrov's Report to the Seventh 
Congress, which dealt with the true nature of how to conduct the United Front 
while forwarding the Communist revolutionary aims (tr. 11812). 

While writing for the Daily Worker (from 1935 to 19|45), Budenz did 
not directly advocate the overthrow of the govermnent by force and 
violence. This was done by reference to Marxism-Leninism and the 
Classics. Witness Lautner testified that on the basis of the Classics, 
at the National Training School in 1941, he was taught how Lenin 
applied Marxism to the epoch of imperialism and established a party 
of a new type ; how Stalin applied this to the party as a force, the lead- 
ing political party of the working class; that Marxism-Leninism was a 
guide to action in the party in the United States; that the aim of the 
party was to gain political and economic power in this country and 
that this was to be accomplished, on the basis of Marxism -Leninism, 
by a worldwide organization. 


From the Classics themselves, it is clear that force and violence 
was deemed necessary for the overthrow of the govermnent of the 
Czars hy the Russians. It is also clear that they call for international 
action by the working class in otlier countries so that Russia, when 
freed from the Czars would not be left standing in a hostile bourgeois 
world alone and friendless. The Classics definitely call for action on 
an internntional scale. It is the contention of the Respondent that 
the call to aid the Soviet Union was only applicable when the Soviet 
Union was weak and struggling; now that it is strong, such mter- 
national action on her behalf is not necessary. Is this so? It is clear 
that, in tlie period of the Communist International, the Classics were 
admittedly meant to be applied as the basic law of all Communist 
Parties, in every country where such parties existed. Under this basic 
law, the Soviet Union was the leader of a world organization of all 
such Communist Parties, in a worldwide movement to emancipate the 
working class from capitalist rule, so the directives, progi-ams, and 
policies by which this was to be accomplished were clearly set forth 
in such Classics. Deviation therefrom was considered heresy and not 
to be tolerated. 

While Marxism-Iicninism is allegedly dynamic, there is no internal 
evidence in the portion of this amorphous amalgam which has })een 
reduced to \\Titing, and has become known as the Classics, which 
indicates a change in its character to make it inapplicable to the 
CPUSA. On the contrary, Petitioner's witnesses have established 
that the Classics are in cun-ent use and are apphcable to the Party. 
Dr. Ai)tlieker admits that no CPUSA member has altered the funda- 
mental precepts of Mai-xism-Leninism. 

"We find the testimony of the witnesses for Petitioner, concerning 
Marxism-Leninism credible and in accord with the meaning thereof 
to be obtained froni a reading of the record as a whole. 

We find that the testimony of the witnesses for the Respondent 
concerning Marxism-Leninism is in and of itself, and in the context 
of the record as a whole, unrealistic, ai)ologistic rather than explana- 
tory, and not credii^le, except as to the origins of Marxism-Leninism 
and, generally speaking, that its objectives are the attainment of a 
socialist state under a dictatorship of the proletariat and an eventual 
classless state of society known as Communism. 

How Marxism-Len'nism is understood, used, and followed, by 
Respondent has been established in the discussion of the testimony 
of the witnesses, above. In addition thereto, consideration has been 
given to the numerous exhibits which sIkhI light on the alcove question. 
From them it further appears that Respondent, its leaders, and its 
members taught, studied, discussed, used, and applied the Classics 
in the manner intended by the authors of these Classics and to an 
extent inconif)atible with any claim that the Classics are not ])in(ling 
upon them in all fundamentals. 

One of the most important, if not the most important, of the 
Classics in the period under examination in this proceetUng, is the 
History of Ike Communis Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) (Pet. 


Ex. 330).^° A resolution, adopted August 10, 1939, signed by the 
Communist Parties of France, Great Britain, the United States, 
Germany, and Italy (Pet. Epc, 296), states, inter alia (p. 73): 

The appearance of the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 
(Bolsheviks) is one of the greatest events in the life of the Communist world 
movement and of the international labor movement, in the struggle of the work- 
ing people of all countries for emancipation. Written with the immediate par- 
ticipation of Comrade Stalin and authorized by the Central Committee of the 
C. P. S. U. (B.), the History occupies an extraordinary place among the classic 
works of Marxism-Leninism. The History is intended to play — and will un- 
doubtedly play — a very important role in the successful mastering of Bolshevism 
by the Communists of the capitalist countries, in the consolidation of the Sections 
of the Communist International, and in raising their ideological and political level. 

A reading of the exhibit as a whole is enlightening concerning the use 
of the Classics advocated by Respondent and the position they are 
given in the propagation of Marxism-Leninism. At page 83 it states: 

(g) The work of the publishing houses is to be so organized that, besides the 
contemporary agitational literature, they not only publish the works of Marx, 
Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, but also strive to achieve for them the very widest 

Not only are the Classics given wide distribution but they are also 
integral in the teachings and activities of the Respondent .^^ 

Consequently, we conclude that the classics are one of the chief 
means by which the CPSU directs, dominates, and controls the 

From a review of the classics and of the testimony, we make the 
following findings concerning Marxism-Leninism as it is understood, 
used, and followed by respondent: 

Marxism-Leninism is a composite of the doctrines, dogmas, and 
guides to action of Marx and Engels, as supplemented and revised by 
Lenin, Stalin, and others, which advocates a worldwide revolutionary 
movement. The objective of the movement is the destruction of 
capitalism (which it designates as "imperialism")- It asserts as its 
ultimate goal a stateless class of society which it designates as "com- 
munism." The first step toward this end is the attainment of a 
socialist state under a dictatorship of the proletariat. "Proletariat" 
generally is synonymous with "working class." But "a dictatorship 
of the proletariat" connotes the rule by a minority in the name of the 
working class. Such a dictatorship should, theoretically, come about 

30 Witness Meyer's testimony on this point (Tr. 5554) is sufficiently significant to warrant quotation here: 
"The Witness. The fundamental textbooks used before the History of the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union appeared — that must have appeared late in 1939, but I can't date it exactly. I can date it by 
epoch. It appeared during that general 1939 to 1940 epoch, but I think it appeared in late 1939 or it might 
have been early 1940. At any rate before that appeared the major textbooks used, at the core of the vehole 
problem — there were others used but the essential ones always were the Communist Manifesto of Marx 
and Foundations of Leninism, by Stalin. The whole course of Marxism-Leninism was organized around 
these two. Then, so to speak, radiating from them were special problems: Lenin's State and Revolution, 
Lenin's Imperialism, Stalin's Problems of Leninism. I should say these were the central ones, except at 
one point also, I think in the earlier part of this period primarily, there were three rather widely used text- 
books of excerpts from the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. One was called Strategy and 
Tactics, another the Theory of the Proletarian Revolution, and another one the Dictatorship of the Prole- 
tariat. After the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union appeared it became the Central 

3' Some of the instances of the use of various of the more important classics in evidence appears from the 
following exhibits which refer to study outlines, reading lists, school curricula, sales lists of Marxist literature 
and advertisements. It should be noted that these represent use of the items in years 1948 and 1949 and 
1950. Foundations of Leninism (Pet. Ex. 121) Pet. Exs. 339, 346, 351, 369, 370, 416, 419, 420, 424, 425, 427; 
Problems of Leninism: Stalin (Pet Ex. 138) Pet. Exs. 370, 416, 419; State and Revolution: Lenin (Pet. Ex. 139) 
Pet Exs. 346, 370,424; Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism: Lenin (Pet. Ex. 140) Pet. Exs. 339, 346, 

369, 370, 419, 425, 427; Communist Manifesto: Marx and Eneels (Pet. Ex. 31) Pet. Exs. .3.39, 351, 369, 370, 420, 
424; The Theory of the Proletarian Revolution (Pet. Ex. 422) Pet. Exs. 419, 425, 427; The United Front, The 
Struggle Against Fascism and War (Pet. Ex. 149) Pet. Exs. 346, 420, 424, 427; Theses and Statutes of the Third 
(Communist) International (Pet. Ex. 8) Pet. Ex. 7; Mastering Bolshevism: Stalin (Pet. Ex. 335) Pet. Exs. 

370, 416; What Is To Be Done? (Pet. Ex. 417) Pet. Exs. 346, 370, 416, 420, 424. 


by a nonviolent revolution which would evolve from natural economic 
change. Actually, Marxism-Leninism requires that such revolution 
be hastened by action. This action must be taken by a dedicated 
group of revolutionaries, banded together as a so-called political 
party: the Communist Party. Under the leadership of the Soviet 
Union, this Party shall bring about, by force and violence if necessary, 
dictatorship of the proletariat in every country of the world whenever 
circumstances shall permit. Marxism-Leninism includes within itself 
the plans and procedures to accomplish this end. Adherence to its 
principles involves acceptance of its doctrines, tenets, and obligations; 
and mem})ership in the world revolutionary movement mentioned 
above. Marxism-Leninism contemplates the Communist Party of 
the United States as part of the world Communist movement. The 
name "Marxism-Leninism" is frequently applied in an esoteric sense 
to conceal from the uninitiated the full implications of such adherence 
and membership. 

We proceed to examine the record as to Respondent's basic policies 
and activities to determine the extent to which they are formulated 
and carried out pursuant to Marxism-Leninism as hereinbefore de- 
fined; the extent to which such policies and activities reflect compliance 
in their formation and execution with other directives or instructions 
of the Soviet Union; and, the extent to which such policies and activi- 
ties have as their purpose the furtherance of the policies of the Soviet 
Union and the advancement of the objectives of the world Commu- 
nist movement. We treat first with the voluminous evidence con- 
cerning what Respondent and other Communist Parties throughout 
the world Communist movement constant!}' term the "struggle against 
mperialism", and with Respondent's participation in such "struggle". 

3. Imperialism 

The record establishes and we find that among the major activities 
of Respondent are teaching, advocacy, and agitation in opposition to 
what Respondent calls United States imperialism. This includes 
programs and activities such as "the struggle for peace"; the doctrine 
of "just and unjust wars"; the theory that the world is divided into 
two hostile camps, one led by the Soviet Union and the other by the 
United States; and the necessit}' of overthrowing existing "imperialist" 
governments by force and violence if necessary. 

The record further establishes, and therefore we find, that a basic 
objective of the Soviet Union and of the world Communist movement 
is to bring about the downfall of the so-called "imperialist'' countries, 
including the United States, believing that, in so doing, several cov- 
eted objectives will be achieved: protecting and defending the Soviet 
Union, establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in the various 
countries, centralizing of all j)ower~-polilical, economic, and social — 
in the Communist Parties. 

Upon consideration of the evidence hereinafter summarized and 
upon the entire record, we further find and conclude that resjiondent's 
teachings, advocacy, and agitation as above stated have as their 
objective and piii|)ose the advancement of the world Comnumist 
movement; and tliev are formulated ami carried out on the l)asis of 
Marxism-Leninism and other directives and instructions frt)m the 
Soviet Union. We proceed to review the more significant evidence 
establishing the foregoing findings. 


Respondent's witness Dr. Aptheker says there never was a period 
when the Communists of the United States ceased to characterize the 
United States Government as "imperiahst," and that the United 
States, with its social system and ruUng class, fits the definition of 
"imperialism" as given by Lenin and as adopted by Respondent. 
Typical of Respondent's position in this respect is the following 
quotation from an article appearing in the January 1951 issue of 

Political Affairs: 

* * * U. S. imperialism is the most reactionary force in the world today, seeking 

to fascize, not only America, but every capitalist country (Pet. Ex. 378, p. 9). 

Additional illustration is furnished by an article by Betty Gannett 
published in the February 1951 issue of Political Affairs (Pet. Ex. 
376, pp. 183-194) which emphasizes that the United States is im- 
perialist and is plotting a new world war (p. 186); that "one of the 
main pillars of U. S. imperialism is its anti-Sovietism" (p. 189), 
whereas the Soviet Union is for peace, is not an aggressor, and, being 
a workers' state, cannot and does not pursue an imperialist course 
(p. 190). The oral and documentary evidence establishes convincingly 
that Respondent has consistently characterized the United States as 
an "imperialist" nation. This fact, standing alone, is not disputed 
on the record. 

We proceed to review the evidence and make our findings concerning 
why Respondent teaches, advocates, and agitates against what it calls 
American imperialism. The Communist Manifesto (Pet. Ex. 31, p. 9) 
declares that society as a whole is splitting into two great hostile 
camps, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Lenin in Imperialism 
(Pet. Ex. 140, pp. 9, 11, 126) designates capitalism as "imperialism" 
and predicts a proletarian victorious revolution after the impending 
imperialist war; the United States is designated as "imperialist." In 
State and Revolution (Pet. Ex. 139, p. 6), Lenin explains in the preface 
that the Russian Revolution of 1917 "can be understood in its totality 
only as a link in the chain of Socialist proletarian revolutions called 
forth by the imperialist war." Stalin in Foundations oi Leninism 
(Pet. Ex. 121, p. 15) develops the idea further to show that "imperial- 
ism" has made the revolution inevitable and has provided favorable 
conditions for it. In Problems of Leninism (Pet. Ex. 138, p. 9), he 
indicates that Leninism provides "suitable and obligatory" theory 
and tactics for the proletarian revolution against "imperialism". 

In 1927, the Communist International issued a Resolution On The 
American Question (Pet. Ex. 43) which states that "The United 
States of America, during the last decade, has developed into the 
mightiest imperialist power" (p. 1); and, that the task of the Com- 
munist Party is "to form a broad united front and to intensify the 
struggle against American imperialism" (p. 1). The Resolution lists 
the policy of the United States in China and its attitude against the 
Soviet Union among the questions that "must" be utilized by the 
Party to rally the broad masses in defense of the Soviet Union and in 
its struggle against American imperialism (pp. 2-3). 

The evidence summarized above is illustrative of a quantity of 
evidence which establishes that it is fundamental to Marxism-Leninism 
and to the world Communist movement led by the Soviet Union that 
all countries other than those of a victorious socialist revolution — 
which encompasses only the Soviet Union and those brought within 

32491—53 4 


its orbit — arc characterized as "imperialist," against which the 
Communist Parties must wage the "struggle against imperialism." 

In addition to the voluminous documentary evidence of record, 
Respondent's continuous adherence to these fundamentals of Marx- 
ism-Leninism and of the world Communist movement is established 
by the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses based upon their experi- 
ences as members and ofRcinls of Respondent; upon directions they 
received while in the Party and the instruction the}'^ gave as teachers 
in the Party; and upon their study of ofRcial Party publications. 
The more significant oral testimonv is summarized as herinafter set 

While Petitioner's witness Gitlow was a high officer of Respondent, 
until 1929, its aims and purposes were: to defend the Soviet Union as 
the fatherland of the working class of the world; to carry out the 
orders and directives of the Communist International; and to work 
for the undermining of the foundations of the American Government 
in order to make it possible for Respondent to overthrow our form of 
govermnent and set up in its place a dictatorship patterned after 
that which operates in the Soviet Union today. 

In 1932, Petitioner's witness Kornfeder, a former leading official of 
Respondent, taught in a school at the Party headquarters that the 
main doctrine of Lenin called for the complete and total overthrow of 
all existing social institutions, the government, the existmg organiza- 
tions that support the government, the complete elimination of the 
present state structure and its replacement bj^ a dictatorship led by 

Petitioner's witness Nowell was taught at the Lenin School in 
Moscow in 1932, and subsequently he himself taught in Respondent's 
schools in 1933 and 1934 in the United States, that the Government of 
the United States was the executive committee of the capitalist class 
in the United States and was subject to the same Marxism-Leninism 
laws of growth, development, and decay as all capitalist states; 
that the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat 
were necessary and equally as inevitable in the United States as in other 
capitalist countries; that it was the duty of the Commimists to work 
for the overthrow of the Government of the United States and the 
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, following the 
form of the Soviet, and under the hegemony of Respondent and the 
Communist International; and, that it was the necessary duty of 
]{espondent, as a part of world Communism, to work for the overthrow 
of the other "imperialist" nations. 

Petitioner's witness Meyer taught in Respondent's schools until 
near the end of 1945. He instructed the members of Respondent that 
Marxism-Leninism is a guide to Respondent in carrying out its 
historical role or mission to overthrow the capitalist system and 
political states founded on the capitalist system, to destroy the 
economic organization on which that society is founded and its political 
system, and to re[)lace it with the dictatorship of the proletariat, to 
estal)lish the kind of socialism that will lead to Communism. 

Petitioner's witness Johnson was taught at Respondent's training 
school in al)out 1932 that it was the duty of the Connnunists to build 
themselves up to the position where they could ciiallenge the power 
of the government, and that the Red Army would not hesitate to 
throw its weight into the scales to tip the balance in favor of the 


Communist revolutionists in America; also,'' that the Communists 
should agitate and work for the demoralization of the Armed Forces 
of the United States by convincing them that they must refuse to 
fight against the Soviet Red Army and go over on the side of the 
Red Army using their guns against the Government of the United 
States and all the forces that remained loyal to it. This was the 
policy of Respondent throughout Johnson's membership, until 1940, 
and was elaborated upon by such leaders as Foster, Bedacht, Bittel- 
man, Browder, and Stachel, at committee meetings and conventions. 
It is significant that Foster is the present national chairman of Res- 
pondent and some of these others are still high officials (see pp. 20 
to 21 herein). 

Petitioner's witness Lautner who was a member of Respondent 
until 1950, and Petitioner's witness Janowitz who was a member at 
the time of testifying in this proceeding, corroborate this evidence. 

Petitioner's witness Matusow stated the aims and objectives of 
Respondent in case of a war between the United States and the Soviet 
Union were not to support the American /'imperialists." The estab- 
lishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the United States 
would have to be accomplished by violent means because "the ruling 
class would not give up its power." \\Tiile in the Party (1947 to 1951) , 
he did not hear or see anything to indicate a change in the aims of 
Respondent. He refers to a statement of Izzy Brown, Club Educa- 
tion Director of the Friedlander Youth Club in New York in 1948, 
that it was the policy of Respondent not to support the United States 
in an "imperialist war" agamst the Soviet Union. 

Petitioner's witness Scarletto relates a discussion in the latter part 
of 1950 by Party members in which it was felt advisable that members 
go into the service of the United States in the Korean War because 
they would be in a position to sabotage the United States effort. 
At a meeting about the middle of November 1950 of functionaries 
of the Mexican Concentration Club, a suggestion was made to raise 
money through a neutral country for the North Koreans. The 
chairman of the Club at a meeting in the latter part of 1950, told 
witness Scarletto that it would be a good idea if he went back into 
the Navy Air Corps where he would have a good opportunity to 
sabotage. At a meeting of a Party club about December 1, 1950, the 
chairman reported American officers had been killed by then- Korean 
orderlies. There were several expressions of satisfaction over this 
and the report that the war was going against the Americans at the 

Petitioner's witness Evans, a member of Respondent from 1948 
to 1952, was taught that in a war between the Soviet Union and the 
United States all members of Respondent should help defeat the 
predatory aims of imperialism.^^ 

In the years between 1945 and 1950, Petitioner's witnesses Cum- 
mings, Hidalgo, Blane, Markward, and Baldwm were taught that the 
world was divided into two camps: the imperialists and the anti- 
imperialists (democracies) ; that Russia was anti-imperialist and 
democratic; that the wars of the imperialists were unjust wars and 
the wars of the anti-imperialists were just wars; that m a war between 
imperialists and anti-imperialists, the members of the CPUSA must 

32 The organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1950 stated that while imperialism 
exists there also exists the danger of new aggression and that in the presence of imperialism and its predatory 
plans wars are unavoidable {Pravda, Pet. Ex. 217). 


aid the anti-iinporialists; and that this would hold true in the case 
of a war between the Soviet Union and the United States. 

Docunientai-y evidence? of KesDondent's expressions eonfirnis the 
oral testimony that liespondent's policy is to oppose many United 
States policies and activities as imi)erialists, and as aggressive against 
the Soviet Union; also, that Respondent's policy is to support the 
Soviet Union and defeat the aims of imperialism. Political Ajffairs 
for March 1951 describes President Truman's activities as "imperial- 
ism" on the way to bankruptcy and as a provocative semimobilization 
for an outrigiit war ai^ainst the Soviet Union. 

A pattern throughout the world Connnunist movement for teaching, 
advocating, and agitating for the overthrow of "imperialist" govern- 
ments exists hi the concept or slogan that the world is divided into 
two hostile camps, one led by the Soviet Union and the other by the 
United States. As j)reviously herein set forth, Lenin, Stalm, and 
the Communist International, in interpreting and adapting to the 
world Communist movement the writings of Marx and Engels, 
took the original concept that society is divided between the bour- 
geoisie and ])roletariat, and developed it into the doctrine or slogan 
that the world is divided hito two hostile camps — the camp of the 
imperialist states and the camp of the dictatorship of the proletariat 
hi the USSR. In the Programme of The Communist International 
(Pet. Ex. 125) this is ex])lained as follows: 

The difference in class structure and in the class character of the government 
in the two camps, the fundamental differences in the aims each pursues in internal, 
foreign, economic, and cultural policy, the fundamentally different courses of 
their development, brings the capitalist world into sharp conflict with the victori- 
ous proletariat State. * * * The class struggle, which hitherto was conducted in 
circumstances when the proletariat was not in possession of State ])ower, is now 
being conducted on an enormous and really world scale; the working class of the 
world lias now its own State — the one and onlj' fatherland of the international 
proletariat * * * (pp. 24 and 25). 

^ H< :f: 4^ 3|e rf: 3|e 

Thus, as a result of the first round of imperialist wars a new, fundamental 
antagonism has arisen of world historical scope and significance; the antagonism 
between the U. S. S. R. and the capitalist world (p. 25). 

The record establishes a consistent advancement of this doctrine or 
slogan by the Soviet Union and by the Communist Information Bu- 
reau, and its acceptance and use by Respondent. Of late, the slogan 
of "peace" has been added as hereinafter covered. 

The Soviet Union in January 1949 characterized the postwar foreign 
policy of the United States and Great Britain as one of aggression and 
unleashing a new war for world domination, whereas, it stated, the 
Soviet Union struggles for universal peace and international security. 
This position of the Soviet Union as rei)orted in Pravda, j)oints out 
that "The very existence of the Soviet State, with its growing power 
and its international authority, and likewise tlie powerful support 
given to it by the democratic forces in other countries constitute an 
insurmountable barrier in the way of all plans of any kind for the 
establishment of world domination hy one power or another." (Pet. 
Ex. 251, p. 19). 

Pravda for March 11, 1950 (Pet. Ex. 217), contains a speech by V. 
M. Molotov which states that "Since the October Revolution in our 
countr}^, the victory of the national liberation movement in China 
appears as a new and most powerful blow at the entire system of 
world imperialism and at all plans of imperialist aggression in our 


time" (p. 4), and "Now the Soviet Union has not only come out of 
international isolation but is also the center of the powerful interna- 
tional democratic camp. * * * In the capitalist countries themselves, 
we now have millions of active friends who are closing ranks more and 
more in a broad democratic, anti-imperialist movement." (p. 5) * * * 
" The democratic camp, which unites the USSR and the countries of the 
people's democracy, is opposed by the camp of the imperiahst powers, 
headed by the ruling circles of the United States of America" (p. 6). 
[Emphasis added.] 

For a Lasting Peace, Jor a People's Democracy issue of November 
10, 1947, sets forth a speech delivered by A. Zhdanov^^ at the Informa- 
tive Conference of the Nine Communist Parties held in Poland at 
the end of September 1947. A section of this speech is entitled: 
"The New Post-War Alignment of Political Forces and the Forma- 
tion of Two Camps: the Imperialist and the Anti-Democratic Camp, 
and the Anti-Imperialist and Democratic One" wherein it is stated 
the principal driving force of the imperialist camp is the United 
States with whom Great Britain and France are allied; the second 
camp — ^anti-imperialist — is based on the USSR and the "new democ- 
racies" (Pet. Ex. 214-A). 

For a Lasting Peace, issue of March 10, 1950, contains an article 
which concludes with the following: 

A comparison of the economic successes achieved by the Peoples' Democracies 
in a very short period of their history with the extremely difficult position of the 
working people in the capitalist countries constitutes a terrible indictment of 
American imperialism and of the whole decaying capitalist system (Pet. Ex. 
412, p. 1). 

With respect to Respondent, when Petitioner's witness Lautner 
left the Party at the end of 1949, the Party line was that the United 
States headed the imperialist forces of the world and that Russia led 
the anti-imperialist forces and that everything should be done to aid 
Russia and to disconcert the United States. Further, in 1949 an 
instructor in courses on the ABC's of Marxism included the United 
States in the imperialist camp and a similar position was taken by a 
Party study group' in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1948, where it was 
stated that the United States led the "imperialists" and the Soviet 
Union led the anti-imperialists or Peoples' Democracies. 

A "Discussion Outline" on "The Marxist Position Toward War" 
issued by Respondent's Educational Department, Michigan State 
Committee, in April 1949 (Pet. Ex. 400) has a section entitled, "IV. 
World War II was Just War" which says in part: 

The post-war world was split by the U. S. and Britain into two camps — the 
camp of imperialism and fascism under the leadership of American imperialism and 
the camp of democracy, national freedom and peace, headed by the U S S R (p. 4) . 

Similar teachings by Respondent are evidenced by study and teaching 
material used in various schools and groups (Pet. Ex. 425, p. 16; 
Pet. Ex. 424, Sess. 9). 

Related to the concept of the world being divided into two hostile 
camps, is the concept or slogan set forth by Lenin and StaUn that 
distinguishes between "just wars," wliich are those carried on by 
"anti-imperialist" nations, and "unjust wars," i. e., those engaged in 

33 The Zhdanov Report has recently been widely used and followed by Respondent. It was published in 
Political Affairs and'discussed and studied throughout the Party while Lautner and Philbrick were mem- 
bers. It is variously'listed as "required reading," "reading material," and "reading," in study and teaching 
materials used by Respondent in 1949. 


solely by "imperialist" nations among themselves or against any 
"socialist" country, such as the Soviet Union. We find that the con- 
cept of "just" and "unjust" wars, requiring the Communist Parties 
to support the Soviet Union in a war between the Soviet Union and 
any other country, and in a war between the Soviet Union and their 
own country to use every means to assist the Soviet Union, is basic to 
Marxism-Leninism; and that it has been continuously advanced and 
advocated by the Soviet Union, and has been continuously taught 
and followed by Respondent. Respondent's policies and activities 
centering around the doctrine of "just" and "unjust" wars is covered 
later in this report in connection with the issue as to what country 
the leaders of Respondent consider they owe allegiance. Accordingly, 
it is sufficient at this point to state our finding that Respondent's 
teachings and advocacy of this line represent a continued following of 
directions as to the line from Marxism-Leninism, the Communist 
International, and the Soviet Union. 

We proceed to review the evidence concerning Respondent's use 
of the words "peace" and "democracy" in connection with the 
struggle against "imperialism" and for the advancement of the aims 
and objectives of the world Communist movement. Earlier in this 
report we have reviewed the united-front tactic as set forth in 
Marxism-Leninism as one of the means used for establishing the dic- 
tatorship of the proletariat. The united front has taken various 
approaches throughout the period since 1919. In the interest of 
reasonable summarization of the record, we limit this report to the 
use of the united-front tactic from 1935 on. 

In 1935, the Communist International, with Respondent repre- 
sented, mapped out the "tactical line" for the years ahead which 
consisted of forming a "united front" with other organizations in 
order to achieve national unity in the various countries for the purpose 
of combatting fascism.^* The record shows that early in the 1930's, 
Stalin, in a report on behalf of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
to its Party Congress, pointed out that "the buorgeoisie would seek a 
way out of the economic crisis, on the one hand, by crusliing the 
working class through the establislmient of fascist dictatorship, i. e., 
the dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most 
imperialistic capitalist elements" (Pet. Ex. 330, pp. 300-301). The 
record also shows that the Soviet Union realized a "second imperialist 
war" represented a serious danger to the USSR. (Pet. Ex. 330, pp. 
334-5). In mid-1935, discussioi\s were started in the Communist 
International on the matter of the united front — the "anti-Fascist 
front" — which were supported by the Communist Party of the ^Soviet 
Union as evidenced by an article in the August 6, 1935, issue of 
Pravda; this points out that "Unity — that is the command of the 
movement!" and emphasizes "that this unity be directed against 
Fascism, against the dano:er of a new imperialist war, against the 
offensive of capital," while also emphasizing that the Communists 
"know that only the dictatoi-ship of the proletariat, only the Soviet 
Government is the sole salvation of the working class * * *" (Pet 
Ex. 183)._ 

Thus, it is more than a coincidence that the Communist Inter- 
national in 1935 gave among the reasons for developing the "new 

3* In Communist documents, fa.scism is a form of imperialism. 


tactical orientation," the economic crisis facing capitalism, the offen- 
sive of fascism, and the growth of the threat of a new imperialist war 
and of an attack on the U. S. S. R. (Pet. Ex. 137, pp. 21-22). In a 
speech at the close of this meeting of the Comintern, Georgi Dimitrov 
pointed out that "Ours is a Congress of struggle for the preservation 
of peace, against the threat of imperialist war" ^^ {ibid, p. 8), 
and that: 

Standing firmly on tlie impregnable position of Marxism-Leninism, which has 
been confirmed by the entire experience of the international labor movement, and 
primarily b\' the victories of the great October Revolution, our Congress, acting 
in the spirit and guided by the method of living Marxism-Leninism, has reshaped 
the tactical lines of the Communist International to meet the changed world 
situation {ibid, p. 11). 

The Resolution of the Comintern concerning the new approach or 
use of the united-front tactic lays down various things which the 
Communist Parties are to do in carrying out the revised line, and in 
that connection uses such words as ''enjoins" (p. 26), "must" (p. 36), 
and "imperative" (p. 37). The record shows that Respondent fully 
and completely complied with this line laid down by the Communist 
International as evidenced by the following, which is among the more 
significant evidence of record on this point. 

In November 1935 the Central Committee of Respondent adopted 
a resolution "fully and wholeheartedly" endorsing the decisions of the 
Seventh World Congress of the Communist International in which 
resolution the "chief task" of Respondent at the time is stated to be 
"to reorientate the work of the Party in accord with the tactical line of 
the Seventh World Congress" and in which "The Central Committee 
calls upon the party organizations and every Party member to prose- 
cute the struggle for the united front with the utmost determination 
and flexibility in the new way pointed out by the Seventh World 
Congress" (emphasized in text) (Pet. Ex. 185, pp. 1182-1184). Like the 
resolution of the Comintern and the statements of the Soviet Union, 
Respondent's resolution takes care to point out that the line is an 
application "in a living way" of "the teachings of Marx, Lenin, Engels, 
and Stalin"; and that it is linked to the prosecution of the Party's 
"revolutionary aims" and "revolutionary principles and program" 
(ibid, p. 1185). 

Some of the details of Respondent's compliance with the instructions 
of the Communist International are furnished by Petitioner's witness 
Nowell who in the latter part of 1935 was instructed by William 
Weinstone and other functionaries of the Michigan District of Re- 
spondent to proceed to set up certain organizations in accordahce 
with the united front policy and conforming to the new type of 
reorientation, as set forth in the resolutions of the Comintern. The 
witness shows that he carried out these instructions by forming 
fractions in various organizations for the purpose of influencing the 
policies of the organizations and to guide them along the lines of the 
Communist Party in setting up the "united front" movement. 

In 1936, Respondent's Central Committee issued a statement 
which was printed in Respondent's magazine. The Communist, issue for 
May 1936, calling upon all workers to unite to defeat fascism and 
on May Day to pledge to defend the Soviet Union. The Communist 

35 The speech of Dimitrov and the Resolutions adopted by the Comintern were printed in pamphlet 
form in the United States by Workers Library Publishers and have been widely used by Respondent. 


for May 1940 carries an article by "Gene Dennis" which points out the 
danger to the Soviet Union from the imperiahst war and states that the 
united front can only be achieved successfully if consistentl}- directed 
against the imperialist war and ca])italist reaction. 

Some aspects of Respondent's line during the period of the second 
world war shifted back and forth to follow the position of the Soviet 
Union. The pertinent facts in this respect are covered in our findings 
under the section of this report on the issue of nondeviation ; we have 
taken them into consideration as part of the pertinent evidence 
involving liespondent's following of foreign directions concerning the 
use of the united front tactic. The record shows that after World 
War II, the use of the unit^nl front tactic received a different emphasis 
in the form of the united front for "peace." The testimon}^ of 
Petitioner's witness Lautner, which is corroborated b}' other evidence 
of record, furnishes a clear understanding of this aspect of the issues 
and is therefore pertinent for review in some detail. The witness 
testified in part as follows, which we find to be an accurate statement 
of the facts: 

The United Front tactics of the Communist Party were part of the subject 
matter of Marxism-Leninism, and in class [referring to Party cla.sses in 1948] 
we tried to convey the idea that the Seventh \\'orld decisions pertaining 
to the United Front tactics and Dimitrov's report in no way eliminated or negated 
the decisions of the Sixth World Congress but implemented the desisions of the 
Sixth World Congress in a way to enable the Party to develop a wider base on 
specific issues. Before the Seventh World Congress we had United P>onts that 
were ba.sed on a narrow concept popularly known as United Front from Below, 
United Fronts on specific issues, but were elements that were ready and willing 
to work on specific issues with the Communist movement. In the main it wa.s 
an effort to increase and to advance the influence of the Communist Parties. 
This policy, based on the strategy and tactics of the Sixth World Congress, was 
a failure of the Party in Germany to make headway, the defeat suffered by the 
German Party, based on the strategj' and tactics and the program of the Sixth 
World Congress, the failure in China, the failure to build the Red International 
Trade Union movement, the failure to gain a way or win a way to working, 
the organized section of the working classes from the influence of social democracy, 
with the result that reaction gained power in a number of countries. Hitler 
came to power in Germany. The Seventh World Congress devised a new tactical 
approach in order to achieve the main strategic objectives by developing a pro- 
gram of United Front from below and from above, and also the program of the 
people's fronts and coalitions around a specific issue in the struggle against 
fascism and in the struggle against war, because fascism was the main danger of 
war at that time. 

* * 4: * Hi * lit 

So The United Front is not a repudiation of the basis [sic] strategic aims of the 
Communist movement, but as step that will bring closer the realization of that 
strategic aim. 


After l'.)15 there came a re-evaluation of the world situation. Now the prob- 
lem was to find that link in the chain again with which a new coalition could be 
developed on a united front basis, on a minimum program, on a partial program 
of the Communist International, with which coalition we could go forward to a 
new milestone, to a new point and gain new adherents to the Communist move- 
ment, and when we reached that milestone there would be a new situation, a 
new realinement of forces, and we would find that new link with which we could 
go forward again. This link after (he second world war was the struggle for peace. 
The question of peace was the new link. At the reconstitution convention 
Foster in his report already indicated the direction in which the Party will travel 
in this postwar perio<l, and Zhdanov's report later on precisely sets the two world 
camps and the main issue in the coming period, the issue of peace. That is the 
new link today around which the Party develops its activities to broaden out 
and to bring about an alinement of forces on the basis on which it can extend its 


influence and exert its influence among a broader section of the population of 
this country (Tr. 9543-46). [Italic added.] 

The record clearly shows that the Communist Parties throughout 
the world, including the Respondent in the United States, are now 
actively and strongly presenting the line of "peace," particularly the 
united front in the "struggle for peace." The very name of the 
official organ of the Communist Information Bureau, which is For a 
Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy, is indicative thereof. Key 
material used by Respondent in forming its "peace" line is the 
Zhdanov report, previously mentioned (see p. 49 and footnote 3), 
from which a typical quotation is as follows: 

All the forces of the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist camp are united in the 
effort to secure a just and democratic peace. * * * These countries, and in the 
first place the new democracies * * * have proved themselves in the postwar 
period staunch defenders of peace, democracy and their own liberty and inde- 
pendence against all attempts on the part of the United States and Great Britain 
to turn them back in their course and to bring them again under the imperialist 
yoke (Pet. Ex. 214-A, p. 2). 

The position or line of the Soviet Union in this matter is evidenced 
by a report delivered by G. M. Malenkov at the meeting of the 
Moscow Soviet in November 1949 and printed in the November 11, 
1949 issue of For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy. In this 
report, Malenkov devoted a substantial portion to the heading "The 
Soviet Union Stands for Peace and Defends the Cause of Peace" 
(Pet. Ex, 231, p. 1). He points out that there is not a single country 
in which the movement uniting the supporters of peace does not 
possess a "base" (p. 2) and that the successes of "the camp of peace" 
drives the "enemies of peace," "by means of violence and new wars," 
to attempt the creation of an American world empire designed to turn 
the whole world into a "colony of the American imperialists, of 
reducing sovereign peoples to a state of slavery." 

The December 1951 issue of Political Affairs contains a condensed 
translation from the Soviet philosophical journal Voprosi Filosojie 
which is entitled: "Stalin on the War Danger and the Possibility of 
Averting It." This Soviet statement, which by its publication in 
Political Affairs and m view of the entire record, makes it reasonable 
to conclude that it was adopted by Respondent and thus becomes the 
line of Respondent and is very similar in content to the above-men- 
tioned Zhdanov and Malenkov reports. The statement outlines var- 
ious forms which "the struggle for peace" has taken, such as fighting 
for an end to the war in Korea, against rearming West Germany and 
Japan, and a ban on atomic weapons. It also quotes with approval 
a declaration by Joseph Stalin in 1946 to the effect that "the peoples" 
are taking the fate of their states in their own hands and establishing 
"democratic regimes" and "carrying on an active struggle against 
the forces of reaction, against the incendiaries of a new war" (Pet. 
Ex. 488, p. 20). 

Respondent's following of the line of the united front, and particu- 
larly the united front for peace, is evidenced by a quantity of docu- 
mentary material probative of Respondent's policies and doctrmes. 
Typical recent expressions of this line bv Respondent appear in the 
Daily Worker issues of March 3, 1949, June 9, 1950, July 13, 1950, 
September 18, 1950, February 19, 1951, April 1, 1951, October 19, 


1951, Novembor 7, 1951, and June 9, 1952. The issue of November 
7, 1950, contains the following as part of an editorial: 

Today the Soviet Union is indestructible. The work of Lenin and Stalin is 
immortal. The Socialist State has become the leader of a new force in modern 
history — the great camp of peace. This new alliance of hundreds of millions of 
people in China and the People's Democracies, together with the vast millions 
in the colonial and capitalist coimtrics, can prevent war. This is the new achieve- 
ment of the Soviet Union, the glorious vision that the people can make a reality 
(Pet. E.\. 468). 

Recent indications of Respondent's following of this united front 
for peace line also appear iii Political Affairs for November 1950, 
February 1951, April 1951, December 1951, and January 1952. The 
issue of February 1951 (Pet. Ex. 376) contains "greetings" from Com- 
munist Parties of some thirty countries sent to Respondent on the 
occasion of its 15tli National Convention. These greetings condemn 
American imperialism and support the struggle for peace. The 
"greetings" from the Soviet Union says in part: "Alay the international 
solidarity of the toilers in the struggle for peace, democracy, and 
Socialism gather strength." The People's Democratic Republic of 
China advised Respondent: "As a result of common struggle of the 
people of the world and awakened people in the United States, Amer- 
ican imperialism has met with huge defeats and will continue to meet 
with even bigger defeats." The French Party pointed out that 
Respondent's decisions "taken in the light of the teachings of Mar.x, 
Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, will enable you to advance forward on the 
road of unity of action of the w^orkmg class." The Italian Party 
stated Respondent's struggle in defense of peace was greeted as its 
struggle. The German Democratic Republic said Respondent's fight 
is their fight "just as the struggle of the German friends of democracy 
and peace is your struggle." The Party of Great Britain exprcvssed 
its "solidarity" with Respondent in the common struggle against 
Anglo-American imperialism. The Canadian Party expressed cer- 
tainty that "Headed by the Mighty Socialist Soviet Union * * * the 
world camp of peace is going forward to win" and that Respondent 
"will not be found wanting." 

Respondent's teaching materials used in its training schools and 
for self-study by the members furnish, among other things, still further 
evidence on the follo^^^ng of the united front for peace line. The 
"Discussion Outline" on "The Marxist Position Toward War" 
(supra, p. 49 of this report) put out in 1949 devotes considerable space 
to "Peace" and lists works by Lenin and Stalin and the History of the 
CPSU (B) as reading material. The "Outline For Nine-Day School," 
issued in 1948 (Pet. Ex. 346), has as the topic for the tliird lesson 
"Imperialism-War-Fascism-Struggle For Peace" and lists Lenin's 
Imperialism and the United Front Afjainst Fascism as the reading 
material. Part II of the Study Outline for the Marxist Institute, 
issued in 1949 (Pet. Ex. 427), includes the study of the tactics of the 
Seventh Workl Congress of the Communist International and teaches 
that in the jjresent period the strategic objective remains the same 
l)ut the tactical line of tlie united front and ])eoi)les coalition developed 
still further, citing Dimitrov's report to the Seventh World Congress 
as required reading and {he History of the CFSU {B) as supplemental 
reading (Session 9, pp. 1-3). 

We find based on the foregoing and upon the entire record, that 
"the struggle for peace" including the tactic of the united front for 


peace, is presently a main line'of Kespondent, the Soviet Union, and 
the Communist Information Bureau, and that this line is based upon 
the tactics set forth in Marxism-Leninism. It is therefore important 
to consider what the Communists mean by "peace," as an aid in 
determinino; whether the "peace" line is a link or tactic in seeking to 
advance the objectives of the world Communist movement. The 
testimony of Petitioner's witness Lautner regarding the united front 
tactic as heretofore set forth is relevant to this matter. Also, the 
History oj the CPSU (B) teaches: 

The Bolsheviks were not mere pacifists who sighed for peace and confined them- 
selves to the propaganda of peace, as the majority of the Left Social-Democrats 
did. The Bolsheviks advocated an active revolutionary struggle for peace, to the 
point of overthrowing the rule of the bellicose imperialist bourgeoisie. The 
Bolsheviks linked up the cause of peace with the cause of the victory of the 
proletarian revolution, holding that the surest way of ending the war and securing 
a just peace, a peace without annexations and indemnities, was to overthrow the 
rule of the imperialist bourgeoisie (Pet. Ex. 330, p. 167). 

The History further teaches that to achieve "peace" the Com- 
munist Parties should convert imperialist war into civil war and 
defeat one's own government in an imperialist war (ibid., p. 167). 

The understanding of the "struggle for peace" as an active, revo- 
lutionary struggle is further evidenced from a resolution adopted in 
1935 by the Comintern, which resolution reads in part as follows: 

At the present historical juncture, when on one-sixth part of the globe the Soviet 
Union defends socialism and peace for all humanity, the most vital interests of the 
workers and toilers of all countries demand that in pursuing the policy of the 
working class, in waging the struggle for peace, the struggle against imperialist 
war before and after the outbreak of hostilities, the defense of the Soviet Union 
must be considered paramount (Pet. Ex. 137, p. 48). 

These tactics are also revealed in Dimitroff 's The United Front, a part 
of the body of Marxism-Leninism, which says, inter alia: 

* * * You cannot carry on a real struggle against fascism if you do not render 
all possible assistance in strengthening the most important buttress of this struggle, 
the Soviet Union. You cannot carry on a serious struggle against fascist insti- 
gators of a new world blood bath, if you do not render undivided support to the 
U. S. S. R., a ?nosi zmportani/acior in the maintenance of international peace * * * 
(Pet. Ex. 149, p. 279, emphasized in text). 

Additional insight into Respondent's use of the "struggle for peace" 
is furnished by the aforementioned "greeting" sent to Respondent by 
the Soviet Union on the occasion of Respondent's 15th National 
Convention in late 1951. This "greeting" is later herein discussed in 
more detail with respect to the issue of Respondent's reporting to the 
Soviet Union. Petitioner's witness Lautner, based on his experiences 
as a member of Respondent including what he taught and was taught, 
considers the greeting "a political document of the highest importance" 
(Tr. 10068), which raises all the basic questions that Respondent is 
confronted with at the present time and "gives leadership to the 
American Party" (Tr. 10069). Lautner interprets "struggle for peace, 
democracy and socialism" as "the new tactical approach since the end 
of the war, the link with which this tactical united front is to be built." 
(Tr. 10070) ; and so we conclude. 

In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, we find and 
conclude that the "struggle for peace" as used and practiced by 
respondent, sometimes called the "struggle against reaction", repre- 
sents the present emphasis of the "struggle against imperialism" 
which is and has been a basic, active, revolutionary doctrine taught 


and advocated by respondont for tlio purpose of ovcrtlirowing "impe- 
rialist" (roveniiuents (by force and violence if necessary) and substi- 
tuting the (lictntorsliii) of the i)r()letariat. We further conclude and 
find that respondent's "strug;<:;le for peace," "struirgle against impe- 
rialism" and united-front tactics followed in connection therewith, 
represent a continued following of directives of the Soviet Union as 
contained in Marxism-Leninism, in specific instructions of the Soviet 
Union and in the program of the Communist International; and are 
designed to advance the objectives of the world Communist movement. 

4. Democratic Centralism and SelJ-Criticism 

Respondent's use of the organizational principle known as demo- 
ci-atic centralism, hereinbefore referred to under "Marxism-Lenin- 
ism", is one of the many facts indicative of its operation pursuant to 
directives from the Soviet Union through which the policies of the 
Soviet, Union arc effectuated. 

The Programme oj the Communist International covers democratic 
centralism as follows: 

The Communist International and its Sections are built up on the basis o, 
democratic centralism, the fundamental principles of which are: (a) Election o 
all leading committees of the Party * * *; (6) periodical reports by leading 
Party committees to their constituents; {c) decisions of superior Party committees 
to be obligatory for subordinate committees, strict Party discipline and prompt 
execution of the decisions of the Conununist International, of its leading com- 
mittees and of the leading Party centres. 

Party questions may be discussed by the members of the Party and by Party 
organizations until such time as a decision is taken upon them by the competent 
Party committees. After a decision lias been taken by the Congress of the 
Communist International, by the Congress of the respective Sections, or by leading 
committees of the Comintern, and of its various Sections; these decisions must be 
unreservedly carried out even if a Section of the Party membership or of the local 
Party organizations are in disagreement with it (Pet. E.\. 125, p. 86). 

Respondent admittedl}' follows and applies the principle of demo- 
cratic centralism.^'* It has done so substantially throughout most of its 
existence. In 1945, when Respondent was reconstituted as the 
Communist Party, its leader, William Z. Foster, proclaimed: 

* * * Only by ai)plying tlie sound princi]iles of Leninist democratic-centralism 
can our Party keej) its mistakes to a minimum and develop the clear-thinking unity 
of action and resolute discipline that are the great strength of Communist parties 
all over the world (Pet. E.\. 372, p. 793). 

Respondent's position with respect to the issue of democratic 
centralism is as expressed by its counsel in arguing before us: "What 
has all that got to do with domination and control by Moscow?" 
(Tr. Jan. 7, lOoli, p. 51). Respondent's evidence is to the effect that 
the principle of democratic centralism is the ultimate in democracy 
in that the rank-and-file members elect the next higher oliicers and so 
on up to the highest authority of the Party — the national convention. 
Respondent states that once a decision is reached by the majority, 
tliat decision is binding on the whole body. 

Witnesses for the Petitioner testify to a different understanding of 
democratic centralism. 

Gitlow stated: "Tlu- Communist Party in the United Slates was a 
centralized organization, ruled from the lop down, and not from the 
bottom up;" and when he, Lovestone, and Wolf were deposed in the 
schism of 1921), arrangements were made in Moscow that control of 

" lU'SiHJiidt'iifs witness (latcssajs (li'iiiocrutic ciMitralism is the principle which governs the party organ- 
ization and function. He does not. however, indicate its origin. 


the United States party was to be vested in a representative of the 
Communist International who was given specific power to nulHfy 
any decision that any committee or any branch of the CPUSA made. 
He was also given power to expel any member of the party as well as 
other powers over the party. 

Kornfeder likened the party structure to a military one, with power 
coming from above. 

Nowell testified that, during his membership (between 1929 and 
1936), in actual practice authority descends upon the membership from 
the top. 

We find that the materiality and relevancy of the issue of demo- 
cratic centralism lies in its source as concerns Respondent's accept- 
ance and practice of it, and in its use as a means of bringing Respond- 
ent within the authority of the Soviet Union. The record leaves no 
real doubt that, at least until 1940, Respondent followed democratic 
centralism as a requirement of membership in the Communist Inter- 
ternational, ^'^ and that on the basis of democratic centralism all de- 
cisions of the Communist International had to be fulfilled by Re- 
spondent. From this it follows, based on the evidence elsewhere 
herein set forth, that for the period covering over twenty years of 
Respondent's existence, the principle of democratic centralism was 
one of the means whereby Respondent came within the authority of 
the Soviet Union.^^ Upon consideration of all of the evidence con- 
cerning Respondent's policies, activities, and conduct over the sub- 
sequent period of its existence, particularly the evidence covering non- 
deviation and allegiance as elsewhere set forth in this report, it is 
reasonable to conclude, and we do so, that Respondent's continued 
following of the principle of democratic centralism keeps Respondent 
within the authority of the Soviet Union. 

We further find that the principle of democratic centralism is one 
of the policies established by the government and Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union, through adaptations of Marxism-Leninism, as an 
organizational policy of the world Communist movement, and that 
Respondent's operations based upon the following of the principle 
evidences the purpose to effectuate the policies of the Soviet Union 
and of the world Communist movement. 

In making our findings and conclusions concerning democratic 
centralism, we have taken into consideration the disciplinary aspect 
of the principle which is treated later in this report.^" We have also 
taken into consideration the evidence concerning the collateral Marx- 
ist-Leninist concept or device called self-criticism, as followed and 
understood by Respondent. In arguing about self-criticism before 
us. Respondent's counsel stated as follows concerning self-criticism: 

Another instruction or directive that the recommended decision relies on is 
what the Marxists call self-criticism. What is self-criticism? You get it from 
the books that are in evidence here. You get it from testimony of the witnesses. 
It is the proposition that Marxists assert that any serious political party should 
be willing openly to admit its mistakes, should discuss its mistakes of the past 
openly, and in the course of such public and open discussion also decide how 
those mistakes should be corrected. That is all that this principle of self- 
criticism means (Tr. Jan. 7, 1953, p. 54). 

3' See pp. 9 to 14 eoncfirning the Communist International and Respondent's membership therein. 

38 See pp. 27 to 28 herein. 

" This includes the evidence furnished by Petitioner's witness Johnson and others which establishes that 
in the past Respondent's orsanization included a Central Control Commission — the national disciplinary 
body— which was the American section of the International Control Commission in Moscow that main- 
tained the strictist, iron discipline in the Party and kept every Communist in line. 


The record, however, shows that the source of the doctrine and its 
use by Respondent lies in Marxism-Leninism and has as its primary 
purpose keeping Communists in hne with the pohcies of the Soviet 
Union. 4.8 elsewhere herein noted, Respondent in 1945 reempha- 
sized the revolutionary line of Marxism-Leninism and expelled Earl 
Browder as a "revisionist." Those who had supported Browder 
engaged in "self-criticism" by saj-ing that they were wrong in adher- 
ing to Browder's deemphasis of the revolutionary line of ^Larxism- 
Leninism and in committing the other errors pointed out by Jacques 
Duclos, a spokesman for the world Communist movement. 

"Self-criticism" is a device for safeguarding the unity of the Party 
and the iron discipline required by the So\aet Union. Elsewhere 
herein we discuss the evidence on these points in more detail. It is 
pertinent here to set forth a few illustrations from the record. Res- 
pondent's Manual on Organization contains the following: *° 

It is clear, however, that basic principles and decisions, such, as for example, 

the Program of the Communist International, cannot be questioned in the 

Party (Pet. Ex. 145, p. 26). 


We do not question the correctness of the revolutionary theory of the class 

struggle laid down by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin (ibid, pp. 26 and 27). 

Self-criticism is a natural part of the life of the Party * * *. Without self- 
criticism, there can be no Communist Party. But this criticism must never 
depart from the line of the Party, from the principles of Marxism-Leninism. 
* * * destructive criticism * * * if tolerated * * * leads to factionalism (ibid, 
pp. 32 and 33). 

In short, the policies of the Soviet Union cannot be questioned. 

An "Outline On Fundamentals of Marxism For Class Use or Self 
Study," issued by Respondent's National Educational Commission, 
cites Stalin's Foundations of Leninism as the "source of imity and 
discipline in the Communist Party" and quotes from Lenin, Selected 
Works, on the practice of self-criticism (Pet. Ex. 370, p. 31), which is 
indicative of the source of Respondent's use of the doctrine. Further, 
an article in Political Affairs for January 1951 covering the main 
resolutions of Respondent's IStli National Convention, treats with 
the practice of criticism and self-criticism as "the inner law of Party 
development" (Pet. Ex. 378, p. 33) and includes the following: 

Thus the whole Party does not often enough participate in evaluating major 
developments and struggles; docs not sufficiently learn from mistakes committed. 

This in turn leads to many "independent" estimates which are not resolved 

into one single Party estimate. This tends to weaken Party discipline and the 

carrying out of Party decisions (pp. 33 and 34). 


The 15th National Convention of the Communist Party, U. S. A., demon-strates 
the firm political unity of our Party. It calls upon the whole membership to 
guard the monolithic character and unity of our Party, based on democratic 
centralism. We must strive for the higliest discipline arising out of conscious 
understanding of the Party's theory and political line. Tendencies toward 
factionalism are totally impermissible and must be sharply dealt with because 
they weaken the Party and make it possible for the enemy more easily to penetrate 
its ranks (pp. 34 and 35). 

In view of the foregoing and upon consideration of the evidence 
concerning discipline and allegiance as later in this report reviewed, 
and upon the record as a whole, we find and conclude that Respondent 

*' Accorilitii; to Uospondent's witnossos, the Manual is obsolete in Party circles. On the other hand, the 
evifiencc furnished by witnesses Nowell, Crouch, Lauiner. and 'Ruden?.. and the fact that the author of the 
Manual, J. Peters, a hiRh ofllcer of Respondent, only left the United States and Party work in 1949, pre- 
ponderates to establish the coDtinucd use of the Manual until at least 1949. 


practices the doctrine of self-criticism in compliance with the require- 
ments of the Soviet Union and for the purpose of keeping its members 
in line with the policies and directives laid down by the Soviet Union. 

5. Foreign Representatives in the United States 

The foregoing facts concerning Respondent's organizational struc- 
ture and the changes therein, the true meaning and use of Marxism- 
Leninism, and Respondent's policies and activities in "the struggle 
against imperialism" demonstrate and confirm the international 
character of the world Communist movement; that Respondent is 
the United States section or part of that movement; and, that the 
movement is dominated and controlled by the Soviet Union . Further 
confirmation and demonstration are found in the evidence concerning 
other activities or programs which the record establishes are the sub- 
jects of Respondent's major attention and efforts. These are here- 
inafter covered under the headings "Major Programs" and "The 
Communist Press." 

We find that from time to time thi-oughout Respondent's existence, 
the formulation and carrying out of its policies, programs, and ac- 
tivities as aforesaid have been directed or supervised by foreign 
representatives in the United States from the Soviet Union; this 
serves to illuminate and explain the basis and source of the policies 
and activities, and further illustrates the international aspects of 
Respondent's operations, as well as the foreign control thereover. A 
condition of the Communist International which was accepted and 
followed by Respondent was that: 

The E. C. C. I. and its Presidium have the right to send their representatives 
to the various Sections of the Communist International. Such representatives 
receive their instructions from the E. C. C. I. or from its Presidium, and are 
responsible to them for their activities. Representatives of the E. C. C. I. have 
the right to participate in meetings of the central Party bodies as well as of the 
local organizations of the Sections to which they are sent. * * * Representa- 
tives of the E. C. C. I. are especially obliged to supervise the carrying out of the 
decisions of the World Congresses and of the Executive Committee of the Com- 
munist International (Pet. Ex. 125, pp. 89 and 90). 

It would unduly burden this report to trace the many instances of 
record where such foreign representatives have been in the United 
States and active in the affairs of Respondent. Among such repre- 
sentatives identified in the record are Gerhardt Eisler (sometimes 
known as Edwards and Hans Berger) , J. Peters, Pogany (John Pepper) , 
Golos, Peterson, Frank Miller, P. Green (Gussev), Yusefovich, Merk- 
er (Wagner), Walettsky, and Allen. Limiting this report to a few 
examples, the record supports the testimony of Petitioner's witness 
Johnson who testified, based on what he was taught in Respondent's 
training school in 1932, that a representative of the Comintern had 
power superseding that of any leader in the American Party and was 
the complete boss over Respondent's policy. Similarly, Petitioner's 
witness Lautner shows that when a Comintern representative spoke 
at Party meetings, no one questioned his decisions and they were 
accepted as the Party line. 

In the light of the record, we find that many of the policies and 
activities presently being carried out by Respondent were originally 
formulated under the supervision of representatives of the Communist 
International, and that this fact is indicative of foreign domination 
and control of Respondent. This, however, is not the entire state 


of the record as to activities of foreign representatives. When viewed 
in the h<rht of the facts that Respondent announced its disaffihation 
from the Comintern in 1940 to avoid identification as a foreitrn agent 
in the Ihiited States, and that the cHssohition of the Comintern was 
announced in 1943 as a tactical move for unity in Workl War II and 
to ehminate that manifestation of foreign direction over the member 
Communist Parties, the less apparent but yet identifiable subsequent 
activities of foreign representatives in the United States becomes 

We have previously found that Manuilskj", wliile a Soviet Union 
representative, to the United Nations in 1945, sent word to Respondent 
to the eft'ect that it should heed Duclos' statement concerning the 
reconstitution of the Communist Party.'*' Other individuals who had 
previously been here as Communist International representatives are 
identified on the record as active in the United States after 1940. 
J. Peters and Gerhardt Eisler ^- are the subjects of considerable testi- 
n^ony. .... 

Respondent's witness Flynn states on direct examination that since 
she assumed her duties as a member of the Xational Committee in 
1938, Respondent has not received any directives or instructions from 
any representative of the CPSU and that to her knowledge no Com- 
munist International representative has been in the United States 
since 194G. She knows Gerhard Eisler but did not meet him until 
after his arrest. She states that neither he nor any of her fellow 
officers in the CPUSA ever told her that he (Eisler) was a representa- 
tive of the Communist International. The testimony of Respondent's 
witness Gates is to the same eft'ect. 

Of the reputed Communist International representatives in the 
United States, Eisler was the most conspicuous and most noteworthy. 
Eisler was in this countr}' for many years and fled the United States 
wliile on bail, pending the appeal of his conviction in 1949 for false 
swearing. Witness Kornfeder shows that in 1933 Eisler, whom he 
had originally met in Moscow, was a Comintern representative in the 
United States and discussed with him the infiltration of the American 
Federation of Labor and the Railroad Brotherhoods. Eisler warned 
him of serious consequences if he spoke against a new trade-union 
policy at a national convention of the Comnumist Party in 1934. 
Kornfeder disregarded Eisler's warning and was told to repudiate in 
the Party press within sixty days what he had said. He was expelled 
from the Party. Witness Johnson stated that P^isler's word was law 
in the CPUSA. Witness Meyer knew p]isler as a Comintein repre- 
sentative, as did witness Lautner. Lautner testified that after 1945 
he knew that Eisler undertook to inliuence Party activities in the 
United States. Witness Budenz said that Stachel, a high Party leader, 
received orders from Eisler in 1943 and 1944, and tliat there was talk 
of Eisler as a Comintern representative in 1945. During this period 
Stachel consulted with Eisler frequently. 

Another person conspicuously active in the activities of the CPUSA 
was J. Peters, author of Respondent's Manual On Oiganizaiion. 
Witness Nowell identilies him as a Comhitein re])resentative. Witness 

«' Soe supra p. 16. 

" ThpFfCord shows thnl both I'otcrsaiul Kislor as woU'asotlior Coiniiitcrii roprcsoiitativos havo used var- 
ious other names and aliasi'S. Eisler has been known as "Edwards" and "Herper," and on one occasion 
he asked witness Nowell to kxW him "lirown." J. Peters was also known as William Peters, Alexander 
Stevens, and Clarence Miller. Also as Joe Peters, Alexander, or Goldberg. 


Crouch said he took orders from Peters between 1934 and 1940, and 
witnesses Johnson and Lautner testified that Peters provided them 
with secret codes. 

Peters was deported in 1949. Subsequently, an official actively 
engaged in Respondent's youth activities met Peters in Hungary while 
the former was attending the World Youth Festival there. 

We find that the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses is credible and 
that the testimony of Respondent's witnesses is not in accord with the 
facts in this matter. A preponderance of the evidence clearly shows 
that representatives of the CP8U were in the United States and that 
tlu'ough them Respondent received directives and instructions. 

6. The Communist Press 

In addition to the foregoing, further indication that the Respondent 
operates pursuant to directives of the Soviet Union, and is controlled 
by the Soviet Union in its views and policies, is furnished by the 
evidence hereinafter summarized concerning the Communist press and 
its use for the exchange of information. In the United States the 
Daily Worker and Political Affairs operate as guides for the member- 
ship of Respondent as to the correct views and policies. In the Soviet 
Union, the organ of the Communist Part}^ of the Soviet Union is a 
paper called Pravda. On an international scale. For a Lasting Peace, 
for a People's Democracy is the organ of the Information Bureau of 
the Communist and Workers' Parties (Cominform). 

We find that one significant aspect of the issue of domination and 
control lies in the formation, nature, and character of the Daily 
Worker. The record shows that the Communist International re- 
quired the member parties to "create a new type of periodical press 
* * * in which the Communists * * * learn to utiUze the slightest 
liberty allowed b}^ the laws * * *" and without which "the prepara- 
tion for the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible" (Pet. Ex. 8, 
p. 20). The International also requhed that such a Party press carry 
on a policy full3' corresponding to the policy of the Party; edited by 
reliable Communists; and subject to the control of the governing body 
of the Party (ibid., p. 27). We find that the policy, content, and 
advocacy of the Daily Worker is and has been under the complete 
supervision and control of Respondent's leaders and top committees; 
that officers of Respondent have been the principal officers of the 
paper; that the paper's policies correspond to the policies of the Party 
and the paper is considered a necessity for the effectuation of the 
Party's aims and purposes. In its early years, the Daily Worker was 
aided by financial subsidies from Moscow and until about 1944 was 
furnished free information or dispatches at nominal cost, from Moscow 
tlu-ough a Soviet Union news service. The record shows various 
directives issued by the Communist International concerning the 
Daily Worker, which were followed. Upon consideration of the fore- 
going and upon the whole record, we find and conclude that the Daily 
Worker was established pursuant to directives of the Communist 
International and presently fulfills the function it has always had. 

We further find, on the basis of the evidence hereinafter sum- 
marized, that the Daily Worker is the counterpart in the United 
States of the Soviet Union organ, Pravda, translated issues of which 
are part of the record in this proceeding. While Petitioner's witness 
Budenz was managing editor of the Daily Worker (1941-45), staff 

32491—53 5 


meetings were held for political education — ^"to keep the staff on their 
toes regarding Party theory and thinlving" — at which meetings the 
History of the Communht Party of the Soviet L'tiioii (Bolsheviks) was 
used. We have heretofore found that the History constitutes one of 
the principal sets of rules and guides followed by Respondent. It is 
stated in the History that, "A powerful instrument used by the 
Bolshevik Party to strengthen its organizations and to spread its 
influence among the masses was the Bolshevik daily newspaper 
Pravda * * * founded, according to Lenin's instructions, on the 
initiative of Stalin, Olminsky, and Poletayev" (Pet. Ex. 330, p. 149). 
The Ilistonj also states that Pravda "directed the working class move- 
ment toward one definite aim^ — preparation for revolution" {ibid, 
p. 153) and that a legally published newspaper "could not call openly 
for the overthrow of tsardom" and "had to resort to hints, which, 
however, the class-conscious workers understood very well * * *" 
{ibid, p. 150). Examples are given of "modest" sounding words which 
were understood by the workers as a "call" {ibid, p. 151). Respond- 
ent's official concept of the Daily Worker in the 1930's, which the 
record shows still persists, is that the paper is "One of the main and 
most important instruments of agitation and propaganda * * * for 
reaching and winning the masses" (Pet. Ex. 145, pp. 78-79). This is 
pertinent for comparison with the aforequoted concept of Pravda as 
"A powerful instrument used by the Bolshevilc Party to * * * 
spread its influence among the masses." 

We treat now with the issue as to whether the foreign Communist 
press contains articles or statements that constitute directives or in- 
structions to Respondent. Respondent's witness Gates is a member 
of the National Committee, and is editor of the Daily Worker}^ He 
denies that any foreign publication contains directives to the Respond- 
ent. The testimony of Respondent's other two witnesses is to the 
same effect. On the other hand, while petitioner's witness Budenz 
was managing editor of the Daily Worker, "the Communists looked in 
these articles from Moscow for the directives and the line that was to 
be pursued, the attitude that should be taken." 

The direct oral testimony, however, is not the full state of the 
record in the premises. In resolving this issue, we have taken into 
consideration the facts elsewhere herein set forth concerning "non- 
deviation," and particularly, as established by a review of the perti- 
nent documents of record, the fact that the Daily Worker does not 
deviate from or disagree with the Soviet press." AVe have also taken 
into considei-ation the background of the Communist press in this 
country and in the Soviet Union as heretofore set forth, and the afore- 
mentioned principle that the press resorts to "hints" or "modest" 
languages but which the "woi'kers" understand. Further, it is not 
seriously disputed on the record that the Daily Worker receives politi- 
cal news from abroad, i)articularly from Moscow, which inchuh's 
translations from the Soviet press, and that a correspondent of the 
Daih/ WO/ker is stationed in Moscow. 

Additional eviih'uce on this issue consists of the fact that the Com- 
munist i)ubiication For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy is 

" lie held ihcsp positions prior to start inc to sorvp a prison sentence for conviction in 19.50 for violation of 
the Sinitli .\ci. and, as far as he knows, still retains the iiositions. 

" I{esp()n<lenfs witness dales says the similarity between Respondent's views and those of the Soviet 
Union is oidy the eoincidence of the common appliealion of Marxist-I^ninist principles. 


distributed in the United States to functionaries of Respondent, and 
copies have been made available by Respondent to meetings of various 
of Respondent's committees and groups. Petitioner's witness, 
Matusow, furnishes an example of the effect of an article in For a 
Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy. In the summer of 1948, the 
director of the Jefferson School gave a lecture at the school's summer 
camp to the effect that the Communists agreed with Tito and Yugo- 
slavia and all the things they were trying to do. A few weeks later, 
the news was published in For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Demo- 
cracy that Marshal Tito and the Yugoslav Communist Party had been 
denounced by the Cominform. The same school director then took 
the reverse position in his lectures although his only source of infor- 
mation was the Cominform journal. 

Other parts of this report present our findings concerning the well- 
established requirement of the Soviet Union that vigilance be main- 
tained against "reformists," "opportunists," "stool pigeons," etc.; 
and the application in this respect of the Communist doctrine of self- 
criticism. An article by Gilbert Green, high officer of Respondent, 
entitled "For Communist Vigilance" appears in the May 1950 issue 
of Political Affairs. The article refers to the way in which the Polish 
and Bulgarian Communist Parties dealt with lack of vigilance — ^"the 
reflection of opportunism in the thinking and work of the Party" — 
and quotes articles from Pravda and For a Lasting Peace, for a People's 
Democracy on the need for Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism. It is 
reasonable to conclude from the article that the author considered the 
foreign articles as authoritative instructions. 

Some of the articles which are in evidence from Pravda contain spe- 
cific reference to the United States. The March 11, 1950, issue (Pet. 
Ex. 217) contains a speech by Molotov on the international situation 
in which the following appears: 

The democratic camp, which unites the USSR and the countries of the people's 
democrac.v, is opposed by the camp of the imperialist powers headed by the ruling 
circles of the United States of America {ibid, p. 6). 


It is our permanent task and im])ortant duty to watch everything that is going 
on in the camp of imperialism {ibid, p. 6). 

We fully stand for the Leninist-Stalinist principles of peaceful coexistence of 
the two systems and their peaceful economic competition. But we know it to be 
true that while imperialism exists, there also exists the danger of new aggression 
and that in the presence of imperialism and its predatory plans wars are un- 
avoidable. Therefore, the advocates of a durable peace among the peoples 
must not be passive and become empty pacifists who are charmed by phrases, 
but they must every day conduct a stubborn and still more effective struggle for 
peace, drawing into it the masses of the people and not stopping before appro- 
priate measures when the imperialists attempt to unleash new aggression {ibid, 
p. 11). 

When lead in the light of the considerable evidence of record 
respecting Respondent's position concerning the United States as an 
aggressive, imperialist power, and Respondent's policies and activities 
in the struggle for peace, all of which is set forth in detail elsewhere in 
this report, it is reasonable to conclude that the foregoing article 
in Pravda demonstrates that the so-called struggle for peace is used in 
order "to sweep imperialism and aggression from the face of the earth 
forever" (Pet. Ex. 217, p. 11). 


Upon the whole record, we find and conchide that articles pii])lished 
in Prai'da and For a Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy are 
understood hy Respondent and treated as authoritative instructions 
or directives as to the line to be taken or the policy to be pursued. 

7. Major programs 

We have hereinbefore referred to the fact that Marxism-Leninism, 
through the so-called Classics, sets forth certain programs and policies 
as the means of forwarding the world revolution. Particular em- 
phasis as to programs (as distinguished from organization and dis- 
cipline in the world Communist movement and from the strategies 
and tactics for the overthrow of imperialism), is placed upon work 
in and with labor imions, youth, and minorit}^ groups (see pp. 33 to 
37, supra). 

We also find that such programs were basic requirements of the 
Communist International and have been and are constantl}^ ad- 
vanced b}^ the Soviet Union. We find further that Respondent 
early formulated and has consistently carried out such programs in the 
United States in conformance with Marxism-Leninism and pursuant 
to other directives of the Communist International and of the Soviet 
Union, and that the formulation and carrying out of such programs 
have as their aims and purposes the advancement of the objectives 
of the world Communist movement. The evidence as to Respon- 
dent's activities in and with labor unions, youth, and minority groups, 
particularly the Negroes, is voluminous. It would unduly burden 
this report to set forth the many detailed facts from which the fore- 
going findings are established. We limit ourselves to what we con- 
sider the more significant — those in the past which determine the 
source and illuminate the present, and those of more or less current 
use and application which determine the continuity and consistency. 

It is clear, and as we read the record not disputed, that major 
attention is given by Respondent to ti-ade-union work, to 3'outh and 
to "the struggle for national liberation of the Negro people." At 
issue are the reasons for this attention — why and for what purposes. 
In other words, this proceeding is concerned with wheth(>r these 
policies and activities were formulated and are being carried out on 
Respondent's initiative or whether they come within Section 13 
(a) (1) of the Act. 

The preceding section of this re])ort which establislies the meaning 
of Marxism-Leninism as understood and used by Respondent shows 
that trade-union work, youth work, and work among the minorities, 
are given importance in the world Communist movement. Trade 
unions and 3^outh under Marxism-Leninism are the "belts" and 
"levers" without whose aid the ilictatorship of the proletariat cannot 
be realized, while the directing force is the Party. Trade imions 
are "a school of Communism"; 3'outh are "young reserves"; and na- 
tional minorities have "latent revolutionary capacities." Under the 
Classics, Connnunists are taught the necessity of "winning over 
and "utilizing" trade unions in order to carry on the struggle against 
the government; the necessity of "organizing the Marxist-Leninist 
training of 3'outh"; and, the necessity of "utilizing" the lat(>nt revo- 
lutionary capacities of tlie minority groups for "the overthrow of 


Additional evidence as to the importance of trade unions, youth, 
and national minorities in the world Communist movement is fur- 
nished by the consistent requirements of the Communist Interna- 
tional. The Theses and Statutes required that the component member 
parties carry on Communist work in labor unions and form Communist 
groups within the organizations to "win over labor unions to Com- 
munism" and "to subordinate the unions to the practical leadership 
of the Party, as the advance guard of the workers' revolution" (Pet. 
Ex. 8, pp. 29-57); that organizational relations between youth and 
the Communist Part}^ be basically defined in every country after the 
same system (p. 8) and, that a policy be carried out for the closest 
union between a,ll national and colonial liberation movements and 
Soviet Kussia — "to support the revolutionary movement among 
the subject nations (for example, Ireland, American Negroes, etc.) 
and in the colonies" (p. 69, emphasis added). In discussing prepara- 
tion for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Theses and Statutes 
says in part: 

In every organization, union, association — -beginning with the proletarian ones 
at first, and afterwards in all tliose of the nonproletarian workers and exploited 
masses (political, professional, military, cooperative, educational, sporting, etc.) 
must be formed groups or nuclei of Communists — -mostly open ones, but also 
secret ones which become necessary in each case when the arrest or exile of their 
members or the dispersal of their organization is threatened; and these nuclei, 
in close contact with one another and with the central Party, exchanging experi- 
ences, cari'ving on the work of propaganda, campaign, organization, adapting 
themselves to all the branches of social life, to all the various forms and sub- 
divisions of the working masses, must system at icall}' train themselves, the Party, 
the class, and the masses by such multiform work (p. 16). 

The Programme of the Communist International further emphasizes 
these policies and activities. Concerning trade miions, the Pro- 
gramme says: 

* * * It is particularly important for the purpose of winning over the majority 
of the proletariat, to capture the ti-ade unions (emphasized in text), which are 
genuine mass working class organizations closelj- bound up with the ever}- day 
struggles of the working class. To work in reactionary trade unions and skill- 
fully to capture them, to win the confidence of the broad masses of the industrially 
organized workers, to change and "remove from their posts" the reformist leaders, 
represent important tasks in the preparatory period (Pet. Ex. 125, p. 76). 

With respect to youth, the Programme, in what we find to be 
adherence to the principles of Lenin and Stalin, points out that the 
Party relies directly on the mass organizations which include youth, 
and that systematic work must be carried on among the proletarian 
and peasant youth (p. 82). 

Concernmg minorities, the Programme points out the necessity to 
support every movement "against imperialist violence in the colonies, 
semicolonies, and dependencies themselves"; to' carry on propaganda 
against aU forms of chauvinism and against the "imperialist mal- 
treatment of enslaved peoples and races, big and small (treatment 
of Negroes, yellow labor, anti-Semitism, etc.)." 

Still further evidence concerning the role to be given trade unions, 
youth, and national minorities in the world Communist movement 
lies in the official organ of the Communist Information Bureau. The 
December 2, 1949, issue of For a Lasting Peace, jor a People's Democ- 
racy contains a report submitted to the Cominform by M. Suslov, 
representative of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, entitled 
"Defense of Peace And The Struggle Agamst The Warmongers," 


which emphasizes the necessity of drawing trade unions into the 
"camp of the fitrhters for peace, airainst the warmouuers"; it points 
out the helj) that can l)e furnislied by youth; and says that tlie duty 
of the Communist and working class parties in the capitahst countries 
is to merge the struggle for the national independence with the 
struggle for peace (Pet. Ex. 249, p. 3). The Zhdanov report, pre- 
viously herein referred to, includes the following statement: 

Imperialist countries like the United States, Britain and countries near to 
them become dangerous foes of the national independence and self-determination 
of nations, while the Soviet Union and the countries of the new democracy are 
a secure bulwark in the defense of the equality and national self-determination 
of nations (Pet. Ex. 214, p. 22). 

Upon con?ideration of the foregoing and upon the entire record, 
we find and conclude that trade union work, the training and organi- 
zation of 3^outh, and national liberation movements, ail under the 
guidance of the Communist Party, are essential elements in carrying 
out the world Communist movement and that these policies were 
formulated and have been from time to time implemented by Lenin 
and Stalin, the Communist International, and the Communist Infor- 
mation Bureau, We proceed to examine the record concerning Re- 
spondent's use and application of these elements. Evidence as to 
Respondent's direction in its trade union and national liberation 
programs is furnished from an article by "Alex Bittelman" which 
was printed in the March 1934 issue of Respondent's magazhie Tlce 
Communist (Pet. Ex. 126). The author, Bittelman, is presently a 
high official of Respondent. The theme of the article was to seek 
to make it appear that the Communist International did not "inter- 
fere" in American affairs or "dictate" to Respondent, ])ut that 
Respondent heeded the Comintern in the exercise of Respondent's 
own conviction and will.'*^ 

With respect to trade union work, Bittelman wrote in part as 
follows : 

The next milestone in the Comintern leadership for the American party we 
find on the cfuestion of trade union work, * * * The Comintern brought the 
American militants and lefts closer to the world labor movement and to the basic 
problems of the American labor movement. The trade union question was one 
of them. * * * Even the best and most experienced among the left and militant 
leaders of the American workers * * *, such as the late Charles E. Ruthenberg, 
as well as the present leader of our Party, ^\'illiaIn Z. Foster, were able to rid 
themselves and our movement of the old ballast cf oi)portunisn\ only by coming 
closer to Leninism and into the Comintern * * * (p. 239). 

It was Comintern advice and guidance that helped the American Communists 
to turn full face to the building of a left wing in the icformist unions beginning 
with 1920; it was the advice of the Comintern that helped formulate a correct 
.solution 1o one of the basic problem.s of the American i)rolctariat — the organiza- 
tion of the unorganized into trade unions; it was advice of the Comintern on inde- 
pendent leadership of the economic .struggles by the revolutionary elements that 
helped formulate strike policies and tactics; * * * (ji. 210). 

Comintern influence on the develo])ment of revolutionary trade union policies 
in the United States has esjiecial signilicanee. * * * It is significant, therefore, 
tliat the first question which Comrade Stalin put to the American trade union 
delegates was: "How do you account for the small percentage of American workers 
organized in trade unions?" * * * the intent of Stalin's question is clear: Why 
don't you organize the workers in trade unions? Why don't you strengthen them 

" Hitlrhiian's attompt to explain away control by tlio Comintern is not in accord witli the facts. From 
the record as a wliole, it isapparetit tliat the Comintern in fact dominated and controlled Respondent under 
conditions whereby Respondent could not exercise its own volition in any major resjiect. An example is 
furnished, amonp many, by Kornfeder's expulsion from the I'arty for failure to follow the instructions of a 
Comintern representative. See p. CO herein. Cf. NowcU's trial by the Comintern for opposing the Negro 
policy of the Comintern, pp. 75-76. 


against the capitalists? (pp. 240-241). And it was in this direction that the 
Comintern threw the full weight of its influence and advice in the Arnerican labor 
movement. * * * Tactics and methods of work might vary, depending upon 
the state of the class struggle. * * * But the strategic aim always remained the 
same, and for this aim the Communist Party fights bravely and persistently and 
with increasing effectiveness. * * * So, we ask again: can any American worker, 
who is alive to the needs of his class and is willing to fight for them, find anything 
to object to in this "interference" of the Communist International in American 
affairs? And will he ob.-ect to the Communist Party of the U. S. accepting and 
taking deep satisfaction in such "interference"? No, he will not * * * (p. 241). 

And concerning the matter of national liberation, the article in- 

Once more came the "outside" influence of the Comintern, and what did it say? 
It said that the struggle against discrimination and for Negro rights is a revolu- 
tionary struggle for the national liberation of the Negroes, that we must fight for 
complete Negro equality, and that in the Black Belt the full realization of this 
demand requires the fight for the national self-determination of the Negroes, 
including the right to separation from the United States and the organization of 
an independent state. Furthermore, it was the interpretation of Leninism and 
its application to the United States as made by the Comintern that showed the 
American Communists that the agrarian revolution in the Black Belt, * * * is 
the basis of the national-liberation movement and that this movement is one of 
the allies of the American proletariat in the struggle for the dictatorship of the 
proletariat. * * * Will the Negro workers, farmers, and city poor consider the 
Comintern advice on the Negro question 'outside dictation'? No. They will, 
as they actually do, receive this advice with outstretched arms and will continue 
in every-larger masses to rally around the Communist Party as the leader of the 
liberation fight * * * (ibid., p. 244). 

A review of Respondent's early documents and the testimony of 
witnesses who were officials of Respondent during its formative years, 
establish that Respondent gave to trade unions, youth, and minorities 
as prominent a place in its structure as did the founders of the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union. Respondent's articles, 
publications and other documents, together with the testunony of 
witnesses, show that throughout its existence and up to the time of 
this proceeding, Respondent has continued to give importance to trade 
union work, the mass organization and training of youth, and the 
struggle for national liberation of the Negroes. It is not necessary to 
review herein the considerable quantity of evidence that shows the 
extent of Respondent's policies and activities in furtherance of the 
world Communist trade union, youth, and national liberation move- 
ments; nor to review the large quantity of evidence from which we find 
that these policies and activities of Respondent represent to a sub- 
stantial degree the continued following and adherence by Respondent 
to unrepudiated directives given by the Soviet Union. We limit this 
report to some of the more significant indications. For clarity, we 
treat the subjects separately. The evidence hereinafter set forth is 
in addition to the fact, which we find, that Respondent's policies and 
activities with trade unions, with youth, and in the struggle for 
national liberation are based upon and adhere to Marxism -Leninism. 

(a) Trade-Union Work 

In 1927, Benjamin Gitlow, at the time a member of the Politburo 
of Respondent and its Central Committee, was sent by Respondent 
to the Soviet Union at the special request of the Communist Inter- 
national to attend the Plenary sessions of the Executive Committee 
of the Communist International. Wliile there, Gitlow, and other 


loaders of Respondent, met with Joseph Stalin at Stalin's office at 
the Headquarters of the Central Committee of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union. Stalin directed the Communist Party to make 
a very serious eflfort, among otlier things, to get a foothold in the 
trade-union movement of the United States, in order to attract to 
the Communist Party a much larger meml)ershi]), and to await a 
sharpening of the economic and social situation in the United States 
for future revolutionary action. 

It will be noted that Stalin's statement is in line with the policies 
of Marxism- Leninism and of the Comintern, to which we have pre- 
viously' referred. The record shows that Respondent has continuously 
and consistently placed major emphasis on trade-union work to build 
up the Party and to aid hi what Respondent sometimes calls the "class 

Petitioner's witness Nowell in 1929 received instructions from the 
Central Committee of Respondent concerning an elaborate program, 
later a.lo])ted at the founding convention (which Nowell attended as 
a representative) of a national parent organization — Trade Union 
Unity League — affiliated with the Red International of Labor Unions 
in ^ioscow, for organizing industrial workers in basic industries as 
well as to foster Communism in unions and for facilitating the prole- 
tarian revolution. In 1935, Nowell was histructed as an official of 
Respondent to gain control of local unions for the purpose of gaining 
hegemony of the C. I. O. After certain strikes in 1936, Respondent 
counted on the C. 1. O. as part of the People's Front movement to 
influence United States home and foreign policy in conformity with 
the International People's Front movement outlined by DiniitrofT in 
his Seventh World Congress speech and resolutions in August 1935. 

The official minutes of the proceedings of Respondent's governing 
committees for a number of meetings during the period from late in 
1925 to late in 1928 were put in evidence by Petitioner. Many of 
these minutes show action by Respondent concerning trade-union 
work pursuant to specific instructions and directives from the Com- 
munist International. (P^xamples are Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 53, 
63. 65, 77, 80, 87, and 91.) 

The record shows that Respondent's tactics in its trade-union work 
have been changed at least three times pursuant to directives of the 
Communist International and to effectuate the policies of the Com- 
munist International. Originally, the policy was to operate in existing 
unions. Tiiis was changed in 1928 to a j)olicy of concentrating on 
forming new unions. In 1934, the policy reverted to one of operating 
in existing unions. This policy is still in existence as established by 
the evidence herein reviewed. R(>sp()nd(>nt's united-front program 
in the ti'ade-union field whicb presently receives considerable attention 
from Respondent, originated with the Communist International. As 
expressed in the aforementioned article by Alexander Bittelman: 

* * * III short, at every stage in the develoj>inont of the revohitionary trade- 
union movement in the United States (TUEL, clas.s stru<igle unions of the TUUL, 
the application of the united front on the trade-union field, the fight for trade- 
union unity, etc.), it was with the help of the Comintern that the American 
revolutionary workers witc able to tinil the correct way, to correct their errors, and, 
through manifold dumges in tactics, to press on to the goal of building a revolu- 
tionary trade-union movement in the United States (Pet. Ex. 12G, p. 240). 

Petitioner's witness Kornfeder taught a course at one of Re- 
spondent's schools at the national headquarters in New York hi 1932 


which covered Communist labor-union tactics and strategy, inchiding 
the organization of secret groups inside of labor unions for the purpose 
of gaining control of such unions, and the preparation and conduct of 

At its national convention in 1950, respondent resolved: 

We must face the fact that thQ overwhehiiing bulk of the organized workers in 
the country are in the A. F, of L., C. I. O., and independent Right-led unions. 
It is this which must determine the main direction of all of the Party's work, and 
especially its trade-union and industrial concentration pohcy (Pet. Ex. 378, p. 13). 

In May 1940, Respondent published in its magazine. The Com- 
munist, an article by Dennis, then and now a high official of Respond- 
ent, entitled "The Bolshevization of the Communist Party In The 
Struggle Against The Imperialist War," which states it is particularly 
urgent, in accordance with certain conditions outlined by Stalin in 
Pravda in 1925, to conduct more consistent and effective activity 
among the A. F. of L. Workers. 

An article by Henry Winston appearing in Political Affairs for 
September 1948 (Pet. Ex. 418), entitled "For a Fighting Party Rooted 
Among the Industrial Workers," was used in discussions at Party 
Club meetings in October and November 1948, attended by witness 
Matusow. The article concerns the necessity for mobilizing the 
workers in the factories as a main base for a successful fight against 
war and fascism. In a subsequent discussion of the article with 
witness Matusow, the writer, Winston, said that the question of 
industrial concentration and the movement of young people, members 
of the Communist Party youth movement, to basic industries was 
important at this time because in the event of any "imperialist war" 
it would be necessary to have people in basic industries to mobilize 
the workers against such war in an effort to slow down production 
and to do anything possible to see that such an "unjust war" should 
not be successful. The writer, Winston, is a member of Respondent's 
National Committee and was the National Organizational Secretary. 

The February 1951 issue of Political Affairs (Pet. Ex. 376) "devoted 
to reports, speeches, and greetings of the 15th national convention of 
the Communist Party, USA, held in New York City on December 
28-31, 1950," contains an article by John Williamson entitled "The 
Main Direction of the Party's Trade-Union Work" (pp. 54-73), which 
direction, the author says, must be "among the members of the 
reformist-led unions" (primarily the A. F. of L. and C. I. O.) (p. 66). 
The article refers to the role of the Party through its thhty-one years 
existence and concludes that "in general, the trade-union policies 
adopted by our Party were correct" {ibid, p. 72). According to 
Williamson : 

The present situation demands from all Party trade unionists, especially in 

positions of leadership, closer ties with the Party, better understanding of policies, 

and a more vigorous fight for Party policies among the masses (ibid. pp. 72-73). 


We know * * * our Party, headed by its helmsmen Foster and Dennis, will lead 
the working class safely to the port of Socialism (ibid, p. 73). 

Petitioner's witness Janowitz was a member of Respondent both 
during the period it was called the Communist Political Association 
and after it reverted to the name Communist Party. He joined in 

<6 His course also included one in Leninism, including the main doctrine calling for the total and complete 
overthrow of all existing social institutions, the government, and organizations which support the govern- 
ment, as well as the complete elimination of the present state structure and the substitution of a dictatorship 
led by the Communist Party. 


1943 and was still a member at the time he testified in this proceeding. 
He held minor oflicial positions and was active in Respondent's 
trade-union Avork in Ohio. lie and one Fred Haug, at a meeting of 
Communist labor members in 1950, were assigned the duty of getting 
ru3W members for the Party. Also in 1950, at a meeting of a Commu- 
nist Party group at the plant where Janowitz was employed, a state 
oflicial of Respondent handed out copies of New Times, published by 
the newspaper Trud in Moscow, and of For a Lasting Peace, for a 
People's Democracy, official organ of the Cominform. The official told 
the labor members to read and stud}' the documents and pass them 
on. These documents contain articles which strongly condemn the 
United States while praising the Soviet Union (Pet. Exs. 412 and 413). 
On the basis of his experience in the Party, Janowitz learned that the 
Communists are to take advantage of every opportunity that arises 
to lead the masses, whether it be thi-ough depression or strikes or 
anything else, and are to be the leaders in any movement that unites 
the masses for the purposes of "getting rid of the capitalist system in 
America," and substituting Communism. 

Petitioner's witness Evans attended a regional convention of 
Respondent in 1951 where a talk was made concerning the policy of 
industrial concentration and Communist work in trade unions. The 
witness describes the talk as including reference to the necessity of 
infiltrating the different unions, especially the key unions. His best 
recollection is that the speaker actually used the word "iufilti-ating." 
Similar evidence is furnished by Petitioner's witness Cummings who 
was taught in Respondent's schools in 1945 that to infiltrate trade- 
union movements was one of the primary objectives" of Respondent. 

We have previously referred to the supeivision of Respctndent's 
activities bv foreign representatives in the United States. In trade- 
union work, the record shows that Petitioner's witness Kornfeder, 
while an official of Respondent, disagreed with the change in trade- 
union policy hi 1934 and was expelled for failure to heed (ierliardt 
Eisler, a foreign representative, who told him not to voice his disagree- 
ment. Witness Honig in the early 1930's was given instructions b}' 
a Communist International representative in the United States con- 
cerning his Part\' assignment as editor of a publication called Labor 

Members of Respondent have in the past been sent to the Soviet 
Union where the}' received schooling and instructions regarding Irade- 
imion policies and activities. Pour of the witnesses in this proceeding 
had this experience. Witness Nowell was taught trade-union and 
strike strategy at the Lenin School in Moscow in 1931. Witness 
Ilonig was sent by Respondent to Moscow in 1932 wliere he remained 
until 19;^5. While there, he studied the operations of the Soviet trade 
unions and helped the Communist Internatioiud to formulate policies 
to be carried out by Respondent in the trade-union field. Honig sent 
])ack to Resi)on(lont reports on decisions made by the Communist 
International or its affiliated Red International of Labor Unions with 
hea(l([uarters in Moscow, on such things as where the Respondent 
was to step up its activities and try to produce strikes antl tr}' to 
caj)ture control of unions. The Respondent rej)oite(l back to Moscow 
commenting on (he instructions it i'ecei\ ed to the eflect that the Party 
had been attempting and believed it was succeeding in carrying out 
these directives. 


The record shows that under Marxism -Leninism, as well as the 
Commmiist International and the Soviet Union, the incitement to 
strike is a tactic of labor union policy and activity. In the late 1920's, 
a special committee was created by Respondent in an attempt to 
gain control of the United Mine Workers by utilizing anthracite strikes 
to Respondent's advantage. In 1934, the Comintern and the Red 
International of Labor Unions at joint meetings in Moscow, instructed 
Respondent to press the current situation among the longshoremen 
and dockworkers in San Francisco to the point of a general strike. 
These instructions were communicated to Respondent by coded mes- 
sage and were carried out. Manuilsky, then secretary-general of the 
Communist International,'*'' expressed himself as anxious to have the 
strike since a cardinal principle of Leninism was that a general strike 
is a rehearsal for revolution or for a seizure of power by the Communist 

A strike meeting was called at the Fisher Body Plant in Cleveland 
in the 1930's at the direction of the Communist International repre- 
sentative, Gerhardt Eisler. In 1940, Respondent instigated a strike 
at Allis-Chalmers in order to slow doAvn the production of war mate- 
rials for Great Britain, then at war with the Soviet Union's then ally, 
Germany. In 1941, Respondent instigated and led a strike conducted 
by the aircraft division of the United Auto Workers at the North 
American A^dation Co. in California. 

(b) Youth Work 

As in the case of Respondent's other policies, activities, aiid programs, 
we have taken into consideration in arriving at our determinations 
regarding Respondent's youth work, the fact that Respondent has 
republished in the United States and uses as textbooks and guides to 
action, many of the documents, publications, and writings of leading 
officials of the Soviet Union and organs under its control, such as the 
Communist International. We have also taken into consideration 
the fact that various members of Respondent have been trained in 
the Soviet Union and that some of its present top officials were 
intimately connected with the Communist International. 

The evidence clearly preponderates to establish that while it was a 
part of the Communist International, Respondent's youth policies 
were formulated and carried out and its activities performed pursuant 
to directives of the Communist International. A decision of the 
Comintern in 1926, contained in the "Resolution on the American 
Question" and requiring greater attention to the building of a mass 
Young Communist League and pioneer movement was distributed by 
Respondent's general secretary to all District, City, Section Com- 
mittees, and Language Bureaus of the Party. 

A resolution of Respondent's Central Committee wholeheartedly 
approved the decisions of the Seventh World Congress of the Com- 
intern in 1935 "to build the widest anti-fascist youth front through 
the world." The Central Committee in its resolution called upon the 
Party to do all in its power to help the Young Communist League 
accomplish a change in its character indicated by the Sixth World 
Congress of the Young Communist International and which had 
subsequently been approved by the Communist International, 

*' Manuilsky in 1945 was Soviet representative to the initial United Nations conference on international 
organization held in San Francisco, 


The minutes of various top committees of Respondent for the period 
from October 1925 tiirough November 1938 disclose guidance by 
Respondent of the Young Communist League in the United States on 
the basis of directives from the Communist International (examples 
are Pet. Exs. 58, 71, 72, 73). 

Additional evidence as to foreign direction of Respondent's youth 
policies and activities is furnished by Alexander Bittelman's pamphlet 
issued in 1932 entitled, ''The Communist Party in Action" (Pet. Ex. 
144) and by Respondent's Manual on Organization of the Communist 
Party (Pet. Ex. 145). In the pamphlet entitled "TAe IVa?/ Out,"^'^ 
issued by Respondent in 1934, the Young Communist League is 
defined as the mass political organization of young workers wiiich 
leads them in the struggles for their demands and acts as a training 
school for Communism. It is organizationally independent of the 
Communist Party, but acknowledges its political leadership and is 
afTdiated with the Young Communist International. 

The record establishes that the Young Communist League in the 
United States was dissolved in 1943 (when the Communist Inter- 
national ceased to exist) and that in its place the American Youth 
for Democracy was formed as what is known by Communists as a 
coalition group, being composed of both members and nonmembers of 
the Communist Party. It was technically a non-Communist organi- 
zation, formed as a win-the-war organization designed to recruit and 
influence as many young people as possible for the Respondent Party. 
Witness Philbrick, a member of Respondent, was State Treasurer of 
the American Youth for Democracy and one of its leaders. Witness 
Matusow joined the American Youth for Democracy in 1946 and 
through his associations therein became a member of Respondent in 
1947. He continued to be active in Respondent's youth work and 
in 1949 assisted in the formation of a new Marxist-Leninist youth 
organization in the United States — the Labor Youth League. The 
plan of Respondent which was carried out was to disband all Com- 
munist youth clubs and to transfer their leadership to the Labor 
Youth League under Respondent's leadership. Among the books 
used by the educational committee of the Labor Youth League for 
training its members are: Twilight of World Capitalism, by William Z. 
Foster; The Tasks of Youth, by Stalin; and The Young Generation, 
by Lenin. 

In view of the policy of the world Communist movement for the 
mass organization of youth organizationally independent of the Party, 
and in view of the various directives issued to Respondent, all as 
heretofore set forth, the following quotation from an article in Political 
Affairs for February 1051 (Pet. Ex. 376) is relevant to the issues 

This Convciition (1.5th Natl. Convention, Dec. 1950] rellect.s real progress in 
our youth work and better undertanding of our Party policy in this field. 

* i: * 4c * 4i 4: 

The 1948 Convention of our Party gave important emphasis to the need of 
establishing a non-Party working-class youth organization dedicated to the 
training of the youth in the spirit of socialism. 


The recent founding Convention of the Labor Youth League * * * has made 
a deep impression on our whole Party. In this short time the League has proven 

<' Manifesto auJ PriticipanRcsolutions adopted bv the Eighth Convention of the Communist Party of 
the US.\, held in Cleveland, |Ohio, April 2-8, 1934 (Pet. Ex. 136). 


itself to be a worthy heir of all the best traditions of the Young Communist 
League, its 25-year record of struggle and its training of many of the outstanding 
leaders of our Party today * * * (p. 175). 

Experience has borne out fully the correctness of establishing L. Y. L. as an 
independent non-Party mass youth organization. The best answer to those 
comrades who two years ago thought Party youth clubs filled the need for youth 
work are the thousands of non-Party members of L. Y. L. who are today par- 
ticipating in its activities and learning in a Marxist spirit (p. 180). 

Other contents of this article are pertinent for comparison with the 
principles of Stalin and of the Communist International, as previously 
herein set forth, that a matter of decisive importance in the prole- 
tariat's fight against imperialist wars is the work among the youth. 
This 1951 article says: 

There can be no fully effective fight for peace without waging a struggle against 
the militarization of youth * * * (p. 176). 

It follows that these are some of the most immediate issues around which our 
Party must develop an energetic struggle. 

1. No extension of the draft to 18-3^ear olds, veterans and married men. No 
lengthening of the draft service term. No universal military service and training 
(p. 178). 

Particularly significant for comparison with the foregoing evidence 
as to respondent's present policy concerning work among the youth 
as part of the fight against imperialism, is the resolution passed by 
the Communist International in 1928 entitled "The Struggle Against 
Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Communists" (Pet. Ex. 148), 
which says the greatest efforts must be exerted — not only by the youth 
organizations, but by all Communists — in combating bourgeois sport 
organizations, fascist organizations, military schools, etc., tlirough 
which the bourgeoisie are training the youth for imperialist wars. 
Also, it is stated that bourgeois military training of the youth must 
be combated. 

The obligation which the Sixth Congress of the Communist Inter- 
national (1928) placed upon all Communist Parties to assist in setting 
up Youth Leagues was approved by Respondent's publication as late 
as 1950, of an article in Political Affairs, entitled "A Generation of 
Soviet Youth," which refers to such obligation as still authoritative on 
Party members (Pet. Ex. 477, pp. 85-95). In this article, the author 
holds up Lenin and Stalin as models for youth and, after reviewing the 
role which youth played in bringing about the establishment and con- 
solidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, pictures the 
lot of the Soviet youth under such dictatorship as one of security, free 
from unemployment, and with the right to leisure, whereas in sharp 
contrast the American youth must face the constant^ fear of unemploy- 
ment under the scourge of American capitalism. In conclusion, the 
author declares that solidarity with the Soviet Union and appreciation 
of its leading role in the struggle for peace, democracy, and socialism, 
become the touchstones of true internationism among yoimg people of 
all countries; and that it is particularly important in the United 
States — the center of world imperialism — to bring this wonderful 
understanding to the young people who are studying IVIarxism- 
Leninism and to the Party which helps to guide their youth. 

The experiences and careers of various witnesses in this proceeding 
while engaged in youth work as members of Respondent furnish still 


further rolcvunt evidence. While in ^[osco^v in 1927 and 1928, wit- 
ness Crouch SIS a nieiuher of Respondent and a representative of the 
youth organization, was directed to form in the United States joint 
units of the Party and the Young Communist League to work together 
in the N &%"]>' yards. He followed this and other directives upon his 
ri'turn to the United Stat(\s and upon I'cporting to William Z. Foster 
and the national odicers of the Young Communist League. In 1929, 
Crouch Mas a member of the National Young Connnunist League 
Secretariat and ^sational Educational Director of the Young Commu- 
nist League hut upon orders given to the National Convention of the 
Young Conunujust League in 1929 by a representative from Moscow, 
Crouch was not elected National Secretary because of his previous 
supi)ort of Lovestone in the factional dispute of the Party. 

Witness Meyer before coming to the United States was a member of 
the Communist Party in Great Britain, where he was active in work 
for the Young Communist League and was associated with the 
secretariat of the Central Committee of the British Young Communist 
League. In 1934, he went to Paris, France, in connection with setting 
up a world student and youth congress with counterparts in America 
and Great Britain. This work, while Meyer was in Paris, was under 
the direction of Walter Ull)richt, who at the time Meyer testified 
herein was \'ice Prime Minister of Eastern Germany. Upon arrival 
in the United States in 1934, Meyer was assigned by "Gil Green" to 
youth work in the United States and during the summer of 1934 at- 
t(>nded the convention of the Young Communist League of Canada 
togetlier with "Gil Green" and n Max Weiss from the Young Commu- 
nist League of the United States. 

Witness l^hilbrick was a member of the Young Communist League 
for a couple of years before joining Respondent in 1944. of whieh he 
remained a mend)er until 1949, continuing his duties in the Young 
Communist League and later the American Youth for Democracy. 
Tile meetings of the American Youth for Democracy which he regu- 
larly attentUnl were conducted along the san^e lines as those held by 
the Young Communist League, which included training in organiza- 
tion, discussion of current activities on the part of yoimg Communists 
in the grou]), and educational sessions on Marxism-Leninism. 

Respondent's witness Gates joined the Young Connnunist League 
in 1931 to attain what he thought to be the answer to the "persomil 
tragedy" of the depression (Tr. 12595-12603). His activities in the- 
Young Communist League led to his attaining a i)osition of leadership 
in Respondent, which he joined in 1933. He participated in League, 
agitation for tbe Unemj^lovment Insurance Act and about the Scotts- 
boro afl'air (Tr. 12609-10). He says his duties and activities as head 
of the League in New York State were almost identical with th(> general 
activities of Communists ihuhig the j)eriod— activities b\' the young 
f)eople of New York State on behalf of the economic welfare, demo- 
cratic rights and peace. Later herein we deal with the evidence as to 
tlie i(h^ological aspects of RespondiMit's trade-union, youth, and 
minorities work. 

(c) National Liberation 

\\v have previously herein referred to the fact that Marxism- 
fjeninism, the Comnnmist International, the Soviet Union, and the 
Connnunist Information Bureau give importance to what they call 


the national problem — the "world problem of emancipating the op- 
pressed peoples in the dependent countries and colonics from the 
yoke of imperialism" (Foundations of Leninism, Pet. Ex. 121, p. 77). 
We have also noted that under Marxism-Leninism, the Comintern, 
the Soviet Union, and the Cominform, the "national problem" is 
applied to the Negroes in the United States on the theory that the 
Negro people in the Black Belt of the South constitute an oppressed 
nation within the territorial borders of the United States. 

The record clearly establishes that a main "line" of Respondent is 
and has been what it calls the struggle for national liberation of the 
Negro people. This proceeding is concerned with whether or not the 
concept and application by Respondent of the theory as to the right 
of the Negro people in the Black Belt to self-determination is a program 
which Respondent arrived at independently. 

Respondent's position in this respect is summed up by its witness. 
Dr. Aptheker, as follows: 

* * * I would stick to my answer that the Negro question is a national question, 
it is certainly not something dictated from abroad or by the Communist Inter- 
national. The Negro question is a national question, is a reflection of objective 
reality. If it is dictated, it is dictated by life (Tr. 14149). 

Dr. Aptheker concedes that, although certain Negro leaders after 
the Civil War thought in terms of the concept of Negro nationalism, 
that was not known to the leaders of Respondent and was not used by 
Respondent in evolving its position on the Negro question. Also, 
that at the time the policy of self-determination of the Negro people 
and the Black Belt was enunciated by the Party, it was not the policy 
advocated, in the developed sense at least, by the majority of the 
Negro people or a majority of their leaders. 

In the early 1930's, the Executive Committee of the Communist 
International drew up and passed certain resolutions concerning the 
Negro question in the United States which were sent to Respondent 
to be carried out. These resolutions established the line of the 
Communist International to be a demand for self-determination of 
the Negroes in the United States in the form of unconditional auton- 
omy-separation, or secession from the United States and the estab- 
lislmient of a separate Negro government in the Black Belt of the 
South. As explained by witness Nowell and corroborated by the 
copy of the resolution in evidence, if no proletarian revolution has 
occurred. Respondent is to support the rebellious government of the 
Negro republic in its opposition to the Government of the United 
States, in order to weaken the Government of the United States and 
aid Respondent in precipitating and executing the proletarian revolu- 
tion. During Nowell's membership in the Party, definite steps were 
taken to execute this program. 

As a member of Respondent, witness Nowell attended the Lenin 
School in Moscow in 1931, where he was taught that the Negro 
question in the United States was a part of the colonial question; that 
the foundation of the colonial problem was imperialist exploitation 
by the mother countries; that the Communists were to help colonial 
countries break themselves away from their mother countries, thereby 
weakening the mother countries and thus aiding the proletariat and 
the Communist Parties in those countries to precipitate and carry 
through a proletarian revolution and the establishment of a communist 
dictatorship. Witness Nowell was disciplined wliile in the Soviet 


Un'oii for voicing disagreement with the theory and demand for 
separation and secession by the Negroes from the government of the 
United States and the estabhslunent of a separate government. 

Witness Jolmson was active in Respondent's Negro work during 
his membersliip from 1930 to 1940. In 19:^2, he attended respond- 
ent's National Training School hi New York City,, where his instruc- 
tors included William Z. Foster, Gilbert Green, Jack Stachel, Max 
Bedacht, and others who are presently leadei"S of the CPUSA. At 
the school he was taught by a mem])er of Respondent's Central Com- 
mittee that members of the Party were to work for equal rights for 
Negroes, which included specifically the right in the Black Belt to 
rebel and wage civil war to form an independent autonomous Soviet 
Republic; that the movement toward the establishment of this 
autonomous Negro Republic should be guided and steered in such a 
way by the Negro Communists that it would take place simultaneously 
with the general proletarian or Communist revolution in America. 
Johnson, who became a Negro member of Respondent's Central 
Committee, subsequently lectured in the school and before Party 
meetings and study groups on this program. 

In its '^Manual On Organization,'^ first issued in the 1930's, Re- 
spondent said the Negro people are "the other important ally" in 
speaking of those that the proletariat must wui to its cause, and 
"without whom there cannot be a successful revolution." (Pet. Ex. 
145, pp. 14 and 15). The Manual quotes the following from an 
"Open Letter" adopted by Respondent's Central Committee in 1933: 

The Party must mobilize the massses for the struggle for equal rights of the 
Negroes and for the right of self-determination for the Negroes in the Black 
Belt. It must ruthlessly combat any form of white chauvinism and Jim-Crow 
practices. It must not only in words but in deeds overcome all obstacles to the 
drawing in of the best elements of the Negro proletariat, who in the recent years 
have shown themselves to be self-sacrificing fighters in the struggle against 
capital * * * {ibid. pp. 15 and 16). 

Witness Cummings was a member of Respondent from 1942 to 
1949. He attended one of Respondent's training schools and many 
of Respondent's meetings. Tie also reail Party literature. He was 
taught that the primary objective of Respondent was "to infiltrate 
trade-union movements, Negro organizations, and any organizations 
that we were able to get into and take control of, to eventually change 
tlie SA^stem of American Government." 

Benjamin Davis, National Committee member, in his report to 
Respondent's 15th Convention, held on December 28-31, 1950, in 
New York City, said an important feature of the Negi'o liberation 
movement is "the international significance of this question" (Pet. 
Ex. 379, ]). 12); that the "Party's line on the Negro question is a 
Leninist-Stalinist principle and method of work" (ibid., p. 19); and 
that — 

Tendencies to treat the Negro peoj)le as mere victims of opi)ression, without 
seeing their unique positive and revolutionary role in the struggle against capi- 
talist reaction, are a patronizing form of white chauvinism (ibid, p. 19). 

John Williamson, in a report to the 15tli National Convention of 
Respondent! in December 1950, pointed out that "the cause of the 
working class as a whole camiot advance unless a firm alliance is 
established with the Negro people and unless the working class assumes 
its full responsibility in sui)port of the struggle of the oppressed Negro 


nation for freedom" (Pet. Ex. 376, p. 69). Jim Jackson, another of 
Respondent's leaders, puts it as follows:^ 

The development of higher levels of the Negro national revolutionary struggle 
in the Black Belt, and the broad mass movement for democratic rights in the 
South as a whole, is an indispensable prerequisite for insuring the victory of the 
working class and the American people over the menacing challenge of the ruling- 
class forces of fascism and war 'presently, and for working-class victory over 
capitalism uUimatclij. This is a basic fundamental in the strategy for working- 
class victorv, and a special feature of the j^ath to the triumph of Socialism in our 
country (Pet. Ex. 376, p. 119). 

An article in Political Affairs for January 1951, entitled "Working 
Class and People's Unity for Peace! (Main Resolution of the 15th 
National Convention, CPUSA)," characterizes the Negro people as a 
"tremendous reservoir of strength for the whole democratic move- 
ment" (Pet. Ex. 378, p. 11) and states: 

Because U. S. imperialism is compelled to cloak with demagogic phrases about 
democracy and equality its drive for world conquest, particularly its militai-y 
assault against the colonial liberation movement in Asia, the Negro question 
tears the mask off Wall Street's real face and assumes the greatest international 
significance {ihid, p. 17). 

id) Ideological Versus Political Aims 

The foreign-evolved policies, activities, and programs for the carry- 
ing out of the world Communist movement, as set forth by the Soviet 
Union through Marxism-Leninism, the Communist International and 
otherwise, teach and sanction activities calculated to achieve reforms. 
The record shows that Respondent has campaigned for and cham- 
pioned reforms such as shorter working hours, nonmilitarization of 
youth and Negro rights. However, the record shows that such activi- 
ties are political and only incidentally ideological; that the campaigns 
are primarily can'ied out not for the ostensible objective of the cam- 
paigns but to aid in the accomplishment of the objectives of the world 
Communist movement. 

In addition to the evidence hereinbefore set forth concerning the 
true purposes of Respondent's trade union work, youth work, and 
national liberation activities, the following is pcrtment. 

Petitioner's witness Evans, chairman of a Party club, delegate to 
a Party regional convention in 1951, and section educational director 
in 1951, states, on cross-examination as to recent Negro rights activi- 
ties of his Party club, that a study of Communist tactics and of Com- 
munist strategy will refute the declaration that the interest of the 
Party in the fight for Negroes is focused upon the individual; he shows 
that, in effect, the fight for Negro rights is an effort hy the Party to 
make the Negro a useful means of helping the Party obtain the victory 
of socialism. 

Foundations of Leninism points out that the necessity for the 
proletariat to support the national liberation movement of the op- 
pressed and dependent countries does not mean everywhere aiid al- 
ways, in every single concrete case, but only where the national move- 
ment tends to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen 
and preserve it (Pet. Ex. 121, p. 79). 

Respondent's publication The Commumst Party In Action, written 
by one of Respondent's present leaders, Bittelman, in 1934, sa3^s the 
importance of the daily struggles concerning "small" grievances must 

32491—53 6 


not be underestimated, and quotes the Communist International as 
stating in efl'ect that only by conducting everyday struggles can the 
Party achieve a united front and lead the working class to a victorious 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Pet. Ex. 144, pp. 43-44). 
In 1924, Stalin wrote in Foundations of Leninism: 

Some think that Leninism is opposed to reforms, opposed to compromise and 
to agreements in general. This is absolutely wrong. Bolsheviks know as well 
as anybody else that in a certain sense "every little bit helps," that under certain 
conditions reforms in general, and compromises and agreements in particular 
are useful * * *. 

Obviously, therefore, it is not a matter of reforms or of compromises and 
agreements, but of the use people make of reforms and compromises * * *. 

To a revolutionary, * * * the main thing is revolutionary work and not 
reforms: to him reforms are byproducts of the revolution * * *. 

The revolutionary will accept a reform in order to use it as an aid in com- 
bining legal work with illegal work, to intensify, under its cover, the illegal work 
for the revolutionarv preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie 
(Pet. Ex. 121, pp. 103-4). 

(e) Conclusion As To Major Programs 

Our summary of the evidence concerning trade-union work, youth 
work, and work among the Negroes, does not include all of the evi- 
dence relevant to these subjects. On the basis of the foregoing and 
upon the entire record, we find and conclude that early in its existence 
Respondent accepted these policies and programs and has continued 
to follow them and has not repudiated them; that Respondent's 
trade-union work, 3^outh work, and national minorities work could 
only have as their aim the effectuation of the policies of the Soviet 
Union with respect to the world Communist movement; and that 
Respondent's policies and activities in these fields are substantially 
formulated, carried out, and performed, pursuant to directives of 
the Soviet Union. 

8. Conclusions as to Foreign Policies and Directives 

In view of the findings and conclusions hereinbefore set forth in 
this section of our report, we find and conclude that: 

1 . Respondent's organizational form is based upon instructions 
and directives issued by the Soviet Union; 

2. Respondent's organizational policies are formulated and 
carried out to effectuate the policies of the Soviet Union and the 
world Communist movement; 

3. A substantial number of Respondent's leaders have accepted 
the views and policies of the Soviet Union concerning the advance- 
ment of the objectives of the world Communist movement, and 
have made such views and policies the views and policies of 

4. Marxism-Leninism, as understood, used, and followed by 
Respondent, consists of a body of doctrine, policies, strategies, 
and tactics intended to bring about the end of capitalism and to 
substitute for it a dictatorship of the proletariat; it has been 
promulgated and issued by the Soviet Union as the overall 
philosopliy, authoritative rules, directives, and instructions gov- 
erning the world Communist movement; 

Among other things, by the acceptance and following of the 


organizational devices of democratic-centralism and self-criticism, 

Subversive activities control board 79 

as these devices are defined and explained by the Soviet Union, 
and by the acceptance of and adherence to Marxism-Leninism, 
Respondent subjects itself to the authority of the Soviet Union; 

6. Respondent throughout its existence has and does at the 
present time teach, advocate, and carry out activities having for 
their objective the overthrow of the United States Government 
and other governments which are designated as "imperialist" by 
the Soviet Union, pursuant to directives of the Soviet Union and 
to effectuate the policies of the Soviet Union, all for the purposes 
of defending and protecting the Soviet Union and of establishing 
in the United States (and other countries) a dictatorship of the 
proletariat patterned after that in the Soviet Union; 

7. Respondent has established a press in the United States 
patterned after that in the Soviet Union which operates as a 
means of setting forth for Respondent's members the correct line 
as laid down by the Soviet Union; 

8. The press in the Soviet Union and the journal of the Com- 
munist Information Bureau are major communication means 
whereby directives and instructions of the Soviet Union are issued 
to Respondent; 

9. Representatives of the Soviet Union who were sent by it to 
the United States have been instrumental in putting or keeping 
in power leaders of Respondent, devotedly loyal and subservient 
to the Soviet Union, who have continued to be and still are 
Respondent's leaders; that such representatives have on behalf 
of the Soviet Union directed the adoption and use of a number of 
the Respondent's present policies and activities; 

10. Among the major programs set forth by the Soviet Union 
for the accomplishment of the objectives of the world Communist 
movement are trade union work, youth work, and work with 
national minorities; and, pursuant to requirements of the Soviet 
Union, Respondent has made these its major programs in the 
United States and carries out such programs pursuant to direc- 
tives issued by the Soviet Union, for the purposes of effectuating 
the policies of the Soviet Union and advancing -the objectives of 
the world Communist movement; 

11. Respondent's policies are formulated and carried out and 
its activities are performed pursuant to directives of, and to 
effectuate the policies of, the Soviet Union, which directs and 
controls the world Communist movement. 


Section 13 (e) (2) of the Act provides that the Board shall take into 
consideration "the extent to which its [Respondent's] views and pol- 
icies do not deviate from those of such foreign government or foreign 

The petition alleges, in part, on this subject: 

Throughout its existence the Communist Party never knowingly has deviated 
from the views and policies of the government and Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union, the Communist International, the Communist Information Bureau 
and other leaders of the w^orld Communist movement. Whenever such views 
and policies have conflicted with the position taken by the Government of the 
United States, the Communist Party has opposed the position of the United 


Dr. Philip E. Moselj^, Professor of International Relations at 
Columbia University and Director of the University's Russian Insti- 
tute, was Petitioner's principal witness for the purpose of establishing 
that Respondent's views and policies do not deviate from those of the 
Soviet Union. Dr. Mosely has had a distinguished and active career 
in the field of international relations and for more than 20 years has 
devoted his research primarily to Russian political and diplomatic 
histor3^ While so doing, he has had occasion to analyze carefully 
the publications and other documents issued by Respondent and the 
Soviet Union. He is eminently qualified to testif}^ as an expert on 
evidence relative to the "nondeviation" criterion of the Act. 

Dr. Mosely's testimony traced the continuing stream of inter- 
national questions, upon which both the Soviet Union and the 
CPUSA have announced a position. He enumerated some 45 inter- 
national questions of major import,*^ extending over the past 30 years, 
with respect to which there was, as revealed by his testimony, no 
substantial difference between the position announced on each by the 
Soviet Union or its official and controlled organs and that announced 
by the CPUSA or its official and controlled organs. 

On each specific topic, several exhibits illustrating the views or 
policies of the Soviet Union and the CPUSA, respectivelj', were intro- 
duced contemporaneously with Dr. Mosely's oral testimony. 

At the hearing, Respondent moved to strike Dr. Moselj^'s testi- 
mony and objected to the admission into evidence of the exhibits 
offered through this witness on the grounds that: (1) basing a regis- 
tration order thereon would violate the First Amendment; (2) to base 
a finding of domination and control thereon would violate the Fifth 
Amendment; (3) it was not proved that the Soviet Union adopted its 
views first; (4) Respondent was not allowed proper cross-examination; 
(5) Dr. Mosely was disqualified as an expert; and (6) exhibits pur- 
porting to be translations from the Russian language were not properly 

Additional objections also raised at the hearing were that specific 
documents (a) predated the Act; ^'^ (b) pertained to subjects not cov- 
ered in the petition; (c) were not shown to express authoritative 
views; (d) did not establish a parallel view; (e) did not support alle- 
gations of the petition; and (f) did not support Dr. Alosely's testimony'. 

We have reviewed the entire record relative to all of the afore- 
mentioned contentions of Respondent. Those pertaining expressly 
to Constitutioiuil issues will be treated later in this Report under 
"Legal Discussion." ^' Viewing the record in a light most favorable 
to Respondent, we find no error in the Panel's acceptance of this 
particular evidence or in its rulings with respect thereto. 

Passing to its exceptions. Respondent took issue in the manner 
described heretofore (pp. 2-3, supra) with every statement in the 
Panel's decision concerning nondeviation. These exceptions are gen- 

<» AmoiiK tlii'se are the following: the League of Nations; Soviet Union purge trials, 1937; Kusso-Finiiish 
War, 1939; Russian invasion of Poland, 1939; Hitlor-Stalin nonagffression pact, 1939; attitu<le toward World 
War II before and after (ieniian attack on Soviet Union: incorporation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania 
into the Soviet Union, 1910; si'con<l front in Europe; dissolution of Coininunist International. 1943; revision 
of Montreux Convention, 1910; roninninist movements in Bulcaria, Koumania, Ilimpary, .\ll)ania, China, 
Czechoslovakia and Vuposlavia; Herlin Mlockade, 194S; West Oerniany; Italian election, 1948; Xorth .\tlan- 
lic Pact; control of atomic energy; election of Vugoslavia to United Nations Security Council, 1919; Cardinal 
Mindszenty case, 1949; United Nations i)olice action in Korea; Communist China's intervention in Korea, 
1950; seatiuR Communist China in United Nations; Peace Treaty with Japan, 1951; and peace in Korea. 

i" We discuss the question of pre-Act evidence later in this Ueport uniler the caption "Legal Discussion," 
pp. 128 to 132, infra. 

«' See pp. 131 and 132, infra. 


erally contentious, lacking in specificity and without merit; and, 
except to the extent that they pertain to matters discussed below or 
are incorporated in our findings, they do not warrant further comment. 

In its brief accompanying its exceptions, Respondent contends that 
the Panel's concept of the nondeviation criterion is (a) irrational, 
erroneous, and based on incompetent evidence, and (b) involves con- 
clusions which Dr. Mosely admitted he could not draw. Respondent 
further asserts that the Panel's misconception in this regard is re- 
flected by rulings wdiich prevented it from showing on cross-examina- 
tion of Dr. Mosely and in its affirmative case that its views preceded 
those of the Soviet Union, were correct and reasonable, were arrived 
at independently by Respondent, and coincided with universal opinion 
and the best interests of the American people. 

With regard to these contentions, we find no material error or 
irrationality in the Panel's conception of this criterion. We likewise 
find no merit to the contention that the Panel reached a conclusion 
which the witness Dr. Mosely admitted he could not make. Dr. 
Mosely stated in effect that his expert testimony was directed toward 
analyzing the basic line of thinking, analysis and advocacy of views 
and policies of the Soviet Union and Respondent and not at the 
process by which Respondent arrived at a given position on an inter- 
national question, i. e., whether independently of the Soviet view or as 
a result of Soviet domination and control of Respondent. We do not 
understand this to conflict with, or detract from, the purport of his 
testimony. Wliether the oral and documentary evidence adduced 
through Dr. Mosely tends to establish domination and control of 
Respondent when viewed with tbe evidence of record in the light of 
the other criteria of Section 13 (e) of the Act is for the Board's 

With respect to the remaming contentions related above, we con- 
clude that Respondent was permitted reasonable opportunity to 
cross-examine Dr. Mosely and to establish its affirmative case. It 
is noted in passing that Dr. Mosely was cross-examined for 15 days. 
Respondent was not permitted, and rightly so, to put in issue the 
merits of the views or policies of Respondent, which views and policies 
were placed in evidence by Petitioner to establish "nondeviation." 
For in applying the "nondeviation" criterion, the Board is required 
to view cumulatively the spread of the evidence relating to the 
nondeviation of views and policies without deciding the merits of any 
views or policies of Respondent. 

Respondent has contended throughout that the term "nondeviation" 
as used in the Act should be interpreted to mean "following a course 
already established" and that since a substontial number of Peti- 
tioner's exhibits illustrating the view or policy of Respondent pre- 
dated the exhibits expressing the Soviet view or policy, these exhibits 
did not show that Respondent adopted a previously established view 
of the Soviet Union but the contrary. Assertedly, this consideration 
was reinforced by the absence of proof by Dr. Mosely to establish 
that the announcement of the Soviet view had preceded the Respond- 
ent's expression on the same topic. 

Petitioner, on tbe other hand, took the position at the outset of Dr. 
Mosely 's testimony, and in advance of the raismg of this objection by 
Respondent, that the exhibits under discussion were offered in evidence 
merely to fllustrate the oral testimony of Dr. Mosely on the respective 


international questions, in order to sho\v a documentary basis for his 
testimony; and that tlie documentary evidence was not intended to 
estabhsh the date of the first announcement thereon by either the 
Soviet Union or the CPUSA. Petitioner further arj^ued that in man)' 
instances the Soviet view or poHcv must necessarily have come first, 
particularly since the first announcement of the Soviet Union's posi- 
tion may have taken the form of a fait accompli, as for example, its 
unexpected si^niing of the Hitler-Stalin non aggression |)act. 

As stated by Petitioner, these exliibits were [)laced in evidence to 
afford a documentary basis for the testimony of Dr. Mosely and not to 
establish the first announcements of views and policies. Moreover, 
we have considered Dr. Mosely's testimony with other evidence of 
record,^^ all of which establishes that Respondent invariably follows 
the views and ]Joli(ies of the Soviet Union. We do not believe, there- 
fore, that the date sequence of the exhibits placed in evidence through 
Dr. Mosely is dispositive of whether Respondent's views and policies 
have deviated from those of the Soviet Union. 

We now proceed to set forth our findings on the evidence established 
by Dr. Mosely and other \ntnesses relative to this, criterion. 

The nature of the evidence adduced through Dr. Mosely is illus- 
trated by his testimony, and documents submitted through him, 
concerning the nonaggression Pact entered into by Hitler and Stalin, 
known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 23, 1939. He established 
the identity of views between the CPUSA and the Soviet Union l)rior 
to the makhig of this Pact; the parallel attitude of the Soviet Union 
and the CPUSA toward World War H while this Pact was in effect; 
and the simultaneous change of policv on the part of the Soviet Union 
and the CPUSA after June 22, 1941,' the date on which the Pact was 
abrogated b}' the German attack on the Soviet Union. 

To further illustrate the evidence, it is establislied that prior to the 
making of the Hitler-Stalhi Pact, Respondent, conforming to the posi- 
tion taken by the Soviet Union, had denounced Fascism in Nazi 
Germany as the mahi threat of aggi'cssion in the world and as the fore- 
most danger to peace and democracy notwithstandhig that the signing 
of the Pact by the Soviet Union on August 23, 1939, constituted a 
reversal of the anti-Fascist line and caused considerable consternation 
and defection among Respondent's leaders and members. Respondent 
immediately switched to the Soviet Union's position and hailed the 
nonaggi'ession agreement as an imj)ortant contribution to peace; when 
Germany uivaded Poland, Resi)ondent echoed the Soviet assertion 
that the Pact contuiued to be an important contribution to ])eace as it 
would limit tlie spread of war; and, further, that opposition to this 
teiritorial expansion was the work of warmoug(>rs; after the defeat of 
Poland, the Soviet I"'nion and Respondent both took the position that 
England and France wove guilty of ])rolonging the war; that the war 
was an "unjust" *^ and imi)erialistic war and that no country which 
hoped for peace should assist England and France. Respondent, like 
the Soviet Union, strongly o[)]>osed lend-lease aid by the United 
States to Great liritain. Immediately after the German attack on 
the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the latter reversed its ])osition, 
and, almost simultaneously, Respo7ulent did th(> same; both suddenly 
concluded that the character of the war Imd changed; ^Vorld War II 

" This consists ofriortimentary cvidonrc, and oral tostimony of witnesses Oitlow, Kornfcder, Markwardi 
Matiisow, nudrn/. and otticrs, as illtistruted later in this flndinR. 
M Sec discussion of "just" and "unjust" wars, pp. 126 to 127, infra. 


became iii the eyes of both a "just" war; the}' urged that the "AUies" 
should have the support of the United States and of ail freedom-loving 
people; they advocated aid by the United States to Great Britain and 
to the Soviet Union, and Respondent branded those in the United 
States who opposed such aid as agents of Hitler. Soon after the 
German attack on the Soviet Union, Respondent joined with the 
Soviet Union in demanding the opening of a second front "now," with 
the United States participating therein. 

The views of the Soviet Union and Respondent likewise coincided 
on the trials and executions in the Soviet Union in 1937; Respondent 
echoed the statements of the Soviet Union concerning the Russo- 
Finnish War; the same situation prevailed in regard to the absorption 
of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania by the Soviet Union. The Soviet 
Union and Respondent assumed the same position in 1947-1949 
with regard to the internal crisis in Greece in that they both favored 
the actions of the Greek guerrillas; and they coincided in their views on 
the change in the Czech government in February 1948. 

The evidence relative to this criterion further established that, prior 
to the Cominform resolution which attacked the Tito government. 
Respondent paralleled the Soviet Union in giving approval of the 
course of post-World War II developments in Yugoslavia and of the 
Tito government. On June 28, 1948, however, the Cominform issued 
a resolution, initiated assertedly through an exposure by the Soviet 
Union, which attacked Tito and his regime in bitter terms; among 
other charges, Tito and his leaders were derided for having enter- 
tained the hope that Yugoslavia could build "socialism" without 
"the support of the Soviet Union." One day later, on June 29, 1948, 
Respondent also reversed its position on the Tito government and 
issued a statement lauding this Cominform resolution and criticizing 
the Tito regime for showing hostility to the Soviet Union and for 
attempting to "curry favor with Anglo-American imperialism." 

The views and policies of the Soviet Union and the CPUSA were 
identical on the question of the Berlin Blockade in 1948; they have 
likewise coincided on the course of events in post-World War II 

The views and policies of the Soviet Union and the CPUSA have 
been substantially the same with regard to the Truman Doctrine, the 
Marshall Plan, ECA, and the North Atlantic Pact, namely, that the 
United States participation and leadership in these measures are for 
the aggressive purpose of domination of the world ; whereas, the views 
and policies of the Soviet Union and Respondent, on the other hand, 
allegedly support peace and democracy. 

The Soviet Union and Respondent took the same position in regard 
to the Stockholm Peace Petition in 1950 ^* in asserting that all true 
proponents of peace should support the petition, which was issued 
by a committee of the World Peace Congress. Respondent supports 
the Soviet Union's position, as opposed to that of the United States, 
concerning control and inspection of atomic energy. The same situa- 
tion prevails regarding the seating of Yugoslavia in the United Nations 
Security Council, with Respondent supporting the Soviet Union's 
opposition to the United States on this question. The Soviet Union 
and the United States Government have taken opposite positions with 

" Respondent again expressed this view regarding the Stockholm Peace Petition in December, 1951 
(Pet. Ex. 488, p. 28). 


respect to the representation of China in the United Nations; Respond- 
ent maintains the Soviet position wliich favors the seatinp; of the 
respresentativcs of the Chinese Democratic Peoples Repnhhc and 
the exchision of representatives of the Chinese Nationahst Govern- 
ment. RespontkMit concurred with the views of the Soviet Union in 
opposition to the United States peace treaty with Japan. 

The CPUSA's position in support of the conduct of the Czecho- 
slovakian government in the A^'ilHam Oatis case (American correspond- 
ent) coincides with the Soviet ITnion's y)Osition thereon. 

Tlie testimony and documentary eviilcnce also established that the 
CPUSA and tho Soviet Union express the same views regarding 
Korea; both maintain that the Syngman Rhee government is a 
reactionary "puppet regime"; both vigorously condemn the hostili- 
ties in Korea as the direct result of American im])erialism ami aggres- 
sion; both insist the United Nations police action is illegal and aggres- 
sive toward North Korea; both maintain that this war constitutes 
a threat to the Chinese Peoples Republic which justifies the Chinese 
Communist intervention in the conflict; both assert that the Chinese 
intervention in support of North Korea aids the struggle of "peace- 
loving" peoples of the world, which are led by the Soviet Union, 
against the i)rogram of the American imperialist aggressors; both 
charge that the United States desires continuation and expansion of 
the Korean War; both insist that the United States has disrupted 
and delayed cease-fire negotiations and blocked peace in Korea; and 
both demand acceptance of the proposals for cease-fire and "peace" 
made on behalf of the North Korea Peoples Republic. In short, 
Respondent and the Soviet Union, regarding Korea and the Korean 
conflict, coincide completely in their condemnation of the policies of 
the United States Government in its support of the United Nations 
in Korea. 

In addition, other witnesses established that, during the existence 
of the Communist Int(>rnational, Respondent did not deviate from 
Comintern instructions in a single instance; further, that a CPUSA 
member could not disagree with a position taken b}^ the Cominform 
and continue to remain a Party member;" that in those instances in 
which the policies of the Ignited States and the Soviet Union appeared 
to be in conilict, Respondent at no time expressed S3'mpatliy with 
the policy of the United States Government; that the Soviet Union 
was never criticized in Party circles, but, on the contrary, it was a 
cardinal rule to praise the Soviet I'nion at all times; that in 1941 and 
prior thereto, a Aloscow news agency supplieil Respondent with polit- 
ical and other news dispatches which were distributed to Respondent's 
lenders so that they could keep informed of the "party line" and its 
interpretations; and that the aforementioned dispatches were regarded 
by Respondent as being directives from the Soviet Union on positions 
to be taken, and were implemented accordinglv. It was stated in 
Respondent's 1942 Constitution (Pet. Ex. 328,' Art. VI. Sec. 15) that 
no CPUSA member was permitted to have a personal or a political 
relationship with "Trotskyites," a term used in CPUSA and Soviet 
Union circles in an odious sense to signify persons sympathetic to a 
system of deviation from the official "line" of the Soviet Union. 

" Tlicrt' liiive boon instances of internal deviation witliin tlio CrUSA. Siieli instances usnally resulted 
in dismissal from the I'arty, as in the cases of Oitlow and Hrowder. Tliis, of course, in no wise detracts 
from tliese findings. In fact, these instances lend even greater weight to the findings, in that they highlight 
the intolcrability with which any deviation is regarded by both Kespondenl and the Soviet Union. 


It is also shown by evidence, in addition to that adduced tlu-ough 
Dr. Mosely, that throughout the entire existence of Respondent, 
inchuhng the present, it has agreed wiih the view of the Soviet Union 
to the effect that the United States is an imperiahstic nation which 
seeks world domination and whose government should he overthrown, 
whereas the Soviet Union is a true democracy in search of peace and 
its aims should be fostered.^*' When the United States was a potential 
or actual ally of the Soviet Union this chant was not sung by either 
the Soviet Union or the CPUSA. 

Respondent made no effort to rebut the condition clearly shown to 
exist by Petitioner's evidence. It offered no evidence to establish a 
conflict between the .policies of the Soviet Union and the CPUSA at 
any time or on any occasion. Nor is there any evidence to show that, 
where the views or policies of the United States as officially announced 
conflicted with the views of the Soviet Union, the CPUSA in any 
instance took a position thereon in harmony with the views of the 
United States, though its witnesses were repeatedly invited on cross- 
examination to show such an occasion. Each of Respondent's wit- 
nesses evaded a direct answer to the question and, curiously enough, 
each gave a similar circuitous and equivocal answer stating that 
Respondent's policies reflect what it conceives to be the true national 
interest of the American people ; that if the views or policies of Respond- 
ent and the Soviet Union are similar or identical, this proves only that 
the national interests of the people of the two nations are the same; 
that Respondent takes the view that the true national interests of all 
people are identical; and that Respondent arrives at its views inde- 

These platitudes do not negate Petitioner's evidence. Respondent's 
witnesses were unable to cite a single instance tliroughout its history 
where, in taking a position on a question which found the views or 
policies of the Soviet Union and the United States Government in 
conflict, the CPUSA had agreed with the announced position of the 
United States; nor could they show a single instance when the CPUSA 
had disagreed with the Soviet Union on any policy question where 
both Respondent and the Soviet Union have announced a position. 

The testimony of Dr. Mosely and documents submitted tlii'ough 
him embraced a tremendous area of international problems on which 
the positions of Respondent and the Soviet Union coincide. We have 
pointed out a representative portion of them. The uniformity is 
constant and on a wide variety of questions, and is corroborated by 
other evidence of record. 

In evaluating the foregoing evidence we have taken into considera- 
tion that during the early history of Respondent, when it was openly 
a member of the Communist International and less secretive about its 
objectives, it accepted and eft'ectuated the principles and tactics of 
the Comintern pursuant to an express condition of membership in the 
Communist International which required Respondent so to do (Pet. 
Exs. 8, 6 (c)). Moreover, in weighing the evidence set forth herein 
we have considered Respondent's adherence to Marxism-Leninism,^^ 
which in its essence requires acceptance by it of any position that the 
Soviet Union determines will advance the world Communist move- 

58 See "Imperialism," pp. 44 to 54, supra; and "Allegiance," pp. 118 to 128, infra. 
5' See "Marxism-Leninism," pp. 21-44, supra. 


The record precludes the conclusion which Respondent would have 
us draw, i. c., tlint the uniformity of views results from "sharing a 
common scientific outlook" and independent application of principles 
by it and the Soviet Union. The great weight of the evidence is to 
the contrary. 

We find on the entire record that the views and policies of Respond- 
ent throughout its history invariably coincide witli the views and poli- 
cies of the Soviet Union. Moreover, Respondent conforms immedi- 
ately to each reversal in the Soviet Union's views and policies. 

We conclude and find that Respondent's views and policies do not 
deviate from those of the ^Soviet Union. 


We are directed by the Act to consider "the extent to which it 
[Respondent] receives financial or other aid, directly or indirectly, 
from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign organ- 
ization" (Section 13 (e) (3)). 

The petition alleges: 

The Communist Party now receives and from time to time in the past has 
received financial aid, from or at the direction of the government and Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union, the Communist International and the Communist 
Information Bureau * * *. 

The CPUSA sent members to the Soviet Union to attend schools 
located there, notably the Lenin Institute in Moscow. The expense 
for their travel and subsistence was borne by the Communist Inter- 

In the 1920's and 1930's the Communist International financed the 
travel of CPUSA ofhciais and members to and from the Soviet Union 
and on missions to other countries for the purpose of orientation and 
the conduct of ofRcial business on behalf of international Commu- 
nism, such as fulfilling representative functions in the Communist 
International; in addition to their subsistence, salaries were paid 
them in some instances by the Communist International for the 
duration of their stay in the Soviet Union. 

During the period from 1920 to 1934, the CPUSA received financial 
assistance from the Soviet Union, often in the form of subsitlies, 
which are described more fully in subsequent findings imder this 

The Communist International contributed the sum of $50,000 to 
Respondent for the purpose of financing the 1924 campaigns of 
William Z. Foster and Benjamin Gitlow, the Communist Party 
candidates for President and Vice President of the United States, 
respectively; and the Communist International likewise contributed 
a substantial sum to Responthnit to finance tlie canipai_gns of these 
candidates on the same ticket in 1928. 

The Communist International directed the establisliment of the 
Daily Worker and contributtul tlie sum of $35,000 to Rospoiulont in 
1924 for this purpose. During the period of 1936 to 1938 the expenses 
of the Daily Worker were reduced because international news was 
received from the IntfMiiational Press Correspondence, an organ of 
the Connnunist International. 

In 1929, a delegation of ten CPUSA officials went to Afoscow to 
appeal a decision of Stalin on a factional dispute within the Respond- 


ent organization. The Communist International paid the travel 
expenses of the members of this delegation. 

The Communist International in Moscow announced the decision 
on the 1929 factional dispute within the CPUSA. Thereupon, the 
Communist International gave a substantial sum of money to the 
Chairman of the new Secretariat of the CPUSA, which had been 
formed by the Communist International. These funds were to be 
used to establish a new newspaper, loyal to the Communist Interna- 
tional, in the event that the CPUSA lost control of the Daily Worker 
because of the factional dispute; further, the Chahman of the newly 
formed Secretariat was given a substantial additional sum to finance 
enforcement among the members of the CPUSA of the decision 
reached in the Soviet Union regarding the leadership of the CPUSA. 

The Trade Union Educational League (TUEL) was formed in the 
early 1920's pursuant to instructions from the Communist Interna- 
tional; the latter also furnished a subsidy for the initial financing 
of this newly formed organization. 

In 1928, a Trade Union Delegation was organized in this country 
by the CPUSA at the direction of the Communist International, 
to visit the Soviet Union. A member of this delegation's technical 
staff, who was a secret member of Respondent, eventually wrote the 
delegation report. The Communist International partially financed 
the organization and expenses of the delegation's visit to the Soviet 

About 1928, the Communist International subsidized, by grants 
of substantial sums of mone}^, a campaign b}^ the CPUSA among 
the members of the United Mine Workers to defeat John L. Lewis 
for the union presidency. 

During the early period of Respondent's existence in the United 
States, paid functionaries of the CPUSA were permitted to purchase 
books at Ys discount from the International Publishers, the latter 
being a Soviet Union publishing organization in the United States. 

In 1929, or shortly thereafter, the Communist International di- 
rected that Respondent form Port Bureaus at leading ports in this 
country. The purpose was to facilitate recruiting and organizational 
work on the waterfront on behalf of the CPUSA. The establishment 
of these bureaus was facilitated by funds furnished by the Com- 
munist International. 

In 1927, a representative of the Communist International requested 
that the CPUSA send a delegate to the International Miners Con- 
ference at Moscow. Respondent's Political Committee voted unani- 
mously to reply that it would send a delegate but that funds for the 
delegate's fare should be cabled to the Respondent organization. 

Amtorg is a trading corporation of the Soviet Union which was 
organized in the United States in 1924. From its inception until 
1929, Amtorg rendered financial assistance to Respondent by: 
(a) paying excessive rates to Respondent publications for placing 
advertisements therein, and (b) making it possible for the Communist 
Party School of Business Relations to realize money from insurance 
and other activities. 

During the period from 1919 to 1934, members of the CPUSA 
were sent to other countries to assist in Communist Partj^ activities 
there, in many instances under specific instructions from the Com- 
munist International; the Communist International financed these 


A member of Respondent organization, who was specializing in 
labor activities in the United States, was sent to the Soviet Union in 
1934 to serve as a ro])rosentative of tiie Trade Union Unity League 
at the Red International of Labor Unions at Moscow; the latter was a 
section of the Communist Liternational. Funds for the trip were 
furnished by Jacob Golos, a representative of the Soviet Union in the 
United States. Subsistence while in Moscow was borne by the Red 
International of Labor l^nions. 

In 1927, the International Red Aid sent Russian films to the United 
States, free ot any charge. Tlie films were delivered to the Inter- 
national Workers Aid. The UPUSA determined the distril)Ution 
of profits realized from the showing of the films in the L'liited Slates. 

In the 1920's, the Communist International sent a show troupe 
to the United States called the "Blue Blouses." This troupe operated 
under the auspices of the Workers International Relief. The funds 
realized from their tour in this country were distributed to various 
organizations by Respondent, including itself and the Daily Worker. 

During the years 1930 to 1934 the Communist International pro- 
vided subsidies for Labor Unity, u labor magazine operated under the 
direction of the CPUSA. 

In 1939, the Treasurer of the CPUSA stated that it was impossible 
to put additional CPUSA funds into the jMidwest Daily Record, a 
CPUSA controlled i)a])er, because at that tune communications to 
their sources of funds abroad, i. e., the Soviet L'nion, had been 

During the late 1930's, the Daily Worker received political news 
dispatches free from the Runag news service in Moscow. These 
dispatches were used by the editoiial stall' of the Daily Worker ami, 
also, were distributed to the Part}^ leadership for scrutin}" and study. 
After the passage of the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1938, 
these dispatches were sent to The Intercontinent A^ews, a corporation 
which had been formed by the CPUSA in New York City to handle 
the service in a manner that to all appearances would be independent 
of the Daily Worker. This medium in turn relayed the dispatches to 
the Daily Worker at a nominal cost.^^^ 

In or about 1949, Respondent, tlirough International Publishers, 
received from the Soviet Union book plates and English translations 
of books, such as an edition of T/ie Selected Works of Lenin, as well as 
actual page proofs for books, with no charge. 

After the passage of the Voorhis Act in 1940, with the consequent 
nominal disaffiliation of Respondent from the Communist Inter- 
national,'^'^ evidence of such financial aid eloes not appear in the record 
with one exception, this being the above instance of financial aiil to 
Respondent in or about 1949. 

Respondent denies that it receives financial aid from or at the 
direction of tiie Soviet Union or the Communist International; and 
denies the rclevanc}^ of the above fhidings to any issue in this 

We find a prei)ondeiance of the evidence in the record establishes 
numerous instances of substantial financial aid which flowed to 

»• This news service from Moscow wascd in 1944 when the Departmont of Justice ordercil The IiUercon' 
tinenl News eitlier to lahcl its news inateriul as |>ropagan(la or to disconliniic its stMvice. Tliercafter, the 
liullctin of the Soviet Embassy was used as a news soiirw. We have reviewed Respondent's Exliibits 
70-75, incl., but we do not credit them for the puri)ase ollered in view of the testimony of Petitioner's wit- 
ness Budcn?, conccmini: them, wliich we accept. 

«• This is discussed fully hereinbefore. 


Respondent from and at the direction of the Soviet Union and the 
Communist International; and we condudc that the above findings 
are relevant to the ultimate issue in this proceeding in the light of 
the whole record. 


Sections 13 (e) (4) and (5) of the Act provide that in determining 
whether or not an organization is a "Communist-action organization," 
the Board shall take into consideration: 

(4) the extent to which it [Respondent] sends members or representatives to 
any foreign country for instruction or training in the principles, policies, strategy, 
or tactics of such world Communist movement; and 

(5) the extent to which it [Respondent] reports to such foreign government or 
foreign organization or to its representatives; * * *. 

The petition alleges inter alia: 

The Communist Party regularly reports and has reported to the government 
and Communist Party of the Soviet Union and to the Communist International 
and the Communist Information Bureau, and has sent members and repre- 
sentatives to the Soviet Union and other foreign countries for instruction and 
training in the principles, policies, strategy, and tactics of the world Communist 
movement * * *. 

Respondent denies the foregoing allegations of the petition, but 
states in its amended answer that during the period of its affiliation 
with the Communist International, members and representatives of 
Respondent attended and participated in Communist International 
Congresses and certain of its committees ; that members of Respondent 
have from time to time visited foreign countries, including the Soviet 
Union; and that, in the past, certain members of Respondent studied 
in the Soviet Union. 

In its amended answer and again in its exceptions. Respondent 
denies the relevancy of any of these conceded facts to any issue in 
this proceeding. Upon consideration of the record, we do not agree 
with this contention. 

The evidence pertaining to "training" and "reporting" is somewhat 
interwoven and we have, therefore, consolidated these subjects in 
this section of our report. 

Since Respondent admits that its members have studied in the 
Soviet Union, that it has participated in meetings of the Communist 
International, and that it has sent representatives to the Soviet 
Union, it is unnecessar^y to set forth in this part of our report the 
considerable amount of detailed evidence establishing these points, 
except to the extent it may be necessary for an understanding of the 
findings under these criteria. 

An elaborate world-emljracing school system was established in 
Moscow for training Communists and preparing them for leadership 
roles in the world Communist movement. The Western University 
taught trainees from the semi-agrarian areas, such as the Balkan and 
Baltic comitries; the Eastern University schooled trainees from the 
Asiatic countries, such as China, Siam, and Korea; the Academy of 
Red Professors was a training school for theoreticians for the world 
Communist movement; a special section of the Fronze Military 
Academy was devoted to training students sent from foreign countries; 
and the Lenin School took in trainees from the "more advanced" 
countries, such as Germany, France, England and the United States. 
Petitioner's witness Honig was an American instructor at the Lenin 


School in 1934-35 where he taught labor subjects to a select gi-oup of 
Respondent's members. In the main, however, the school's instruc- 
tors were Russians. 

To qualify for training in Moscow a CPUSA member had to be 
recommended by Respondent and approved by the Communist Inter- 
national, which had established as qualifications for selection that the 
student be less than 36 years of age, have 5 years of active Party work, 
and be above average in al)ility. 

Petitioner's witness Crouch, durhig the period 1928-30, studied 
material at the Fronze Academy pertainhig to civil war, guerrilla 
tactics, and sabotage. 

From 1928 to 1936, many of Respondent's outstanding members 
were sent to the Lenin School for varying periods where they received 
training and instructions in the strategy and tactics of the world 
Communist movement. Among them were Gus Hall, ^ Steve Nelson, 
Irving Potash,®° Charles Krumbcin, Joseph Kornfcder, George Siskind, 
Mon-is Childs, Ray Hansborough, Roddie Lester, Admiral Kilpatrick, 
Abraham Lewis, Margaret Uiijus, Rudolph Baker, vSclar, Harry Hay- 
wood, Odel Nowell, Charles AVliite, Leonard Patterson, Timothy 
Holmes, William Patterson, Hutch Hutchinson. George Hewitt, Sam 
Nessin, Beatrice Siskin, Philip Raymond, John Marr, William Brown, 
Claude Lightfoot, William Taylor, Bill Krusc, and Bell. Many of the 
aforementioned persons held high positions in Respondent,^* including 
Nowell and Kornfeder who testified for Petitioner in this proceeding. 

The evidence establishes that in the early 1930's Respondent's 
students in the Lenin School were taught such subjects as Mar.xism, 
Leninism, the history of the labor movement, trade-union and strike 
strategy, history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, history 
and organizational structure of the Communist International, the 
national and colonial pro]:)lem, including the concept of a Negro 
nation in the "black belt" of the United States; ^^ the history of the 
CPUSA, international propaganda, the theory and practice of Soviet 
economy, i-evolutionary tactics and the science of civil warfare. These 
subjects at the school were adapted to the peculiar conditions in the 
countries of the students, including the United States. For instance, 
the course given Respondent's members on civil warfare included 
political and economic conditions in the United States, the culture of 
the people, the terrain, the histories of the United States and the 
CPUSA, and the degree of political maturity ui the United States. 
Students in the course were taught also how to convert economic 
strikes into political strikes, and then into general strikes that might 
precipitate revolution. They also were taught how to disasseml)le and 
reassemble the guns and small arms of the major nations. 

For the actual carrying out of the revolution. Red Army ofTicers 
taught military details in both legal and guerrilla warfare, how to 
erect barricades, snipe, throw gi-enades, use gas masks, sabotage, take 
over the system of transportation, seize food supplies and ])orsuade 
army units to fight with the insurgents and guerrillas. They were 
taught how to capture and hold hostages, capture arsenals, arm Com- 
munist supporters, utilize and destroy food and water sup})lies, and, in 
general, how to carry on a total revolution for the seizure of power. 

M Convicted in 1949 of conapirini; to teach and advocate the overthrow of the United States Oovemmcnt. 
" Ons n;ill siirned Respondent's amended answer in this proceedinc as National Secretary of the CPUSA. 
Claude Lightfoot was an alternate incinhcr of Respondent's National Committee in 1950. 
•* See pp. 74-77, supra, for a full discussiim of this subject. 


All this was taught with the object of destroying the economic system 
in the United States, and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat 

Concerning strategy and tactics, students at the Lenin School were 
taught, among other things, that ''partial demands," i. e., demands 
within the framework of democratic procedure dealing with limited 
grievances on everyday problems, served as a tactical means, "a 
cutting edge," for the Party in mobilizing for the long range objective 
of the general strategy, this being the overthrow of capitalist govern- 
ments everywhere thi-ough proletarian revolution. This tactic has 
been utilized constantly by Respondent in this country. 

On the subject of "just" and "unjust" wars, the students were 
taught that any war in which the Soviet Union becomes involved is a 
"just" war for the Soviet Union, regardless of whether the Soviet 
Union is the aggressor or defender ; that any war between a colony and 
its mother country is a "just" war for the colony; and conversely, 
any war against the Soviet Union, regardless of who is the aggressor, 
is "unjust" for the Soviet Union's adversary. In the event of war 
between two "imperialist powers" the students were taught to work 
for the destruction of both and thus leave to the Soviet Union a clear 
held for future conquest.*^^ 

Concerning the idtimate aim of the Party regarding capitalist- 
imperialist nations, students were taught that the class struggle 
prevailed throughout the capitalist world; that internal contradictions 
within these states were becoming sharper; and that their international 
imperialist policies toward colonial peoples were becoming more 
oppressive. They were further taught that, in view of these political 
and economic conditions, it was the duty of the CPUSA, as a part of 
world Communism, to cultivate revolutionary movements in colonial 
countries; and, in striving for world socialism, to work for the over- 
thi'ow and complete abolition of capitalist states and imperialism. 

In conformance with the foregoing, students from the United States 
were taught that the proletarian revolution was necessary and that 
it was their major duty to work under the leadership of the Communist 
International and Respondent for the overthrow of the United States 

The texts used by Respondent's members at the Lenin School 
included Lenin's State and Revolution (Pet. Ex. 139) ; Left Wing Com- 
munism; Military Revolution; Imperialistic War; What Is To Be Done 
(Pet. Ex. 417); How It Is To Be Done; Imperialism (Pet. Ex. 140); 
Infantile Leftism; a modern treatment of Lenin's works by Leontov 
entitled Leninism by Leontov; Stalin's Foundations of Leninism (Pet. 
Ex. 121); and Problems of Leninism (Pet Ex. 138); Marx's Capital; 
the Communist Manifesto (Pet. Ex. 31); Engel's Scientific Socialism; 
the Programme of The Communist International (Pet. Ex. 125) ; the 
Theses and Statutes of the Third {Communist) International, including 
the 21 conditions for membership therein (Pet. Ex. 8); a number of 
writings by Soviet authors concerning political policies and the econ- 
omy of the Soviet Union; and other works. 

The purpose of Lenin School instruction as explained by Earl 
Browder, then leader of Respondent, was to develop Party leaders 
and tlu'ough them to raise the political and ideological level of the 

" An illustration of adherence by the Soviet Union and Respondent to this principle is found m the 
portion of this report dealing with their policies regarding World War II (see p. 83, supra). V 


Party membership as required by the development and intensification 
of revohitionary situations developing in countries throughout the 
world, including the United States. 

In addition to tiu^ formal institutionalized schooling in the Soviet 
Union, many of Kespondent's highest functionaries have received 
training through serving abroad in various positions of the inter- 
national Communist organization. Hoiiig, while functioning as 
CrUSA representative to the Red International of Labor Unions, 
was sent to various phices in the Soviet Union to study Soviet opera- 
tions and the activities of Soviet trade unions. William Z. Foster,"'' 
Earl Browder,*^^ Gilbert Green,'^'' Charles Ruthenberg, and Alexander 
Bittelman,^*^ functioned for various periods during the 1920's and 
early 19o0's in Moscow as members of the Soviet-controlled Executiv^e 
Committee of the Communist International. In addition to the 
aforementioned position, Foster also served on the Presidium of 
the Communist International and Green w'as a member of its Young 
Communist League Secretariat. William F. Dunne served as an 
alternate member of the Executive Committee of the Communist 
International in the 1920's. Bosse functioned in the Information 
Department of the Communist International in 192G and 1927. 
In the early 1930's, Clarence Hathaway functioned as representative 
of Respondent to the Communist International and also served as a 
member of the Anglo-American Secretariat of the Commimist Inter- 
national in Moscow. Robert Minor succeeded Hathaway as Re- 
spondent's representative to the Communist International. Other 
members who served as the Party's representatives in Moscow include 
Louis Farina, John Reed, Nicholas Horawich, Israel Amter, Louis 
Engdahl, Max Bedacht, Harrison George, and H. M. Wicks. Morris 
Childs was a member of the Lander Secretariat of the Comintern. 
Harry Heywood served on the International Negro Bureau of the 
Communist International. 

The record establishes that following their return to the United 
States, members of Respondent who had been trained and indoctrinated 
in the Soviet Union taught in Respondent's schools, and ])ut into 
practice, where circumstances permitted, that which they had learned 
in the Soviet Union. 

There is no substantial evidence of record showing training of 
Respondent's members in the Soviet Union subs(>quent to the outbreak 
of World War II. However, it is established that the extensive foreign 
training set forth above is still being elfectuated in this country by 
Respondent. This training was clearly a program initiated bv the 
Soviet Union to indoctrinate while there outstanding workers and 
leaders of Respondent so as to have a cadre for imparling such training 
to Respondent's membership in the United States. 

It is ai)parent that World War II, and what Respondent has termed 
the "political situation" in this country subsr(|U(Mit to lh(> war, have 
made travel to Mt)Scow to obtain such training inexpedient or impos- 
sible. It is reasonable to conclude that this foreign training is no 
longer itn])erative to the functioning of Respondent as a Marxist- 
Leninist Party because its outstanding members and l(>aders, having 
received vSoviet indoctrination, are able to eilucate, similarly, students 

•« Presently Iradcr of Respondont. 

•5 Loader of fiespondent 192l»-4r). 

* Kecently convicted of conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the United States Government. 


at Party schools in this country and to dispense their previous training 
through Respondent's pubhcations and activities. 

We find that Respondent has sent its members and representatives 
to the Soviet Union, at the latter's insistence and with its financial 
assistance,^^ for instruction and training in the principles, policies, 
strategy and tactics of the world Communist movement, as determined 
by the Soviet Union, for the purpose of adopting and effectuating 
such principles, policies, strateg}' and tactics in the United States, 
which it does. 

There is considerable evidence of record that Respondent reports to 
the leadership of the world Communist movement, as we now establish. 

In 1926, William Z. Foster and Alexander Fittelman were in 
AIoscow and made a written report to the Communist International 
covering Respondent's activities during the year 1925 with reference 
to the economic and political situation in the United States, trade 
unions. Socialist Parties, Bolshevization of Respondent, Leninist 
education, United Front campaigns, Negroes, farmers, women, 
anti-imperialism and internal Party developments.*^^ The witness 
Gitlow went to AIoscow^ in 1927, 1928 and 1929 to discuss similar 
matters with the Comintern officials. In 1929, Gitlow and othfer 
members of Respondent traveled to the Soviet Union to participate 
in a hearing held in Moscow by the Communist International to 
resolve the factional dispute then raging within Respondent. (The 
details of the settlement of this factional dispute are discussed infra, 
pp. 101-102, supra, pp. 13-14.) 

Respondent's youth organization, the Young Workers League, was 
in continuous communication with the Young Communist Inter- 
national. The witness Crouch visited ^Moscow in 1928, where he met 
with general stafT officers of the Red Army and reported to them 
concerning activities designed to increase Communist iiffiltration in 
the American armed forces. He presented a tentative draft for future 
work, posed questions, and received answers and detailed directives. 
Reports of Respondent's w^ork on the Negro question, including the 
work of the Party-controlled American Negro Labor Congress, were 
sent in the 1920's to the Eastern Department of the Communist 
International, which then had. jjurisdiction over this phase of Re- 
spondent's activities. The witness Nowell reported on behalf of 
Respondent in Moscow in 1930, on matters concerning the Trade 
Union Unity League (TUUL) in the United States. During his 
stay in Moscow, Nowell received instructions in various aspects of 
the world Communist movement including the Negro question in the 
United States. 

The witness Honig went to Moscow in June 1934, and remained 
there until November 1935 as "referent" and official representative of 
the Trade Union Unity League and Respondent to the Red Inter- 
national of Labor Unions, a creature of the Communist International. 
Honig, representing Respondent, attended [meetings of representa- 
tives from various Communist parties throughout the world that were 
held in Moscow not less than once a week. At these meetings, the 
representatives reported on the activities in which their parties were 

" See findings under "Financial Aid," pp. 86-89, supra. 

" Their report also contains various statements as to Respondent's activities in carrying out "decisions" 
and "main lines of policy" dictated by the Coramianist International and, therefore, constitutes additional 
evidence to that reviewed in support of our finding and conclusion that Respondent acts pursuant to direc- 
tives and to effectuate policies of the Soviet Union as covered sujna at pp. 78-79. 



engaged among trade unions in their respective countries, and dis- 
cussions based on their reports foUowed. Leaders of the Comintern 
were ahva3's present at these meetings and registered approval or 
disap|)roval of the work being carried out in the various countries; 
thcv also determined whetlier sucli work was being carried out accord- 
ing to the instructions of the Comintern and gave directions as to 
how it should be conducted. Honig, while functioning in the Com- 
munist International's labor organization (KlLLj in Moscow, 
received reports from Jack Stachel,*''-' then acting head of the Trade 
Union Unity League, and Earl Browder, then head of Respondent, 
concerning the failure of the San Francisco general strike of 1934. 
Reports which Honig received at the Red Interruitional of Labor 
Unions were generally mimeographed or typed when not of a con- 
fidential nature and were sometimes sent through the mails. Con- 
fidential reports were taken to Moscow by American Party leaders 
and \)y Respondent's students going to the Soviet L^nion for training. 

Minutes of meetings of Respondent's Central Executive Committee 
and its Political Committee were sent to Moscow during the 1920's 
and 1930's. Reports also were sent by various departments of 
Respondent's national headquarters and by individual CPUSA leaders. 
As positions of leadership ui Respondent could not be liejd without the 
approval of the Soviet Union, advancement in the Party depended 
m part upon the reflection of a member's work in these minutes and 
reports. In addition to the foregoing, the minutes of Respondent's 
Political Committee covering official actions of Respondent durmg 
the years 192.5 to 1928 reflect many instances of reporting to the 
Communist International through representatives sent to Moscow 
and tlirough other channels of communication. 

The Information Department of the Communist International col- 
lected and digested for the Comintern's Executive Committee, all 
information sent from the American Part}'. The Anglo-American 
Secretariat of the Communist International received reports from the 
English speaking Communist Parties, including Respondent; and 
during witness Kornfeder's membership on this Secretariat in the 
period 1927 to 1930, he received reports and recommendations from 
Respondent concernhig the situation then existing in the United 
Mine Workers Union. 

In 1932, Earl Browder reported to the Communist International on 
behalf of Respondent's Central Committee concerning economic 
develoj)ments in the United States as they related to the world 
situation at that time. 

It is reasonal)le to conclude that Respondent has reported more 
recently to the Soviet LInion through representatives of the World 
Communist movement from evidence furnished by the witness 
Matusow. While he was state literature director of the New York 
State Laboi- Youth League, Matusow attended a meeting in the fall 
of 1949 at which Lou Diskin (a member of the CPUSA) gave a report 
on a recent trip that he (Diskin) had taken to Budapest, Hungary, 
where he met with J. Peters '^ at a World Youth Festival. Diskin 
remained to report on and discuss the Amei'ican youth movement of 
Resi)()udent, and the American Comnuniist Party movement generally, 
with ofhcials of the World Feileration of Democratic Youth, and with 

•' Coiivicteil in 1949ofconspirinBto teach and advocate theoverthrow of the United States Qovemment. 
'• Sec v\>. OO-GI , supra re I'ctors. 


representatives of the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) . 
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of Respondent's hio;hest governing 
body and a witness for Respondent herein, visited France in 1945, 
1949, and again in 1950, where she met with Communist Party leaders 
of other countries, including, in 1945, the Soviet Union. At the 1949 
meeting, there was discussed the question of the "imperialist war" 
which the conferees claimed was bemg fomented by the United 
States, and they considered the steps to be taken and the role of 
Respondent with reference to this question. 

The record discloses an instance where, by means unlaiown, the 
contents of an important letter written by William Z. Foster concern- 
ing Respondent's affairs were communicated to Jacques Duclos, 
General Secretary of the Communist Party of France and a former 
member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International. 
The letter in question played a decisive part in Respondent's recon- 
stitution in 1945, as elsewhere herein covered.^' The record further 
shows that Respondent has reported its program and activities to the 
Soviet Union through representatives of the Communist International 
and other agents of the Soviet Union in the United States,^^ who 
exerted influence and control over the leadership and programs of 

In addition to Respondent's reporting in the aforementioned ways, 
the record establishes the existence of another form of reporting 
through the issuance and exchange of significant, detailed and timely 
information in the form of ''greeting," which are generally reprinted 
in Communist publications. 

This exchange of messages contained in "greetings" commenced 
early in Respondent's history. We will cite typical examples of the 
numerous "greetings" so exchanged. The following "resolutions were 
adopted at Respondent's convention in 1921 and sent to the Soviet 
Union : 

* H; * 

2. Greetings to the Third World Congress of the Communist International. 
The delegates of the Communist Party of America and the United Communist 

Party of America, in joint Unity Convention, send fraternal greetings to the Third 
Worid Congress of the Communist International. In the name of the revolution- 
ary proletariat of America, we affirm our determination to fight under the banner 
of the Communist International for the overthrow of the American imperialism 
and for the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. Hail to the Inter- 
national Soviet Republic! Long live the Communist International! (Pet. Ex. 
13 (a)). 

3. Greetings to the Soviet Republic. 
* * * 

The unified party, the Communist Party of America, declares that it will 
render all possible assistance to the Russian Soviet Republic in its struggle against 
the counter-revolutionary bands of the world imperialism. The Communist 
Party of America declares that only by the overthrow of world imperialism will 
the safety and mastery of the Soviet Republic over its enemies be definitely 
assured. The Communist Party of America pledges itself to rall.v the revolu- 
tionary proletariat of America for the annihilation of the most formidable strong- 
hold of world imperialism: the American capitalist state, and to struggle for the 
establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. Down with world imperialism! 
Hail to the universal Soviet Republic! Long live the international solidarity 
of the workers! (Pet. Ex. 13 (a)). 

4. To the Third World Congress of the Communist International. 

'• See pp. 15-16, supra. 

" See pp. 59 to 61, supra, re activities of these representatives'-in this'comitry. 


The Unity Convention of the Communist (sic) of America and the United 
Communist Partv of America fully upholds and endorses the firm and uncompro- 
mising stand of the Executive Committee of the Communist International against 
the opportunistic and centrist elements in various countries — in Italy (Serrati), 
and in Germany (Levi). The convention instructs its delegates to the third 
worid congress to uphold and defend the stand of the Executive Committee of the 
Communist International * * * (Pet. Ex. 13 (a)). 

* * * 

In September 1927, on the occasion of its Fifth Convention, Re- 
spondent received "greetinj^s" from the Comintern that were read to 
the Convention bv acting chairman Gitlow, after which the governing 
body of Respondent was instructed to draw up a reply. The Comm- 
tern "greetings," in part, follow: 

In the country of the most powerful imperialism and a most brutal capitalist 
class the Communist Partv can fulfill its duty and can become the leader of the 
working class against imperialism and capitalist aggression only if it is united and 
if it is not torn to pieces by factional struggle. , .,. t^ x ^v 

The Comintern considers as one of the central tasks of the Party the extermt- 
nation of all fnctionalism and the unificntion organizationally as well as idcologi- 
callv It will be the dutv of the newlv elected Central Executive Committee to 
lead the Party in a nonfactional spirit and it will be the duty of the whole Party 
meml)ership to rally around the Central Executive Committee which it itself 
shall have chosen. * * * [Italic supplied.] (Pet. Ex. 23.) 

This "greeting" elicited a response which Respondent openly de- 
clared to be a "reply" and in which it gave assurances to the Com- 
munist International that it would comply with what wore, in effect, 
the directions contained in the Comintern "greeting." This reply is 
as follows: 

The Fifth Convention of the Workers (Communist) Party greets the Interna- 
tional leader of the working class, the Communist International. Under its 
leadership and with our own firm and unanimous determination to uiiify our 
Party, we will overcome the tremendous difficult ios in the path of building a 
mass Communist Partv in America. The Convention recognizes fully as Party's 
task the winning of the American proletariat for tlie revolutionary struggle against 

American imperialism. . , , , ,, • • i c 

In the execution of this task we are inspired and guided by the principles of 
Marxism and Leninism, by the exi^riences of the victorious struggles of the 
Russian i^roletariat and the heroic l)attles of the exploited and oppressed masses 
of Euroi)e and Asia. The Convention and the incoming Central Executive Com- 
mittee i)ledge themselves speedily to eliminate all remnants of factionalism and to 
unify the Party as a prerequisite for the further success of our work. [Italics 

We pledge the vnificalion of our Pari;/ and to fight more effectively for the de- 
fense of the Soviet Union and the Chinese revolution and against the war danger 
as well as to resist more effectively the offensive of the capitalist reaction and the 
reactionary trade union bureaucracy against our Party and the militant section 
uf the .Vmerican working class. [Italics supplied.] 

The Convention is si)urred by a full consciousness of its duty to recruit the 
toiling masses of America for relentless struggle against American imperialism. 

Long live the Soviet Union! 

Long Live the Communist International! 

Fifth National Convention. 
Workers (Communist) Party. 
(Pet. Ex. 24.) 

On tlie occasion of the Sixth Convention of Respondent, in 1020, a 
"<rroetin<r" was sent to the Communist International in Moscow 
which contained the following: 

We greet our Communist International leadership and pledge our Convention 
and our Partv to prepare itself, to strengthen itself, tn clarify itself, for its share 
of this tiisk. " It will close its ranks, it will cleanse its ideology from the poison of 
opportunism, it will defeat Trotskyism, it will mobilize against and lead the Ameri- 


can proletariat for the struggle against the imperialist war; it loill mobilize the 
American workers for the defense of our Soviet Union and for the final defeat of 
American imperialism by the revolutionary overthrow of American capitalist rule. 
[Emphasis supplied.] 

Long Live Leninism! 

Long Live the Communist International! (Pet. Ex. 28). 

On December 21, 1949, the Daily Worker reprinted a telegram 
"greeting" sent by Respondent to Joseph Stalin on his 70th birthday 
which states, among other things: 

Like the Communists and other true partisans of peace, democracy and prog- 
ress in all lands, we hail your more than 50 years of sterling leadership in the inter- 
est of the international working class and humanity. 


Under a Hitler-like anti-Soviet and anti-Communist smokescreen, the American 

imperialists launched their predatory and aggressive Truman Doctrine, Marshall 

Plan, and North Atlantic Pact. 


Undaunted by the threats of the war instigators, the USSR steadfastly pursues 
its Stalinist peace policy and promotes cooperation with all who strive for peace. 
And the mighty world camp of peace, democracy and socialism headed by the 
Soviet Union, daily becomes more powerful and is destined to triumph. 

****** * 

In our country, too, the organized peace forces, among the workers, the Negro 
people, men and women of science and culture, are growing and will continue to 
grow in unison with the peace forces of the world. 

After stating that the American people "favor acceptance" of Stalin's 
proposals for a 'Tact of Peace, for demilitarizing and democratizing 
Germany and Japan, * * * outlawing the atom bomb", the telegram 
declares that the American people envy and admire the Soviet Union's 
peaceful harnessing of atomic energy and that they rejoice at the vic- 
tory of the Chinese Communists and their bond with the Soviet Union. 
The so-called telegram "greeting" closes by stating: 

With full confidence in the American working class and people, the Communist 
Partv of the USA exerts every effort to assure that by their united action they will 
check and help defeat the fascist-minded monopolists and warmongers. As this 
united action grows in influence and scope, it will bring its full weight to bear for 
the achievement of an American-Soviet pact of peace and friendship — the corner- 
stone for world peace. 

Long life to you. Comrade Stalin, and to your great and enduring contributions 
to world peace, democracy and Socialism (Pet. Ex. 375). 

Petitioner's witness Lautner establishes that the primary significance 
of this "greeting" lies in Respondent's reaffirmation of loyalty to Stalin 
as the acknowledged leader of the world Communist movement. 

That such "greetings" actually convey significant messages between 
members of the world Communist movement when the wordmg 
appears comparatively innocuous to the uninitiated is made clear by 
both testimonial and documentary evidence of record. The following 
quotation from the August 1, 1948, issue of For a Lasting Peace, for a 
People's Democracy, official organ of the Communist Information 
Bureau, demonstrates the significance given to a simple statement of 
solicitude by Stalin: 

Comrade Stalin's telegram to the Central Committee of the Communist Party 
of Italy said: "The Central Committees of the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union (Bolsheviks) is grieved that Comrade Togliatti's friends failed to protect 
him from this foul and cowardly attack." 

The reply sent by the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party to 
Comrade Stalin is worthy of this well-tested Party. In their answer the Italian 
comrades assure Comrade Stalin that the solidarity of the heroic Soviet people and 


Stalin's warning about vigilance will be for the Italian Communists "a spur to 
strengthen and develop the struggle of the united international front of peace, democracy 
and socialistn." 

All the Communist Parties took Comrade Stalin's message to the Italian Com- 
munist Party as the expression of his great solicitude for the international working 
class movement and its leaders. 

Increased struggle against remnants and revivals of fascism, the welding of all 
supporters of democracy and progress into a single socialist camp will be the best 
answer of the Communists of all countries to Comrade Stalin's solicitude. [Emphasis 
supplied.] (Pet. Ex. 264.) 

To show further the significance attached by the initiated to these 
"greetings", Lautner explains in this hght the import of "greetings" 
received by Kespondent at its 15th Convention in December 1950 
from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CP8U), which follow: 

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union extends 
fraternal greetings to the 15th Convention of the Communist Party of the U. S. A. 
We wish the Communist Part}' of the U. S. A. successes in its struggle against 
reaction, for the vital interests and rights of the working class and all toilers of the 
United States of America, for the ideological strengthening of the Party ranks, 
for lasting peace between the peoples. 

May the international solidarity of the toilers in the struggle for peace, democracy 
and Socialism gather strength. [Italic supplied.] 

Long live the friendship between the peoples of the United States and of the 
Soviet Union! 

Long live the Communist Party of the United States! 

Central Committee 

Communist Party of the Soviet Union 

(Pet. Ex. 376, p. 229.) 

Lautner, from his experience as a former high official of Respondent 
(until January 1950) and as a student of Marxism-Leninism, estab- 
lishes that this greeting from the CPSU was a political document of 
the highest importance to Part\' members since in a concise way it 
raised all the ke}' problems confronting Respondent. Specifically 
he intcrj^reted some of the various terms used by the CPSU as follows : 
"struggle against reaction" as basic Marxist-Leninist oj)position to 
imperialism and monoj^oly capitalizm, i. e., the basic line of the 
Party; "struggle for peace, democrac}^, and socialism" as the new 
tactical approach since the end of World War II on which a new 
tactical united front is to be built; "ideological strengthening of the 
Party ranlvs" as a reference which the Soviet Party used to call the 
attention of the ranlv and file Party members to the "Browderite" 
disaffection and other opportunist deviations. 

It is reasonable to conclude, and we do so, that the language used 
by Respondent in its "greetings" to the Soviet Union is likewise 
possessed of veiled content through which Respondent reports in this 
manner to the Soviet Union. 

Respondent's witnesses deny categorically that Respondent rcjiorts 
or has rei)orted to the Soviet Union or its representatives. The clear 
weight of the evidence is to the contrary. 

Upon the basis of the foregoing and tlie entire record, we conclude 
and find that Respondent rei)orts to the Soviet Union and its repre- 


Section 13 (e) (G) of the Act provides that the Board shall take into 

the extent to which its [Respondent's] principal leaders or a substantial numl)er 
of its [Ro.spondont's] moml)ors are subject to or recognize the disciplinary power 
of such foreign govenunent or foreign organization or its representatives; 


The petition alleges: 

From the inception of the organization to the date of the filing of this petition, 
the principal leaders of the Communist Party have l)een and are subject to and 
recognize the disciplinary power of the Soviet Government, the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union, the Communist International and the Communist Informa- 
tion Bureau and other spokesmen of the world Communist movement. This 
power has been exercised principally through the Communist doctrine of "demo- 
cratic centralism" which binds all Communists to execute the decisions of the 
leaders of the w^orld Communist movement. 

Respondent's witness Gates says the leaders of the Party do not 
recognize and do not consider themselves subject to the disciplinary 
power of the Soviet government, the CPSU, the Comintern, the Com- 
inform or any agencies of these organizations. He stresses that 
Respondent's leaders are subject only to the discipline of the Party. 
He maintains the leaders of Respondent do not recognize any disci- 
plinary power over them by the Soviet Union any more than the fact 
that he loves his wife indicates that she has disciplinary power over 

On the other hand, the record shows that under the rules and con- 
ditions governing the world Communist movement as promulgated 
by the Soviet Union and accepted and followed by Respondent there 
is prescribed a party of iron discipline on an international as well as 
a national scale. '^^ This "iron discipline" borders on ''military disci- 
pline" and implies "the establishment of authority, the transformation 
of the power of ideas into the power of authority, the subordination 
of lower Party bodies to higher Party bodies" (Pet. Ex. 121, pp. 113 
and 114; 120). 

The requirements of discipline in the world Communist movement 
as formulated by the Soviet Union are, as previously noted, twofold. 
First, on an international scale the decisions of the leadership of the 
movement — the Soviet Union — are made binding and obligator}^ upon 
the various Communist Parties and their members through the concept 
of democratic-centralism and through policies and rules issued by 
organizational instrumentalities such as the Communist International; 
and the various Parties as well as their members are prohibited from 
any deviation from the line laid down by the Soviet Union. Secondly, 
the individual parties are required to maintain similar discipline 
within their own organizations and to guard against factionalism or 
division of authority in the Party — to purge themselves of dissident 

The record shows that the principle of strict international discipline 
in the world Communist movement is basic and has for its purpose 
unity in the struggle against imperialism, in order that the "revolu- 
tionary work and revolutionary action may be coordinated" and 
''guided most successfully" (Pet. Ex. 125, p. 84). In other words, 
it is a fundamental of the woiid Communist movement that in order 
to accomplish the establishment of dictatorships of the proletariat 
and the defense of the Soviet Union there must exist in every country 
a "compact Communist Party, hardened in the struggle, disciplined, 

" See the spction of this report under the heading "Marxism-Leninism" and the sections covering the 
Communist International and the Communist Informaiion Bureau. 
'* See, for example, Pet. Exs. 8 and 125. 


centralized, and closely linked up with the masses" (Pet. Ex. 125, 
p. 75).^^ 

We proceed, in the light of the foregoing, to examine the evidence 
concerning Respondent's recognition and acceptance of the disciplinar}^ 
requirements of the world Communist movement as laid down by the 
Soviet Union. 

One of Respondent's present top leaders, Bittelman, in his pamphlet 
"The Communist Party In Action," published in 1932, says: 

* * * But our World Communist movement always presented an iron front 
against any such weakening of international discipline, fighting for the Leninist 
principle that the Communist Party is a monolithic and homogeneous body of 
revolutionary workers functioning as the vanguard of the working class (Pet. Ex. 
144, pp. 34-35). 

Speaking of deviations from theory and policy as well as in the daily 
practical work, the article observes: 

* * * We observe, however, among certain Partj' members, a tendency to be 
easygoing, tolerant and conciliatory towards opportunist deviations. This is a 
dangerous attitude which is very harmful to the interests of the working class 
and to the growth of our Part}'. It is this attitude that Comrade Stalin attacked 
i^o sharply, branding it as "rotten liberalism" and calling upon every communist 
to demonstrate in practice in his everyday revolutionary work true Bolshevik 
intolerance of an irreconcilability with all opportunist deviations from the Leninist 
line {ibid, p. 48). 

In 1934, Respondent defined the executive committee of the Com- 
munist International as "the general staff of the world revolutionary 
movement giving unity and leadership to the Communist Parties of 
the world" (Pet. Ex. 136, p. 18). Respondent's Manual On Organiza- 
tion, issued in 1935, notes that Communists attach "so much impor- 
tance" to discipline because "without di.scipline there is no unity of 
will, no unity of action" (Pet. Ex. 145, p. 28). Henry Winston, a 
present top leader of Respondent, told the 14th National Convention 
of the Party in 1948 that: 

* * * We do not shrink from the hammer blows of reaction. Under them we 
will steel our Party in Communist discipline, loyalty and unity, develop its Marx- 
ist-Leninist understanding, and temper our cadres and leadership * * * (Pet. Ex. 
418, p. 856). 

The foregoing is indicative of a continued recognition and acceptance 
by Respondent of iron tliscipline in the world Communist movement, 
particularly when viewed in the light of the facts set forth in the 
section of this report covering Respondent's operation pursuant to 
directives of the Soviet Union and to effectuate the policies of the 
Soviet Union in the world Communist movement. 
■.'Particularly significant of the operation and enforcement of discip- 
line by the Soviet Union in the world Communist movement and of 
Respondent's recognition of this discipline and subjection to it, is the 
evidence conceroing the requirement that the Communist Parties and 
their members "follow the line" laid down by the Soviet Union. 
Those who do not follow the line are branded as "opportunists," 
"revisionists," "faclionalists," "renegades," "stool-pigeons," etc., 
and are purged from the Party. 

We have previously herein noted Respondent's present use of such 
Marxist-Leninist material as the Iliatonj oj the Communist Party of 

" Thi.s priiioiplc wa.s a rr(iiiireiiiciit of the ConimunLst IntPrnational and is stated in Strategy and 
Tactics nf tl\e I'rnletaTian Ikrnliilimi (I'd. Kx. 'M'.i, p. 62), wliicli was us(>d and referred to many times by 
Uespondeiit diirinR the seven years ending in lUlU tliat Petitioner's witness Philbrick was a member and 
held ollicial position in Kcspoudent. 


the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) and a pamphlet entitled: "Resolutions — 
Seventh Congress of the Communist International ^'^ — Including The 
Closing Speech of G. Dimitroff." The following excerpts from these 
documents show what Respondent is teaching its members and is 
practicing as well, concerning the necessity to "foUow the line," 
In the History it is stated : 

The History of the Party further teaches us that unless the Party of the working 
class wages an uncompromising struggle against the opportunitists within it own 
ranks, unless it smashes the capitulators in its own midst, it cannot preserve 
unity and discipline within its ranks, it cannot perform its role of organizer and 
leader of the proletarian revolution, nor its role as the builder of the new Socialist 
Society (Pet. Ex. 330, p. 359). 

And Dimitroff's speech as contained in the aforementioned docu- 
ment says in part: 

Championing, as we do, working class unity, we shall with so much the more 
energy and irreconcilability fight for unity witliin our Parties. There can be no 
room in our Parties for factions, or for attempts at factionalism. Whoever will 
try to break up the iron unity of our ranks by any kind of factionalism will get to 
feel what is meant by the Bolshevik discipline that Lenin and Stalin have always 
taught us. [Applause.] Let this be a warning to those few elements in individual 
Parties who think that they can take advantage of the difficulties of their Party, 
the wounds of defeat or the blows of the raging enemy, to carry out their factional 
plans, to further their own group interests. [Applause.] The Party is above 
every thing else! [Loud applause.] To guard the Bolshevik unity of the Party as 
the apple of one's eye is the first and highest law of Bolshevism! [Emphasized in 
text.] (Pet. Ex. 137, p. 13.) 

Respondent's Manual On Organization, to which we have referred 
in various places in this report, points out that basic principles and 
decisions, such as the necessity for the proletarian dictatorship, the 
correctness of the line ''laid down" by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, 
and the necessity for the forceful overthrow of capitalism, cannot be 
questioned (Pet. Ex. 145, p. 26). Respondent's publication The Way 
Out covering its 8th Convention held in 1934, says "Renegades are 
those who were formerly members of the Comnnmist Part}^ but were 
expelled from it for failure to follow the correct revolutionary line and 
who now fight against the revolutionary movement and against the 
Soviet Union" (Pet. Ex. 136, p. 17). John Gates, one of Respondent's 
present leaders and a witness for Respondent in this proceeding, told 
the 15th Convention held in 1950 that the struggle of "the renegades 
from Marxism against the Communist Party inevitably and logically 
leads to struggle against the Soviet Union and to becoming outright 
agents of the imperialist bourgeoisie," and that the Party needs "to 
be alert to the danger of factionalism" (Pet. Ex. 376, pp. 79 and 86). 
Also pertinent are Respondent's Discussion Outline for Lenin Campaign, 
issued in 1929 (Pet. Ex. 108), of which a considerable portion is devoted 
to discipline; and Respondent's publication Why Every Worker Should 
Join The Communist Party, issued in the mid-1930's (Pet. Ex. 143). 

We treat now with specific incidents of record related to the purging 
of those who have not "followed the line." The record shows that 
from the beginning of Respondent's existence in the United States, the 
Soviet Union has exercised disciplinary power to enforce adherence to 
the revolutionary line. We have hereinbefore noted the foreign direc- 
tion concerning the settlement of the factional dispute in Respondent 

" William Foster and others were present and represented Respondent at the 7th Congress of the Comin- 
tern. See s!fpro, p. 20 of this report. 


in 1929 whereby, under Comintern "authority and wisdom," " the 
Party was purged of factional elements and opportunists pursuant to 
StaUn's sokition, in which lie said: 

* * * And when a revolutionary crisis develops in America, that will be the 
beginning of the end of world capitalism as a whole * * *. For that end the 
American Communist Party must be improved and bolshevized. For that end 
we must work for the complete liquidation of factionalism and deviations in the 
Party * * *.'* 

Stalin's speeches before the Comintern on the settlement of the 
aforementioned factional dispute, which speeches were subsequently 
published in Respondent's official organ," refer to the conduct of 
Respondent's members who questioned the decisions of the Executive 
Committee of the Communist International as "insubordination" and 
apply the term "enemies of the working class" to the factional group. 
We find on the record that this expression covers so-called renegades, 
revisionists, reformers, opportunists, etc., and that the expression and 
words it covers arc cm-rent in Communist use to denote one who de- 
viates or does not follow the correct revolutionary line. 

The record shows that Trotsky, who was expelled from the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union, and Lovestone, who was expelled 
from the CPUSA,^*^ became descriptive of "enemies of the working 
class" who must be purged. We consider it significant, therefore, 
that Respondent's consitution as amended in 1942 provided: ^^ 

No Party member shall have personal or political relationship with confirmed 
Trotskyites, Lovestoneites, or other known enemies of the Party and of the 
working class (Pet. Ex. 328). 

And that the present constitution provides: 

Personal or political relations with enemies of the working class and nation 
are incompatible with membership in the Communist Party (Pet. Ex. 374). 

We have noted in other sections of this report that Paul Crouch, 
an early ofhcial of Respondent, was denied election in 1929 to the 
position of national secretary of the Young Communist League because 
of his previous support of Lovestone and upon instructions from 
Moscow. We have also noted that Nowell, while a student from 
Respondent to the Lenin School in Moscow, was disciplined by the 
Communist International for disagreeing with the policy on the 
"Negro question," and that Kornfeder was expelled in 1934 for failure 
to heed the instructions of a Soviet Union representative in the 
United States. Petitioner's witness elolmson was expelled by Re- 
spondent in 1940 for having exhibited opportunistic tendencies, and 
all members were warned not to have anything to do with him. 

In nuiny respects the reconstitution of Respondent unil(>r the 
name Communist Party in 1945, after having existed for about 13 
months as the Communist Political Association, is similar to the 
1929 settlement of the factional dispute which existed at that time. 
We have previously herein noted the foreign participation in the 
1945 reconstitution and in the 1929 factional settlement. With respect 

" Pet. Ex. 126, p. 246. 


'• Pet. Ex. 109. 

'" Uespomlent's ofTicial declaration on tlie expulsion of T/ivestone, Oitlow, and others wlio had refused to 
be bound by certain demands of the Cominteni in 1929 Kills their conduct "unprecedented warfare apiiinst 
the Party," and states that "any association with the expelled, any su;)port civen them is incompatible 
with the duties of membership in the Party" (Pet. Kx. 117, p. 2). 

•' We note that althouRh Hespondent had previously announced "disalliliation" from the Comintern, 
its constitution as amended in 19-12 included the Comintern, together with Marx, Enpels, I/cnin, and Stalin 
as the euuuciators of the principles according to which Uespondcnt seeks to establish "socialism." 


to the 1945 episode, William Foster reported to the convention that 
the only way he could have gotten his letter to the membership, which 
letter opposed the formation of Respondent mider the name Com- 
munist Political Association, was by facing expulsion, and that since 
liis letter would have caused disunity, anyone who attempted to 
discuss it would have been denounced as a Trotskyite by Browder. 
Following the reconstitution in 1945, Earl Browder was expelled as 
a "revisionist" for seeking to abandon basic Marxism-Leninism prin- 
ciples and for opposing the re-emphasis thereof which was part of the 
1945 reconstitution following the Duclos and Manuilsky pronounce- 

In 1950, Lautner, without advance warning, was subjected to a 
severe inquisition by officials of Respondent and forced to sign a state- 
ment that he was a spy and agent in the ranks of the Commimist 
Party and had received a fair hearing. He was not, and had not been, 
a spy or agent. His efforts to get a hearing or review by Respondent's 
National Review Commission were ignored. His only notice or 
information about his expulsion came from an article in the Daily 
Worker stating that he was expelled as a "traitor and enemy of the 
working class." Indicative of the disciplinary program in the world 
Communist movement is the fact that the notice of Lautner's expul- 
sion from the CPUSA was printed in the Cominform journal For a 
Lasting Peace, for a People's Democracy, and that the same issue 
contained a similar notice as to the expulsion of a member from the 
Communist Party of Italy, both under the heading "Rooting Out 
Traitors from the Ranks of the Communist Parties" (Pet. Ex. 362). 
Also in this connection, the record shows that in 1948 the Communist 
Information Bureau adopted a resolution that the leaders of the 
Communist Party of Yugoslavia were pursuing an unfriendly policy 
toward the Soviet Union and the CPSU (B), that this anti-Soviet 
attitude was incompatible with Marxism-Leninism, and that the 
Yugoslavia Party had failed to accept the criticism and measures 
set forth by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union. The resolution suggests the Yugoslavia Party leaders 
be replaced if they did not "recognize their mistakes" and rectify 
them. This resolution was printed in the August 1948 issue of 
Political Affairs (Pet. Ex. 344) and was discussed in meetings of 
Respondent's groups. It was praised by Foster and Dennis. In 
1949, the Cominform adopted another resolution concernmg Tito and 
other leaders of the Yugoslav Party which brands them as "enemies of 
the working class" for becoming agents of "Anglo-American imperial- 
ism," conducting a "campaign of slander and provocation against the 
Soviet Union," and being disloyal to the principles of Marxism- 
Leninism. This resolution states the struggle against the Tito 
clique is the international duty of all Commimist and Workers' 

Finally, with respect to specific instances of discipline, in 1951 one 
Warwick Thompkins was expelled by Respondent for trying to 
organize Communist members to support in the distribution of leaflets 
containing "slanderous" remarks about the Soviet Union. 

In addition to the foregoing, we have also taken into consideration 
in connection with Respondent's recognition of and subjection to the 
disciplinary power of the Soviet Union, the facts elsewhere herein set 
forth concerning Respondent's following of the concept of democratic- 


centralism, the nature of the Daily Worker, and the activities of foreign 
Communist representatives sent to supervise Respondent. Regard- 
ing this latter aspect, the record shows that some of the foreign 
representatives or agents sent to the United States have been members 
of the wSoviet secret police who instructed Respondent on underground 
and espionage work. Petitioner's witnesses Gitlow, and later, Budenz, 
knew and dealt with Jacob Golos as a resident agent of the Soviet 
secret police. Elizabeth Bentley was designated by Golos as a trusted 
go-between in his relations with Budenz. 

Further, the record shows that Communists who took the three- 
year training course in Moscow, and were considered qualified, were 
sent as representatives or instructors into other countries. Petitioner's 
witness Kornfeder after completing training in Moscow as a member of 
Respondent was sent in 1930 to South America to reorganize the badl}' 
functioning Party in Colombia and to organize an underground Party 
in Venezuela. Kornfeder identifies Charles Crumbein and Rudolph 
Baker as other United States Communists who were sent as representa- 
tives outside of the United States. Wliile in Moscow before going to 
South America, Kornfeder had daily meetings with Palmiro.Toghatti *^ 
who briefed him on South American policies. 

Earl Browder, high official of Respondent until his purge following 
Respondent's rcconstitution in 1945 as above noted, came back to 
the United States as an official of Respondent in 1929 as part of the 
settlement of the factional dispute. He was first summoned to 
Moscow from a position as Soviet representative in Shanghai, China, 
and after being instructed as to what was required of him, was assigned 
as General Secretary of Respondent. Other members of Respondent 
are identified in the record as receiving foreign assignments on instruc- 
tions of the Communist International. 

Summarizing, we find that the Soviet Union has established a 
requirement of iron discipline throughout the world Communist 
movement which imposes upon the Communist Parties and their 
members in the various countries the duty of following with unques- 
tioned devotion the line laid down by the Soviet Union; that Respond- 
ent herein has recognized and accepted the requirement of iron 
discipline, has not repudiated it and has acted in accordance there- 
with; that officers and members of Respondent have been expelled 
by Respondent upon instructions from the Soviet Union; that 
Respondent has subjected itself to Soviet discipline by expelling 
officers and members for failure to follow the line laid down by the 
Soviet Union, or for conduct of the type proscribed by the Soviet 
Union such as so-called revisionism and opportunism; and that 
Respondent has followed policies and activities designed to carry out 
the disciplinary policies of the Soviet Union. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing and of the entire record, we 
find and conclude that Respondent's principal leaders and a sub- 
stantial number of its members are subject to and recognize the 
disciplinary power of the Soviet Union and its representatives, and 
that by its recognition and subjection to the disciplinarv power of 
the Soviet Union, Respondent seeks to advance the objectives of the 
world Communist movement. 

'» Presently leader of the Italian Oonimunist Party and at the time he Instructed Kornfeder, head of the 

Latin American Secretariat of the Couimuuist International. 



Section 13 (e) (7) of the Act provides that the Board shall take into 

the extent to which, for the purpose of conceahng foreign direction, domination, 
or control, or of expediting or promoting its objectives, (i) it [Respondent] fails 
to disclose or resists efforts to obtain information as to, its membership (by 
keeping membership lists in code, by instructing members to refuse to aknowledge 
membership, or by any other method); (ii) its [Respondent's] members refuse to 
acknowledge membership therein; (iii) it [Respondent] fails to disclose, or resists 
efforts to obtain information as to, records other than membership lists; (iv) its 
[Respondent's] meetings are secret; and (v) it [Respondent] otherwise operates on 
a secret basis; 

The petition alleges: 

For the purpose of expediting and promoting its objectives and concealing its 
foreign direction, domination and control, the Communist Party from its inception 
has adopted a multitude of clandestine practices. While the degree of secrecy 
has varied from time to time, there has been a strict adherence to the practice of 
secrecy during the period from July 1945, to the time of the filing of this jaeti- 
tion. * * * 

The petition further sets out 12 specific types of such practices 
allegedly engaged in by Respondent. For convenience, the evidence 
relating to these and other activities is set forth in this section under 
appropriate head notes which in the main correspond to the afore- 
mentioned alleged practices. Evidence relating specifically to the 
purpose for which the subject activities were undertaken, aside from 
that of the nature and character of the acts and practices themselves, 
is summarized under the heading Purpose oj Secret Practices at the 
end of this section. 

1. Secret and Open Members 

It is conceded by Respondent and the evidence establishes that 
some portion of its membership was and is concealed. Party members 
active as labor union leaders, mass organization leaders, members of 
professions, and others have concealed their party membership from 
the general public or from the organizations in which they worked or 
in which they were members. The degree of concealment varies with 
Respondent's current policy regarding its activities. 

A higher degree of secrecy generally applied to members of the 
Respondent who were important civil servants, members of the armed 
forces, teachers, and those individuals engaged in espionage and other 
illegal and confidential activities for the CPUSA or the Soviet Union. 
Such members were known only to the leading officials of Respondent 
or to a limited number of the members thereof. 

Open members of the CPUSA have been those who by reason of 
then- position in the Party or because of the type of their operations 
need not be concealed. For the most part, these were the national, 
state and district officials of the CPUSA or candidates for public office 
on the Communist Party ballot. 

New Members upon entering the CPUSA were instructed generally 
not to reveal their Party membership. In 1928, members of the staff 
of the Daily Worker were instructed to deny their CPUSA member- 
ship in the event of a police raid. Similar instructions were given to 
Party members attending CPUSA schools in 1932. Party members 
in trade unions were ordered in 1948 not to reveal their CPUSA 


It is thus that Respondent engages in the practice of maintaining 
a membership of both concealed and open members. 

2. Refusal to Reveal Information 

Respondent's organ, the Daily Worker for February 17, 1930, stated: 

It is the duty of Communists to throw every possible obstacle in the way of 
conviction of their fellow Party members in the courts, to defend these members 
by all poHsible means, and absolutely to refuse to give testimony for the state in 
any form. Testimony of Communists can only be given for the defense of Com- 
munists, not for the state, and then it must be based upon uncompromising 
defense of the Party and its program. And any one who trades his testimony to 
the State for personal immunity from prosecution, should be unhesitatingly 
kicked out of the movement (Pet. Ex. 496). 

CPUSA members were taught in Respondent's schools and at meet- 
ings during the late 1930's and early 1940's that the moral basis of all 
acts by a Communist is the determination of whether such acts do or do 
not hel]) in the achievement of the victory of the classless society; 
that no oath, or statement in court, or consideration of an}^ kind can 
take precedence over the question of whether or not his act helps or 
iiarms the CPUSA. The record discloses a number of other instances, 
wherein CPUSA members, several of whom testified for Petitioner in 
this proceeding, were instructed while members to deny then Party 
membership in the courts and to government agencies, e. g., to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with the Loyalty 
Program of the Federal Government. Respondent has instructed its 
members to refuse to talk to FBI agents. In answer to a question in 
this proceeding as to the whereabouts of certain members of the 
CPUSA National Committee, who are fugitives from justice, the 
Respondent's witness Gates stated, "if I knew, I wouldn't tell you in 
a million years." 

The CPUSA, in the early 1940's caused documents to be filed with 
the Department of State which stated that the Intercontinent Xews 
Ag(;ncv was an indc^pemhuit agent, when, in fact, it was formed by 
the Respondent for the ])in-pose of circumventing the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act of 1938. 

Plans were discussed by Party leaders together with agents of the 
Soviet Secret Police in 1928, whereby blank American passports might 
in some manner be obtained illegally from the Department of State. 
CPUSA members (Kornfeder, Honig and Arbona) have used detached 
visas which were issiu'd by .Soviet l^nion sources here and abroad in 
1927 and 1934, as a device to conceal from agencies of the United 
States Government visits to the vSoviet Union. In 1937, Respondent's 
witness Gates did not list S])ain as one of the countries to be visited 
when he applied for an American ])assport, since the I'nited States 
Government did not issue ])assi)orts for travel to Sj)ain at that time; 
actually, it was his pmpose to go to Spain and he did so. In 1949, 
Eugene Cul)ues Arbona, head of the Conununist Party youth nu)ve- 
ment of Puerto Rico, in collaboration with meiubers of Res])ondent, 
submitted to the Department of State an application for a passport 
which falsified the answers to questions concerning the countries to be 
visited abroad, and other mattei-s. At that time, CPUSA members 
assisted this olilcial in nuiking arrangements to obtain a detached 
visa in France in order to visit irinigary, tiiereby concealing knowledge 
of the Ilmigarian destination from the United States Government. 

Hence it is clear that: mem])crs of Res])on(lent are trained to and 
do refuse to reveal information to proper governmental agencies and 


tribunals concerning Respondent and its membership as a matter of 
basic Party policy. 

3. Destruction and Secretion of Records 

In periods of strict secrecy, the Party has issued directives to destroy 
records and such literature as would identify members with Res- 
pondent. Such orders were issued throughout the period of the Hitler- 
Stalin Pact from 1939-1941 and also during the period from 1946-1951. 
During the latter period, records in CPUS A. headquarters were burned 
by Party leaders while the individual members were instructed to 
burn Party lists and literature kept in their homes. During the 
1946 Congressional campaign, a CPUSA. member, Herbert A. Phil- 
brick, was instructed to destroy his Party membership card for 
seciu'ity reasons while participating in the campaign of a non-Com- 
munist candidate for public office. Pursuant to the orders of CPUSA 
officials, Party membership books were destroyed in 1947 and member- 
ship cards were destroyed in 1948. In 1949, a system was estabished 
at New York county headquarters of Respondent whereby all messages 
containing names, addresses and phone numbers were to be burned 
as soon as read. This system was still in effect in January 1951. 

In addition to the steps taken to destroy records and other material 
during the aforementioned periods. Respondent adopted the practice 
of keeping no records which would divulge information concerning its 
members and activities. In situations where it was thought absolutely 
necessary to keep records, however, secret devices such as charts and 
code systems have been used. Records have been kept at a minimum 
by such varied practices as engaging in cash financial transactions, 
issuing oral directives without ever reducing them to writing, and 
requiring club leaders of Respondent to memorize the names of mem- 
bers of their respective clubs. In 1949, instructions were given to a 
club official of Respondent, which he followed, that dues and "sus- 
tainers" were not to be collected from any member in the presence of 
other members. 

CPUSA membership cards are not issued when the Party operates 
under conditions of strict secrecy. In this connection, no membership 
cards were issued to members for one of the years during the Hitler- 
Stalin Pact period from 1939-1941 because Respondent believed it 
would have to go underground, i. e., operate completely clandestinely. 
Membership cards have not been issued for the years 1949 to date as 
a security measure to conceal the identity of CPUSA members. 

Records of the CPUSA pertaining to its membership and other 
affairs have been maintained secretly. The Party has selected care- 
fully concealed places in which to hide its records. Such hiding places 
have consisted of homes and business offices of secret or concealed 
members of the Party or of other persons who would be least suspected 
of being identified with the CPUSA. 

Thus, during periods of strict secrecy Respondent has engaged in 
the practice of destroying or secreting records, and of not maintaining 
membership records, or of maintaining them in code. 

4- Deceptive Language in Party Writings 

The CPUSA, as recommended by Lenin, has used deceptive 
language in its Constitution (Pet. Exs. 328, 329, 374) and other 
writings to conceal the real aims, purposes and objectives of the Party. 
A decisive clause in the preamble to the CPUSA Constitution of 1942, 


viz., "* * * by the establishment of sociaHsm, according to the 
scientific principles enunciated by the greatest teachers of mankind, 
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, embodied in the Communist Inter- 
national * * *" was taught in Party schools as equivalent to the 
statement, "in accordance with the principles of Mai-xism-Lcninism," 
as defined hereinbefore. Notwithstanding any other language to be 
found in other sections of the preamble, this clause controls the inter- 
pretation which CPUSA members place upon the Constitution. 
Similarl}^, statements in the preambles of the 1945 and 1948 Constitu- 
tions of the CPUSA to the effect that Respondent's functions are 
founded "upon the principles of scientific socialism, Marxism- 
Leninism" cannot be reconciled with subsequent statements which 
refer to the Constitution of the United States. These direct and 
implied references to Marxism-Leninism control the interpretation 
which Communists must place upon the subject matter found in the 
Party Constitution. Such reference to ^Larxism-Leninism is intended 
to override aii}' other matter contained therein which may be con- 
flicting in any manner. Marxism-Leninism is defined fully elsewhere 
in'^this report.^^ 

Deceptive language has been used in other statements and docu- 
ments of Respondent for the purpose of concealing its true aims, 
purposes, and objectives. Lenin explained the necessity for the use 
of such language in Imperialism, the Highest Stage oj Capitalism (Pet. 
Ex. 140). During the period 1935-1945, the witness Budenz used 
such language in his writings as a staff member of the Midwest Daily 
Record and of the Daily Worker. 

That Respondent uses deceptive language, even in the most basic 
Party documents, such as Constitutions, to conceal its real objectives 
is established in the record. 

5. Use of Party Names, Aliases, etc. 

By direction of Respondent, Party names or aliases were used by 
its members in 1927 and 1934 on American passports, which had been 
of)tained illegally in order to conceal from the United States govern- 
mental agencies the knowledge that trips were being or had been 
made to the Soviet Union. By similar direction, CPUSA leaders 
have at other times, for the same reason, used false names in connec- 
tion with tiieir trips to the Soviet I'^nion as have Respondent's students 
en route to the Lenin School at Moscow. Pursuant to instructions 
from CPLTSA leaders, the students were not to use their real names 
while on board ship iMit were to conceal their identity and destina- 
tion. Also, Respondent's leaders and members, acting on instruc- 
tions, have used Party names or aliases to conceal their activities on 
behalf of the CPUSA in lal)or circles and in other organizations, as 
well as in the conduct of strikes and labor disputes. Concealment of 
Party membership from law enforcement agencies, by the use of 
Party names, has been practiced by Respondent's members through- 
out the existence of the Party. False or Party names have been 
used on CPUSA membership cards at various times. In the 1930's, 
Respondent's leaders were instructed to use Party names in order to 
conceal their identity in the event of police raids. In the years 
immediately following the conclusion of World ^Var II, membership 
books were issued in blank. Party members were directed to enter 

" See pp. 21 to 44, tupra. 


a false name or, in some instances, were given the option of entering 
a false name, of entering only their first name, or of entering no 
name at all on the books. 

The rigidity of the concealment measures which commenced in the 
late 1940's, is indicated by the employment of certain practices in 
the Party whereby the names of Party members were not disclosed 
to each other, even at conventions and meetings, Party names or 
aliases being used by members as a substitute. 

During the present period, the payment of dues and other con- 
tributions to the Party is recorded by the use of a system whereby 
the members are designated by number at the club level. ^.Iso, 
numbers and symbols have been used by the Partv in order to identify 
its members on mailing lists. Students at Respondent's Marxist- 
Leninist Institute in Oakland, California, during the period 1949- 
1950 were enrolled by numbers instead of names, and students at 
the former were directed to refer to each other by their enrollment 
numbers rather than by their correct or Party names. 

The use of Party names or aliases for the purpose of concealing 
membership and activities in the CPUSA has been a widespread and 
continuous practice by the CPUSA leaders and the rank-and-file 
members throughout the existence of the Party. The record is 
replete with instances of such practices. 

6. Use of Codes, Couriers, etc. 

In the early history of the CPUSA, its leaders received training in 
the secret department of the Communist International in the use of 
codes for the transmittal of Party messages, as well as training in the 
operation of short wave communication. In the "Arcos" raids which 
took place in Great Britain during 1927, British authorities seized 
codes, documents, letters, and files which revealed the identity of 
certain CPUSA leaders who had received confidential letters, reports, 
cables, and sums of money in the United States from the Soviet 
Union. As a result, new codes for the CPUSA. were delivered in 
Moscow by a Comintern official to a leader of Respondent who in 
turn brought them into the United States. 

During the 1930's, the CPUSA established and used various code 
systems in transmitting confidential messages between its units and 
its leaders in the United States. Instructions were received by 
Respondent in code from the Comintern in connection with the 1934 
general strike in San Francisco. 

In the summer of 1949, instructions were given and steps were taken 
by Respondent's leaders to establish a national system of radio com- 
munication for use by the Party on a standby basis. The establish- 
ment of this system involved the acquisition of radio receivers, famil- 
iarization with the use of radio equipment, plans for the location of 
mobile transmitters and receiving equipment, and a search to find 
amateur radio operators among CPUSA members. In addition, 
leaders of Respondent sought to establish this system in such a man- 
ner as to avoid detection by the Federal Communications Commission 
of illegal transmissions. 

At a secret meeting of the CPUSA held in Toledo, Ohio, in July 
1947, Respondent's witness Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, then Chairman 
of the Women's Commission of the CPUSA, told Party members pur- 
suant to instructions of the CPUSA National Committee that Party 

32491—53 8 


leaders should not use the telephone for with Party 
members; further, that Communist documents and directives should 
not be sent through the mails, that names of Communists should not 
be used over the telephone, and that lists of names of Communists 
should not be carried on one's person. The record sliows that these 
instructions were carried out in general by Party members. 

Secret devices for concealing the transfer of members from one 
Party unit to another have been used within the CPUSA, notably 
during the periods of strict secrecy, which includes the present. After 
the reconstitution of the CPUSA in 1945, transfer cards in certain 
units of the Party were sent to destination points by couriers instead 
of being fonvarded through the mails as theretofore. 

Prearranged code words or phrases have been used by CPUSA 
members in communicating with each other, particularly with respect 
to underground activities suice 1947. A telephone code was devised 
in 1949 and used through 1950 to transmit information about meet- 
ings and other Party affairs in California. 

Extensive use has been made of confidential mailing addresses by 
the CPUSA and its members through 1949. Such addresses have 
included those of members least suspected of being affiliated with the 

Couriers have been used extensively by Respondent as a conceal- 
ment measure in the transmission of documents and other material 
over a period of many years. Until 1940, CPUSA members served as 
couriers for the transmission of documents between the United States 
and the Soviet Union and also on behalf of the Communist Inter- 
national in Moscow for the purpose of transferring funds and docu- 
ments between the Soviet Union and other foreign countries. Com- 
munist Inteniational representatives to the CPUSA liave acted as 
couriei*s in exchanging documents between the United States and the 
Soviet Union. One objective of the Red International of Labor 
Unions in carrying on Commimist activities in tlie maritime industry 
was to create an unlimited courier service throiigliout the world. 

In February 1952, a CPUSA member who testified in this proceed- 
ing for Petitioner was told by a Party official that the former was to 
receive instructions as to the performance of the Party's underground 
activities; and, further, that this member would act largely as a 
courier between certain Party units. 

It is thus clearly shown that Respondent uses codes, couriers, con- 
fidential mailing addresses, and other secret devices to conceal its 
membership and activities. 

7. False Swearing 

On instructions from Respondent, a Party Leader, Joseph Koni- 
feder, swore falsely when he applied to the Department of State in 1927 
for a passport. 

Jack Stachel, a member of the CPUSA National Committee, 
instructed a member in the 1930's to testify falsely in an injunction 
suit brought against the Shoe and Leather Industrial Union, con- 
cerning the issue of whether this union was Conununist-controlled. 

A Party mem])er, in early 1948, falsely denied his nuMubership in 
the Party before a court in Virginia. At a meeting of a Party Com- 
mittee held in Washington, D. C, following that occasion, his resig- 
nation from Respondent was so dated as to enable him to say that 


he was not a CPUSA member on the date that he denied such 

In order to circumvent the non-Communist affidavit provisions of 
the Taft-Hartley Act, CPUSA members holding positions in labor 
unions were instructed by Respondent's officials in 1948 and 1949, to 
"resign" formally from the CPUSA, but nevertheless to continue 
functioning as members of the Party. In this connection, Gus Hall, 
a CPUSA official thereafter convicted under the provisions of the 
Smith Act, instructed a member in 1948, to sign a letter of resignation 
back-dated to a time prior to the effective date of the Taft-Hartley 
Act in order to protect the member from prosecution under the 
provisions of [that Act. In 1949, a member was given Party instruc- 
tions that a formal "resignation" from Respondent, but an actual 
continuation^of his functions as a Communist, was the procedure to 
follow if he must sign a non-Communist affidavit as required under 
the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Party members are impressed by Respondent with the necessity 
and desirability of making false statements to conceal Party informa- 
tion and to forward Party objectives. 

8. Secret Meetings of Trusted Members 

Throughout its history Respondent's meetings generally have been 
restricted to Party members, although on occasions authorized 
"public" meetings have been held. Election rallies held when 
Respondent supported candidates for public office have been open to 
the public, as have expressly authorized meetings of certain Party 
street units. At various periods important meetings of Party Com- 
mittees have been held secretly in private homes instead of in Party 
offices. During periods of strict secrecy all Party meetings generally 
are held on a secret basis. 

Meetings of national, state, and regional committees and commis- 
sions of Respondent, as well as other trusted Party units, such as the 
higlily concealed professional clubs, have been held on a clandestine 
basis. Members of the Ohio State Committee were criticized in July 
1947 by Gus Hall, a high Party official, for having violated rules 
promulgated by the National Committee pertaining to concealment 
in attending meetings. A CPUSA leader attended secret Party 
meetings held in Cleveland, Ohio, during 1948 and 1949. He was 
notified of the meetings by courier in Toledo, and upon arrival at 
Party headquarters in Cleveland he received final instructions as to 
the locations of the meetings. A district committee met in Balti- 
more in March of 1949 under conditions of extreme concealment. 
During 1949 and 1950, meetings of Party Commissions were held in 
places acquired in the names of nonexistent groups, in order to con- 
ceal and mislead as to the identity of the parties meeting therein. 

Extraordinary care has been exercised during certain periods to 
conceal the actual meeting place and to restrict attendance at plenary 
sessions and executive board meetings of the CPUSA National Com- 
mittee to only those selected members who had been given proper 
identification and credentials. 

Respondent's schools ha\e been conducted under varying degrees 
of secrecy. During periods of strict secrecy within the Party, includ- 
ing the periods of 1939 tol941, and from 1948 to 1950, extraordinary 
precautions were taken to conceal the existence of these schools and 


llie names of the trusted Party members selected to attend them. 
Students at Party schools have carried out mstructions to observe 
strni^rent concealment re<xulations in order to preserve the secrecy 
shrouding the operation of these schools. As an example, both the 
Marxist Institute in Los Angeles, California, and the Marxist- 
Leninist Institute in Oakland, California, were so conducted in the 
summer of 1950 as to conceal their existence and purpose. Students 
at the former school attended classes secretly at a changed location 
after the Korean hostilities had begun. The nature of the curricu- 
lum of these schools (see pp. 41-43, supra), clearly shows the illegal 
purpose behind the extensive measures adopted to conceal their 

Stringent concealment measures have accompanied the holding of 
conventions by the Respondent during periods of strict secrecy. Only 
the most trusted members of the Party have been permitted to attend 
such conventions. At the Massachusetts State Convention of the 
Communist Political Association held at Boston, Massachusetts, in 
1945, and at the National Convention of the CPL^SA at New York 
City in 1948, only those persons were admitted who could present 
proper credentials and, after elaborate security procedures, could 
establish then- identity. 

The location of the Ohio State Convention, held in December 1950, 
was not disclosed to the delegates for concealment reasons until 
shortly- before the convention was held. Extensive precautions were 
taken to conceal the holding of a local convention in 1948 in Los 
Angeles. Like efforts surrounded the holding of the "West Oakland 
(California) Section Convention in December 1950. Similar precau- 
tions surrounded a State Regional Convention of the CPUSA in 
California in January 1951. As at the other conventions held in 
Califoi-nia specified above, delegates to this January 1951 convention 
a'-rived at the convention hall in small groups after having been led 
there by a member who had been entrusted with knowledge of its 
location. The delegates remained at the hall during the entire session 
l)efo]e being allowed to make their departure in small groups at 
intervals. Prior to departure the delegates were directed not to take 
a direct route home. On the following day, the second session of the 
convention was held at a different location under similar circumstances 
of secrecy. 

Tluis, it is clear that tluoughout its history. Respondent, for 
pur])()ses of concealment and to promote its objectives, has held secret 
meetings restricted to trusted members. 

9. Reduction of Committee Alembcrship for Security 

During the period of the Ilitler-Stalin Pact, a period of strict 
secrecy, Respondent reduced the membejship of its National Com- 
mittee, state committees, and section committees for concealment 

Ill 1948, the National Committee of Respondent issued a directive 
pursuant to which the siz(> of all conmiittees within the Party was 
reduced. In announcing this directive, Gus Hall, then Chairman of 
the Ohio Party, stated that the reduction of the State Committee of 
Ohio from approximately 50-odd members to about 11 meml)ers was 
bcnng ellected for "security" purposes. At the same time, the 
National Committee was reduced in iiuml)er from about 55 to approxi- 


mately a dozen members. At the National Convention of the CPUSA 
held in December 1950, the size of the National Committee was fixed 
at 13 members. 

Respondent thus strives to conceal its activities through limiting 
the number of persons having access to vital information by reducing 
the size of its leading committees during the periods of strict secrecy. 

10. Assignment of Members in Small Groups 

During the mid-1 930 's, when less extensive concealment measures 
were in force within the Party, its clubs had memberships which 
generally averaged from 12 to 20 members. A number of these clubs 
joined together in neighborhood or industry branches, to form units 
of from 50 to 100 members. After the signing of the Hitler-Stalin 
Pact in 1939, Peters and Stachel, the former a Communist Interna- 
tional representative and the latter a CPUSA leader, directed that a 
number of concealment measures be instituted, including the division 
of large branches of the Party into groups and the readying of the 
group system for functioning. Peters issued instructions to set up 
units of not more than five men with one man in charge, in preparation 
for the Party's going underground, and these instructions were sub- 
stantially carried out. Units within the Party were enlarged after 
Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, in accord with the 
change which occurred on the political scene. 

Beginning in 1948, the CPUSA operated under conditions of strict 
secrecy, dividing the membership in its basic clubs throughout the 
United States, including those of professional people, into groups of 
about five members. Greater precautions were taken to conceal the 
meetings of the professional groups than theretofore. Instructions 
were issued to all groups that members should not communicate with 
others outside their own particular group. Names of members in 
other groups were never to be mentioned at group meetings. Com- 
munication between the groups and other CPUSA units were to be 
made through group captains directly to section leaders. However, 
members have met in somewhat larger bodies on a few occasions since 
the establishment of the group system beginning in 1948, e. g., in con- 
nection with conventions within the Party, even though these conven- 
tions were themselves held under circumstances of great secrecy as dis- 
cussed heretofore. A tightening up of the concealment system, includ- 
ing a more efficient operation of the group system, was armounced at 
the West Oakland Section Convention in California during December 
1950. The record shows clearly that the group system continued to 
function after this date in connection with the strict concealment 
measures which have been employed by Respondent. Respondent 
has thus formed members of its organization into smaller groups dur- 
ing periods of intense secrecy to conceal more effectively their identity 
and activities. 

11. Underground Plans and Operation 

Respondent has at all times maintained an underground or secret 
apparatus, even when the Party was operated on a comparatively 
open basis. The underground apparatus has been kept in readiness 
to assume leadership and to direct the functions of the Party during 
the periods when its leaders determine that underground operations 
are necessary in order to carry out Party activities. Extensive plans 
have been devised and great quantities of materials have been gathered 


in preparation for underground operations. Resene sums of money 
have been set aside. Hideouts and seeret stora<re spare liave been 
aequired. Mimeograph and printing equipment and materials have 
been assem])led in seeret hiding phiees. Reserve ofTicials linve been 
designated to perform, if the situation so demands, as heading func- 
tionaries of the Party. As related above, the membership of Re- 
spondent at various times has been divided into groups of five or 
even fe\v(>r persons, and confiflential mailing addresses, couriers, and 
other secret devices have been employed in connection with the 
preparations for underground activities. During periods when Re- 
spondent's activities have been conducted with greater secrecy, 
preparations for xmderground operations have l)een intensified cor- 
respondingh', along with a like increase in the employnu'ut of man\- 
of the secret practices described herein. 

Respondent went underground for several years in the early 1920's. 
maintaining a secret headquarters, holding secret meetings, and 
otherwise conducting its affairs on a secret basis. As its "legal" 
expression, it organized and dominated the Workers Party, an "open" 
organization consisting of both Party and non-Party members. The 
underground party was refei-red to as the No. 1 party while the 
"open" part}-, which the former controlled and dominated, was known 
as the No. 2 party. Pursuant to instructions received from the 
Communist International, the underground party was liquidated as 
such but the underground apparatus still remained. The "open" 
party, or Workers Party, was merged with the underground party 
and thereafter adopted the name Communist Party of the United 
States of America. 

During the remainder of the 1920's as well as in the 1930's, various 
steps were taken to maintain and to extend the underground aj^partus, 
including the establishment of code systems. J. Peters, a Comintern 
representative, directed the underground apparatus in the United 
States during nmch of this period. At a secret CPUSA school in 
1932, Peters instructed the underground members on the subject of 
illegal apparatus and its operation. His lectures were based upon a 
document in which the author, T.azar Kaganovich,^' made suggestions 
based u])on the experiences of the Bolsheviks under the Czarist regime 
in Russia. Peters returned to Hungary in 1949 by agreement with 
the Federal Immigration Authorities after a prolonged hearing follow- 
ing his arrest on a deportation warrant. 

When the Party entered a ])eriod of strict secrecy after the signing 
of the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939, which continued until the invasion 
of the Soviet Union by Germany in June 1941. it undertook to 
strengthen the imderground api)aratus in preparation for taking the 
entire Party underground. Eugene Dennis, a high Party ollicial, de- 
clared at a meeting of Party functionaries in late 1939 or earh' 1940, 
while the Soviet laiion was an ally of Germany, that the secret 
measures then being placed into efTcct must be comj)letely established 
and adhered to so that, if the United States joinc'd Great Britain in 
the war against Hitler, the Party would be prepared to turn such an 
"im|)erialist" war into a civil war, as Lenin advocated. These 
measures were intended to place the Party on a complete war basis 
when put into effect. Various degrees of secrecy prevailed, sonie 

M Now a Deputy Premier of the Soviet.Union, 


national leaders going partially iindorground. After the attack by 
Germany on the Soviet Union, many of these measures were relaxed. 

During the 1930's, the World Travel Agency, of which Jacob Golos 
was for a period purportedly the head, arrangotl for visits of CPUSA 
members to the Soviet Union. Golos procured the tickets and expense 
money for such trips. In addition, Golos and the World Travel 
Agency were coimected with a Soviet espionage agency during the 
period of 1936-1943. He acted as the liaison for communication 
between Respondent's members and the Soviet Secret Police agents 
operating in this country. 

Extensive preparations for taking the Party underground were 
commenced in 1948 and are being carried out. Various measures 
were taken by the Party to strengthen its underground apparatus. 
By January 1950, Respondent had placed in effect throughout New 
York State a plan for the integration of about 10 percent, or about 
3,000, of its members into a seven-level, vertical underground organiza- 
tion, Iviiown in the Party as "a system of threes" and patterned after 
the three-system of organization in effect in most of the countries in 
Europe when Communist parties there were underground. Thomp- 
son, a high Party official who has been convicted under the Smith Act, 
stated that this organizational setup was intended to function even if 
the Party as such should be declared illegal. In addition, portions of 
the New York State Party budgets for 1948 and 1949 were assigned to 
underground work. 

Since 1948 and continuing on into early 1952, a large number of 
Party members have been severed from regular Party units and were 
either transferred to underground organizations, in order to assist in 
underground plamiing and to receive instructions in underground 
activities, or placed in a reserve leadership status. 

Hence the record shows that throughout Respondent's existence 
it has undertaken elaborate measures to maintain an underground 
apparatus which makes and executes plans and assembles materials 
for underground work as a means of effectuating Respondent's 

12. Infiltration oj Other Organizations 

Respondent has sent its members into various organizations in the 
United States for the purpose of gaining control of such organizations 
and influencing the policies of these organizations to support the 
CPUSA program. This policy has been employed by Respondent 
throughout its history. Pm'suant to Respondent's dhectives its 
members have pursued this infiltration policy with respect to pro- 
fessional organizations, cultm^al organizations, fraternal organiza- 
tions, and trade and industrial unions.^^ Secret Communist factions 
were planned or formed in these organizations for the ultimate pm-pose 
of obtaining control and making the policies of the organization sub- 
servient to those of Respondent. Students at Respondent's schools 
were taught the importance of infiltrating mass organizations as a 
means of acquiring mass support for the Party program. Party mem- 
bers designated to carry out infiltration work in mass organizations 
were instructed to use care not to expose the Party in these organiza- 
tions. Members in such organizations were instructed to, and did, 
conceal then- Party membership while in these organizations. At a 

M See 67-71, supra, for more detailed discussion of trade union activity. 

IIG subvp:rsive activities control board 

regional party convention licld in California in January 1951, speakers 
emphasized the need for Party membeis to infiltrate other organiza- 
tions through which the purposes of the Party could be carried out. 

13. Purpose of Secret Practices 

Respondent in its amended answer and through its witnesses 
acknowledges that it engages in certain clandestine practices, but it 
contends that such activity is not for the purpose of concealing for- 
eign direction, domination, or control. Respondent's witness Gates 
testified that such practices have "nothing whatsoever to do with 
concealing the views or the program of the Communist Party" and 
fm'ther that they are the response to repressive measures taken against 
the Party and its members and are intended merely to "protect the 
constitutional rights of members of the Communist Party." 

It is patent that these secret practices are not adopted by Re- 
spondent for the purpose which it asserts. This conclusion is in- 
evitable when the secret practices are examined m the light of the 
whole record and all the surrounding circumstances under which they 
were and are performed. A short recapitulation of pertinent evidence 
will demonstrate this. 

The underlying philosophy of the Communist movement is con- 
tained in the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, the real nature of which 
is described in other portions of these findings. Implicit therein are 
secrecy and concealment to effectuate attainment of its objectives. 
It is the aim of Respondent to bring about the dictatorship of the 
proletariat by violent means if necessary and to help the Soviet 
Union in the event of a war between that country and the United 
States. (See pp. 118-128, infra.) Members were taught in Party 
Schools that "there is no moral law for a Communist Party member 
except the success of that to which he has dedicated himself, that is 
to say, the classless society * * *^ j^o oath, no statement in 
court, no consideration of any kind can come before the question of 
whether it helps or hurts the Party * * * i\^Qy were to testify 
or to make affidavit or whatever it may be in accordance with the 
needs of the Party at that time and irrespective of the actual truth." 
Instances are shown wherein certain of Respondent's members swore 
falsely in court; false statements were made by CPUSA members in 
passport applications; and a high Communist official, J. Peters, was 
hidden by members of Respondent from Government authorities who 
were seeking him in a deportation case. It was basic in the Theses- 
and Statutes oj the Third {Communist) International, to which Re- 
spondent has adhered, that both open and socr(>t nuclei be formed to 
carry on the work of propaganchi and education under the control 
and discipline of the Central Committee of the Party; and that mem- 
bers were required to join in unlawful work and unlawful organiza- 
tions if necessary for the Party's purposes. In addition, the con- 
spiratorial nature of the Party must be considered. Stalin in the 
pamphlet, Stalin's Speeches on the American Communist Party (Slay 
1929), in discussing the disruptive effect of factionalism, states: "as a 
result of which the whole internal life of our Part}" is robbed of its 
conspirative protection in the face of the class enemy," [italic sup- 
plied] (Pet. Ex. 109, p. 29). There is also evidence that in the 
1939 to 1941 period "the whole organization was on a conspiratorial 
basis" and the schools were conducted "in accordance with the rules 


of conspiracy." It was taught by Respondent in 1939 that "the 
piu'pose of this secrecy was to prevent the law-enforcement agencies" 
from getting information concerning the CPUSA "because it de- 
stroys the conspiratorial nature of the Party movement itself." 

In 1940, in order to conceal its true status registration statements 
were filed by the Daily Worker under the Foreign Agents Registration 
Act which falsel}^ made it appear that it did not come within the 
provisions of that Act. 

Secrecy and concealment have been continuous and have not 
been limited to the period when Respondent felt it was under particu- 
lar stress. There was, however, a fluctuation in the degree of secret 
activity. Thus, during the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, Eugene 
Dennis stressed the underground activity of the CPUSA and the 
necessity for attaining readiness for civil uprisings in the event the 
United States joined the Allies against Germany. After 1945, there 
was an intensification of secret practices. In July 1950, members 
were told that the world situation had created considerable alarm 
in Respondent and that consequently the Party was adopting stricter 
"security" measures. Shortly afterward, a reorganization took place 
for that reason; Respondent's clubs were divided into small groups 
and its members were identified by numbers instead of names. The 
Marxist Institute in Los Angeles, California, and the Marxist-Leninist 
Institute in Oakland, California, were conducted during late 1949 and 
part of 1950, with great secrecy. A regional convention was held in 
January 1951 in California, under conditions of extreme secrecy. At 
this convention there were speeches on the so-called peace campaign, 
on world conditions and on the necessity for stricter seciu"ity measures. 

Viewed against this backgi'ound, it is established that such prac- 
tices as secret memberships, hidden meetings of small gi-oups, the 
acquisition of easily transported mimeograph machines, cryptically 
wording constitutions, the use of couriers and the restricted use of 
the mails and telephone, are not undertaken for the innocent purpose 
which Respondent seeks to ascribe to them. Xor can the infiltration 
of organizations, such as labor unions, be regarded as having a bona 
fide purpose. The evidence shows that the reason for such infil- 
tration is to dominate such organizations for the Respondent's pur- 
poses. That this is basic can be seen from a book by Lenin entitled 
"What Is To Be Done," which Respondent's members read and 
studied. In this book, Lenin declares that Trade Unions are "a very 
useful auxiliary to the political, agitational, and revolutionary organi- 
zations" and that they can be controlled by "a small compact core" 
of agents "connected by all the rules of strict secrecy with the or- 
ganizations of revolutionists" (Pet. Ex. 417, pp. 109-112). 

We conclude that the secret practices undertaken by Respondent 
are for the purpose of concealing the true nature of the Party and 
promoting its objectives. We cannot accept Respondent's conten- 
tion that its secret practices are merely devices utilized to protect 
the rights and liberties of its members. 

Upon the basis of the foregoing and on the whole record, we find 
that Respondent engages in extensive secret practices, within the 
meaning of the Act, for the purpose of promoting its objectives and 
thereby to advance those of the world Communist movement; and for 
concealing its dhection, domination, and control by the Soviet Union. 



Section 13 (e) (8) of the Act requires that the Board consider: 

the extent to which its [Respondent's] principal leaders or a substantial nninbcr 
of its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordi- 
nate to their obligations to such foreign government or foreign organization. 

The petition alleges: 

From 1919 to the date of the filing of this petition, the leaders of the Communist 
Party and a substantial number of its members have considered the allegiance 
they owe the United States as being subordinate to their loyalty and obligations 
to the government of the Soviet Union. 

The petition fmllicr contains six specific allegations^'^ which, if true, 
would show that .Kes})oiid exit's principal leaders and members con- 
sider the allegiance they owe the Soviet Union to be paramount to 
that owed the United States. Since the evidence of record which 
pertains to allegiance is broader in scope than Petitioner's specific 
allegations, we will not confine our ihidings of fact to the form of these 
specific allegations. 

The evidence shows that a basic aim of Marxism-Leninism is the 
establishment of dictatorships of the proletariat in all non-Socialist 
countries of the world, and that Respondent adheres to and works to 
attain this goal in the United States.*^ The Marxist-Lenhiist Clas- 
sics define dictatorship of the proletariat and demonstrate that it 
must be established by the forceful overthrow of existing non-socialist 

Stalin in Problem of Leninism (Pet. Ex. 188, pp. 26-27) defines the 
dictatorship of the proletariat according to its fundamentals: 

Hence there are three fundamental aspects of the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

(1) The utilisation [sic] of the power of the ])roletariat for the suppression of the 
exploiters, for the defense of the country, for the consolidation of the ties with the 
proletarians of other lands, and for the develoiiinent and the victory of the revolu- 
tion in all countries. 

(2) The utilisation of the power of the proletariat in order to detach the toiling 
and exi)loited masses once and for all from the bourgeoisie, to con.solidate the 
alliance of the proletariat with these masses, to enlist these masses in the work of 
socialist construction, and to assure the state leadership of these masses by the 

(3) The utilisation of tlie power of the proletariat for the organisation [sic] of 
socialism, for the abolition of classes, and for the transition to a society without 
classes, to a society without a state. 

The dictatorship of tlie proletariat is a combination of all three aspects. None 
of these three aspects can be advanced as the sole characteristic feature of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, it is sufficient for but one of 
these three characteristic features to be absent, for the dictatorship of the i)role- 
tariat to cease being a dictatorship in a capitalist environment. * * * 

In the following quotation, Stalin, with Lenin's help, reveals that 
the dictatorship of thci proletariat must be installed through use of 
force by Communist minorities, independently of the will of the major- 
ity of the population, and that attempting to utilize peaceful means to 
do so is not to be considered: 

" Those allpRsitions are to the cIToct that the Soviet T"nion is the fatherland of the world Communist 
movement which all Communists are oblicated to support and defen<i; the Hed (lap: has been and is the llaR 
to which Conmiunists owe allepiaiice; all American Coinnumists must support and defend the Soviet 
Union in war with anv nation; in event of war between the I'nited States and the Soviet Inion. they must 
work for the defeat of the United States; sonio of Kespondent's present leaders took an oath to Stalin at 
the Seventh World Concress of the Comintern; and, to leaders and members of Respondent, "patriotism" 
means solidarit.v with the Soviet Union. 

" See Marxisrn-Leninism, pp. 21-44, supra. 


To think that such a revolution can be carried out peacefully within the frame- 
work of bourgeois democracy, which is adapted to the domination of the bour- 
geoisie, means one of two things. It means either madness, and the loss of normal 
human understanding, or else an open and gross repudiation of the proletarian 

It is necessary to insist on this all the more strongly, all the more categorically, 
since we are dealing with the proletarian revolution which has for the time being 
triumphed in only one country, a country surrounded by hostile capitalist coun- 
tries, a country the l)ourgeoisie of which cannot fail to receive the support of 
international capital. 

That is why Lenin states that "* * * the liberation of the oppressed class is 
impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of 
the apparatus of state power, which was created b}^ the ruling class * * * {Col- 
lected Works, Vol. XXI, Book II, p. 155. Also State and Revolution, Little Lenin 
Library, p. 9). 

"First let the majority of the population, while private property is still main- 
tained, that is while the power and oppression of capital are maintained, declare 
itself for the ]iarty of the proletariat. Only then can it, and should it, take power. 
That is what is said by petty-bourgeois democrats who call themselves "socialists" but 
arc really the henchmen of the bourgeoisie. [My italics — J. S.] 

"But we say: Let the revolutionary proletariat first overthrow the bourgeoisie, 
break the yoke of capital, break up the bourgeois state apparatus. Then the 
victorious proletariat will speedily gain the sjanpathy and support of the majority 
of the toiling nonproletarian masses by satisfying their wants at the expense of 
the exploiters. [My italics— J. S.] (Collected Works, Vol. XXIV, p. 647, Russian 

"In order to win the majority of the population to its side," Lenin continues, 
"the proletariat must first of all overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize state power 
and, secondl^y, it must introduce Soviet rule, smash to pieces the old state appara- 
tus, and thus at one blow undermine the rule, authority and influence of the 
bourgeoisie and of the petty-bourgeois compromisers in the ranks of the non- 
proletarian toiling masses. Thirdly, the proletariat must completely and finally 
destroy the influence of the bourgeoisie and of the petty-bourgeois compromisers 
among the majority of the nonproletarian toiling masses by the revolutionary 
satisfaction of their economic needs at the expense of the exploiters," (ibid, pp. 

Stalin also emphasizes that it is false for Communists to consider 
that such a thing as "peaceful evolution" from "bourgeois democracy" 
into a "proletarian democracy" is possible: 

Marx's qualifying phrase about the Continent gave the opportunists and 
Mensheviks of all countries a pretext for proclaiming that Marx had thus conceded 
the possibility of the peaceful evolution of bourgeois democracy into a proletarian 
democrac}^ at least in certain countries outside the European continent (England, 
America). Marx did in fact concede that possibility, and he had good grounds 
for conceding it in regard to England and America in the seventies of the last 
century, when monopoly capitalism and imperialism did not yet exist, and when 
these countries, owing to the special conditions of their development, had as yet 
no (sic) developed militarism and bureaucracy. That was the situation before 
the appearance of developed imperialism. But later, after a lapse of thirty or 
forty years, when the situation in these countries had radically changed, when 
imperialism had developed and had embraced all capitalist countries without 
exception, when militarism and bureaucracy had appeared in England and America 
also when the special conditions for peaceful development in England and the 
United States had disappeared — then the qualification in regard to these countries 
necessarily could no longer hold good {Foundations of Leninism, Pet. Ex. 121, 
p. 55). 

The following quotation is a reaffirmation by Stalin of the necessity 
of overthi'owing "bourgeois" governments by forcible means: 

Therefore, Lenin is right in saying: 

"The proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of 
the bourgeois state machine and the substitution for it of a neiv one * * *" 
{Selected Works, Vol. VII, p. 124) (ibid, at p. 56). 


The foregoing is but an illustrative portion of the abundant utter- 
ances of the Classics relating to the nature and means of eU'ectuation 
of the (lictatorsliips of the jH-ok'ttuiat throughout the world. They 
have not been taken out of context; they are embedded in the sense 
of these writings and mean what they say. 

Although we have heretofore set forth under the heading "Marxism- 
Leninism" a review of the cvidciice and our finding that Kespondent's 
aherenee to -Marxism-Lcninsim has implicit in it complete subservience 
to the fundamental princij)l('s thereof — that the Classics are binding 
upon Respondent in all fundamentals; it is desirable, because of the 
principles and policies of the Classics conceining allegiance to the 
Soviet Union, antl particularly the necessity- for the overthrow of 
existing "imperialist" governments, including, inter alia, the United 
States, to summarize here, by way of review, some of the evidence 
establishing Respondent's present adherence to the Classics. 

In 1945, wlu'U Respondent reverted to the name Conmiunist Party 
of the United States of America (maintaining the basic organizational 
form under which it presently operates), William Z. Foster announced 
to the membership, in substance, that the Classics assumed an ev(>n 
greater importance, and said that "as never before, we must train our 
Party in the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism" (Pet. Ex. 372, p. 788). 
Alexander Tracht(>nberg in 1949 declared to a group of Respondent's 
members meeting in Washington, D. C, that Party leaders must 
know the Classics and be able to apply their principles to any current 
situation at any time. Petitioner's witness Matusow shows that in 
the Party the Communist Manifesto, though 100 years old, "is just as 
relevant today as it was in 1848 when it was written." The Classics 
were in use by the Party, to Alatusow's knowledge, in December 1950. 
"Marxism-Leninism, as embodied in the Classics, provided the basis of 
what Petitioner's witness Lautner taught and Avas taught at Respond- 
ent's National Training School. The Classics were used in the 
Marxist-Leninist Institute in Los Angeles which Petitioner's witness 
Evans attended until it was discontinued in June 1950. 

It is established that the above Classics have been used in study 
courses during the 3'ears 1945-1950, for use in teaching Respondent's 

A recent article by Alexander Bittelman, a CPUSA leader, states: 

.\ theoretical contribution of Stalin which, like the Foundations of Leninism 
and his other theoretical ivorks, rariks with the fundamental theoretical and philo- 
sophical works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, is the History of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Uniori. The History is a fountainhead of knowl- 
edge — theory, ideology, strategy, tactics, principles of organization. It is a 
guide to Marxist-Leninist action. It embodies the theoretical and program- 
matic positions of ^Marxism-Leninism {Political Affairs, Decc'nil)er 1949, Pet. 
Ex. 373, p. 8). [Italic supplied.] 

The same highly placed author, in January 1952, states: 

Lenin's teachings are trinnii)hing l)ecause they are true. The teachings of 
Lenin, further developed by Stalin, demonstrate their crcativcness and cogency 
in all the great progressive struggles of our day and epoch. Lenin's teachings 
inspire the actions of the vanguard fighters for jx'ace and democracy. Peoples 
fighting for e(|ual rights and national indeix-ndence find their advance fighters 
and leaders guidefl by the teachings of Lenin, so brilliantly continued and further 
develoi)ed In' Stalin. .\nd the magnificent historic fight of our epoch^the fight 
for socialism, for Communism — whose grandeur overshadows all of the great 
previous achievements of mankind, crowning them with the realization of the 
noblest aspirations and dreams of the human race — this historic fight, we are 


proud to say, is guided by the teachings of Lenin and of his great continuer 
Stalin. It is led bv parties of Marxism-Leninism, by Communist and Workers 
Parties (Political Affairs, Pet. Ex. 489, p. 1). 

In addition to the documentary evidence, it was established through 
the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses Gitlow, Kornfeder, Nowell, 
Crouch, Honig, Johnson, Meyer, Hidalgo, Matusow, and Budenz, 
among others, that the CPUSA in reality advocates the overthrow of 
the government of the United States by force and violence. The 
membership of the above witnesses in the CPUSA spanned the entire 
existence of the Party until January 1951. Their various positions 
therein ranged from high offices to rank and file Party membership. 
All were in a position to laiow whereof they spoke. 

Respondent engaged in extensive cross-examination of these wit- 
nesses on their testimony concerning force and violence and also 
examined its own witnesses at some length on this subject, thus 
joining issue thereon. 

In essence. Respondent's witnesses testified that the CPUSA does 
not seek to overthrow the government of the United States by forcible 
means but rather it seeks to establish its program by peaceful means 
within the framework of the United States Constitution; that "force 
and violence" as referred to by Respondent comes into play only in 
the event that the duly elected "socialist" government is subject to 
"counter revolutionary" force by the unseated capitalist-monopolists; 
it then advocates meeting such an attempt by forcQ to maintain their 
position. Respondent points to language in its 1945 and 1948 
Constitutions (Pet. Exs. 329 and 374, respectively) which embraces 
the United States Constitution. On the other hand. Petitioner's 
witnesses establish that the principles of "scientific socialism, Marxism- 
Leninism," as used in Respondent's Constitution and other writings, 
have a definite meaning to CPUSA members,^^ i. e., that the basic 
goal of Respondent, founded on the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, 
and Stalin, namely, the establishment of the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat, can be attained only by the violent shattering of the "bour- 
geois" state, and this includes the government of the United States. 

It is established that such language in these Constitutions of Re- 
spondent, and other similar statements embracing the Bill of Rights 
and the United States Constitution, are irreconcilable with Marxist- 
Leninist principles, and are devices to clothe a conspiracy against the 
United States Government in the habiliments of legality. The 
testimony of Respondent's witnesses, as set forth above, is likewise 
rejected as being irreconcilable with the great weight of the evidence. 

The testimony of Petitioner's witnesses establishes that, pursuant 
to the preachments of the Classics, the CPUSA seeks to overthrow the 
existing government in the United States, and its institutions, by 
forcible means, and to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat in 
proceeding to establish socialism. "^^ 

We are also mindful that the evidence in this proceeding discloses, 
and we officially notice, that most of Respondent's foremost leaders, 
despite contentions like those made by Respondent in this proceeding, 
were recently convicted under the statute known as the Smith Act 
(Title 18, Sees. 11 and 13, United States Code) of conspiring to teach 
and advocate the overthrow of the United States government hj 
force and violence; and that the convictions of eleven such leaders 

** See Secret Practices for further details re "protective language," pp. 107-108, nuinn. 
*' See Marxism Leninism, pp. 21-44, supra. 


which have been reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States 
have been uphohl (341 U. S. 494; Rehcarin>,' denied, :U2 U. S. 842). 

Kespondont's adluTenee to nnd imph'mcntation of a concept ro- 
(liiiring the overthrow of the United States Government by any means, 
inchuUng force and violence, is completely incompatible with, and the 
exact antithesis of, allegiance to the United States. This becomes 
even more clear when we examine additional international aspects of 
Mar.xism-Leninism from which this concept flows. ^^ 

The Classics reveal that the requirement of paramount allegiance 
to the Soviet Union is but the natural corollary of the Soviet Union's 
position as leader of the world Commimist movement and fatherland 
of the world proletariat. Consequently, the basic postulates of 
Marxism-Leninism, (a) protection of the Soviet Union, and (b) de- 
struction of capitalist states and the establishment, Tdtimately, of 
world Commimism, impinge directly upon allegiance. In the infancy 
of the Soviet Union, Lenin, as cited by Stalin in Problems of Leninism 
(Pet. Ex. 138, p. 19), evaluated its international position as involving 
inevitable clashes with imperialist states and ])roclaims tlu^ necessity 
for the Soviet Union to call forth the world revolution: 

The second enormous difficulty was * * * the international question. If we 
were able to cope so easily with Kerensky's bands, if we so easily established our 
power, if the decree on the socialisation of the land and on workers' control, was 
secured without the slightest difficulty — if we oV)tained all this so easily it was 
only because for a brief space of time a fortunate combination of circumstances 
protected us from international imperialism. International imperialism, with all 
the might of its capital and its hifthly organized military technique, which rep- 
resents a real force, a real fortress of international capital, could under no circum- 
stances, under no possible conditions, live side by side with the Soviet republic, 
both liecause of its objective situation and because of the economic interests of 
the capitalist class which was incorporated in it, it could not do this because of 
commercial ties and of international financial relationships. A conllict is inevit- 
able. This is the greatest difficulty of the Russian Revolution, its greatest 
historical problem: the necessity to solve international problems, the necessity 
to call forth the world revolution {Collected Works, Vol. XXII, pp. 315-317, 
Russian Edition). 

That protection and security of the Soviet Union is fundamental to 
the world Communist movement is clear from Stalin's statement: 

The final victory of socialism is a complete guarantee against attempted inter- 
vention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration 
can take place only with support from outside, only with the support of inter- 
national capital. Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all 
countries, and still more the victory of those workers in at least several countries, 
is a necessary condition for completely guaranteeing the first victorious country 
against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the 
final victory of socialism. (A quotation of Joseph Stalin cited by him in his 
Problems of Leninism, supra, at p. 64.) 

Tbe Classics make it plain that the Soviet Union, fostering its own 
security, will work toward the destruction of capitalism by develoi)ing 
revolutions in all countries. Stalin quoting Lenin: 

Lenin expressed this thought in a nutshell when he said that the task of the 
victorious revolution is to do the utmost po-ssible in one country /or the develop- 
ment, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries {Selected Works, 
Vol. VII, p. 182) {Foundations of Leninism, Pet. Ex. 121, p. 46). 

Stalin elaborates on tliis inlernationni aspcn-t in setting forth 
the "absolute law" of capitalist development and of workl revolution: 

'• See Mar.xisin-Lcninisni, pp. 21-44, supra. 


Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. 
Hence, the victory of socialism is possible, first in a few or even in one single 
capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, 
having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production [my 
italics — J. S.] would rise against the rest of the capitalist world, attract to itself 
the oppressed classes of other countries, raise revolts among them against the 
capitalists, and in the event of necessity, come out even with armed force against 
the exploiting classes and their states {Collected Works, Vol. XVIII, p. 272) 
(Probletns of Leninism, supra, at p. 69). 

Stalin in Foundations oj Leninism (Pet. Ex. 121, pp. 90-91) states 
in capsule form the strategy applicable to the various stages of the 
revolution, which depicts the Soviet Union as the "base" for the 
overthrow of "imperialism": 

Our revolution already passed through 2 stages, and after the October Revolu- 
tion it has entered a third stage. Our strategy changed accordingly. 


Third stage. Commenced after the October Revolution. Objective: to con- 
solidate the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, using it as a base for 
the overthrow of imperialism in all countries. * * * 

The hegemony exercised by the Soviet Union over the world 
Communist movement is that of originator and founder: 

Is it surprising, after all this, that a country which has accomplished such a 
revolution and possesses such a proletariat should have been the birthplace of the 
theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution? 

Is it surprising that Lenin, the leader of this proletariat, became the creator of 
this theory and tactics and the leader of the international proletariat? {ihid, 
p. 19). 

The leadership of the Soviet Union is openly lauded in the Pro- 
gramme oj the Communist International (Pet. Ex. 125, p. 27): 

Thus, the system of world imj^eiialism, and with it the partial stabilization of 
capitalism, is being corroded from various causes: First, the antagonisms and 
conflicts between the imperialist states: * * * and lastly, the hegemony exercised 
over the whole world revolutionary movement by the proletarian dictatorship in 
the U. S. S. R. The international revolution is developing. 

In view of the fact that the U. S. S. R. is the only fatherland of the international 
proletariat, the principal bulwark of its achievements and the most important 
factor for its international emancipation, the international proletariat must on 
its part facilitate the success of the work of Socialist construction in the U. S. S. R. 
and defend her against the attacks of the capitalist powers by all the means in 
its power {ibid, p. 65). 

The Soviet Union being the fatherland or home base of the world 
revolution, the leaders of the Soviet Union serve also as leaders of the 
organized world Communist movement. Hence, the Communist 
International, the Soviet Union, and Stalin were given pledges of 
allegiance by Kespondent's leaders and members as shown by the 
evidence which we now set forth. 

Nowell, a former CPUSA official who testified for the Petitioner in 
this proceeding, took an oath upon joming the CPUSA (in 1929) to 
carry out the Party line and to adhere to the principles of the Comin- 
tern at all times. 

Earl Browder read a pledge to 2,000 workers who were initiated 
into the CPUSA in the New York District in 1935. Part of this 
pledge read as follows: 

I pledge myself to rally the masses to defend the Soviet Union, the land of 
victorious socialism. I pledge myself to remain at all times a vigilant and firm 
defender of the Leninist line of the Party, the only line that insures the triumph 
of Soviet Power in the United States (Pet. Ex. 145, p. 105). 


At Madison Square Garden in ISlew York City in 1937, about 3,000 
new recruits to the Party pledged, among other things, to uphold and 
advance tlie program of tlic Communist I^art\% as well as tlieir "com- 
plete devotion to the Leninist struggle for socialism — for a Soviet 

At the Seventh AVorld Congress of the Communist International 
at Moscow in 1935, delegates from the CPUSA, including some of the 
present loaders of the Party, took an oath of fealty, "To Comrade 
Stalin, leader, teacher, and friend of the proletariat and oppressed of 
the whole world" whom they assured that "the Communists will 
always and everywhere be faithful to the end and to the great and 
invincible banner of Marx, Eiigels, Lenin, and vStaHn"' and that "under 
this banner, Conniiunism will triumph throughout the world." 

The delegation of Respondent to tliis Congress approved tliis oath 
of fealty to Stalin and two of the delegates, Browder and Foster, 
were elected at this Congress to the Presidium of the Executive Com- 
mittee of the Communist International. Subsequently, the decisions 
of the Seventli Congress of the Communist International and the 
work of tlie CPUSA delegation at that Congress were fulh' a])proved 
by the Central Committee of Respondent. 

Of the nine members of the delegation to the Seventh World Con- 
gress of the Communist International wlio took and approved tliis 
oath to "Conn-ade Stalin," six, namely, Vv'illiam Z. Foster (National 
Chairman), John Williamson (Labor Secretary), Gilbert Green, Jack 
Stachel, William Schneiderman, and Martha Stone, are presently 
leaders of the CPUSA. At the loth National Convention of the 
CPUSA, held between December 28-31, 1950, the Party elected 
these six members or alternate members of its National Committee. 

After this 1935 Congress of the Communist International, all Com- 
munist leaders and functionaries had to take a basic pledge or oatli 
of loyalty to Stalm. 

Foster, as the principal speaker at the 1948 Ohio State Convention 
of Respondent, stated that the CPUSA in Ohio should elect as leaders 
only those individuals uj)on whom they could depend in the event of 
a war between the Soviet Union and the United States. 

In 1949, the CPUSA pu])lished a message to Stalin in which the 
Party accused the United States Goveinnu'ut of violating the com- 
mitnumts made at Yalta and at Potsdam and referre<l to the existing 
government as "American imjierialists." Tliis message, in effect, 
constituted a reaffirmation by the CPUSA of its loyalty and a further 
acknowledgment of Stalin's leadership of the world-wide Communist 

Twelve of the thirteen members of the National Committee of the 
CPUSA, who were elected at the 15th National Convention of the 
Party held December 28-31, 1950, and three of the alternates have 
])een convicted uncL'r the Smith Act as heretofore noted. Four of 
those convicted, namely, Williamson, Green, Schneiderman, and 
Stachel, were among those leaders of Respondent who took an oath 
of fealty to Stalin at the S(>venth World Congress of the Communist 
International at Moscow in 1935. The record does not disclose that 
any of these CPUSA leaders who have taken oaths of fealty to Stalin 
have ever repudiated the oaths, or that Respondent has repudiated 
their action. 

Sea Training iind Hcportinp, pp. 89-98, supra. 


That the allegiance owed the Soviet Union by Respondent's leaders 
and members is paramount to that owed to the United States is further 
borne out by the record. The evidence establishes numerous in- 
stances in the past where Respondent and its leaders have urged its 
members to defend the Soviet Union, even in the event of a war 
between that country and the United States of America. The slogan 
"Defend the Soviet Union," has been used in this regard. 

Respondent's students at the Lenin School in Moscow, in the 
period between 1927 and 1937, were taught that the role of the 
CPUSA, in the event of war between the Soviet Union and the United 
States, is to support and defend the former and to labor for the defeat 
of the latter. 

Early in its history, the CPUSA regarded as one of its purposes or 
duties the defense of the Soviet Union as the fatherland of the working 
classes all over the world. All new members of Respondent were 
instructed between 1927 and 1939, that the first and only allegiance 
of a Party member is to the workers' fatherland, namely, the Soviet 
Union, and not to any capitalist government. 

A Red flag, brought from Moscow in 1929 by one of Respondent's 
members, was displayed at lectures on the Soviet Union. The use of 
the flag of the Soviet Union at a Communist camp in Michigan during 
the early 1930's, and up to 1936, was intended to signify the fatherland 
of the working class, or Communism as practiced in the Soviet Union, 
as well as to make friends for the Soviet Union, and to draw the Amer- 
ican people nearer to Communist ideology and the CPUSA. 

Two members of Respondent's Central Committee criticized a Party 
official for authorizing the flying of the American flag in a Fourth of 
July parade in 1934. 

In 1935, Dimitri Z. Manuilsky, then head of the Communist Inter- 
national, told Respondent's delegates to the Seventh World Congress 
of the Communist International in Moscow, at a meeting immediately 
prior thereto, that the first aflegiance of all CPUSA members was to 
the workers' fatherland, the Soviet Union. Manuilsky demanded 
that the subject of allegiance again be stressed throughout the lower 
ranlvs of Respondent. Students at Respondent's schools in the United 
States, particularly in 1932 and 1936 to 1941, were taught that the 
first and only allegiance of a Party member is to the Soviet Union, 
the fatherland, rather than to the United States. 

A document in which the defense of the Soviet Union is urged. The 
Communist Party: A Manual On Organization, by J. Peters, was used 
during the 1940's as reference material by CPUSA officials. 

Students at the Communist Midwest Training School in Chicago^ 
were taught in December 1945, that the Communist forces throughout 
the world owe their allegiance to the Soviet Union. Party members 
were taught at Respondent's meetings in 1948 that they owe aflegiance 
to the "democratic forces" of the world and that the Soviet Unioa 
represents such forces. 

Petitioner's witness Lautner, a former high official of Respondent, 
learned from his varied experience in the Party from November 1929 
untfl January 17, 1950, that the primary duty of a CPUSA member 
lies in the defense of the Soviet Union. A CPUSA leader in Novem- 
ber 1950 denounced the United States for inciting war against the 
Soviet Union. He urged Party members to respond to "imperialist 
slanders and war!incitements" by an "ideological and political offem- 

32491—53 9 


sive in the defense of the Soviet Union as the leader of the world camp 
of peace, democracy and Socialism," as well as "to support and defend 
the peace policy of the Soviet Union." 

This evidence takes on clearer meanino; when it is viewed against 
the Marxist-Leninist concept of "imperialism", and its corollary "just 
and unjust wars." ^^ 

The Classics are specific on the question of war as is exemplified by 
the follo%nng quotation from the Iliston/ of the Communist Party of 
the Soviet Union {Bolsheviks) (Pet. Ex. 330, pp. 167-168): 

It was not to every kind of war that the Bolsheviks were opposed. They were 
only opposed to wars of conquest, imperialist wars. The Bolsheviks held that 
there are two kinds of war: 

(a) Just wars, wars that are not wars of conquest but wars of liberation, waged 
to defend the people from foreign attack and from attempts to enslave them, or to 
liberate the people from capitalist slavery, or, lastly, to liberate colonies and 
dependent countries from the yoke of imperialism; and 

(b) Unjust wars, wars of conquest, waged to conquer and enslave foreign 
countries and foreign nations. 

Wars of the first kind the Bolsheviks supported. As to wars of the second kind, 
the Bolsheviks maintained that a resolute struggle must be waged against them 
to the point of revolution and the overthrow of one's own imperialist government. 

In applying this basic concept, it was taught at the Lenin School in 
Moscow, and by Respondent at its schools and meetings during its 
entire existence, that a "just" war is any war in which the Soviet 
Union has as an adversary an imperialist power, regardless of whether 
the Soviet Union is the aggressor or the defender; and that any war 
between a colony and its mother coimtry is a "just" war for the colony. 
Conversely, any war against the Soviet Union, regardless of which 
nation might be the aggressor, is an "unjust" war for the Soviet 
Union's adversary. 

Li the event of war between two capitalist countries, the Com- 
munist role is to work for the destruction of both, thus leaving to the 
Soviet Union a clear path for future con(|uest. ^- In the event of a war 
between the Soviet Union and the United States, however, CPUSA 
members are to work for the defeat of the United States. 

The students at the National Trahiing School of the CPI'SA in 
New York City hi about 1932, were taught that hi the event of such a 
war, it was the dut}' of every Communist to help defeat the United 
States and to secure the victory of the Soviet Red Army; and that 
Communist cells in the American armed forces should work for tlu> 
demoralization of such forces. 

Browder stated in 1938, that in the (>vent of a war between the 
Communist and non-Communist worlds, the task of the Party is to 
work for the victory of tlie Soviet Union, and woild Cominunisni. 

The CPUSA, adhering to the priiui])les of Marxism-J^i-ninism, 
has consistently characterized the United States as an "imperalist" 
and a "capitalist" nation wliich by definition can ]3articipate only in 
"unjust" wars. Any war among capitalist countries or l)y a capitalist 
nation against a "socialist" country, such as the Soviet I'nion, is 
considered by Respondent to be an "unjust" war. However, the 
Soviet rnioii or iiny other "socialist" countries are uph(>ld as "anti- 
im])e]-ialist" nations which cannot possibly start an "unjust" war; 
any war ])articipated in by "socialist" nations is considered by 

'I See, pp. 21-44, supra. 

" It is interestini; to advert here to the history of the Nazi-Soviet Pact as related in our fludings herein 
under Nondeviulioii, pp. 82-83, supra. 


Respondent to be a "just" war from the standpoint of such nations. 
In fact, in 1949, Foster and Dennis, leaders of Respondent, vvi-ote in 
the Party publication, Daily Worker, that Respondent would oppose 
a "Wall Street" war as "unjust, aggressive, and imperialist." Thus, 
the war in Korea is considered b}' Respondent to be a "Wall Street" 
war. In this connection, the United States has been portrayed by 
Respondnent as the leader of all the imperialist nations bent on world 
conquest, while the Soviet Union is pictured as the peace-loving 
leader of the anti-imperialist nations. 

In 1940, Eugne Dennis discussed with witness Budenz the steps 
to be taken by Respondent to turn the "imperialist" war into a civil 
war hi this country, should the United States jom with Great Britain 
against the Hitler-Stalin combine. 

Students were taught in CPUSA schools in 1941 and 1947, that 
imperialism is worldwide and that a worldwide organization is neces- 
sary to bring about its downfall; further, that the world Communist 
movement is such an organization. 

In December 1948, Henry Winston, National Organizational 
Secretary and a member of Respondent's National Committee, 
stated that the question of industrial concentration and placing of 
members of the CPUSA youth movement in the basic industries was 
particularly important at that time because, in the event of an 
"imperialist" war, their presence would be necessary in order to 
mobilize workers against this war, to slow down production, and to do 
whatever possible to make certain that such an "unjust" war is not 
successful. Winston is one of those convicted of a violation of the 
Smith Act, referred to earlier. 

The position the CPUSA stressed in 1949 ^^ was that there were 
two camps in the world: one, the "imperialist" camp led by the 
United States, and the other camp of the "forces for peace and 
democracy" led by the Soviet Union; and, that everything must b^ 
done to support the latter as against the former. In order to accom- 
plish this objective. Respondent took the position that it should build 
and expand its Marxist-Leninist ideology. 

At a secret meeting of Respondent in Baltimore in 1949, it was 
agreed that its members would not bear arms for the United States 
in the event of any conflict between the United States and the Soviet 

Students at the Alarxist-Leninist Institute in Los Angeles from 
April 1949 to June 1950, were taught that the Soviet Union could at 
no time start an "unjust" war while the United States could start an 
''unjust" war but never a "just" one; further, that a good Communist 
must support a nation engaging in a "just" war and oppose an "un- 
just" war. 

The position of the CPUSA at the present time is that the Korean 
War is an "unjust" war which the United States and her allies are 
waging as aggressors against the North Korean and Chinese peoples.^* 

From the evidence contained in this record, we find that Respondent 
exists in this country fundamentally for the purpose, which it constant- 
ly seeks to accomplish, of overthrowing the Government of the United 
States by force and violence, in order to install "socialism" under the 
dictatorship of the proletariat, after the manner of the Soviet Union; 
this is the very antithesis of allegiance to the United States. 

•3 See also Imperialism re this position of Respondent, p. 49, supra. 
M See NondeviatioD, p. 84, supra. 


We find upon the whole record that the evidence preponderantly 
establishes that Respondent's leaders and its members consider the 
allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their 
loyalty and obligations to the Soviet Union. 

II. Legal Discussion 

Respondent attacks the Recommended Decision asserting it does 
not fulfill its function, and that it cannot be relied upon by the Board 
because it allegedly misstates the record, fails to present relevant 
matters, and confuses the record and issues. Respondent sets forth 
specific instances which it contends are illustrative of the above 
alleged errors. 

We have heretofore reviewed these matters, along with Respondent's 
overall exception to the Recommended Decision (No. 310), in dis- 
posing of its motion of November 24, 1952, to strike the Decision. 
As indicated in our Memorandum Opinion and Order of Februar}^ 24, 
1953, denying Respondent's motion, we have completely analyzed 
and evaluated anew all the evidence in this proceeding, considering 
all exceptions and contentions of the Parties. Our findings in this 
report contain only that su})stance from the Recommended Decision, 
which we, after an independent evaluation of the record, have con- 
firmed as being supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Respondent next contends that the Panel admitted both oral and 
documentary evidence of Petitioner without a proper foundation of 
competency. It cites examples which it claims are egregious. Re- 
spondent argues that while allowing boundless latitude to Petitioner, 
the Panel erroneously curtailed its cross-examination of all of Peti- 
tioner's witnesses, as well as the submission of its proof. It asserts 
that the Panel erred in refusing to require production of reports and 
memoranda turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by 
'Petitioner's witnesses, in restricting its cross-examination designed 
to show that Petitioner's witnesses were not credible, in excluding 
"various" exhibits offered b}^ Respondent, and in its rulings regarding 
the evidence relating to the nondeviation criterion of the Act.'* We 
have considered each of these specific allegations and we find no 
substantive error regarding the matters alleged by Respondent. Nor 
can we find any reasonable justification for Respondent's assertion that 
the Panel restricted its proof and its cross-examination of witnesses. 
It is noteworthy that Respondent cross-examined Petitioner's wit- 
nesses exhaustively and at great length. It was afforded every 
opportunity to present all material and relevant evidence, to the fullest. 
Any shortcomings in this respect must lie with Respondent. 

Respondent further contends that the Rocommondod Decision 
does not rest on evidence of its activities subsequent to the effective 
date of the Act, but rather that it rests on certain "props" which 
assertedly are contrary to the evidence and the law. Respondent 
defines these "props" as the Panel's suggestion that the dissolution 
of the Comintern in 1943 was not real and that there is some relation- 
ship between Respondent and the Conunfrom; the Panel's conception 
(a) of Marzism-Leninism, (b) of the Comintern, (c) that Respondent's 
disaffiliation therefrom ui 1940 was not real, and (d) that the formation 

M We have disposed of this latter contention in our discussion concerning nondeviation, pp. 79-82, supra. 


of the Communist Political Association and the reconstitution of the 
CPUSA were on orders from Moscow. 

Specifically with respect to the Panel's concept of Marxism-Leninism 
and its reliance thereon, Respondent argues that the decision in 
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, "held that the principles 
of Marxism-Leninism, as expressed in classical Marxist-Leninist 
literature, could reasonably be understood so as to be consistent with 
being 'attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United 
States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the 
same.' " Further, it contends that it is a violation of the First 
Amendment and the holding in Dennis v. United States (339 U. S. 162), 
to consider as evidence of "guilt" under the Act the belief in, or dis- 
cussion of, Marxist-Leninist principles and literature (p. 57). After 
due study and deliberation of the foregoing decisions we conclude that 
they are in no sense res judicata of, or applicable to, the issues in this 
proceeding, nor do they in any way preclude the findings and dis- 
position we have made herein. After consideration of these decisions 
we made detailed findings regarding Marxism-Leninism, which have 
beer set forth above; they are based upon a preponderance of the 
evidence of record and we deem it unnecessary tp discuss them further. 
Respondent's position with respect to the so-called "props" of the 
Recommended Decision is untenable. We have, however, considered 
these propositions and to the extent, and in the form, they appear 
in om- findings in this report they are not subject to the infirmities 

Respondent has repeatedly urged that the issue of whether it is a 
Communist-action organization must be resolved by evidence of its 
activities and status during the period between the effective date of 
the Act (September 23, 1950), and the date of the petition (November 
23, 1950). Proceeding on this basis, it has continually attacked the 
reception and use of evidence pertaining to its activities and status 
prior to the Act. Initially, it raised the question concerning pre-Act 
evidence in its motion to dismiss the petition. In disposing of this 
contention we ruled in our Memorandum Opinion and Order of 
January 24, 1951, denying the motion, that evidence of conduct or 
activities which occurred prior to the passage of the Act may be of 
probative value to establish issues coming into existence after the ef- 
fective date of the Act and, if so, could be received. Respondent 
now argues that the Panel, in its Recommended Decision, while giving 
^lip service" to the Board's ruling, completely "negatives" it by 
relying on a legal presumption of continuation of a condition. Res- 
pondent further argues that no such legal presumption exists when, 
as here, there has been a change of law (enactment of the Act) which 
attaches sanction to previously innocent conduct. It stresses that, 
if such a presumption existed, it was nevertheless "illegitimate" 
for the Panel to rely thereon in the face of the uncontradicted testi- 
mony of its witnesses. It further argues in this connection that the 
use of pre-Act evidence by the Panel amounted to an unconstitutional 
*'ex post facto" application of the Act and was contrary to its provisions. 

As is apparent, evidence relating to periods throughout Respondent's 
entire history has been received and properly so under our aforemen- 
tioned ruling on this point. In order to resolve the issues presented 
here, it is advisable, if not necessary, to consider Respondent's entire 


In reaching our conclusion lierein we have considered and weighed 
comniensurately, tlierefore, such pre-Act evidence as reasonably tends 
to establish or illuminate the present nature, activities, character, and 
status of Respondent in connection N\ith the issues presented for 
decision. We believe that in so doing there has been no violation of 
the Act itself or any ex post Jacio or other unconstitutional application 
thereof. As the Supreme Court of the United States Jias stated "pres- 
ent events have roots in the past." This is particularly true in this 
proceeding where consideration thereof brought to light facts, and 
raised presumptions and inferences tending to show Respondent's 
true current purpose, as well as the nature of its present conduct. 
We have been able to trace Respondent's operations over more than 
thirty years into the present and have found that at no time during 
this period has Respondent changed its fundamental objectives, or 
its natiu'e and purpose. There are no protestations of repentance and 
reform; and, though Respondent continually points to its "disaffilia- 
tion" from the Communist International, for example, as a severance 
of its relationship with international Communism, a study of its 
pre-Act existence properly enabled us to adjudge that this was, at 
most, only a superficial act designed in the interest of domestic political 
expediency to circumvent adverse legislation (Voorhis Act). 

It would have been unwarranted by law to compel Petitioner to 
restrict its proof to fragmentary evidence confined to a relatively 
minute portion of Respondent's existence, i. e., the two-month period 
between the passage of the Act and the filing of the petition. Our 
determination on this question is supported bv the authorities. 
United States v. Schneiderman et al. (106 Fed. Supp. 892, 898-900); 
United States v. Dennis et al. (183 F. 2d 201, 231-32); F. T. C. v. 
Cement Institute et al. (333 U. S. 683, 704-706); N. L. R. B. v. 
Pacific Greyhound Lines (91 F. 2d. 458, 459). 

The law assumes in the absence of proof to the contrary, which 
Respondent did not establisli to our satisfaction, that a condition or 
set of facts shown not too remotely in the past (all circumstances 
considered) to have existed, still continues. In the crrcumstances here 
presented we do not consider that the passage of the Act, in and of 
itself, affects this presumption respecting Respondent. In addition 
thereto, the record contains ample post-Act evidence which, when 
illuminated, supports our finding. 

It should be noted in the latter connection that Respondent further 
contends that there is insufficient post-Act evidence in the record to 
support the Panel's finding against it. As this contention is really 
part and parcel of the foregoing, we shall not consider it further. 

Suffice to say, our finding herein, that Respondent is a Communist- 
action organization, is clearly supported by a preponderance of the 
probative evidence of record. 

Respondent also takes the position that Petitioner is required to 
prove the existence of a workl Communist movement having the 
characteristics described in S(>cti(ui 2 of the Act, and that it has failed 
to do so. It asserts the finding made by the Panel concerning the 
objective of the world Communist movement is irrelevant and un- 
supported by the evidence. In view of the fact that we have heretofore 
found on this record that a world Conmnmist movement exists, sub- 
stantially as described in Section 2 of the Act, it is unnecessary to 
discuss whether such a finding is required. The evidence stated in our 


findings on the world Communist movement ^® as well as the other 
findings in this report plainly establish the existence of an international 
Communist movement organized and directed by the Soviet Union, 
which conforms substantially to that described by the Congress in 
Section 2 of the Act. Respondent does not contend that there is 
more than one world Communist movement in existence and it is 
incorrect to state that the movement found herein is not sufficiently 
identified with that described in Section 2. 

Throughout this proceeding Respondent has attacked the consti- 
tutionality of the Act and has contended that it was being adminis- 
tered in an unconstitutional manner. As we have previously ruled, 
the constitutionality of the Act is not properly an issue before us; 
and we presume that the Act is constitutional. We shall, therefore, 
address ourselves to the latter group of contentions. In this con- 
nection Respondent, during the hearing, in its briefs, exceptions, and 
supporting memorandum has persistently charged violations of the 
Bill of Rights of the Constitution. It contends that it violates the 
First Amendment to use as evidence, to base findings on, or to draw 
conclusions from its conduct and various statements relating to what 
it teaches in its schools, materials used in connection therewith such 
as books, study outlines and reading lists, statements by it or its 
leaders as contained in various publications including the Daily 
Worker, Political Affairs, and For a Lasting Peace, jor a Peo'ple^s 
Democracy and the Marxist-Leninist Classics, and other important 
documents. On this basis it takes exception to statements in the 
Recommended Decision which, among others, are quotations from 
its various publications or Marxist-Leninist Classics, and to findings 
concerning the source, nature, and content of Marxism-Leninism, the 
world Communist movement, its leader and its objective, as well as 
the finding that it is a Communist-action organization. 

Respondent further contends that the various findings of the 
Recommended Decision together with the recommendation that the 
Board enter an order requiring it to register as a Communist-action 
organization violate the Fifth Amendment. As best we can ascertain, 
this contention, that due process of law has not been accorded it, 
has a dual aspect. The first is a corollary to Respondent's assertion 
that much of the evidence in this proceeding violates the First Amend- 
ment, and the other, that irrespective of this it is none the less violative 
of the Fifth Amendment to find against Respondent on this record. 
Moreover, Respondent argues that the testimony of Petitioner's wit- 
nesses who were "planted in the CPUS as FBI informers, should 
have geen [sic] excluded under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amend- 

Although it is extremely difficult in many instances to determine 
from Respondent's general allegations exactly the specific bases of 
its contentions, we have reviewed these contentions with great care 
and have examined their many aspects as they apply to our report 
herein. We find that no violation of Respondent's constitutional 
rights has been committed in this proceeding. To adopt Respondent's 
theory of what conprises constitutionally protected conduct and ex- 
pression would result in closing to Petitioner legal avenues of proof. 

In conjunction with its contentions respecting violations of the 
Fifth Amendment we have also examined Respondent's general asser- 

" Pp. 4 to 9, supra. 


tion, often repeated, that a fair and impartial hearing has not been 
accorded it. From our analysis of the record, we find that Respond- 
ent has been accorded a fair and impartial hearing, and a full measure 
of due process of law. 


The evidence in this proceeding discloses the history and activities 
of the Communist Party of the United States (Respondent herein) 
over the period of its entire existence. From its inception in 1919, 
it has been a subsidiary and puppet of the Soviet Union. 

Since the late 1930's, when it was faced with adverse legislation, 
Respondent has become increasingly diligent and resourceful in its 
efforts to appear as a domestic political party while continuing its 
subservience to the Soviet Union. Many of its practices were con- 
trived to conceal its revolutionary objectives. Thus, it continues as 
an avowed Marxist-Leninist organization but, except to initiates, 
disclaims so much of Marxis.m-Lcninism as would endanger its con- 
tinued legal existence to espouse. As in the present proceeding, 
this frequently entails disavowing the core of Marxism-Leninism. 

Consequently, Respondent is met with the dilemma of appearing to 

reject but yet maintain its reason for being. As our findings in this 

report reveal, this dual role is so fundamentally incongi-uous as to 

1 be incapable of fulfillment under scrutiny. It is so innate in Respond- 

\ ent's nature that it seek and accept Soviet Union direction and control 

1 that, in actuality, it does not function as the purely domestic political 

\ party whose role it would, de jure, assume. Rather, nurtured by the 

I Soviet Union, it labors unstintingly to advance the world Communist 


With consummate patience, the Party strives for the establishment 
of a dictatorship of the proletariat in the United States; a goal which 
would rob the American people of the freedoms they have forged. 
While using the cloak of the United States Constitution, it struggles 
unremittingly to synthesize from the complexities of our time a 
condition in this country which would enable it to shackle our institu- 
tions and preside over a Soviet America, under the hegemony of the 
Soviet Union. 

Upon the overwhelming weight of the evidence in this proceeding, 
we find that Respondent is substantially directed, dominated, and 
controlled by the Soviet Union, which controls the world Communist 
movement referred to in Section 2 of the Act; and that Respondent 
operates primarily to advance the objectives of such world Communist 

Accordingly, we find that the Communist Party of the l^'nited States 
is a Communist-action organization and required to register as such 
with the Attorney General of the United States under Section 7 of 
the Act. 

An appropriate order will be entered. 

By the Board: 

(Signed) Peter Campbell Brown, 

(Signed) Kathryn >rcHALE, 


(Signed) Watson B. Miller, 


Dated: April 20, 1953, at Washington, D. C. 


CoDDAiRE, Member (concurring): 

On the basis of the testimony, the documentary material, and the 
Recommended Decision, all of which I have carefully read and 
studied, I am fully in accord with and concur in the findings and in the 
determination that the Respondent herein, the Communist Party of 
the United States of America, is a Communist-action organization 
under subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Act and required to register 
as such under Section 7. Since the Respondent has attempted by its 
briefs and arguments to eviscerate the Act and this proceeding, and 
since issues of far-reaching importance have been raised, I deem it 
desirable to set forth my understanding as to the nature and scope of 
the Board's Order issued herein. Proper understanding of the nature 
and scope of the Board's Report and Order does much to eliminate 
Respondent's contentions against the Act and the application of the 
Act to the Respondent. 

The Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 marks the beginning 
of a new stage in the development of public policy against un-American 
^nd subversive activities. The Board has been launched as a quasi- 
judicial agency for the carrying-out of the fact-finding and resultant 
adjudicatory aspects of a statutory scheme for, inter alia, identification 
of foreign dominated and foreign controlled organizations which 
operate in the United States primarily to carry out the evils found by 
Congress to be present in the world Communist movement. 

Of particular importance are the facts that, in my opinion at least, 
registration proceedings before the Board are not criminal proceedings 
and reasonable registration in the public interest is not punishment. 
The result of the Board's order is not to outlaw the Communist Party 
nor is it punitive for past conduct. This proceeding is concerned solely 
with what amounts to the determination of a status. The order has, 
in effect, a forward-looking function aimed at registration or identi- 
fication, as do many regulatory measures. 

Respondent's main legal objections involve what it calls an improper 
use of pre-Act evidence, and a "built-in verdict" whereby under the 
Act the Board has no discretion other than to find as it has. These 
contentions, particularly when viewed against the nature and scope 
of the Board's Order as set forth above, are devoid of merit. The 
Board's Report treats with the question of pre-Act evidence and 
further elaboration is not necessary other than to emphasize that it 
is clearly proper, in my opinion, to base the determination of a status, 
or of characteristics, upon past and current facts whose weight we 
have strictly weighed. 

Regarding the many arguments advanced by the Respondent in 
connection with its "built-in verdict" contention, the short answer is 
that the facts which have been ascertained in our Report, as estab- 
lished upon the formal record made in this proceeding, clearly and 
unequivocally show the Respondent to be a Communist-action 
organization as defined in the Act. Although there is no need for 
the Board to express an opinion on the constitutional questions raised 
by the Respondent, and I do not presume to do so, I can see nothing 
illegal per se in that the proofs in this proceeding establish the Respond- 
ent to be characteristically just the type of organization which the 
registration provisions of the Act cover. 

(Signed) David J. Coddaire, 

Dated: April 20th, 1953, at Washington, D. C. 



The Witnesses 

Twenty-two witnesses appeared for Petitioner, nineteen of whom were former 
members of Respondent. Three witnesses appeared for Respondent, all of whom 
are members of the CPUSA. The periods or membership appear in parentheses 
after the names of witnesses. An asterisk appears after the names of witnesses 
who joined or rejoined Respondent as a result of conference with the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation. 

Petitioner's Witnesses 


Bereniece Baldwin* 0943-1952): Membership director of Party Club in 1943; 
delegate to Michigan State Communist Party Convention in 1944; handled 
registration and membership records for Michigan District in 1947-1948; 
secretary of Partv Section 1947-1950. 

John Victor Blanc* (1934-1936; 1944-1949): Attended CPUSA schools in 1947 
and 1948; dues secretary of Party Club in 1944; press and literature director 
for Party Club; organized and was chairman of Party Club 1947-1949; attended 
Ohio State Communist Party Convention in 1945, 1947 and 1948. 

Louis Francis Budenz (193.5-1945): Member, Xew York State Trade Union 
Committee, 1936-1937; labor editor of the Daibj Worker, 1936-1937; member 
of Respondent's National Committee, 1936-1940; member of Illinois State 
Committee, 1937-1940; editor, Midwest Daily Record, 1937-1940; member of 
New York State Committee, 1940; president of Freedom of Press Company, 
Inc., 1940-1941; managing editor. Daily Worker, 1941-1945; alternate member, 
National Committee of Communist Political Association, 1944-1945. 

Paul Crouch (1927-1942): Member of Y'oung Workers League; chairman, 
CPUSA National Anti-Military Commission, 1928; member, National Y'oung 
Communist League Secretariat, 1929; editor of the Young Worker, 1929; dele- 
gate, CPUSA National Convention, 1929, 1934, 1936, 1938 and 1940; National 
Secretary, Anti-Imperialist League; instructor in various CPUSA schools: 
CPUSA organizer in various Districts and officer in various District organiza- 

William Garfield Cummings* (1943-1949): Press director, secretary, vice 
chairman, and chairman of Party Clubs; member, Ohio State Communist Party 
Committee; delegate to Ohio State Communist Partv Convention, 1945 and 
1948; delegate to CPUSA National Convention, 1948." 

Timothy Evans, Jr.* (1948-1952): Chairman of Party Club; delegate to CPUSA 
regional convention in 1951; group leader and section educational director in 
1951; assigned as "underground" member of CPUSA in summer 1951. 

Benjamin Gitlow (1919-1929): Helped organize Respondent in 1919: member of 
Labor Committee and National Committee of Communist Labor Party; mem- 
ber of Political Committee (governing bodv) for most of time as member of 
Respondent; member of Secretariat, 1927-1929; General Secretary, 1928-1929; 
member, E.xecutive Committee of Red International Trade Union, 1928-1929; 
present at conferences in Moscow, 1927, 1928, 1929; member, E.xecutive Com- 
mittee of the Communist International, 1928-1929. 

Balmes Hidal(;o* (1946-1949): Membership director of Party Club; financial 
secretary of Party Club; press director of Party Section; attended Party leader- 
ship school, 1947. 

Nathaniel Homc (1927-1939): Discussion leader in Party Unit; employed by 
Daily Worker; editor. Timber Worker, 1937-1938, also editor of Labor Unity, 
1930-1934; attended CPUSA National Convention, 1929-1934; teacher at 
Lenin School in Moscow, 1934-1935; representative of Trade Union Unity 
League to Red International of Labor Unions (Profintern) in Moscow; manag- 
ing editor of Western Worker, 1936-1937. 

John Edward Janowitz* (1943-1952): Member of various Party Clubs and 
Shop Units; alternate delegate to CPUSA Ohio State Convention. 1950. 

Manning Johnson (1930-1940): CPUSA district organizer and district Agita- 
tion and Propaganda director; National Negro organizer for Trade Union 
Unity League; member, CPL^SA National Committee Trade Union Commis- 
sion; member, Negro Commission of National Committee; member, CPLTSA 
National Committee, 1936-1938; student at CPUSA schools. 


Joseph Kornfeder (1919-1934): Helped organize Respondent in 1919; Branch 
organizer, 1919-1920; member, Central Committee, 1920-1924 and 1926-1928; 
labor union activities director, 1921-1922, eastern area director, 1920-1927; 
member, district committee and district bureau of Ohio, 1932-1934; general 
secretary. Trade Union Unity Council of New York; member, district bureaus 
and district committees; attended Lenin School in Moscow 1927-1930; Com- 
munist International representative in South America, 1930 and 1931. 

John Latjtner (1929-1950) : District Secretary of CPUSA National Hungarian 
Bureau in various States during 1930-1941; organizer in CPUSA sections and 
districts 1933 and 1936; director, CPUSA National Training School for Hun- 
garian members, 1932; head of New York State Communist Party Review 
Commission, Fall 1947; member of CPUSA National Review Commission and 
in charge of security for New York State Party, 1948-1950. 

Mary Stalcup Markward* (1943-1949): Chairman, Party Club in 1944; 
membership director and treasurer for City of Washington, 1944; City Com- 
mittee for Washington, D. C, 1945; member, District Committee, 1945 and 
1948; visitor at Party National Convention in 1944. 

Harvey M. Mattjsow (1947-1951): Member of various Party youth clubs; 
employee of Jefferson School and manager of Camp Unity Book Store in 1948; 
Press Literature and Educational director of youth club, 1948-1949; employed 
at New York County Party headquarters in 1949; acting National Literature 
Director of the Labor Youth League and member, N. Y. State Executive Com- 
mittee of the League during 1949 and early 1950; State literature director, 
New York Labor Youth League. 

Frank Straus Meyer (1934-1945): Transferred from British Communist 
Party; worked in Paris for British Communist Party in 1934; associated with 
British Young Communist League's Secretariat of the Central Committee; 
active in youth work in United States and Canada while a member of CPUSA; 
Area secretary, youth section, American League Against War and Fascism; 
Educational Director of Party Section, 1935-1937; Director, Chicago Workers' 
School and District Educational Director, 1938-1941; District Membership 
Director and Assistant Organizational Secretary, 1941-1942; instructor at 
Jefferson School, 1944. 

William Odell Nowell (1929-1936) : Student, instructor, and director in 
Communist Party School in Detroit, Michigan; member and secretary of Dis- 
trict Negro Commission, 1929; member of Michigan District Bureau and 
District Secretariat, 1930; member and later President of the Detroit Chapter 
of the Anti-Imperialist League, 1929; member. International Labor Defense, 
1929; organizer, American Negro Labor Congress, 1929; Communist Party 
organizer in Auto Workers Union and Union representative to founding con- 
vention of Trade Union Unity League, 1929; manager, Workers' Book Store, 
Detroit, L930; circulation manager of Daihj Worker and Education Director in 
Michigan District; attended Lenin School, Moscow, 1931; Communist Party 
delegate to a celebration of Russian Revolution in Moscow, 1929; representa- 
tive of Trade Union Unity League to Profintern. 

Herbert A. Philbrick* (1944-1949) : Joined Massachusetts Youth Council in 
1940 and was later chairman; joined Young Communist League in 1942 and 
American Youth for Democracy in 1943; member, Communist Party State 
Education Commission of Massachusetts; chairman, Massacusetts Communist 
Party leaflet production; alternate delegate, Massachusetts Communist Politi- 
cal Association Convention, 1945; State treasurer, American Youth for Democ- 
racy, 1943-1945; Cell Organizer, 1944; attended Communist Party Training 
School, 1945; District Educational Director, 1947; Professional Group Litera- 
ture Director, 1947-1949. 

Daniel Scarletto* (1947-1952) : Member of various Communist Party Clubs in 
1947-1948; Press Director, El Sereno Club, 1948; Club organizational secretary, 
Mexican Concentration Club, 1948-1951: transferred to "underground" 
January 1951. 

B. petitioner's witnesses — never members of or connected with 


John W. Carrington: Clerk of the Un-American Activities Committee of the 
House of Representatives. This witness was subpoenaed by the Attorney 
General in this proceeding to produce and authenticate, in his official capacity, 
certain documents from the files of the House Un-American Activities Com- 


Alexander Logofet: Born and educated in Russia. Formerly employed by the 
Czarist government. Presently Russian interpreter for International Conferences 
for the Department of State. This witness was subpoenaed by the Attorney 
Greneral in the instant proceeding to translate a document in the Russian 
language. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3.) 

Philip K. Mosely: Director of the Russian Institute: Professor of International 
Relations, Columbia University. Dr. Mosely testified as an expert for the 
Attorney General in regard to the allegations of the Petition under Section 13 (e) 
(2) of the Act. 

Respondent's Witnesses 

Herbert Aptheker (1939 to present): Dr. Aptheker testified as an expert on 
Marxism-I>eninism. Member of a Brooklyn Communist Party Club, 1940- 
1941; teacher, Jefferson School of Social Science, 1946 to present; editor, Masses 
and Main Stream, 1948 to present; managing editor. Political Affairs — about 
1950 to present; trustee, Jefferson School, New York City, 1950 to present. 

Elizapeth Gurley Flynn (1937 to present): Member, National Committee, 
1938 to present; chairman of Women's Commission of Communist Party, 1945 to 
present; chairman of Defense Commission, CPUSA, 1948 to present; columnist 
for Daily Worker, 1937 to present: delegate to Congress of Women for Peace, 
Paris, 1945; member. Political Bureau, later called National Board, 1941-1946, 
1948; representative of Daily Worker at 80th birthday party for Marcel Cachin 
in Paris, 1949; representative of CPUSA to French Communist Party Congress, 

John Gates (1933 to present): Member of Young Communist League, 1931; 
organizer for the League, 1932-1937; organizer of various clubs in Youngstown 
and member of the Section Committee, 1933-1937: member. International 
Brigade in Spanish Civil War in 1938 and rose to rank of Brigade Political 
Commissar (Lt. Col.); National Executive Secretary, Friends of Abraham 
Lincoln Brigade. 1939; National Education Director of Young Communist 
League, 1939-1940; "Head", Young Communist League for New York State, 
1940; United States Army, December 17, 1941 -January 17, 1946; elected 
member. National Council Communist Political .\ssociation in absentia, 1944; 
elected member of National Committee of Communist Party in absentia, 1945; 
National Vets Director Communist Party, 1946-1947; member National Com- 
mittee, Communist Party, 1946 to present; chairman. National Legi.slative 
Commission, 1947-1951; member, National Board, Communist Party, 1947 
until it was discontinued; editor. Daily Worker, 1947 to present; chairman. 
National Review Commission, 1951. 


A list of publications of major importance in this proceeding which were received 
in evidence in whole or in part, follows: 
Pet. Ex. 8: Theses and Statutes of The Third (Communist) International, published 

officially by the Commimist International in Moscow in 1920. Reprinted by 

the United Communist Party of America (a former designation of Respondent). 
Pet. Ex. 31: The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 

Copyrighted in the United States in 1948, the 100th Anniversary edition 

published by International Publishers Company, Inc. " 
Pet. Ex. 121: Foundations of Leninism, by J. Stalin, copyrighted in the United 

States in 1939, published by International Publishers Company, Inc. 
Pet. Ex. 125: Programme Of The Communist International, copyrighted in the 

United States in 1929, published by the Workers Library Publishers, Inc. 
Pet. Ex. 137: Resolutions, Seventh Congress Of The Communist Interantional, 

published in 1935 bj' Workers Library Publishers. 
Pet. Ex. 138: Problems of Leninism, h\ J. Stalin, copyrighted in the United States 

in 1934, published by International Publisliers Company, Inc. 
Pet. Ex. 139: State and Revolution, by Lenin, copyrighted in the United States in 

1932, publi.shed by International Publishers Company, Inc. 
Pet. Ex. 140: Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, by Lenin, copyrighted 

in the United States in 1939, published by International Publishers Company, 


•' International Publishers Company, Inc., New York City, is beaded by Ale.xandor Trachtenburg, a 
leading member of Respondent. 


Pet. Ex. 141 : Working Class Unity-Bulwark Against Fascism, by Georgi Dimitroff, 

published by Workers Library Publishers in 1935. 
Pet. Ex. 145: The Communist Party, A Manual On Organization, by J. Peters, 

published by Workers Library Publishers, July 1935. 
Pet. Ex. 149: The United Front, The Struggle Against Fascism And War, by 

Georgi Dimitroff, copyrighted in the United States in 1938, published by 

International Publishers Company, Inc. 
Pet. Ex. 330: History Of The Communist Party Of The Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) , 

edited and authorized by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of 

the Soviet Union, copyrighted in the United States in 1939, published by 

International Publishers Company, Inc. 
Pet. Ex. 335: Mastering Bolshevism, by J. Stalin, published in 1946 by New- 
Century Publishers. 
Pet. Ex. 343: Strategy and Tactics Of The Proletarian Revolution, copyrighted in 

the United States in 1936, published by International Publishers Company, 

Pet. Ex. 417: What Is To Be Done? by Lenin, copyrighted in the United States 

in 1929, published by International Publishers Company, Inc. 
Pet. Ex. 422: The Theory Of The Proletarian Revolution, copyrighted in the 

United States in 1936, published by International Publishers Company, Inc. 
Pet. Ex. 423: The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat, copyrighted in the United 

States in 1936, published by International Publishers Company, Inc. 


Docket No. 51-101 

Herbert Browjsiell, Jr., Attorney Gejsteral of the United 
States, petitioner, v. The Communist Party of the United 
States of America, respondent 


The Board having this day issued its Report in which it finds and 
determines that the Communist Party of the United States of America, 
respondent herein, is a Communist-action organization under the 
provisions of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950; 

It is ORDERED that the said respondent, the Communist Party of 
the United States of America, shall register as a Communist-action 
organization under and pursuant to section 7 of the Subversive 
Activities Control Act of 1950, and 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that if the Communist Party of the United 
States of America fails to comply with the registration requirements 
of said Act, pursuant to the above Order, then each and every section, 
branch, fraction, or cell of said respondent shaU register in accordance 
with the requirements of said Act. 
By the Board: 

(Signed) Peter Campbell Brown, 

(Signed) Kathryn McHale, 

(Signed) Damd J. Coddaire, 

(Signed) Watson B. Miller, 

Washington 25, D. C, April 20, 1953. 





3 9999 05445 4630