r^
^
cM'J^'bi:)iLJ^<X/^{)U:,
"^
Given By
U. S. SUPT. OF DOCUMENTS
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN
PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES
(Communist Party)
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIYES
SEVENTY-NINTH CONGKESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H. Res. 5
TO INVESTIGATE (1) THE EXTENT, CHARACTER, AND
OBJECTS OF UN-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES IN
THE UNITED STATES, (2) THE DIFFUSION WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES OF SUBVERSIVE AND UN-AMERICAN PROP-
AGANDA THAT IS INSTIGATED FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES
OR OF A DOMESTIC ORIGIN AND ATTACKS THE PRINCIPLE
OF THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AS GUARANTEED BY
OUR CONSTITUTION, AND (3) ALL OTHER QUESTIONS IN
RELATION THERETO THAT WOULD AID CONGRESS IN ANY
NECESSARY REMEDIAL LEGISLATION
SEPTEMBER 26, 27, OCTOBER 17, 18, 19, 1945
AT WASHINGTON, D. C.
Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83078 WASHINGTON : 1946
^^
./•■)
^
hm 25 1946
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
JOHN S. WOOD, Georgia, Chairman
rOHN B. RANKIN, Mississippi
r. HARDIN PETERSON, Florida
r. W. ROBINSON, Utah
rOHN R. MURDOCK, Arizona
aERBERT C. BONNER, North Carolina
Ernie Adamson, Counsel
JOHN W. Carrington, Clerk
II
J. PARNELL THOMAS, New Jersey
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
GERALD W. LANDIS, Indiana
APPENDIX
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Un-Amekican Activities,
Washington, D. C, Wednesday, September 26, lOJfS.
EXEOUTTVE SESSION
The committee met in Executive Session at 10 : 02 o'clock a. m., Hon. John E.
Bankiu presiding.
Mr. Rankin. Proceed, Mr. Adamson.
Mr. Adamson. I will bring Mr. Browder in. He was out here a few minutes ago.-
(Mr. Wood, chairman of the committee, took the chair.)
Mr. Rankin. Let the Sergeant come In. Let the policeman come in.
(A Capitol policeman conferred with Mr. Rankin.)
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder is outside. I think you definitely want to call'
him first.
Mr. Rankin. Yes.
(Mr. Earl Russell Browder entered the committee room.)
Mr. Adamson. This is Mr. Browder, gentlemen, who was subpoenaed here.
The Chaibman. Mr. Browder, will you please take the witness stand?
Mr. Adamson. We are going to hear you in executive session temporarily, Mr.
Browder. Will you be sworn?
TESTIMONY OF EARL RUSSELL BROWDER, YONKERS, NEW YORK
(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, will you give your full name and oflSce address and
home address?
Mr. Bkowdek. Earl Russell Browder. Home address, 7 Highland Place, Yonk-
ers, N. Y. I have no office address at the present time.
Mr .Adamson. Mr. Browder, when was your last appearance here before the
old Special Committee on Un-American Activities?
Mr. Browdek. I believe it was in September 1939.
Mr. Adamson. And at that time did you hold any jwsition with any political
organization?
Mr. Browder. I was the Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States-
Mr. Adamson. And how long have you held that position?
Mr. Browdee. Since 1930.
Mr. Adamson. How long did you hold that position after 1939?
Mr. Browder. Until the dissolution of the Communist Party in May 1944.
Mr. Adamson. Will you tell the committee the circumstances that led up to
the di.ssolntion that you have just mentioned?
Mr. Browder. I don't understand the question.
Mr. Adamson. Well, what was the moving impulse behind the dissolution of
the party? In other words, why did you dissolve it?
Mr. Browder. Well, it is a matter of public record. I don't think I could add
anything to that record.
Mr. Adamson. Since you were the secretary — and I assume you were the prin-
cipal executive officer — would you tell us in your own words about tliat? Prob-
ably these gentlemen did not read all the newspaper and magazine articles on the
subject.
Mr. Browdee. I would prefer to answer a question of that kind by giving you-
the oflBcial documents, if you do not have them in the record. I don't like to
handle such questions by restating in my own words matters which are matters ofT
public record, actions by public bodies, political conventions.
2, INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Adamson. By what authority or what action was the party dissolved?
Mr. Beowder. By action of the convention.
Mr. Adamson. And how do you take that to be a matter of public record?
Mr. Browder. The action of the convention was taken on a report which I
made, which dealt with the question very thoroughly.
Mr. Adamson. Do you have a copy of your report "here?
^.^Mr. Browder. I do not. I didn't bring any document with me. I was not
informed in any way what was expected of me. I could furnish it, though.
Mr. Adamson. A^ery well. You can furnish that at a later date. Since you
do not have the report here, suppose you tell us the principal grounds upon
which you recommended such action. I take it that your report recommended
.the dissohition to the convention. Is that correct?
Mr. Browder. It did.
Mr. Adamson. Now, tell us the principal reason, in your own mind.
Mr. Browder. The principal reason — I would say reason — was to endeavor to
make a contribution to the national unity required for the running of the war,
by demonstrating a nonpartisan approach to the problems of the Nation.
Mr. Adamson. How large is your report, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browder. It was published as a pamphlet, I believe, in about 48 small
pages. Probably that would be the equivalent of about 36 book pages.
Mr. Adamson. Would yon say there were aqy political considerations in-
volved in the dissolution of the party?
Mr. Browder. I consider that what I have stated is the main consideration.
It is deeply political.
Mr. Adamson. And would you say that the winning of the war was the eon-
trolling impulse behind your report?
Mr. Browder. That was the moving concept of the whole report.
Mr. Adamson. Was that impulse present in your mind prior to the time of
the attack by the German Army on Russia,?
Mr. Browdek. No more than it was in the minds of the leaders of the Nation.
Mr. Adamson. Can't you tell us whether it was or was not, Mr. Browder,
since we can't tell what was in the minds of the leaders of the Nation? We
don't have them all here.
Mr. Browder. I think we have the record. I only speak about the record.
I don't pretend to read anyone's mind, but it is a matter of record that America,
through its duly constituted leadership, did not assume the burden of winning
the war until America declared war.
Mr. Adamson. When the party was dissolved through action fff your conven-
tion and pursuant to the recommendations contained in your report, did you
form another organization to take its place?
Mr. Browder. The delegates who had taken the action to dissolve the Com-
munist Party reconstituied themselves into a new constituent convention for the
formation of the Communist Political Association, a nonparty organization
engaging in political life on a nonparty basis.
Mr. Adamson. Does that mean that you attempted to nominate candidates for
public office as an association?
Mr. Browder. We intended to associate ourselves with the broad, progressive
currents in the country, and together with them help to nominate and elect
candidates. One of the main reasons for the change from party to association
was to remove the Communists from the direct problem of the nomination of
candidates.
Mr. Adamson. Should we understand, then, that the objectives of your asso-
ciation were to affiliate themselves with other parties and support other can-
didates, rather than to function as a political party?
Mr. Browder. Affiliations were left as a matter entirely for the individuals
who were in charge, and the association as such never made any affiliation. It
merely represented the grouping of the political thinking of its members, and
not an organizational alignment with any other body.
Mr. Adamson. Then a member of your Association could, in fact, be an en-
rolled Democrat or enrolled Republican at the same time?
Mr. Browder. That is correct.
Mr. Adamson. You adopted no rule or regulation in the association that would
be inconsistent with membership in another political party at the same time?
Is that correct?
Mr. Browder. That is correct.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 3
Mr. Adamson. Was that ti'ue with regard to the Communist Party organization
before it was dissolved?
Mr. Bkowdkr. Nu ; that was not true before the dissolution of the Communist
Party.
Mr. Rankin. Have you a copy of the constitution of the Communist Party be-
fore the dissolution ; a copy of the constitution or the platform?
Mr. Browder. I could provide it for the committee. I have provided it before
many Government bodies in tiie past and will, although now I am a private
citizen and have no authority in the pax'ty.
Mr. Kankin. Will you supply a copy for the record at this point?
Mr. Browder. I will try to see that it is supplied. I do not have them myself.
Mr. Rankin. Can you tell us where to get one?
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the record straight then, I ask
that a copy of Mr. Browder's report to the convention in 1944 be marked "Exhibit
1," to be submitted, and that the copy of the constitution suggested by Mr. Rankin
be marked "Exhibit 2."
Mr. Rankin. Don't you think you ought to have it reversed?
Mr. Adamson. It doesn't make any difference. I say one because he mentioned
the report first.
Mr. Rankin. I think the constitution ought to come first, and then his report
reoduiniending dissolution should follow.
Mr. Adamson. Very well ; then may I mark the constitution exhibit 1, and Mr.
Browder's report to the convention exhibit 2?
Tho Chairman. Very well.
(The constitution of the Communist Party was marked "Exhibit 1," and Mr.
Browder's report to the convention was marked "Exhibit 2," and received in
evidence. )
Mr. Peterson. Will you ask him did the same delegates organize the association
that had been delegates in the party convention?
Jlr. Adamson. Yes. With regard to the convention of delegates — by "conven-
tion" I mean of 1944 — did those delegates continue to sit then as delegates con-
stituting a convention of the association?-
Mr. Erowdfr. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. There was no change in the delegation as a whole?
Mr. BrowrER. There were .come individuals who had not br-en associated with
the Communist Party who then associated themselves with the convention and
took part in the proceedings. They were not a very large number but they made a
distinct difference. I could not say that the two conventions were identical in
their constitution.
Mr. Adamson. But with the exception of small changes in the personnel, it
was the same?
Mr. Browder. Yes, sir.
Mr. AtoAMSON. Would you say that a great majority of the delegates were the
same?
Mr. Browder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question there?
The Chairman. Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Browder, about how many, delegates were there at that
meeting that were new?
Mr. Browder. I could not answer that offhand with any degree of accuracy.
I would .«ay that it was a relatively small number compared to the body of the
convention.
Mr. Thomas. And would you name some of those new delegates?
Mr. Browder. When it is a question of identifying people in a convention, I
would prefer to rely on the printed record. It has been published.
Mr. Thomas. All right.
Mr. Adamson. Then may I ask the witness to submit that at this point in the
record and mark it "Exhibit 3," Mr. Thomas.
Mr. THOifAs. Will you do that?
Mr. BuowDEK. I think you can get all of this material in one exhibit. I can
give you the printed record of the convention, which contains my report, the
constitution, a summary of all proceedings, and the names of officials and
delegations.
Mr. Thomas. Does it indicate who the new delegates are?
Mr. Bkowder. I believe it does; yes, sir.
4 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Thomas. Does it indicate tlie new delegates? If it does not indicate
■wlio the new delegates are, will you indicate in there who the new delegates are?
Mr. Bkowdek. I could not promise to give you any accurate information on
that, because it would be purely a question of memory a long time after.
Mr. Thomas. You have got a pretty good memory.
Mr. Bkowder. To the extent that this information would be present in my
mind, it will be in that document. It is a considerable book, and in that single
exhibit you will have the complete record of that convention.
Mr. Rankin. Do you have the book with you?
Mr. Bkowdek. I do not. I did not bring any documents with me. It has been
published. The copies are available. I could give you a copy when I get back
to New York.
Mr. Thomas. Will you try to indicate in the book who the new delegates are?
Mr. Bkowder. I think the contents of the book will indicate that.
Mr. Rankin. What is the name of that book?
Mr. Browder. I don't remember what title was given to the book. It was
some broad, political slogan like "For Progress and Victory," or something like
that. But the subject title, which is the essence of it, is the "Proceedings of
the Constitutional Convention of the Communist Political Association."
Mr. Thomas. Will you see that that is supplied for the record?
Mr. Adamson. Yes, sir. Now, Mr. Browder, does this book cover the pro-
ceedings both of the party convention before its dissolution and then the pro-
ceedings of the association convention immediately after the dissolution of the
party?
IMr. Browder. Yes ; the record of the dissolution of the Communist Party is
included in the book as a matter of information.
(The Book referred to was marked "Exhibit 3," and received in evidence.)
Mr. Adamson. Is the association incoi*porated, or is it a membership asso-
•ciation?
Mr. Bkowder. It is a membership association.
Mr. Adamson. And are you registered anywhere as a political association?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Adamson. You have not attempted to register the name anywhere?
Mr. Browder. No. Tlie association was recorded in the institution of the
Congress supervising electoral processes. They made a regular report to both
the House and Senate committees on the electoi-al campaign expenditures.
Mr. Adamson. Would you say that the formation of the association permitted
a much broader membership than the old party did among the American voters?
Mr. Browder. It was conceded in the convention that that was one of the
fideas that was in mind.
Mr. Adamson. Would you explain to the committee the difference in party
line policy between the activities of the Communist Party before its dissolution
and the association which was subsequently organized?
Mr. Browder. I have already explained that. There is another difference
beyond what I have already stated.
Mr. Adamson. The association then recommended or advocated the same
policies as the old Communist Party?
Mr. Browder. Yes ; in political essence and in every important respect, aside
from that which I explained, the association was the same as the party.
Mr. Adamson. Do you have, or did you have, associated with the party a
man named Jack Stachel?
Mr. Browder. Jack Stachel was at one time a member of the party. I don't
know whether he was doing that during the whole period as a member of the
party or not.
Mr. Adamson. Was he a member of the party at the time the convention took
this action of dissolution?
Mr. Browder. I really don't know.
Mr. Adamson. What was Mr. Stachel's official position with the party?
Mr. Browder. According to my recollection he did not have any oflBcial con-
nection for many years.
Mr. Adamson Well, he did have some duties or activities in the way of pub-
licity and public relations, did he not?
Mr. Browder. He was employed by a newspaper, the Daily Worker, for some
time. I don't know exactly the terms of his employment.
Mr. Adamson. Is the Daily Worker still the mouthpiece or the organ of the
association, of the party?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 5
Mr. Browdek. That is a matter of opinion and interpretation. One can not
answer such a question offhand. The Daily Worker is the property of a cor-
poration.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Browder knows perfectly well the answer
to that question. He doesn't seem to remember the question. I think he ought
to Ite just as fair as he possibly can with this committee.
Mr. Adamson. I have just two more questions, Mr. Chairman. In other words,
I want to cover as many things as I can before we reach that point.
How long have you known Mr. Stachel, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Kkowdek. A good many years.
Mr. Adamson. And has your acquaintance with him been entirely through
the party or the association, or is he a personal friend of yours?
]\lr. BKOWOER. Through the association and in political activities.
Mr. Adamson. You say "a good many years." Would you put that back before
1930, or subsequent to 1930?
Mr. Bkowdek. I am sure that I have had contacts with him in political activities
before 1930.
Mr. Adamson. All through the Communist Party? Is that correct?
Mr. Browdex. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And what were his duties or activities then, Mr. Browder, did
you know?
Mr. Browder. I would not be able to tell you offliand.
Mr. Adamson. And is he a member of the association at the present time?
Mr. Browder. The association does not exist now.
Mr. Adamson. Was he prior to the convention in July?
Mr. Browder. I really think I should not be asked to identify particular per-
sons in relation to membership.
Mr. Adamson. If you don't know
Mr. Browder (interposing). When the information is directly available to the
committee, and I am certainly not a unique channel through which the com-
mittee could get such information, and I would not like to have that burden'
placed upon me. ■
Mr. Adamson. Do you know, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browder. No ; I do not. It would be a matter of memory, of opinion. I
don't like to give opinions before a body of this kind.
Mr. Adamson. Do you know Benjamin J. Davis?
Mr. Browder. I do.
Mr. Adamson. He is a member of the City Council of New York from Harlem?
Is that correct?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And do you know whether or not Davis is a member of the
party?
Mr. Browder. I assume that he is, but I can not state as a matter of knowledge.
IVIr. Adamson. Do you know Davis through his contacts and your contacts
in the Communist organizations, or do you know him personally?
Mr. Browder. I do.
Mr. Adamson. You know him personally?
Mr. BrowoER. Yes.
IVIr. Rankin. Mr. Adamson, there is one question you have not asked. That
is whether or not Mr. Browder is a member of the Communist Party now.
Mr. Adamson. I expected to ask him about the recent history of the party, Mr.
Rankin, and if be is a member of the new organization.
Mr. Rankin. He said the a.ssociation had been abolished.
Mr. Adam.son. In July, that is right. Mr. Browder, you had a convention in
New York this summer, I believe. Is that correct?
Mr. Browder. Yes, in July.
Mr. Adamson. And at that convention what action was taken? I believe
that was called as a convention of the Communist Association?
Mr. Browder. The Communist Political Association, according to its consti-
tution, called a special convention. This convention made a decision to revise
the constitution and by-laws, to change the name of the association to the
"Communist Party."
Mr. Adamson. You said in the beginning of your testimony that you
Mr. Rankin (interposing). What revision was made? Find that out.
Mr. Adam.son. Very well. You said in the beginning of your testimony that
you were formerly the secretary of the Communist Party. Now, will you tell
6 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
us what difference exists today between the reconstituted party and the party
which existed prior to May 1944?
Mr. Browder. I am not an official of the Communist Party as reconstituted in
the July convention.
Mr. Adamson. Are you a member of the new Communist Party?
Mr. Browdek. I am a member.
Mr. Adamson. And if you are a member, Mr. Browder, you certainly know
what the new party stands for ; do you not?
Mr. Browder. I know the action of the convention.
Mr. Adamson. Very well ; can you tell the committee what, if any, difference
exists between the new party and the old party?
Mr. BR0WDE2J. The difference that exists is that the change which took place
in May 1944 was reversed in July 1945.
Mr. Rankin. Completely reversed?
Mr. Browdeh. The only change that was made in 1944 was the abolition of the
strictly political party features of the organization, the naming of candidates
and so forth, and the relation to other political oi'ganizations. Those changes,
which were the only substantial changes made in 1944, were reversed in 1945.
Mr. Rankin. And the theory and objects of the Communist Party now is
exactly what it was prior to 1944?
Mr. Browdeb. In all political substance it is the same as the Communist
Political Association and the Communist Party as It existed before the forma-
tion of the association.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I think we have reached the point where we want
to open the meeting to a public hearing.
Mr. Adamson. Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that Mr.
Browder communicate with whoever he wishes in New York and obtain copies
of the documents, of the book that he has referred to here. He ought to be
able to have it here tomorrow morning.
Mr. Rankin. And the new constitution of the Communist Party.
Mr. Adamson. I thinlv probably he could obtain all of those for us and have
them here tomorrow morning. How about that, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Broavdeb. I would prefer that you find some other way of getting all of
the documents, the documents which contain my report of 1944. I would be
glad to furnish it myself, but I would not like to undertake to become a general
information bureau to gather documents with which I have no direct connection.
The Chairman. I understood you to say a while ago, Mr. Browder, that this
book that contains the constitution and proceedings of the convention was
available.
Mr. Browder. They were published and sold.
The Chairman. Is it available to you?
Mr. Beowder. I have certainly one copy of it in my library. It was published
and sold in the public book stores.
The Chairman. Could you call your home and have them send it?
Mr. Browder. I said I will undertake to give you a copy of that book.
The Chairman. Could you have it here in the morning for us?
Mr. Browder. I am not certain that I can get it by tomorrow, but I can have
it for you within a few days. Certainly I can have it for you as soon as I get
back to New York.
Mr. Thomas. Let us open the meeting, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Browder. You will find it in the Library of Congress.
Mr. Adamson. W^e want a copy of it for the record, of course.
Mr. Browder. But if you want immediate reference, you can get it from the
Library of Congress immediately.
I\Ir. Rankin. We want it to go into this record.
IVIr. Browder. And I will see that you get it.
Mr. Rankin. You stated that the change came just this last summer, when
the Communist Party was re-constituted. Did you leave the organization then?
Mr. Browder. I was not elected. I was not a delegate to that convention. 1
was present only in my capacity as past president.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I think we should open the meeting now.
The Chairman. Very well.
(Whereupon, at 11 a. m. the executive session was concluded and the com
niittee proceeded in open session.)
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 7
INVESTIGATION OF UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
House of Re^-resentatives,
COMMITTKE ON UN-AmEKICAN ACTIVITIES,
Washington, D. C, Wednesday, September 26, 1945.
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hou. John E. Rankin presiding.
Mr. Rankin. The committee will come to order. We will go into Executive
Session.
(Whereupon, at 10:01 a. m., the committee went into executive session.)
(At 11 the committee resumed tlie public hearing, Hon. John S. Wood (chair-
man) iiresiding. )
The Chairman. We will proceed.
TESTIMONY OF EARL RUSSELL BROWDER, YONKERS, N. Y.
(The witness was duly sworn by the Chairman.)
Mr. Bonner. Mr. Browder, what is your business?
Mr. Browder. I am a journalist, a writer and author, and economist. I have
been an accountant in the past — a glorified name for a bookkeeper.
Mr. Bonner. For whom did you work as an accountant? Who employed you?
Mr. Browder. Well, I have not been employed in that capacity for someSO
jears — 28 years.
Mr. B0NNB2S. Who was your last employer?
Mr. Browder. The last place where I was employed was Sam Stagg and Hilder
Bros., importers and exporters. New York City.
The Chairman. We will suspend for a few minutes while the people come in.
There will be no pictures made here without the approval of the committee, and
that has not been given, gentlemen.
Mr. Thomas. I am not afraid of having them take pictures. I think it is very
unusual if they do not take them.
Mr. Adamson (committee counsel). Have you any objection to having photo-
gi-aphs made, Mr. Bro%\'der?
Mr. Browder. It is a matter of complete indifference to me.
Mr. Adamson. The witness says he is indifferent about it.
Mr. Thomas. I move that the photographere be allowed to take pictures.
Mr. Murdock. I second the motion.
Mr. Rankin. Let them take whatever pictures they want to now, and then
let us proceed with the hearing.
The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded that the photographers be
I)ermitted to proceed to take pictures.
Mr. Rankin. At the present time?
Mr. Thomas. No ; I said at any time.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to agree to that. I am willing to
suspend hero and let the photographers take pictures and then let us proceed
with the investigation. I move to amend the motion that they be permitted
to take what pictures they want to now, and then leave.
Mr. Thomas. I will accept the amendment.
The Chairman. You have heard the motion as amended.
(The motion was put and carried.)
The Chairman. Very well, ladies and gentlemen, at the present time pictures
can be taken.
(Flashlight photographs were then taken.)
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we suspend with the taking of pic-
tures and proceed with the investigation.
The Chmrman. Very well.
Mr. Josfph R. Brod^ky. Mr. Chairman, I represent Mr. Davis, and I am
requesting that you call Mr. Davis first as a witness. I would like to state why.
Mr. Rankin. A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brodsky. Mr. Davis is engaged in a hard campaign
Mr. Rankin (interposing). A point of order, Mr. Chairman. This man is
interrupting the proceedings of the committee. I demand that the rule be
enforced and that he be either compelled to take his seat or be removed from
the committee room.
8 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
The Chairman. As I understand it, the committee does not recognize counsel
in these hearings. So far as the chairman is concerned, there is no objection
to your remaining through the testimony, but without the right to participate
in the proceedings.
Mr Bkodsky. I am not participating. I am making a request on behalf of a
witness who has been subpenaed liere, and I wish the gentlemen would have
the courtesy to let me finish my statement. Then you can rule on it.
The Chairman. I have ruled on it. If you desire to remain, you are at liberty
to do so. May I inquire who you are?
Mr. Brodsky. Joseph R. Brodsky.
The Chairman. You have the right to remain. We will proceed. I might
call the attention of the audience to the fact that there will be no demonstration
permitted in this room. We will conduct the examination in an orderly way.
We are glad to have you present as long as you concur with that rule.
Proceed, Mr. Adamson.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, you have agreed to produce I'ecords and docu-
ments conceining the dissolution of the Communist Party in May 1944, and the
reconstitution of the party in July of this year. Do you think you can have
those records here tomorrow morning?
Mr. Browder. May I make a slight correction? I said that I will provide the
committee with a copy of the published book containing the full record of the
convention of the Communist political association in May 1944, including my
report, and the constitution, which was the specific subject of inquiry. I have
not said that I can furnish the committee with any other documents besides
that one, which is a comprehensive and inclusive document.
Mr. Adamson. Were you an officer of the association?
Mr. Browder. I was the president.
Mr. Adamson. And are you an officer at this time of the Communist Party as
reconstituted?
Mr. Browder. I am not.
Mr. Adamson. And is your position as stated here due to the fact that yoiu
were an officer of the old party and of the association, but you are not an officer
of the new party? Is that correct?
Mr. Browder. I don't understand your question.
Mr. Adamson. What is the reason for your reluctance to provide the com-
mittee with the documents in the records concerning the convention in J|uly
of this year?
Mr. Browder. I feel that it is my function to supply information only on those
things for which I was directly responsible.
Mr. Adamson. And the reason is, then, that you are not an officer at this time
and you were an officer of the association an^ the old party?
Mr. Browder. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. And you prefer that someone else be called upon to produce
those records?
Mr. Browder. That is incorrect. I would not put it that way, though. I
don't say that I would prefer that anybody should be called. Perhaps it would
be better if nobody was called unless we would have a real investigation of merit
and not a smear campaign.
Mr. Adamson. Can you tell us
The Chairman (interposing). Just a moment. We will have no insinuations
that anybody is seeking to smear anybody in the hearing.
Mr. Browder. And perhaps you will warn the counsel also not to make any
insinuations in his questions.
The Chateman. Yes, I will ; if he does.
Mr. Browdeb. Very well. I am willing to submit to the same rulings fhat
counsel does.
Mr. Adamson. What contacts or instructions did you have at any time prior
to the convention in May 1944, with any persons or groups of persons outside
the United States, dealing with the dissolution of the Communist Party?
iVlr. Browder. None whatever.
Mr. Adamson. And did you receive any communications or any representatives
dealing with that subject prior to May 1944?
Mr. Browdek. No.
Mr. Adamson. Any of the reports that you made to the convention in May 1944,
are based solely upon your own conclusions?
Mr. Browder. No ; it was a collective conclusion of the leadership of the Com-
munist Party.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 9
Mr. Adamsun. Could you explain a little more fully what you meaa by "col-
lective conclusion?"
JNIr. BitowDER. I thought it was a matter of every-day knowledge of all per-
sons engaged in politics that political decisions involving political parties and
organizations are never individual decisions, that they are the result of consulta-
tion of members and leaders, and therefore can never be placed as individual
decisions.
Mr. Adamson. And the dissolution, then, of the party in May 1944, was based
upon, would you say, the consensus of opinion of the leaders of the Communist
Party at that time?
]Mr. Bkowder. And of the membership.
Mr. Adamson. And your report was merely a summary of their opiniofn,?
Is that correct?
Mr. Bkowder. It was the representation of that collective opinion.
Mr. Adamson. And what contact, if any, did your convention have with any
international Communist organization — and now I speak of your convention
of May 1944?
Mr. Browder. The organized Communist movement under whatever form or
name has had no organizational contacts outside of the United States since
November 1940.
The Chairman. Does it have now?
]Mr. Browder. I cannot answer about anything except for the period in which
I was an official.
The Chairman. By that you mean that you don't know?
Mr. Browdeb. I mean that as a matter of principle I would not attempt to
answer questions except on the basis of my personal knowledge.
The Chairman. That is what I asked you. You don't know? Is that what
we should understand?
Mr. Browder. Quite obviously, not being an official, I can not answer such
questions, those questions of an official status that can only be answered by an
official.
The Chairman. You can certainly answer that question, whether you know
or not.
Mr. Browdeu. I have answered it.
The Chairman. I did not so understand it. Would you mind repeating the
answer?
Mr. Bro'W'der. I have answered that that is a question of official status and
therefore no one can know except an official. For other people it is hearsay.
The Chairman. That is an evasive answer. Would you mind telling me
whether or not you know?
Mr. Browder. I do not know.
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, for my own guidance, will it be your position here
in this examination that you do not know with sufficient certainty the answers
to any questions which deal with the policy or conduct of the Communist Party
as now constituted? And by that I mean since the party took the place of the
as.sociation at the convention in July of this last summer.
Mr. BROW.'iER. I could only answer that question when you establish what is
the .scope and purpose of this interrogation. As I understand it, this committee
has no charge from the body which constituted it to investigate the political
opinion of any citizen of the United States. It is to investigate facts, not opinions.
Tlaat is my understanding. I am perfectly willing to answer questions about
facts. I am not prepared under any circumstances to submit to this body an
interrogation of political opinions.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, if you learn or are aware of certain facts, is it
your position here that you do not wish to answer questions dealing with those
facts, even though you know the answers, because you are not an official of the
row Cnnimnnist Party? I ask you that to shorten up the proceedings, because
I do not want to spend time asking yon questions which you say you do not wish
to answer for that reason.
Mr. Browder. If it was your intention to proceed with a line of questioning
designed to draw forth my political opinions about this, that and the other ques-
tion, then T would say that I would refuse to answer such questions. I do not
consider that it is within the scope of the authority of this Commission to investi-
gate the political opinions of individual citizens.
10 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Charman, I make a point of order that the witness is not
being responsive to the questions. He is evading the questions and is talking
about something now that counsel has not even touched upon.
The Chairman. I will call the attention of the witness to the fact that the
committee will judge of its course and policy, and it is the province of the witness
to answer questions asked him or refuse to ansv^'er them, in which event the
committee will take such action with reference to it as seems advisable.
Mr. BnowDEK. Also, it is the responsibility of the witness to answer questions
upon the basis of his understanding of the law and of his own rights.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, the photographers have asked that they be per-
mitted to take one more picture of the crowd, and if there is no objection I ask
unanimous consent that they may do so, provided they do so at once.
The Chairman. There seems to be no objection.
Mr. Browder. May I add to my previous answer
Mr. Adamson (interposing). Wait just a minute while the pictures are taken.
(Pictures were here taken by the photographers.)
The Chairman. We will proceed.
Mr. Browder. May I add to my previous statement that when I say I will not
answer questions designed to draw forth discussion of my political opinions, this
should not be understood as in any way a desire to hide my opinions. It is a
matter of principle as to the proper conduct of political discussions and where
they should be conducted.
As far as making public my opinions, I have done this systematically through-
out my life, and especially in the last 10 years. I have published not only innu-
merable newspaper articles to express those opinions, but further, I have pub-
lished some 80 pamphlets and books which have reached a total circulation of
8,000,000 copies in this 10 years. Therefore I think it is clear that I am not
hiding my opinions. My opinions have been broadcast as far as it has been
possible to broadcast them.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I submit that any question that shows the motive
of the witness in any activities that tended to be un-American are competent,
and the witness should be required to answer.
The Chairman. The Chair will state that the competence of questions pro-
pounded to the witness will be ruled on by the committee. Proceed.
Mr. Adamson. Now, Mr. Browder, as I understood your previous answer, the
Communist Party as reconstituted this year is in form and in substance the same
as the party that was dissolved in May 1944. Am I correct in that assumption?
Mr. Browder. That is the record of the convention involved.
Mr. Adamson. And you are not only a party member, you are an active party
member and writer at the present time, are you not?
Mr. Browder. I am not active at the present time.
Mr. Adamson. Do you continue to pursue your journalistic activities at the
present time? I understood you to say that you did.
Mr. Browder. I answered the question as to what was my profession. I did
not answer the question as to what I am doing at the present time. At the
present time lam unemployed.
Mr. Adamson. And if the party is the same party in substance as the old
party, then the scope of its activities would be the same as they were in 1940
or 1939? Isn't that true?
Mr. Browder. I could not say "yes" or "no."
Mr. Adamson. What is your understanding?
Mr. Browder. It simply does not follow. First let me make clear, you are
asking me for my opinion and I do not believe that it is within the scope of
any committee of Congress which is investigating facts to begin by asking a
man's opinion.
Mr. Adamson. I am not asking you what you believe, Mr. Browder. I am
asking you as a member of a party which you have told us is a political party
now— I am asking you what you understand to be the principles of that party.
As a member of the party do you mean to tell us that you don't know what those
principles are?
Mr. Bkowder. I do.
Mr. Adamson. We merely want you to tell us what your understanding is.
I am not asking you for hearsay evidence or political opinion, necessarily. Jnst
tell us what you understand about the political party of which you are a member.
Is it the same as the old party?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 11
Mr. Bkowdkr. It is.
Mr. Rankin. Ask him how far hack does that go. Does that go back to the
20's, the 30's, 1932?
Mr. Adamson. I understood Mr. Browder to say earlier in his testimony that
he became an active officer in 1930. I am going to ask liim about his member-
ship.
Mr. Rankin. I want to know if it is the same as it was when it was hooked
up with the Comintern.
Mr. Adamsjn. I expect to ask him those questions.
When did you first become a member of the party, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browder. 1921.
Mr. Adamson. And you became an officer of the party in about 1930? Is that
correct?
Mr. Browder. Executive officer ; yes, sir.
Mr. Adamson. Did you serve as any subordinate official of the party prior
to 1930?
Mr. BuowDEHi. I have at various times been elected to the national committee
for certain periods.
Mr. Adamson. You said a while ago that since 1940 the party had had no
connection with any foreign organization or any international organization.
Will you tell us what the situation was up to and including 1940 with regard
to your international relationships?
Mr. Browder. Up until November 1940, for a period of years the Communist
Party had been affiliated with the Communist Internationale, an international
association of Communist parties in various countries. In November 1940, that
affiliation was canceled at a special convention.
Mr. Rankin. Let me a.sk, for what reason was it canceled?
Mr. Adamson. Where was that convention held?
Mr. Br.cwDER. The convention was held in New York.
Mr. Adamson. And at that convention were representatives present from the
international organization?
Mr. Browder. No. There had been no practical connection with the inter-
national organization for several years.
Mr. Adamson. And did the international organization take any action of
similar character?
Mr. Browder. Yes, in May 1943, the Communist Internationale was dissolved —
that is, in May 1943, a proposal was published that the Communist Internationale
should be dissolved, and in June of that year that proposal was ratified by the
parties which were members of the body which existed until that time.
Mr. Adamson. Did the international organization consist of the various Com-
munist parties around in the different countries of the woi-ld?
Mr. Browder. l^s.
Mr. Adamson. And the Communist Party of the United States was one of the
constituents of that international organization? Is that correct?
Mr. Browder. For a period of some years, ending in November 1940.
Mr. Adamson. When did the Communist Party of the United States become an
active participant in the Internationale?
Mr. Browder. It would be difficult for me to give you the answer with exactitude
on that. I can give you the exact facts only from the time when I was responsible
for those organizational relations, 1930 to 1940. There \Aas active affiliation,
which was recognized on both sides, that is, by the international organization
and by the parties.
Mr. Adam.son. On the matter of mechanics, Mr. Browder, how did that rela-
tionship function? In other words, what was the contact between your party
here in the United States and the Internationale? I assume that you refer to
the international headquarters in Moscow. Is that correct?
Mr. BR0WDE3?. That is correct.
Mr. Adamson. Now, tell us the mechanical contacts that you had with the
Internationale in Moscow.
Mr. Browder. The international organization was composed of international
congresses held at various intervals, not regularly fixed, to which delegates came
from all the affiliated parties. These congresses discussed the problems of the
world and hammered out a common understanding and approach to these ques-
tions. The congresses elected an executive committee for continuous exchange
of information and discussion during the interval between congresses.
Mr. Adamson. When you refer to "congresses" do you mean meetings held in
Moscow or do you mean meetings held in the various countries?
12 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Beowdee. I am speaking of the congresses of the international delegations
from these various countries, all of which in the history of the Internationale
were held in Moscow.
Mr. Adamson. And the parties in the various countries then send delegates
to this congress? Is that correct?
Mr. Bfowdeb. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And were these congresses convened every year? Did you have
a stated scliedule?
Mr. Browdek. There were seven congresses held in the life of the Communict
Internationale, the last one being in the summer of 1935.
Mr. Adamson. Were you ever a delegate to these congresses?
Mr. Browder. I was.
Mr. Adamson. On how many occasions?
Mr. Beowdeb. The last one, the 7th.
Mr. Adamson. That was in 1935?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. Wei'e you the only delegate?
Mr. Beowdee. No.
Mr. Adamson. How large a delegation did the Communist Party of the United
States send over?
Mr. Bkowdee. Offhand I would say it must have been 15 or 16 members.
Mr. Adamson. And did you all go over together or did you travel separately?
Mr. Browdee. I don't remember.
Mr. Adamson. How long did you remain in Moscow, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Beowdee. During the period of the Congress.
Mr. Adamson. How long a period w^as that?
Mr. Browdek. It was several weeks. I don't remember exactly. It is a matter
of public record. It can easily be looked up if it is important.
Mr. Adamson. You don't recall?
Mr. Browder. No ; I do not. It was several weeks.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, at the congress at which you were a delegate,
what was the, nature of the subjects of discussion, insofar as they related to
the United States? I mean the character of the subjects.
Mr. Browder. The general character of the discussions in all aspects were
dominated by the rising danger of war and haw to oppose it, how to avoid the
war that was threatening, due to the rise of Hitler to power in Germany.
Generally, the subject of mobilizing all possible forces for the struggle against
the threat of German naziism or fascism.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question there. As I
understand it, Mr. Browder, the Communist Party in the United States had at
a later date than 1935 referred to the war as an imperalist war. Furthermore,
they were advocating — the Communist Party throughout the world were sup-
porting the nonaggresfsion pact between Germany and Russia. Is that correct?
Mr. Browdee. I don't know what you mean by your question. If one is to
pass judgment upon a very important historical period, I don't think it can be
done in an offhand fashion.
Mr. Thom.^8. I simply refer to it because of your reference. Your statement
of does not jibe with what actually happened after 1935.
Mr. Browder. It is a matter of public record that the opinion that I express
is also at the present time the opinion of the most responsible leaders of public
opinion in America and Britain. And the opinions which were held in 1939 and
which were dominant at that time in America regarding the nonaggression pact,
have since been revised fundamentally, except among a few extreme die-hard,
anti-Soviet elements. It is generally undei-stood today in the world that that
pact was in the interest of America as well as of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Thomas. I am not referring so much to the pact. I am referring to the
-statement made by you, and also the statement made by other leading Com-
munists, not only in this country but in other countries, to the effect that you
referred to the war at first as an imperialist war. Isn't that true?
Mr. Browder. My statement a moment ago — please don't ask me to subscribe
to your formulation.
Mr. Thomas. I am not asking you to subscribe to my formulation or opinion.
I am juist asking you to answer "yes" or "no," if you personally did not refer to
the war as an imperialist war.
Mr. Browder. I don't understand what relation that has to the question that
I just :answered.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 13
The Chairman. Well, would you iniud answering the question asked?
]\[r. Bkowdku. It is a little diflicult for nie to answer questions in an intelligible
way when, in the midst of qut>stioniiig about the luuposas and the subjects of the
1935 congress, the question is thrown in as to whether, in 1940, I did not say
that the war was an imperialist war.
Mr. Thomas. I just happened to know that you did say it, and you can't deny it.
Mr. BiiowDKK. I certainly did not deny it. I want to know the connection
with this question, and I want to request that questions should be of some
consecutive nature if you expect me to answer them intelligently.
Mr. Rankin. The statement was made by you a moment ago that the anti-
aggression pact between Russia and Germany was considered just, I believe you
said, or right, by the thinking people of the world, and, as a matter of fact, it
was in effect at the time when Germany was at war with England and when
public opinion in this country was backing England. I didn't want that state-
ment to go unchallenged. I didn't know whether counsel caught that or not.
Mr. Adamson. I made a mental note of it, Mr. Rankin.
Now, Mr. Browder, to get the question and answer straight by Mr. Thomas,
you do remember making the statement, approximately in 1940, about tlie
imperialistic war, don't you?
Mr. Bkowder. I do.
Mr. Adamson. When you attended the convention in 1935, you say that the
discus.«;ions were largely influenced by the fear or the threat of war in Europe?
Is that correct?
Mr. Bkowder. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And the war that you were afraid of was either between Ger-
many and Russia or between Germany and other countries in Europe? Isn't that
correct?
]Mr. Bkowder. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And did the discussions contemplate war between Germany
and tlie United States?
ISIr. Br.owDER. Tlie discussions recognized that the danger of war involved
every country in the world, and proceeded upon the assumption that when
war broke out it would be impossible to stop it until it engulfed the whole world,
and therefore that the struggle to prevent that war — or if it could not be pre-
vented, to defeat the aggressor — had to be organized on a world scale, and that
if it was not organized on a world scale there was the danger that the Nazis
would conquer the world. That was the keynote of the 7th AVorld Congress.
Ml'. Adamson. You volunteered the observation a moment ago that the pact
W'hich was entered into between the Russian Government and the German Gov-
ernment was recognized as being in the interest or to the benefit of the United
States?
INIr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. I wonder if you could tell the committee in what respects you
regard that pact to be in the interest of the United States?
Mr. Browder. It was in the interest of the United States because it enabled
the Soviet Union to prepare sufficiently to defeat Hitler, and without that prepa-
ration Hitler might have conquered the Soviet Union, which would certainly
have guaranteed his conquering America.
Mr. Adamson. And would you give substantially the same answer with regard
to the Russian attack on Finland? Was the war on Finland also conducted in
the interest of the United States?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
IMr. Adamson. And in what respect?
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, may I propopund an inquiry? The House meets
in a few minutes. What time shall we meet tomorrow?
The Cn.\rR>rAN. That is subject to the will of the committee.
Mr. Adam.son. Let us make it 10 o'clock.
Mr. Rankin. I move that the committee do now adjourn until 10 o'clock tomor-
row morning.
Mr. Landis. I have two brief questions of Mr. Browder. Do you not tliink
that the United States has the highest standard of living in the world?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Landis. Then why did the Communists wish to destroy and change our
system ?
Mr. Browder. We do not
Mr. Davis (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I am Councilman Davis of New York.
I have just heard Mr. Rankin postpone this hearing now, or continue it, until
14 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
ten o'clock tomorrow morning. I want to protest that because I am here out of
my campaign, and it is taking very valuable time from my work in New York,
and I think that I should have an opportunity to testify and get it over with.
Otherwise I will just be forced to brand this as a witch hunt to prevent me
from testifying.
The Chairman. It doesn't matter what you brand it. We are not concerned
with that.
Mr. Rankin. That is contempt of the committee.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Rankin, you can hardly speak about contempt.
Mi*. Peterson. Mr. Rankin, the House meets at 12.
The Chairman. I shall make the announcement that under the rules of the
House this committee cannot set while the House is in session.
Mr. Davis. I am speaking in consideration of my own situation in New York.
The Chairman. I appreciate that, and we will accommodate you just as
quickly as we can.
Mr. Davis. We tried to get you to agree to that this morning. We wanted
you to let me testify first.
Mr. Robinson. Can we set a definite time when the witness can testify?
Mr. Rankin. It looks to me as if we are going to be several days with the
witness we have. So far as I am concerned, I am not willing to break in on
him for anyone else.
Mr. Davis. I certainly do not expect Mr. Rankin to give any consideration to
a Negro in this House.
Mr. Rankin. I have said nothing about Negroes or anything concerning Negroes.
I ask that he be fined for contempt.
Mr. Davis. You can move as you please.
Mr. Rankin. We are going to run this committee in an orderly way.
Mr. Davis. This is just an attempt to defeat me in the election.
The Chairman. The committee will determine as soon as we can get into
executive session what we will do in order to take care of the witnesses.
Mr. Davis. You can do one good thing ; just end this witch hunt.
The Chairman. We are not concerned with your opinions as to what we
can do.
Mr. Davis. Wbat does the committee propose that I do, stay here in the city
for several days?
The Chairman. You will be notified of that.
Mr. Davis. I consider this a most un-American way of acting in this situation.
The Chairman. The committee is not concerned about your opinion of it.
Mr. Bonner. I think we should give some consideration to this man. You say
you expect to have this witness on the stand for 2 or 3 days. Can't we notify
this witness when we will hear him?
The Chairman. We can go into executive session and determine that in 10
minutes. The public hearing is now adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
(Whereupon, at 11: 50 a. m., the committee went into executive session, at the
conclusion of which the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Thursday, September
27, 1945.)
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Un-American Activities,
Washington, D. C, Thursday, September 27, 1945.
The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. .John S. Wood (chairman) presiding.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I move that we go into executive session.
The Chairman. The committee will go into executive session.
(Whreupon, at 10:02 a. m., the committee went into executive session, at the
conclusion of which, 10: 25 a. m., the open hearing was resumed.)
The Chairman. Pi-oceed, Mr. Adamson.
Mr. Adamson. Let the record show that the committee has decided to hear
Mr. Carp at 2:30 this afternoon in executive session, and that the appearantv
of Ben Davis lias been postponed, subject to the call of the chairman.
Mr. Browder, will you take the stand, please?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 15
TESTIMONY OF EARL RUSSELL BROWDER— Resumed
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, have you been able to obtain the copy of the
new constitution of the Communist Party since yesterday?
Mr. Bkowdi.r. No; I have not. Yesterday I tohl you that I would see that
the book containing the record of the Convention of 1{J44 would be sent to you^
and I was informed that that was mailed to the committee last night, addressed
to the chairman of the committee. He should have it this morning.
Mr. Adamson. But we do not have it here. It will probably come later in the
day.
I would like to show you some extracts from the Daily Worker of August 7,
1945, relating to the convention which you described here yesterday, and I
would like you to look at this very carefully and tell me if that is a reasonably
accurate copy of the new constitution as announced by the convention. [Handing
a paper to the witness.]
Mr. Ekowdick. I assume that it is an accurate copy.
Mr. Adamson. I would like to offer this, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rankin. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have not read it, but I should like to
have counsel read it so we will know wliat is in it. I would like to liave that
information before we proceed further with the witness.
Mr. Thomas. You mean you want him to read that whole thing?
Mr. Rankin. I don't know how long it is, how long it will take to read it.
Mr. Adamson. I will show it to you and you give me your estimate [handing
the paper to Mr. Rankin].
Mr. Rankin. Y"ou want to read it all?
Mr. Adamson. I want to read certain portions of it.
Mr. Rankin. I want to get it in the record and I would also like to know what
is in it. I have no objection to it.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, in order to keep the record straight, this is a new
constitution, or rather, the constitution of the re-constituted, united party which
was adopted by the convention in New York in the latter part of July of this
year? Is that correct?
Mr. Browdeb. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it is.
Mr. Adamson. Yesterday you told us that you did not care to accept the
responsibility of answering questions which dealt with policies of the party
since the convention. I would like for you to read to the committee just this
short paragraph, section 1 of article IV of the constitution. Read it aloud
so that the reijorter can get it.
Mr. Browder. May I ask what the purpose of that is?
Mr. Adamson. I just want to refresh your i-ecollection.
Mr. Browder. You refer to article IV, Section 1?
Mr. Adamson. That is right.
Mr. Browder (reading) : "Every member of the Party who is in good standing
has not only the right but the responsibility to participate in the making of its
policies and in the election of its leading committees in the manner provided
for in this constitution."
Ml-. Adamson. So that, as a member of the party, you continue under the
same responsibility to participate in the making of the policies of the party,
substantially as before? Isn't that true?
Mr. Browder. The same as all members of the party.
Mr. ADAMSON. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the preamble to this
constitution into the record here, although this is an exhibit. Shall we have it
read in? I will show you how long it is. The preamble is six paragraphs.
Mr. Rankin. Read it.
The ( hairman. Very well.
Mr. Rankin. Read it loud so the members of the committee can hear you,
Mr. Adamson.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder is a good reader. How would you like to read it?
Ml-. Bkowdehj. I haven't the slightest objection.
Mr. Adamson. Vei-y good. Read the preamble.
Mr. Browder (reading) : "The Communist Party of the United States is the
political party of the American working class, basing itself upon the principles of
scientific socialism, Marxi.sm, Leninism. It champions the immediate and funda-
mental interest of the workers, farmers, and all who labor by hand and brain,
against capitalist exploitation and oppression. As the advance guard of liio
working class it stands in the forefront of this struggle.
83078 — 46 2
16 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
"The Communist Party upholds the achievements of American democracy and
defends the United States constitution and its Bill of Rights against its reactionary
enemies who would destroy democracy and popular liberty. It uncompromisingly
tights against imperialism and colonial oppression, against racial, national and
religious discrimination, against Jimcrowism, anti-Semitism and all forms of
chauvinism.
"Tlie Communist Party struggles for the complete destruction of fascism and
for a durable peace. It seeks to safeguard the welfare of the people and the
Nation, recognizing that the working class through its trade unions and by its
independent political action is the most consistent fighter for democracy, national
freedom and social progress.
"The Communist Party holds as a basic principle that there is an identity of
interest which serves as a common bond uniting the workers of all lands. It
recognizes further that the true national interest of our country and the cause
of peace and progress require the solidarity of all freedom-loving people and
the continued and ever closer cooperation of the United Nations.
"The Communist Party recognizes that the tinal abolition of exploitation and
oppression, of economic depressions and unemployment, of reaction and war,
will be achieved only by the Socialist reorganization of society, by the common
ownership and operation of the national economy under a government of the
people led by the working class. The Communist Party therefore educates tl^e
working class in the course of its day-to-day struggles for its historical mission,
the establishment of socialism. Socialism, the highest form of democracy, will
guarantee the full realization of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit .of
happiness, and will turn the achievements of labor, science and culture to the
use and enjoyment of all men and women.
"In the struggle for democracy, peace and social progress, the Communist
Party carries forward the democratic tradition of Jefferson, Paine, Lincoln, and
Frederick Douglass, and the great working class tradition of Silvas, Debbs, and
Ru^^henberg. It fights side by side with all who join in this cause.
"For the advancement of the principles the Communist Party of the United
States establishes the basic laws of the organization in the following constitution."
Mr. Adamson. Now, Mr. Browder. will you be good enough to I'ead the much
shorter preamble of the old constitution?
By the way, Mr. Chairman, we will have the book that Mr. Browder has ordered
sent to us, which was marked yesterday for the record, so I won't offer this in
evidence. We have a copy, however, of the old- constitution from which Mr.
Browder will read.
Mr. Rankin. Is there any difference?
Mr. Adamson. We want to see.
Mr. Browder. In the book which I have had sent to yon I don't think this will
be contained, so if you want it in evidence you should probably offer this copy.
Mr. Adamson. Then I ask, after Mr. Browder finishes reading the preamble,
I will offer this copy too.
Mr. Rankin. The reason I asked if there was any difference, I want to
know what it is.
Mr. Adamson. There is a difference.
Mr. Browder. The preamble to the constitution of the Communist Party
adopted by the Tenth National Convention, May 27-31, 1938, and amended by
the special convention November 16-17, 1940.
"The Communist Party of the United States of America is a working class
political party carrying forward today the traditions of Jefferson, Paine, Jackson
and Lincoln, and of the Declaration of Independence; it upholds the achieve-
ments of democracy, the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
and defends the United States Constitution against its reactionary enemies
who would destroy democracy and all popular liberties ; it is devoted to defense
of the immediate interests of workers, farmers, and all toilers ogainst capitalist
exploitation, and to preparation of the working class for its historic mission to
unite and lead the American people to extend these democratic principles to
their necessary and logical conclusions.
"By establishing common ownership of the national economy, though a govern-
ment of the people, by the people, and for the people ; the abolition of all exploita-
tion of man by man, nation by nation, and race by race, and thereby the abolition
of class divisions in society ; that is, by the establishment of socialism, according
to the scientific principles eniinciated by the greatest teachers of mankind, Marx,
Bngels, Lenin, and Stalin, embodied in the Communist International; and the
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 17
free cooporation of the American people with those of other lands, striving toward
a world without oppression and war, a world hrotherhood of man.
"To tins end, the Coniiuunist Party of the United States of America establishes
the basic laws of its organization in this Constitution."
Mr. Adam SON. Mr. Chairman, this booklet whicli I wish to offer for the record
is entitled "The Constitution of the Comnuuiist Party of the United States of
America," and has "Gc" printed on the blue cover. It is published by the New
York Workers Library rul)lishers. On the next page it says "'Published by
Workers Library Publishers. Inc."
Mr. Wood. As so identified, without objection, the committee will receive it
in evidence.
(The document referred to, entitled ' The Constitution of ti:e Communist Party
of the United States of America" was marked "Exhibit 4" and received in
evidence.)
Mr. Rankix. Let me ask one question right here. As I understood Mr.
Browder's reading, both these constitutions are based on the principles enunciated
by Karl Marx. Is that right?
Mr. P>K0WDER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rankin. That is the old constitution of the Communist Party and the new
constitution?
Mr. Adamson. Yes, sir Would you like to see it?
Mr. Rankin. No ; I just heard him read it.
Mr. Adamson. This has been marked "No. 4."
Mr. Rankin. Every member of the Party subscribes to that document?
Mr. Browder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Adam.son. Going back for a moment to the association which you described
yesterday, had it been the practice of the Communist Party prior to the organi-
zation of the association to prepare and publish a financial statement every year
showing the method in which the funds of the party are handled?
Mr. BROWDB31. I believe the publication of financial statements takes place
immediately prior to conventions.
Mr. Adamson. Did the Communist Political Association prepare such a state-
ment and publish it?
Mr. BuowDKR. It did.
Mr. Adamson. AVas that given to the newspapers?
]Mr. Browdeb. It was.
Mr. Adamson. Would you be good enough to have a copy sent to us, if it is not
contained in the book?
Mr. Browdeb. Yes, sir.
Mr. Adamson. Did the Political Association send funds abroad during the
approximate year of its existence?
Mr. Browdek. No.
Mr. Adamson. No funds whatever were sent abroad by the Association?
Mr. Browder. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Adamson. Isn't it true that the association had a special fund for aiding
the Communist parties and Communist movements in other countries?
Mr. Browder. The association contained in its budget provisions for welfare
of anti-Fascist I'efugees and so on. During the last period — during the period of
the activities of the association, expenditures for this purptise were confined to
the United States, refugees in this country.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Adamson, let me ask a question there on the fundamentals.
The philosophy that you enunciate in that preamble provides for the public
ownership of all property, does it not?
Mr. BROWDEi. No, sir; not of all property.
Mr. Rankin. Of all land, homes, and means of production?
Mr. Browder. No ; distinctly not.
Mr. Rankin. A\'e]l, what about the land? It takes land? Let us take land
.first. Does it include the government ownership of all land?
Mr. Browder. Not necessarily.
Mr. Rankin. That is exactly what the doctrine of Marx and Lenin proposed.
Mr. Bbowdh!. Perhaps you know that doctrine better than I do. That is not
my interpretation.
Mr. Rankin. That is not your interpretation? Isn't that what happens when
the Communists get control of a country? Don't they nationalize all the land,
take it over, take over the homes, farms, make it all government property?
Mr. Browder. To the extent that it is necessary for the purpose of socializing
the processes of production and bringing the greatest benefits of production to
18 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
the population as a whole, to that degree the Marxian program provides for the
nationalizing of land.
Mr. Rankin. Who is that decided by?
Mr. BkO'WDEr. By the people.
Mr. Rankin. By the people or by the commissars?
Mr. Bkowder. By the people.
Mr. Rankin. Do you think that in the socialization of the land of Bulgaria the
people of Bulgaria were consulted? Were the people who owned the land in
those countries that have been forced into coninmnism — were they consulted
before their homes were taken away and their land taken away from them?
Mr. Bkowder. I am not familiar with the condition as you describe of socializa-
tion of land in Bulgaria. I have no such information, so I cannot comment
upon it. In fact, I would question whether the information is accurate.
Mr. Rankin. Well, probably that has been taken out of the constitution since
you came to the Communist Party in the United States.
Let ma ask you another thing. Do you not take all factories and means of
production? Is that correct?
Mr. Bkowder. I would not say that I woiild take over anything.
Mr. RAnkin. I mean isn't that what your party program provides; calls for?
Mr. Bkowder. The party prrgram is directed toward eventual assumption of
ownership of productive property basically, the main industries of the country
and its financial institutions, by the people as a whole through the people's
government.
Mr. Rankin. Through the government in control.
In other words, that is what you mean there by nationalizing the economy of
the country?
Mr. Bkowder. I did not specify nationalizing, and I don't think that that word
was in the document that you read. I think that common ownership, nationaliza-
tion, may or may not be a form of common ownership, and I think you are intro-
ducing an element of confusion when you interchange these terms.
Mr. Rankin. Let me see that document he read, that first preamble. I want
to find out just what it is. fMr. Adamson handed a paper to Mr. Rankin.]
Mr. Thomas. Will the gentleman yield to me while you are looking at the
document ?
Mr. Browder, what do you mean by the "common ownership of property?"
Mr. Bkowder. What do I mean by the common ownership?
Mr. Thomas. Yes. How would you interpret that phrase "the common owner-
ship of property?"
Mr. Bkowder. Common ownership of property is the distribution of the owner-
ship among a number of peop'e who hold the ownership in common, and when I
speak of the common ownership of property by the people or by the nation, which
are synonymous terms, we mean ownership which is held and exercised through
the institutions set up by the whole of the people.
Mr. Thomas. Wouldn't you believe, though, that the people who might read
that preamble, who might see that phrase there, would naturally believe that
all of the property in the United States owned now by the people would then bo
owned by the States?
Mr. Bkowder. That is, of course, a possible misinterpretation of intention.
Mr. Thomas. Then you and the other Communists would interpret it one way^
and the people would interpret it another way?
Mr. Browder. I would not say the people would. I would say that such people
as yourself would certainly interpret it in a different way from what Communists
would.
Mr. Thomas. I rather believe you are right in that, and I rather believe that
if it was put to a vote of the people in this room that they would interpret com-
mon ownership by the people of the property just as I have interpreted it.
Mr. Bkowder. "That is possible.
Mr. Rankin. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me proceed, if I may.
This preamble of the constitution of the Commimist Party that you read a
moment ago, Mr. Browder, has this statement, and that is what I referred to:
"The Communist Party recognizes that the final abolition of exploitation and
oppression, of economic crises and unemployment, of reaction and war, will be
achieved only by the socialist reorganization of society — by the common owner-
ship and operation of the national economy under a government of the people
led by the working class."
Now, in the first place, the first instance there you say that it is to be owned
by the socialist reorganization of society. What do you mean by that?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 19
Mr. Browder. Just exactly what it says.
Mr. Rankin. Then you state here "by the common ownership and operation
■of the national economy." Will you explain what that means? What do you
mean by that? The national economy as I understand it takes in everything
from the home of the humblest peasant to the castle of the wealthiest individual,
from the land that the peasant plows to the factory that the manufacturer oper-
ates, and from the tree from which the lumberman makes his living, to the vast
lumberyards, the vast operations that transform that lumber into finished
procUicts and distributes it throughout the world. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Bkowder. No ; I would give the term "national economy" a somewhat
narrower interpretation.
Mr. Rank'n. What would be .vour interpretation?
Mr. Browder. I would exclude from the interpretation that you give all prop-
erty of a consumption nature in the hands of individual consumers. That would
include homes and so on, and all personal property of a distinctly personal use.
Mr. Rankin. You would not take over
Mr. Browder (interposing). I would include the natural resources of the
country and its main productive apparatus which is represented in highly or-
ganized, modern industry and the large social aspects of the machinery of
distribution.
Mr. Rankin. That covers everything, as I understand, except the homes that
people live in. You would take over the land that produces the crops?
Mr. Bkowder. I think a better definition would be to say that it covers all of
those factors of the economy which has to be used collectively and not indi-
vidually. I think that all of those factors which are of individual use and not
of collective use would be excluded.
Mr. Rankin. Will you cite some of those and give to us just what categories
you refer to?
Mr. Browder. I think that my reply is very clear and definite.
Mr. Rankin. Then I will make it more specific. Would you take over the
land, the agricultural land of the country, have the government do so?
Mr. Browder. I would have to answer that question when the conditions of
the problem as it develops in history have been stated. I could not give a
categorical answer to such a question from the point of view of the general
program.
Mr. Rankin. But that is contemplated by this preamble to the Communist
constitution, is it not?
Mr. Browder. Not necessarily.
Mr. Rankin. Well, it is within the range of the pi'ovisions. is it not?
Mr. Browder. It could be if the conditions of the development of the prob-
lem would justify it. It would require a reference to concrete conditions. It
could not be answered in the abstract.
Mr. Rankin. As a matter of fact, you know that in Russia Lenin and Trotsky
did take over all land — the Government?
Mr. Browdek. I cannot accept your historical description of the process in
Russia.
Mr. Rankin. All right, suppose you give us yours.
Mr. Browder. That would be far afield — lead us far afield.
Mr. Rankin. As a matter of fact, you know the Russian Government during
that regime took over all the land in the name of the Russian Government, did
it not?
Mr. Browdfr. The Russian Revolution nationalized the land.
Mr. Rankin. All right, probably that is the term you prefer to use. Do you
want to nationalize the land in this country?
Mr. Browder. I would want to qualify my answer by saying that if in the
historical development of America we do have the same conditions which called
for the nationalization of the land in Russia, then I would be in favor of it,
but I am not at all sure that the development of America is going to approxi-
mate the historical development of Russia.
Mr. Rankin. I don't think so either, when our boys get back from the war.
Mr. Browder. Therefore I very much dislike the machinical application of
historical analogies from one country to another. I think each country has its
very distinct historical development.
Mr. Rankin. But that is within the range of the provisions of the preamble
to the constitution of the Communist Party, is it not?
Mr. Browder. Abstractly it is a possible interpretation, but concretely it is
not a necessary one.
20 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Rankin. And you find by referring to this that you are for the principles
of INIarx and Lenin. Now, under the policies of Marx and Lenin that was what
happened in Russia, so it was evidently in contemplation by the framers of
this constitution, and it must be in the contemplation of every member of the
Communist Party who understands that constitution, must it not?
Mr. Browdee. No, I would not say so, because your question, while not clearly
stating it, implies that what you have in mind is that this constitution demands
of those who adhere to it that they advocate and press for a mechanical repetition
in America of the historical process which took place in Russia, and that is not
the intention of the document.
Mr. Rankin. You spoke of taking over the processes of production. That
would mean all factories, would it not?
Mr. Bkowdee. Eventually.
Mr. Rankin. You would eventually take over all factories?
Mr. Browder. Eventually.
Mr. Rankin. You would have them all operated by the Federal Government?
Mr. Browder. Eventually.
Mr. Rankin. Then it would take all means of transportation and all highway
construction and everything of that kind, and put that in the hands of the Cen-
tral Government?
Mr. Browdee. Eventually.
Mr. Rankin. In other words, your program here, laid down in this Communist,
wiiat you call "constitution" and which 1 call a "platform," is in direct conflict
with the Constitution of the United States, is it not?
Mr. Browdee. It is not.
Mr. Rankin. And it is in direct conflict with the constitution of every State
in this Union?
]Mr. Browdek. It is not.
Mr. Rankin. It is in direct conflict with the principles and provisions of the
common law that governed this country ^ip to the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, and that is in effect in many States now, if not abrogated by
State law?
Mr. Browder. It is not.
Mr. Rankin. In other words, you say that you support the principles of Marx-
ism and Leninism. Marx was opposed to every kind of religion, was he not?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Rankin. He was opposed to an established church of any kind, was he-
uot?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Rankin. He was opposed to any kind of an organized church?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Rankin. What kind of church was he opposed to?
Mr. Browder. He was opposed to a state church, very definitely.
Mr. Rankin. He was an atheist, was he not?
Mr. Browder. I don't know what you mean by "atheist."
Mr. Rankin. Wasn't he an avowed atheist?
Mr. Browder. I don't think he ever subscribed himself as an atheist.
Mr. Rankin. He renounced any belief whatever in Christianity, didn't he?
Mr. Browder. Well, Karl Marx was a Jew, I believe.
Mr. Rankin. Was he I didn't know that. Probably I have read it some
time. He was opposed to the system of religious worship that we have in this
country, was he not?
Mr. Browder. I don't know that Marx ever wrote about the system of religion
institutions in America.
Mr. Rankin. Lenin was opposed to all Christian churches, was he not?
Mr. BrO'Wdee,. No.
Mr. Rankin. He closed them all, didn't he?
Mr. Browder. No, he did not.
Mr. Rankin. What did he do with them?
Mr. Browder. Under the policies that were adopted by the Soviet Union under
the leadership of Lenin, there was established for the first time in tliat great
country complete religious freedom, the abolition of all oppression on religious
grounds.
Mr. Rankin. He closed all the churches, did he not?
Mr. Browder. No, sir ; he did not. •
Mr. Rankin. Under the Lenin and Trotsky regime?
Mr. Browder. No, they did not.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 21
Mr. Rankin. Trotsky was with Leniu? He was second in command, was
he not?
Mr. Browdek. No, he was not.
Mr. Rankin. What was his position in the Government at the time of Lenin's
death?
Mr. Browder. I don't know offhand. It is a matter that could be referred to
in historical books.
Mr. Rankin. He expected to succeed I^nin as head of the Communist Party
and therefore head of the Russian Government, did he not?
Mr. B;;owDKK. I don't know what he expected.
Mr. Rankin. And as a matter of fact, when Stalin ran him out of the country —
or he ran out of the country to keep Stalin from catching him, didn't he?
Mr. Bkowder. I think that your version of history is very crude.
Mr. Rankin. I am sure it is crude. It was a crude operation.
IMr. BiiowDEn. Exactly.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I don't object to anyone calling my knowledge
of history crude, because this is a crude history we are dealing with.
Mr. BKOwDizE. I was not questioning your knowledge, Mr. Rankin; I was only-
questioning your expression at this moment.
Mr. Rankin. I am trying to get information. I am getting right down to the
crux of what this party is for. They not only took over the laud under Lenin
and Trotsky, but they proceeded to murder what they called the "Kulaks," that
is, farmers who were reasonably prosperous, the landowners, or if they ijrotested
they either murdered them, killed them, executed them probably legally under
the system, or exiled them to Siberia, did they not?
Mr. Browder. No, they did not.
Mr. Rankin. They did not?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Rankin. What condition did you find along that line when you went over
there?
Mr. Browt)er. I found a condition of great improvement in the conditions of
life, of education, of all phases of economic and social development of people,
an improvement which grew progressively more rapid with the passing of every
year. In fact, my observation of that system has confirmed me in my previous
beliefs which had been gained by study, that socialism is incomiJarably the most
efficient system of advancing human progress.
Mr. Rankin. In other words, you found a system of government that, from
your point of view, was superior to the system of government in the United
States, did you not?
Mr. Browder. I think I discovered something over there in practical life which
America, in spite of its enormous advantages over Russia, could profitably learn
something from.
Mr. Rankin. Will you tell us what they were?
Mr. Bkowdeu. Exactly this : the ai>plication of the principle of collective owner-
ship as against private ownership of the means of production.
Mr. Rankin. Now then, you realize what haiJpened, of course, under that
coUec-tive ownership to the farmers of the Ukraine in 1931, I believe it was?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Rankin. Let me go a step further, coming back to this communistic plat-
form and the attitude of Lenin and Trotsky. You know, as a matter of fact,
that Stalin was reared in a Christian home, do you not, and was educated for
the priesthood in the Orthodox Russian Church? That is correct, is it not?
Mr. Browder. I have read that, and I have no reason to doubt it.
:Mr. Rankin. And when he .ioined the Revolution it was because of bis idea
of tlie lack of justice under the existing regime, and when he came into power
-one of the direct conflicts betweeji him and Trotsky was the question of oppressing
or persecuting the Christian people of Russia, was it not?
Mr. Browder. I cannot agree with your statement of the problems as they
develofied.
Mr. Rankin. As a matter of fact, Stalin has reopened the churches of Russia,
that is. the Orthodox Churches, has he not?
Mr. Browder. I would not say that, no. I would say that under the policies
which were developed by the Soviet Government under the leadership of Stalin
there has been a progressive development of the exercise of religious freedom,
which has been guaranteed at all time in the Russian Revolution.
Mr. Thomas. A point of order. Mr. Chairman. We are devoting most of our
time now to Russia. We are not investigating what happened in Russia or what
22 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
has happened in Bulgaria or whether Stalin was a Christian or not, or whatever
he was. We are trying to find out certain things from this witness, and if we
don't get down to brass tacks Mr. Adamson, our attorney, will never be able to
finish.
Mr. Rankin. I will state to the gentleman from New Jersey that what I was
trying to find out was just what they mean by this preamble to the constitution
of the Communist Party, but if the gentleman from New Jersey objects I will
stop.
Mr. Thomas. I am not objecting. I am just afraid that we will spend so
much time
Mr. Eankin (interposing). I was showing just what kind of government — I
was trying to show as best I could just what kind of government or lack of
government, just what kind of order or lack of order, just what kind of confusion
this Communist platform proposes for the American people. That is what I
was trying to bring out. But I don't want to take up the time of the committee
unnecessarily with it. I will turn it back to the chairman of the committee.
The Chairman. The Chair would like to ask two or three questions at this
point.
If I understood your testimony a while ago correctly, Mr. Browder, the
principle of the Communist Party as enunciated in this preamble involves in
the Government's control the ultimate taking over by tlie people, through the
constituted government that they set up, all production agencies of the country.
Is that correct?
Mr. Browder. I would say the principal productive agencies.
The Chairman. And I believe you said a while ago that your interpretation
of it was tliat it would not involve the taking over of property used for consump-
tive purposes purely, such as homes and subsistence farms? Is that right?
Mr. Browdek. That is correct.
The Chairman. But that farms that were used for profit would come within
the category of the properties stated which the Government would assume
control of. Is that true?
Mr. Browdee. No, I would say that on the question of farms this is a problem
to be decided largely upon the basis of individual consent and the probable
development towards the socialized forms through a system of voluntary coopera-
tives, not through state institutions.
The Chairman. That brings up the question that I was concerned about.
From necessity there must be some authority to determine that question of what
is to be taken over and what is not. Where would that authority rest, under
the interpretation you place upon the document to which you subscribe?
Mr. Browdee. I think all authority is ultimately derived from the people, and
any authority which is not so derived and constantly refreshed is a false
authority.
The Chairman. Obviously so. Isn't it true, Mr. Witness, that all of the people,
each individual of government, cannot be consulted and their consent obtained
with respect to taking over each individual piece of property? Would you of
necessity have to have that authority placed in the hands of some individual or
group of individuals, and if so, whom?
Mr. Browder. That is a purely hypothetical question, hat I have no objection
to answering it. I think it is quite certain that a government which was devoted
to the welfare of the people would develop toward socialism and would establish
certain tribunals in which these policies would be fixed and certain authoritative
institutions for the proper application of these policies ; that it would be done
according to the best principles of representative government.
^e Chairman. And naturally, those organizations would be implemented
wiui power to enforce their decrees and decisions.
Mr. Browder. To the extent that is necessary, and my conception of a proper
policy in that i-egard is that there would be the maximum application possible
of the principle of consultation and agreement. These are principles which are
very largely developed, even under our present form of economy.
Mr. MuRDOCK. May I ask a question at this point? The witness is a writer
of note and also a student of communism. We ought to have clear definitions if
we are going to have clear thinking, should we not?
Mr. Browder. Correct.
Mr. Murdoch. May I ask the witness if he will define the term "Communist"?
Or let me put it this way : may I ask who as a "Communist" ?
Mr. Browder. Well, it seems that the whole subject which concerns my ap-
pearance here is the attempt to define a Communist, and it is very difficult to
concentrate the whole purpose of the discussion into a few sentences.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 23
Mr. MuKDOCK. I am a seeker after knowledge. I hear the expression used
often, and I would like to have it defined.
Mr. Br.owDER. Yes, we all of us have lieard in the last year public statements
made by apparently responsible people that even the President of the United
States was a Communist or a near Communist. I think that is stretching the
term very far indeed, and I think that no useful purpose can be served by de-
fining communism or a Communist in anything bej'ond the terms of the adherents
of the Coranuinist Party.
Mr. Kankin. You never regarded the President of the United States as a
Communist, did you?
Mr. Browder. I certainly did not. And I made that clear at all stages of
public debate on this question.
Mr. Thomas. Did you ever regard Mrs. Roosevelt as a Communist?
Mr. Browder. I did not. I have very sharp difference with you, Mr. Thomas,
on that point.
Mr. Thomas. I never said Mrs. Roosevelt was a Communist.
Mr. Browder. I understood j'ou had.
I\Ir. Thomas. Oh, no ; you are mistaken.
Mr. ^MuKDOcK. May I ask a little further then, would you draw a distinctiou
between communism and socialism?
Mr. Browder. No, I would not, except in the terms that socialism used properly
and in the scientific usage refers to a state of development of the economy which
precedes communism, and the Communists propose to introduce socialism. That
is their ultimate proposal.
Mr. INIURDOCK. Of course, we have had a Communist Party in the United
States and we have now, and we have had a Socialist Party in the United States.
You would have to make a distinction between them, according to your earlier
definition that a Communist is one who adheres to the Communist Party, is a
member of it, and a Socialist is one who is a member of the Socialist Party.
Would that be correct?
Mr. Browder. Well, if you want my opinion about the definition of a Socialist
in relation to the Socialist Party, I would have to answer that to so define a
Socialist you have to go far away from the Socialist Party. In some places
that is even true of Democrats. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rankin. According to your statement, then, socialism is merely a step
towards communism?
Mr. Browder. A precondition for the later development of commimism.
Mr. ]\lURDOCK. I am not yet satisfied by a clear distinction between them.
Mr. Landis. One question tliere, Mr. Chairman. I notice here in the consti-
tution and pft)gram of the Communist Party of America, adopted by the Joint
Unity Convention of the Communist Party and the United States Communist
Party of America the following :
"The Communist Party will keep in the foreground the idea of the necessity
of violent revolution for the destruction of the capitalist state and the estab-
lishment of the dictatorship of tlie proletariat, based on Soviet ix»wer.
"The Communist Party will systematically and persistently propagate tlie idea
of the inevitability of and necessity for violent revolution, and will prepare
the workers for armed insurrection as the only means of overthrowing the
capitalist state."
I just wondered if you thought the old Communist Party or the new Com-
munist Association, if they believed in revolution to overthrow the capitalist
state.
Mr. Browder. I can say very definitely "no" to both aspects of your question.
Mr. Landis. Wasn't there some difference on that point between yoir and this
Frenchman Duclos? Wasn't there some difference in your program of returning
to the class struggle and class warfare?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Landis. No difference?
Mr. Rankin. What was the difference between you and Mr. Duclos? I under-
stood it was his statement that brought about the change from the Communist
Association, or whatever you call it, back to the Communist Party. What was
the difference betwen them?
Mr. BRowDEii. I would not care to discuss that matter in this forum. My opin-
ions have been made public and are a matter of record. I have no desire to elabo-
rate upon them in any way.
Mr. Rankin. You didn't agree with Mr. Duclos, as I understand it.
Mr. Browder. I do not care to discuss the question.
24 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Rankin. Do you embrace the philo.sophy that he expressed?
Mr. Bkowder. I do not care to discuss this question.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important matter.
The Chairman. I think the question is pertinent, if he knows what the man
expressed. He ought to know.
Mr. Thomas. Whether the witness doesn't care to discuss it, that is just his
desire ; whether we want him to discuss it is another question.
The Chairman. If the question relates to what someone else thinks, he can
assert his right; if he knows what the party named said, it is a question of
whether he agrees with that. That is the question before us.
Mr. Rankin. Then I ask for an answer to my question, if he agrees with this
statement.
The Chaieman. I think it is pertinent, if he knows what the statement was.
Mr. Rankin. You read the statement, did you not?
Mr. Browdek. Which statement?
Mr. Rankin. Tlie statement of Mr. Duclos.
Mr. Landis. I just asked him if he agreed to the statement.
Mr. Rankin. That is what I am asking, if he agrees with the statement of
Jacques Duclos to the Communists of America.
Mr. Browder. I don't know what particular statement you have reference to.
Mr. Thomas. I will tell him what the statement is. You remember the state-
ment that Mr. Duclos made to the Communists here, which resulted in your
resignation as president?
Mr. Browder. No, I do not. I never resigned f*'om anything.
Mr. Thomas. You didn't resign?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Thomas. Maybe they put you out. Anyway it resulted in your abdication.
Mr. Browder. You are expressing an opinion to which you are entitled, and in
which I do not necessarily have to share.
Mr. Thomas. Have you ever heard of the Mr. Duclos that we are talking about?
Mr. Browder. What Duclos do you have reference to?
Mr. Thomas. I am referring to the Communist in France who made a state-
ment to the Communists in America, and as a result of that statement you either
resigned or you were put out.
Mr. Browder. I never heard of any Communist in France making a statement
to the Communists of the United States.
Mr. Thomas. Well, he might have made a statement to the Communists of the
world then, but you certainly know who we are talking about. Stop this
foolishness.
Mr. Landis. It was a statement with regard to the dissolution of the Communist
Party in the United States. That was the statement.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Browder knows all about it. He knows so much more about
it than we do that it is absurd.
Mr. Browder. I even know, Mr. Thomas, something about the law, and when
you use technicalities against me I am perfectly entitled in law and morals to
take I'efuge in technicalities myself.
Mr. Thomas. And you think these are technicalities that we are asking you?
Mr. Browder. I have said that I do not care to discuss the questions that
you raise, and if you want to force me to discuss them you will have to do so
according to the technicalities of the law.
Mr. Thomas. All right then. I am in favor of having- Mr. Browder answer
these questions, even if we have to force him with the technicalities of the law,
but he is just evading the questions. He knows that one of the main reasons
he is in this room is because we want to find out something about the connection
between this Mr. Duclos and the Communists abroad, and the Communists here
in the United States, and he is going to evade and avoid an.swering every question
that has anything to do with that subject, or he will be in the same position
that Trotsky was.
Mr. Landis. May I ask a question, if this is a fair question : Would the leader
of the Communist Party, say Mr. Duclos, in France — would he have to have
permission of the International to criticize the Communists in the United States?
Mr. Browder. Mr. Landiis, the international organization was dissolved in
June 1943. and there has been no international organization since that time.
Mr. Landis. Prior to that time?
Mr. Browder. Prior to that time? No, not necessarily.
Mr. Landis. I just wondered if Mr. Duclos was speaking on his own or was
speaking from the International?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 25
Mr. Bkowdkr. I can not answer your question about any particular incident,
but I can answer In general thai to my knowledge of the international Com-
munist movement, there has always been a great deal of freedom of speech
and press.
Mr. Thomas. Then they want to free us?
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I think the question with reference to this
Duclos incident, whicli resulted in Mr. Browder's removal and the reorganization
of the Communist Party, should be answered by the witness. The chairman of
the committee is an able lawyer.
The Chaikman. It has not been established yet that Mr. Browder was removed.
Mr. Rankin. He knows the statement that was made by Mr. Duclos, and
he tells the committee that he is going to take advantage of every technicality.
I want to get the reason lor Mr. Browder's removal.
The Chairman. I think it might be better to indicate to this committee if
you agree with the separation of yourself from the particular position yau
occupied.
Mr. Browder. The convention of the Communist Political Association was held,
Avhich changed its constitution to rename it the Communist Party of the United
States, and as is customary at conventions, the ofRcers were elected and the
delegates to the convention saw fit to elect ofiicers, which did not include myself.
As to their reasons for that action, you will have to inquire of them. I cannot
iinswer.
The Chairman. Of your knowledge, i\Ir. Browder, was there any reason offered
in connection with any statements that have been made by the party named,
Duclos, as having influenced the action of any of the delegates in not renaming
you? Were such statements made in your presence?
Mr. Browdkr. Not directly, but these are questions such as are usual in the
development of political organizations, which can be answered only as opinions.
The Chairman. It would not be an opinion if you heard it. That is what
I am asking you, if you heard any statements made by any delegate in that
convention, offering as a reason for opposing your reelection to an official position
therein, the statements credited to Mr. Duclos?
Mr. Browder. I did not hear any such statement, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are tliere any other questions by the committee?
Mr. Rankin. I could ask some other questions but he will not answer them.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, I show you a photostatic copy of extracts from
the Daily Worker of New York, dated May 24, 1945, on the subject of the disso-
lution of the Communist Party of the United States, and also another article
entitled "A Foreword to the Article of Jacques Duclos," and the distinguished
author of this article is Earl Browder. I wonder if you could identify that
and tell us if you know the author. [Handing a paper to the witness.]
Mr. Browder. I am familiar with the document whicli you hand me, and the
foreword written by Earl Browder is an article written by myself.
Mr. Adamson. And this article, Mr. Chairman, consists of three pages. They
are photostatic copies, which I should like to offer for the record.
The Chairman. With that identification, without objection they will be
received.
(The photostat of extracts from the Daily Worker, New York, Thursday, May
24, 194."), was marked "Exhibit 5" and received in evidence.)
Mr. Rankin. Of course I will not object, but what is it you are putting into
the record ?
Mr. Adamson. This is an extract from an article published in the Daily Worker,
dated May 24, 1945, which deals at great length with the dissolution of the Com-
munist Party. It is a statement by the Frenchman, Jacques Duclos, and on the
same page there is the beginning of an article written by Mr. Browder him.self,
in which he criticizes or answers the article written by the Fi'enchman. The two
articles are on the same page.
Mr. RvNKiN. In other words, you mean Earl Browder, the witness here?
Mr. Adamson. Yes.
Mr. Rankin. On the same page, answering the same document that defines
The attitude of Jacques Duclos?
Mr. Adamson. I would not want to characterize it as an answer, but there are
two articles and they are on the same subject matter.
Mr. Rankin. On the same page of the same paper?
Mr. ADA^rsoN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rankin. I have no objection to it going into the record.
26 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
The Chairman. Very well. It has been received.
Mr. Thomas. Who is Mr. Duclos?
Mr. Browoeb. Mr. Duclos, author of the article which has just been handed
me, is the leader of the Communist Party in France.
Mr. Rankin. Do you agree with him, with his statement?
Mr. Browder. I would refer you to the fact that my opinions have been a
matter of public record, and I have nothing to add to the record.
Mr. Rankin. I don't care anything about them being a matter of public record ;
I am asking you now if you agree with that statement by Duclos?
Mr. Browder. That is impossible to answer.
The Chairman. Why is it impossible, Mr. Witness? You are familiar with
the article, aren't you?
Mr. Browder. I am-familiar with the article.
The Chairman. Do you agree with every observation made in it?
Mr. Browcer. With every observation made in it? I don't think that in all my
life I ever read an article in which I agreed with all the observations, except my
own articles, of course. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. I was not asking you about your past experiences ; I want to
know if you agi-ee with the statement of principles embodied in that article.
Mr. Browder. 1 do not know what statement of principle you mean.
The Chairman. Any of them.
Mr. Browder. It is subject to many interpretations, and a "yes" or "no" answer
will not clarify but will only create further confusion.
Mr. AnAM,s0N. You mean by that, Mr. Browder, that you doubt the ability of
the members of the committee to understand your explanation?
Mr. Browder. No ; I do not.
Mr. Adamson. Well, why do you assume that it will create such a confusion in
their minds?
Mr. Browder. Because the question is not defined whatever, and a "yes" or
"no" answer to such a question, no matter what the question refers to, always
creates more confusion than clarity.
Mr. Adamson. Suppose you answer it to the best of your ability. It is not
necessary that you give categorical answers here. You are the witness, of course.
Suppose you make an effort.
Mr. BaowDER. I really am unable to summon the tremendous energy required
for such an effort as that at this time.
Mr. Adamson. New, Mr. Browder, in your testimony and the document which
we have reviewed here this morning
Mr. MuRDOCK (interposing). May I ask a question before counsel proceeds?
What was the purpose in submitting this paper as an exhibit with these two
articles side by side? Is one of them a comment on the other?
Mr. Adamson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Murdock. Yet the witness does not answer the question categorically, then
we are expected, I presume, to get the answer by reading the two articles.
Mr. Adamson. I should like for him to say what he means, Mr. Murdock. As
a matter of fact, I have somewhat a feeling of resentment that he thinks the
members of the committee would not understand his explanation, and it would
wind up in greater confusion in your minds.
Mr. Browder. Perhaps that would be my thought and not that of the committee.
I am not imputing any lack of ability on the part of the committee.
Mr. Adamson. I suggest that you make an effort, then, to answer the question.
Mr. Landis. Mr. Chairman, the reason I brought that up was because he says
that the new Communist Association was against revolution and the overthrow
of capitalism by force. That is what I understand from his answer.
Mr. Browder. I did not say that the Communist Association was against revolu-
tion. If I would come out against revolution I would be repudiating the origin
of my Nation, and I am not going to do that. I am a proponent of revolution.
Mr. Landis. You are a proponent of revolution?
Mr. Browder. Yes; and I think that America has advanced only through revolu-
tion.
Mr. Rankin. Probably that accounts for your not protesting more vigorously
against the revolution in the Communist Party that Mr. Duclos proposed in his
statement.
Mr. Browder. Was there a revolution?
Mr. Lanfis. It seems to me there was.
Mr. Browder. You can Inform me about such things.
• INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 27
Mr. Landis. I undorstaiid Mr. Duclos was for a return to the class struggle
and class warfare, and I understood the article there by you to be against that.
That is the iioiiit 1 wauled to make. Are you for the association to return to
the class struggle and the class warfare?
INIr. BiiowDEii. I don't think that defines any of the issues involved in the
political debate.
Mr. L.vNDis. I think that is a big issue against the Communist Association in
the United States.
Mr. Bi:owi)j:r. That is your un(l(>rstanding. You are entitled to it.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Brnwder, isn't it true that the reconstituted Communist
Party is still bound by the iirinciiiles announced by Marx and Lenin and Stalin?
You referred to Marxism and Leninism and Stalinism, I believe.
Mr. BuowuEi;. I believe that those principles are common to all organizations
of Communists, regardless of what name is involved.
Mr. A!>AMSON. You have appeared before congressional committees on similar
subjec*^s before, have you not, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browder. Not only congressional committees but other institutions of the
Government. My latest appearance was last March or April before a subcom-
mittee appointed by the War Manpower Commission in Chicago to investigate
charges that had been brought against Government employees supposed to be
members of the Connnunist Political Association, and I appeared before that
•conmiission and testified as to the nature of the Communist Political Association,
and as a result the proceedings against that employee of the Government were
dropped.
Mr. AoAjrsoN. And you have made quite a number of speeches and written
Quite a number of articles on these subjects, have you not?
Mr. Browder. I have. My views are well known.
Mr. Adamson. And you also know that Mr. William Z. Foster and a number of
other persons have made speeches and written numerous articles?
Mr. Browder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Adamson. In other words, you are not the only active individual in this
field?
INIr. Browder. *That is right.
Mr. Adamson. And you also know that the doctrines publicly announced by
you and your associates concerning Stalinism and Leninism advocate and preach
the total destruction of what they describe as the "capitalist machinery" of
government. Isn't that in substance the language?
Mr. Browder. I do not remember that particular language.
Mr. Adamson. Well, in substance, that is correct, is it not? Let us not get
mixed upon in technicalities which you mentioned awhile ago. Let us cut it short.
Mr. Browder. No ; I could not agree just in that short form in which you put
it, because I know from experience that that kind of short formulations are the
starting point for the most complete distortion and falsification of the position
which the Communist actually holds.
Mr. Adamson. Suppose you give us the long form answer.
Mr. Browder. I would require notice from the committee to answer such a
question as that, that I could prepare myself for reference to my writings, which
are on record, which I would be very glad to place before the committee in part
or in full. In the last 10 years I have published in book and pamphlet form
some 2,000 pages, covering almost every political question under the sun.
The Chairman. I believe you gave us that information yesterday.
Mr. Browder. And I will be glad to place all of that before the committee,
or any part of it it wishes. I do not care to elaborate extemporaneously on
these questions.
Mr. Adamson. Let us take a specific example of some of the objectives of the
Communist Party, as reconstituted here. I have noticed numei'ous newspaper
articles — for example, that a meeting has been called in New York of certain
representatives from the Southern States for the purpose of discussing the organi-
zation or formation of what they call a "Negro Soviet Republic," and that meeting
apparently is under the auspices of the leaders or members of the'Communist
Party. I believe the subject was discussed at the last convention.
Mr. Browdkr. I believe you are misinformed.
Mr. Adamson. Well, suppose you straighten us out, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browdek. I can only straighten you out by telling you that your information
is false.
Mr. Adams. And the newspaper articles, then, are in error? Concerning your
convention last summer?
28 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA '
Mr. Bkowder. I would say that I was present in most of the convention meet-
ings and never heard it discussed, and my opinion is that anyone who malies
such a statement is deliberately lying.
Mr. Adam SON. And the newspaper articles, then, are in error? Is that your
view?
Mr. Browder. I would not say "error." I would say "falsehood." I don't
think it was an unintentional mistake.
The Chairman. What paper carried that article? Do you know, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browder. No ; I do not.
The Chairman. Have you ever seen the article?
Mr. Browder. I do not remember having seen it.
Mr. Adamson (banding a newspaper clipping to the witness). That is dated
the 24th of this month, and I believe it is a clipping from the Journal American.
Mr. Browder. My experience would teach me to judge, even without special
investigation, that any article in that paper would be false.
Mr. Adamson. Well, can you tell us, Mr. Browder, when you first heard that
subject discussed? I believe you became an officer, you say, a general officer,
way back in 1930. Did you hear that subject discussed as far back as 1930 by
anyone?
Mr. Erowder. I have heard the theory that has been referred to as a Soviet
Republic in the South specifically discussed in order to refute it.
Mr. Adamson. And how recently have you heard discussion by your associates
on that subject?
Mr. Browder. Not in the last 10 years.
Mr. Adamson. Have you seen any of the newspaper publicity on the subject
recently?
Mr. Browder. I have.
Mr. Adamson. And your statement here, then, is that is false and misleading?
Mr. Beowdek. False and misleading, and deliberately so, and not for the pur-
pose of conducting an examination into the question itself but for ulterior pur-
poses connected with current political struggles dealing with entirely other
matters, to affect elections, specifically the election of Ben Davis to the council
in the coming elections in New York City.
Mr. Adamson. I am glad to have your opinion and characterization on this
matter.
Mr. Browdfb. That is not my opinion ; that is just a statement of fact.
Mr. Adamson. Very well. And you brand any articles in the Daily Worker
on that subject as equally false and misleading?
Mr. Browdeb. I do not.
Mr. Adamson. Well then
Mr. Browder (interposing). I refer to these specific articles which you brought
forward, which did not include any articles from the Daily Worker nor any of
the responsible press of New York.
Mr. Adamson. Will you concede, then, that any articles in the Daily Worker
would be regarded by you as responsible and trustworthy on this subject about
which we are talking now?
Mr. Browder. I would consider that an article on this subject in the Daily
Worker would, in all probability, be responsible and reliable.
Mr. Adamson. And if the Daily Worker published such articles, then, would
you now say that there might be some foundation for the news report?
Mr. Browder. I would ask you if you have any such article in mind to
present it.
Mr. Adamson. No ; I am
Mr. Browdeb (interposing). So I can examine it concretely, and not have
hypothetical questions asked.
Mr. Adamson. But if they published them, you would give some credence to
it, would you?
Mr. Browder. I do not understand the value of questions of a hypothetical
nature nor hM)othetical answers.
Mr. Adamson. Well, Mr. Browder, let me ask you one more question before
we adjourn. Isn't it true that one of the principal points of dispute between
you and the Duclos faction was some expressed, or let us say feared, desire on
your part to make the headquartei'S of the Communist International here in
the United States instead of in Moscow?
Mr. Brovvt>eb. I think that any such views are so completely fantastic and so
completely unrelated to any realities in the world of today that they could only
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 29
arise in the mind of someone who was suffering from delusions or some other
form of insanity.
The Chaikma-n. As I understand it, tlien, your answer to that question is
"no"? [Laughter.]
Mr. Adamson. Well, I want him to say "no," Mr. Chairman. He has not
sail! it yet.
Mr. Browder. Such a question as that requires something more glorified than
a simple "no."
The Chairman. For the purposes of our understanding that was what you
intended to convey, the impression you meant to convey to us?
Mr. EKOwuEai. I would like to elaborate the "no"' on^uch a question as that.
Mr. Rankin. In one of your speeches — Mr. Chairman, I do not care to take
up the time of the House with more questions along this line at this time, but
1 want to ask ]iim — we will have to adjouru before noon, because some Mem-
bers want to be on the floor when the House convenes, for certain reasons, and
I am one of them, but I would like to know wlien we can take up Mr. Browder
again?
The Chairman. At 10 o'clock tomorrow morning?
Mr. Browder. Mr. Chairman, if this interrogation is going to be continued
interminably from day to day, I must enter a very emphatic protest. I have
already been here 2 days.
The Chairman. We will excuse you at noon tomorrow.
Mr. Browder. Holding me over vmtil tomorrow places me in a very great dif-
ficulty. I ha-4 assumed that you would have disposed of me at least within 2
days, and I had postponed very important business appointments until tomorrow
morning, and now it means that I will have to make these arrangements all
over again, and I am an unemployed man who is looking for work, and you
are doing me great damage when you disarrange my appointments.
The Chairman. I was not aware of that, iNIr. Browder, because you stated
yesterday that you were unemployed, and we assumed that we were not in-
conveniencing you.
Mr. Browdee. But it is the unemployed man who has to be the most careful
to keep his appointments.
The Chairman. I want you to understand that we want to accomnjodate you.
Mr. Rankin. It would shorten the examination greatly if he would answer
the questions that are propounded to him by the committee and counsel.
Mr. Browder. May I say in reply to that if you had not tried to repeat the
substance of the hearings of a similar committee 6 years ago, which has taken
up 95 percent of your time, you could have disposed of me in an hour.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I think if Mr. Browder will answer this ques-
tion very frankly, we may not need him any more.
Mr. Rankin. Let us take up at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Mr. Robinson. We can go on here for 10 or 15 minutes now.
Mr. Thomas. We cannot finish in 10 minutes.
Mr. Landts. Why not make it 1 o'clock this afternoon or 1:30? I suggest
we excuse Mr. Browder until 1 : 30.
Mr. Br')WDE3?. Very good.
The Chairman. We will recess until 1 : 30 this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 11:55 o'clock a. m., a recess was taken until 1:30 o'clock
p.m. this day.)
AITEB EECESS
The committee reassembled at 1 : 30 o'clock p. m., pursuant to recess.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order. Mr. Browder, will you resume
the stand?
TESTIMONY OF EARL RUSSELL BROWDER— Resumed
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, you told us this morning that you regarded the
articles printed in the Journal American in New York as being erroneous and
misleading. I believe you said you thought they were all lies. Is that correct?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. I want to show you an article dated July 24, 1945, from the
New York Times, touching on the same subject matter, and ask you if you
class that article in the samp category with the Journal American article?
[Handing a paper to the witness.]
30 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Beowder. I regard the editorial introduction of that article as being in-
spired by the same source. It is developed beyond that prejudicial introduction,
developed more in accordance with responsible newspaper ethics, but inspired
by the Journal American article.
Mr. Adamson. In other words, you believe the New York Times item was in-
fluenced by the Journal American publicity?
Mr. Browdkr. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And let me show you an article on the same subject published
in the World Telegram dated July 23, 1945, and ask you the same question.
[Handing a paper to the witness.]
Mr. Browder. That is clearly inspired from the same source as the Journal
American story, and equally erroneous.
Mr. Adamson. You regard the statement then as false?
Mr. Bkowder. Essentially false.
Mr. Adamson. And you now refer to all three articles — that is, the New York
Times, the New York World Telegram and the Journal American? Is that right?
Mr. Browder. As misrepresenting facts.
Mr. Rankin. What do those articles say? What is in them?
Mr. Adamson. I will show them to you and then I will identify them for the
record.
Mr. Rankin. I want them put in the record.
Mr. Adamson. Yes ; I am going to do that. I want the committee to see them.
I want to identify these two newspaper articles. One is from the New York
Times of July 24, 1945, and the headline reads "Negro Soviet Plan Revived
by Davis." I wish to offer that for the record, Mr. Chairman. Do you want
it read?
The Chairman. Without objection it will be received.
(The clipping from the New York Times of July 24, 1945, entitled "Negro
Soviet Plan Revived by Davis" marked "Exhibit 6" and received in evidence.)
Mr. Adamson. The second one is an article from the New York World Telegram
dated July 23, 1945. The headline reads: "Davis Revives Red Negro Nation
Plan." I offer that for the record.
The Chairman. Without objection it is received.
(The clipping from the New York World Telegram dated July 23, 1945, en-
titled "Davis Revives Red Negro Nation Plan" was marked "Exhibit 7" and
received in evidence.)
Now, Mr. Browder, I wish to refresh your recollection from the World Tele-
gram article. I will read this paragraph to you, and I want you to tell me
whether or not that is correct :
"In his article reviving the Black Belt issue, the Manhattan councilman joined
his co-leaders in the Communist movement in their current orgy of literary
breast-beating (called 'Bolshevik self-criticism'), intended to expiate their past
endorsement M Earl Browder's policy of cooperating with the American system
of free enterprise.
"This is part of a campaign to discredit Browder so completely that the
Communists, at their national convention here Thursday, will unanimously scrap
him as president and revive the Communist Party with all its ultrarevolutionary
trimmings."
Could you tell us now, since your memory has been refreshed, why the con-
vention failed to reelect you to office?
Mr. Browder. I wonder if the gentleman would consider that that would be
a proper question directed to a former leader of any other political party that
has not been reelected at a convention? I think that has happened with many
political parties, and I wonder why such a question is introduced here. Is it the
function of this committee to inquire into the inner life of political parties and
why they elect or fail to elect particular people?
Mr. Adamson. I think, Mr. Browder, that the Chairman probably could answer
your question better than I.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word here? Mr. Browder, of course,
explains that the Communist Party is only a political party. I think that the
testimony over a period of years before other committees, and I think Mr.
Browder" has been able to prove in the past before other committees, that the
Communist Party is more than a political party. The Communist Party only
uses the term "political party" in order to mask its real activities. I just want
to make that observation before you rule.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 31
The Chaikman. I think the question that has been asked is a little vague and
probably calls for a coiiclnsion. As I uiidorstand it you are askiuj? the witness
the reasons why this particular organization did not elect hiui ijresideut, as
they had in the past. 1 don't see how he could possibly know why they didn't
do it. If the witness knows, of course, I think he should answer, if he knows
why they did not reelect him as president.
Mr. Thomas. I guess the witness knows pretty well.
Mr. Ada.mson. Do you know, Mr. ISrowder?
Mr. Browdkk. First of all, I would lik» it established as to whether it is recog-
nized procedure here to inquire into methods of electing leadership of political
parties, and the reasons therefor.
The Chaik .AN. I think, in the light of the evidence that has been developed,
the question now becomes pertinent, if you know.
Mr. BuowDioi. Whether it is pertinent or not, Mr. Chairman, I thing I am
entitled to know whether this committee has established as a precedent that
the committee is empowered to investigate elections of leadership of political
parties, the reasons therefor.
The CiiAiHMAN. The answer to that is that the committee is empowei-ed to
Investigate any activities of any organization or any individual. The committee
conceives it to be within its scope to investigate the activities of any organiza-
tion that expounds American principles of government.
Mr. Bkowder. If the Chair rules that a similar question would be equally proper
if directed to the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, then I
will consider that that is sufficient grounds for me to proceed to answer.
The CHAiitifAN. If the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee
is called as a witness here and the question is propounded to him, I would rule
that it is a pertinent question for furtlier inquiry by the committee.
Mr. Browder. I liope the leadership of the Democratic and the Republican
parties will take note of th*^ precedent that is thus being established, and then
I will answer the question that I do not know. [Laughter.]
Mr. Adviison. That is a very momentous answer.
Mr. Browder, let me show you another extract from the Scripps-Howard staff
writer Frederick Waltman, in the New York World Telegram of July 27. The
headline of the article reads "Stalin Runs Reds in United States, Browder Says."
Will you take a look at that article and tell me whether or not that refreshes
your recollection to any extent? [Handing the paper to the witness.]
Mr. Browder. I remember reading the article when it appeared. What is your
question about it?
Mr. Adamson. What foundation is there to the article, so far as your own ,
statements are concerned?
Mr. Browder. I consider that the article is a fantastic fabrication.
Mr. Adamsox. Then is it your testimony that the Communist Party in the
United States has no connection whatever, either directly or indirectly, with any
organization outside of the United States?
JNIr. Browder. Yes.
The CHAiR.\fAN. Do w-e understand that the statements that are attributed to
you in that article ai'e false?
Mr. Browdib. I didn't notice particular statements attributed to me. I only
took note of the general purport of the article, which is summed up in the head-
line ''Stalin Runs Reds in the United States, Bri>wder says," and I brand that
whole conception embodied In that headline as a complete fabrication.
Mr. Thomas. Who wrote this article?
Mr. Adamson. Frederick Waltman.
Mr. Thomas. In what paper?
Mr. Adaaison. The World Telegram of New York. Now, Mr. Browder, you
stated yesterday, I believe — and today too — that the international Communist
organization had been completely dissolved. I want to ask you a question which
I want you to understand perfectly. If you don't understand it, say so. At the
convention in New York in the latter part of .July of this year did you say in
words or in substance to the convention, when you found that you were not going
to be reelected, that you intended to defend yourself before the international
board concerning your policies and acts?
Mr. Browder. I did not.
Mr. Adamson. And you made no statement of that character?
Mr. Browder. I made a statement to the convention that the discussion which
had taken place concerned not only American questions but questions of interna-
83078—46 3
32 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
tional significance and purport ; that no opinions on international questions could
be considered final in the scientific sense until they had been reviewed by the
best thought of all countries affected thereby ; that as to any international dis-
cussion that might take place through the press or otherwise, if I had any
opportunity to participate in such international discussions I would defend the
thesis that I had previously expressed in the judgment of these international
problems. There was at no time or place any suggestion of the existence of an
international organization or any suggestion of the advisability of reestablishing
an international organization, and any such proposal I would consider fantastic.
Mr. Adamson. But you did consider that any action taken by the Convention
would be subject to criticism and review by people and organizations who be-
longed to Communist organizations, let us say, outside of the United States?
Mr. Browder. No more so than the same would be true of any other body in
this country. I was dealing with the questions in the category of scientific
problems. Insofar as they were questions of decision in the United States, the
decisions made by bodies in the United States are final and not subject to review
by anyone. Scientific problems, however, are of an entirely different nature.
There are no tribunals which can pass final judgment, and such questions are
subject to international discussion, the same as the problems of any other
scientific field, and are settled by a consensus of scientific opinion.
Mr. Adamson. You still go back, though, Mr. Browder, to the fact that you
recognize, opinions and influences outside of the United States witli regard to
these policies of the Communist Party in this country V Isn't that true?
Mr. BR0WDE21. This characteristic I think I share with most Americans today,
who certainly take into account international opinions on all international ques-
tions since we have decided to join the United Nations.
Mr. Adamson. On the question of the United Nations, let me read you an
excerpt from the pen of one of your associates.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Adamson, have you finished with this article?.
Mr. Adamson. Yes.
Mr. Thomas. May I ask a question there?
Mr. Adamson. For the moment, let me finish this question first — -
"The greatest and most powerful and most dependable champion of freedom
and equality for all people in the coalition known as the United Nations is the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
I suppose you are familiar with this little pan'.phlet, are you not, Mr. Browder,
written by Mr. Ben Davis, Jr? [Handing a pamphlet to the witness.]
Mr. Browdib. I don't think I have that pamphlet, but I am familiar with the
thought that you quoted, and I myself hold that thought.
Mr. Adamson. So we are agreed, then, that you and your associates i-egard the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the greatest, the most powerful, and most
dependable champion of freedom of all the United Nations?
Mr. Browder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thomas. Right at that point, Mr. Adamson, I would like to ask a ques-
tion of Mr. Browder.
Mr. Browder, I am reading from this article which you have already said is
absolutely false. I just want to ask you a question because it quotes you in one
place and quotes Mr. Foster. I will just read these two paragraphs :
"The 3-day convention opened yesterday. On the day before, Foster him-
self confirmed Browder's accusations. He cited Marshal Stalin as tlie authority
to prove that Browder was guilty of such incredible nonsense as 'cliampioning
capitalism,' and ignoi'ing class war, and stating that progressive capitalism has
held to tlie verge a tragic postwar crisis in America, therefore Communists should
cooperate in one way by continuing their no strike policy. Foster replied con-
temptuously, 'it might be stated that Stalin is one of those who think that
economic crisis after this war is inevitable in the United States. Stalin, not
Browder, is right in his forecast of America's postwar economic crisis.' "
Now, will you please tell the committee whetlier, first, those are correct
quotations?
Mr. Browder. I think that the whole paragraph which you read is such a
complete caricature of what it purports to describe as to be completely misleading
and unworthy of the attention of a serious congressional committee.
Mr. Thomas. Well, I think I rather understand what you mean, but I believe
that you mean that because this writer did not elaborate on your quotation he
made a misquotation himself. Is that what you mean?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 33
Mr. Bkowdkk. I would say much more than that. I would say that he has
brought tdgctlit'r such a mixture of fact, half fact, and falsehood, that it is
impossible on the basis of any such article to direct any intelligent question.
Mr. Thomas. Well, I am not so certain about that, but on the quotation, your
quotation and Mr. Foster's quotation, are they correct in their wording'/
Mr. BiioWDKU. Any quotations of that kind used in such a context as that are
falsohoods, wlu'ther the particular words are actual ipiotations or not, because
they are placed in a context which renders them false.
Mr. Thomas. Yes, I s<>e, but you admit, though, that the wording is correct?
Mr. Bkowdkk. I have not checked on them. I don't raise tliat issue.
Mr. Thomas. Do jou deny that the wording is correct?
Mr. BiiowDKii. I say that it is sufficient to answer that the context in which
they are phiced completely discredits them and brands them as false.
Mr. Thomas. I am not thinking of the context. I am just thinking of tlie
wording. This is very simple, perhaps too simple to even bring up. At the same
time I just want to Iiave for tlie record whether or not you believe your quotation
is correct. First, we will take yours.
Mr. BK0WDE31. I would say "no." I would say that it completely misrepre-
sents me.
Mr. Thomas. Did you ever make that statement?
Mr. Bkowder. I would say that that article misrepresents what I said.
Mr. Thomas. But I want to know wlietlier you made the statement. Never
nand whether it misrepresents what you said. Did you make the statement?
Mr. BuowDER. No.
Mr. Thomas. All right. Now, to the best of your knowledge do you know
whether the quotation from Mr. Foster is correct?
Mr. BROWDEit. I can not speak for anyone else.
Mr. Thomas. That is all right then.
Mr. AuAMSox. You know Mr. Foster, do you, Mr. Browder?
Mr. BiiOWDEK. Yes.
Mr. Adamsox. And you regard hini as — well, let us say an authentic source
for a statement of policy of the Communist Party not only of this country but
all over the world?
Mr. BiiOWDEK. Are you trying by your question to begin to develop before
this committee differences of opinion between Mr. Foster and myself? If so,
I want to object to any such line of questioning. It is not the business of tliis
committee to enter into the debates that take place within a political pai'ty.
Mr. Adamson. To satisfy your curiosity, ISIr. Browder. I mei'ely want to
establish your acquaintance with Mr. Foster, because I want to read you just
a short statement given by Mr. Foster before tlie old Dies committee under oath
and ask you about it. Are we agreed that you ai'e acquainted with Mr. Foster
and his official position with the Communist Party?
Mr. BuowDER. I do.
Mr. AuAMSoN. Mr. Foster says, talking about the objectives of the people who
adhere to the Communist Party line and their attitude towards these govern-
ments, talking about the various governments of the world — the establishment
of those governments and the establishment of Soviet governments — you said
yesterday that the pre.sent party is the same party, and that they still adhere
to the principles of ^larxlsm. Leninism, and Stalinism. Would you say that
INfr. Foster's statement here concerning tlieir objectives and efforts of the Com-
munist adherence over the world is a fair statement today?
Mr. Browder. I would not accept such a quotation as a fair statement of
Communist policy at any time.
The Chairman. Not at any time, did you say?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And you would say that Mr. Foster's statement was erroneous,
then and now, both?
Mr. Browder. I would not attempt to make him responsible for your quotation
from his material.
Mr. Adam.'^on. Would you like to read it yourself?
Mr. Browder. No; I wonid not.
Mr. Adamson. I am reading a quotation, Mr. Chairman, from volume 9, page
5800, of the hearings.
The Chairman. I understand. Mr. Adamson, that the witness denies the
correctness of the statements in the quotation.
Mr. Adamson. I merely want to identify the location of the quotation.
34 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
The Chairman. I understand the witness to say that the quotation did not
represent his conception of the aims of the party.
Mr. Browdbr. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. Do you conceive that the Communist Party must not enter
into any civil arrangement with capitalistic governments? Is it your objective,
as you see it, to cooperate with capitalistic governments in the governing of
not only the United States but the respective countries in which your party
exists ?
Mr. Browder. I think you will have to phrase your question in such a way
that you will not impl.v that I am a spokesman for any group of Communists ;
otherwise it is impossible for me to answer that. I am a private individual and
not authorized to speak for anyone.
Mr. Adamson. Very well. I will qualify my question to the United States and
to you as an individual member of the party.
Mr. BrO'Wder. I would suggest, if I might be so bold, that if you would phrase
your question to refer to that period in which I was the spokesman for the
United States of the Communists in the United States, it would be possible for
me to answer you.
The Chairman. Do I understand that you have had a change of views on
that subject since you retired from office?
Mr. Browder. No, sir ; I have not.
The Chairman. Then what would be the purpose of relating it to the time
you were the spokesman of tlie party? You are now being asked for your
views as an individual member.
Mr. Browdeib. Because I would like to establish, just as a matter of prin-
ciple which might become important, that I am not appearing before this
committee as the spokesman for anyone.
The Chairman. And you don't care to give your individual views as a
member?
Mr. Browder. I consider it irrelevant to the purposes of this committee what
the views of a particular individual might be, unless he was called for a
particular witne.ss as an expert or something.
The Chairman. Very well. Then suppose we change the form of this question
and ask you if that was your view at the time you were head of the party?
Mr. Browder.. State the question again with that background.
Mr. Adamson. _Do you — or did you — advocate, and was it your purpose to
cooperate with the capitalistic government in the United States, as you charac-
terized it, in the government of the country?
Mr. Browdeb. It was the purpose of the Communist Political Association when
I was its spokesman to cooperate with the government of this country in ever.v
possible way for the purpose of prosecuting the war to victory, for the estab-
lishment of a durable peace, and for the securing of the utmost measure of
economic well-being for the country after the war.
The Chairman. Would that have been true even though you did not subscribe
to the principles of the government with which you were thus cooperating?
Mr. Browder. That would be true regardless of any detailed differences of
opinion with those who head the government, or the parties which were in
power in the government, so long as the circumstances which obtained in the
world remained as we judged them.
Mr. Adamson. Following up the chairman's thought there, in view of the
changes that have transpired since the Political Association was abolished,
would you, or do you, continue in your view that such cooperation is wise
and necessary?
Mr. Browder. I declared at the convention in July that in my opinion the
convention had not fundamentally changed its policy.
The Chairman. Do you embrace that view today?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. Are you familiar with a little book which appears to be a cate-
chism or book of instructions — it is entitled "Hand Book on the Soviet Trades
Unions for Workers Delegations." It is published by the Cooperative Publishing
Society of Foreign Workers in the U. S. S. R., ■NIo.scow, 1937, edited by A. Losofski.
Mr. Browder. I am not familiar with that liook.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Browder, isn't it now — and back for many years in the
past — one of the objectives of the Communist Party to infiltrate its members into
the various trade unions in the United States?
Mr. Browder. No.
IXVESTIGATIOX OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 35
Mr. Adamson. And do you think that your literature on that subject is' erro-
neous, then?
Mr. I?RO\vi)KJ?. I am not faniiliar with any literature on that subject.
Mr. ADAM80N. Is it your testimony that tliere is no effiirt now on the part of
the Conununist Parly to infiltrate its members into the trade unions of the
Vnited States?
Mr. BiiowoER. Let us nia''P it quite clear that we understand one another.
"When you use the word "infiltiate" you create the presumption of people going
into places where they have no business, for ulterior purposes, and understanding
your word in thiit sense I will say categorically that it has never been the policy
of the Connnunists to infiltrate any organization, labor union or otherwise.
The Chairman. And you know of no such movement existing today?
Mr. BnowDER. I certainly do not.
Mr. Au.^MSCN. Well, whether you call it "infiltrate" or not, isn't it a fact that
the members of the Conununist I'arty are encouraged to join trade unions, and
likewise members of the trade unions are encouraged to join the Communist
Party?
Mr. Browder. Of course.
Mr. Adamson. And you say that is not in anywise infiltration?
Mr. Bi'.owDEE. Of course not. Infiltration is a term which comes directly from
military science, and which involves operations against an enemy, hostility.
Our attitude toward trade unions and other such organizations is quite the oppo-
site. It is one of complete and friendly cooperation for common purposes which
are in the public interest.
Mr. Adamsox. Congressman Thomas asked you a question concerning this
article in the World Telegram of July 27, 1945. and he referred to the crisis con-
fronting this country or to confront this country immediately following the war.
Let me ask you if you kiiow or believe there is any connection between the activ-
ities of member.? of the Conununist Party on the one hand and the wave of strikes
that we are having right now today?
Mr. Browder. You mean connection in the way of cause and effect?
Mr. Adamsox. Well, whatever way you wish to characterize it. You are the
witness. You tell me.
Mr. Browder. In such a general forum I would have to say "no."
Mr. Adamsox. Well, suppose you were in a more secluded spot, then what
would your answer be? After all. this is not a very big audience, Mr. Browder.
Mr. BkowdI':r. I think our audience is the Nation, and that we are trying, if
we accept the premise on which congressional committees are set up, to try to
inform the Nation accurately about particular problems; otherwise we have no
excuse for being here.
Mr. Adamsox. Well, you imply that your answei* would be different in private
discussion.
Mr. Browder, I did not. That is a presumption on your part which has no
relation to my answer.
Mr. Adamsox. Well, what did you mean by "less general forum"?
Mr. Browdi-3. I didn't say "forum." I said "form."
Ml". Adamscn. Well, let us change the form. Suppose you tell me whether
or not you know of any such activity on the part of the members of the Com-
munist Party relating to the strikes that we are having today?
Mr. BR0WDE3?. I do not.
Mr. Adamson'. And isn't it one of the principles of the Communist Party, part
of their party activities, to foment and encourage strikes in certain circumstances?
Mr. Browder. To the best 0(f my knowledge I believe it is not.
Mr. Thomas. :\Iight I ask a question right there? — Haven't you testified pre-
viously to this, that one of the weapons of the Communist Party was the general
strike?
Mr. Browder. I have not.
Mr. Thomas. Hasn't one of the weapons of the Communist Party been the
general strike?
Mr. pROWDER. It has not.
Mr. I'homas. Not only in this country but the Communist Party in other
nations?
Mr. Br<^)Wder. I can not answer for the CommunLsts of other nations.
Mr. Thomas. But you do state, though, that you have never in any pamphlet
or any other writing or any public address before the Communists or otherwise,
ever agitated the general strike as a weapon of the Communist Party?
36 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Browder. I nevei" hnve.
The Chairman. Mr. Browder, I believe you stated a while ago, before the
adjournment, that you would like to leave after today?
Mr. Browder. It would be a very great relief to me if I could finish today.
The Chairman. Could you come back on the 18th of October?
Mr. Browder. I will try to arrange it if you consider it necessarv.
The Chairman. We will excuse you until that time.
Mr. Browder. Thank you.
Mr. Adamson. Ten o'clock on the 18th.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Stachel, will you be sworn?
Ml-. Brodsky. May I move my chair up closer to Mr. Stachel, so I can advise
with him?
Mr. Thomas. No.
Mr. Brodsky. It would save a lot of time, because if he wants to consult with
me you would simply have to wait till he comes back to me.
The Chairman. The policy of this committee, with all due regard, is to never
recognize counsel in these hearings.
Mr. Brodsky. It is also your policy, a,s it is everybody else's policy, to advise
the witness that he has the right to consult with counsel? That is the policy of
all committees.
The Chairman. This is not a legal committee.
Mr. Brodsky. I didn't say it was. I say he has a right to consult with counsel.
I am advising him.
The Chairman. I have already ruled.
Mr. Brodsky. All right.
TESTIMONY OF JACOB A. STACHEL, NEW YORK CITY
(The witness was duly sworn by the Chairman.)
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Stachel, will you give your full name and home and business
address for the record?
Mr. Stachel. My full name is Jacob A. Stachel. Home address 203 West
Ninety-fourth Street, Business address, 35 East Twelfth Street, New York City.
Mr. Adamson. Is the business address that j'ou have given, the business
address of the Daily Worker, Mr. Stachel?
Mr. Stachel. Correct.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Stachel, are you a citizen of the United States?
Mr. Stachel. Yes ; I claimed citizenship on the date of my father's naturali-
zation.
Mr. Adamson. And how long ago was your father naturalized?
Mr. Stachel. Quite some time, over 20 years, I am sure that much — 25 years
probably.
Mr. Adamson. How old are you?
Mr. Stacheh-. 44.
Mr. Adamson. How long have you resided in New York?
Mr. Stachel. Since January 1911, when I came here.
Mr. Adamson. Is that when your father came here?
Mr. Stachel. No, my father came here long before that, I believe.
Mr. Ai)AMSON. How long have you been employed by the Daily Worker?
Mr. Stachel. For about 3 years
Mr. Adamson. And what is your official title with the Daily Worker?
Mr. Stachel. Member of the editoilal staff.
Mr. Adamson. -And are you one of the feature editorial writers regularly?
Mr. Stachel. I am not.
Mr. Adamson. Just what type of work do you do? In other words, what are
you duties? You say you are part of the editorial staff.
Mr. Stachel. Well, I participate in discussions. I have duties. I read the
papers and suggest items to be treated, and once in a while I also write articles
or editorials.
Mr. Adamson. Is there any particular branch of the news, Mr. Stachel, in which
you specialize?
Mr. Stachei.. Well, I am considered to know more about labor unions than
most other questions that I handle.
Mr. Adamson. Then shall we say you are the labor consultant on the staff?
Mr. Stachel. You might say that.
Mr. Adamson. And are you the only labor consultant on the editorial staff?
Mr. Stachel. No ; we have a labor editor.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 37
Mr. ADamson. Are you his boss or is he your boss?
Mr. Stachkl. I don't put it either way. The editorial committee and the
managing editor decide the work.
Mr. Adamson. How are you connected with the Communist Party, Mr. Stachel?
Mr. Stachel. I am a member of the Comuiunist Party.
Mr. Adamson. How long have you been a member?
Mr. Stachet.. Since the fall of 1923.
Mr. Adamson. Did you establisli your first connection with the Comumnist
Party in New Yoi'k?
Mr. Stachex. In New York City.
Mr. Adamson. And have you been a member of any of the Communist organiza-
tions outside of New York?
Mr. Stachel. I have noi.
Mr. Adamson. All of your activities have been in connection with the New York
Party? Is that correct?
Mr. Stachel. I was 1 year in Detroit, 1930.
Mr. Adamson. And what was your connection in Detroit?
Mr. Stachel. I was the organizer of the organization in Michigan at that time.
Mr. Adamson. I'^ou were the Communist Party organizer for the State of
Michigan?
Mr. Stachel. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. And it was part of your duty to secure subscriptions and to
enhance the circulation of the Daily Worker?
Mr. Stachel. l"es, sir.
Mr. Adamson. And the circulation of the Daily Worker is one of the activities
promoted by the members of the Party? Isn't that true?
Mr. Stachel. The Daily Worker tries to get the full cooperation of the Com-
munist organizations and of other labor organizations as well.
Mr. Adamson. And that is part of the activities of the party members, to
enhance the circulation of the Daily Worker too? Isn't that true?
Mr. Stachel. As a rule it is.
Mr. Adamson. Now, Mr. Stachel, you have heard the testimony of Mr. Browder,
I believe?
Mr. Stachel. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. You have been here the whole time?
Mr. Stachel. I was.
Mr. Adamson. And did you attend the convention in the latter part of July in
New York, this year?
Mr. Stachel. I attended a number of sessions. I could not get into the opening
session, and I missed a number of others because of my work, but I was present at
probably at least 50 percent of the sessions. I was not a delegate.
Mr. Adamson. You were there merely as a party member?
Mr. Stachbx. I was there as an invited guest?
Mr. Adamson. Weren't you there rather in the nature of a reporter?
Mr. Stachel. No ; we had another person assigned as reporter.
Mr. Adamson. And you didn't write up, then, any of the articles?
Mr. Stachel. I did not.
Mr. Adamson. Did you have a man who is specially assigned to that type of
work on the Daily Worker?
Mr. Stachel. What kind of work?
Mr. AdamsON. W^riting up reports of the meetings and conventions of the
party.
Mr. Stachel. No ; different people are assigned to different jobs at different
times.
Mr. Adamson. I want to show you a newspaper article which has already been
marked "Exhibit 7" here. Take a look at it, please. [Handing exhibit 7 to the
witness. 1
Mr. Thomas. Is that taken from the Daily Worker?
Mr. Adam.son. No: that is from the New York World Telegram.
Mr. Stachel. I didn't read this fully now, but I recall most of it. I have read
it before.
Mr. AoAirsON. I wanted to ask you if you had heard this matter discussed
previous to the time this article was published?
Mr. Stachel. I can't say that I did.
Mr. Adamson. You never heard of it before?
Mr. Stachel. I have lieard of the subject, but this particular article I don't
recollect.
38 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Adamson. That is what I am trying to get at.
Mr. Stachkl. I heard of it being published ; oh, yes.
Mr. Apamson. As a matter of fact, the subject has been under discussion for
10 or 12 years, hasn't it?
Mr. Thumas. To refresh our memory, what is the subject?
Mr. Auamson. I am sorry. I am referring to the article dated July 23, 1945,
in the New York World Telegram, the headline reading "Davis Revives Red
Negro Nation Plan." Can you answer that?
Mr. Staohex. What is the question?
Mr. Adamson. The subject has been discussed at various times for many years?
Mr. Staohel. Yes ; I have lieard it discussed previously.
Mr. Adamson. Over a period of many years?
Mr. Stachel. Well, not in recent years — some time ago.
Mr. Adamson. You don't recall hearing any discussion this year about it?
Mr. Stachel. Not prior to the writing of the article.
Mr. Adamson. Isn't it a fact that it was discussed at the conventien the latter
part of July?
Mr. Stachel. I don't recall having heard the discussion at the convention, but
it is possible that it was discussed while I was away.
Mr. AdaMvSon. Do you have nay official title at the present time with the Com-
munist Party?
Mr. Stachel. I am a member of the national committee newly elected, and
the national board.
Mr. Adamson. And do you do publicity work for the party?
Mr. Stachet.. I do not. That is something I learned through the newspapers.
It surprised me a great deal.
Mr. Adamson. Since you became a member of the party, Mr. Stachel, in 1923,
have you traveled extensively over the country?
Mr. Stachel. Not extensively.
Mr. Adamson. Have you been to the Pacific coast?
Mr. Stachel. Yes; I was there twice.
Mr. Adamson. And to Mexico?
Mr. Stachel. No, I have never been in Mexico.
Mr. Adamson. How about Canada?
Mr. Stachel. No.
Mr. Adamson. You have never been in Canada?
Mr. Stachel. Not to my knowledge, except passing from Detroit to Buffalo by
train.
Mr. Adamson. What is the Trade Union Unity League? Do you know?
Mr. Stachel. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. Will you tell us about it?
Mr. Stachei.. The Trade Union Unity League was — it no longer exists — was
an organization of trade unions in a number of industries for the central body.
It was the central body of a niimber of trade unions in industry.
Mr. Adamson. Will you tell us a little more about their activities, their
objectives?
Mr. Stachel. Well, the bulk of the workers were unorganized in this country
at the time when the Trade Union Unity League was formed. The object at
that time was to organize workers in certain industries. Some luiions were
established with the automobile workers, shoe workers, food workers and a
number of others, and jointly they formed through conventions the Trade Union
Unity League. The object was to organize the unorganized in the United States.
IVIr. Adamson. Isn't it a fact that you have done quite a lot of work in rela-
tion to organizational activities in the trade unions for the party?
Mr. Stachel. I did some work.
Mr. Adamson. And it is one of the objectives of the party to obtain as many
members as possible in the trade unions? Isn't that true?
Mr. Stachel. The first objective of the Connnunist Party is to obtain as many
members as possible everywhere, but it particularly prides itself in including
members of the workers.
IMr. Adamson. It particularly strives to obtain members who are members of
trade unions?
Mr. Stachet,. Yes ; and when we come across workers who are not in unions,
we urge them to join unions.
Mr. Landis. Do you believe in the continued cooperation of labor and capital
through the reconversion period?
Mr. Stachel. I do.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 39
Mr. Landis. Do you believe our Americau system of government is the best
system in the world?
Mr. Staciiel. I believe there are many things that can and must be improved.
Mr. Landis. I mean today.
Mr. STAfHEL. I am talking about today. There are many things that can
and should be improved.
Mr. Landis. I will ask yau this question : Don't you think we have the best
system of government on earth tod.ay? I admit that it could be improved.
Mr. Staciikl. I can answer that question only in this way : In some respects
the United States Government is, as you say, the best in the world, and in other
respects, and growing out of that we have many, very many acute problems
which presently must be solved.
Mr. Landis. Could you name a country that has a better system than we have,
that has got as high a standard of living? Haven't we got the highest standard
of living in the world?
Mr. Stachel. I think we have the highest standard of living in the world,
but I think the standard of living is being threatened now by unemployment,
and there are certain causes for this, and one of the objects of our movement
is to strive to help solve the problem so that the great accumulation of wealth
and culture that our country has can be used to the full advantage of the work-
ing of the whole system for full employment and for higher standard of living
even than we have today. In my opinion the standard cannot remain stationary
It must either decline or go forward. We are iighting for it to go forward.
That is why we are fighting for 60,000,000 jobs and many other aspects of full
employment.
Mr. Landis. Do you believe in revolution, the overthrow of the government by
revolution?
Mr. Stachel. I do not.
Mr. Adamson. Let me ask you the same question I asked Mr. Browder. Do
you regard the Union of Soviet S'ocialist Republics as the greatest, most power-
ful, and most dependable champion of freedom and equality for all peoples in
the coalition known as the United Nations?
Mr. Stachel. If you would permit me to answer without "yes" or "no", I
think you will get much farther.
Mr. Adamson. Can't you answer "yes" or "no", whether you agree with that
statement? And you can qualify it as you wish.
Mr. Stachel. I would answer that I gree with it substantially for the following
reasons : I don't want to underestimate — and don't think we should — ^the power
and the importance and the role that our country must play if we are to have
world peace. We are living in a very dangerous moment. Everybody knows
that. We have won the war but we have got a lot of things to solve before we
can secure the peace. One of the reasons why I agree with this statement, and
I replied in the affirmative because in our country there are still forces who are
working to upset the results of the victory, while in Russia they are not. There
the people are united behind the government on one policy, while in our country
there are still forces that are trying to upset the basis for our victory and move
to the opposite direction.
Mr. Adamson. Can you tell us what you mean by "unity"? I would like to
know what you regard as "unity" that >ou referred to in Russia, that you
would like to have here.
Mr. Stachel. All right. I will be glad to give it. I was particularly impressed
with the statement recently by Senator Taft when he accust^d those who want
the full employment bill with workinc for socialism, and h'^ stated that only
under socialism can you have full employment, and those of you who want full
employment had better fight for socialism. In the Soviet Union there is socialism,
and as we know, there is no problem of unemployment there. It is a problem of
labor shortage, for many rea.sons which I do not have to go into now. In our
country thei-e are people willing to see unemployment because of the fear of
socialism. Personally I beli'^ve socialism will ( ome to every country in the
world, including our own ultimately, but I do b(>lieve we can do a great deal
to provide full empoyment even under the present system. Those who deny that,
in my opinion are not helping the present system. But the point I want to
make is there so much f'^ar of socialism and of the workers that some would
rather have chaos and unemployment rather than face what they consider the
danger of socialism, therefore they can not really have full unity with the
workers. The workers want jobs, and they are not afraid of the consequences of
40 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
the workers getting jobs in the Soviet Union. That is why you can have fuU
employment in the Soviet Union wliile we can not acliieve it here.
Mr. Adamson. Would you prefer to substitute the form of government that
now exists in Russia for our form of government here? Is that correct?
Mr. Stachet.. No ; I would not prefer to substitute. In my opinion it is im-
possible to substitute the system of one country in another, and whatever sys-
tem finally evolves in this country, though based upon certain principles common
to all socialism, will nonetheless have a tone imprint growing out of American
conditions, American problems, and the impulses and the impacts of the moment
when this communization takes place.
Mr. Adamson. That is all I have.
The Chairman. The committee will recess until a quarter after 3, at which
time we will meet in executive session.
Mr. Adamson. I wish to say this for the record. I wish to inform Mr. Joseph
Brodsky, attorney for Benjamin Davis, Jr., that the committee has decided to
excuse the witness, Davis, to a future date to be fixed by the chairman, and
due notice will be given to Mr. Brodsky and to his client.
Mr. Beocsky. Are you throui;h with him now? He can go back to New York?
You don't want him any more?
Mr. Adamson. That is right.
(Whereupon, at 2 : 45 p. m., the public hearing adjourned.)
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES
House of RB3>RESBNTATn'ES,
Committee on Un-American Activities.
Washington, D. C, Wednesday, October 11, 19^5.
. The committee met at 11 a. m., Hon. John S. Wood (chairman) presiding.
The Chairman. Let the committee be in order, please.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster, will you be sworn?
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM Z. FOSTER, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY, NEW YORK, N. Y.
(On administx-ation of the oath by the chairman the witness affii'med.)
Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, may I at this time introduce a short statement?
The Chairman. We will give you the opportunity at some later time to say
whatever you desire to say, but at the present time we prefer you to answer
questions by the counsel of the committee, and then if you desire to make a
statement we will be glad to hear it.
Mr. Foster. I wish to protest against this entire proceeding.
Mr. Thomas. That is all right. We understand that.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Adamson.
Mr. Adamson. Will you give your full name, home address and business address
to the reporter?
Mr. Foster. William Z. Foster, 35 East Twelfth Street, New York, business
address ; home address, 1040 Melton Avenue, New York.
Mr. Adamson. Are you a citizen of the United States, Mr. Foster?^
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. Where were you born?
Mr. Foster. In Taunton, Mass.
Mr. Adamson. And are you now a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And do you hold any official position in that Party?
Mr. Foster. National chairman.
Mr. Adamson. How long have you been affiliated with the Communist Party,
either as an officer or member?
Mr. Foster. Since 1921.
Mr. Adamson. When was the Communist Party really organized in the United
States?
Mr. Foster. The Communist Party was organized originally in the United
States in 1919. It was dissolved 2 years ago.
Mr. Adamson. Have you ever belonged to the Socialist Party too?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 41
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And did you ever hold any official position with the American
Federation of Labor?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. By the way, do you still belong to the American Federation of
Labor?
Mr. Fostek. No.
Mr. Adamson. What happened to your membership in that organization, Mr.
Foster?
Mr. Foster. My membership expired because I was no longer working at a
trade.
Mr. Adamson. Weren't you expelled from the American Federation of Labor?
Mr. FosTEi{. No : I was not.
Mr. Adamson. No oUicial action was ever taken against you as a member by
that ornauization?
Mr. Foste::. Nothing beyond notifying me that my dues had expired, I was
no longer working at the trade and could no longer hold membership in that
particular organization, which requires that you must work at the trade in order
to be a member.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster, do you remember testifying before another com-
mittee on that point as follows:
"I did not leave. I was expelled from the American Federation of Labor as
part of the general campaign of the leaders of the American Fefleration of Labor
to get rid of every element in the American Federation of Labor that tried to
build it into an organization that would really advance the interests of the
worker."
Do you remember that?
Mr. Foster. Yes. It had that element in it, but the technical basis of my leav-
ing the American Federation of Labor was as I stated, that my dues had expired.
In the case of other individuals they would have made an exception and allowed
me to continue as a member, no doubt — without doubt.
Mr. Adamson. Was your testimony at that time taken under oath?
Mr. Foster. Y'es.
Mr. Adamson. And which testimony is true and correct now, the testimony
you gave them, that you were expelled, or the testimony that you now give, that
you were not expelled?
Mr. Foster. They are both correct. Anybody else would not have been dropped.
I was dropped. The rule was enforced against me because of my affiliation.
Against other people it would not have been enforced.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster, when were you elected national chairman of the
Communist Party?
Mr. FosTE^R. At the recent convention 2 or 3 months ago.
Mr. Adamson. Was that last July?
Mr. FOSTE31. That is right.
I\Ir. Adamson. In New York?
Mr. FosrER. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. And had you been an officer of the Communist Political Asso-
ciation?
Mr. Foster. I was a member of the national committee.
Mr. Adamson. You were not an officer?
Mr. Foster. Well, yes ; I was also a member of the national board.
Mr. Adamson. What was your title?
Mr. Foster. That was it, vice president. All members of the board are vice
presidents.
Mr. Adamson. What was the first official position you ever held with the Com-
munist Party?
Mr. Foster. IMember of the executive committee.
Mr. Adamson. How long ago was that?
Mr. Foster. 1921.
Mr. Adam-son. And from that yon then went up the ladder, didn't you, in the
organization? Tell us the official positions you held.
Mr. Foster. Well, I have been a member of the secretariat of the Communist
Party, and national chairman.
Mr. Adamson. Tell us what you means by "the secretariat"?
Mr. Fostej!. The secretariat at presetit consists of four people.
Mr. Adamson. Who are they?
42 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. FOSTE21. Their names have appeared in our press. They are Jean Dennis,
Bob Thompson, myself, and I forget the other — my memory is not so good this
morning.
Mr. liANKiN. Was Hugh Dent one of them?
Mr. Foster. No ; Hugh Dent was not. John Williamson was the other.
Mr. Adamson. Does the secretariat exist today?
Mr. Fostf:r. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. And has it existed since 1919?
Mr. Foster. No ; it has existed since 3 months ago.
Mr. Adamson. What are the function.s of the secretariat?
Mr. FosTEK. The functions of the secretaries are to carry on the work of the
party between meetings of the national board.
Mr. Adamson. Would you say that the secretariat manages the party and
annoiinces its policies?
Mr. Foster. Only in a limited degree. The national board is above the sec-
retary, and the national committee is above the national board.
Mr. Adamson. And what is your national board? Tell us how many members
there are.
Mr. FO'STEE. There are 11 members on the national board.
Mr. Adamson. Are they elected by vote at your convention?
Mr. Foster. That is right, by vote of the national committee.
Mr. Adamson. And are they selected from different districts in the country?
Mr. Foster. Not necessarily.
Mr. Adamson. They might all be fi'om one area
Mr. Foster. Some of them are and some are not.
Mr. Adamson. I believe you told us that you had belonged to the Socialist
Party at one time?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. Do you regard the Communist Party today, as reconstituted in
the United States, as being in the same relative position with regard to Socialism
as the old party?
Mr. Foster. Not necessarly.
Mr. Adamson. It is true, isn't it, that about 2 years ago the Communist
Party as a political party was dissolved by action of one of your conventions?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. Adamson. Were you present at that convention?
Mr. Foster. I was.
Mr. Adamson. And what official part did you take in the convention?
Mr. Foster. It was not a — yes, it was. a convention, and I was chairman of it
in the opening session.
Mr. Adamson. And at that convention what other action did they take besides
dissolving the party?
Mr. Foster. They worked out a policy and elected a national committee.
Mr. Adamson. Didn't they organize a political association?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. Adamson. And that political association — what relation does it have to
the principles of the old party?
Mr. Foster. Well, it adopted a new program.
Mr. Adamson. And you say you had a convention in July of this last summer
in New York. That was about the 26th of July, was it?
Mr. Foster. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. And at that convention what official action was taken concern-
ing the association?
Mr. Foster. The Association was dissolved and the Communist Party was
organized.
Mr. Adamson. Can you tell us — pardon me, I assume that you were also present
as an official at the convention this last summer in July? Is that so?
Mr. Foster. Most of the sessions ; yes.
Mr. Adamson. In other words, you took an official part in the proceedings?
Mr. Foster. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. Can you tell us now why the party was dissolved and the asso-
ciation was formed years ago? What are the principal reasons?
Mr. Foster. Why the party was formed now?
Mr. Adamson. No ; why the party was dissolved back in 1943 and the associa-
tion was formed in its place?
Mr. Foster. Because is was felt by the party that a new policy was necessary.
INVESTIGATION OF t'N-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 43
Mr. Adamson. Give us the principal distinctions between the old policy and
the new policy that you wanted to accept, of the Association as compared with
the Party?
Mr. Foster. Well, this is carried in all our publications and is rather an ex-
tensive compilation.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, we mifiht as well understand right now that he
has not answered the question. That is evasive.
Ml'. Adamson. Can you give us the principal points of difference? In other
words, what could the a.ssociation do that the old party could not have done?
Mr. Kankin. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the witness a question. We might just
as well pin him down and find out where we are at.
The Chairman. One at a time. Suppose we let counsel finish, and then I will
call on the members of the committee.
Mr. Adam.son. Will you answer that question, Mr. Fester?
Mr. Foster. State it again, please.
Mr. Adamson. What could the association do that the old party could not have
done just as well?
Mr. Foster. I don't know the import of tluit question.
Mr. Adamson. Well, I\Ir. P\ister. let us go back again. What were the moving
reasons for dissolving the party and substituting and association for the party?
Mr. Foster. Well, the principal reason was that the party became convinced,
as a result of the Teheran Conference
Mr. Adamson (interposing). Back in 1943?
Mr. Foster. That is right — that Teheran Conference, consisting of President
Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Premier Stalin — that the decisive sec-
tions of American capitalism had adopted a policy of loyal cooperation with the
rest of the great nations of the world and was prepared to undertake not only
the carrying through of the war to a complete victory ap.ainst fa.scism, but also
jointly to bring about an economic reconstruction of the world, and on this
basis the new party built its policy — that is, the association.
Mr. Adamson. Let us get back to the original question now. What was there
in the ])rogram to which you have referred that could not have been followed by
the party but could be accomplished better by an association?
Mr. Foster. Well, the Teheran Conference represented a higher stage of the war
struggle in general, and for the first time I think it laid down a basis of very
definite cooperation between the great powers that were conducting the war on
our side, and this naturally raised the whole question of postwar cooperation to
a higher stage. On the basis of this, the association changed its policy to meet
these new conditions, or in an effort to meet the new conditions.
Mr. Adamson. Let us forget the association for a moment. Can you tell us
what differences — by that I mean substantial dif£;^rences — exist between the Com-
munist Party as reconstituted today, and the old Communist Party that existed
prior to, say, 1940, in fact back prior to 194,S?
Mr. Foste::. We have a totally new world situation at the present time, and
the policies of the Communist Party of 1943 did not comprehend this situation,
had nothing to do with it, and our present policies are based upon the new
Avorld situation. For example the qiiestion of reconversion and many other
(;uestioiis that did not exist in our I'arty in 1940, like other parties, had nothing
in their i)rograin about this situation.
Mr. Adamson. Well, Mr. Foster, referring back to one of your previous defini-
tions of communism, which I believe you gave under oath, you drew a parallel or
distinction between socialism and communism. I want to quote a few words
from your testimony :
'Socialism. The socialism of the Socialist Party is a system of defending
capitalism under the pretext of gradually reforming capitalism into socialism.
The Communist movement is a movement for the abolition of capitalism and
reconstruction of society on a basis of production for use, the ownership of
industries by the i)eople. aiul the abolition of the whole system of exploitation
of workers, such as exists in the United States and in the other capitalistic
countries."
Now, is that definitioy which you gave several years ago true and correct in
your opinion, today?
Mr. Foster. Quite correct, with one exception, namely, that there are now very
considerable sections of the Socialist I'arty in various parts of the world who
are very definitely moving actually for the establishment of socialism, which
the old social democracy never undertook at any time in its history.
44 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Adamson. Do you think theu that there has been any change in the policy
of the Communist organizations, or do you attribute that to a change in the
governments of the so-called capitalistic countries?
Mr. Foster. All parties constantly change their policies, the Communist Party
included.
Mr. Adamson. At the present time, Mr. Foster, let me ask you, have you any
connection with an organization called the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. Foster. No ; there is no such organization.
Mr. Adamson. Was there such an organization?
Mr. Foster. There was many years ago.
Mr. Adamson. And you say that that is entirely out of existence now?
Mr. Foster. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. What subdivision or department of the party conducts or con-
tacts your activities in connection with trade union matteriS?
Mr. Foster. We have no division of our iiarty for that work.
Mr. Adamson. Do you know a gentleman by the name of Stachel?
Mr. Foster. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. What is his position?
Mr. Foster. He is a member of our national board.
Mr. Adamson. Is he elected from New York?
Mr. Foster. No ; he is elected by the national committee without regard to his
home.
Mr. Adamson. On this national board do those members have any home ter-
ritory or districts?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Adamson. They are elected entirely without I'egard to where they live?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. Adamson. I may l)e wrong, but I underistood Mr. Stachel to say in his
testimony here a couple of weeks ago that he did have some relation with trade-
union activities.
Mr. Foster. Well, our whole party has relation to trade union activities in so
far as we encoiirage every step of the trade unions for improved conditions, for
shorter hours, for the organization of the unorganized — anything and everything
that strengthens the trade unions. We consider tha trade uniouis as the very
foundation of American democracy, and without the trade unions we would
have Fascism in the United States, therefore we do everything in our power to
strengthen the trade unions in every conceivable way.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a suggestion, in view
of the fact that this conference has been going on for some time, and the members
undoubtedly have a number C(f questions they would like to ask, and I think
this is a good point to break in on it.
Mr. Adamson. May I ask him just one more question that I want in order
to connect up here? Then I want to give the members an opportunity to ask
questions.
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster, do you remember identifying socialism as a Fascist
doctrine?
Mr. Foster. Socialism as a Fascist doctrine?
Mr. Adamson. Yes.
Mr. Fostek. Never.
Mr. Adamson. Well, let me read this to you : "The Socialist is a Fascist."
Mr. Foster. That means tlie social democrat.
Mr. Adamson. Well, now, what did you mean? That is what I am trying to
get at. You don't remember making that statement?
Mr. Foster. I don't remember where 1 said it ; no.
Mr. Adamson. Would you like to see it? —
Mr. Foster. Not necessarily. I can explain that very easily.
Mr. Adamson. Let me a,sk you this question. Did you make this distinction
or did you give this definition :
"Socialism seeks to maintain capitalism, not to establish socialism. The Labor
Government of Great I'.ritain, which is a Socialist government, undertakes to
maintain the British Empire just as resolutely as Stanley Baldwin. In order
to do so it shoots down the Indian peasants just as brazenly as the Baldwin gov-
ernment did, cuts wages of British workers, .speeds them up."
Do you remember that description?
Mr. Foster. I dfon't remember that particular description but it was correct.
Mr. Adamson. Just one more question now. At the convention in New York
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 45
Mr. Fo.stf:r (interposing) . I am speaking of the old Labor Government that
existed some dozen years ago.
Mr. Adamson. Yes, certainly. By the mention of Mr. Baldwin's name I take
it tliat you would know it was several years ago.
At the convention in July Mr. Browder, I believe, was not reelected to the
otiicial position that he held with the Communist Association? Is that correct?
Mr. Foster. That is correct.
Ml'. AuAMSON. And I believe at that convention Mr. Browder said that if he
were not reelected he intended to appeal the decision of the convention. Do you
know whether or not he took such an appeal?
Mr. FosTKK. I know nothing about it.
Mr. Ai)AS[soN. You don't know what he did?
Mr. Foster. I have no idea.
Mr. Adamson. \\'hat organization or tribunal exists to which such an appeal
would go?
Mr. Foster. He might take it up with the rank and file of our party. That
is the only institution that has anything to do with the shaping of our policies.
Mr. Adamson. Very well. I will suspend now.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Foster, you say you joined the Communist Party in 1921?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. Rankin. You were a member of the Communist Party until it was abol-
ished or suspended by Earl Browder in 1932. You referred to Communism as
syndicalism, did you not, in a pamphlet you published?
Mr. Foster. Communism as syndicalism?
Mr. Rankin. I'^es.
Mr. Foster. I don't think so.
Mr. Rankin. You issued a booklet called Syndicalism. By Earl C. Ford and
William Z. Foster, in 1932, did you not?
Mr. Foster. I did not.
Mr. Rankin. You knew it was issued, did you not?
Mr. Foster. I did not.
Mr. RANKIN. You wrote that pamphlet, you and Ford wrote that pamphlet,
did vou not?
Mr. Foster. In 1932?
Mr. Rankin. Y'^es; it was published in 1932. I don't remember what year it
was written, but it was published in 1932.
Mr. Foster. We did not.
Mr. Rankin. Let me read you some of the things you put in there.
Mr. Foster. Let me get you straight on that first. That pamphlet was written
33 years ago, not in 1932.
]\Ir. Rankin. You wrote it at that time, then? You wrote it 33 years ago?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. Rankin. You have changed your mind on these things since that time?
Mr. Foster. On many things ; yes.
Mr. Rankin. Let me read you some of the principal things you Paid in that
pamphlet at that time, and I will ask you whether or not you still have that
opinion. You were a leader of the syndicalist movement at that time, one of
the leaders, were you not?
Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman. I want to say that since writing that pamphlet
I have changed my entire political outlook, and that to undertake to produce
a lot of old writings that were written a generation ago is nonsense, in my
opinion.
The Chairman. I think it might be important to know what particular change
has taken place, and the reasons for it.
Mr. Foster. I wish to protest against bringing up old pamphlets that I have
repudiated long ago as not representing my opinion.
The Chairman. Before the committee you have not done so, and you have not
given your reasons, and you are being given an opportunity now if you want
to repudiate it, and your reasons therefor. I think the question is pertinent.
Mr. Foster. I say the whole line of the pamphlet represents a different posi-
tion than I take now.
Mr. Rankin. That is what I want to ask him. I want to read him some things
in that pamphlet and see if he has changed his mind as to them, and why. On
page 9 of this pamphlet says :
"The syndicalist is characterized by the harmony that exists between his
theories and his tactics. He realizes that the capitalist cla.ss is his mortal
enemy, that it umst be overthrown, the wages system abolished and the new
46 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
society he has outlined established, if he is to live; and he is proceeding to the
accomplishment of these tasks with unparallel directness. He allows nothing
to swerve him from his course and lead him in an indirection.
"The syndicalist knows that capitalism is organized robbery and he con-
sistently considers and treats capitalists as thieves plying their trade. He
knows they have no more right to the ^\-ealth they have amassed than a burglar
has to his loot, and the idea of expropriating them without remuneration seems
as natural to him as for the footpads' victim to take back his stolen property
without paying the footpad for it. From long experience he has learned that the
so-called legal and inalienable rights of man are but pretenses with which to
deceive working men ; that in reality 'rights' are only enjoyed by those capable
of enforcing them." The word "rights" is in quotation marks. Continuing this
saysj
"He knows that in modern society, as in all ages, might is right, and that the
capitalists hold the industries they have stolen and daily perpetrate the robbery
of the wages system simply because they have the economic power to do so. He
has fathomed the current system of ethics and morals, and knows them to be
just so many auxiliaries to the capitalist class. Consequently, he has cast them
aside and has placed his relations with the capitalists upon a basis of naked
power.
"In his choice of weapons to fight his capitalist enemies, the syndicalist is
no more careful to select those that are fair, just, or civilized than is a house-
holder attacked in the night by a burglar. He knows he is engaged in a life
and death struggle with an absolutely lawless and unscrupulous enemy, and
considers his tactics only from the standpoint of their effectiveness. With him
the end ju.stifies the means. Whether his tactics be legal and moral or not,
does not concern him, so long as they are effective. H,e knows that the laws,
as well as the current code of morals, are made by his mortal enemies, and
considers himself about as much bound by them as a householder would himself
by regulations regarding burglary adopted by an association of housebreakers.
Consequently, he ignores them insofar as he is able and it suits his purposes.
He proposes to develop, regardless of capitalist conceptions of legality, fairness,
right, and so forth, a greater power than his capitalist enemies have; and then
to wrest from them by force the industries they liave stolen from him by force
and duplicity, and to put an end forever to the wages system. He proposes to
bring about the revolution by the general strike."
Have you changed your mind since you wrote that, Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. I told you tlat I had, and I want to protest against the reading
of these pamphlets. This is just cheap red-baiting and the purpose of it is to
develop a red hysteria in the country, to create a smoke screen behind which the
American reactionary forces can carry on their sinister activities in America,
and their imperialistic programs abroad, designed for the domination of the
world. I don't think that this conmiittee should demean itself by such tactics as
this, bringing up pamphlets that had been repudiated many years ago. I repre-
sent a totally different line than is in that pamphlet.
The Chairman. You were asked a very simple question.
Mr. Foster. I told you that I repudiated the whole pamphlet in the sense that
I have talien that as a Conmiunist outlook.
Mr. Landis. I think right here, Mr. Chairman, when he is talking about im-
perialism he ought to say whether he says that Truman is an imperialist.
air. Rankin. Wait a minute. I am questioning him.
Mr. Landis. Right here, where he is talking about imperialism.
Mr. Foster. Direct your questions to something recent, not an antediluvian
pamphlet.
Mr. Rankin. I am going to ask you some questions. Don t worry about that.
Mr. Landis. Let him give his answer right here. Will you yield for that
question?
I\Ir. Rankin. I will yield for that question only.
Mr. Landis. I noticed in a paper here on September 24th, "Foster scores im-
perialism of Truman."
Mr. Rankin. You changed that statement, did you?
Mr. Foster. I don't know what the headline says, but I will be very glad to
state my position.
Mr. Landis. Did you take the position in your New York speech that Truman
and the administration was imperialistic?
Mr. Foster. I said it was inherently imperialistic, and I would like to state why.
Mr. Rankin. Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't propose
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 47
Mi-. Foster (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I propose that we droj) this nonsense
and talk about something real. This gentleman has aslced me a real question
and I will be glad to answer it instead of this nonsense that Mr. Rankin is talking
about.
The Ch.airman. The connnittee will determine what is nonsense. V^'e are not
concerned about your opinion of the question. What we are seeking is the truth.
Mr. f^osTKR. But I am not going to be a party to a lot of red baiting here, and I
am going to protest against it. If the gentlemen of this committee will ask me
political questions I will be very happy to answer in full, but I am not going to
allow myself to be made an instrument of red baiting such as Mr. Rankin is
imdertaking now, and I am going to denounce it every time he starts.
The Chairman. By that do you mean that you are red baiting when you made
these statements that are being read to you?
Mr. FO.STEB. I wrote that pamphlet 33 years ago. I believed it when I wrote
it. Now I have changed my opinion. I am a Communist, and Communists are
not syndicalists.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Mr. Landis has asked a question
that has not gotten an answer.
The Chairman. Proceed to answer the question of Mr. Landis.
Mr. Foster. There can be no doubt that at the present time the great trusts
and monopolies of the United States are pressing for a program of aggressive
imperialism.
Mr. Thomas. The question had to do with the Truman administration, not
about the trusts and corporations.
Mr. Fcster. Imperialism is a very big matter, and I will come to it very directly.
The Chairman. If I understood the question it was whether or not you de-
nounced the President of the United States and the administration as being
imperialistic. Did you or di^ you not?
^Ir. Foster. I would like to state that is a very important question, what is
my impression, my analysis of the administration, and I think I have a right to
answer the gentleman's question in full. I don't intend to go into any big
speech.
The Chairman. That is a simple question, whether in that speech in September
of this year you made such a reference to the administration of this Government.
Mr. Fo.ster. I said many things in that speech. I talked for 40 minutes in that
speech before I came to that part, and I would like to say what I did say in
that regard.
Mr. Thomas. We don't want you to take 40 minutes to answer it. It won't
take but just a minute.
The Chairman. The question was asked whether that was part of your speech.
Mr. Foster. I stand upon my rights. If you are going to demand that I char-
acterize the Truman administration-^ —
Mr. Thomas, (interijosing). Did you characterize it as an imperialist admin-
istration?
Mr. Foster. I made certain characterizations of the Truman administration
in the midst of the speech outlining the position of American imperialism in
general, and I cannot characterize the Truman administration without stating
the policies of American imperialism in general.
The Chairman. Then do we understand that you say you did characterize
the Truman administration as being iinperilaistic?
Mr. Foster. I say this — now, you may proceed to shut me off from stating
The Chairman (interposing). We are not trying to shut you off.
Mr. FosTf:R {continuing). From stating the relation of Mr. Truman to Ameri-
can imperialism, and you can iiut force me into making some offhand charac-
terization of the Truman administration that is just extracted from a 40-minute
speech. I will be very pleased to tell this committee precisely my conception of
the relation of President Truman to American imperialism if I am permitted
to do so. Undoubtedly the great monopolies, or certainly the bulk of them in
the country, are pressing for ti policy of aggressive American imperialism, and
the spokesmen of these monopolies
Mr. Rankin (interposing). May I be permitted to go ahead and ask these
questions? I yielded for that question only, and I did not yield for a speech.
Mr. Foster. I don't yield. I think I have some rights here. I don't yield to
Mr. Rankin. I demaiHl the I'ight to answer this question.
Mr. Thomas. Try to an.swer it, and try to an.swer it briefly, if you can, Mr.
Foster, because I would like to get an answer.
8.3078 — 46 4
48 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. FOSTER. If it had not been for all these interruptions you would have had
your answer by now.
Mr. Thomas. Go ahead.
Mr. Foster. And that characteristic spokesman of this drive of American im-
perialism to dominate the world under the present situation
Mr. Thomas (interposing). Under the present Administration?
Mr. Foster. Under the present situation I said — are such men such spokesmen
as Mr. Hoover, Mr. Dewey, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Vandenberg.
Mr. Thomas. They are not in the Truman administration. They are ih another
age.
Mr. FosTEE. That's what you think. [Laughter.]
Mr. Thomas. I hope you are right.
Mr. Foster. The fact of the matter is that the voice of Mr. Hoover is more
potent in the Congress at the present time than the voice of Mr. Truman, both
with regard to domestic policies and national policies as well.
Now, the relation of the Truman administration to this drive for American
imperialism to dominate the situation, I think it is a policy of yielding to the
pressure of these imperialist forces. Mr. Truman has pledged himself to carry
out the Roosevelt policies, foreign and domestic, and in so far as he does that
he has the hearty supj)ort of the Communist Party, but certainly within the past
couple of months particularly, whether it is with regard to Germany, whether
it is with regard to any phase of our foreign policy, the Truman Administration
is undoutebtedly yielding to the pressure of these imperialist forces. The ap-
pointment of Mr. Brynes as Secretary of State, undoubtedly was a tremendous
concession to the imperialists of the United States, and the fact that he selected
Mr. Dulles as his chief advisor to London is evidence of that fact, and in my
opinion it was a bad day for the United Nations and for world democracy in
general when Mr. Byrnes assumed the Secretaryship of State of the United States.
Mr. Landis. I want to ask him to say "yes" or "no" to this question.
]Mr. Foster. Of course I won't say "yes" or "no."
Mr. Landis (reading) : "Mr. Foster in an address proposed for delivery in
observation of the party's twenty-sixth anniversary said among what he termed
'imperialist' foreign policies of the Administration was the trend toward making
the military control of Japan purely an American affair under the ultra-con-
servative General MacArthur, instead of the concern of the whole United Nations."
Mr, Foster. That is right. Not only I say that, but progressives generally
throughout the United States say it.
Mr. Rankin. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Mr. Foster one more question
at this point. In this pamphlet which he wrote he said 32 jears ago — how old
were you at that time, Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. I was 33, or thereabouts.
Mr. Rankin. When you were 33 years old, imder the heading of "The general
strike in the armed forces" you said, "Once the general strike is in active opera-
tion, the greatest obstacle to its success will be armed forces of capitalism —
soldiers, police, detectives, etc. This formidable force will be used energetically
by the capitalists to break the general strike. The syndicalists have given much
study to the problem presented by this force and have found the solution for it.
Their proposed tactics are very different from those used by rebels in former
revolutions. They are not going to mass themselves and allow themselves to be
slaughtered by capitalism's trained murderers in the orthodox, way. Theirs is a
safer, more effective and more modern method. They are going to defeat the
armed forces by disorganizing and demoralizing them.
"A fruitful source of this disorganization will be the extreme difficulty the
armed forces will experience in securing supplies and transportation. Modern
armies, to be effective, must have immense arsenals, power works and other
industrial establishments behind them to furnish them their supplies of ammu-
nition, arms, food and clothing. They also must have the railroads constantly
at. their disposal for transiwrtation. When the general strike has halted these
industries the army will be stricken with paralysis. Another source of dis-
organization will he the division of the armed forces into minute detachments
to guard the many beleaguered gates of capitalism. The strikers, or revolution-
ists, will be everywhere, and will everywhere seize or disable whatever capitalist
property they can lay their hands on. To protect this property the armed forces
will have to be divided into myriad of guards and scattered along the thousands
of miles «>f railroad and around the many public buildings, bridges, factories, and
so forth. The wealthy capitalists themselves will also need generous guards.
The most important industries, such as transportation, mining, etc., will have
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 49
to be operated in some manner. To do this will require many thousands more
«»f soldiers and police.
"The result will be that the armed forces will be minutely subdivided, and
Ihrough the loss of the solidarity and discipline, from whence they derive their
strength, they will cease to be a tightiiig organization. They will degenerate into
a mass of armed individuals scattered far and wide over the country. These
individuals can be easily overwhelmed and disarmed, or what is more likely,
they wilM)e mostly working men and in sympathy with the general strike, induced
to join the ranks of their striking fellow workers. Once the disorganization of
the armed forces is complete the revolutionists will seize the unprotected in-
dustries and proceed to reorganize society."
Now, you say you were 33 years old when you wrote that, Mr. Foster?
JMr. FoSTKK. Approximately.
Mr. Rankin. Approximately 33 years old. Do you see any analogy between
(hat procedure and the procedure outlined by the Communist International and
the Communist Party today?
Mr. FosTi'.B. Of course. The Communists have a fundamentally different line.
Not only that, but they are in conllict with the syndicalists all over the world.
This pamphlet in no sense represents my opinions, and you understand that
perfectly well.
Mr. Rankin. When did you change?
Mr. Foster. When I became a Communist — and before that, in fact.
Mr. Rankin. And this is the first time you ever openly repudiated this pam-
phlet, isn't it?
Mr. Foster. No ; I have repudiated it many times.
Mr. Rankin. Now I will read further in this pamphlet, and see what you have
to say about this.
Mr. Foster. A\'hy don't you talk about something of today?
Mr. Rankin. We are going to bring this all down and show the connection
with tlie present Communist program.
On sabotage you go on to say in this pamphlet: "Next to the partial strilte,
. the most effective weapon used by syndicalists in their daily warfare on cap-
italism is sabotage. Sabotage is a very general term. It is used to describe all
those tactics, save the boycott and the strike proper ; which are used by workers
to wring concessions from their employers by intlicting losses on them through
the stopping or slowing down of industry, turning out of poor products, etc.
These tactics, and consequently the forms of sabotage, are very numerous. Many
of them are closely related in character. Often two or more kinds of sabotage
are used simultaneously or in conjunction with the strike.
"Perhaps the most widely practised form of sabotage is the restriction by
the workers of their output. Disgruntled workers all over the world instinctively
and continually practise this form of sabotage, which is often referred to as
'soldiering.' "
Then you go ahead to describe here how you would organize to sabotage.
Does that comport with the program of the Communist party of today?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Rankin. Yon were 33 years old, you say, when you wrote this, and you
were fully cognizant of what you were doing. You knew full well what you
were driving at at that time, did yon not.
Mi-. Foster. I wrote that. I wrote the book. I have repudiated it a thousand
times.
Mr. Rankin. This pamphlet that you wrote 33 years ago was driving towards
revolution in this country, wasn't it? Tliat was the object of it, was to stir
up revolution in this country?
Mr. Foster. That is perfectly obvious if you can understand English.
Mr. Rankin. I understand English fairly well. Your object at that time —
and you were 33 years old — in writing this stuff and publishing it and sending
it through the mails and all over this country, was to stir up a revolution to
overthrow this Goverinnent, wasn't it?
Mr. Foster Mr. Chairman, I ask that we talk about realities today. Here is
a pamphlet that is not endorsed by the Communists, that has nothing to do with
the present situation.
The CHAiRAfAN. Mr. Foster, you occupy a position today as head of a political
party. I think your utterances at any time during your mature life are material
to this committee's understanding, with the explanation that you desire to give
as to whether or not you embrace those views today.
Mr. Foster, I stated it a dozen times already that I have repudiated them.
50 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, what I want to show is that at that time he was
not only advocating, he was practising revolution, and that the Communist Party
today has merely changed in name. We propose to show before we get through
that his program is to overthrow this Government.
Mr. FosTKi^. Abraham Lincoln advocated revolution. Thomas Jefferson advo-
cated revolution, and many others advocated revolution. So what?
Mr. Rankin. Let me read you another paragraph :
"The syndicalist is as unscrupulous in his choice of weapons to fight his
everyday' battles as for his final struggle with capitalism. He allows no con-
siderations of legality, religion, patriotism, honor, duty, etc., to stand in tlie
way of his adoption of effective tactics. Tlie only sentiment he Icnows is
loyalty to the interests of the working class. He is in utter revolt against
capitalism in all its phases."
Communism is opposed to capitalism in all its phases, is it not? Your Com-
munist Party today is dedicated to the overthrow of what it calls the "capitalist
system," isn't it?
Mr. Foster. Communism lives under capitalism and makes the best of it, and
propagates
Mr. Rankin (interposing). Oh, no.
Mr. Foster. Oh, yes ; we do. We undertake to improve the conditions of the
masses as much as is possible under the capitalist system, but we at the same
time-
Mr. Rankin (interposing). You go on to say here
Mr. Thomas (interposing). Let him finish.
Mr. Foster. But at the same time we point out to the worker the necessity
of the eventual establishment of socialism. Our advocacy of socialism is purely
in an educational form, and the United States Supreme Court has held that
this is legal, such advocacy of socialism; and in fact, I think this whole com-
mittee here in this kind of an inquisitorial examination of the Communist
Party is in flagrant violation of the decision of the United States Supreme Court
in tlie Schneiderman case and is entirely out of place. The activities that the
Communist Party are carrying on are strictly within the law, and Mr. Rankin
knows that and is deliberately trying to use this committee for his notoriously
reactionary purposes.
The Chairman. Mr. Foster, the simple question was asked you whether or
not the Communist Party today advocates the abolition of the capitalistic system
in this country.
Mr. FosTEK. I answered that.
The Chairman. Does it or not?
Mr. Foster. I answered that the Communist Party points out to the workers
the necessity for socialism, and undertakes
The Chairman (interposing). That is not an answer to the question. What
does it mean?
Mr. Foster. What does it mean? It means the abolition of capitalism, of
course, and the establishing of socialism.
Mr. Rankin. In other words, you advocate the abolition of capitalism, which
is the American economic system?
Mr. Foster. Not the American system. Capitalism is not an American eco-
nomic system. Capitalism is a world economic system, not American.
Mr. RANKIN. You also advocate communism in this country, and communism
advocates the overthrow of the Government, doesn't it?
Mr. Foster. Change in our form of government.
Mr. Rankin. Just a minute now. Make up your mind. What you want is
overthrow or change in form?
Mr. Foster. Every day that Congress meets it is changing the form of our
government.
Mr. Rankin. Make up your mind which one the Communists advocate.
Mr. Fo'.sTER. Every day that Congress meets it is changing the form of our
government more or less.
Mr. Rankin. Vvliat you propose to do is to get rid of the present Constitution
of the United States, is it?
Mr. Foster. That is not so.
Mr. Rankin. And you also propose to set up various Soviets over the country,
do you not, divide up the country in Soviet states, Comnmnist states?
Mr. Foster. The Communist Party — first of all, the Communist Party, as I
have stated, undertakes under the capitalist system to protect the interests of
the workers, not only the workers but all other sections of society, with every
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 51
means within its iKnver under cnpitnlism, and it proposes at the same time that
the capitalist system is a decadent system, that historically it is on its way out
from the world scene, and people must begin to look forward to a system of
.socialism. The capitalist system has produced two world wars.
The Ch-'Mrma.n. That is not responsive to the question. The time has arrived
when the House is in session, Mr. Foster. We will have to take an adjournment
until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning uuless you have some valid reason why you
cannot appear here.
Mr. Foster. I would like to read my statement.
The Chairman. You can't do it now, but we will give you an opportunity to
do so.
Mr. Foster. I will give it to the press, then.
The Chaiiiman. Very well, and we will be glad to have you put it in the record
of this conunittee any time you desire, and unless you have some valid reason
why you cannot do it, we will ask you to be with us in the morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Thomas. A point of order. Mr. Chairman. I want to know, if we meet at
10 o'clock tomorrow morning, whether or not we can resume questioning by the
members?
The Chairman. By the members of the committee. You will be next in order.
(Mr. Foster submitted the following paper:)
Statement Presented by Wiltjam Z. Foster to the House Committee on
Un-American Activities
I wish to protest indignantly against the assumption of this committee that
Communists are un-American. Contrary to this, we Communists yield to nobody
in the patriotic defense of American national interests.
During the war, with America's fate at stake, we had over 12,000 of our mem-
bers in the armed services, and on the home front we loyally supported labor's
no-strike pledge and .spared no effort to achieve maximum war production.
For a generation the Communists have been unsparing in their efforts to
strengthen the trade unions, the very foundation of American democracy.
Every piece of jjrogressive legislation incorporating the real American spirit
of democracy has always had the ai'dent support of the Communists.
In the be.st American tradition we have uncompromisingly fought every form
of racial and religious di.scrimiuation.
We are especially proud of our long fight for full economic, political and social
equality for the Negro people, without which there cannot be true democracy in
the United State.s.
The Communists are the most resolute of all fighters against Fascism, which is
the enemy of everything truly American.
It was in the deepest American national interest that we Communists worked
long and diligently for close and friendly cooperative relations between the
U. S. A. and the U. S-. S. R., without which cooperation we would have lost the
war and would not win the peace.
It is also in the most basic American interest that we Communists are now
warning the American people against the dangerous attempts of reactionaries
here to force the United States into a path of imperialist world domination.
And history will show that in proposing a system of socialism to take the place
of decadent capitalism, the breeder of economic chaos. Fascism and war, we are
thereby advancing the most fundamental of all American national interests.
We Communists are proud of our record of Americanism, the Americanism
of the people, not the trusts, the Americanism of democracy, peace and progress.
The present House committee, like the Dies Committe before it, is not guard-
ing democratic Americnnism; it is promoting the worst, most Fascist forms of
reaction in this country. It is seeking to develop an antired hysteria, under
cover of which the great banks and monopolies can the more easily forward
their schemes of reaction in the United States, and of imperialist aggression
abroad. It begins by attacking the Communists and will end by assailing the
trade uniotis and everything progressive. That is why it has the enthusiastic
support of Hearst and all other native Fascists and reactionaries.
This committee is carrying on a combination of ITitlerism red baiting. .Japanese
"dangerous thought" control, and Salem witch hunting. It is an incipient Gestapo
and it should be abolished.
(Whereupon, at 11 : l.o o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock
a.m., Thursday, October 18, 1945.)
52 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Un-American Activities,
W^ASHiNGTON, D. C, Thursday, October 18, 191(5.
The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John E. Ranking presiding.
Mr. Rankin. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Adamson. I will call Mr. Foster.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM Z. FOSTER (Resumed)
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Foster, when we adjourned yesterday we were discussing
this pamphlet entitled "Syndicalism." You said you wrote it when?
Mr. Foster. I think it was in 1912.
Mr. Rankin. Wasn't it republished in 1932?
Mr. Foster. No, sir.
Mr. Rankin. And circulated in 1932.?
Mr. Foster. No, sir ; not by me.
Mr. Rankin. I am going to submit a copy of this publication for the record.
I want to quote from it later.
Now, Mr. Foster, in 1930 you testified before the investigating committee of the
House on Communist propaganda here in W^ashington, did you not?
Mr. Foster. I testified before the Fish committee. I don't know what year
it was.
Mr. Rankin. This book entitled "Syndicalism" advocates revolution, does it
not?
Mr. Foster. Obviously.
Mr. Rankin. It advocates stirring up that revolution through strikes and
sabotage, does it not?
Mr. Foster. Obviously.
Mr. Rankin. In 1930, when you appeared before the Fish committee, Mr.
Bachman, I believe of West Virginia, was on the committee, and he asked you a
question about statements that you had made before, and I am going to read it
to you now and ask you if this is your view at the present time. He says :
"You made this statement: 'No Communist, no matter haw many votes he
should secure in a national election, could, even if he would, become President of
the present government. When a Communist heads the government of the
United States — and that day will come just as surely as the sun rises — the govern-
ment will not be a capitalist government but a Soviet government, and behind
this government will stand the Red army to enforce the dictatorship of the
proletariat.' "
You made that statement, did you?
Mr. Foster. I think so.
Mr. Rankin. That was your view?
Mr. Foster. I made that statement, yes.
Mr. Rankin. You made that statement. Now again
Mr. Thomas (interposing). Will the Chairman yield a moment? The under-
standing last night was that I was to start the questioning. Some of the ques-
tions that the Chairman is about to ask, I think are questions that I was going
to ask.
Mr. Rankin. I will only take a short time. I have got one or two questions
that I want to bring this down to date, to show the connection between the
philosophy expressed in 1930 and that expressed in that revolutionary document
that I have just submitted.
You also stated in the same testimony in 1930 — the Chairman asked : "Does the
Communist Party advocate the confiiscation of all private property?" You said :
"Tlie Communist Party advocates the overthrow of^he capitalist system and
confiscation of the social necessities of life, that is, the basic industries and
other industries for producing the means of livelihood for the people, the property
of the individual, personal belongings and so on, that is, in the sense of their
personal property."
. Is that still your view?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Rankin. You have changed since 1930?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 53
Mr. Foster. That is right. I have changed with the changing world, of
course.
Mr. R.\XKiN. But up to that time you had not changed from your attitude ex-
pre.<5sed in that revolutionary document called "Syndicalism"? That is cor-
rect, isn't it?
Mv. I\)sTER. It is not correct.
INIr. Rankin. So you changed twice?
]\Ir. Foster. I hope so.
IMr. It;\XKiN (continuing).
'•The CiiAiKM.\N. To be a member of the Communist Party do you have to be
an atheist?"
To which you, Mr. Foster, answered : "There is no formal requirement to this
effect. Many workers join the Communist Party who still have some religious
scruples or religious ideas, but a worker who will join the Communist Party,
who understands the elementary principles of the Communist Party, must neces-
sarily be in tlie process of liquidating his religious belief, and if he still has any
lingerings when he joins the party, he will soon get rid of them."
You made that ,starement, I believe, at that time. Is that .vour view today?
Mr. FoSTEH?. I wish to state that it is none of the coucern of this committee
what my religious or nonreligious beliefs are, none whatever.
Mr. Rankin. You made that statement, did you. Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. I am not answering any questions that have to do with my reli-.
gious or nonreligious belief. I wish to state that your purpose in asking such
questions is to stir up religious dissension in the country.
Mr. Rankin. Now, will you answer my question?
Mr. Foster. I am answering your question.
Mr. Rankin. Answer my question whether or not you made that statement
under oath in 1930.
Mr. Foster. I don't have to answer that. It is in the book.
yiv. Rankin. All right ; then I will read you some more.
Mr. ThoMzVS. I am going to insist on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My
point of order is that it was understood last night that I was to start the ques-
tioning today.
Mr. Rankin. I have got just two more questions here that I want to bring
out.
Mr. Foster. I wish to state in that connection that the Communist Party lays
down no requirements regarding the religious convictions of its members. We
consistently fight against every form of racial or religious prejudice, and work
loyally with people of every religious conviction, and I am not coming here to
be quizzed on religion, and will positively refu.se to answer any question whatso-
ever dealing with my religious convictions.
Mr. Rankin. Now, Mr. Foster, I am merely asking you if you made that
statement under oath. You can be your own judge about what your views are
on the subject at this time. I am going to ask one more question, Mr. Thomas,
and then you may have the witness.
Mr. Foster, you were asked the question :
"1)0 you know whether the Communists of this country advocate world
revolution?"
Your answer was "yes." Is that your answer today?
Mr. Foster. My answer is that ^mmunists ail over the world stand for social-
ism, and furthermore, the statement to that effect is justified by the decision of
the United States Supreme Court in the Schneiderman case, that it is perfectly
legal and perfectly correct to advocate, if you wish, world socialism.
Mr. Rankin. And world revolution?
Mr. Foster. World- socialism. Let me say, you use this word "revolution."
Let's see what we mean by "revolution." Revolution means a change from one
social system to another. The capitalist sj'stem that we live under was estab-
lished by a whole series of revolutions, but
IMr. Rankin, (interposing). Wait a minute. Just answer the question.
Mr. Foster. Never mind, Mr. Chairman, I am answering the question, and you
can't shut me up.
Mr. Rankin. You will obey the rules of the committee while you are in here.
Mr. Foster. I am an American citizen, and you cannot put words in my mouth.
When you speak of "revolution'' you must permit me to state what my concep-
tion of revolution is. You may handle people in the Southwest that way, but you
can't handle me that way.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Foster, you stated in answer to a question
54 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Foster (Interposing) : I am defining revolution. Yon said do I believe
in revolution, and I am telling you vi'hat I believe in. The capitalist system was
established by a whole series of revolutions in England, in France, in China, in
many other countries, and in the United States we had two revolutions establish-
ing the capitalist system under which we live, and naturally the establishment
of socialism will be a revolution. Whether it is peaceful or violent will depend
upon the circumstances. As far as the capitalist revolutions were concerned,
they were all very violent.
Mr. Rankin. Now, Mr. Foster, since you have answered — made your answer,
which coi;firnis your adherence to the attitude, it seems to me, that you expressed
32 years ago, I am asking Mr. Thomas to proceed with the examination.
Mr. Foster. I did nothing of the kind. I did nothing of the kind, and you will
not put words into my mouth. I specifically repudiated this book, and you can't
make me say anything else.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Fostei', my questions are going to be very short, and I think
you can answer them very briefly.
Mr. Foster. I will be very glad to.
Mr. Thomas. I think it will be much easier if we do it that way.
The first question is, did you ever state that no big strike takes place now in
the United States without the Communists taking a decisive part?
Mr. Foster. I don't know what year that refers to.
Ml'. Thomas. Well, to refresh your memory, I believe you did state that before
the committee on Un-American Activities when you were before that committee
last.
Mr. Foster. That was what year, please?
Mr. Thomas. Well, whenever you were before the committee. For instance,
on pages 5400 it gives jour 1928 acceptance speech, and in that speech you say:
"No big strike takes place now in the United States withox;t the Communists
taking a decisive part." Do you recall making that statement in 1928, in your
acceptance speech?
Mr. Fo,sTER. It was probably true at the time.
Mr. Thomas. Do you believe now that no big strike takes place in the United
States without the Communists taking a decisive part?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Thomas. Are the Communists taking any part in the present strikes that
are .so abundant throughout the Nation?
Mr. Foster. The Communists work in all the industries of the country, and
like other workers they take part in such strikes as develop.
Mr. Thomas. So that they are taking quite a part at the present time?
Mr. Foster. I guess they are, like all other workers, of course.
Mr. Thomas. Have you conferred with other Conminnist leaders in connection
With any Communist activities in relation to the current strikes?
Mr. Foster. No.
I\Ir. Foster. You have not conferred with any Communist leaders or labor
leaders?
Mr. Foster. Only like every other citizen does. This is a matter of common
interest.
Mr. Thomas. Who are some of the strike leaders that you have conferred
with in connection with the present strikes?
Mr. Fostei?. I have not conferred with any strike leaders in connection with
the present strikes.
Mr. Thomas. Have you conferred with Micheal Quill?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Thomas. Have you conferred with Joe Curran?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mv. Thomas. Have you conferred with Harry Bridges?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Thomas. Are you sure you have not conferred with Harry Bridges?
Mr. Foster. Positively.
Mr. Thomas. And you have conferred with no other labor leaders in connection
with tbp strikes?
Mr. Foster. No; only insofar as they may be members of our national board.
We have some labor leader membei's of our national board.
Mr. THO]\rAS. Who are some of the labor leaders who are members of the
national board that you have conferred with in connection with the .strikes?
Mr. Foster. Their names are published.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 55
Mr. Thomas. WIio are tlioy, Mr. Foster? It will be niiich easier for you to
tell us.
Mr. Foster. We have on our national board Mr. Weinstock and Mr. Potash.
They are nionibers of our national board.
Mr. TiioM.vs. And what are their labor connections?
Mr. FosTKU. One is head of the painters union in New York and the other is
liead of one of the workers unions in the fur industry.
Mr. Thomas. Anyone else?
Ml'. Foster. None.
Mr. Thomas. What part are the Conununists taking in the longshoremen's
strike in New York?
Mr. FoSTKu. Well, if there are any Communists working on tlie waterfront, I
dare say they are on strike. I hope they are.
Mr. Thomas. Are tliey taking an active part in tlie strilce as leaders?
]\Ir. Foster. No.
Mr. Thomas. But you do hope that they are taking an active part?
Mr. Foster. No; the leaders of the strike are not Coilununists.
Mr. Thomas. How about the strike out in Hollywood? What part are they
taking out there?
Mr. Foster. I don't know about Hollywood. I am not intimately connected
with the situation, but from what I read in the newspapers they are not Com-
munists leading that strike, tliey are A. F. of L. leaders.
Mr. Thomas. To refresh your memory, in many of tliese pamphlets — I am
going to list them in the record later — you hope to openly and actively state
that the Comnuuiists should take a leading part in strikes. In many statements
that you and other leading Conmuuiists have made over a period of time, you
openly advocate that the Communists should take a leading part in the ,strikes.
That is true, isn't it? We will agree to that?
Mr. Foster. Communists, of course, participate in strikes and do whatever
they can to win tliem.
Mr. Thomas. Has the Communist Party slipped to the extent that they are
not taking the same kind of a leading part today that they used to be taking?
Mr. Fo.stir. The present strikes that we now have in the country are spon-
taneous strikes against the intolerable conditions that the workers face, and it
so happens that these strikes are A. F. of L. and C. I. O. strikes in which Com-
munists do not play any outstanding leadership. It may say as to these strikes,
however, that we are doing whatever we can to make them win, because their
demands are justified, and I wish to say that unless the United States Govern-
ment and the employers of this country grant the 30 percent wage increa.se which
is generally being demanded by all the workers of the United States, we are
heading for a first-cla,ss economic disaster. The.se strikers are striking not
merely in the interest of themselves; they are striking in the interest of the
entire American people.
Mr. Thomas. Now let us be as brief as we can, because we have got some
distance to go and we want to be fair to you and to the other members of the
committee. You don't want this committee to get the impression that the Com-
munist Party in connection with the labor movement is losing ground, do you?
The Comnuuiist Party today is .just as active in the labor movement and in the
proportion of strikes sis it ever was. if not more so, is it not?
Mr. Fo.ster. The Conununist Party does not promote strikes. The Com-
munist I'arty extends the interests of the workers.
Mr. Thomas. Who promotes the strikes?
Mr. Foster. The eniploy(n-s promote strikes.
Mr. Thomas. The enu'l<»yers pnnnote strikes?
]Mr. Foster. Of course.
:\Ir. Thomas. The heads of the unions do not have anything to do with it?
Mr. Foster. Employers and the Government are sharing a large portion of the
responsibility.
air. Tho.mas. Do you mean to say that the beads of the
Mr. FosTra (interposing). You asked nie a question. May I answer it?
air. Thomas. Yes ; Imt don't go into a long speech, or we will never get through,
Mr. F^oster. You might as well understand that.
Mr. Foster. These are big questions.
Mr. Thomas. Yes; we certainly have got a lot of big questions here.
Mr. Foster. I say that the demands of the workei-s are justified, and if the
employers will not grant them, if tliey force the workers out on strike — and the
main responsibility rests not with the trade unions but with the employers
56 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Thomas (interposing). All right. Do labor leaders such as Harry Bridges
and Joe Ciirrau and Michael Quill promote any strikes?
Mr. Foster. Of course not. They assume a very responsible attitude toward
strilves. It is no small matter when workers quit their jobs.
Mr. Thomas. Do you agree that these strikes today greatly retard reconversion?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Thomas. Do you agree that the longshoremen's strike retards the conver-
sion— retards the return of war veterans to this country?
Mr. Foster. I think that the strikes
Mr. Thomas (interposing). You can answer that "yes" or "no."
Mr. Foster. It is not a simple question.
Mr. Thomas. Do you agree that the longshoremen's strike retards the return
of war veterans to this country?
Mr. Foster. I would like to see every strike — ■ —
Mr. Thomas (interposing). No; answer "yes" or "no." Do you agree that
it does?
Mr. Foster. Every strife interferes with production, every strike.
Mr. Thomas. Do you agree that
Mr. Foster ( interposing) . I agree that every strike interferes with production.
Mr. Thomas. This hasn't anything to do with production. This has to do with
the return of war veterans to the United States.
Mr. Foster. I am not answering your trick questions.
Mr. Thomas. That is no trick question.
Mr. Foster. Yes ; it is.
Mr. Thomas. That is a very simple question.
Mr. Foster. Oh, yes; it is. ^
Mr. Thoxcas. You claim that is a trick question and you refuse to answer it?
Mr. Foster. I don't refuse to answer. I say that all strikes interfere with
production, and the longshoremen's strike in New Y'ork included, and the long-
shoremen's strike should be settled at the earliest possible moment, so as to facili-
tate the return.
Mr. Thomas. I am referring now to veterans, the return of veterans.
Mr. Foster. I answered your question that the strike should be settled as
quickly as possible, to facilitate the business of the New York Port as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Thomas. And the return of the veterans?
Mr. Foster. Of course, there is nobody that wants the veterans returned more
quickly than organized labor, and I am a little bit doubtful whether somebody
else wants them returned so quickly. I think I have read a lot of criticisms
of the War Department for not hurrying up their return.
Mr. Thomas. Do you agree that the wave of strikes will endanger the future
progress of the whole labor movement in the United States? You can answer
that "ye.s" or "no."
Mr. Foster. What was the question?
Mr. Thomas. Do you agree that the wave of strikes will endanger the future
progress of the whole labor movement in the United States?
Mr. Foster. No. The wave of strikes is something that might have been ex-
pected after the war as part of the reconversion problem, and anybody who
understands the industrial situation could so expect. If the employers of the
country, if the Government will
Mr. Thomas (interposing). Now, let us be short. I have got a long way to
go here and I want to be fair to you and fair to these other members of the
committee. . .
Mr. Foster. ]Make it as short as you want, but you are trying to get my opinion,
not yours.
Mr. Thomas. I think we have got to have short answers, though.
Mr. Foster. I think it is my opinion that is desired here, not yours.
Mr. Thomas. That is right. Did you ever remark that the Communists will
never surrender the control of 3 million organized workers to the reactionary
leadership of the A. F. of L.?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. Thomas. Did you mean by that that the Communists controlled 3 million
organized workers?
Mr. Foster. No. I meant that the Communists fight against any form ot
racketeering or corruption in the American Federation of Labor, and one of the
most outstanding forms of it you see exhibited right in New York at the present
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 57
time, where you have a man who has got himself elected for life as president of
his union. j
Mv. Thomas. You mean Ryan?
Mr. FosTKR. Ryan. I think if you want — if you are summoning anti-American
elements, why don't you summon Mr. Ryan down here and put him on the spot?
Mr. Thomas. Here is another statement : if the Conuiiunists ever head the
Government of the United States — and I understand from your previous testi-
mony tliat yon said it was likely — would that government be a Soviet government?
Mr. Foster. It would be a Socialist government.
Mr. Thomas. But you did say it would be a Soviet government, didn't you?
Mr. FosTKK. That is another way of saying Socialist. It might or might not
be a Soviet government.
Mr. Thomas. If it was a Soviet government, would it be a dictatorship of the
proletariat?
Mr. Foster. In the prospective socialism we have a perspective where many
classes will enter into a Socialist government.
Mr. Thomas. But, Mr. Foster, you said it would be a dictatorship of the
proletariat, didn't you?
Mr. Foster. The proletariat is the leading force.
Mr. Thomas. But you said that?
Mr. Foster. That is an expression meaning a farmer-worker government.
Mr. Thomas. I think we know what it means, but didn't you say it?
Mr. Foster. I am telling you what it means. If I said it, it is there, but the
meaning of translated into our terms is a labor and farmer government.
Mr. Rankin. IMr. Thomas, would it bother you to ask him a question about
the things that I went over?
Mr. Thomas. Just a minute, and I will be through.
And in that same speech — and I believe that was a speech in 1928, when you
were running for President of the United States — didn't you state that behind
that dictatorship would stand the Red Army?
Mr. Foster. I suppose I did.
Mr. Thomas. And before another congressional committee didn't you state
that the Russian people, as you had been able to understand the situation on a
number of visits over there, had established fundamental liberties that we have
not got in the United States?
Mr. Foster. I think that Is very obvious. I think that Mr. Rankin should be
very well aware of that.
Mr. Thomas. Have you talked to any of these Members of Congress
Mr. Foster ( interposing) . You asked me a question. I would like to answer.
Mr. Thomas. I asked you if you didn't make that statement.
Mr. Foster. I would like to answer that question. One of the fundamental
liberties they have there is the recognition of equality of all races and nationali-
ties, and that is something we haven't got in the United States. In the South
where Mr. Rankin comes from
Mr. Thomas Mnterposing). Never mind that. I think your answers ought
to be more responsive to the questions.
Mr. Foster. You asked me a question and I want to answer it, that the Jim
Crow syistem in the South is a scandal.
Mr. Thomas. The answer is not i-esponsive to the question.
Mr. Foster. Yes : it is responsive.
The Chairman. He asked you if you said what he asked you if you said.
Mr. Foster. I did.
Jlr. Thomas. Now, I nsk you what those liberties are? In the first place,
did the Bolsheviki have the same freedom of assembly as we have?
Mr. Foster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thomas. Do the Russian Bolsheviki have the same right of petition that
we in America have?
Mr. Foster. I would like to know what that has got to do with un-American
activities.
Mr. Thomas. It is the rersult of the statement you made yourself, and I .iust
want to find out what you meant by "liberty.'] Do they have the same freedom
of petition that wo Americans have?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. THo.\rAs. Do the Russian Bolsheviki have the same freedom of travel that
we Americans have?
58 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Foster. Well, under the conditions as I understand they exist there, they
have practically been living under war conditions for a number of years.
Mr. Thomas. And they do not have the same freedom of travel?
Mr. FosTEH. They have an amount of control of traffic. We haven't got free
travel conditions here either.
Mr. Thomas. Do the Bolsheviki have the same freedom of religion that we
Americans have?
Mr. Foster. Yes;
Mr. Thomas. Do the Bolsheviki have the same freedom of the press that we
Americans have?
Mr. Foster. I think even more so.
Mr. Thoafas. Have you talked to any of these Members of Congress, both
Democrats and Republicans, who have recently returned from Russia?
Mr. Fo.sTKR. No ; I have not.
Mr. Thomas. Have you discussed with them what they found over there?
Mr. Foster. No ; I have not.
Mr. Thomas. I think it should appear in the record, and I think you would
be interested in this, that almost imiversally both Democrats and Republicans
who have returned have come back with a very gloomy picture of conditions in
Russia.
Mr. Foster. What business is that of this committee? Is that this business?
Mr. Thomas. It is this Inisiness. You are the leading Communist in the
United States. Here are all your pamphlets, and in every one of those pamphlets,
practically, you are praising Russia and hardly ever are you praising the United
States.
Mr. Foster. What has that got to do with un-American activities? Is that
illegal to speak favorably of other countries?
Mr. Thomas. No ; we will get to some of the un-American things right down
here.
Mr. Foster. I wish to protest against this line of questioning. In my opinion
it is feeding the warmongering sentiment in the country at the present time.
Mr. Thomas. Let us see if you protest to this question. When you appeared
before the Fish-Dickstein Committee you stated that the more advanced workers
in America looked upon the Soviet Union as their country, did you not?
Mr. Foster. I don't know whether I said it or not.
Mr. Thomas. Well, do you want me to show it to you?
Mr. Foster. Yes ; I would like to see it.
Mr. Thomas. On page 5390 of the hearings of the Committee on Un-American
Activities, the cliairnian of which was Mr. Dies, there was a quotation introduced,
a dialogue, from the Fish-Dickstein committee hearings. The chairman of that
committee asked Mr. Foster :
"Now, If I understand you, the workers in this country look today upon the
Soviet Union as their country. Is that right?
"Mr. Foster. The more advanced workers do.
"The Chairman. Look upon the Soviet Union as their country?
"Mr. Foster. Yes, sir."
Do you recall that, Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. In the sense that it is a Socialist system, in the sense that the more
advanced workers stand for a Socialist system.
Mr. Thomas. Do you believe that same thing to be true today in the United
States?
Mr. Foster. In the sense that I explain it now. It is one of those "yes" or "no"
answers that you are insisting upon, that should have been explained.
Mr. Thomas. Do you believe it to be true in the United States today?
Mr. Foster. I say that the workers of the world, the more advanced workers
of the world, are looking forward to tlie Socialist system. As far as their re-
spective countries are concerned, of course, the country that they live in is their
country, and they defend that country, and we have defended the United States. .
Mr. Thomas. The question refers to the Soviet Union.
]\Tr. Foster. I explained it to you
Mr. Thomas (interposing). You said "yes"?
Mr. FO.STER. In the sense that it is a Socialist system, that it represents tlie
Socialist system that advanced workei's are looking for. This is what you get
when you get your yes-or-no answers with no chance to explain.
Mr. Thomas. Let us go a little further. You likewise stated that they looked
upon the Soviet flag as their flag. That is right in this same testimony here.
Do you believe that to be true today?
INVESTIGATION OF. UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 59
Mr. FosTKR. We have heard a lot of nonsense about this flag business, and I
think it is al)out time that we should bo done with it. The Amei-ican Coninmnists
accept the American flag as the flag of this country, and thousands of them have
gone out and defended it and have died under it, and many have won distinguished -
.service crosses, and so on. As far as this Red flag is concerned, it has always
been the flag of the international labor movement, the international Communist
movement, the intt'rnational Socialist movement, the intei'national trade-union
movement. Maybe you may not know, but the British Labor Party sang the
Red Flag in I'arliament. It is the symbol of the international labor movement.
Mr. Thomas. In your system we would have two flags, the Red flag and the
Star-Siiangled Banner?
Mr. FosTKR. Not under my system. I will tell you that for a hundred years.
Mr. Thomas. If the Connnunists got control of the country and there was a
Communist government, we will say, would we have both the Red flag and the
Star-Sjiangled Banner?
Mr. Foster. I have stated that the workers of the world for 100 years have
had the Red flag as their international symbol. Not only that, but the American
Revolution had the Red flag, and the town in which I was born w^as the first
town in which the Red flag was raised by the American patriots. So I think
there is a lot of nonsense about the Red flag, and it is about time that serious
committees of the Government be done with such stuff.
Mr. Thomas. I am just wondering if the thoughts that you expressed before
the old Fish-Dickstein committee are the same as your thoughts on the subject
today?
Mr. Foster. I have stated my thoughts now.
Mr. Thomas. They are just the same today as then?
Mr. Foster. I have stated my thoughts very clearly at the moment.
Mr. Thomas. Did you write a book entitled "Towards Soviet America"?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Rankin. When?
Mr. Foster. I think that was about 1932.
INIr. Thomas. In this book did you not write that the American Soviet Gov-
ernment would join with other Soviet Governments in the world Soviet Union?
Mr. Foster. Well, we are internationalists.
Mr. Thomas. That is not an answer.
I\Ir. Foster. I am not going to be putting in these yes-or-no answers.
~^Ir. Rankin. The question is-did you write that in that book?
Mr. Thomas. Did you write it in the book?
Mr. Foster. You asked me the question whether I stood for a world Socialist
government.
Mr. Thomas. No, I didn't say that. I asked you if you wrote it in the book.
Mr. Foster. Why do you ask me? It is in the book. If you want my opinion
on it, I will tell you my opinion.
Mr. Thomas. All right, supposing that does take place — —
Mr. Foster, (interposing). You don't want my opinion?
Mr. Thomas. Yes, I want your opinion.
Mr. Foster. You don't want my opinion. You want me
The Chairman. Don't argue. Mr. Foster, and we will get along a lot faster.
Vou have the privilege of explaining your answers.
Mr. Foster. I don't believe I have any privileges.
Mr. Thomas. You have a lot of privileges.
Mr. Foster. But I want my privilege right now when the question is being
asked. You don't want my opinion.
Mr. THOiiAS. Do you not think that Russia will dominate that union?
Mr. Foster. You are trying to get some phoney answers out of me that you
can use for red baiting throughout the country.
Mr. Thomas. No, I am not.
Mr. Foster. And you are not going to get them. I demand the right to answer
that question now.
Mr. Thomas. Well, you have answered it, Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Inde(>d I have. You have asked me if it is in the book. You don't
have to ask me that. It is in the book.
Mr. Thomas. Then you have answered the question, now I am
Mr. FosTEK. (interposing). Why don't you let me explain my position on that?
Mr. Thomas. Here is another little question.
Mr. Foster. You don't dare do it. You just want to create a red hysteria in
the country behind which
60 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Thomas (interposing). That has already taken place.
Mr. Fosn';R (resuming). Behind which reaction can carry on its program of
imperialism.
Mr. Thomas. Imperialism" has already taken place throughout the world.
Mr. Foster. I think it is a disgrace that the Congress permits such a committee
as this to exist, to carry on such ridiculous red haifing. There is not another
country in the world that wovild permit such a committee as this to exist.
Mr. Thomas. That will look fine in the Communist Daily Worker tomorrow,
hut we have read it in today's paper.
Mr. Foster. And I want to say something else. You are not going to get away
with this red baiting campaign. Hitler didn't succeed with his. Dies didn't
succeed with his. D.i-wey didn't succeed with his in the last election campaign.
Mr. Rankin. And Rankin is not succeeding?
Mr. Foster. And Rankin is not going to sycceed in his. [Laughter.]
Mr. Thomas. Now let me ask you this, getting back to that question
Mr. Foster, (interposing). And I want to say furthei-mr)re that when the
poor whites and the Negroes of the South acquire the right to vote, you won't
see any more Rankins and Bilbos disgracing the American Congress. We will be
done with such nonsense as this committee.
Mr. Rankin. You left out Mr. Truman and Mr. Byrnes.
Mr. Thomas. I have one other question I would like to ask. Getting back
to that book of yours
Mr. FosTEiR (interposing). Why don't you talk about something nowadays
instead of 20 years ago?
Mr. Thomas. I am going to talk a lot more about nowadays. If this turned
out to be the case, don't you think that Russia would dominate that Soviet Union?
Mr. Foster. I am not going to answer that question.
The Chairman. By that you mean that you haven't got any opinion about it?
Mr. Foster. Of something 20 years ago.
Mr. Thomas. No, now. I say now.
The Chairman. Or in the future?
Mr. Foster. Today we have a world organization of which the Soviet Union
is a part, and the United States Government is trying to dominate that organiza-
tion, and I want to say that in my opinion Mr. Byrnes split the London Con-
ference, not only split it but he split it deliberately.
Mr. Thomas. Then we won't have any Soviet Union, but are going to have
this other union that we liave set up?
Mr. Foster. We have the United Nations, and the Communist Party supported
that.
Mr. Thomas. So we won't have any Soviet Union?
Mr. Fostek. That is your idea.
Mr. Thomas. Weil, are we going to have one or aren't we going to have one?
I am trying to get the information from you.
Mr. Foster. Are we going to have the Socialist world?
Mr. Thomas. No, are we going to have a Soviet Union of the world, which
you referred to in your book?
Mr. Foster,. We are going to unless I am very much mistaken. We are going
to liave a Socialist world, of course, and no doubt it will be organized inter-
nationally.
The Chairman. I think that answers the question, except the last part of it.
In the last question that was asked you, in the event that takes place, will the
Soviet Union, Russia, control and dominate it?
l\Ir. Foster. In the Socialist world I don't see why. Of course not. Why
should it?
Mr. Thomas. Is it your opinion that Russia is already advancing along
these lines in many parts of the world, in the Balkins, Greece, and those
countries?
Mr. Foster. No, sir.
Mr. Thomas. Now, in this same book of yours. Towards Soviet America, did
you not write that all the capitalist democracies, the United States included, are
only the dictatorships of the bourgeois, masked with hypocritical democratic
pretenses ?
Mr. Foster. You want me to answer yes or no?
Mr. Thomas. Yes, did you write it?
Mr. Foster. Well, if you ask me sucli a question you must want my opinion.
You don't have to ask me if I wrote it, if it is in my book, it is in my book. If
you want my opinion now, I will tell it to you, but you don't want my opinion.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 61
Mr. Thomas. Yes, I want your opinion.
Mr. Foster. You are very careful not to get my opinion.
Mr. Thomas. No, I am goiufj to let you answer the next question and give
your opinion in great detail. Tlien you say that neither a Fascist state nor a
Communist state can exist in a democratic capitalist state.
:Mr. FosTini. It depends on what Icind of capitalist state it is. The United
States is not a Fa.scist state. Germany is not a capitalist state — or is a
capitalist state — it was a Fascist state, but fortunately we put that out of
business.
.Mr. Thomas. Then you say that neither a Conanunist state nor a democratic
state could be Fascist.
Mr. Foster. But we have .strong Fascist elejiients in the capital state, and I
want to say that in the last election Mr. Dewey for the first time in the history
of the United States, in his campaign, raised a real Fascist danger in this
country.
Mr. Rankin. In what way?
Mr. Foster. In the whole line that he followed, the whole line of policy.
Behind him stood every Fascist and reactionary in the country except the poll
taxers of the South who
Mr. Rankin (interposing). That clears me and .Tim Byrnes.
Mr. Fost>:r (continuing). Who did not formally support him, but no doubt
would have been very happy to see him win.
Mr. Thomas. Could a Communist state be a Fascist state?
Mr. Foster. No, of course not.
Mr. Thomas. Is the United States still a dictatorship of the bourgeois?
Mr. Foster. All capitalist countries are ruled by bourgeois, which is a
technical term — dictatorship means the rule of the bourgeois. Of course, that
does not mean to say that the workers have not certain very definite rights in
the country, the right of organization, the right of free speech, and many other
very important rights which they are willing to go out and fight and die for.
Mr. Thomas. Now, this next question is sort of dragging over the coals a little
bit, but I think we might get an answer to it again for the record. Did you not
at one time call World War II an imperialistic war?
Mr. Foster. That's right. It was, too.
Mr. Thomas. Was that before or after Russia signed the nonaggression pact
v\ith Germany?
Mr. Foster. If I am to characterize the war I have to be given an opportunity
to characterize it. It is not something that can be stated yes or no.
Mr. Thomas. You don't want to answer whether it was after or before?
Mr. Foster. Yes, I want to answer.
Mr. Thomas. Was it befoi-e or after Germany signed the nonaggression pact
with Russia?
Mr. Foster. I am not going to answer yes or no on such questions. I demand
the right, if I am asked such a question, to state my analysis of what this war
was ail about. The war in its conclusion Avas a people's war, of course, and in
the beginning it was an imi)erialist war.
Mr. Thomas. Did you at one time consider the Japanese-Chinese war an
imiieralistic war?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Thomas. Was America's war against Japan an imperialistic war?
Mr. FosTEit. No.
]\Ir. Thomas. What was your reason for the break with Earl Browder?
Mr. Foster. I don't know what you mean, "break." Browder is a member of
our party.
Mr. Thomas. Well, Browder held a very high position in the party, and then,
as a result of something that must have happened, the Communist Party de-
cided to take that high position away from Mr. Browder. I understand you now
have the position that lie had.
Mr. Foster. Not true.
Mr. Thomas. You mean you don't have the same position he bad then?
Mr. Foster.. No.
Mr. Thomas. Then there was no break between you and Mr. Browder?
Mr. Fo.ster. Mr. Bntwder is a member of the party. So am I. I don't know
what you mean by "break."
Mr. Thomas. AVIiat high position did he hold in the party?
Mr. FosTEi:. He was general secretary, and I am national chairman.
Mr. Thomas. Well, is Mr. Browder still general secretary?
62 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Thomas. Why isu't he general secretary now?
Mr. FosTEK. Because he was not elected.
Mr. Thomas. Why wasn't lie elected?
Mr. Foster. You will have to ask our convention that. They elected him.
I\Ir. Thomas. Do you mean I will have to go before the whole convention and
ask them in the meeting why they didn't elect him? You must know.
Mr. Foster. We have a pretty elaborate report of our convention.
Mr. Thomas. What is your opinion as to why Mr. Browder was not elected?
Mr. Foster. Because the convention did not agree with his policy.
Ml-. Thomas. What proposals did he make that they did not agree with?
Mr. Foster. Oh, that is a very extensive proposition.
Mr. Thomas. Well, can't you answer that in a few sentences? You usually
want to give general answers to these things, and long answers. Now here is your
opportunity, here is your chance.
Mr. Foster. Mr. Browder made certain Interpretations of the agreement at
Teheran that our party did not agree with.
Mr. Rankin. What were they?
Mr. Foster. I may say that this is not a question of Browder. This was a
question of a certain interpretation that was made by many in our party. For
one thing, Mr. Browder seems to be of the opinion that the great trusts and
monopolies of the United States had learned the lesson of this war and the last
war, and had come to realize that they must work in a fraternal spirit with
the other governments of the world, that is, on a democratic give and take posi-
tion, but the convention didn't agree with him. The great monopolies and reac-
tionary interests in the United States have not such an opinion, but instead have
the determination to make their intluence predominant throughout the world;
in other words, to dictate one form or another to the rest of the countries of
the world, and experience goes to prove that this is so. This feeling on the
part of these reactionary forces, which I characterized in my remarks yester-
day
Mr. Thomas (interposing). That is a strong indictment against Mr. Browder.
Mr. Foster. These reactionary forces whom I characterized in my remarks
yesterday, undoubtedly think that America at this moment is called upon to lead
the world without regard to the democratic aspirations of other countries.
Mr. Thomas. You fully realize that the last part of your remarks is an indict-
ment of Mr. Browder?
Mr. Foster. I am speaking here — you can draw such conclusions as you, please —
I am saying that our newspapers are full at the present time of statements to the
effect that the United States is leading the world, that the United States is called
upon to lead the world, that the United States must lead the world, and so on.
These people see that the United States is the strongest country in the world, that
it has the greatest industrial system ; our production is perhaps 50 percent of
the total production of the world ; we have some three-fourths of the gold
reserve of the world ; we have a Navy bigger than all the navies of the world
put together; we have an air force
Mr. Thomas (interposing). A pretty good place we are living in. I wish you
had said some of that in some of these pamphlets.
Mr. Foster. I said better than that.
Mr. Thomas. I didn't find it.
Mr. Foster. The United States has a very powerful Army, probably the best
equipped Army in the world. It has the biggest air force in the world, and these
reactionai-y forces see all these things, and they are proposing to cash in on them
by telling the rest of the world what to do.
Mr. Thomas. Isn't it true that these same reactionary forces brought about
all this?
Mr. Foster. No, they had nothing whatever to do with it. But I am speaking
here — you asked my opinion.
The CHAIRMAN. No, he asked what caused your break with Mr. Browder.
Mr. Foster. I am stating the opinion of our party on these things.
The Chairman. By that you mean Mr. Browder did not at that time embrace
those views?
Mr. Foster. You will have to get Mr. Browder on the stand. You can ask him
whether he agrees or not. I don't know.
The Chairman. You still assign those reasons as being the reasons, in your
opinion, that he was not reelected as the head of the party?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 63
Mr. FosTRR. In .coneral. These reactionary forces are undertaking to utilize
tliis great streiigtli of tlie United States to dominate the world. Well, we say
that this is the road to disaster. The peoples of the world are not going to
permit tl)is.
The Chabman. And as I understand it, speaking for yourself, these reasons
yon have, or which were embraced in the main by Mr. Browder, were the con-
trolliiif,' reasons that you did not support him for reelection?
Mr. Fo.sTER. For .some of them. We stated this was the road to disaster. The
peoples of the world are not going to permit American world domination. They
want America to cooperate democratically with them, not to dominate them,
regardless of its strength. It nmst restrain itself, in view of its over-weening
strength, and treat these countries in a dc^mocratic way.
The effect of the policies that these forces are now piitting forth, for example,
the economic policy, the policy dealing with loans, as outlined by Mr. Hoover
In his recent Chicago .speech, would, in my opinion, lead to an economic crisis
in this country of unprecedented proportions.
Mr. Thomas. Where does Mr. Browder come in on that?
Mr. Foster. You asked me what our opinions were and what the position of
our convention was.
Mr. Thomas. Yes, I am inquiring from the standpoint of why he was not
elected.
Mr. Foster. You told me that now I have my chance.
Mr. Thomas. You have.
Mr. Foster. Please live up to your word. Don't back up on your word.
Mr. Thomas. No. but stick to Mr. Browder.
Mr. Foster. I am sticking to the policy of our party.
The Chairman. I understand he is giving reasons why the party did not con-
tinue to have Mr. Browder at its head.
Mr. Foster. Exactly.
INIr. Thomas. And these are all reasons why Browder was deposed?
Mr. Foster. I am stating the position of our party. I stated what I con-
sidered to be Mr. Browder's opinions at the beginning. I am now .stating what
our opinions are and what the policies of our party are. Mr. Hoover organized
the biggest crisis that this country or the world ever saw, and we say that to
follow his economic program, which he is proposing now, will lead to an eco-
nomic crisis beside which the crisis of 192!) will seem like prosperity. The
building of this gigantic military force can have no other effect — the military
force that is proposed for the postwar can have no other effect but to overawe
the world. Why do we want a Navy twice as big or as big as all the i-est of the
navies of the world put together? Who are we going to fight, I would like to
know ?
Why do we hold the atomic bomb secret? The mere holding of that secret
is a threat to the rest of the world. And the progressive people understand that.
The very men who developed the atomic bomb are the ones who are telling us
that we should share that with the rest of the nations of the world.
Mr. Thomas. Right there
Mr. Foster (interposing). I believe I have the floor.
Mr. Tho.mas. Yes. Will you yield there?
Mr. Foster. No, I will not yield at all.
Mr. Thomas. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Foster. The atomic bomb — the attempt of the United States to mono-
polize the atomic bomb will probably turn out to be the greatest political mistake
we have ever made in our history.
The Chairman. I think you are getting a little far away from the question,
Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. I am explaining here what is the attitude of our part.v.
The Chahjman. The atomic bomb was not in existence when Mr. Browder was
depo.sed as head of your party.
Ml-. Foster. But this is part of the imperalist policy upon which we have
embarked.
Mr. Thomas. I think he is doing a good job.
Mr. Foster. It is tiie imperialists of the country who want to retain this
atomic bomb. The intelligent thing to do about it, it seems to me, would be to
turn this over to the United Nations, with the complete guarantee that protection
is developed against the use of the atomic bomb by any country. But this is only,
one side of the matter. I think our political policy also has an imperialistic trend
83078—46 5
64 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
in every direction. To come to a conclusion, I say that in spealiing against this
imperialistic trend that we are now going into, we are speaking in the supreme
interest of the American people. This is the way to disaster. The people in
the colonial countries will not stand tor American domination. Latin America
will not stand for American domination. The new democratic governments of
Europe will not stand for American domination. The Soviet Union don't like it
either. Great Britain will not stand for it, and if the United States is to follow
the line that Mr. Byrnes is now developing, apparently with the acquiescence of
President Truman, and with the overwhelming pressure of the Republicans and
poll taxers in Congres.s — and I may say this, that this alliance between poll
taxers and Americans
Mr. Rankin (interposing). And Americans?
Mr. Foster. And Republicans — tliey also are Americans, incidentally — we are
all Americans, whatever our beliefs — this alliance between the poll taxers of the
South and the Republicans of the North is the most sinister force that exists in
America at the present time, and the American people must see to it that this
imperialisic trend is checked.
Mr. Thomas. As I understand it, all this then is the reason why Mr. Browder
was deposed as the general secretary?
Mr. Foster. He was not deposed ; he was not elected.
Mr. Thomas. All right. Now I want to thank you very much for your deference
and the fairness with which you have answered the questions, and I sort of
apologize for the rest of the committee for taking up so much time. Just one
more thing, and then the Chairman can have the witness.
Mr. Rankin. I have got one or two questions.
Mr. Thomas. I have a few more questions, but I am not going to ask any more,
because you did a very good job in that last statement.
I have some pamphlets that are supposed to have been written by you, and I
would like to have the titles put in the record. I was going to quote from some
of them, because some of them are very amusing, particularly, Roosevelt heads
for War, by William Z. Foster; The People and the Congress, by William Z.
Foster ; What's What about the War. Questions and Answers. I suppose you
wish you had never written that pamphlet?
Mr. Foster. We can discuss that if you want me to.
Mr. Thomas,. And here is another one, The War Crisis, Questions and
Answers. However, you wrote all these, and I ask unanimous consent, Mr.
Chairman, tha't the titles of these pamphlets be placed in the record.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Thomas, suppose you let Mr. Foster go through them and
identify them and make sure that they are all his.
Mr. Thomas. And if you have any other pamphlets that you wrote, give us
the names.
Mr. Adamson. Tell us if there are any there that you did not write. [Handing
the pamphlets to Mr. Foster.]
Mr. Thomas. Whatever you do, let us not lose those pamphlets, because there
are some quotations in there that we will probably have to refer to.
( The list of pamphlets follow : )
Roosevelt Heads for War. Published by Workers Library Publishers, Inc.,
Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York. N. Y., February 1940.
The People and the Congress. Published by Workers Library Publishers, Inc.,
Post Office Box 148, Station D (832 Broadway), New l''ork City. February 1943.
What's Wrong about the War. Questions and Answers. Published for the
National Election Campaign Committee Communist Party of the United States,
by Workers Lilirary I'ublishers, Inc., Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York,
N. Y., July 1940.
The War Crisis. Questions and Answers. Workers Library Publishers, Inc.,
Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York, N. Y., January 1940.
Organi'^ed Methods in the Steel Industry. Workers Library Publishers. New
York, 1936.
Little Brothers of the Big Labor Fakers. Published by the Trade Union Unity
League, 2 West 15th Street, New York.
Labor and War. Published by Workers Library Publishers, Inc., Post Office
Box 148, Station D. New York, N. Y. January 1942.
Industrial Unionism. Published by Workers Library Publishes, Inc., Post
Office Box 148. Station D, New York City. First edition April 1936. Second
edition, August 1936.
Halt the Railroad Wage Cut. Published by Workers Library Publishers, Inc.,
Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York, N. Y. October 1938.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 65
Speed the Second Front. Published by Workers Library Publishers, Ino., Post
Oflice Box 148, Station D (852 Broadway), New York, N. Y. October 11)42.
Tiie Railroad Workers and the War. I'ublished by Workers Library Publishers,
Inc., Post OtHco Box 148, Station D, New York City. May 1941.
What Means a Strike in Steel. I'ublislied by Workers Library Publishers,
Inc., Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York City, February 11)17.
The Railroaders Next Step — Amalgamation. Published by The Trade Union
Education League, 118 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, III.
Smash Hitler's Spring Offensive Now. I'ublislied by Workers Libraiy Pub-
lishers, Inc. Post Otiice Box 148, Station D (832 Broadway.) New York City,
Marih 11)42.
Soviet Democracy and the War. Published by Workers Libi-ary Publishers,
Inc.. Post Office Box 148, Station D (832 Broadway), New York 3, N. Y., Decem-
ber 1943.
The Soviet Trade Unicms and Allied Labor Unity. Published by Workers
Library Publishers, Inc., Post Office Box 148, Station D (832 Broadway), New
York 3, N. Y., June 1943.
Organized the Unorg.'inized. Published by the Trade Union Educational
League, 1.j6 West Washington Street, Room 37, Chicago, 111., by William Z.
Foster, Earl Browder.
Technocracy and Marxism, Together with The Technical Intelligentsia and
Socialist Construction by V. M. Molotov. Published by Workers Library Pub-
lishers. Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York, January 1933.
The Little Red Library. No. 1. Trade Unions in America, by W. Z. Foster,
J. P. Cannon, and E. R. Browder. Published for the Ti-ade Union Educational
League by the Daily Worker Publishing Co., 1113 West Washington Boulevard,
Chicago, 111.
The Trade Unions and the War. Published by Workers Library Publishers,
Inc.. Post Office Box 148. Station D (832 Broadway) New York, N. Y. June 1942.
Unionizing Steel. Published by Workers Library Publishers, Inc., Post Office
Box 148, Station D, New York City, August 1936.
The United States and the Soviet Union. Published by Workers Library, Inc.,
Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York, N. Y., December 1940.
The U. S. A. and the U. S. S. R.— War Allies and Friends. Published by
Workers Library Publishers. Inc., Post Office Box 148, Station D (832 Broadway),
New York City. October 1942.
Victorioiis Socialist Construction in the Soviet Union. Published by Trade
Union Unity League, 2 West Fifteenth Street, New York, N. Y.
The RevolutioTiary Crisis of li)lS-l!)21 in Germany, England, Italy and France.
Published by the Trade Union Educational League, 118 North LaSalle Street,
Chicago, 111.
Defend America by Smashing Hitlerism. Published by Workers Library, Inc.,
Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York, N. Y., September 1941.
The Crisis in the Socialist Party. Published bv Workers Library Publishers,
Inc.. Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York City, November 1936.
Company Unions, by Robt. W. Dunn, with conclusions by Wm. Z. Foster, pub-
lished by The Trade Union Educational League, 156 West Washington Street,
Chicago, 111.
For Speedy Victory — The Second Front Now. Published by Workers Library
Pultlishers, Inc., Post Office Box 148, Station D (832 Broadway), New York,
N. Y., October 1943.
A Manual of Industrial Unionism. Organizational Structure and Policies.
Workers Library Publishers, New York.
Strike Strategy. Published by the Trade Union Educational Lefjgue, 156
West Washington Street, Chicago, 111.'
The Soviet Union — Friend and Ally of the American People. Published by
Workers Library Publishers, Inc., Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York
City, October 1941.
Railroad Workers Forward. Pul)lished bv Workers Library Publishers, Inc.,
Post Office Box 148. Station D. Npw Yo- k. October 1937.
Fight Against Hunger. Statement by C. P., IT. S. A., and presented to Fish
Committee l)y William Z. Foster. December 5. 1930. Workers Library Publish-
ers, Post Office Box 148, Station D, New York City.
Party Building and Political Leadership, Wm. Z. Foster, Alex Bittelman,
James W. Ford, Charles Krumbein. Workers Library Publishers, Post Office
Box 148, Station D. New York City.
66 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a little correction in some of
my testimony yesterday. I think I said that we dissolved the Communist Po-
litical Association and organized the Communist Party. That is not exact. What
we did in our convention was to change the name of the Communist Party or of
the Communi,st Political Association and change the constitution, change the
leadership, and so on. We did not actually dissolve it. It was the same con-
vention. It was quite a different process and what we did changing from the
C. P. to the Communist Political Association. There we formally and com-
pletely dissolved the Communist Party by a motion and went through the neces-
sary legal procedure to traiisfer the property of the Communist Party to the
Communist Political Association.
Mr. Rankin. Then you reorganized in this last convention? You reversed
the process? You organized the Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. No ; we did not.
Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Foster, you seem to use the term "socialism" and "commun-
ism" interchangeably.
Mr. FosTEE. No.
Mr. MuNDT. Which, to me is a bit confusing. You said Communists all over
the world are socialists.
Mr. Foster. They are not the same. Sometimes carelessly it may be done, but
they are not the same.
Mr. MuNDT. Would you be able, with comparative brevity, to distinguish be-
tween what you mean by socialism and communism? I am thinking now of
socialism.
Mr. Foster. Socialism is the first stage of communism. Socialism is that
stage of society in which the guiding priciple is from each according to his needs,
to each according to his work.
Mr. MuNDT. That is socialism?
Mr. Foster. That is socialism. Whereas, communism is from each according
to his needs — no, from each according to his ability, and to each according to
his needs.
Mr. MuNDT. Are there any other distinctions between the two?
Mr. Foster. Well, thei-e are others, but that is the basic distinction.
Mr. MuNDT. The substitution of the word "ability" for the word "needs"?
Mr. Foster. If you care, I can explain in 2 minutes what that signifles.
Mr. MuNDT. All right.
Mr. Foster. There has been much talk in the country that there have been
piece-work systems and so on introduced in the Soviet Union, and that this indi-
cates a going back to capitalism. This is not so. A hundi-ed years ago Marx
pointed out that under socialism workers receive pay in accordance with their
work, which can include a piece-work system if necessary ; whereas, under
communism the assumption is that production will be so extensive that it will
not be necessary to distribute it — at least the necessities of life — on a wage
basis, but that there will be more or less of a free distribution according to the
needs of the particular individual.
Mr. Mundt. Would you say that where piece work prevails, communijsm does
not exist?
Mr. Foster. Under socialism that is quite a common system, but it is a very
different system than that in the United States. There the workers get the
benefit of the piece-work system ; in the United States, the bos,ses get the beneiits
of it. Under socialism the workers are firm advocates of piece work, whereas
in
Mr. MuNDT (interposing). Do you mean communism?
Mr. Foster. No. Under socialism, very often. piece work exists and the work-
ers are firm advocates of it because they get the advantage at it ; whereas, under
capitalism the trade-union movement almost universally opposes piece work,
because the employer gets the benefit of it.
Mr. MuNDT. How about under communism?
Mr. Foster. No piece work.
Mr. Mundt. Would you say that where piece work exists, communism does not
exist then?
Mr. Foster. Well, I said no piece work. It is possible in certain circumstances
there might be, but the assumption of coninuniisni is that the production problem
is solved and that tliere will be such an abundance of production that it will not
be necessary to deal out shoes and clothes and other necessaries on the basis of
'the wages.
Mr. Mundt. By and large then, communism is opposed to piece work?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 67
Mr. FosTEaj. Under capitalism ; yes.
Mr. MuNDT. How about under communism?
yiv. FosTEK. Well, tliat is no que.stion. Under conununism that does not occur
as a question at all. It is no question under .socialism either. All the workers
are in favor of tlie piece work system there.
Mr. MuNDT. Conununism, then, is in favor of the piece work system?
Mr. Foster. No ; socialism.
Mr. MuNDT. Let us leave socialism out. We don't have Mr. Norman Thomas
here.
Mr. FosTEK. We haven't got communism either.
Mr. MuNDT. But we are talking about a theoretical condition.
Mr. FcSTEE. The Soviet State is not a Communist state ; it is a Socialist State,
and the jissimiption is that the productive apparatus would be developed to such
a high degree that the question of produition is no worry any more.
^Ir. MiwDT. Wliy do you suppose they have the piece-work system in Russia?
Mr. Foster. I just stated that that is characteristic of socialism, and particu-
larly it is necessary in a country like Soviet Russia, which is just building up its
industries, and where production is the problem. Under capitalism the problem
is distribution. We don't know how to distribute what we produce, whereas,
under socialism distribution is no problem at all. In Soviet Russia there is no
such thing as an economic crisis. There cannot be an economic crisis. The
Soviet Union is the only country in the world that is not worrying about unem-
ployment. All the capitalist countries worry about unemployment because the
great problem there, once they recover from the first ravages of the war, will be
distribution.
Mr. IMuxDT. What system would you say prevails in the United States?
Mr. FosTEK. Capitalism.
Mr. MuNDT. Would you say we have democracy?
Mr. FosTEE. We have a certain bourgeois democracy here. For example, we
have a fi-eedom of the press in which Mr, Hearst owns newspapers all over the
country ; the workers own none.
]\Ir. MuxDT. Does Mr. Hearst own the Daily Worker?
Mr. Foster. Well, I think you don't have to ask that question.
INIr. Mundt. "\^'ho owns that?
Mr. Fostfjr. The Daily Worker is owned by
Mr. Mundt (interposing). Owned by the workers, is it not?
Mr. FosTEK. Yes.
Mr. Mundt. I thought you said they owned none?
Mr. Fostfj{. Well, that is a small paper and has a small circulation. Mr.
Hearst's papers have a circulation of many millions, and there are whole groups
of big capitalist papers who dominate the press of the country. We have that
kind of a free press, but that is bourgeois press.
Mr. Mundt. There is no reason why you could not publish ten million copies of
the Daily Worker every day if somebody would buy them, is there?
Mr. Foster. If you had the necessary capital.
Mr. Mundt. If yoi; had the necessary purchasers.
Mr. Foster. It takes a lot of capital to get out a paper of this character.
Mr. Mt^NDT. It takes a lot of purchasers too.
Mr. Foster. We have certain liberties under the bourgeois system. That is
obvious.
Mr. Mundt. But we can agree that we both feel that the United States has a
capitalistic system?
INIr. Fo.ster. Right.
Rfr. Mundt. And I believe you said yesterday — and I believe you said in the
Daily Worker, in youi- press' statement, and wherever else it was published — that
the capitalistic system is decadent?
Mr. Fo.ster. That is right. I don't want to go into a long talk, but I think in
2 or 3 niimites I can explain that. During the past generation capitalism has pro-
duced two world wars. It lias produced fa.scisni. it has produced the most devas-
tating economic crisis in the history of the world. Look at capitalism in .Lapan.
It is wrecked. Capitalism in Germany is wrecked. Capitalism in Eiigland is
In a very serious condition. Capitalism in France also is very serious. All over
Europe the capitalist syst*^m is in a very serious predicament. Italy is wrecked.
The one exception is the United States, and here we escape the ravages of war
and we are livintr in a dream world about our capitalist system in the United
States. Mr. Willkie told us that we live in one world, and we should realize that,
particularly with regard to the capitalist system. The capitalist system in the
68 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
United States is a full brother to the broken-down capitalist system in Germany,
Italy, and the rest of the countries of Europe, and it is going the same way that
they are going. For the moment it is strong, but it bears within itself the seeds
of the same ruin that has fallen upon capitalism in the rest of the world.
Today we are talking about free enterprise in this country, which is a lot of
nonsense. First of all, the coimtry is run by monopolies, and secondly the idea
that we can live on a basis of free competition as in the early stages of capitalism
is ridiculous. The day has long passed since capitalism in the United States
could keep the industries of America in operation. For the past 30 years, in
fact, the American capitalist system, for all its strength, has lived very much
on the basis of war orders, repairing war damage, and Government subsidies, and
the only hope now to avoid a collapse that will shatter the world's economic
system is precisely for the Government to adopt some system of full employment
such as was proposed by President Truman. That- will not save us. President
Roosevelt, who was so hated by the big capitalists of the country, outlined in
his bill of economic rights certain measures that would lend a certain amount
of strength to the capitalist system. Mr. Wallace in his book "Sixty Million
Jobs" has concretized that to a certain extent.
Mr. MuNDT. The Communists endorse the position of Mr. Wallace?
Mr. Foster. President Truman in his opening speech to Congress outlined a
whole series of proposals along this general line, but Congress has seen fit to
cut the heart out of the whole business, and Congress is now heading the country
towards a first-class economic disaster.
Mr. MuNDT. Do the Communists endorse the position of Mr. Wallace?
Mr. FosTER._The Communists endorse any proposition that will tend to elim-
inate unemployment in the country. We think that President Truman should
have come out stronger for President Roosevelt's economic bill of rights f(ir full
employment, and we disagree with Mr. Wallace on many questions, but insofar
as lie concretizes President Roosevelt's economic bill of rights, we go along with
him.
Mr. MuNDT. You have stated a very gloomy picture of capitalism and pointed
to a lot of evil consequences of it. Nobody claims it is a perfect system.
Mr. Foster. It is a dying system.
Mr. MuNDT. I wonder if you would point out any place in the world where the
worker is better off than he is under the American capitalistic system. We are
living in one world you said, and I agree with you. Can you pick any place in
the world now where you can find a better system than ours?
Mr. Foster. What has that got to do with it? We have had the advantage of
very favorable circumstances here. We found a continent that was empty,
except for a handful of Indians. We found a continent that was free of feudalism
and free of these old, reactionary traditions which paralyze progress. We foimd
a country that was snp'^rlatively rich in natural resources, and capitalism grew
and flourished in~the United States.
Mr. MuNDT. It never has had any other system, had it, but capitalism?
Mr. Foster. Well, at the beginning it was more or less feudalistic, but gen-
erally it develoi>ed into capitalism, particularly after our Revolution. That was
a bourgeois revolution. That was a capitalist revolution.
Mr. MuNDT. The revolution of 1776?
Mr. Foster. 1776 and 1861 was especially a capitalist revolution, more a
capitalist revolution, in fact, than in 1776. And we have been very favorably
situated. We did not suffer the ravages of the First World War. We did not
suffer the ravages of the Second World War either. On the contrary, the de-
mands of these wars has enabled us to build our industries to great extent, and
this lends a sort of false illusion as to the strength of our American capitalist
system. But I want to say again, let us bear in mind what Mr. Willkie said,
we live in one world, and American capitalism is just a blood brother of capital-
ism all over the world, and sub.iect to the same diseases that capitalism else-
where is, and it is traveling the same path which is historically out.
Mr. MuNDT. You have given a long speech, but you still have not answered
my question at all.
Mr. Foster. I want to answer it.
Mr. MuNDT. I would like to have you do so. You and I agree that we live in
one world. That is the only world we have got. Can you find any place or any
country in all this world where the worker is better off than he is under the
capitalistic system of the United States, which we both agree has always existed
over here?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 69
IVIr. Foster. The American standard of living does not requii-e me to say it is
the highest in the world. That has heen said a million times.
Mr. MuxDT. And developed under the capitalist system.
Mr. Foster. As has been said a million times, but that, as I say, is a temporary,
illusory situation. Other peoples in the world are buildinj? up thf'ir standards of
living taster than we did. I thiiilj that the Russian workers, the Russian people,
are building their standards of living far faster than we did, far faster. And not
alone that, but they have advantages that we have not. The industries of their
country are in the hands of the people; the industries of our country are in the
hands of monopolists, and for that we are going to pay very dearly. The Com-
munist Party hopes that we will suffer no diminution in our standards of living.
"We will do all we can to improve it. •
Mr. MuNDT. Then you are unable to point to any other country where the
worker is better off than he is today under the American capitalist system?
Mr. FosTFTR. You mean economically?
Mr. MuNDT. Economically.
Mr. FosTFR. I don't have to say that. Everybody linows that the American
standard of living is higher than that of any other country, for the historical
reasons that I pointed out. But that does not say that the peoples in the rest
of the world are not building up their standards of living, and not only that,
but they are building up on a far healthier political basis than we have got in
the United States. I think that is true all over Europe, England, France, and
the rest of the countries of Europe, with the exception, perhaps, of the Fascist
countries that have been defeated.
Mr. MuNDT. I certainly hope they are building up. They have got a long way
to go.
Mr. Foster. They are dealing with a wrecked capitalist .system and they will
have to adopt the nationalization of industries and so forth, which we will get
around to shortly.
Mr. MuNDT. Would you say it is a good, whole.some and healthy political and
economic system if in any country in the world the workers and the politicians
have a different price scale than the majority of the people of the country?
Mr. Foster. I don't know what you mean by that question.
Mr. MuNDT. Would you say it is a wholesome and healthful condition if in
any country in the world a politician could go into a store and buy a dozen
eggs for one price, and the worker had to pay twice as much for the same eggs?
Mr. Foster. Well, that is a local situation.
Mr. Mundt. That is a very definite question.
Mr. Foster. That is a local situation.
The Chairman. The question asked was your opinion as to whether or not
that sort of situation is good?
Mr. Foster. I think that is true in every country. That is true here. You
men sitting around the table get about 10 times as much as the actual workers
in the country.
Mr. Mtjndt. I am not talking about income. I am talking about the price
system in the stores.
Mr. FosTi R. What is the difference? The question is how much eggs you put
on your table, however the mechanism may be organized for putting them there.
We have in our country people with incomes of from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. We
have the entire industrial system of the country utilized for the benefit of
private individuals.
Mr. Mtjndt. You still have evaded the question. The question is: Do you
consider it wholesome and healthy, economically and politically, for a country
to conduct a .^system whereby in its stores politicians have to pay a certain
price and workers pay twice as much for the same merchandise?
Mr. FcsTER. That may or ma.v not be.
Mr. MuNDT. You think it might be all right?
Mr. Foster. It may be. If you alluding to the Soviet Union, I told you
in the first place that under the system of socialism everybody is not paid alike.
The fact of the matter is they have various wage scales according to the
productivity of the worker.
Mr. MuNDT. I have not alluded to any wages. I am not talking about income.
I am talking about the system whereby you go into a .store and make a purchase.
Mr. FosTra. That is what you have in the United States, so if .vou consider
it a healthy system, personally I do not.
Mr. MuNDT. Well, let us take Hecht's store in Washington — get right down
to cases and make it easier for you to answer definitely. Do you think the
70 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Communist Party in the United States sliould advocate that in Hecht's' store a
member of Congress should be able to buy a necktie for a dollar, and a working
man should pay $2 for the same necktie?
Mr. Foster. The fact of the matter is, that is what you have got now.
Mr. MuNDT. In Hecht's store?
Mr. Foster. Of course. You buy things cheaper than anybody else in the
country.
Mr. MuNDT. That is news to me. Would you mind conducting a short tour
this afternoon to prove that point? I would like to find out.
Mr. Foster. Maybe not in every shop.
Mr. MuNDT. I am talking about Hecht's store.
Mr. FosTEK. I understand in your restaurant here you are very much favored
by the food prices, and you have otlier things very favorable. I think this is
ail very trivial, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I think the question originally asked you, Mr. Foster, was a
pertinent question, whether or not you think that sort of system, if it should
prevail in any country, would be a wholesome system, that had the prospects^ of
setting up a better government.
Mr. Foster. What has that got to do with un-Americanism? Or what have
my ideas got to do with it? I think that this committee
The Chairman (interposing). By that you mean you prefer not to answer the
question?
Mr. Foster. If you ask me, I have answered it liere for half an hour.
Mr. MuNDT. Yoii have evaded it for half an hour. You haven't answered it yet.
Mr. Foster. I think that this series of committees that we have been having,
the Fish committee, the Dies committee and this committee, are very much
affected with this Japanese idea of controlling thought. What is it your business
what I think?
Mr. MuNDT. Do you advocate that?
Mr. Poster. I am not advocating anything of the kind. If I am, what about it?
Mr. MxjNDT. In other words, you want to evade the question?
Mr. Foster. I am not evading any question whatsoever, but such foolish ques-
tions that are just designed to make a headline in the press — that is all they
are designed for — as "Foster says the standard of living in the United States is
higher than anywhere else in the world." Everybody knows that.
Mr. MuNDT. And you decline to answer the question whether you believe it is
a good economic and political system to have a double price schedule?
Mr. Foster. If you interpret my replies that way, that is your privilege.
Mr. MuNDT. You don't deny it?
Mr. FOSTER. I do deny it. You have been talking here for half an hour about
such nonsense as this, instead of talking about the serious problems before our
country. The Communist Party is an active party in the country, and why don't
you talk about some of these questions? I would like to talk, for example, about —
so long as such trivial matters as this are injected, I would like to talk about
something serious, namely, the summoning of the broadcasts, the scripts of these
broadcasters. I as an American citizen would like to protest against this.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. Foster. You don't like to hear that. I would like to protest against that
as one of the most outrageous infringements upon American freedom in the last
hundred years.
The Chairman. Let me call your attention to the fact that if you are alluding
to any activity of this committee, there has been no such action taken by the
'committee. This committee has a right to conduct the examination as we choose.
Mr. Foster. This is the business of the American citizen, and your committee,
after all., is the servant of the American people, not their bosses.
The Chairm.\n. There have been no scripts subpoenaed by this committee.
Mr. Foster. Then why doesn't the committee issue a statement to the press?
The whole press of the United States have carried that.
The Chairman. Quite a few of them are represented here now, and I am
making the statement here that no such action has been taken.
Mr. Foster. Not only that, but the broadcasters have said so. Not only that,
but it has already led to the discharge of at least one broadcaster, and such action
by this committee can only be interpreted as an attempt to terrorize the broad-
casters of the United States. In fact, I think
Mr. TliOMAS (interposing). I think we ought to get to the question here.
Mr. Foster. I think this is a very important question.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 71
Mr. Thomas. I make a i>oint of order, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Foster is out
of order.
Mr. Muxi)T. It looks as (li<>uj;h Mr. Foster don't want to answer the question
I asked him. so I will ask him another one. You made some statements here
ye.sterday indicating that General INIacArthur — I don't have the transcript of
what .von said, hut you made some statements concerning General MacArthur.
What was that?
Mr. Foster. I tliiidc the statement that you refer to was a statement I made
in a Madison Square Garden Speech to the effect that I think it is a basically
wrong policy and imperialistic policy for the United States unilaterally to take
unto itself the right to govern Japan as it sees fit, without regard to the nations
that fought through the war with us. And I would like to say a word about
Japan. It is true our boys fought heroically and beyond heroism in Iwo Jima
and Okinawa and elsewhere, and I am sure the entire world thrilled at the
wonderful fight that was made in capturing these islands, but we say this: Does
this give us the right to just take over Japan and operate it as we please and
disregard the rest of our allies? I don't think so. I think it can be said that
so far as the loss of life is concerned, the Soviet Union lost more lives over Japan
than the United States did. The fact of the matter is the Soviet Union had an
army of a million or two in Manchuria holding the Japanese at bay, and if they
had been able to use that army in Europe, undoubtedly they would have been
able to bring the war to a much more rapid conclusion, and probably saved the
lives of hundreds of thousands of Russians.
Mr. :Mundt. Your complaint about MacArthur, then, stems from the fact that
he is miilaterally administering Japan?
Mr. Foster. That is one thing. I think General MacArthur is a reactionary
and
Mr. MuNDT (interposing). I think he fought a pretty good war.
Mr. Foster. Well, I am not a military strategist. I listened to and read
Admiral Nimitz's speech before Congress, and I know that Admiral Niniitz didn't
find it neces.sary even to mention General MacArthur's name in his entire speech.
So I don't know. ,
Mr. MuxDT. Would you also feel that it is undesirable to have one of our
allies miilaterally administering conditions in Roumania and Bulgaria, where
Russia unilaterally controls the situation?
Mr. Foster. I don't think that happens.
Mr. MuNDT. You know that Russia is administering unilaterally in the Balkans,
don't you?
Mr. Foster. Not true.
Mr. Mundt. And you say the United States is administering unilaterally in
Japan?
Mr. Foster. That is not true.
Mr. Mundt. What is not true?'
Mr. Foster. That the Soviet Union is unilaterally administering affairs in the
Balkans.
Mr. Mundt. You say that is not true?
Mr. Fosteb. It is not the case.
Ml. Mundt. In what respect is it not the case?
Mr. Foster. Because we have certain control committees there that very
definitely have a voice in those situations; in fact, I heard one of the more
conservative broadcasters analyzing the situation the other day over the rad'io,
and the way he sized it up was that all the Soviet Union was asking in Japan
was precisely what we have in the Balkans, precisely.
Mr. ]\IuNDT. Would that be satisfactory with you, that the Soviet Union would
have the same authority in Japan precisely as we have in Roumania and the
Balkans?
Ml". Foster. I am not worrying about Soviet policy..
Mr. Mundt. But yon are criticizing the general policy of the United States,
that the present policy in Japan is not what you want.
Mr. Foster. I am making the statement that President Trimian as reported
in the press has said that what the United States says is going to go in Japan.
I say that is a unilateral statement, and a statement that bodes no good for the
world.
Mr. Mundt. It is your position, then, that the United States should have the
same position in Roumania and Bulgaria as the Soviet Union should have in
Japan?
Mr. Foster. The Soviet Union has no position in Japan.
72 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. MuNDT. I am asking you what you think it should be?
Mr. Foster. I am willing to leave that to them to work out their own policies.
Mr. Mtjndt. You don't want to commit yourself on that ? You make very specific
proposals about Japan but you are very evasive about the Balkans. Why can't
you be consistent?
Mr. Foster. What I object to is the United States insisting on control in the
Balkans and then carrying on a unilateral policy of dominating Japan entirely
alone. That is what they are doing.
Mr. MuNDT. And I abi asking you whether you think the same arrangement
should be followed in the Balkans as is followed in Japan?
Mr. Foster. Well, of course not. Of course not.
Mr. Mundt. All right. Do you think the same condition should prevail in
Japan as prevail in the Balkans?
Mr. Foster. I am not well enough acquainted with the exact conditions in the
Balkans.
Mr. Mundt. How does it happen you are such an authority on Japan and know
so little about the Balkans?
Mr. Foster. Japan is very obvious.
Mr. Mundt. It is also very obvious that while we have an army in Japan we
have no army in the Balkans. All we have is some kibitzers in khaki. Now I
wonder whether you think the same conditions should prevail in both places?
Mr. Foster. My impression is that the Big Three should get together and work
out a joint proposition that will be satisfactory all around in both cases.
Mr. Mundt. Are you acquainted with Mr. Budenz?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Ma. Mundt. He was formerly editor of the Capital Daily Worker, or the Daily
Worker?
Mr. Rankin. Not the Capital Daily Worker.
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Mundt. Was he in your opinion a good, loyal communist up to the time he
resigned his position?
Mr. Foster. He said he was.
Mr. iVIuNDT. What is your opinion?
Mr. Rankin. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Are we going to meet tomorrow
morning?
The Chairman. Yes; we will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon at 11:45 a. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Friday,
October 19, 1945.)
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Un-American Activities,
Washington, D. C, Friday, October 19, 1945.
The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. John S. Wood (chairman) pi'esiding.
The Chairman. Are we ready to proceed? I believe Mr. Mundt was asking
some questions at the time of adjournment.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM Z. FOSTER (Resumed)
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Mundt, you were to ask the witness to give us a definition
of the word "bourgeois." How do you spell that word, Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. B-o-u-r-g-e-o-i-s. It means capital.
Mr. Rankin. Bourgeois means capital? What kind of capitalist do you mean?
How well off does a man have to be in order to fall in that category?
Mr. Foster. When a man reaches the point where he employs workers for
wages, he is in the bourgeois.
Mr. Rankin. In other words, it is like being kulak, a man who owns two
cows or two horses or hires one man or two men. How many does he have to
hire to be in the class of bourgeois?
Mr. Foster. Anybody that exploits the laborers, the workers, is a member
of the bourgeois.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 73
Mr. Rankin. You classify employers in the United States generally as the
bourgeois V •
Mr. FosTici!. 1'hat is rijiht.
Mr. Rankin. That is all I have at the present.
Mr. iluNDT. What year did you say the Conununist Party originally dissolved
or changed its name to Conununist Political Association, or whatever the
name is?
Mr. FosTF.R. It didn't change its name. It dissolved.
Mr. MuNDT. In 1942?
Mr. Foster. Two years ago.
Ml-. :Mundt. 1043. And now it has been reconstituted?
Mr. Foster. We have reorganized the Communist Party in the United States.
Mr. MuNiJT. Are there any fundamental differences between the Communist
I'arty as it is presently reorganized, and the Comnuinist Party in the form in
which it was di-ssolved?
Mr. Foster. We have a different program. AVe have a different constitution.
We have a different leadership.
Mr. Mundt. And different objectives?
Mr. FcsTER. Yes. Of course, our general objective is characteristic of Com-
munist parties in general. '
Mr. Mi-NDT. What reasons do you feel there are for believing that the un-
American allegations whicli the Attorney General made against the Communist
Party in 1942 no longer obtain? I presume you would hold tliey do not obtain.
Mr. Fostk:. Well, I think the Supreme Court of the United States has a few
words on that, that perhaps I might read.
Mr. :MuNnT. What are you readiii.ii; from?
Mr. Foster. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Schneiderman case.
Mr. Mundt. Who is that published by?
Mr. Foster. The American Connnittee for the Protection of Foreign Born.
Mr. Thomas. Then you are reading from a pamphlet published by the A»ieri-
can Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born? You are not reading from
any oflicial document of the Supreme Court?
Mr. Foster. I am reading a word for word copy of the decision of the United
States Supreme Court.
Mr. Thomas. But not published by the Supreme Court, this matter that you
are reading?
Mr. Foster. Well, you can have it as you plea.se. It is a word for word copy.
^Ir. Mundt. What date is this decision?
Mr. Foster. June 21, 1943.
Mr. Rankin. What Justice rendered the decision?
Mr. Foster. Mr. Justice Murphy delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. IMi-ndt. Was it a unanimous decision?
Mr. Foster. That I don't know. It is a decision of the United States Supreme
Court. That is good enough for me.
Mr. Mundt. I just wondered if it was unanimou^.
Mr. Foster. That, I understand, is the law of the land.
]Mr. Mundt. You don't know whether it was unanimous or not?
Mr. Thomas. Do you agi-ee that all decision,s of the Supreme Court are the
law of the land?
Mr. Foster. I am reading this decision. Nobody has agreed with all the
decisions of the Supreme Court, I dare say. The attorney for Mr. Schneider-
man was Wendel Willkie.
Mr. Rankin. That ought to .satisfy the gentleman from South Dakota.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Foster. Well, tiie gentleman may sneer at Mr. Willkie, but if he was
half tue American that Mr. Willkie was he would be quite an American.
Mr. Rankin. I am satisfied that from the Communist standpoint ycm are
right.
Mr. FcsTER. There you have g-'t it exactly, why we oppof;e this committee.
You are undertaking to put Mr. AVillkie in the category of conmumists, and that
is exactly why this committee sliould be dissolved. That is exactly why this com-
mittee is a menace to the United States.
Mr. Rankin. Now, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Fo-STER (interposing). When you undertake to put Mr. Willkie in the
category of Communists, a liberal, that <^xposes the real objective of this com-
74 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
mittee, which is to smear every liberal and every progressive in the country as
a Communist.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, nobody is trying to smear Mr. Willliie. I was
only kidding the gentleman from South Dakota, and he understood it.
Mr. Foster. If you wish to apologize go ahead.
The Chairman. Well, let us be in order, gentlemen.
Mr. MuNDT. I guess Communists don't have quite the sense of humor that the
Republicans and Democrats do.
Mr. Foster. The Communists understand politics when they hear it, and this
was a typical sneer from Mr. Rankin at everything progressive in the United
States.
Ml-. MuNDT. I don't think so. I think he was just having a little piece of humor
at my expense.
Mr. Rankin. Whenever you find the Communist program is threatened you
criticize real Americans about their attitude.
Mr. MxjNDT. Go ahead and read your statement.
Mr. Foster. This is not my decision ; this is the decision of the United States
Supreme Court.
Mr. MuNDT. That is right.
Mr. Foster. On page 22 of this particular publication
Mr. Adamson (interposing). Do you know the volume and page of the oflScial
citation?
Mr. Foster. No ; I am sorry, I do not.
Mr. Adamson. Let me see it, please. [Mr. Foster hands the document to Mr.
Adamson.]
Mr. Chairman, they do not give the official citation The only identification
Is the following :
"Supreme Court of the United States. October terra, 1942. in the case cf
Willidin Schnciderman, peiitioner, versus United States of Amerien, on a writ
of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
It is dated June 21, 1JJ43, and is delivered by Mr. Justice Murphy. Apparently
it is a majority opinion of the Court, and Mr. Justice Douglas filed a concurring
opinion. Mr. Justice Rutledge filed a concurring opinion. The pamphlet omits
any reference to any dissenting opinion, and the pamphlet is published, appar-
ently, by the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign F.orn, New
York, 1943, with an introduction by one Carol King. My recollection is that
there was a dissent, but I don't see it in this pamphlet.
Mr. Foster. Whether there was a dissent or not, this is the law of the land,
and I dare say it is quite customary for all, or nearly all, decisions of the Supreme
Court to have dissenting opinions.
The Chairman. What are the excerpts that you have?
Mr. Foster. I would like to read the following, where the Court deals with
the question of socialism.
Mr. Rankin. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the witness, if he desires to sub-
mit that, submit it for the record. We haven't time to listen to anyone read a
document.
The Chairman. If it is an excerpt or two that is short, he may read it.
Mr. Foster. It is very short.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Foster. There are two excerpts. Mr. Rankin bored us here jesterday by
reading half an hour or so from a ijamphlet 33 years old. I want to read a
decision of the United States Supreme Court that is recent.
The Chairman. Well, proceed.
Mr. Mundt. There is nothing stopping you.
Mr. Foster. After discussing the presentation by the attorneys on both sides
the Supreme Court has the following to say :
"By this decision we certainly do not mean to indicate that we favor such
changes — " that is socialism — but I must not interpolate — "our preference and
aversions have no bearing here. Our concern is with the extent of the allowable
area of thought under the statute. We decide only that it is possible to advocate
such changes and still be attached to the Constitution within the meaning of the
Government's minimum tests."
If I understand English, that means that it is perfectly
Mr. Thomas (interposing). I think we understand the meaning of it, so go
ahead and read.
Mr. Foster. I will make such remarks as I please.
Mr. Thomas. Well, I will make a few remarks too pretty soon. Go ahead.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 75
Mr. FosTEK. On the question of socialism and the-
Mr. Thomas (interijosiug). Does it say that there — "on the question of
socialism" V
Mr. FosTiiR. No : I will tell you when I am quoting the Supreme Court here.
You ask me to he hrief.
Mr. Thom.vs. No ; I didn't ask you to be hrief.
Mr. Foster. I have be(>n asked hy this committee to be brief. The Court after
reviewing the presentation on both sides as to the establishment of socialism
lias the following to say :
"A tenable conclusion from the foregoing is that the party in 1927 desired to
achieve its purpose by peaceful and democratic means, and as a theoretical matter
justifies the use of force and violence only as a method of preventing an attempt
at forcible counter overthrow, once the party had obtained control in a peaceful
manner, or as a matter of last resort to euforce the majority will, if at some
indetinite future time, because of peculiar circumstances, constitutional or peaceful
channels were no longer open."
We comnnmists consider that a fair and correct statement of the Communist
position, and we stand upon that, and the Court says that that is American, and
on tile basis of this granted citizenship to a known Communist.
Mr. MuNDT. That is very intei-esting.
Mr. Foster. Not only that, but the United States Government has acted pre-
cisely according to that principle, which is also the principle of the Communist
Party.
Mr. R.xNKiN. In what case?
Mr. Foster. You will not like the case that I would cite, Mr. Rankin, perhaps,
the case of the Civil War. The Civil War was a revolution, and what happened
in the Civil War was that the American people by democratic procedure elected
a government, whereupon the Southern land owners took up arms against that
democratic government and attempted to overtlirow it, and the American.
Gf iver nmeiit
Mr. Thomas ( interposing) . This hasn't got anything to do with the case before
us — just a lot of balderdash.
Mr. Foster. The American Government defends itself precisely in accordance
with the principles — —
Ml-. Thomas ( mterposing). If we have to listen to a lot of stuff like this all
day long we will never get through.
The Chairman. I think you have gone far enough with that.
Mr. Foster. Now, Mr. Chairman, I object to being shut off here. I was brought
down here to hnd out
Tile CHAHiMAN (interposing). I know, but wo are all cognizant of the results
of the Civil War. We all know there was a Civil War, and we all know the results.
Mr. Foster. I am undertaking to explain the position of the Communist Party.
The Chairman. Well, you are going into a history of the Civil War.
Mr. Foster. I am not going into a history of the Civil War. I am telling you
this is the position taken by the American Government in the Civil War, and is
precisely the policy of the Communits I'arty now; therefore, in answer to your
question, it is American procedure, and therefore we are strictly within the
American tradition in our position.
The Chairman. We must get along here, Mr. Foster. I will have to ask you
to answer the questions that are asked.
Mr. Foster. I made a 100 percent responsive answer. If the answer is not
pleasant to the committee and doesn't fit in
The Chairman (interposing). It is not unpleasant to me. I learned about
the Civil War in hiph school.
Mr. Foster. I am undertaking to state that the position followed by the Ameri-
can Government in the Civil War is precisely the policy of the Soviets or of the
Communist Party.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, as a Southern Democrat I resent classing Abra-
ham Lincoln as a Communist. [Laughter.]
Mr. Foster. I didn't class Abraham Lincoln as a Communist, although Abraham
Lincoln had intelligence enough to realize that Comniunists were a progressive
force in the world, and he carried on a regular correspondence with Karl Marx.
The Chairman. Mr. Mundt, have you any further questions of the witness?
Mr. Foster. And the Communists of the world supported the Civil War?
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Chairman, the Civil War happened 84 years ago.
Mr. Thomas. I don't think we should go into the Civil War, any more than
we should go into the war of 1812.
76 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Foster. I know you don't like that because it fits in with the Communist
Party policy.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster says 33 years ago is too long, Mr. Thomas.
Mr. FosTEE. I didn't say it was too long. I said I had repudiated tliat book
25 years ago.
Mr. Thomas. The Civil War hasn't anything to do with this committee.
Mr. MuNDT. Would you like to restate it?
Mr. Foster. In answer to your attorney's question, Mr. Chairman, I not only
repudiated that book that Mr. Rankin undertakes to drag in here, I repudiated
it officially before a government body here in Washington.
Mr. Thomas. The witnesss is a typical Communist in his evasions, and that is
what he is trying to do, and he is out of order all the time.
The Chairman. Mr. Mundt, restate your question.
Mr. Mundt. I wonder if you could cite any particulars in which the new Com-
munist party as reorganized differs from the earlier Communist party which
was dissolved, which in your opinion would make the new organization less
un-American than the old?
Mr. Foster. They were both American.
Mr. Mundt. All right. You say they are both American?
Mr. Foster. Both American, the best of Americans.
Mr. Mundt. You don't konw of any changes, then, which in terms of American-
ism would make the second organization more palatable than the first?
Mr. Foster. Of course not. They are both American parties based on 100
years of tradition of America working in the class struggle.
Mr. Mundt. I want to read, Mr. Chairman, a short excerpt from a govern-
ment document entitled 'House Document, Volume 16, 77th Congress, Second
Session, 1942." This is the report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
I am quoting from the letter of transmittal sent by the Attorney General, Mr.
Francis Biddle, who says:
"I am enclosing a copy of the report made to me by the Interdepartmental
Committee on Investigation. This committee was established in April 1942, to
serve the departments and agencies in an advisory capacity, contribute sugges-
tions as to procedure, and assist in expediting the composition of cases. The
members of the committee were John J. Dempsey, Under Secretary of the In-
terior, Chairman ; Edwin D. Dickinson, Special Assistant to the Attorney Gen-
eral, executive secretary ; Francis P. Brown, solicitor of the Federal Deposit In-
surance Corporation ; Herbert E. Gaston, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and
Wayne C. Taylor, Under Secretary of Commerce.
"Mr. Dempsey participated in tlie work of the committee until his resignation
as Under Secretary of the Interior on June 24, 1942.
"As the report of the Interdepartmental Committee" — whose membership I
have just read — "has pointed out at great length, there was ample authority in
judicial decisions, administrative rulings and legislative history for classifying
the Communist Party and its affiliates and the German-American Bund as sub-
versive organizations within the legislative concept."
Mr. Rankin. You mean that Attorney General Biddle classified the Com-
munist Party as subversive?
Mr. Mundt. That is correct, in his letter of transmittal to the Congress.
Mr. Rankin. That was the Communist Party as it existed before it was dis-
solved in 1943?
Mr. Mundt. That is right. That was my reason for asking Mr. Foster if there
was any difference from the standpoint of fundamental Americanism, and if I
understood him correctly he said that in his opinion both parties were American.
]\Ir. FO'Ster. Exactly.
Mr. Mundt. Continuing over on page 12 of the same report :
"On June 30, 1941, the Attorney General's office advised the Federal Bureau
of Investigation that, responsive to the congressional intent as set forth in the
aforementioned legislation, the Communist Party was intended to be regarded
as a subversive organization within the meaning of the term used.
"It was further stated that organizations having Connnunist background or
Conminnist affiliations were likewise intended to be included, thereby covering
ortranizations which are popularly known as Communist front organizations."
I just wanted to put tliat in because it appears that there may be a difference
of opinion between that which is illegal and that winch is un-American. The
Supreme Court apparently in its ruling on thef^rhncidrrman rase — if that is the
proper name of the case— ruled on the legality, because that is all th" Supreme
Court can do. Attorney General Biddle and the Interdepartmental Committ«>o
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 77
also ruled on the Americanism of the organization, and it is entirely conceivable
that something can be legal and still be un-American. I think that is the distinc-
tion which is to be drawn.
Mr. Kankin. The decision of the Supreme Court was on the actions of the
individuiil and not on the polic.v of the Communist Party.
Mr. MUNDT. That is right. It doesn't rule on that.
Mr. FosTtiR. That is not true. It was on the program of the Communist Party
that the Supreme Court ruled, that it was American to advocate what the Com-
munist Party proposed, and at this time, Mr. Chairman, if I may, in reply to the
statement of Mr. Mundt, I believe, I would like to say that on the basis of these
arguments IMr. Biddle, who was notorious for his red-baiting activities, undertook
to smear Harry Bridges, the Communist, with the result that he was reversed by
the United States Supreme Court, and 1 would like to at this time, on the basis
of my previous remarks, introduce these two documents. One is the program of
the Communist Party, and the other is this document that we quoted from, the
Schneidernian case.
Tlie Ch.\irman. Very well.
(The documents referred to follow:)
THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE NEXT TASKS
Introduction by Wiixiam Z. Foster
introduction
The resolution to which this is an introduction was adopted by the Communist
Party at its national convention in New York City, July 23-29, 1945. It is a
Marxist-Leninist analysis of the American and world situations in the con-
cludng stages of the great world war and the opening phases of the postwar
period. It gives a clear picture of the major economic and political problems
confronting harassed humanity and the paths along which the problems must
be solved. The surrender of Japan, which took place t^^•o weeks after the C. P.
convention, has created world reiiercussions which serve to emphasize the cor-
rectness of the analysis and slogans of action of the resolution.
As the C. P. resolution states, the winning of the war against the Axis fascist
powers constitutes a tremendous victory "for world democracy, for all mankind."
So, too, was the setting np of the United Nations to maintain world peace and to
facilitate a friendly economic and political collaboration among the nations of
the earth, the latest expressions of which were the decesions of the Potsdam
conference. Of woiid importance to democracy, also, was the development of
friendly relations between the U. S. A. and the U. S. S. R. during the war.
These are vital achievements which provide historic possibilities and con-
ditions for realizing the American people's desire for durable peace, flourishing
democracy and economic security. These conditions and possibilities exist, both
within our country and on a world scale. Their realization, however, depends
upon the initiative of the people and the leadership of labor who dare not rest
upon the laurels they have won in their great victories. For the forces of reaction
and social chaos are .still strong and are busily at work internationally, and if
they remain unchecke<l they will plunge the world into an even more terrible
disaster than the great world war it is now emerging from. Never were the
words more true that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Especially in the United States, organized labor and the masses of the people
must be vigilant. For it is in this country, now when the fascist powers have
been defeated, that world reaction has its greatest force and linds its most
aggressive leadership — in the most fascist-minded sections of finance capital, in
our imperialistic big monopolies and trusts.
American reaction is now actively making its evil influence felt, both at home
and abroad. Take, for example, the vital matter of reconverting our national
economy from a wartime to a peacetime basis. Under the influence of reactionary
monopolistic elements a subservient Congress failed completely to prepare the
country for the diffl-ult reconversion period. All Congress was interested in
was to protect the profits of the employers, after doing which it ad.iourned
for a two montlis vacation. The millions of war workers were left to face mass
unemployment as best they could, without government assistance. The Truman
Administration also shares the blame for not pressing its program more actively
upon Congress. The result is tl'at the country is threatened with a serious
economic crisis. These developments make the adoption of the reconversion
78 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
program contained in the C. P. resolution a matter of paramount importance to
the en'tire American people.
American reaction is also trj-ing to defeat the major purposes of the war by
seeking to save what it can of the shattered forces of world fascism. In Europe
reactionaries of all stripes turn to their political brothers in American big busi-
ness confidently, and not without results, to shield them from the rising tide-
of democracy. And in China, reactionary American influence, fostered in large
measure by our State Department is creating the danger of a civil war through
it machinations with the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek government. This whole
situation is one to which the democratic forces, especially organized labor, must
pay close attention. For as a nation we are profoundly interested in the
strengthening of democracy in Europe and the Far East, as well as in our own
hemisphere. The provisions in the C. P. resolution bearing upon this question
have won more validity and urgency with each passing day.
The resolution's warnings regarding the necessity for strengthening the
United Nations, for consolidating friendly relations between the U. S. S. 11. and
U. S. A., and for combatting the maneuvers of American imperialism, are being
made doubly timely by the present growth of reactionai'y sentiment in this
country among the forces of big capital looking towards American imperialist
domination of the world. Seeing the great strength of this country and the
weakness of other capitalist lands at the conclusion of the war, the active im-
perialists are filling our press and radio with propaganda to vhe effect that the
United States, through practically bypasing the United Nations, should virtually
take over the leadership of the world. These imperialists hypocritically make it
appear that American world rule would have no sellish objectives, but would be
carried out in an altriiistie spirit of benefiting the peoples everywhere by our
leadership. Such imperialist ambitions, however, are the way to new disasters
for our nation and the world.
With no little assistance from reactionary figures in our State Deijartment,
these imperialists are urging a "tough" attitude towards the U. S. S. R. and the
new democratic governments in Europe. They would swing Australia still more
definitely undei: American influence; they would reduce Japan to economic and
political dependence upon the United States; they would establish an American
economic, and eventually political, hegemony over China ; and they would hold
as permanent military bases all the Pacific Islands occupied by our armed forces
in this war. In short, they would like to turn the Pacific Ocean into an "American
lake." These aggressive imperialists would establish American world domination
not only through this coiuitry's great economic and political strength, but some
of them also have the insolence to hint broadly that the United States could use
its control of the atondc bomb as infallible means for bending other nations to
its will.
These dangerous schemings and developments make it imperative that the
labor movement and the great mass of the democratic American people luidertake
seriously to curb the reactionary imperialists in this country, and to develop their
own great irresistible foi-ces for a broad progressive program. To these ends the
Comnumist Party resolution is indispensable. As a program fitted to advance the
interests of our nation as a whole, it should be studied far and wide among the
workers and the entire American peoijle.
William Z. Foste31,
Na tional Chairm an,
Communist Party, U. 8. A.
Present Situation and the Next Tasks
Resolution of the National Convention of the Communist Party, U. S. A., Adopted
July 28, 1945
PART I
I
The military defeat of Nazi Germany is a great historic victory for world
democracy, for all mankind. This epochal triumph was brought about by
the concerted action of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition — by the decisive
blows of the Red Army, by the American-British offensives, and by the heroic
struggle of the resistance movements. This \*ictory opens the way for the com-
plete de4Struction of fascism in Europe and weakens the forces of reaction and
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 79
fascism everywhere. It has already hroii^ht forth a new anti-fascist unity of
the peoples in Europe marked hy the forniiition In a numher of countries of demo-
cratic governments representative of the will of the people and hy the lahor-
progri'ssive election victory in Great Britain.
The crushing of Hitler Germany has also ereafed the conditions for the com-
plete defeat and destruction of fascist Japanese imperialism. The winning of
complete victory in this just war of national liheration is the first prerequisite
for obtaining peace and security in the Far East, for the democratic uniiication
of China as a free and independent njition. and for the attaiinnent of national
independence hy the the peojilcs of Indonesia. Indc-China. Hnrma, Korea, For-
mosa, the Philippines and India. The smashing ()f fasci.st-inilitarist Jai)an is
likewise essential to help guarantee the efforts of the United Nations to build a
durable peace.
All the.se crucial objectives are of vital impoutance to the national Interests
of the American people, to the struggle for tlie complete destruction of f;isci,sm
everywhere. Now with the defeat of Nazi Germany and the Axis, the possibility
of realizing an enduring peace and of making new democratic advances and
social progress has been opened ui) for the peoples by the weakening of reaction
and fascism on a world scale and the consequent strengthening of the world-
wide democratic forcas.
2
However, a sharp and sustained struggle must still be" conducted to realize
these possibilities. This is .so because the economic and social roots of fasci,sm in
Europe liave not yet been fully destroyed. This is so becaue the extremely power-
ful reactionary forces in the Uuired States and England, which are centered in
tlie trusts and cartels, are striving to reconstruct liberated Europe on a reaction-
ary basis. Moreover, this is so becau.se the most aggressive circles of American
imperialism are endeavoring to secure for themselves political and economic
domination in the world.
Tlie dominant sections of American finance capital supported the war against
Nazi Germany, not ^lecause of hatred for fascism or a desire to liberate suffer-
ing Europe from the heel of Nazi despotism, but because it recognized in Hitler
Germany a dangerous imperialist rival determined to rule the w(n'ld. From
the very inception of the stru,^gle against f;i.scism, American finance capital
feared the democratic consequences of defeating Hitler Germany.
This explains why the monopolists opposed the concept of collective security
in the days when the war still could have been prevented and instead chose the
Munich policy which inevitably led to war. Later, even after the anti-Hitler
coalition was forged, the forces of big capitiil who supported the war coutiiuied
to hesitate and delay, to make vital concessions to the worst enemies of American
and world deiuocracy — to the sworn foes of the Soviet Union and to the bosom
pals of Hitlerism. That is why American capitalism gave aid to Franco Sp.iin ;
why it preferred to support the Petains and r>arlans and the reactionary gov-
ernments-iu-exile as against the heroic resistance movements of the people. And
that is also why it hoped that the Soviet Union would be bled on the battlefields
of Europe and why it tried to hold off the opening of the Second Front until the
last ]>ossible moment.
Only when these policies proved to be bankrupt, meeting growing opposition
from the ranks of the people, from the millions of patriotic Americans fighting
in our lieroic armed forces and workiii-C in war production; only when it became
obvious that the Soviet Union was emerging from the war stronger and more
inrtuential tlian ever precisely because of its valiant and triumphant all-out war
against Naziisuj, did American capital reluctantly and belatedly move toward the
establishment of a concerted military strategy and closer unity among the
Big Three.
Now that the war against Hitler Germany has been won, the American economic
loyalists, like their British Tory counterparts, are alarmed at the strengthened
positions of world labor, at the democratic advances in Europe and at the upsurge
of the natioiml liberation movements in the colonial and dependent countries.
Therefore, they .seek to halt the march of democracy, to curb the strength of labor
and the i)cople. They want to save the remnants of fascism in Germany and the
rest of Europe. They are trying to organize a new cordon smiitaire against the
Soviet Union, which bore the main brunt of the war against the Nazis, and which
is the stauncliest champion of national freedom, democracy and world peace.
This growing reactionary opposition to a truly democratic and anti-fascist
Europe, in which the people will have the right to choose freely their own forms of
83078—46 6
80 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
government and social system, has been reflected in many of the recent actions
of the State Department. This explains why, at San Francisco, Stettinius and
Connally joined hands with Vandenberg — the spokesman for Hoover and the most
predatory sections of American finance capital. This explains the seating of
fascist Argentina as well as the aid given to the pro-fascist forces of Latin-
America ; the British-American reluctance to live up to the Yalta accord on
Poland ; the American delegation's refusal to join with tlie Soviet Union in pledg-
ing the right of national independence for mandated territories and colonies and
to give official recognition to the representatives of the World Labor Congress.
These facts reflect the current shift of hitherto win-the-wai- sections of American
capital to closer political collaboration with the most reactionary and aggressively
imperialist groupings of monopoly capital.
It is this reactionary position of American big business which explains why
powerful circles in Washington and also London are pursuing the dangerous
policy of trying to prevent a strong, united and democratic China; why they
bolster up the reactionary,, incompetent Chiang Kai-shek regime and wliy they
harbor the idea of a compromise peace with the Mikado in the hope of maintaining
Japan as a reactionary bulwark in the Far East. It accounts, too, for the re-
newed campaign of anti-Soviet slander and incitement calculated to undermine
American-Soviet friendship and cooperation.
On the home front tlie big trusts and monopolies are blocking the development
of a satisfactory program to meet the human needs of reconversion, of the
problems of economic dislocations and severe unemployment, which is beginning
to take place and will become more acute after the defeat of Japan. Reactionary
forces-^especially the NAM and their representatives in government and Con-
gress— are beginning a new open-sliop drive to smash the trade unions. They
also endeavor to rob the Negro people of their wartime gains. They are trying
to prevent the adoption of governmental measures which must be enacted at once
if our country is to avoid the most acute consequences of the trying reconversion
period and the cyclical economic crisis which is bound to arise after the war.
Likewise, they are vigorously preparing to win a reactionary victory in the crucial
1946 elections.
Already the reactionaries are using the increased cutbacks to lower wages and
living standards and to provoke strikes in war industry. They are obstructing
the enactment of necessary emergency measures for federal and state unemploy-
ment insurance. They are sponsoring vicious anti-labor legislation, such as the
new Ball-Burton-Hatch labor relations bill, and are blocking the passage of the
FEPC and anti-polltax bills. They are trying to scuttle effective price and rent
control and to exempt the wealthy and the big corporations from essential tax
legislation. They are endeavoring to place the entire cost of the war and the
difficulties of reconversion upon the shoulders of the working people.
If the reactionary policies and forces of monopoly capital are not checked and
defeated, America and tlie world will be confronted with new aggressions and
wars and the growth of reaction and fascism in tiie United States.
However, the conditions and forces exist to defeat this reactionary threat and
to enable our country to play a more progressive role in world affairs in accoi'd
with the true national interests of the American people. For one thing, the
military defeat of Nazi Germany has changed the relationship of world forces
in favor of democracy. It has enlianced the role and influence of the Land of
Socialism. It is bringing into being a new, democratic Europe. It has strength-
ened those forces in our country and elsewhere which seek to maintain and
consolidate the friendship and cooperation of the United States and the Soviet
Union — a unity which must now be extended and reinforced if a durable peace
is to be secured.
This is evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American
people, and in the first i>lace the labor movement, which has grown in strength
and maturity, is opposed to reaction and fascism, and supports the foreign and
domestic policies of the late President Roosevelt as embodied in the decisions
of Crimea and in the main features of the Second Bill of Rights.
This is demonstrated by the great mass support for the San Francisco Charter
and by the determination of the American people to guarantee that the United
Nations security organizution shall fulfill its historic objectives— that the amity
and unity of action of the American-Soviet-British coalition shall be consolidated
in support of the agreements of Teheran, Crimea and Potsdam, shall bo
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 81
strengthened in tlie postwar period and made more solid and effective, in order
to iireveiit or clieclv tlie recurrence of new ag2;ressions and wars.
Tliis majority of tlie Amorican i)eoi)le must now siiealv out and assert its
eolleetive strtMijitli and will. The united power of lab(tr and of all democratic
forces, welded in a firm antifascist national unity, must express itself in a
decisive fashion as to influence the course of the nation in a progressive direction.
It is imperative that the .\nierican people insist that the Truman Administra-
tion carry forward the policies of the Roosevelt-lahor-democratic coalition for
AmeiMcan-Soviet friendship; for the vital social aims of the economic Bill of
Riirhts; for civil liberties; for the rights of the Negro people; and for collective
bargaining. It is equally neces.sary that labor and the people sharply criticize all
hesitations to apply these policies and vigorously oppose any concessions to the
reactionaries by the Truman Administration, which is tending to malie certain
concessions under the increasing pressure of the reactionary imperialist com-
bination led by the monopolies.
The Truman Administration, like the Roosevelt government from which it is
developing, continues to receive the support of the Roosevelt-labor-democi'atic
coalition, and responds to various class pressures. While it seeks to maintain
contact and cooperative relations with labor and the more democratic forces of
the coalition, its general orientation in both domestic and foreign policies tends,
on some vital questions, to move away from the more consistent democratic forces
in the coalition and tries to conciliate certain reactionaries. Hence, it is of
central importance to build systematically the political strength and influence
of labor, the Negro i>eopIe, and all true democratic forces within the general
coalition for the struggle against imperialist reaction, for combatting and check-
ing all tendencies and groupings in the coalition willing to make concessions to
reaction. The camp of reaction must not be appeased. It must be isolated and
routed.
Toward this end it is necessary, as never before, to strengthen decisively
the democratic unity of the nation, to create that kind of national unity for the
postwar period which will be able to facilitate the destruction of fascism abroad
and to prevent facism from coming to power in the United States. Therefore, it
is csi^cntial to loeld together and consolidate the broadest coalition of all anti-
fascist and democratic forces as well as all other supporters of Roosevelt's anti-
Axis policies.
To forge this democratic coalition most effectively and to enable it to exer-
cise decisive infllnence upon the affairs of the nation, it is essential that the
working class — especially the progressive labor movement and the Communists —
strengthen its independent role and activities and display far greater political
and organizing initiative. It is imperative that maxinuim vuiity of action be
developed among the C. I. O., the A. F. of L. and the Railroad Brotherhoods and
that their full participation in the New World Federation of Trade Unions be
achieved. It is necessary to rally and imbue the membership and lower officials
of the A. F. of L. with confidence in their ability to fight against and defeat the
reactionary policies and leadership typified by the Greens, AVolls, Hntchesons
and Dubinskys.
While cooperating with the patriotic and democratic forces from all walks
of life, labor must, in the first place, strengthen its ties with the veterans, the
working farmers, the Negro people, youth, women, intellectuals and small business
men. and with their democratic organizations. At the same time, while forging
the progressive unity of the nation, labor should cooperate with those capitalist
groupings and elements who, for one or another reason, objectively at times, pro-
mote democratic aims. But in so doing, labor must depend first of all upon
its own strength and unity and upon its alliance with the true democratic and
anti-fa.scist forces of the nation.
The current war and postwar needs of the working^ class and the nation, in-
cluding the adoption of an effective reconvension program and the maintenance
of workers' living standards, also demand the initiation of large scale mass
campaigns to oi'ganize the millions of still unorganized workers. This is impera-
tive if organized labor is to achieve its full strength and fulfill its role as the
leading democratic force of the nation.
In the vital struggle to crush feudal-fa.scist-militaristic Japan it is necessary
that American labor reaffirm its no-strike pledge and give the necessary leader-
ship to mobilize the people for carrying the war through to final victory and for
national liberation aims. In so doing labor must collaborate in the prosecution
of the anti-Japanese war with all democratic forces who favor and support
'omplete Tictory over Japanese imperialism.
82 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
However, labor and the other anti-fascist forces must take cognizance of the
fact that amongst those big business circles who desire military victory over
Japan, there are influential forces, including some in tlie State Department, who
are seeliing a compromise peace which will preserve the power of the INIikado
after the war, at the expense of China and the other Far Eastern peoples, and
directed against the Soviet Union. Similarly, there are powerful capitalist
groupings including many in Administration circles, who plan to use the
coming defeat of Japan for imperialist aims, for maintaining a reactionary
puppet Kuomintang regime in China, for obtaining American imperialist domina-
tion in the Far East.
Labor and the people should and will continue to do all in tlieir power to
hasten complete victory over Japanese militarism and fascism. And to do this,
labor and the popular forces must fight for and rally the people for a consistent
anti-fascist and an anti-imperialist policy, and must rely, first of all, upon the
people and their democratic organizations and aspirations.
To achieve the widest democratic coalition and the most effective anti-fascist
unity of the nation, it is vital that labor vigorously champion a program of action
that will promote the complete destruction of fascism, speed victory over Japanese
imperialism, curb the powers of the trusts and monopolies, and thereby advance
the economic welfare of the people and protect and extend American democracy.
In the opinion of the Communist Parly such a program should be based on
the following slogans of action :
/. Speed the defeat of fascist-^nilitartst Japan!
Prosecute tiie war against Japan resolutely to unconditional surrender.
Rout and defeat the advocates of a compromise peace with the Japanese im-
perialists and war lords. Curb those who seek American imperialist control
in the Far East.
Strengthen United Nations cooperation to guarantee post-war peace in the
Pacific and the world and to ensure a free democratic Asia with the right <>f
national independence tor-, all colonial and dependent pecplps.
Press for a iniited and free China based upon the unity of the Communists and
all other democratic and anti-Japanese forces so as to speed victory. Give full
military aid to the Chinese guerillas led by the heroic Eighth and Fourth armies.
Continue uninterrupted war production and uphold labor's no-strike pledge
lor the duration. Stop employer provocations.
II. Complete the destruction of faxeimi and J)i(ild a durahle peace!
Cement American-Soviet friendship and luiity to promote an enduring peace
and to carry through the destruction of fascism.
Carry out in full the decisions made by the Big Three at Teheran, Crimea and
Potsdam.
Punish the war guilly without further delay including the German and Jap-
anese staffs and monopolists. Death to all fascist war criminals. Make Germany
and Japan pay full reparations.
Strengthen the World Labor Congress as the backbone of the unity of the
peoples and the free nations. Admit the World Labor Congress to the Economic
and Social Council of the World Security Organization.
Support the San Francisco Charter for an effective international security
organization, based upon the unity of the Big Three.
Guarantee to all peoples the right to determine freely their own destiny and
to establish their own democratic form of government. Put an end to Anglo-
American political and military intervention agninst the peoples, such as in
Greece, Belgium and Italy. Admit Italy to the ranks of the United Nations.
Grant the right of self-determination to Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
Support the Puerto Rican and Filipino peoples in their demand for immediate"
and complete independence.
Break diplomatic relations with fascist Spain and Arsenlina. Full support to
the democratic forces fighting to reestablish the Spanish Republic. Support th«»
struggles of the Latin American peoples for national sovereignty and against the
encroachments of American and British imperialism.
Remove from the State Department all pro-fascist and reactionary officials.
Help feed and reconstruct starving and war-torn Europe. Reject the Hoover
program based on reactionary financial mortgages, and political interference.
Use the Bretton AVoods Agreement in the interests of the United Nations to
promote international economic cooperation and expanding world trade. Grant
extensive long term loans and credits, at low interest rates, for purposes of
reconstmction and industrialization. Expose and combat all efforts of iuonopoly
capital to convert such financial aid into means of extending imperialist control
in these countries.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 83
///. Push the Fight for Sixtij Million John — Meet the Human Needs of Recon-
version !
Make the right to work and the democratic aims of the Second Bill of Rights
the law of the land. Support the Murraj' Full Employment Bill.
Increase purciiasing power to promote maximum employment. No reduction
it) weekly take-home pay when overtime is eliminated.
Revise the Little Steel Formula to increase wage.s so as to meet the rise in the
cost of living. I'ass the Pepixr Go-cent IMinimum Hourly Wage Bill. Support the
Seamen's Bill of Rights, H. R. 2346. Defend the wartime gains of the Negro
workers in industry.
Establish the guaranteed annual wage in industry.
Establish a shorter work week except where this would hamper war production.
Enforce the right to work and to ecpiality in job status for women. Guarantee
the exercise of this right by adeiiuate training, upgrading, seiuority rights, as
well as by providing day nurseries and child-care centers to aid all working
mothers. Safeguard and extend existing social legislation for women, as workers
and mothers, and abolish all disci-iminatory legislation against women.
Support President Truman's proposals tor emergency federal legislation to
extend antl supplement present unemployment insurance benefits as a necessary
first step to cope with the current large-.scale cutbacks and layoffs. Start employ-
ment insurance payments promptly upon loss of job and continue until new
employment is fotind. Provide adequate severance pay for laid-olf workers.
Prevent growing unemployment during the reconversion and postwar period by
starting large-scale federal, state, municipal and local public works pro-ams —
(rural and urban) — slum clearance, low rental housing developments, rural elec-
trification, waterway projects (such as the St. Lawrence and the Missouri Valley),
the building of new schools, hospitals, roads, etc.
No scrapping of government-owned industrial plants. Guarantee the opera-
tion of these plants, at full capacity for peacetime purposes.
Establish public ownership of the munitions, power and utility industries to
place them under democratic control.
Support all measures for full farm production. Defeat the advocates of
scarcity. Extend and strengthen the farm price support program. Establish
low-cost credit and adequate crop insurance. Safeguard the family-sized farms.
Help tenant farmers to become owners. End the semi-feudal sharecropping
system in the South.
Maintain and rigidly enforce rent and price control and rationing. Strengthen
the law enforcement powers of the OPA. Smash the black market.
Prosecute the war profiteers. No reduction or refunds in corporate, excess
profit and income taxes for the millionaires and big corporations. Lower taxes
for those least able to pay.
Pass the Wagner-Murray-Dingell social security bill.
IV. Keep Faith With the Men Who Fight for Victory!
Raise substantially dependency allotments to families and relatives of men
in the Armed Forces.
Extend and improve the system of democratic orientation and discussion in
the Armed Forces. Draw more personnel from labor's ranks into orientation
work. Eliminate all anti-labor and anti-democratic material and teachings from
the education services conducted in the Armed Forces.
CJuarantee jobs, opiDortunity and security for all returning veterans and war
woikers, regardless of race, creed br color.
Extend the .scope and benefit of the GI Bill of Rights and eliiuinate all red
tape from the Veterans' Administration. Guarantee adequate medical care to
every veteran.
Press for the speedy enactment of legislation providing for substantial demobili-
zation pay, based on length and character of service, and financed by taxes on
higher personal and corporate incomes.
Insure full benefits of all veterans' legislation to Negro veterans.
V. Safeguard and Extend Democracy !
Enforce equal rights for every American citizen regardless of race, color, creed,
sex. political affiliation or national origin.
End Jim Crow. Establish a permanent FEPC on State and National scales.
Aboli.sh the poll-tax and the white primary. End every fonn of discrimination
in the Armed Forces. Protect the rights of the foreign-born.
84 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Outlaw anti-Semitism, one of the most pernicioiis and damaging of fascism's
ideological weapons. Support the just demands of the Jewish people for the
immediate abrogation by the British government of the imperialist White Paper.
Support the upbuilding of a Jewi.sh National Home in a free and democratic
Palestine in collaboration with the Arab ijeople, on the basis of the agreement
of the Big Three in the Near East.
Protect and extend labor's rights, especially the right to organize, strike and
bargain collectively. Repeal all anti-labor laws such as the Smith-Connally Act.
Defeat the Ball-Burton-Hatch anti-labor bill.
Outlaw and prohibit all fascist organizations and activities and every form of
racial and religious bigotry.
Rescind all anti-Communist legislation.
Curb the powers and policies of the monopolies and trusts which jeopardize
the national welfare and world peace. Prosecute and punish all violations of
the anti-trust laws. Demand government dissolution of all monopolies and trusts
found guilty of attempting to restore the Anglo-German-American cartel system.
Revoke their patent rights and prosecute their officials. Enact new legislation
subjecting the monopolies to a greater measure of public control with labor, farm
and small business representation on all government bodies exercising such super-
vision.
Protect and extend federal aid to small business.
VI. Safeguard the Future of America's Youth!
Guarantee full and equal opportunity for education and jobs for all youth.
Establish an adequate program of training and retraining in new and higher
skills during the period of reconversion.
Fix adequate minimum wage standards and guarantee equal pay for equal
work to young men and women workers.
Reestablish and strengtiien minimum working standards for working minoi's
which have been relaxed during the war. Abolish child labor.
Pass legislation for adequate federal aid to schools and students especially in
the South. Establish full and equal opportunity for schooling, including college
education. Guarantee full academic freedom.
Enact federal legislation to safeguard the health and well-being of the youth.
Develop adequate recreational, cultural and social programs for democratic citi-
zenship in schools and communties as a means to prevent juvenile delinquency.
Establish the right to vote at 18 by State legislation.
Establish a fedei'al government agency, including representation of youth
and labor, to develop and coordinate planning to meet the nation's responsibility
to youth.
Adopt special safeguards for guaranteeing education, vocational training and
job opportunities for Negro youth.
This program meets the most urgent immediate interests of the American people
and nation. It is a program of action around which all progressive Americans
can unite today. It is a program of action which will advance the struggle for
the moral and political defeat of fascism, leading to its final destruction and eradi-
cation. It will help create the conditions and guarantees for a stable peace and
for a larger measure of economic security and democratic liberties for the masses
of the people. The anti-fascist and democratic forces of our nation, being the
overwhelming majority of our people, can become strong enough to check and
defeat imperialist reaction and to realize the great objectives of this program of
action.
As class-conscious American workers, as Marxists, we Communists will do all
in our power to help the American working class and its allies to fight for and
realize this program. At the same time we will systematically explain to the
people that substantial gams for the masses se<;'ured under capitalism are inevi-
tably precarious, unstable and only partial and that Socialism alone can finally
and completely abolish the social evils of capitalist society, including economic
insecurity, unemployment and the danger of fascism and war.
However, this program of action will help the working class and the people as
a whole to meet their urgent immediate practical needs, enhancing generally
their strength and influence in the nation. In the struggle for the program for
peace and democracy, jobs and security, favorable conditions are created for the
masses of our people to recognize, on the basis of their own experiences, .the need
for the eventual reorganization of society along socialist lines.
We shall assist this process by every available educational means, taking full
cognizance of the growing interest of the American people and its working class
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 85
in the historic exporionces of tlie Soviet i)eoi)le in tlie building of a new socialist
society, which has played the decisive role in the defeat of Hitler Germany and
the Axis. We shall aim to convince the broad masses that the eventual elimina-
tion of the profit system and the establishment of Socialism in the United States
will usher in a new and higher typo of democracy and a free road to unlimited
and stable sochil progress because it will end exploitation of man by man and
nation by nation, through the establishment of a society without oppression and
exploitation.
While not yet accepting Socialism as an ultimate goal, the American people
'today agree that fascism must be destroyed, wherever it exists or wherever it
rai-ses its head. The 'American people are ready to protect and extend the Bill
of Rights and all democratic liberties. They are determined to fight for greater
peace and democracy, for the right to work, gi-eater job and social security.
Therefore, Connnuuists and non-Comnuniists, all progressives and anti-f'ascists
can be rallied in support of the above program of inmiediate action. For this
program meets the immediate desires of the American people upon which the
majority &an unite today to prevent the rise of fascism and to assure victory
in the 1045 municipal elections and in the fateful 194G congressional elections
which must be organized" and prepared for now. This is a program which must
be championed in every factory and industry, in every conununity and state,
through the medium of labor's political action: through labor's joint and parallel
action locally, and through broad shop steward conferences and united community
movements, as well as through other broad united peoples and democratic front
activities.
< PAKT II
The foregoing program demands a resolute struggle. The reactionaries will
seek desperately to divide the ranks of the people, to pit one group against the
other — veterans and farmers against labor, Gentile against Jew, white against
Negro, Protestant against Catholic, A. F. of L. against C. I. O. They will strive
to break the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition and foment bitter class, racial,
partisan and sectional strife. For these purposes they will use Hitler's secret
weapon of "white supremacy" and anti-Communism, and make maximum use of
the David Dubin.sky and Norman Thomas Social-Democrats, the Trotskyites, as
well as the John L. Lewises and INIatthew Wolls.
To meet this situation the people need a great strengthening of overy one of
their progressive organizations and particularly the organizations of labor — the
trade unions. They need loyal, courageous and honest leadership, men and women
who combine clarity of vision with the qualities of firmness in principle and flex-
ibility in tactics. Above all, they require a larger, stronger more influential and
more effective mass Communist Party.
The Communists have a greater responsibility to labor and the nation than at
any other time in their history. And these greater responsibilities can be fulfilled
by us with honor because of our long record of devotion and service to the cause
of the working class and the people, and by our adherence to the scientific prin-
ciples of Marxism-Leninism.
The American Communist movement confidently faces the future. We are
proud of our consistent and heroic struggle against reaction and fascism over
the years. We draw strength from and are particularly proud of our efforts to
promote victory over Nazi barbarism and Japanese imperialism.
On the field of battle and on the home front, we Communists have been in the
forefront of the fight to defend our country and our people. In the struggle for
the establishment of the anti-Hitlerite coalition, for the opening of the Second
Front, for defeating fascist-militarist Japan, for national unity, for the re-
election of Roosevelt, for the rights of the Negro people, for building a strong
and px'ogre.'-sive lal)or movement, for uninterrupted war production and for the at-
tainment of international trade unity — the contributions of the Communists
have been vital and .second to none.
6
We recognize that the future of the labor and iirogressive movements and
therefore the role of the United States in world affairs will depend to no small
extent upon the correctness of our Communist policy, our independent role and
influence, our mass activities and organized strength.
86 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
That is why today we Communists must not only learn from our achievements
in the struggle against fascism and reaction, but also from our weaknesses and
errors. In the recent period, especially since January, 1944, these mistakes con-
sisted in drawing a number of erroneous conclusions from the historic signifi-
cance of the Teheran accord. Among these false conclusions was the concept that
after the military defeat of Germany, the decisive sections of big capital would
participate in the struggle to complete the destruction of fascism and would
cooperate with the working people in the maintenance of postwar national unity.
The reactionary class nature of finance capital makes these conclusions illusory. .
This has been amply demonstrated by recent events revealing the postwar aims
of the trusts and cartels which seek imperialist aggrandizement and huge profits
at the expense of the people.
This revision of Marxist-Leninist theory regarding the role of monopoly capital
led to other erroneous conclusions, such as to ufopian economic perspectives and
the possibility of achieving the national liberation of the colonial and dependent
countries through arrangenjents between the great powers. It also led to tend-
encies to obscure the class nature of bourgeois democracy, to false concepts of
social evolution, to revision of the fundamental laws of the class struggle and
to minimizing the independent and leading role of the working class.
In consequence, we Communists began to carry on the historic struggle against
fascism, for democracy and national freedom, in a way that was not always clearly
distinguishable from that of bourgeois democrats and bouregois nationalists,
forgetting the class character and limitations of bourgeois democracy and
nationalism. Finally, this right-opportunist deviation also tended to ignore,^
revise or virtually discount the fundamental couti'adictions of capitalism, declar-
ing wrongly that the changed and changing forms of their expression indicated
that they had ceased to operate in the period of the general crisis of capitalism.
Furthermore, the dissolution of the Communist Party and the formation of the
Communist Political Association were part and parcel ot oiir revisionist errors,
and did in fact constitute the liquidation of the independent and vanguard role
of the Comnuniist movement. As a consequence, our base among the industrial
workers was seriously weakened. This further resulted in a general weakening
of Communist activities and in adversely affecting the role and policies of other
Marxist parties in the Western Hemisphere. Far from aiding the carrying out
of such correct policy as support for Roosevelt's re-election, the dissolution of the
Communist Party weak'^iied th(' democratic coalition because it weakened the
initiative, strength and contributions of the Communist vanguard.
A flagrant expression of this liquidation was the abolition of the Communist
organization in the South through its transformation into non-Communist, anti-
fascist organizations. This action undermined the fonndation for consistent and
effective struggle for the needs and aspirations of tlie masses of the South, es-
pecially the Negro people. This glaring example of the logical outcome of our
revisionist errors reveals the direction in which our policy was leading. The
dissolution of the Communist Party of America and the formation of the C. P. A.
was in fact the liquidation of the independent Marxist Party of the working
class.
The correction of our revisionist errors demands the immediate reconstitution
of the Connnnnist Party and guaranteeing the re-establishment of the Marxist
content of its program, policies and activities.
The source of our past revisionist errors must be traced to the ever active
pressure of bourgeois ideology and influences upon the working class. The
failure on our part to be vigilant and to conduct a sustained struggle against
these bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influences permitted their inflltration into
our own ranks and sapped our proletarian vitality. One of the most harmful and
far reaching consequences of this bourgeois influence upon our organization was
the development over a period of years of a system of bureaucratic practices and
methods of leadei-ship.
This found expression in a failure to analyze and reexamine constantly our
policies and methods of work in the spirit of INIarxist self-criticism ; to check
(•ur policies with the experience of the masses in the class struggle; to develop
a correct cadre policy; and to draw our full membership into tlie shaping and
clarification of basic policy. The crassest example of this was the suppression
of the Foster letter from the membership. Another example of this bureaucratic
method of work was the manner in which the former National Board proceeded to
liquidate the Communist organization in the South.
The growth of revisionism was helped by bureaucracy. While the main respon-
sibility for the bureaucratic regime rests upon Browder in the first place, the
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 87
former National Board and National Coniniittfe must assume a heavy resjwnsi-
bility for (he Imroaucratic system of work which prevailed in all Party orfianiza-
tious. The former National Hoard, in accepting- the Browder system of leadership,
set a bureaucratic example and did not carry on a strusij^le to establish genuine
democracy in (lie organization. This was also roflected by the former Board's
inadequate sell-criticism during; tlie pre-convention period.
Tlie incoming National Connnittee and Board, l)y example, and witli the active
assistance of the niember.ship, nuist undertake an ideological and organiza(io)ial
struggle to root out all vestiges of bureaucracy, and be constantly on guard
against relapses to old hureauci-atic methods of work and opportunistic practices,
which could oidy obsiruct the most rapid and complete coi'rectinn of ouv revis-
ionist errors.
Tlie opportunist errors of our former general policy limited tlie effective-
ness of Comnuuiist work on the Negro question. This was especially expressed
in our glossing over the national character of the Negro question, and in our
lunvarranted illusion that the big bourgeoisie themselves would carry forward
after V-E Day the wartime gains of the Negro people.
It is true that we continued to proclaim our uncompromising demand for full
Negro democratic rights, and in many instances fought hard and effectively
against Jim Crow practices, especially in the interests of the war effort. How-
ever, (he struggle for the national liberation of the Negro people as fundamen-
tally related to the whole struggle of the working class against capitalist
exploitation and oppression was often lost sight of.
Moreover, our revisionist policies narrowed the scope and weakened the vigor
of such struggles, even causing us at times to soft-pedal the struggle to eliminate
Negro discrimination in the armed forces.
The results of this opportunist policy are all too apparent. We have not ade-
quately prepared the labor movement and the Negro masses to combat current
efforts of reaction to create sharp Negro-white conflicts within the ranks of
labor and to wipe out the wartime democratic gains of the Negro people. De-
spite limited gains we had serious weaknesses and inconsistences in our work
in the Negro comnumities and have been unable to consolidate our thousands
of new Negro recruits into a stable membership. We completely liquidated the
Communist organization in the South. We failed to develop a substantial corjjs
of Marxist-trained Negro workers for leadership in the labor movement.
It is now incumbent upon us to give militant leadership to the struggle for
Negro democratic rights on all fronts, especially intensifying our educational
work among white trade unionists. We must rebuild the Communist organiza-
tion in the South. We must develop and bring forward a strong corps of working
class Negro Communist cadres in the great industrial centers of the nation.
Above all, we must deepen the theoretical understanding of all Communists,
both Negro and white, on the fundamental nature and far-reaching implications
of the Negro question and conduct a vigorous struggle to root out every manifesta-
tion of open or concealed white chauvinism in our own ranks. As one step toward
this end, we should create a special commission to undertake a basic study of the
conditions and ti-ends of the Negro people in relation to the broad social, eco-
nomic and political movements in America and the world today, and, in the
light of Marxist-Leninist theory, to formulate a comprehensive definition of
Comnuinist policy and program on the Negro question.
8
The opportunist errors which we were committing adversely Influenced our
work during the war, limited the effectiveness of our anti-fascist activities, and
were disorienting the Communist and the progressive labor movement for the
postwar period.
Our Communist organization was moving toward a crisis, among other things,
because of its inability to answer the growing complex problems arising out of
the present world situation. This developing crisis could not be resolved with-
out (he full recngiiitjen and correction of our former revisionist policies.
In this eoiinecdoii. thereff)re, we must recognize the sterling leadership and
the important contributions which Comrade Foster made in the struggle against
opportunism. Likewise, we can appreciate the basic correctness of the sound
fraternal, Marxist opinions expressed in the recent article of Jacques Duclos,
one of the foremost leaders of the Communist Party of France.
Life itself, especially our recent exijeriences in the struggle against the forces
of fascism and reaction on both the foreign and domestic fronts — in the trade
88 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
unions, in the struggle for Negro rights, in the struggle against the trusts — has
fully confirmed the validity of Comrade Duclos' criticism and of Comrade Fosters'
repeated warnings, and has fully exposed the basic revisionist errors of American
Communist policy since January, 1944.
In ascertaining the grave responsibility for the opportunist errors and mis-
takes committed in the recent period, it is necessary to state that while Comrade
Browder, who was the foremost leader of the C. P. A., bears a proportionately
greater share of responsibility than any other individual leader or member, the
former national leadership, and in the first place, the former National Board,
must and does assume a heavy responsibility for these errors.
9
Clearly, the single, most essential pre-condition necessary to enable us to per-
form effectively our Communist duties in the postwar period as the vanguard and
champion of the interests of the working class and the nation, is to overcome -
quickly and decisively our errors and mistakes, especially to eradicate all vestiges
of opportunism in our policies and mass work.
Toward this end the entire Conmiunist organization must immediately make
a thorough and self-critical examination of all policies and leadership. We
must establish genuine inner-democracy and self-criticism throughout our or-
ganization. We must refresh and strength the personnel of all responsible lead-
ing committes in the organization, and establish real collective leadership in all
Party committees. ' In doing this we must combat all tendencies toward fac-
tionalism, toward distortions and toward weakening the basic unity of our
Communist organization.
At the same time, we Communists must avoid all sectarian tendencies and
boldly and energetically expand our own Marxist working class and anti-fascist
mass activities and our most active participation in the broad labor and demo-
cratic movements. We must resolutely strengthen our independent Communist
role and mass activities. We must develop a consistent concentration policy and
build our Communist organization especially among the industrial workers. We
must wage a resolute ideological struggle on the theoretical front, enhancing the
Marxist understanding of our entire organization and leadership.
We Communists renew our pledge to do everything to destroy fascism and
reaction, to advance the cause of American and world democracy, the cause of
national freedom and social progress. We are determined to cooi>erate with all
anti-fascists and all democratic forces to achieve these great objectives.
Preamble to the Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States
OF America
The Communist Party of the United States is the political party of the Amer-
ican working class, basing itself upon the principles of scientific socialism,
Marxism-Leninism. It champions the immediate and fundamental interests of
the workers, farmers and all who labor by hand and brain against capitalist
exploitation and oppression. As the advanced party of the working class, it
stands in the forefront of this struggle.
The Communist Party upholds the achievements of American democracy and
defends the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights against its re-
actionary enemies who would destroy democracy and popular liberties. It un-
compromisingly fights against imperialism and colonial oppression, against racial,
national and" religious discrimination, against Jim Crowism, anti-Semitism and
all forms of chauvinism.
The Communist Party struggles for the complete destruction of fascism and
for a durable peace. It seeks to safeguard the welfare of the people and the
nation, recognizing that the working class, through its trade unions and by its
independent political action, is the most consistent fighter for democracy, national
freedom and social progress.
The Communist Party holds as a basic principle that there is an identity ot
interest which serves as a common bond uniting the workers of all lands. It
recognizes fnrther that the true national interests of our country and the cause
of peace and progress require the solidarity of all freedom-loving peoples and the
continued and ever closer cooperation of the United Nations.
The Communist Party recognizes that the final abolition of exploitation and
oppression, of economic crises and unemployment, of reaction and war, will be
achieved only by the socialist reorganization of society— by the common ownership
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 89
and operation of the national economy under a government of the people led by
rhe \v(>rkin;r class.
The Connnunist Party, therefore, educates the working class, in the course of
its day-to-day struggles, for its historic mission, the estahlisliment of Socialism.
Socialism, tlie higliest form of democracy, will guarantee tiie full realization of
the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and will turn the achieve-
ments of labor, science and culture to the use and enjoyment of all men and
women.
In the struggle for democracy, peace and social progress, the Communist Party
carries forward the democratic traditions of Jefferson, Paine, Lincoln and
Frederick Douglass, and the great working class traditions of Svlvis, Debs and
Ruthenlier.g It tigiits side by side with all who .loin in this cause.
For tlie advancement of these principles, tlie Communist Party of the United
States of America establishes the basic laws of its organization in the following
Constitution :
THE SCHNEIDERMAN CASE
United States Supreme Court Opinion
With an introduction by Carol King
INTRODUCTION
The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the ease of William
Schneiderman is a landmark in the development of American constitutional
history. The issues at stake in this case transcend the status of any one political
party or tiie rights of any one individual. The issues involve the political liberty
of all parties and of all Americans — our freedom to think as we see fit. The
Court ruled in favor of the people.
In this introduction I can do more than highlight a few of the issues decided.
A thorough reading and study of the Court's opinion as well as the concurring
opinions is essential to any complete understanding of their significance.
This is not only an important Court decision. It is a great political document.
It reflects a continuing adherence to the principles of democratic thought from
earlier political dociunents on which our countiy was founded. It represents a
growth and development of those principles.
The law reviews will undoubtedly publish long theoretical discussions of the
significance of Justice Murphy's opinion (concurred in by .lustices Black, Reed,
Douglas and Rutledge). But to the man in the street — and to the future of our
democracy — its significance is quite clear. It is crystallized in one sentence of
the Court's opinion :
"The constitutional fathers, fresh from a revolution, did not forge a political
.straight-jacket for the generations to come."
Tlie views expressed in Justice Murphy's opinion — which are now the official
views of our highest court — constitute a powerful weapon to prevent any straight-
jacket from being imposed upon the political activity or minds of the American
people.
Most citizens of the United States are not Communists. They are Refublican.s
or Democrats. The rights upheld by this decision are not the rights of Com-
munists alone, but of all Americans of whatever political faith. The decision has
secured, to quote the words of Justice Murpliy, "the blessings of liberty in thought
and action to all those upon whom the right of American citizen.ship has been
conferred by the statute, as well as to the native born." Justice Murphy went
on to say :
". . . we should not overlook the fact that we are a heterogeneous people. In
some of our larger cities a majority of the school children are the offspring of
parents only one generation, if that far, removed from the steerage of the immi-
grant ship, children of those who sought refuge in the new world from the cruelty
and oppression of the ohl, where men have been burned at the stake, imprisoned,
and driven into exile in countless numbers for their political and religious beliefs.
Here they have hoped to achieve a political status as citizens in a free world in
which men are privileged to think and act and speak according to their convictions,
without fear of punishment or furtlier exile so long as they keep the peace and
obey the law."
90 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
The opinion of the Supreme Coui't in the Schneiderman case helps to assnre all
Americans, naturalized no less than native born, "a political status as citizens
in a free world."
Justice Rutledge, in his concurring opinion, made an extremely important contri-
bution. He wrote, in support of Justice Murphy :
"It may be doubted that the framers of tlie Constitution intended to create two
classes of citizens, one free and independent, one haltered with a lifetime string-
tied to its status."
The attempt to revoke the citizenship of W^illiam Schneiderman made natural-
ized citizens uneasy. The security of their naturalization and their rights as
citizens was at stake. Foreign-born Americans were threatened with being
relegated to the status of second-class citizens. The rights of native-born citizens
were equally in danger, since freedom of thought and political affiliation were in
jeopardy.
It has been deemed not necessary to include in this pamphlet the dissenting
opinion of Chief Justice Stone (concurring in by Justices Roberts and Frank-
furter). Chief Justice Stone held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain
the ruling of the lower courts, which was consequently binding on the Supreme
Court "even though, sitting as trial judges, we might have made some other
finding."
Great credit is due Wenwell L. AVillkie for his fearless and brilliant defense
in the Supreme Court not only of the citizenship and political rights of William
Schneiderman, but of the citizenship and political rights of all the American
people. The American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born may also be
proud, and should be congratulated, for its part in securing this victory.
The American Committee was the only organization that filed a brief amicus
asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the lower courts ordering
Schneiderman's citizenship canceled. It was the only organization that filed a
brief amicus on the final argument before the Supreme Court. It is fitting that
the American Committee should publish the opinion which it helped to secure.
The decision of the Supreme Court was made at a time when the whole world
is at war. The Court's opinion is guided by the principles of freedom which
are at stake in this war. Letters I have received from soldiers tell me that
it has served to encourage them and bolster their morale. It represents one
victorious battle in the total war which must be w^aged until final victory is
won against fascism and oppression both at liome and abroad.
CAROL KING.
July 15, 1943
New York, N. Y.
PRESS COMMENTS ON MR. WILLKIE'S POSITION
The decision of Mr. Willkie to argue the appeal for Mr. Schneiderman became
known yesterday when it was learned that Carol King, chief counsel for the
Communist secretary, had requested Mr. Willkie to represent her client before
the Supreme Court. Questioned late yesterday afternoon, Mrs. King confirmed
this request and said that the 1940 Republican Presidential candidate had accepted
her invitation.
Later in the day Mr. Willkie, reached by telephone at his law offices, said
that he had agreed to argue tlie Schneiderman appeal before the Supreme Court.
He declared that he considered the case "a vital test case" and one that might
possibly affect every naturalized American citizen. He said he would represent
Mr. Schneiderman without fee.
While Mr. Willkie declined to discuss the case pending its hearing in Washing-
ton some time in January, it is known that he agreed to take it because he firmly
believed that the decisions of the two lower Federal courts seriously threatened
constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of their political
beliefs.
It is expected that conservative and isolationist groups throughout the country
Will bitterly assail Mr. WMUkle for representing the Communist leader before
the Supreme Court, but it is known that Mr. Willkie is of the opinion that what
be believes is the fundamental principle involved in the case far transcends any
of these nossible attacks.
He is known to feel that despite the fact that Mr. Schneiderman is an admitted
member of the Communist Party, the individual liberties of an American citizen,
and not the Communist Party, will be on trial during the appeal. If the Supreme
X
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 91
Court upholds the decision of tlie iowei* courts, Mr. Willkie believes that a dan-
gerous and decideilly un-American precedent will have been set that would permit
court reviews of the citizenship of all naturalized Americans. Such a step, Mr.
Willkie is said to believe, would be contrary to all the principles of the American
way of life and would cast a doubt on every naturalized citizen. — New York Times,
.November 29, 1941.
BROADCAST THIS TO GOEBBEtS
Two days asjo Wendell Willkie, defeated Presidential candidate of the so-called
conservative party, stood before our highest court to plead the case of a Com-
munist. It was not an instance of a lawyer obligated by legal ethics to defend a
client. Mr. Willkie accepted the case without fee because he believed that an
injustice was being done which violated our democratic concept of government.
The merits of the case remain to be decided ; but Mr. Willkie, for his action,
deserves the thanks of all Americans. — Editorial, New York Times, November 11,
1942.
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 2— October Term, 1942.
William Schneiderman, Petitioner, vs. The United States of America.
ON WRIT OF CETIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT.
[June 21, 1943]
Mr. Justice Murphy delivered the opinion of the Court.
We brought this case here on ceritorari, 314 U. S. 597, because of its importance
and its possible relation to freedom of thought. The question is whether the
naturalization of petitioner, an admitted member of the Communist Party of the
United States, was properly set aside by the courts below some twelve years after
it was granted. We agree with our brethren of the minority that our relations
with Russia, as well as our views regarding its government and the merits of
Communism are immaterial to a decision of this case. Our concern is with what
Congress meant by certain statutes and whether the Government has proved
its case under them.
While it our high duty to carry out the will of Congress , in the performance of
this duty we should have a jealous regard for the rights of petitioner. We
should let our judgment be guided so far as the law permits by the spirit of
freedom and tolerance in which our nation was founded, and by a desire to secure
the blessings of liberty in thought and action to all those upon whom the right
of American citizenship has been conferred by statute, as well as to the native
born. And we certainly should presume that Congress was motivated by these
lofty principles.
We are directly concerned only with the rights of this petitioner and the cir-
cumstances surrounding his naturalization, but we should not overlook the fact
that we are a heterogeneous people. In some of our larger cities a majority of
the school children are the offspring of parents only one generation, if that far,
removed from the steerage of the immigrant ship, children of those who sought
refu.ge in the new world from the cruelty and oppression of the old, where men
have been burned at the stake, imprisoned, and driven into exile in countless
numbers for their political and i-eligious beliefs. Here they have hoped to
achieve a i^olitical status as citizens in a free world in which men are privileged
to think and act and speak according to their convictions, without fear of punish-
ment or further exile no long as they keep the peace and obey the law.
This proceeding was begun on June 30, 1939, under the provisions of § 15 of
the Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 5D6. to cancel petitioner's certificate of citizen-
ship granted in 1927. This section gives the United States the right and the duty
to set aside and cancel certificates of citizenship on the ground of "fraud" or on
92 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
the ground that they were "illegally procured." * The complaint charged that
the certiticate had been illegally procured in that petitioner was not, at the time
of his naturalization, and during the five years preceding his naturalization
"had not behaved as, a person attached to the principles of the Constitution
of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness
of the United States,^ but in truth and in fact during all of said times,
respondent [petitioner] was a member of and affiliated with and believed in and
supported the principles of certain organizations then known as the Workers
(Communist) Party of America and the Young Workers (Communist) League of
America, whose principles were opposed to the principles of the Constitution of
the United States and advised, advocated and taught the overthrow of the Gov-
ernment, Constitution and laws of the United States by force and violence." The
complaint also charged fraudulent procurement in that petitioer concealed his
Communist affiliation from the naturalization court. The Government proceeds
here not upon the charge of fraud but upon the charge of illegal procurement.
This is not a naturalization proceeding in which the Government is being asked
to confer the privilege of citizenship upon an applicant. Instead the Govern-
ment seeks to turn the clock back twelve years after full citizensliip was con-
ferred upon petitioner by a judicial decree, and to deprive him of the priceless
benefits that derive from that status. In its consequences it is more serious than
a taking of one's property, or the imposition of a fine or other .penalty. For it is
safe to assert that nowhere in the world today is the right of citizenship of
greater worth to an individual than it is in this country. It would be difficult
to exaggerate its value and importance. By many it is regarded as the highest
hope of civilized men. This does not mean that once granted to an alien,
citizenship cannot be revoked or cancelled on legal grounds. But such a right
once conferred should not be taken away without the clearest sort of justifica-
tion and proof. So, whatever may be the rule in a naturalization proceeding (see
United States v. Manzi, 276 U. S. 463, 467), in an action instituted under § 15 for
the purpose of depriving one of the precious right of citizenship previously con-
ferred we believe the facts and the law should be construed as far as is reason-
ably possible in favor of the citizen. Especially is this so when the attack is
made long after the time when the certificate of citizenship was granted and the
citizen has meanwhile met his obligations and has committed no act of lawless-
ness. It is not denied that the burden of proof is on the Government in this
case. For reasons presently to be stated this burden must be met with evijlence
of a clear and convincing character that when citizenship was conferred upon
petitioner in 1927 it was not done in accordance with strict legal requirements.
We are dealing here with a court decree entered after an opportunity to be
heard. At the time petitioner secured his certificate of citizenship from the
federal district court for the Southern District of California notice of the filing
of the naturalization petition was required to be given ninety days before the
petition was acted on (§5 of the Act of 1906), the hearing on the petition was
to take place in open court (§9), and the United States had the right to appear,
to cross-examine petitioner and his witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to
oppose the petition (§11). In acting upon the petition the district court
NOTES
Mr. Justice Murphy
1 At the time this proceeding was started this section read in part as follows :
"It sh;ill he tlie duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts,
or the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Naturalization, upon affidavit showing
good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court having jurisdiction to naturalize
aliens in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of
bringing suit, for the purpose of setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship
on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally
procured . ..." 8 U. S. C. § 405.
This provision is continued in substance by § 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54
Stat. 1137, 1158, 8 U. S. C. S 738.
- Section 4 of the Act of 1900 provided :
"Fourth. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting any
alien to citizenship that immediately preceding the date of his application he has resided
continuously within the United States five years at least, and within the State or Terri-
tory where such court is at the time held one year at least, and that during that time
he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Con-
stitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order ^nd happiness of the
same. In addition to the oath of the apiilicant, the testimoriv of at least two witnesses,
citizens of the United States, as to the facts of residence, moral character, and attachment
to the principles of the Constitution shall be required, and the name, place of residence,
and occupation of each witness shall be set forth in the record." 34 Stat. 598 ; 8 U. S. O.
§ 382.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 93
exercised the judicial power conferred by Article III of the Constitution, and
the Governnieut had the ri^lit to appeal from the decision granting naturaliza-
tion. Tittiiii V. Initcd States. 270 U. S. 508. The record before us does not
reveal the circumstances under which petitioner was naturalized except that
it took place in open court. We do not know whether or not the Government
exercised its right to appear and to appeal. Wliether it did or not, the hard
fact remains that we are here re-examining a judgment, and the rights solemnly
conferred under it.
This is the first case to come before us in whicli the Government has sought
to set aside a decree of naturalization years after it was granted on a chai'ge
that the finding of attachment was errtmeous. Accordingly for tlie iirst time
we have had to consider the nature and scope of the Government's right in a
denaturalization proceeding to re-examine a finding and judgment of attachment
upon a charge of illegal prociu-ement. Because of the view we take of this
case we do not reach, and therefore do not consider, two questions whidi have
been raised concerning the scope of that right.
The first question is whether, aside from grounds such as lack of juiisdiction
or the kind of fraud which traditionally vitiates judgnients, ct. United States v.
Throrlannrton. 98 U. S. Gl ; Kihhc v. Benson, 17 Wall. 624, Congress can con-
stitutionally attach to the exercise of the judicial power under Article III of the
Constitution, authority to re-examine a judt.:ment granting a certificate of citizen-
ship after that judgment has become final by exhaustion of the appellate process
or by a failure to invoke it.'
The second question is whether under the Act of 1906 as it was in 1927 the
Government, in the absence of a claim of fraud and relying wholly upon a charge
of illegal procurement, can secure a dc novo re-examination of a naturalization
court's finding and judgment that an applicant for citizenship was attached
to the principles of the Constitution.
We do not consider these questions. For though we assume, without deciding,
that in the absence of fraud a certificate of naturalization can be set aside
under § 15 as "illegally procured" because the finding as to attachment would
later seem to be erroneous, we are of the opinion that this judgment sliould be
reversed. If a finding of attachment can be so reconsidered in a denaturaliza-
tion suit, our decisions make it plain that the Government needs more than a
hare preponderance of the evidence to prevail. The remed.v afforded the Govern-
ment by the denaturalization statute has been said to be a narrower one than
that of direct appeal from the granting of a petition. Tutun v. United States,
270 U. S. 5»i8. 579; cf. United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319, 325. Johannessen v.
Ujtited States states that a certificate of citizenship is "an instrument granting
political privileges, and open lilve other public grants to he revoked if and when
it sliall be found to have been unlawfully or fraudulently procured. It is in
this respect clo.sely aualo:;ous to a public grant of land, . . ." 225 U. S. 227, 238.
.See also Tutun v. United States, supra. To set aside sucli a grant tlie evidence
must be "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" — "it cannot be done upon a bare
preponderance of evidence which leaves the issue in doubt". Maxwell Land-
Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325, 381: United States v. Snn Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S.
278, 3(X): cf. United States v. Rcjvin, 12 F. 2d 942, 944. See Wigmore, Evidence,
(3d Ed.) §2498. This is so because rights once conferred should not be lightly
revoked. And more especially is this true when the riglits are precious and
when they are conferred bv solemn adjudication, as is the situation when
citizenship is granted. The Government's evidence in this case does not measure
up to this exacting standard.
Cei-fain facts are luidisputed. Petitioner came to this country fi-om Russia
in 1907 or 1908 when he was approximately three. In 1922, at the age of sixteen,
he became a charter member of the Young Workers (now Communist) League
in Los Angeles and remained a member until 1929 or 1930. In 1924, at the age of
eigliteen. he tiled his declaration of intention to become a citizen. Later in the
same year or eaily in 1925 he became a member of the Workers Party, the prede-
cessor of the Comnnmist Party of the United States. That membership has
continued to the present. His petition for naturalization was filed on January
3 Since 1790 Congress has coiiforrefl the function of arlniittiuj; aliens to citizenship
exclusively upon tlie courts. In exercising their authority unrter this mandate tlie ferter.al
courts are exercising the iutlicial power of tlie t'niteil States, conferred upon them hv
Article III of the Constitution. Tutun v. United States. 270 U. S. 568. For this reason
it has been suggested that a decree of naturalization, even tliough the United States does
not appear, cannot be compared (as was done in .lohannessen r. United States, 225 U. S.
227. 2."??) to an administrative grant of land or of letters patent for invention, and
that the permissible area of reexamination is different in the two situations.
94 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
18, 1927, and hits certificate of citizenshp was issued on June 10, 1927, by the
United States District Court for tlie Southern District of California. He had not
been arrested or subjected to censure prior to 1927,^ and there is nothing in the
record indicating that he was ever connected with any overt illegal or violent
action or with any disturbance of any sort.
For its case the United States called petitioner, one Humphreys, a former
member of the Communist Party, and one Hynes, a Los Angeles police officer
formerly in charge of the radical squad, as witnesses, and introduced in evidence a
number of documents. Petitioner testified on his own behalf, introduced some
documentary evidence, and read into the record transcripts of the testimony of
two university professors given in another proceeding.
Petitioner testified to the following : As a boy he lived in Los Angeles in
poverty-stricken circumstances and joined the Young Workers League to study
what the principles of Communism had to say about the conditions of society.
He considered hiis membership and activities in the League and the Party during
the five-year period between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, before lie was
naturalized, as an attempt to investigate and study the causes and reasons behind
social and economic conditions. Meanwhile he was working his way through
night high school and college. From 1922 to about 1925 he was "educational
director'" of the League. The duties of this non-salaried position were to organize
classes, open to the public, for the study of Marxist theory, to register students
and to send out notices for meetings ; petitioner did no teaching. During 1925
and 1926 he was corresponding secretary of the Party in Los Angeles ; this was a
clerical, not an executive position. In 192S he became an organizer or ofiicial
spokesman for the League. His first executive position with the Party came in
1930 when he was made an organizwtional secretary first in California, then in
Connecticut, and later in Minnesota where he was the Communist Party candidate
for governor in 1932. Since 1934 lie has been a member of the party's National
Committee. At present he is secretary of the party in California.
Petitioner testified further that during all the time he has belonged to the
league and the party he has subscribed to the principles of those organizations.
He stated that he "believed in the essential correctness of the Marx theory as
applied by the Communist Party of the United States," that he subscribed "to the
philosophy and principles of Socialism as manifested in the writings of Linen,"
and that his understanding and interpretation of the program, iirinciples, and
pi'actice of the party since he joined "were and are essentially the same as those
enunciated" in the party's 1938 constitution. He denied the chargeis of the
complaint and specifically denied that he or the party advocated the overthrow
of the Government of the United States by force and violence, and that he was
not attached to the principles of the Constitution. He considered membership in
the party compatible with the obligations of American citizenship. He stated
that he believed in retention of personal property for personal use but advocated
social ownership of the means of production and exchange, with compensation
to the owners. He believed and hoped that socialization could be achieved here by
democratic processes, but history showed that the ruling minority has always
used force against the majority before surrendering power. By dictatorship of
the proletariat, petitioner meant that the "majority of the people shall really
direct their own destinies and use the instrument of the state for these truly
democratic ends." He stated that he would bear arms against his native Russia
if necessary.
Humphreys testified that he had been a member of the Communist Party and
understood he was expelled because he refused to take orders from petitioner.
He had been taught that present forms of government would have to be abolished
"through the dictatorship of the proletariat" which would be established by "a
revolutionary process." He asserted that the program of the party was the
socialization of all property without compensation. With regard to the advocacy
of force and violence he said : "the Comnmnist Party took the defensive, and put
the first users of force upon the capitalistic government ; they claimed that the
capitalistic government would resist the establishment of the Soviet system,
thi-ough force and violence, and that the working class would be justified in using
force and violence to establish the Soviet system of society."
Hynes testified that he had been a member of the party for eight months in
1922. He stated that the Communist method of bringing about a change in the
form of government is one of force and violence; he based this statement upon:
"knowledge I have gained as a member in 1922 and from what further knowledge
* Thp record contains nothing to indicate that the same is not true for the period
after 1927.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 95 '
I have gained from ivading various official imhlioatioiis, piiblishwl and circulated
by the Connnunist Tarty and froni observation and actual contact with the
activities of the Coninuinist Party ...'"' On ci-oss examination Ilynes admitted
that he never attempted a philosophic analysis ol' the literature he read, but
only read it to secure evidence, reading and underscoring those portions which,
in his opinion, "had to do with foi'ce or violence or overtlirowing of this system
of government other than by hiwful means provided in the Constitution." He
testified tliat he nev(>r saw any behavior on petitioner's part that brought him
into conflict with any law.
The testimony of the two professors discussed Marxian tlieory as evidenced
by the writings of Marx. Engels and I.enin, and concluded that it did not advo-
cate the use of force and violence as a method of attaining its objective.
In its written opinion the district court held that petitioner's certificate of
naturalization was illegally procured because the organizations to which peti-
tioner belonged were opposed to the principles of the Constitution and advised,
taught and advocated the overthrow of the Government by force and violence,
and therefore petitioner, "by reason of his membership in such organizations and
participation in theii- activities, was not 'attached to the jtrinciples of the Con-
stitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness
of the Siime'." 38 F. Supp. .JlO, 513.
The district court also made purported fiii'lings of facts to the effect that peti-
tioner was not attached to the principles of the Constitution and well disposed
to the good order and ha])piness of the same, and was a disbeliever in organiz3d
government, that he fraudulently concealed his membership in the League and
the Party from the naturalization court, and that his oath of allegiance was
false. The conclusion of law was that the certificate was illegally and fraudu-
lently procured. The pertinent findings of fact on these points, set forth in the
margin," are but the most general conclusions of ultimate fact. It is impossible
s For a discussion of the adequacy of somewhat similar testimony by Hynes see Ex parte
Fierstein. 41 F. 2d 53.
6 jy '-xhe Court finds that it is true that said decree and certificate of naturalization
were illegally procured and obtained in this : That respondent [petitioner] was not, at
the time of "his naturalization by said Court, and during the period of five years imme-
diately preceding the filing of his petition for naturalization had not behaved as. a person
attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to
the good order and happiness of the same.
"The Court finds that it is not true that at the time of the filing of his petition for
naturalization respondent was not a disbeliever in or opposed to organized government
or a member of or affiliated with any organization or body of persons teaching disbelief
in or opposed to organized government.
"The Court finds that in truth and in fact during all of said times respondent had not
behaved as a man attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and
■well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same, but was a member of and
affiliated with and believed in and supported the principles of certain organizations
known as the Workers Party of America, the Workers (Communist) Party of America,
the Comnninist Party of the United States of America, the Young Workers League of
America, the Young Workers (Communist) League of America and the Young Communist
League of America, which organizations were, and each of them was, at all times herein
mentioned, a section of the Third International, the principles of all of which said organiza-
tions were opposed to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and advised,
advocated, and taught the overthrow of the Government, Constitution and laws of the
United States by force and violence and taught disbelief in and opposition to organized
government.
V. "The Court further finds that during all of said times the respondent has been and
now is a member of said organizations and has continued to believe in, advocate and
Btipport the said princii)les of said organizations."
YL (The substance of this finding is that petitioner fraudulently concealed his Com-
munist affiliation from the naturalization court. It is not set forth because it is not an
Issue here) {See Note 7, infra.)
YII. "The court further finds that it is true that said decree and certificate of naturaliza-
tion were illegally and fraudulently procured and obtained in this : That before respondent
(petitioner! was admitted to citizenship as aforesaid, he declared on oath in open court
that he would support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and
entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelit.v to any for<>ign i)rince, potentate,
Btate, or sovereignty, and that he would support and defend the Constitution and laws
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and
allegiance to the same, whereas in truth and in fact, at the time of making such declara-
tions on oath in open court, respondent [i)etitionerl did not intend to support the Con-
stitution of the United States, and did not intend al)solutely and entirely to renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty,
and did not intend to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and/or to bear true faith and allegiance to the
same, but respondent at said time intended to and did maintain allegiance and fidelity
to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to the said Third International, and in-
tended to adhere to and sunport and defend and advocate the principles of teachings of
said Third International, which nrinciples and teachincs were opposed to the principles of
the Constitution of the United States and advised, advocated and taught the overthrow
of the Government, Constitution and laws of the United States by force and violence."
83078 — 46 7
96 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
to tell from them upon what imdei-lying facts the court relied, and whether
proper statutory standards were observed. If it were not rendered unneceis-
sary by the broad view we take of this case, we would be inclined to reverse
and remand to the district court for the purpose of making adequate findings.
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the certificate was
illegally procured, holding that the finding that petitioner's oath was false was
not "clearly erroneous". 119' F. 2d 500.' We granted certiorari, and after having
heard argument and reargument, now reverse the judgments below.
The Constitution authorizes Congress "to establish an uniform rule of naturali-
zation" (Art I, § 8, cl. 4), and we may assume that naturalization is a privilege,
to be given or withheld on such conditions as Congress sees fit. Cf. United States
V. Macintosh, 2S3 U. S. G05, 615, and the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice
Hughes, ibid, at p. (J27. See also Tiitun v. United States, 270 U. S. 563, 578; Tur-
ner V. Willimns, 194 U. S. 279. But because of our firmly rooteid tradition of
freedom of belief, we certainly will not presume in construing the naturalization
and denaturalization acts that Congress meant to circumscribe liberty of political
thought by general phrases in those statutes. As Chief Justice Hughes said in
dissent in the Macintosh case, such general phrases "should be construed, not in
opposition to, but in accord with, the theory and practice of our Government in
relation to freedom of conscience." 283 U. S. at 635. See also Holmes, J., dis-
senting in United States v. Schiviimner, 279 U. S. 644, 653-55.
When petitioner was naturalized in 1927, the applicable statutes did not pro-
scribe communist beliefs or affiliation as such.^ They did forbid the naturaliza-
tion of disbelievers in organized government or members of organizations teach-
ing such disbelief. Polygamists and advocates of political assassination wei'e
also barred." Applicants for citizenship were required to take an oath to sup-
port the Constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same and the laws
of the United States, and to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince, poten-
tate, state or sovereignty.'" And, it was to "be made to appear to the 'Satisfaction
of the court" of naturalization that immediately precetling the' application, the
applicant "has resided continuously within the United States five years at least,
. . . and that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character,
attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well dis-
I)osed to the good order and happiness of the same." " Whether petitioner satis-
fied this last requirement is the crucial issue in this case.
To apply the statutory requirement of attachment correctly to the proof ad-
duced, it is necessary to ascertain its meaning. On its face the statutory cri-
terion is not attachment to the Constitution, but behavior for a period of five years
as a man attached to its principles and well disposed to the good order and
happiness of the United States. Since the -normal connotation of behavior
is conduct, there is something to be said for the proposition that the 1906 Act
created a purely objective qualification, limiting inquiry to an applicant's pre-
vious conduct.'" If this objective standard is the requirement, petitioner satis-
' That court said it was unnecessary to consider the charge of fraudulent procurement
by concealment of petitioner's Communist afflliation. The Government has not pressed
this charge here, and we do not consider it.
* The Nationality Act of 1940, while enlarging the category of beliefs disqualifying per-
sons thereafter applying for citizenship, does not in terms make communist beliefs or
afflliation grounds for refusal of naturalization, § 305, 54 Stat. 1137, 1141 ; 8 U. S. C. § 705.
Bills to write a definition of "communist" into the Immigration and Deportation Act
of 1918 as amended (40 Stat. 1012, 41 Stat. 1008) and to provide for the deportation of
"communists" failed to pass Congress in 1932 and again in 1935. See H. R. 12044,
H. Rep. No. 1353, S. Rep. No. 808. 75 Cong. Rec. 12097-108, 72d Cong., 1st Sess. See
also H. R. 7120, H. Rep. No. 1023, pts. 1 and 2, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.
» Section 7 of Act of June 26, 1906. 8 U. S. C. § 364.
« Section 4 of Act of June 26, 1906, 8 U. S. C. § 381.
" Section 4 of Act of June 26, 1906, 8 U. S. C. § 382.
^ The legislative history of the phrase gives some support to this view. The behavior
requirement first appeared in the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1 Stat. 414, which was
designed to tighten the Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 103. The discursive debates on the 1975
Act cast little light upon the meaning of "behaved," but indicate that the nurpose of the
requirement was to provide a probationary period during which aliens could learn of our
Constitutional plan. Some members were disturbed by the political ferment of the age
and spoke accordingly, while others regarded the United States as an asylum for the
oppressed and mistrusted efforts to probe minds for beliefs. It is perhaps significant
that the oath, which was adonted over the protest of Madison, the snonsor of the biu,
did not require the applicant to swear that he was attached to the Constitution, but only
that he would support it. See 4 Annals of Congress, pp. 1004-09, 1021-23, 1026-27.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 97
fiecl the statute. His conduct has been law abiding in all respects. According tc
the record lie has never been arrested, or connected with any disorder, and not a
single written or spoken statement of his, during the relevant period from 1922
to 19-7 or thereafter, advocating violent overthrow of the (iovernment, or indeed
even a statement, apart from his testimony in this proceeding, that he desired
any change in the Constitution has been produced. The sole possible criticism
is i)etitioner's membership and activity in the League and the Party, but those
memberships qua memberships, were immaterial under the 1906 Act.
In United iStatcs v. Schwiiiniicr, 279 U. S. 644, and United States v. Macintosh,
283 U. S. G05, however, it was held that the statute created a test of belief —
that an applicant under the I'JOG Act. must not only behave as a man attached
to the principles of the Constitution, but must be so attached in fact at the time
of naturalization. We do not stop to reexamine this construction for even if it
is accepted the result is not changed. As mentioned before, we agree with the
statement of Chief Justice Hughes in dissent in Macintosh's case that the be-
havior requirement is "a general phrase which should be construed, not in
opposition to, but in accord with, the theory and practice of our Government
in relation to freedom of conscience." 283 U. S. at 635. See also the dissenting:
opinion of Justice Holmes in the Schivimmcr case, supra, 653-55. As pointed
out before, this is a denaturalization proceeding, and it is a judgment, not merely
a claim or a grant, which is being attacked. Assuming as we liave that the
United States is entitled to attack a finding of attachment upon a charge of"
illegality, it must sustain the heavy burden which then rests upon it to prove
lack of attachment by "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" evidence which does-
not leave the issue in doubt. When the attachment requirement is construed
as indicated above, we do not think the Government has carried its burden of
proof.
The claim that petitioner was not in fact attached to the Constitution and
well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time
of his naturalization and for the previous five year period is twofold : First, that
he believed in such sweeping changes in the Constitution that he simply could
not be attached to it ; Second, that he believed in and advocated the overthrow
by force and violence of the Government, Constitution and laws of the United
States.
In support of its position that petitioner was not in fact attached to the prin-
ciples of the Constitution because of his membership in the League and the Party,
the Government has directed our attention first to petitioner's testimony that he
subscribed to the principles of those organizations, and then to certain alleged
Party principles and statements by Party Leaders which are said to be funda-
mentally at variance with the principles of the Constitution. At this point it is
appropriate to mention what will be more fully developed later — that under
our traditions beliefs are personal and not a matter of mere association, and
that men in adhering to a political party or other organization notoriously da
not subscribe unqualifiedly to all of its platforms or asserted principles. Said
to be among those Conuuunist principles in 1927 are: the abolition of private-
property without compensation ; the erection of a new proletarian state upon
the ruins of the old bourgeois state; the ci-eation of a dictatorship of the
1030-58, 1062. 1064-66. See also Franklin, Legislative History of Naturalization in the
United States (1906), Chapter IV.
The behavior requirement was reenacted in 1802 (2 Stat. 1.53) at the recommendation;
of Jefferson for the repeal of the strinscut Act of 1798, 1 Stat. .566. See Franklin, op cit..
Chapter VI. It continued unchanged until the Act of 1906 which for the first time
imported the test of present belief into the naturalization laws when it provided in
§ 7 that disbelievers in organized government and polygamists could not become citizens.
The continuation of the behavior test for attachment is some indication that a less search-
ing examination was intended in this field — that conduct and. not belief (other than
anarchist or polygamist) was the criterion. The Nationality Act of 1940 changed the
liehavior requirement to a provision that no person could l)e' naturalized unless lie "has
been and still is a person of good moral character, attadied to the principles of the
Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the
United States." 54 Stat. 1142, 8 U. S. C. § 707. The Report of the President's Committee
to Revise the Nationality Laws (1939) indicates this change in language was not regarued
as a change in substance, p. 23. The Congressional committee reports are silent on the
question. The sponsors of the Act in the House, however, declared irenerallv an intent
to tighten and restrict the naturalization laws. See 86 Cong. Rec. 11939, 11942 1194r,.
11949. The chairman of the sub-committee who had charge of the hill stated that "sub-
stantive changes are necessary in connection with certain rights, with a view to prevent-
ing persons who have no real attachment to the United States from enjoying the hitrh
privilege of American nationality." 86 Cong. Rec. 11948. This remark suggests that
the change from "behaved as a man attached" to "has been and still is a person. attache**'-''
was a change in meaning.
98 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
proletariat; denial of political rights to others than members of the Party or
mpn?.f H™lf '""^^ '*"*^"'^ creation of a world union of soviet republics. State-
ments that. American democracy "is a fraud" '' and that the purposes of the
fno%tl[^J!l7^ antagonistic to the purposes for which the American democracy,
so called, was formed," " are stressed.
tnSf!fff^'""''?^''i' •''"'^ '■'f'^''* '^''^ "•'^ generally accepted-iu fact they are dis-
tasteful to most of us-and they call for considerable change in our present form
of government and society. But we do not think the government his car -ied iS
burden o± proving by evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt that peti
dSoserToThV" 'T ',"'"''^"1 1" '''' principles of the Constitution and well
nSm-alized in 19-^r ' ^^^^PP'^e^^ ^^ the United States when he was
The const! t^utional fathers, fresh from a revolution, did not forge a political
.-strait-jacket tor the generations to coine.'^ Instead they wrote Article V and the
±irst Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of thought, soon followed Article V
contains procedurual provisions for constitutional changes by amendment with-
<out any present limitatit)n whatsoever except that no State may be deprived
of equal representation in the Senate without its consent. Cf. National ProhiU-
tion Cases, 253 U. S. 850. This provision and the many important and far-
reaching changes made in the Constitution since 1787 refute the idea that attach-
ment to afiy particular provision or provisions is essential, or that one who
advocates radical changes is necessarily not attached to the Constitution. United
States V. Borin, 12 F. 2d 942. gi^-tS.^" As Justice Holmes said, "Surely it
cannot show lack of attachment to the principles of the Constitution that [one]
thinks it can be improved." United States v. Sehwinimer, supra ( dissent). -
Criticism of, and the sincerity of desires to improve the Constitution should not
be judged by conformity to prevailing thought because, "if there is any principle
of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other
it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with
us, but freedom for the thought that we hate." Id. See also Chief Justice
Hughes dissenting in United States v. Macintosh, supra, p. G35. Whatever atti-
tude we may individually hold toward persons and organizations that believe in
or advocate extensive changes in our existing order, it should be our desire and
^3 Program and Constintion of the Workers Party (1921-24).
''* Acceptance spoech of William Z. Foster, the Party's nominee for the presidency in 1928.
^^ Writing in 1816 Jefferson said: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious
reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what
they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well ; I belonged to it, and lal)ored with
it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experi-
ence of the present ; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of
bookreading ; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise. from the dead. 1 am
certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I
think moderate imperfections had better be borne with ; because, when once known, we
accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.
But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand and hand with the progress of
the human mind. If that becomes more developed, more enlightened, if any discoveries
are made, any truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might
as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy. as civilized
society to rem.iin as under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Ford, Jefferson's
Writings, vol. X, p. 42.
Compare his First Inaugural Address : "And let us reflect that, having banished from
our land that reliirious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we
have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked,
and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of
the ancient world, during the aironizing spasms of infuriated man, seekinsr throusrh l)lood
and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows
should reach even this distant and peaceful shore ; that this should be more felt and
feared by some and less l)y others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety.
But ever.v difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different
names brethren of the same principle. We are all Repulilicans, we are all Federalists,
// there he any among u.i irho icoiihl iri'ih to difisolve this Union or to cJianfir itx rrniihlican
form, let them fttand Jinrlifiturheil ax monuments of the safety vith vhirh error of opinion
may be tolerated lehcre reason is left free to eomhnt it. I know, indeed, that some honest
men fear that a republican government cannot he stronsr, that this Government is not
stronsr enough : but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment,
abandon a government which has so far kent us free and firm on the theoretic and
Tisionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy
to preserve itself? I trust not." Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
vol. I. p. 310 (emphasis added).
1" See also 18 Cornell Lnw Quarterly 251: Freund, United States r. INIacintosh, A
■Symposium. 26 Illinois Law Review .S75,' ."'.85 : 4(5 Harvard Law Review .32.5.
As a matter of fact one very material change in the Constitution as it stood in 1027
•«-hen petitioner was naturalized has since been effected by the repeal of the Eighteenth
Amendment.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AAIERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 99
concern at all times to uphold the right of free discussion and free thinking to
which we as a people claim jtriniary attachment. To neglect this duty in a
proc«>e(ling in which we are called upon to judge whether a particular individual
has failed to manifest attachment to the Constitution would he ironical indeed.
Our concern is with what Congress meant to be the extent of the area of
allowable thought under the statute. By the very generality of the terms
employed it is evident that Congress intended an elastic test, one which should
uot be circumscribed by attempts at precise delinition. In view of our tradition
of freedom of thought, it is not to be presumed that Congress in the Act of 1906,
or its predecessors of 1705 and 1S02," intended to offer naturalization only to
those whose political views coincide with those considered best by the founders
in 17S7 or by the majority in this country today. Especially is this so since the
language used, posing the general test of "attachment"' is not necessarily suscep-
tible of so repressive a construction.'^ The Government agrees that an alien
'•may think that the laws and the Constitution should be amended in some or
many respects" and still be attached to the principles of the Constitution within
the meaning of the statute. Without discussing the nature and extent of those
permissible changes, the Government insists that an alien must believe in and
sincerely adhere to the "general political philosophy" of the Constitution.'*
Petitioner is said to be opposed to that "political philosophy," the minimum re-
quirements of which are s^t forth in the margin.-" It was argued at the bar
that since Article V contains no limitations, a person can be attached to the
Constitution no matter how extensive the changes are that he desires, so long
as he seeks to achieve his ends within the framework of Article V. But we
need not consider the validity of this extreme position for if the Government's
construction is accepted, it has not carried its burden of proof even under its
own test.
The district court did not state in its findings what principles held by peti-
tioner or by the Communist Party were opposed to the Constitution and indicated
lack of attachment. See Note 6, ante. In its opinion that court merely relied
upon //( re Saralieff, 59 F. 2d 436, and United States v. TopoJesamji, 40 F. 2d
255, without fresh examination of the question in the light of the present record,
33 F. Supp. 510. The Circuit Court of Appeals deduced as Party principles
roughly the same ones which the Government here presses and stated "these-
views are not those of our Constitution." 119 F. 2d at .503-04.
With regard to the Constitutional changes he desired petitioner testified that
he believed in the nationalization of the means of production and exchange with
comi>en.sation, and the preservation and utilization of our "democratic structure
... as far as po.ssible for the advantage of the working classes." He stated
that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to him meant "not a government, but
a state of things" in which the "majority of the people shall really direct their
own destinies and use the instrument of the state for these truly democratic ends."
None of this is necessarily incompatible with the "general political philosophy"
of the Constitution as outlined above by the Government. It is true that the
Fifth Amendment protects private property, even against taking for public use
without comix'nsation. But throughout our history many sincere people whose
attachment to the general constitutional scheme cannot be doubted have, for
various and even divergent reasons, urged dilfering degrees of governmental
ownership and control of natural resources, basic means of production, and
'■ Spp note 12. ante.
'"In lit.38 Congress failert to pass a hill rlenyiiifr natiu'alization to any person "who
bclicvps in any form of jjovprnmpiit for flip Unitpil Statps contrary to that now pxistin?
in tho I'nitpd Statps. or who is a inpnihpr of or affiliated with any organization wliich
advocates any form of frovernment for the United States contrary to that now existing in
the United States." II. R. 96flO. 7.'.th Cone. .Sd Sess.
'» P.rjpf. pp. 10.3-04. Supporting this vipw are In re firiralieff. .5!) F. 2d 4?>6 : Iv re Van
Lnl-rv. 22 F. Snpo. 145; In re fHinnin. 278 Fed. 7.3!). See also Un'ted Sfnteii v.
Tnnolmanni. 40 F. 2d 2.")". ; Ex par'e finiier. 81 Fed. 355 ; United States v. Olsson, 196 Fed.
fir.2. rpvprspd on stipulation. 201 Fed. 1022.
=0 "Ti,,. fppf is . . . wheth'M- he suhstitntp* revolution for evolution, destruction for
construi-tion. whether lie bplievps in an ordprpd society, a irovprnnient of laws, under
whicli the powers of sovernnient are L'ranted by the jipoole hut under a srant which itself
preserves to the in<lividual and to minorities certain ritrlits or freedoms which even the
majority may not take away : wlicUicr. in sum. the events which t>e"an at least no further
linck tlian tlie Declaration of Indenendence, followed by the Revolntionarv War and the
adotition of the Constitution, estahlisli principles with respect to government, the indi-
vidual, the minority and the majority, tiy which ordered liberty is replaced by disorganized
libcrtv." Brief, p. 105.
21 See generally Thorpe, Constitutional History of the United States (19011, vol. Ill,
book V
Compare the effect of the Eighteenth Amendment.
100 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
banks and the media of exchange, either with or without compensation. And
something once regarded as a species of private property was abolished Avithout
compensating the owners when the institution of slavery was forbidden." Can
it be said that the author of the Emancipation Proclamation and the supporters
of the Thirteenth Amendment were not attached to the Constitution? We con-
clude that lack of attachment to the Constitution is not shown on he basis of
the changes which petitioner testified he desired in the Constitution.
Turning now to a seriatim consideration of what the Government asserts are
principles of the Communist Party, which i)etitioner believed and which are
opposed to our Constitution, our conclusion remains the same — the Government
has not proved by "clear, unequivocal and convincing" evidence that the natural-
ization court could not have been satisfied that petitioner was attached to the
principles of the Constitution when he was naturalized.
We have already disposed of the principle of nationalization of the agents of
production and exchange with or without compensation. The erection of a new
proletariat state upon the ruins of the olid bourgeois state, and the creation of a
dictatorship of the proletariat may be considered together. The concept of the
dictatorship of the proletariat is one loosely used, ujoon which more words than
light have been shed. Much argument has been directed as to how it is to be
achieved, but we have been offered no prefise definition here. In the general
sense the term may be taken to describe a state in whicii the workers or the
masses rather than the bourgeoisie or capitalists are the dominant class. Theo-
retically it is control by a class, not a dictatorship in the sense of absolute and
total rule by one individual. So far as the record before us indicates, the con-
cept is a fluid one, capable of adjustment to different conditions in different
countries. These are only meager indications of the form the "dictatorship"
"would take in this country. It does not appear that it would necessarily mean
the end of representative government or the federal system. The Program and
•Constitution of the Workers Party (1921-24) criticized the constitutional system
of checks and balances, the Senate's power to pass on legislation, and the involved
procedure for amending the Constitution, characterizing them as devices designed
to frustrate the will of the majority." The 1928 platform of> the Communist
Party of the United States, adopted after petitioner's naturalization and hence
not strictly relevant, advocated the abolition of the Senate, of the Supreme Court,
and of the veto power of the President, and replacement of congressional districts
with "councils of workers" in which legislative and executive power would be
united. These would indeed be significant changes in our present governmental
structure — changes which it is safe to say are not desired by the majority of the
people in this country — but whatever our personal views, as judges we cannot
say that a person who advocates their adoption through peaceful and constitu-
rtional means is not in fact attached to the Con.stitution — those institutions are
not enumerated as necessary in the Government's test of "General political
philosophy," and it is conceivable that "ordered liberty" could be maintained
■without them. The Senate has not gone free of criticism and one object of
the Seventeenth Amendment was to make it more responsive to the public will.^'
The unicameral legislature is not unknown in the country.^'^ It is true that this
Court has played a large part in the unfolding of the constitutional plan (some-
times too much so in the opinion of some observers), but we would be arrogant
indeed if we presumed that a government of laws, with protection for minority
groups, would me impossible without it. Like other agencies of government, tliis
Court at various times in its existence has not escaped the shafts of critics whose
sincerity and attachment to the Constitution is beyond question — critics who
have accused it of assuming functions of judicial review not intended to be
conferred upon it, or of abusing those functions to thwart the popular will, and
who have advocated various remedies taking a wide range.^'' And it is hardly
conceivable that the consequence of freeing the legislative branch from the
restraint of the executive veto would be the end of constitutional government.^"
Bj' this discussion we certainly do not mean to indicate that we would favor such
22 Petitioner testified that this was never adopted, bnt was merely a draft for study.
23 See Havnes. The Senate of the United States (1938), pp. 11. 96-98, 106-115, 1068-74.
24 Compare Nebraska's experiment with such a body. Nebraska Constitution. Article
III. § 1. See 13 Nebraska Law Bulletin 341. ,. . ^, ^ ,
24a B g the recall of judicial decisions. See Theodore Roosevelt, A. Charter or
Democracy, S. Doc. No. 348,' 62d Cong., 2d Sess. For proposed constitutional amendments
relating to the indiciarv and this Court see H. Doc. No. 353. pt. 2, 54th Cong 2d Sess..
pp. 144-64 ; S. Doc. No. 93, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 8.3, 86, 93, 101, lH, 123, 133
24b For an account of the attacks on the veto power see H. Doc. No. 353, pt. ^, o4tl»
Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 129-34.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 101
changes. Our preference and aversions have no bearing here. Our concern is
with the extent of tlie allowable area of tliought under the statute. We decide
only that it is possible to advocate such changes and still be attaclied to the Con-
stitution witliiu tlie meaning of the Government's minimum test.
If any provisions of the Constitution can be singled out as requiring unquali-
tied attachment, tliey are the guaranties of the Bill of Rights and especially that
of freedom of thouglit contained in the First Amendment. Cf. Justice Holmes'
dissent in United IStatcs v. ticltwimmer, tsupra. We do not reach, however the
question whether petitioner was attaclied to the principles of the Constitution
if he believed in denying ijolitical and ci\il rights to persons not members of the
Party or of the so-called proletariat, for on the basis of the record before us
it has not been clearly shown that such denial was a principle of the organizations
to which petitioner belonged. Since it is doubtful that this was a principle of
those organizations, it is certainly nmch more speculative whether this was part
of petitioner's philosophy. Some of the documents in the record indicate tnat
'•Class enemies" of the proletariat should be deprived of their political rights.*'
Leuiu, however, wrote that this was not necessary to realize the dictatorship
uf ihe uroletariut.-"" The party's WIS platform demanded tiie unrestricted right
to orgiinize, to strike and to picket and the unrestricted right of free speech,
free press and free assemblage lor the working class. The 1928 Program of the
Communist International states that the proletarian State will grant religious
freedom, while at the same time it will carry on antireligious propaganda.
We should not hold that petitioner is not attached to the Constitution by reason
of his possible belief in the creation of some form of world union of soviet repub-
lics unless we are willing so to hold with regard to those who believe in Pan-
Americanism, the" League of Nations, Union Now, or some other form of interna-
tional collaboration or collective security which may grow out of the present
holocaust. A distinction here would be an invidious one based on the fact that
we might agree with or tolerate the latter but dislike or disagree with the former.
If room is allowed, as we think Congress intended, for the free play of ideas,
none of the foregoing principles, which might be held to stand forth with sufhcient
clarity to be imputed to petitioner on the basis of his membership and activity
in the League and the Party and his testimony that he subscribed to the principles
of those organizations, is enough, whatever our opinion as to their merits, to prove
that he was necessarily not atiachtd to the Constitution when he was naturalized.
The cumulative effect is no greater.
Apart from the question whether the alleged principles of the Party which
petitioner assertedly believed were so fundamentally opposed to the Constitution
that he was not attached to its principles in 1927, the Government contends that
petitioner was not attached because he believed in the use of force and violence
instead of peaceful democratic methods to achieve his desires. In support of
this phase of its argument the Government asserts that the organizations with
which petitioner was actively affiliated advised, advocated and taught the over-
throw of the Government, Constitution and laws of the United States by force
and violence, and that petitioner therefore believed in that method of governmental
change.
Apart from his membership in the League and the Party, the record is barren
of any conduct or statement on petitioner's part which indicates in the slightest
that he believed in and advocated the employment of force and violence, instead
of peaceful persuasion, as a means of attaining political ends. To find that he so
believed and advocated it is necessary, therefore, to find that such was a principle
of the organizations to which he belonged and then impute that principle to him
on the basis of his activity in those organizations and his statement that he
subscribed to their principles. The Government frankly concedes that "it is
normally true . . . that it is unsound to impute to an organization the views
expressed in the writings of all its members, or to impute such writings to each
2= ABC of Communism ; Lenin, State and Revolution ; Statutes, Tlieses and Conditions
of Admission to the Communist International; Stalin, Tlieory and Practiice of Leninism;
1928 Program of tlie Communist International.
*" "It should be observed that the question of depriving the exploiters of the franchise
is purely a Kussian question, and not a question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in
general. * * * It would be a mistake, however, to guarantee in advance that the
impending proletarian revolutions in Europe will all, or for the most part, be necessarily
accompanied by the restriction of the franchise for tlie bourgeoisie. Perhaps they will.
After our experience of the war and of the Russian revolution we can say that it will
probably be so ; but it is not absolutely necessary for the purpose of realizing the dictator-
ship, itis not an essential symptom of the logical concept 'dictatorship,' it does not enter
as an essential condition in the historical and class concept 'dictatorship'." **elected
Works, vol. VII, pp. 142-3. (Placed in evidence by petitioner.)
102 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
member . . ." " But the Government contends, however, that it is proper to
impute to petitioner certain excerpts from the documents in evidence upon which
it particularly relies to show that advocacy of force and violence was a principle
of the Communist Party of the United States in 1927, because those documents
were official publications carefully supervised by the Party, because of the Party's
notorious discipline over its members, and because petitioner was not a mere
"rank and file or accidental member of the Party," but "an intelligent and educated
individual" who "became a leader of these organizations as an intellectual
revolutionary." ^^ Since the immediate problem is the determination with cer-
tainty of petitioner's beliefs from 1922 to 1C27, events and writings since that time
have little relevance, and both parties have attempted to confine themselves
within the limits of that critical period.
For some time the question whether advocacy of governmental overthrow by
force and violence is a principle of the Communist Party of the United States
has perplexed courts, administrators, legislatures, and students. On varying
records in deportation proceedings some courts have held that administrative
findings that the Party did so advocate were not so wanting in evidential support
as to amount to a denial of due process,^^ others have held to the contrary on
different ^-ecords,^" and some seem to have taken the position that they will
judicially notice that force and violence is a Party principle."
With commendable candor the Government admits the presence of sharply
conflicting views on the issue of force and violence as a Party principle,^^ and it
also concedes that "some communist literature in respect of force and violence
is susceptible of an interpretation more rhetorical than literal." '^ It insists,
however, that excerpts from the documents on which it particularly relies, are
enough to show that the trial court's finding that the Communist Party advocated
violent overthrow of the Government was not "clearly erroneous," and hence
cannot be set aside.^* As previously pointed out, the trial court's findings do
not indicate the bases for its conclusions, but the documents published prior to
1927 stressed by the Government, with the pertinent excerpts noted in the margin,
are : The Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels ;'' The State and Revolution
by Lenin f The Statutes, Theses and Conditions of Admission to the Communist
^ Brief, pp. 2.3-24.
28 Brief, pp. 25-20,
^ l7i re Saderqiiist. 11 F. Siipp. 525 ; fike/fitigton v. Kat::€ff, 277 Fed. 129 : United 8tate»
V. Curran, 11 F. 2fl fiS.3 : Kenmofsu v. Naf/lr. 44 F. 2rt 05.S : Sormiincn v. Nagle, 59 F 2(1
398 : Branch v. CahiU. 88 F. 2d 545 ; Ex parte VUarino, 50 F. 2d 582 : Kjar v. Doak, 61 F
2d 5G6 ; Berkmnn v. TiUinghast, 58 F. 2d 621 ; United States v. Smith. ^Y. 2d 90 ; United
States V. Wallis, 268 Fed. 413.
^0 Strecker v. Kesslcr, 95 F. 2d 976, 96, F. 2d 1020. affirmed on other grounds, 307
U, S. 22; Ex parte Ficrstein. 41 F. 2d 53: Coljicr v. Skefftngton, 265 Fed. 17, reversed
sut) nom. Sketfington v. Katxeff, 277 Fed. 129.
=1 United States ex rel. Yokinen v. Commissioner, 57 F. 2d 707 ; United States v. Perkins,
79 F. 2d 593; United- States ex rel. Pernander v. Commissioner, 6.5 F. 2d 593: Ungar v.
Seaman, 4 F. 2d 80 ; Ex parte Jurgans, 17 F. 2d 507 : mvited States ex rel. Portmneller v.
Gommissioncr, 14 F. Supp, 484 ; Murdoch v. Clark, 53 F. 2d 155 ; Wolck v. Weedlin,
58 F. 2d 928.
32 Brief, p. 60.
3' Brief, p. 77. See also Colyer v. Skeffington, 265 Fed. 17, 59, reversed snh nom.
Sketjlngton v. Katxeff. 211 Fed. 129. And see Evatt, J., in King v. Hush; Ex parte
Dcranni/, 48 C. L. R. 487, 516-18.
3^ Rule 52 (a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U. S. C. A., following § 723 (c).
35 The Manifesto was proclaimed in 1848. The edition in evidence was published by
the International Publishers in 1932. Petitioner testified that he believed it to be ait
authorized publication, that he was familiar with the work, that it was u^ed in classes,
and. th.nt he thousrht its principles were correct "particularly as they apnlied to the period
in which the.v were written and the country about which they were written."
The excerpts stressed are : "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all
existing social conditions."
*******
"Thouffh not in substance, yet in form, the struc;gle of the proletariat with the
bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of
, course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
"In depicting the most general phases of the develonment of the proletariat, we traced
the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where
that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the
bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the swav of the proletariat."
'=" This work was written in 1917 between the February and October Revolntinns in
Russia. The cony in evidence was published in 1924 by the Daily Worker Publishing
Company. Petitioner testified that it was circulated by the Pai'ty and that it was
probably used in the classes of which he was "educational director".
The excerpts are :
"Fifth, in the same work of Engels, * * * there is also a disnuisition on the
nature of a violent revolution : and the historical appreciation of its role becomes, with
Engels, a veritable panegyric of a revolution l)y force. This, of course, no one remembers.
To talk or even to think of the imnortance of this idea, is not considered respectable
by our modern Socialist parties, and in the daily propaganda and agitation among the
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 103
International;" and The Theory and Practice of Leninism, written hy Stalin."
The Government also sets forth excerpts from other documents which are entitled
to little weight because they were published after the critical period.^"
masses it plays no part whatever. Yet it is indissolubly bound up with the 'withering
away' of the state in one harmonious whole. Here is Engels' argument :
•• 'That I'orc-p also plays another part in history (other than tliat of a perpetuation
of evil), namely a reroliitionarj/ part; that as Marx says, it is the midwife of every old
society when it is pregnant with a new one; that force is the instrument and the means
by which social movements hack their way through and break up the dead and fossilized
political forms — of all this not a word by Ilerr Duehring. Duly, with sighs and groans,
does he admit the possibility that for the overthrow of the system of exploitation force
may, perhaps, be necessary, but most unfortunate if you please, because all use of force,
for.sooth, demoralizes its user ! And this is said in face of the great moral and intellectual
advance which has been the result of every victorious revolution » * * * And this
turbid, nal)by, impotent, parsons' mode of thinking dares offer itself for acceptance to the
most revolutionary party history has ever known'."
« « * * * * «
"The necessity of systematically fostering among the masses this and only this point
of view about violent revolution" lies at the root of the whole of Marx's and Engels'
teaching, and it is just the neglect of such propaganda and agitation both by the present
predominant Social-Chauvinists and the Kautskian schools that brings their betrayal of it
into prominent relief."
(Quoting Engels) " 'Revolution is aii act in which part of the population forces its
will on the other parts by means of rifles, bayonets, cannon, i. e., by most authoritative
means. And the conquering party is inevitably forced to maintain its supremacy by
means of that fear which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.' "
=" Petitioner contends that this document was never introduced in evidence, and the record
shows only that it was marked for identification. The view we take of the case makes it
immaterial whether this document is in evidence or not. The copy furnished us was
printed in 192.''. under the auspices of the Workers Party. Hynes testified that it was an
oflicial publication, but not widely circulated. Petitioner had no recollection of the
particular pamphlet and testified that the American party was not bound by it.
The cxceriits are :
"That wliicli before the victory of the proletariat seems but a theoretical difference of
opinion on the question of 'democracy', becomes inevitably on the morrow of the victory,
a question which can only be decided by force of arms."
*******
"The working class cannot achieve the victory over the bourgeoisie by means of the
general strike alone, and by the policy of folded arms. The proletariat must resort to
an armed uprising."
*******
"The elementary means of the struggle of the proletariat against the jule of the
bourgeoisie is. first of all. the method of mass demonstrations. Such mass demonstrations
are prepared and carried out by the organized masses of the proletariat, under the
direction of a united, disciplined, centralized Communist Party. Civil war is rear. In
this war the proletariat must have its efficient political oflScers, its good political general
staff, to conduct operations during all the stages of that fight.
"The mass struggle means a whole system of developing demonstrations" growing ever
more acute in form, and logically leading to an uprising against the* capitalist order
of the government. In this warfare of the masses developing into a civil war, the guiding
partv of the proletariat must, as a general rule, secure e\evy and all lawful positions,
making them its auxiliaries in the revolutionary woi-k, and subordinating such positions
to the plans of the general campaJErn. tliat of the mass struggle."
38 The cooy in evidence was printed by the Daily ^Torker Publishing Company either in
in'24 or 102."). Petitioner was familiar with the woL-k. but not the particular edition,
and testified that it was prol)al)ly circulated by the Party. He had read it. but probably
after his naturalization. Hynes and Humplireys testified that it was used in communist
classes.
The excerpts are :
">farx's limitation with regard to the 'continent' has furnished the opportunists and
mensheviks of every country with a pretext for asserting that ]Marx admitted the possi-
biliy of a peaceful transformation of bourgeois democracy into proletarian democracy,
at least in some countries (Ensrland and America). Marx did in fact recognize the
possibilitv of this in the England and America of 18t>0. where monopolist capitalism and
Imperialism did not exist and where militarism and bureaucracy were as yet little
developed. But now the situation in these countries is radically different ; Imperialism
has reached its apogee there, and there Tuilitarism and bureaucracy are sovereign. In
consequence, Ma.rx's restriction no longer applies."
*******
"With the Reformist, reform is everythinar. whilst in revolutionary work it only appears
as a form. This is why with the reformist tactic under a bourgeois government, all
reform tends inevitably to consolidate the i)Owers that be, and to weaken the revolution.
"With the revolutiouarv. on the contrarv. the main thing is the revolutionary work
and not the reform. For him, reform is only an accessory of evolution."
^ (a) Posram of the Communist International, adopted in 1928 and published b.v the
Worl-ers Eibrarv Publishers. Inc.. in 1929 :
'"Hence revolution is not onlv necessarv because there is no other way of overthrowing
the riilino class, but also because only in the process of revolution is the overthroiiring
class able to purge itself of the dross of the old society and become capable of creating
a new society."
Petitioner "agreed with the general theoretical conclusions stated in" this Program but
he resra'-ded "the apnlication of that tlieory" as "something else".
(h) Programme of the Young Communist International. pul)lished in 1929 :
"An oni>ressed class which does not endeavor to possess and learn to handle arms would
deserve to be treated as slaves. We would become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists if
104 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
The bombastic excerpts set forth in Notes 35 and 38, inclusive, upon which
the Government particularly relies, lend considerable support to the charge.
We do not say that a reasonable man could not possibly have found, as the dis-
trict court did, that the Communist Party in 1927 actively urged the overthrow
of the Government by force and violence.''" But that is not the issue here. We
are not concerned with the question whether a reasonable man might so conclude,
nor with the narrow issue whether administrative findings to that effect are so
lacking in evidentiary support as to amount to a denial of due process. As
pointed out before, this is a denaturalization proceeding in which, if the Govern-
ment is entitled to attack a finding of attachment as we have assumed, the burden
rests upon it to prove the alleged lack of attachment by "clear, unequivocal, and
convincing" evidence. That burden has not been carried. The Government has
not proved that petitioner's beliefs on the subject of force and violence were
such that he was not attached to the Constitution in 1927.
In the first place this phase of the Government's case is subject to the admitted
infirmities of proof by imputation." The difficulties of this method of proof
are here increased by the fact that there is, unfortunately, no absolutely accurate
test of what a political party's principles are." Political writings are often over-
exaggerated polemics bearing the imprint of the period and the place in which
written." Philosophies cannot generally be studied in vacuo. Meaning may be
wholly distorted by lifting sentences out of context, instead of cousti'uing them
as part of an organic whole. Every utterance of party leaders is not taken as
party gospel. And we would deny our experience as men if we did not recognize
that otticial party programs are unfortunately often opportunistic devices as much,
honored in the breach as in the observance." On the basis of the present record
we cannot say that the Communist Party is so different in this respect that its
principles stand forth with perfect clarity, and especially is this so with relation
to the crucial issue of advocacy of force and violence, upon which the Government
admits the evidence is sharply conflicting. The presence of this conflict is the
second weakness in the Government's chain of proof. It is not eliminated by
assiduously adding farther excerpts from the documents in evidence to those
called out by the Government.
The reality of the conflict in the record before us can be pointed out quickly.
Of the relevant prior to 1927 documents relied upon by the Government three are
we for;;et that we are living in a class society, and that the only way out is through class
struggle and the overthrow of the power of the ruling class. Our slogan must be:
'Arming of the proletariat, to conquer, expropriate and disarm the bourgeoisie.' Only
after the proletariat has disarmed the boiu'geoisie will it be able, wiihout betraying its
historic task, to throw all arms on the scrap heap. This the proletariat will undoubtedly
do. But only then, and on no account sooner."
(c) Why Communism, written by Olgin, and published first in 19.33, by the Worker's
Library Pultlishers :
"We Communists say that there is one way to abolish the capitalist State, and that is
to smash it by force. To make Communism possible the workers must take hold of the
State machiner.v of capitalism and destroy it."
Petitioner testified that he had not read this book, but that it had been widely circulated
by the Party.
*° Since the district court did not specify upon what evidence its conclusory findings
rested, it is well to mention tlie remaining documents published before 1927 which were
introduced into evidence and excerpts from which were read into the record, but upon
which the Government does not speciflcall.v rel.v with respect to the issue of force and
violence. Those documents are : Lenin, Left Wing Communism, first published in English
about 1920 ; Bucharin and Preobrascliensky. ABC of Communism,, written in 1919 and
published around 1921 in this country (petitioner testified that this was never an
accepted work and tliat its authors were later expelled from the International) ; Inter-
naional of Youth, a periodical published in 192,5; The 4th National Convention of the
Workers Party of America, published in 192,5 ; The Second Year of the Workers Party
■in America (1924) : and, The Program and Constitution of tlie Workers Party of America,
circulated around 1924. With the exception of these last two documents, the excerpts
read into the record from these publications contain nothing exceptional on the issue
of force and violence. The excepts from the last two documents stress the necessity for
Party participation in elections, but declare that the Party fosters no illusions that the
workers can vote their wav to power, the expulsion of the Socialist members of the
New York Assembly (see Chafee, Ifree Speech in the United States (1941), pp. 269-82)
being cited as an example in point. Tlicse statements are open to an interpretation of
prediction, not advocacy of force and violence. Cf. Note. 48, infra.
^1 As Chief Justice (then Mr.) Hughes said in opposing the expulsion of the Socialist
members of the New York Assembly : ". . . it is of the essence of the institutions of liberty
that it be recognized that guilt is personal and cannot be attributed to the holding of
opinion or to mere intent in the absence of overt acts : . . ." Memorial of the Special
Committee Appointed by the Association of the Bar of the City of New I'ork, New York
Legislative Pocuments, vol. 5, 14.S Session (192ft), No. 30, p. 4.
« See Chafee. Free Speech in the United States (1941), pp. 219-24.
« See Note 33. ante.
<* See Bryce. the American Coihmonwealth (1915) vol. II, p. 334 ; III Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences, p. 164.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 105
writings of outstanding INEarxist philosophers, and leaders, the fourth is a woi'ld
program." The Manifesto of 1S4S was proclaimed in an autocratic Europe en-
gaged in suppressing the ahortive liheral revolutions of that year. With this
background, its tone is not surprising.'" Its authors later stated, however, that
there were certain countries, "such as the United States and England in which
the workers may hope to secure their ends by peaceful meaus." '' Lenin doubted
this iu his militant work. The State and Revolution, but this was written on the
eve of the Bolshevist revolution in Russia ami may be interpreted as intended
in part to justify the Bolshevist course and refute the anarchists and social
democrats.'* Stalin declared that Marx's exemption for the United States and
England was no longer valid.'" He wrote, however, that "the preposition that
the prestige of the Party can be built upon violence ... is absurd and abso-
lutely incompatible with Leninism.""' And Lenin wrote "In order to obtain
the power of the state the class conscious workers nuist win the majority to their
side. As long as no violence is used against the masses, there is no other road
to power. We are not Blanquists, we are not in favor of the seizure of power
by a minority." '^ The 1938 Constitution of the Communist Party of the United
States, which petitioner claimed to be the first and only written constitution ever
officially adopted by the Party and which he asserted enunciated the principles of
the Party as he understood them from the beginning of his membership, ostensibly
eschews resort to force and violence as an element of Party tactics.®"
A tenable conclusion from the foregoing is that the Party in 1927 desired to
achieve its purpose by peaceful and democratic means, and as a theoretical matter
justified the use of force and violence only as a method of preventing an attempted
forcible counter-overthrow once the Party had obtained control in a peaceful
manner, or as a method of last resort to enforce the majority will if at some
indt finite future time because of peculiar circumstances constitutional or peaceful
channels were no longer open.
There is a material difference between agitation and exhortation calling for
present violent action which creates a clear and present danger of public dis-
order or other substantive evil, and mere doctrinal justification or prediction of
the use of force under hypothetical conditions at some indefinite future time — ■
prediction that is not calculated or intended to be presently acted upon, thus
leaving opportunity for general discussion and the calm processes of thought and
reason. Cf. Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 2-52, and Justice Brandeis' concurring
opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 372-80. See also Taylor v. Mis-
<5 See Notes 35 to 38 inclusive ante.
"^ Petitioner testified that he believed its principles, particularly as they applied to
the period and country in which written. See note 35, ante.
^~ Marx, Amsterdam Speech of 1872 ; see also Engels' preface to the First English Trans-
lation of Capital (1886).
•*' Lenin's remarks on England have been interpreted as simply predicting, not advocating,
the use of violence there. See the introduction to Strachey, The Coming Struggle for
Power (1935).
<» See Note 38. ante.
'"' Stalin, Leninism, vol. I. pp. 282-83. Put in evidence by petitioner.
^1 Lenin, Selected Works, vol. VI. Put In evidence by petitioner. In the same work
is the following :
"Marxism is an extremely profound and many sided doctrine. It is. therefore, not sur-
prising that scraps of quotations from ^tarx — Especially when the quotations are not to
the point — can always he found anions the 'arguments' of those who are breaking with
Marxism. A military conspiracy is Blanquism // it is not organized by the party of a
definite class ; if its organizers have not reckoned with the political situation in general
and the international situation in particular : if the party in question does not enjoy the
sympathy of the malority of the people, as proved by definite facts ; if the development
of events in the revolution has not led to the virtual dissipation of the illusions of
compromise entertained by the petty bourgeoisie : if the maiority of the organs of the
revolutionary struggle which are recognized to be 'authoritative' or have otherwise estab-
lished themselves, such as the Soviets, have not been won over; if in the army (in time
of war) sentiments hostile to a government which drags out an unjust war against the
will of the people have not become fully matured : if the slogans of the insurrection
(such as 'All power to the Soviets.' 'liand to the peasants.' 'Immediate proposal of a
democratic peace to all the bellicrerent peoples, couplied with the immediate abrogation of
all secret treaties and secret diidomacy,' etc.) have not acquired the widest renown and
popularity : if the advanced workers are not convinced of the desperate situation of the
masses and of the support of the countryside, as demonstrated by an energetic peasant
movement, or by a revolt against the landlords and against the government th.if deff»pd« the
landlords : if the economic situation in the country ofTers any real hope of a favorable
solution of the crisis by peaceful and parliamentary means."
^ Article X, Section 5. ''Party meml>ers found to be strike-breakers, degenerates, habit-
ual drunkards, betrayers of Party confidence, provocateurs, advocates of terrorism and
violence as a method of Party procedure, or members whose actions are detrimental to
the Party and the workine class, shall be summarily dismissed from positions of responsi-
bility, expelled from the Party and exposed before the general public."
106 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
sissippi, — U. S. — , Nos. 826-828 this term. Because of this difference we may
assume that Congress intended, by the general test of "attachfuent" in the 1906
Act. to deny naturalization to persons falling into the first category but not to
those in the second. Such a construction of the statute is to be favored because
it preserves for novitiates as well as citizens the full benefit of that freedom of.
thought which is a fundamental feature of our political institutions. Under the
conflicting evidence in this case we cannot say that the Government has proved by
such a preponderance of the evidence that the issue is not in doubt, that the
attitude of the Communist Party of the United States in 1927 towards force and
violence was not susceptible of classification in the second category. Petitioner
testified that he subscribed to this interpretation of Party principles when he was
naturalized, and nothing in his conduct is inconsistent with that testimony. We
conclude that the Government has not carried its burden of proving by "clear'
imequivocal, and convincing" evidence which does not leave "the issue in doiibt,"
that petitioner obtained his citizenship illegally. In so holding we do not decide
what interpretation of the Party's attitude toward force and violence is the
most probable on the basis of the present record, or that petitioner's testimony
is acceptable at face value. We hold only that wJiere two interpretations of
an organization's program are possible, the one reprehensible and a bar to
naturalization and the other permissible, a court in a denaturalization proceed-
ing, assuming that it can reexamine a finding of attachment upon a charge of
illegal procurement, is not justified in canceling a certificate of citizenship by
imputing the reprehensible interpretation to a member of the organization in
the absence of overt acts indicating that such was his interpretation. So uncer-
tain a chain of proof does not add up to the requisite "clear, unequivocal, and
convincing" evidence for setting aside a naturalization decree. Were the law
otherwise, valuable rights would rest upon a slender reed, and the security of
the status of our naturalized citizens might depend in considerable degree upon
the political temper of majority thought and the stresses of the times. Those
are consequences foreign to the best traditions of this nation, and the character-
istics of our institutions.
II
This disposes of the issues framed by the Government's complaint which are
here pressed. As additional reasons for its conclusion that petitioner's naturali-
zation was fraudulently and illegally procured the district court found, however,
that petitioner was a disbeliever in, and a member of an organization teaching
disbelief in organized government," and that his oath of allegiance, required by
S U. S. C. § 381, was false. These issues are outside the scope of the complaint,"
as is another ground urged in support of the judgment below as to which the
district court made no fiiidings.^^ Because they are outside the scope of the
•complaint, we do not consider them. As we said in De Jonge v. Oregon, "Con-
viction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process." 299
U. S. 353, 362. A denaturalization suit is not a criminal proceeding. But neither
is it an ordinary civil action since it involves an important adjudication of status.
Consequently we think the Govei-nment should be limited, as in a criminal pro-
ceeding, to the matters charged in its complaint.
One other ground advanced in support of the judgment below was not con-
sidered by the lower courts and does not merit detailed treatment. It is that
«3 In 1927 naturalization was forbidden to such persons by S 7 of the Act of 1906,
R4 St.1t. 50S, U. S. C. § 364. Compare § 305 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat.
1141. 8 U. S. C. § 705.
6< The complaint did incorporate by reference an affidavit of cause, required by 8
U. S. C. § 405. in which the affiant averred that petitioner's naturalization was illegally
and fraudulently obtained in that he did not behave as a man, and was not a man
attached to the Constitution but was a member of the Communist Party which was op-
posed to the Government and advocated its overthrow by force and violence, and in that :
■"At the time he took oath of allegiance, he did not in fact intend to support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domesic,
and bear true faith and allegiance to the same".
While this affidavit is part of the comnlaint, we think it was not intended to be an addi-
tional charge, but was included only to show compliance with the statute. The attachment
averment of the affidavit is elaborated and set forth as a specific charge in the complaint.
The failure to do likewise with the averment of a false oath is persuasive that the issue
was not intended to be raised. When petitioner moved for a non-suit at the close of the
Government's case, the United States attorney did not contend, in stating what he con-
ceived the issues were, that the question of a false oath was an issue.
65 This contention is that petitioner was not well disposed to the good order and happi-
ness of the United States because he believed in and advocated general resort to illegal
action, other than force and violence, as a means of achieving political ends.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 107
potitionor was not entitled to naturalization because he was deportable in 192T
under the Inuuigration Act of I'JIS (40 t^tat. 1012, as amended by 41 Stat. 10U8;
8 U. S. C. § 137) as an alien member of an organization advocating overthrow
of the Government of the United States by force and violence. This issue is
answered by our prior discussion of the evidence in this record relating to force
and violence. Assuming that deportability at the time of naturalization satisfies-
the requirement of illegality under § 15 which governs this proceeding, the same
failure to establish adequately the attitude toward force and violence of the
organizations to whi(;li petitioner belonged forbids his denaturalization on the
ground of membership.
'I'he judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court of
Appeals for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 2— October Term, 1942
William Schneiderman, Petitioner, vs. The United States of America
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPBIALS FOR THE-
NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 21, 1943]
*
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
I join in the Court's opinion and agree that petitioner's want of attachment
in 1927 to the principles of the Constitution has not been shown by "clear,
unequivocal and convincing" evidence. The United States, when it seeks to
deprive a person of his American citizenship, carries a lieavy burden of showing
that he procured it unlawfully. That burden has not been sustained on the
present record, as the opinion of the Court makes plain, unless the most extreme
views within petitioner's party are to be imputed or attributed to him and unless
all doubts which may exist concerning his beliefs in 1927 are to be resolved against
him rather than in his favor. But there is anotlier view of the problem raised
by this type of case which is so basic as to merit separate statement.
Sec. 15 of the Naturalization Act gives the United States the power and duty
to institute actions to set aside and cancel certificates of citizenship on the ground',
of "fraud" or on the ground that they were "illegally procured." Sec. 15 makes
nothing fraudulent or unlawful that was honest and lawful when it was done.
It imposes no new penalty upon the wrongdoer. But if, after fair hearing, it is-
judicially determined that by wrongful conduct he has obtained a title to citizen-
ship, the act provides that he shall be deprived of a privilege that was never
rightfully his." Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227, 242-243. And see
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 24. "Wrongful conduct"— like the statutory
words "fraud" or "illegally procured" — are strong words. Fraud connotes per-
jury, concealment, falsification, misrepresentation or the like. But a certificate
is illegally, as distinguished from fraudulently, procured when it is obtained
without compliance with a "condition precedent to the authority of the Court
to grant a petition for naturalization." Maneij v. United States, 278 U. S. 17, 22.
Under the Act in question, as under earlier and later Acts,^ Congress prescribed
numerous conditions precedent to the issuance of a certificate. They included
the requirement that the applicant not be an anarchist or polygamist (§ 7), the
presentation of a certificate of arrival (United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319), the-
requirement that the final hearing be had in open court (United States v. Ginsberf/;
243 U. S. 472), the residence requirement (R. S. § 2170), the general requirement
that the applicant be able to .speak the Englisii language (§8), etc. The fore-
going are illustrative of one type of condition which Congress specified. Another
type is illustrated by the required finding of attachment. Sec. 4, as it then
read, stated that it "shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court"
that the applicant "has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached^
Mr. Justice Douglas
1 For the Act in its present form see 8 U. S. C. § 501, et seq.
108 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
to the principles of tlie Constitution of the United States, and well disposed
to the good order and happiness of the same." " It is my view that Congress
by that provision made the finding the condition precedent, not the weight of
the evidence underlying the finding. Such a finding can of course l3e set aside
under § 15 on grounds of fraud. But so far as certificates "illegally procured"
are concerned, this Court has heretofore permitted § 15 to be used merely to
enforce the express conditions specified in the Act. It is of course true that
an applicant for citizenship was required to come forward and make the showing
necessary for the required findings. § 4. But under this earlier Act, it was
hot that showing but the finding of the court which Congress expressed in the
form of a condition. If § 15 should be broadened by .judicial construction to
jpermit the findings of attachment to be set aside for reasons other than fraud,
;then the issue of illegality would be made to turn not on the .ludge being satisfied
as to applicant's attachment but on the evidence underlying that finding. Such a
.condition should not be readily implied.
If an anarchist is nautralized, the United States may bring an action under
.§15 to set aside the certificate on the grounds of illegality. Since Congress by
§7 of the Act forbids the naturalization of anarchists, the alien anarchist who
obtains the certificate has procured it illegally whatever the naturalization court
jtnight find. The same would be true of connuunists if Congress declared they
should be ineligible for citizenship. Then proof that one was not a comnmnist
Hnd did not adhere to that party or its belief would become like the other express
conditions in the Act a so-called "jurisdictional" fact "upon which the grant is
predicated." Jolxnincsseii v. United States, mpra, p. 240. But under this Act
Congress did not treat communists like anarchists. Neither the statute nor the
official forms -used by applicants called for an expression by petitioner of his
attitude on, or his relationship to, communism, or any other foreign political
creed except anarchy and the like.
The findings of attachment are entrusted to the naturalization court .with only
the most general standard to guide it. Tliat court has before it, however, not only
the applicant but at least two witnesses. It makes its appraisal of the applicant
and it weighs the evidence. Its conclusion must often rest on imponderable
factors. In the present case we do not know how far the naturalization court
probed into petitioner's political beliefs and affiliations. We do not know what
inquiry it made. All we do know is that it was satisfied that petitioner was
"attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States." But we
must assume that that finding which underlies the judgment granting citizenship
(Cf. Tvtun V. United States, 270 U. S. 568) was supported by evidence. We
must assume that the evidence embraced all relevant facts since no charge of
concealment or misrepresentation is now made by respondent. And we must
assume that the applicant and the judge both acted in utmost good faith.
If the applicant answers all questions required of him, if there is no concealment
or misrepresentation, the findings of attachment cannot be set aside on the grounds
of illegality In proceedings under § 15. It does not comport with any accepted
notion of illegalitv to say that in spite of the utmost good faith on the part of
applicant and judge and in spite of full compliance with the express statutory
condtions a certificate was illegally procured because another judge would appraise
the evidence differently. That would mean that the United States at any time
could obtain a trial de novo on the political faith of the applicant.
It is hardly conceivable that Congress intended that result under this earlier
Act except for the narrow group of political creeds such as anarchy for which it
specially provided. Chief Justice Hughes stated in his dissent in United States
v. Macintosh, 283 U. S. 605, 635, that the phrase "attachment to the principles of
the Constitution" is a general one "which should be construed, not in opposition to,
but in accord with, tlie theory and practice of our Government in relation to
freedom of conscience." We should be mindful of that criterion in our construc-
tion of § 15. If findings of attachment which underlie certificates may be set
aside years later on the evidence, then the citizenship of those whose political
faiths become unpopular with the passage of time becomes vulnerable. It is one
2 This provision was recast bv the Act of March 2, 1929, 45 Stat. 1513-1514 8 U. S. C.
« 707 (a) (3), into substantially its present form. For the lesislative history see 69
.Con" Ree 841; S Rep. No. 1504, 70th Cong., 2(1 Sess. The provision now reads: "No
■nerso'n except as hereinafter provided in this chapter, shall be naturalized unless such
Tietitiolier . . . (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has be^en and
still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution
of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United
States."
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 109
thing to acree that Congress could take that step if it chose. See Turner v.
Williams, VM V. S. 27!>. I'nt where it has not done so in phiin words, we should
be loathe to imply that Congress sanctioned a procedure which in al)sence of fraud
permitted a man's citizenship to be attacked years after the grant because of his
political Iieliefs, social philosophy, or economic theories. We should not tread
so close to the domain of freedom of conscience without an explicit mandate from
those who specify the conditions on which citizenship is granted to or witldield
from aliens. At least when two interpretations of the Naturalization Act are
possible we should choose the one which is the more hospitable to that ideal for
which American citizenship itself stands.
Citizenship can be granted only on the basis of the statutory right which
Congress has created. Tutun v. Vnitcd States, siiiira. But where it is granted
and where all the express statutory conditions precedent are satisfied wc should
adhere to the view that the judgment of naturalization is final and conclusive
except fur fraud. Since the United States does not now contend that fraud
vitiates this certificate the judgment below "must be reversed.
Supreme Court of thei Uniteid States
No. 2— October Term, 1942
William Schneider man, Petitioner, vs. The United, States of America
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATESi CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEIALS FOB THE
NINTH DISTRICT
[June 21, 1943]
Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring.
I join in the Court's opinion. 1 add what follows only to emphasize what I
think is at the bottom of this case.
Immediately we are concerned with only one man, William Schneiderman.
Actually, though indirectly, the decision affects millions. If, seventeen years
after a federal court adjudged him entitled to be a citizen, that judgment can
be nullified and he can be stripped of this most precious right, by nothing more
than I'eexamination upon the merits of the very facts the judgment established,
no naturalized pei-.son's citizenship is or can be secure. If tliis can be done
after that length of time, it can be done after thirty or fifty years. If it can
be done for Schneiderman, it can be done for thousands or. tens of thousands
of others.
For all that would be needed would be to produce some evidence from which
any one of the federal district judges could draw a conclusion, concerning one
of the ultimate facts in issue, opposite from that drawn by the judge decreeing
admission. The statute does not in terms prescribe "jurisdictional" facts.*
But all of the important ones are "jurisdictional," or have that effect, if by
merely drawing contrary conclusion from the same, though conflicting, evidence
at any later time a court can overturn the judgment. An applicant might be
admitted today upon evidence satisfying the court he had complied with all
requirements. That judgment might be affirmed on appeal and again on certi-
orari here. Yet the day after, or ten years later, any district judge could
overthrow it, on the same evidence, if it was conflicting or gave room for
contrary inferences, or on different evidence all of which might have been
presented to the first court.^
If this is the law and the right the naturalized citizen acquires, his admission
creates nothing more than citizenship in attenuated, if not suspended, anima-
tion. He acquires but prima facie status, if that. Until the Government moves
to cancel his certificatt,' and he knows the outcome, he cannot know whether
he is in or out. And when that is done, nothing forbids repeating the harrowing
process again and again, unless the weariness of the courts should lead them
finally to speak res judicata.
Mr. Justice Rdtledgb
* Cf ., however, the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas.
' There is no requirement that the evidence be different from what was presented on
admission or "newly discovered."
110 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
No citizen with such a threat hanging over his head could be free. If he
belonged to "off-eolor" organizations or held too radical or, perhaps, too re-
actionary views, for some segment of the judicial palate, when his admission
took place, he could not open his mouth without fear his words would be held
against him. For whatever he might say or whatever any such organization
might advocate could be hauled forth at any time to show "continuity" of belief
from the day of his admission, or "concealment" at that time. Such a citizen
would not be admitted to liberty. His best course would be silence or hyprocisy.
This is not citizenship. Nor is it adjudication.
It may be doubted that the framers of the Constitution mtended to create
two classes of citizens, one free and independent, one haltered with a lifetime
string tied to its status. However that may be, and conceding that the power
to revoke exists and rightly should exist to some extent, the question remains
whether the power to admit can be delegated to the courts in such a way that
their determination, once made, determines and concludes nothing with finality.
If every fact in issue, going to the right to be a citizen, can be reexamined,
upon the same or different proof, years or decades later ; and if this can be done
de novo, as if no judgment had been entered, whether with respect to the burden
of proof required to reach a different decision or otherwise, what does the
judgment determine? What does it settle with finality? If review is had and
the admission is affirmed, what fact is adjudicated, if next day any or all
involved can be redecided to the contrary? Can Congress, when it has empow-
ered a court to determine and others to review and confirm, at the same time
or later authorize any trial court to overturn their decrees, for causes other
than such as have been held sufficient to overturn other decrees?^
I do not undertake now to decide these questions. Nor does the Court. But
they have a bearing on the one which is decided. It is a judgment which is
being attacked. Tufun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568. Accordingly, it will not
do to say the issue is identical with what is presented in a naturalization pro-
ceeding, is merely one of fact, upon which therefore the finding of the trial court
concludes, and consequently we have no business to speak or our speaking is
appellate intermeddling. That ignores the vital fact that it is a judgment,
rendered in the exercise of the judicial power created by Article III which it
is sought to overthrow,^ not merely a grant like a patent to land or for inven-
tion.° Congress has plenary power over naturalization. That no one disputes.
Nor that this power, for its application, can be delegated to the courts. But
this is not to say, when Congress has so placed it, that body can decree in the
same breath that the judgment rendered shall have no conclusive effect. Limits
it may place. But that is another matter from making an adjudication under
Article III merely an advisory opinion or prima facie evidence of the fact or
all the facts determined. Congress has, with limited exceptions, plenary power
over the jurisdiction of the federal courts." But to confer the jurisdiction and
at the same time nullify entirely the effects of its exercise are not matters
heretofore thought, when squarely faced, within its authority.'' To say therefore
that the trial court's function in this case is the same as was that of the admitting^
court is to ignore the vast difference between overturning a judgment, with its
adjudicated facts, and deciding initially upon facts which have not been adjudged.
The argument made from the deportation statutes likewise ignores this difference.
It is no answer to say that Congress provided for the redetermination as a
part of the statute conferring the right to admission and therefore as a condi-
tion of it. For that too ignores the question whether Congress can so condition
the judgment and is but another way of saying that a determination, made by
an exercise of judicial power under Article III, can be conditioned by legislative
mandate so as not to determine finally any ultimate fact in issue.
The effect of cancellation is to nullify the judgment of admission. If it is a
judgment, and no one disputes that it is, that quality in itself requires the
burden of proof the court has held that Congress intended in order to overturn
it. That it is a judgment, and one of at least a coordinate court, which the
cancellation proceeding attacks and seeks to overthrow, requires this much at
s Cf. United States v. Throckmorton, f)8 U. S. 61 ; Kiibe v. Benson, 17 Wall. 624. No
sucb cause for cancpllation is involved here.
* Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568.
5 Cf. Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227.
«Cf. Lockerty v. Phillips, No. 934. October Term, 1942.
^Cf. United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; Gordon v. United States, 2 Wall. 501 : Id.
117 U. S. 697 ; United States v. Jones, 119 U. S. 477 : Pocono Pines Assembhi HnteU Co. v
I'^^tfi Sto^cst, 73 ct. CI. 447 ; 76 Ct. CI. 834 ; Ex parte Pocono Pines Assembly Hotels Co..
285 U. S. 526.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA HI
least, that soleiuu (loeives may not be lightly overturned and that citizens may
not be dei)rived of their status merely because one judge views their political
and other beliefs with a more critical eye or a different slant, however honestly
and sincerely, than another. Beyond this we need not go now in decision. But
we do not go beyond our function or usurp another tribunal's when we go this
far. The danger, implicit in tindiug too easily the purpose of Congress to
denaturalize Connnunists, is that by doing so the status of all or many other
natiualized citizens ]nay be put in jeopardy. The other and underlying questions
need not be determiui'd unless or until necessity compels it. '
Mr. ;Mtjndt. That is all, JNIr. Chairman. I just wanted to point out that
distinction.
The Chairman. Mr. Murdock?
Mr. MuKDocK. I believe the House meets at 11 today, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. :Murdock. May I ask first whether we plan to have this witness further
than today?
The Chairman. Our attorney wants half an hour, approximately, with him. I
think we had better hold a session this afternoon, if it is agreeable to the
gentleman, so as to accommodate Mr. Foster and let him get away. He has
been here three days now.
Mr. Rankin. We have a bill up in the House this afternoon that I think every
member here is going to be interested in, very much interested, and I think it
would be better to meet tomorrow morning than to meet this afternoon.
The Chairman. Of course, I will leave the matter in the hands of the com-
mittee. I was very anxious because Mr. Foster has been here several_days and
I wanted to accommodate Mm if we could.
Mr. Rankin. There are a good many questions yet to be asked.
The Chairman. Yes ; I am sure there are.
Mr. Murdock. Mr. Chairman, I raised the question because I want to gage
myself accordingly. There are a good many questions in my mind. I want to
say to Mr. Foster that I heard bis protest at the beginning of the hearing against
this procedure on the ground that it is red baiting o nthe part of the reactionaries.
1 want to say to the gentleman, whom I have never seen before this hearing, or
met, that I do not consider myself a reactionary, and I am not red baiting.
So you and I can get along better with that understanding.
I was not quite satisfied with your definition of socialism and communism,
as Mr. Mundt put it the other day. I seek information. Would you take about
2 or 3 minutes, if you can do it in that much time, and clearly distinguish between
the socialism and communism?
Mr. Foster. Well, I gave the basic difference yesterday when I stated the
fundamental principles underlying the two systems. Socialism is the early stage
of communism, and the principle, as I said, is "from everybody according to his
ability ; to everybody according to his work," whereas, communism is "from
everybody according to his ability ; to everybody according to his needs."
Under the socialist system, therefore, according to this formula, which was
worked out by Karl Marx 100 years ago, various differentials in wages may exist
and will exist — in fact, the Communists have carried on very intense struggles
against people who have raised the issue in the movement that under socialism
there must be a general equality of wages, that this is not in accordance with
the principles of socialism ; whereas, in a system of communism, as I tried to
indicate yesterday, the assumption is that the production problem will be solved,
that it will be a relatively easy matter to produce the necessities of life, and the
distribution of these will be more or less on a free basis.
!\Tr. Murdock. You would not regard Eugene V. Debs as a communist, would
you?
Mr. Foster. Debs was a socialist, but he also said that he was a Bolshevik
from the top of his head to the soles of his feet.
Mr. Murdock. He might have meant that in a figurative way.
Mr. P^osTER. He meant it more than that, I am afraid — I am sure.
Mr. Murdock. What would your party do if it were in power in this country
that would not be done by the party of Eugene V. Debs or Norman Thomas?
Mr. FosTFJi. Well, that is all speculative. As far as a party led by Mr. Thomas
is concerned, I think he would go right along with capitalism pretty much —
very slight difference. You introduced yourself as not being engaged in red
baiting, and I would like to comment on that, that you may not be inclined in
that direction, but this committee is, and I think that the progressive members
83078—46 8
112 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
on this committee are allowing themselves to be used as window dressing for
some of the most hard-boiled reactionaries in the United States.
Mr. Thomas. That is an excellent statement you made, and I think you ought
to develop it. You ought to tell who the progressive members are and who are
the reactionaries.
Mr. Foster. I don't know who the progressive members are. I know it is cus-
tomary in such committees to bring in a few progressive members to sort of cover
up the reactionaries and make it a little more palatable to the mass of the people.
Mr. MuEDocK. I am sure you are not too well acquainted with Congressional
procedure, because we have a definite form of organization in committees of Con-
gress, Mr. Foster.
I have one or two things here now that I would like to inquire about. I grant
that every citizen should have freedom of thought within the framework of
the Constitution to organize a political party to influence the Government of
the United States, and that is not un-American.
Mr. Foster. That is American.
■ Mr. MuRDOCK. That is American. Now, if that political party is influenced
in its political control or financially by any group outside the United States, or
any power outside the United States, that becomes un-American, in my judg-
ment. Now this is the question : What is the relationship between the Com-
munist Party in the United States and the Communist Party in Russia?
Mr. Foster. There is no relationship, except that they are both Communist
parties. And in answer to your statement about parties being financed or other-
wise influenced by foreign parties, I may say that this is precisely the charge
that was directed against Jefferson and other democratic leaders of our country
who really wanted to make the American Revolution register. The charges that
are directed against us are not more severe than were directed against Thomas
Jefferson. Read McMaster's History of the United States and see the things
that were said against Jefferson. They were baseless, and they were done by
the 1800 brand of red baiters, and now we have a repetition of it in the modern
set-up.
Mr. MUKDOCK. That is probably true. You agree with me then that the mo-
ment any foreign influence, outside the United States, brings action to bear on any
political organization in the United States, that that is dangerous, if it exists?
Mr. Foster. That depends upon what the character of it is. I remember
that the Russian trade unions once gave a certain sum of money to the British
coal miners who were on strike, and I think it was perfectly correct that they
should do so. I don't think there would be the slightest objection if some bour-
geois organization should make a present to another one here in this country, or
particularly this country at the present time. We are sending relief to countries
all over the world and giving money, sending money to them, and do you con-
sider that wrong? Of course it is not wrong.
Mr. MuRDOCK. I am not talking about charity.
Mr. Foster.. .Well, they collect it for all sorts of purposes, political purposes and
everything else.
The Chairman. Much as I regret to break into this very interesting discus-
sion, the time has arrived when the House is in session, and the other members
of the committee have suggested that we meet at 3 o'clock this afternoon. Does
that suit you?
Mr. MuKDocK. One more question, Mr. Chairman. As one of the leading mem-
bers of the Communist Party in America do you know, Mr. Foster, whether your
party or any branch of it has received contributions or financial support from
outside the United States?
Mr. Foster. It has not. We have been very careful to avoid it.
Mr. MuRDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We will adjourn until 3 o'clock this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 10: 45 a. m., a recess was taken until 3 p. m. this day.)
AFTER RECESS
The committee reassembled at 3 p. m., pursuant to recess.
The CHAHiMAN. Mr. Foster, will you resume the stand, please? Mr. Landis, do
you desire to ask the witness some questions?
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM Z. FOSTER— Continued
Mr. Landis. Mr. Foster, I understand from your testimony before the com-
mittee that you do not believe in the overthrow of the capitalistic system in tiie
United States by force. Is that correct.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 113
Mr. Foster. That is right. I believe in utilizing the democratic institutions of
the oountry.
Mr. Landis. Do Coninuiiiists believe, then, that the end justifies the means,
and therefore are not bound by legal or moral consideration?
Mr. FosTEK. No ; the means must always be adjusted to the ends.
Mr. Landis. Is the principal objective of the Communist Party to establish
government ownership and control of our utilities manufacturing the necessities
of life?
Mr. Foster. That is right, generally speaking.
Mr. Landis. If you establish this system in the United States, could you
guarantee that our people wimld be better off?
Mr. Fosti:k. In my opinion the people would be much better off. I think that
the way we are going now, we are heading into a first class economic disaster,
and that there are certain remedial measures that may be taken — I think Presi-
dent Truman gave a pretty good indication to Congress of what must be done to
meet the present situation. This, however, we consider as a mininuim program, a
stopgap for the moment, and Congress by flashing this is exposing the country
to a very serious economic crisis. Eventually, however, we are convinced that
nationalization will be necessary, and in the long run socialism.
Mr. Landis. Did you take a part in changing the Communist Party or dissolving
the Communist Party and forming the Association?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Landis. That is, were you In favor of it?
Mr. Foster. I was not in favor of it but I took part in it.
Mr. Landis. Do you agree with some of the forces in the Communist Party,
that they should cooperate, and believe that labor and business should cooperate
in this period?
Mr. FosTFJi. Yes; I think that our party believes in developing the utmost
cooperation with the farm'ers, with the veterans, with the Negro people, with
the small businessmen, also with those capitalists who are prepared to support
a program such as that outlined by President Truman in his speech to Congress.
Mr. Landis. Of course, I am referring to the situation in the war effort, that
capital and labor will cooperate to make the materials to win the war.
Mr. Foster. Of course, during the Avar there was pretty general cooperation.
There were many big capitalist concerns in the country who exploited the war
situation to improve their profits.
Mr. Landis. You will admit, though, they did ,a good job in the war effort to-
ward making the materials and forming the arsenal of democracy to win the
war?
Mr. Foster. I will say the American people did a good job, particularly the
workers did a good job. Of course, the capitalists played their role.
Mr. Landis. The cooperation of capitalists and labor combined did the job
to build the arsenal of democracy to win the war?
Mr. Foster. I must say, however, that all through the war situation it was
necessary to carry on a pressure against many of the more powerful corporations
of the country. I think they had quite a different objective in this war than
the American people had. I think that all through the war they had in mind
their imperialist objectives which are now very obvious, whereas the great
mass of the people fought for deiuocracy. They truly wanted to abolish fascism.
Mr. Landis. What you do really mean by being "imperialist" now?
Mr. Foster. Well, I can give you some examples. I hold in my hand here a
dipping from the New York Times of Sunday, Oc-tober 14, to the effect — the
headline reads "House Republicans Would Bar Relief Funds for European
Countries Denying Free Press." The significance of that is that these Repub-
licans, according to the report here, supported by Mr. Martin, want to lay down
as a condition for American relief to various countries, that they accept the
American tradition of free press. This is dictating political conditions to a
country as a condition for financial help. This is imperialism.
Or I can give you one other example. This is from the New York Times of
September 18, a report on Mr. Hoover. It is a speech on loans in Chicago. Mr.
Hoover develops the thesis that we shall not make loans to countries, among
others, that ai'e carrying on a propaganda to ui)set our government ; we shall
not subsidize social experiments, and a number of other conditions he lays
down. This is an attempt to lay down political conditions to other countries as
the basis for American, loans, and we know very well what Mr. Hoover's con-
ception of overthrowing the goverimient is. He considered that Mr. Roosevelt
was overthrowing the government. This is an imperialist conception of the
114 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
United States by virtue of its tremendous financial resources undertaking to
dictate tlie life and political organization of otlier countries.
Mr. Land.s. What would you say about Russia being an imperialist country?
Mr. Foster. That is not an imperialist country. A socialist coiintry by its
very organization cannot be an imperialist country. If I may coutimie just a
sentence of two, here we have a typical example of imperialism, and to try to
carry out Mr. Hoover's conception of loans would be to throw the world into
chaos, and we, among others, would be the sufferers. This is imperialism, this
kind of business, using American financial support or American financial strength
to dictate the political organization of another country, which is precisely what
Mr. Hoover proposes. As far as you ask me a question about it, I might as well,
while I am speaking on this point, answer this gentleman on the end here (Mr.
Murdock) who spoke about our receiving money from foreign countries.
I thiidc we should look at the beam in our own eye instead of the mote in
somebody else's eye. Here is a typical example of trying to dictate to other
countries on the basis of money tl^at we are going to give them. This is not
only true with regard to loans in general, but there is a powerful interest in
our country that wants to dictate the form of the British government also
before giving them the several billion dollar loan that they are now asking.
This is imperialism. This is what we mean by "imperialism."
Mr. Landis. I just wanted to get that point clear, that you say socialism will
be better, or communism will be better, than tlie system that we have and with
which we have built up the arsenal of democracy here, and practically every
coimtry in the world is after the United States to get loans.
Mr. Foster. That is right.
Mr. Landis. Do you expect us to iise the capitalistic system and make the
money and loan England money to continue the socialist system?
Mr. Foster. Of course I do.
Mr. Landis. And loan money to Rusisa to continue their system, when we have
made it here with the capitalist system?
Mr. Foster. I expect that not only in the interest of the British people but
especially in the interest of the American people, it is none of our business what
kind of a government they have in England, unless, of course, it is a Fascist
government, and then we should not deal with it. But the English people have a
perfect right to establish a Labor government if they want to. Not only that, but
it is as much to our interest as to the interest of the British to lend them this
several billion dollars that they are now asking. I think we should have a very
generous loan policy.
Mr. Landis. How do you account for the fact that under the capitalistic system
we have got some money to loan, and we are the only country that has?
Mr. Foster. We escaped the ravages of war. Great Britain was bombed and
was much more in the center of war than we were.
Mr. Landis. The same condition existed in past years, in peacetimes.
Mr. FosTEiR. We are a rich country. That is very obvious, but if we do not
make these loans it means that we are going to increase the army of the un-
employed in the United States by several million, probably. It is to our interest
to make these loans, not simply the British, and when we make these loans we
have no business to dictate political terms to these eountries. It is no business of
ours, and the minute we undertake to tell them what kind of a free press they
shall have, or what kind of a socialist or nonsociallst government they shall
have, then we are following the imperialistic course. The most that we can ask
is that they be friendly governments to us and that we lay down certain economic
conditions that we can get our money back.
Mr. Landis. Now, you say this is a rich country. We made it richer under
the capitalist system.
Mr. Foster. If you want me to tell you how we made this money, that is another
story, but I just want to say this, that for the past 13 years, since 1914, if it had
not been for war, if it had not been for repairing the damages done by war, if
it had not been for government subsidies, the United States would by no means
be in the rich position that it is at the present time. The fact of the matter is,
as we all know, that from 1914 to 1918 we lived on war orders — to 1919, or there-
abouts. After that we had a couple of years of depression. During the Coolidge-
Harding period we lived to a very large extent on loans that were made to
Europe, some 15 or 20 billion dollars in loans. As soon as that played up, the
country went into a tailspin in 1929, and we had the situation of some 15 to 17
million unemployed, and for 10 years we never had less than 7 to 10 million un-
employed. Now for the past 5 years we have been living on war orders again,
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 115
ami the only hope we have for the immediate i^eriod is to live on repairing dam-
ages of this war, and economists that I have read do not except a boom to last
more than 3 to 5 years. Then we must do something very drastic, and that
drastic is the govei'nment must come to the rescue of private industry. As I
said yesterday, the day is past in America when the private ownersliip of in-
dustry can keep these industries in operation. It is just gone. That is all.
Mr. Landis. Well, if we get continued cooperation of labor and capital, but if
you have these forces divided here, one pulling one way and the other the
other way
Mr. Fo.sTKii (interposing) . That has nothing to do with the economic system.
Mr. Landis (continuing). Encouraging a system that is not as good as ours,
of course we will have unemployment.
Mr. Foster. The cooperation of labor and capital has got nothing to do with
the economic prosperity of the country. That has to do with other factors.
Mr. Landis. You mentioned a while ago that the English system was their
system. You think the form of government that England wants to have or Rus-
sia wants to have is their business?
Mr. Foster. Exactly.
Mr. Landis. But the form of government that we want to have in the United
States, that is our business?
Mr. Fo-sTER. Precisely.
Mr. Landis. And we want the system that has worked out best. We want
to continue that system. We are the ones that are for that. We will fight for
that system, and that is what I intend to do in the United States.
Mr. Foster. We have a right to whatever system of government or economic
system the American people decide upon, but we also have the right to change
that system. People who do not agree with that system have a right to change
it or propose that changes be made in it, and that is where we come in.
Mr. Landis. We have always been responsive to demands of iDrogress and the
requirements of common welfare.
Mr. Foster. I just want to say in that connection, today the supporters of the
capitalist system feel that they have a right to carry on the most militant agita-
tion all over the world in favor of capitalism, and in every country, dictatorially,
I may say, but when a Communist raises his head and proposes that maybe
capitalism is not the most perfect system in the world, even in countries that are
on their back, flat broke, then we take the most violent exceptioiv to that. They
seem to think that Communists or Socialists have no right to i)ropose a different
system and that we alone, all over the world, have the right — that is, the capi-
talists have the right, to propose the capitalist system.
Mr. Landis. If I thought that was the best system and I liked the Communist
system the best, the Socialist system the best, I would go to Rrtssia and enjoy
their system. That is the way I feel about it.
Mr. Foster. No ; it is not a question of going to Russia. It is a question of
communism in the United States. And not only communism in the United States,
but it is making the best of the system that we have got. President Truman is
not a Communist — at least, this committee has not called him so yet — I dare say
they will further along if he fights for his progi-am — but he has proposed certain
remedial measures to get us over our present difficulties, and we are supporting
those measures.
Mr. Mundt. I believe President Truman is immune from being charged with
communism in this committee, because Mr. Foster has already labeled him as an
imperialist, and he says an imperialist cannot be a Communist. So he is free
from criticism.
Mr. Foster. President Roosevelt was not immune from it by the Dies Com-
mittee, and if President Truman goes to bat like President Roosevelt did for his
program, I haven't the slightest doubt but what he will be met in the 1948 election,
if he runs, with charges of communism, just the same as Mr. Roosevelt was.
Mr. Landis. I would like to finish this question. Don't you believe that labor
and capital can cooperate and do a real conversion job, just- as well as they did
a real war job?
Mr. Foster. Well, cooperation — labor has to have at least a living, and if
capital is willing to sign agreements carrying on or providing for a decent living
for the working men, they will get along together, there are strikes, and there
you are. But I would like to say in that respect, I think we have come to a turning
point in America.
The Chairman. W^hat country do you know in this world today, Mr. Foster,
where the laboring man has a more decent living than he has in America?
116 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Foster. It just depends on what you mean by "more decent living."
The Chairman. I will leave it up to you.
Mr. Foster. As far as political liberties are concerned, I think unquestionably
the Soviet Union, the people generally are entirely upon a higher level of political,
liberties than we are.
The Chairman. Do they have better school facilities than we have?
Mr. Foster. The Soviet Union is only a growing country.
The Chairman. Then you say they do not?
Mr. Foster. No ; I don't say anything of the kind.
The Chairman. Would you say they do?
Mr. Foster. I say that in 1939, at the outbreak of the war
The Chairman (interposing). I am asking you about today, right now.
Mr. Foster. The Soviet Union has been ravaged by the war. There has been
some 300 billion dollars of damage done to the Soviet Union.
The Chairman. Before they got into the war did they have better schools than
we have?
Mr. Foster. Generally speaking — I am not an expert on schools, but gen-
erally speaking I think that the curricula of the schools was certainly in ad-
vance of ours, because they taught socialism and ours leaches capitalism. That
is very obvious.
The Chairman. And that is the only thing in which you think they were su-
perior to ours, that they did teach socialism?
Mr. Foster. No; I think they had more modern methods of schooling. But
I would like to finish my answer, if I may.
The Chairman. I am just trying to find out, did they have better homes than
our working people have?
Mr. Foster. They were very poor i)eople and they were building, of couiisie,
and in 1939 they were worked a 15-year program that would have put tlhem
abreast of the United States.
The Chairman. I am just asking you if they did at that time have better
homes?
Mr. Foster. Well, the United States is the most advanced country in the world
as far as physical conveniences are concerned. Everybody knows that. But as
far as the tempo of development was concerned, the United States wa® not the
fastest developing country. The Soviet Union was developing twice as fast.
The Chairman. I didn't ask you that. I asked you if, in your opinion, the
working people in the Soviet Union, Russia, prior to their entrance into this war,
had better homes than the people of America. I understand your answer is
"no"?
Mr. Foster. I will answer further, that President Roosevelt has given some-
thing of an answer to that when he says that with all our wealth in this country,,
one-third
The Chairman. Well, he is not here to be intorrogated.
Mr. Foster. But he said very definitely that one-third of our population are ill-
fed, ill-clad and ill-housed.
The Chairman. What is your opinion about it? Were the Russian working
people in 1939 living in better homes generally than they are in the Unite<l
States?
Mr. Foster. As far as their development, the development of their living stand-
ards, which is the important thing, they were developing at a much faster tempo
than in the United States, and before the war there were 10 million men walk-
ing the streets of the United States unemployed, and not one man walked the
streets of the Soviet Union unemployed. I don't know whether you have a
workingman's background, or not, but I have. I worked 26 years in industry,
and I want to answer your question that if there is one thing in the working-
man's life that is terrible, that is terrific, it is precisely, to be unemployed. Low-
wages are bad enough. Long hours arc bad enough, but unemployment is the
grand terror, and there were 10 million unemployed in the United States and
not one unemployed in the Soviet Union.
The Chairman. Now, if you don't mind, will you give us an answer to the
question propounded? I am talking about the living conditions.
Mr. Foster. I have answered that. I said that the United States was tlie
richest country in the world.
The Chairman. I understand that. Then do I understand that your answer
is that there isn't any other country where the living conditions of the working,
people are superior to what they are in America?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 117
Mr. FOSTER. Oh, no. I don't say that. I say that 10,000,000 unemployed is the
most terrifyinij ccmdition that the working class can face. Of course, where a
man is entitled to have a job
The Chairman (interposing). Would you indicate one of those countries
where the conditions are better?
Mr. Foster. Where the working man has a .iob and where he has no economic
worry whatsoever, I say that that one advantage alone will offset perhaps some
difference in wage scale, and any worker will tell you the same thing.
The ('HAUtMAN. That is all, Mr. Landis.
Mr. FosTEii. Now, if I may finish my an.swer, it is this: I think that we in the
Ignited States have come to a turning of the road, where Congress, and the
administration for that matter, has to give attention to a basically new policy,
that is, the following: That in past years we looked upon wage increases as
something that concerned only the worker, that as far as management was con-
cerned it was a minor matter and they paid no further attention to it. But we
are past that stage now. We are at the stage now where wage increases are the
interest of the Nation. Our entire people, lawyers, doctors, farmers — yes,
even business men are definitely interested in improving the wage standards of
the workers, whether they know it or not. They must raise the workers' wages,,
real wages, or else our country is in for the biggest economic crisis in itsi iiis-
tory. That is only half of what I have to say. The other half is this — and this
is the thing that is perhaps news, that we have to learn — and that is that we
have got to establish certain price controls. The day is part in America when
the employer can raise prices as he sees fit. There has got to be Government
machinery worked out that the employer who is going to raise prices will have
to show that it is absolutely necessary for the conduct of his business.
Mr. Landis. Just so they sell the same goods to all the people at the same
price?
]\Ir. Foster. No.
Mr. Landis. You would not want to charge the poor people more?
!Mr. Fo.STER. We have got to arrive at a situation where the real wages of the
worker are increased, and the emplojers generally — the railroad owners are not
allowed to raise prices as they see tit — railroad rates.
ilr. Landis. Well, we have price control now. You realize that?
^Ir. Foster. That is a war situation, and in my opinion what should be done
iri these war controls should be abolished as I'ar as labor is concerned, and in
other directions as rapidly as possible, but so far as the control of prices is con-
cerned, we must maintain the control of prices.
Mr. Landis. We have that today and we are going to have increased wages,
and we want to have a system that is better than some other countries have,
and we liope to have something better than the W. P. A. system in America, and
under the capitalistic system.
Now, you mentioned our late President a while ago, and I would like to read
you just a short quotation here and see if you agree with it. I quote :
"What I object to in the American Communists is not their open membership
nor even their published objectives. For years in this country they taught a
philosophy taught of lies, because I, Mrs. Roosevelt, have experienced the decep-
tion of the American Communists. I will not trust them. That is what I meant
when I said I djd not think the people of this country would tolerate the American
Communists who say one thing and mean another."
Mr. Fos^EiR. That is Mrs. Roosevelt.
Mr. Landis. Mrs. Roosevelt ; yes.
Mr. FosiER. Well, she takes a little flyer in red baiting once in a while,
[Laughter.]
That is an example. Generally speaking, Mrs. Roosevelt is a liberal.
Mr. Landis. Right.
Mr. Foster. I think she has the respect of the American people, and cer-
tainly our party would not say anything to diminish her i)restige, but like
many other liberals, once in a while she takes a little flyer in red baiting.
Mr. Landis. I want to get this point over here. I will just finish this quotation
while I am at it :
"It is frightening to see any group in our midst proposing to propagandize
instead of cooperating. This might lead to war at home and abroad ; there-
fore the French Communist Duclos. and the American Communists who encourage
the policy of the world revolution have done the peace a world of harm. The
sooner we clear up authoritatively the whole situation of comnuinism outside of
the Soviet Union, the better chance we will have of peace in the future. The
1 18 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Russian people should know this and so should the people of the United States."
Now, the point I want to make there is : This Duclos, the Frenchman, Jacob
Duclos, I notice he had some difference in the dissolution of the Communist
Party with Earl Browder.
Mr. Rankin. Whom are you quoting?
Mr. Landis. I am quoting Mrs. Roosevelt, and she mentioned that it started
over Duclos and his statements coming back after criticizing the dissolution of
the Communist Party. Now, there seems to be some difference as to whether the
Communists in America are following the Duclos Communist line or whether
we are following the other line that Browder was associated with. Is there any
difference? That is what I would like to know.
Mr. Foster. Well, I tried to explain that a couple of days ago. First of all,
as far as our party is following the Duclos line, I wrote a letter at the time —
well, a couple of years ago — in which I outlined the present line of policy of
the party.
Mr. Landis. I mean did you agree with his policy?
Mr. Foster. Our party is not following the Duclos line particularly, it is
following the Communist line.
Mr. Lanbis. He seems to think he is following the Marx-Lenin line more than
the rest of them. I just wondered if your policy was that ?
Mr. Foster. I don't know that he did.
Mr. Landis. His statement here in the Daily Worker says that they are back
on the Marx-Lenin line, and they want American Communists — he wanted
American Communists to go back on that line, and I understood they are doing
that.
Mr. Foster. He wrote an article, and his article in general agreed with the
article that I had written 2 years before.
Mr. Landis. You agree with about the same policy that he did?
Mr. Foster. Approximately.
Mr. Landis. But I understand he believed in the overthrow of the capitalists
by revolution, force and violence.
Mr. Foster. He doesn't say that. Communists all over the world have the
same attitude, if they understand Communist principles that I explained here
this morning, and which was very well stated in the decision of the Supreme
Court. I for one accept that definitely as the Communist attitude towards force
and violence. I think it was a very objective and scholarly analysis by our
Supreme Court.
Mr. Landis. Do you think our Communist Party ought to remain as a domestic
organization and break any and all relations with the Comintern?
Mr. Foster. There is no Comintern.
Mr. Landis. We don't have any dealings with the Comintern?
Mr. Foster. The Comintern dissolved a couple of years ago.
Mr. Landis. What other purpose, if any, did the Daily Worker have in blasting
General MacArthur after V.J-day, than you mentioned the other day about Japan?
Was there any other purpose?
Mr. Foster. Well, I have stated that I think the policy in Japan is not one that
reaches the real Fascist core of the Japanese ruling class, no more than it is in
Germany. I didn't have time to read the report of the commission or the ex-
pressing beyond to read the list of the men that are indicted in Germany, and
this list is not the list of the real Fascist principles in Germany. Of course,
these men are all guilty, but the real Fascists in Germany were the great indus-
trialists. They were the ones who organized Fascism in Germany, and Hitler
was their stooge, and most of these men who are now indicted are rheir stooges.
They have some big fish like Schacht and Krupp, but there are thousands of
others, the big industrialists, who are the real ones. The same situation exists in
Japan. I don't know what General MacArthur has in mind, but I have read
the list of war criminals that has been presented so far, and I must say that
this does not touch the war criminals of Japan, including the Emperor. From
the Emperor on down who was the No. 1 Fascist of Japan, and these great
industrialists of Japan, are not yet on the list of war criminals, and by letting
them escape we are running the danger of facing the same situation again in
the near future.
Mr. Landis. Of course, I believe he has done a very good job over there myself
in handling the situation, and I was wondering why they want to take out after
him and smear one of our greatest generals, unless there was some other purpose
in it besides probably making Communism work in Japan.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 119
Mr. Foster. As I said yesterday, General MacArthur is not playing a military
part now particularly. He is playing a civilian role.
Mr. Laxdis. Well, you have to get those war materials away from tliere.
Mr. Foster. He is playing a political role, and I for one and very dubious
indeed regarding General MacArthur as a political leader, either in Japan or
here or anywhere else.
INIr. La>'dis. Yon mean, of course, the Communists don't want him to become
a candidate for the Presidency in 1948?
:Mr. FO.STER. Not only the Conununists, but you will find the entire labor move-
ment would not want him, because any man who is the darling of Hearst and
the darling of Colonel McCormick will not have the support of the common
people of America.
Mr. Landis. I thought maybe there would be some other reason, but you know
that in Germany and those other countries they have to have the military men
to police the situation until they can get it straightened out.
Mr. Foster. I understand that.
Mr. Landis. Japan must be policed. There is no question about that.
Mr. Foster. I understand that. It is a question of how and what they do.
Mr. Landis. Somebody has got to police the situation until they can get things
straightened out over there.
^Ir. ^lu.xDT. Who would you suggest to do the job if not MacArthur?
Mr. Foster. I have no nominations.
Mr. MuNDT. The only living American statesman, I think, that you have spoken
friendly towards since you have been here is Henry Wallace. Do you think he
coukVdo it?
Mr. Fo.sti':r. Well, I am afraid I am not going to give American statesmen a
very friendly endorsement. I rather imagine — I tried that with one, Mr. Willkie,
this morning.
Mr. MuNDT. I said living statesmen. You did pretty well for Wendell Willkie,
Thomas Jeiierson, and Abraham Lincoln. The only living statesman you spoke
well of was Henry Wallace. Are they any others?
Mr. Foster. There are very many men in public life who are honest and re-
spectable men. We judge them according to their policies.
Mr. Thomas. You are not inferring that General MacArthur is not an honest,
re.^pectable man?
Mr. Foster. I said what I have to say about General MacArthur.
Mr. Thomas. You mean to say now that he is not an honest and respectable
man?
Mr. Foster. I didn't say that. I didn't raise the question of his personal
integrity.
Mr. Landis. You said he was a darling.
Mr. Foster. I said he was a reactionary, and in my judgment with Fascist
leanings, and such a man, I think, is a dangerous public man.
Mr. Laxd.s. You said he was a darling just a minute ago.
Mr. Foster. I said he was a darling of Mr. Hearst.
Mr. Landis. Not your darling?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Rankin. You say now .vou think he is a dangerous Fascist?
Mr. Foster. I didn't say that. I said that I considered he was a reactionary
with Fascist leanings.
Mr. Rankin. And for that reason dangerous?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. Rankin. You .said you thought he was dangerous?
Mr. Foster. Everybody who has Fascist leanings is dangerous.
Mr. Land s. If we had a few more men like MacArthur in this country we
would be better off. I will say that.
Mr. Rankin. Amen.
Mr. Foster. Well, everybody is entitled to his own opinion, as the old lady
said when she kissed the cow.
Mr. MuNDT. I was intrigued by an answer that Mr. Foster gave the chairman
in response to a question — I believe you said that the people of Russia enjoy
greater political liberties than the people of the United States, speaking of the
working clas.ses?
Mr. FOvSTicE. That is right.
yiv. MuNDT. ^^■ould you say that the right to organize and operate in an oppo-
sition party is an inherent part of political liberty?
Mr. FosiEB. No. It is under capitalism, but not under socialism.
120 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. MuNDT. You think you can have political liberty without having the freedom
to dissent?
Mr. Foster. Parties represent classes, generally, and there are no opposing
classes in the Soviet Union, so there is no basis for more than one party.
, Mr. MxjNDT. You do not think there is?
Mr. Foster. I know there is just one party in the Soviet Union. I don't have
to affirm or deny that. Everybody knows it.
Mr. MUNDT. Would you say that the right to publish an opposition newspaper
was inherent as part of political liberty?
Mr. Foster. If there is an opposition it should have a right to publish news-
papers, and the fact of the matter is that for many years there were such news-
papers published.
Mr. MuNDT. Can you name an opposition newspaper in Moscow today?
Mr. FosTEai. There are none. Well, I don't know of any, because there is no
opposition. The people are united. It is a difficult thing for you to realize that.
Mr. MuNDT. 190,000,000' people over there are all of one opinion?
Mr. FosTEB. It may seem very humorous that the Russian people are united,
but I think if they had not been united, you would probably have a gauleiter in
New York and probably in Washington.
Mr. Landis. 1 don't agree with that.
Mr. rosTB:K. No ; you don't agree with that, now that the war is over, but this
same General MacArthur expressed himself very much along this line and said
if it had not been for the unity of the Russian people, unquestionably they could
not have made the great fight that they did.
Mr. Landis. We made our own fight.
Mr. Foster. It is very difficult for us, living in a capitalist country where we
have a class struggle and we have also all sorts of conflicting class interests, to
thiulv of a people who are really united, but that is what happens under socialism,
unity.
Mr. MuNDT. Do you think the United States made any important contribution
to winning this war?
Mr. FosTEK. Of course. How could I think otherwise?
Mr. MuNUT. I don't know how you could, but you implied that we were not
united because we have a free press over here and opposition parties.
Mr. FosTEK. I didn't say anything of the kind. I think the United States played
a very important part In the war, but I also think that at that critical moment
before the United States was ready, if it had not been for the unity of the Rus-
sian people this war would have been lost before we got into it.
Mr. MuNDT. Is it your position, then, that the people of Russia have complete
freedom to organize opposition political parties and publish opposition news-
papers, and the reason they do not do it is that nobody over there opposes the
present regime?
Mr. FosTEiR. I think that is correct ; yes. The people of the Soviet Union are
socialists and they don't see any necessity to oppose the present regime.
Mr. MuNDT. What was the great educational process employed by which in
the course of, say, 20 years, 19O,0€O,0OO people all came to think simultaneously
about the same thing in every way?
Mr. Fo'STEB. Well, that is a long story.
Mr. MuNDT. But it would be very informative. That is a great educational
-achievement.
. Mr. Foster. I would like to know what all this talk about the Soviet Union
has got to do witli un-American activities here. I don't think this committee
should permit such talk.
Mr. MuNDT. You brought the Soviet Union into the picture. I didn't. You
brought it in.
Mr. Foster. I doubt it. I might have made some general reference to the Soviet
Union, but where a committee of the United States Government takes up the
question of an Ally, of a member of the United Nations, with the deliberate
attempt to — well, slander it or lower its prestige, I think that is infamous.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I think that remark is out of order and should
be stricken from the record.
The Chairman. This committee is not doing anything of the sort, and the
question of the Soviet Republic of Russia wa^ brought into this discussion by
you making an analogy between it and our Government.
Mr. Landis. Do you think we could go over to Russia, Mr. Foster,
Mr. Foster (interposing). I was asked a question and I answered it.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 121
Mr. Landis. Do you think we could so over to Russia and step in 'there and
tell them to change their form of government from a socialist system over there?
Mr. Foster. To a capitalist system?
Mr. Landis. Change it to any kind of system?
Mr. Foster. If we would tell them that over there I think they would think
you were crazy.
Mr. Landis. We think that in the United States, that they are crazy in wanting
to chaniie ours too, if that is the case.
Mr. MuNDT. Another question, along that same line. I understood Mr. Foster
expressed great concern because he read in the newspapers that the Republicans
liad suggestetl that as one of the prerequisites for getting relief there be free
press in these areas. Do I understand from that that the Communist Party
does not stand for a free press?
Mr. FosTKR. I think that is the business of the i)eople themselves, and that
the United States Government has no business to walk into a country and tell
them how and why and where they shall organize their press.
The Chairman. The question asked you is, does the Communist Party to which
you belong today subscribe to the doctrine of free press?
Mr. F0STB31. Of course.
The Chairman. That answers it.
Mr. MuNDT. You subscribe to that?
Mr. Foster. I subscribe to that, but with the United States stepping into these
-countries I can very well imagine that it would be Mr. Hearst or Mr. McCormick
or someone of that character who would undertake to tell these people just what
kind of a free press they should have.
Mr. MuNDT. You are expressing too vivid an imagination.
Mr. Foster. Oh. no ; I just look out over the scene here and see who is telling
lis what kind of a free press we should have.
Mr. MuNDT. I don't believe eitlier Mr. Hearst or Mr. McCormick has very
much authority in the present administration. I don't believe they could de-
termine who is' going to define free press, but the resolution, for your information,
that we are talking about, deals with freedom of information. Do you think
it is wrong as a prerequisite for our extending relief to various areas, that we
have iiernnssion to have newspaper reporters go in there and send back infor-
mation without censorship? That is what the resolution says.
Mr. Foster. All I know is this report that I have just cited to you, and if the
proposal is that they will refuse bread and butter and milk to children and starve
the people until they establish a free press as we dictate, I say that is wrong.
Our job is to feed them. We had that in the last war. I might say on that
general proposition, I stated at the outset that Mr. Hoover has more influence
in the administration, particularly in Congress now, than President Truman has.
Mr. MuNDT. A great compliment to Mr. Hoover.
Mr. Foster. Well, I don't know. When I look over what Congress is doing,
I don't think I would consider it much of a compliment, what our Congress is
doing.
Mr. Landis. Well, we have done some pretty good things.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions?
Mr. MuNDT. Yes. He has not answered my specific question. Forgetting
about any definition of free press, Mr. Foster, the resolution I am talking about
deals with making it a prerequisite for the extension of this relief to permit
reporters from those areas to send back to all of the countries, Britain, France,
Russia, the United States, information without being censored.
Mr. Foster. My opinion on that is that our job is to send in a relief organiza-
tion, and as far as the free press within the bordei's of a country is concerned,
that is up to that country to determine for it.self. We have no right to dictate as
to news services and so on, and say "If you don't do this we are not going to give
you any bread and butter."
Mr. MuNDT. Do you say relief should go to Fascist countries?
Mr. Foster. The Facist country is our enemy, and we treat them as enemies.
The Chairman. You would not send relief to them at all?
Mr. Foster. No.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions. Yesterday you
referred to a man by the name of Ryan in New York. Who is Mr. Ryan ?
Mr. Foster. He is head of the longshoremen union. He is elected for life, and
he is the king of the longshoremen.
122 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
The Chairman. You mean there isn't any authority that can get hira out?
Mr. Foster. Tlie man is elected for life, and lie carries the constitution in his
pocket. They rarely hold any meetings. Conventions are practically unknown
amongst them, and try and get him out.
Mr. MuNDT. A great manifestation of unity on the part of his people.
Mr. Foster. Yes. The Fascists also had unity. There can be different kinds
of unity.
Mr. Rankin. What organization does he represent?
Mr. Foster. He is head of the National Longshoremen's Association.
Mr. Rankin. He is head of the labor union?
Mr. Foster. That is it. That is the name of it.
Mr. Rankin. Affiliated with the National Fe<leration of Labor?
Mr. Foster. With the A. F. of L.
Mr. Rankin. Do you know what his salary is?
Mr. Foster. I see by the papers it is $20,000 a year salary, and a heavy ex-
pense account, which probably runs to another $20,000.
Mr. Rankin. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor had a right, had not only the right but the power to
remove any of their people at any time they Jbecame dissatisfied with them.
Mr. Foster. No, the American Federation of Labor is organized on the basis
of craft autonomy. The respective international unions have a very high degree
of self-government, and they pick out their own leaders, and they are very
jealous of tlie right to do that. However, the American Federation of Labor has
great moral strength in a situation like that, and if it were to come out and
condemn Mr. Ryan and cite his various infractions against democracy, un-
doubtedly the workers of his union would be encouraged to depose liim. They
have a moral strength in the situation, and I think that is as far as their legal
power goes under their constitution.
Mr. Rankin. Is IVIr. Ryan a members of the Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. Well, I hope not. Of course not.
Mr. Rankin. I was asking for information. I don't know him, never heard
of him until he was mentioned here a day or so ago. I am asking for information.
On yesteivlay you said that Secretary Byrnes had disrupted the conference in
London. What did you mean by that?
Mr. Foster. Well, I do not have access to the inner-meanings in which the
policies are decided upon, like other American citizens I read the newspapers, and
I draw my conclusions therefrom.
Mr. Rankin. As a matter of fact, Mr. Byrnes was representing the American
people, was he not, in his attitude?
Mr. Foster. He represented the administration. Whether he represented the
American people, that is something else again. I don't think he did. Mr. Byrnes,
according to the reports in the newspapers, has the tlieory tliat the proper
policy is to get tough with the Soviet Union, and this is an example of getting
tough with the Soviet Union. According to the newspaper reports which were
widely broadcast at the time of the Srtn Francisco United Nations Conference, it
was reported that Mr. Byrnes advised the President that the policy to follow
at San Francisco was to get tough with the. Soviet Union. This was done with
the result that we saw that the conference was almost wreclced between the
activities of Mr. Stettinius and Senator Vandenberg, and I don't think the
American people liked that.
Mr. Rankin. I am not asking about the San Francisco conference.
Mr. Foster. But you asked me about the American people.
Mr. Rankin. No ; I asked you about
Mr. Foster (interposing). And Mr. Byrnes' hand was behind tliat, and if I am
able to .iudge American sentiment they very seriously disagreed with Mr. Byrnes'
policy with regard to the San Francisco Conference.
Mr. RvnktN: Now then, you were- speaking alwut the conference in London?
Mr. Foster. Yes, also, and this is another e^-pression of the same policy of get-
ting tough witli the Soviet Union, and I think it is a very disastrous policy.
I don't think we can deal with our allies and our friends in this manner.
Mr. Rankin. Didn't they get tough with us? Would you advise Mr. Byrnes
not to stiffen up and manifest his authority or the autliority of the United
States?
Mr. Foster. I didn't sop the Soviet Union get tough.
Mr. Rankin. Yet INIr. Byrnes got tough with the Soviet Union?
Mr. Foster. Yes, because Mr. Byrnes has the theory of getting tough with tlio
Soviet Union. Not only that, but that theory is widely spread here in Washington,
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 123
.'iiul the big.wst n-actioiiaries in the country are the loudest in their applause of
Mr. L>yrnes precisely for get tint,' tuugii with tlie Soviet Union.
Mr. Kankin. Well, tlie feeling as I get it is that Mr. Ilyrnes is representing
not only the American Government but he is representing the sentiment of tlie
American people iu standing out for the rights of the United States and for
those piilicies that will make for peace throughout the world.
Mr. FosTKK. That is not the rights of the American people nor the intei'ests
of the American people, and I haven't the slightest doubt but what was done
at London will be reversed.
Mr. Kankin. By whom?
Mr. FosTEiJ. By the Big Three when they eventually get together. They will
arrive at a friendly estimate of adjustment of their difliculties, which Mr.
Byrnes, in my opinion, made no effort whatever to do.
Mr. Rankin. You think that Mr. Byrnes made no effort to iron out the diffi-
culties?
Mr. Foster. Exactly.
Mr. Rankin. Well, Mr. Byrnes was not by himself at that conference. France
and Great Britain were both represented.
Mr. FosTicR. Yes, he had Mr. Dulles there also, a big help.
Mr. Rankin. In what w'ay was he a big help?
Mr. Foster. He was a big help to split the conference. We have learned not
only how to split the atom but I think we have learned how to split the conference
too.
Mr. Rankin. Well, I am not very well acquainted with Mr. Dulles, but I am
personally very well acquainted with Mr. Byrnes, and if Mr. Dulles is as good
a man as Jim Byrnes I think the American Government is to be congratulated
on having two such eminent men to represent them at the conference.
The Chaikman. Of course, you are expressing an opinion now,
Mr. Foster. Mr. Rankin, your enthusiastic endorsement of Mr. Byrnes is the
biggest condemnation in tlie eyes of the American people.
Mr. Rankin. Thanks very much. Now, I want to ask you about what you
said yesterday. If I understood you correctly you said the Soviet state is not
a Communist state?
Mr. FosTEJ?. No, it is a Socialist state. -^
Mr. Rankin. It started out as a Communist state, did it not?
Mr. FosFER. No, it started out as a Socialist state. It started out as a
capitalist state. •
Mr. Rankin. I understand, but when the revolution came on — I believe the
Kerenski Revolution came first, and Lenin and Trotsky followed him. Didn't
they set up a Communist Government, a Communist state?
Mr. Foster. No, there was a period during the Civil War in which they
had what they called "War Communism." During jjeriods of great crises
people will have recourse to communism. Our forefather who landed on
Plymouth Rock were Communists. It isn't widely advertised in our school
books, but the system of society that they established in Massachusetts was
a Communist society.
Mr. Rankin. Now, you advocate a Communist state in this " country, do
you not?
Mr. Foster. Socialism. That is one of the things about these committees
that we take violent exception to, because the committee does not present or
allow us to present the program of the Communist Party. The Communist
Party comes forward with a whole program of reform for the capitalist sys-
tem, and 98 percent of our activities are precisely directed to this end. So
far as socialism is concerned, socialism is a matter of educational work. Our
practical activities have to do with wages and hours and working conditions
and prices and reconversion and the rest of the problems that confront the
nation.
Mr. Rankin. I understand that socialism, the Socialist Part.y, is represented
by Mr. Norman Thomas. Now, you say you are the head or the leader of
the Communist Party. You are in favor, then, as I understand it, not of the
same kind of government that Mr. Thomas advocates, but vou are in favor
of a Communist state in America, in the United States? Is that correct?
Mr. Foster. I have said that time and time again. First of all, we are in
favor of the best po.ssible conditions under capitalism. We are in favor of
socialism as a long run proposition, which the American people will finally
find themselves compelled to adopt— that is, the majority of the American
people. They will see the logic of the thing, and socialism is the first stage
of communism.
124 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Rankin. I was going to say, I think I have read where you stated in
a speech that socialism was merely a step towards communism. Is that correct?
Mr. Foster. It is the first stage of communism.
Mr. Rankin. Then it gets more pronounced — the theory that you represent
gets more pronounced as you progress from socialism toward communism?
Mr. Foster. That is right. As the prosperity of the people under socialism
grows and the problem of production ceases to be a real problem, then they
go over into communism. The fact of the matter is that the Soviet Govern-
ment was already beginning to consider the problem of communism, that is,
beginning to figure that now they have solved the problem of production to
a very great extent, and they should begin to think about establishing com-
munism.
Mr. Rankin. Isn't it a fact that the Soviet Union is swinging toward capital-
ism now?
Mr. Foster. Nonsense.
Mr. Rankin. You don't think so?
Mr. Foster. Of course not.
Mr. Rankin. The Soviet Union has in the last year or two made several
changes which indicates they are swinging towards capitalism, have they not?
IMr. Foster. That may be your opinion but it is not true.
Mr. Rankin. So you think, then, that the Soviet Union is a Socialist state,
and that would be a state in harmony with the views of Mr. Norman Thomas,
as contrasted with the views of the Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. No, Mr. Norman Thomas is one of bitterest enemies of the Soviet
Union in the United States. Mr. Norman Thomas is a red baiter. Mr. Norman
Thomas sabotaged the war that we have just gone through, and considered, the
Soviet Union, not Hitler, as the main enemy. But Mr. Norman Thomas was
not bothered for his sabotage of tlie war, but Communists who supported the
war — and I mean supported the war— there was nobody in this country that gave
this war more urgent and more complete support with such means as we had
than we did, but we are haled before a tribunal like this and pillored all over
the country as un-American.
Mr. Landis. You mean during the war, the war's entirety from start to finish?
Mr. Foster. The American participation
Mr. Landis (interposing). You say the Communists before the war, from the
beginning to the end? Is that right?
Mr. Foster.. The American participation in the war, of course.
Mr. Landis. Did you disagree with Browder on strikes?
Mr. Foster. No. '■
Mr. Landis. Browder said there should be no strikes.
Mr. Foster. Right.
Mr. Landis. Did you agree with him on that?
Mr. Foster. 100 percent.
Mr. Rankin. Did the Communist Party support the American Government at
the time when Russia had a nonagression pact with Germany?
Mr. Foster. A nonagression pact with Germany? I though we were past that.
Mr. Rankin. No, that is my question.
Mr. Foster. I thought the American i)eop]e had come to understand that this
Was one of the major reasons why we won the war, precisely that. This was
the thing that enabled the Soviet Union to pull together its strength that made
possible the defense before Moscow and the victory at Stalingrad.
Mr. Rankin. Isnt' it a fact
Mr. Foster, (interposing). I thing it is about time that you should know
that. I think the historians of the war have generally agreed on that.
Mr. Rankin. Isn't it a fact that during the time that Germany had that non-
aggression pact with Russia, the Communists were picketing the White House
in protest against our preparation for war and our furnishing supplies to
England and France?
Mr. Foster. I don't know whether they were Communists. I know some did.
Mr. Rankin. As a matter of fact, I noticed some Communists that were doing
that picketing.
Mr. Foster. There was some organization. It was not our party.
Mr. Rankin. That's all, Mr. Chairman.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 125
The Chaiuman. You have defined, Mr. Foster, in your testimony heretofore,
the fuudamentals of the two parties, the Socialist Party and the Connnunisl
Party. I would like to inquire, if I may, whether or not, if you liad the power
to formuhite a government of the United State.s, would you project into that
government the principles that you have defined as heing the principles of the
Connnunist Party or the Socialist Party under the definition that you yourself
gave? Which would you project into the picture?
]Mr. Foster. We are realists, and we have to look at things as they are. Our
party bases itself on the coalition of tlie democratic forces of the country,
workers, farmers, and middle class elements, as I stated, the progressive-minded
employers who may favor certain steps, and the thing that we would undertake
to do first would be to make sure that there could be full employment in this
country. That is what we would undertake.
The Chairman. That is not responsive to my question. I asked you what you
would do?
I\Ir. Foster. At some remote period. That is another story.
The Chairman. Ultimately you would project into the government then the
principles of communism?
Mr. Foster. Not necessarily we. By the time we would raise the question of
socialism as a practical issue in America, that would signify that in our judgment
the majority of the American people were convinced that they had to move in
the direction of socialism, as is the case in England at the present time. When
the question of socialism is raised, the majority of the English people support it.
That is exactly the situation.
The Chairman. The question I asked you is based on the hypothesis that
you yourself have the power to formulate the government.
Mr. Foster. I would not have such power.
The Chairman. You don't know what you would do?
Mr. Foster. I stated what I would do.
The Chairman. Now, I want to ask you just two or three questions anyway.
Has there been any attempt by the organization that you head, or its responsible
officers, to place in the public schools of this country, and particularly in some
of the large cities like New York, teachers of Communist leanings?
Mr. Foster. You mean any special campaign?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Foster. No, but we take the position that teachers are citizens like every
body else and they may hold such ideas as they believe in.
The Chairman. What I asked you was if there has been any special or con-
certed effort?
Mr. Foster. No.
The Chairman. Are you familiar with a new school that has been set up in
New York City, largely for veterans, known as the New School for Social
Resources?
Mr. Foster. I know of it in a vague way.
The Chairman. Do you know any of the members of the faculty of that
school ?
Mr. Foster. Not one.
The Chairman. You don't know any of them by name?
Mr. Foster. None of them. If I saw their names I might know them, but I
could not say.
The Chairman. Of your knowledge, are there any members of the Communist
Party who occupy positions of instruction in that school?
Mr. Foster. Not to my knowledge. I don't even know who they are, so I
can't say.
The Chairman. That is .all.
Mr. Rankin. One more question. Yesterday, Mr. Foster, or a day or two ago,
you were discussing this pamphlet I hold here. Syndicalism, that you wrote
more than 30 years ago. You published that pamphlet up to about 1919 or 1920,
did you not?
Mr. FosTFJi. No, it was published in 1912 or thereabouts.
Mr. Rankin. Isn't it a fact that it was being published in 1919 under your
name?
Mr. Foster. Yes, it was published but not by me, not under my authorization.
Mr. Rankin. Well, it had your name on it?
126 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Foster. The steel trust published it. The steel trust undertook to red
bait the steel workers strike, of which I was tlie head. We had 365,000 workers
on strike. I was the organizer for the American Federation of Labor, and as
reactionaries generally do, they figured that red baiting could help to break the
strike. You raise the pamphlet now for this purpose of creating a red hysteria
in the country. They raised it at that time in the hope of having some effect
upon the steel workers. They published it and tliat's all. I had nothing whatever
to do with it, no more than I have with you bringing it up now.
The Chairman. How many copies were publislied? Do you know?
Mr. FosTEE. I could not say, but I know tlieir prospectus offered it in 25,000
lots and so on.
The Chairman. How many copies were published under your authority?
Mr. Foster. Oh, very few. I could not say — it was so many years ago, but it
was a very small number, perhaps five or ten thousand.
Mr. Rankin. You said the otlier day you repudiated it when you joined the
Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. Even before that.
Mr. Rankin. When did you join the Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. In 1921.
Mr. Rankin. You said yesterday, or the day before that you repudiated
the pamphlet when you joined the Communist Party.
Mr. Foster. Well, the fact of tlie matter is, I had to repudiate that pamphlet
every time I met one Of these committees.
Mr. Rankin. That's all.
Mr. Foster. I would like to raise one point. I would like to register a pro-
test here. I am a citizen of New York, a citizen of New York City, and I
want to protest against the meddling of this committee in the local elections
in New York City.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, that is the usual Communist technique, the
same old Communist technique, and it is out of order.
The Chairman. We are not interested in municipal elections.
Mr. Foster. I know it is hard to take but I think you should be good enough
to let me talk.
Tlie Chairman. Just a moment now. Your protest, of course, is noted.
Mr. FosTEU. But I haven't finished my protest. I think the people of New
York are quite competent to decide who they want for councilman without the
interference of this committee, and I am sure that when election comes along
they will give this committee the answer that it deserves. I mean the sum-
moning of Ben Davis, which was direct interference with the rights of voters.
The Chairman. Just a moment — since you brought the question up, you were
not present when this happened, but because of the fact that Ben Davis, when
he was subpenaed before this coinmitttee, made the statement that he desired
to be relieved from attending here until such time as the election was over,
he was granted that privilege, and there has been no further interference with
Ben Davis' activities as a candidate for office in New York City. He was not
subpenaed before this committee for any such purpose as that. So far as I
know, there is not a member of this committee that has got the slightest
interest on earth in the election in New York City, because no member of this
committee is a resident of New York.
Mr. Foster. You didn't need to be kind to him. He can take care of himself.
The Chairman. He requested that he be excused, and the request was
promptly granted.
Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, what do you suppose the New York Daily News
said about this? What do you suppose the Hearst press said about it?
The Chairman. I am just answering your protest with that explanation.
Mr. FO'Stek. They said that the action of this committee had this effect, and
not only that, but I am convinced that that was the purpose of it.
Mr. Landis. He made the I'equest and we granted it, so he ought to be
satisfied.
Mr. Mundt. One further question, Mr. Chairman. I don't like to admit it,
but I am a little confused about the distinction between communism and
socialism the way you have defined it. You have said that what they have in
Russia is not communism but is socialism, and you said you thought they
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 127
were about ready now to take some steps toward coniraunism in the Soviet
Union?
Mr. Foster. They said that before the war.
Mr. MuNDT. Before the war?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. jMundt. Now. could you tell this committee what you envisage as those
changes which will take place when that system evolves from socialism to
connuunism? Maybe that will help us understand the difference.
Mr. Foster. I ilon't know what particular steps they had in mind, so I don't
know as I should undertake to say. It would be purely speculation on my
part, but the general principle of the thing is that instead of measuring out
people's ronumeration according to the wage system, there would be more or
less of a free distribution of commodities that were in sufficient abundance so
that it was not necessary to measure them out; people would take what they
need.
Mr. LANnis. The real communist system, then, has never been tried out?
Mr. Foster. Yes, it has.
Mr. Landis. Where?
Mr. Foster. The Catholic Church was conmumist for 325 years, primitive com-
munism we call it, for 325 years. Not only that, but we have had dozens of
communist sects in this country, what we call "primitive communism," usually
organized around some religious conception.
Mr. Lam)Is. In this country?
Mr. Foster. In this country, yes, Quakers and Shakers and various groups.
Mr. MuNDT. I give up.
The Chairman. Have you some questions, Mr. Adamson?
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Chairman, I have got about 2 hours with Mr. Foster. This
morning Mr. Foster reached some common ground with Mr. Murdock, who you
will remember said if there was any foreign influence or control of a political
o''ganizatiou he conceded that that was an un-American activity, and we are
prepared to prove that, but we cannot do it today, and I should like to approve
also tire request for the attendance, at whatever date the committee sets, of
Mr. Joseph R. Brodsky, and ask that he bring with him all the books, records, and
papers of the Sound View Coriioration. If Mr. Brodsky doesn't agree to that,
of course I shall ask the chairman to issue a subpena.
The Chairma.v. Now let me inquire of Mr. Foster — he has been detained here
quite a little while longer than I anticipated when we asked you to come, would
you mind giving to us some time in the future, probably some date next week,
when you can come back for another day?
Mr. Foster. I would like a couple of weeks, if I might. I have a trip scheduled
out West.
The Chairman. We will accommodate ourselves to your convenience and assure
you that your expenses will be defrayed.
Mr. Foster. Might I write you, then, about the matter?
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. ADAsrscN. How about a week from Thursday, 2 weeks from yesterday?
Mr. Foster. That would be too soon for me. How about the following Monday?
Mr. AOAMSON. How about the following W^ednesday?
Mr. F(iSTER. That will be all right.
The Chairman. That will be 2 weeks from next Wednesday, Mr. Foster. That
would be the 7th day of November.
Mr. .4DAMSON. That will be the day after the election in New York City. Is
it agreeable with Mr. Brodsky that he will appear without a subpena?
Mr. Brodsky. Any time you want.
Mr. Adam.son. And biMng the l)ooks and papers of the Sound View Corporation?
The Chairman. Let us m:ike it Thursday, the 8th of November at 10 o'clock.
Mr. At>amson. Thursday, November 8th.
The Chairman. Until that time then y<m are excused, Mr. Foster.
l\Ir. Rankin. At this point in the record. Mr Chairman, I wish to submit the
pamphlet entitled "Syndicalism", by William Z. Foster, extracts from which I
have previously read.
(The matter referre<l to follows:)
83078 — 46 9
128 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 129
INTRODUCTION
The Situation — Its Cause and Cube
The American working man who arouses himself from the customary state of
indifference characterizing workingmen and gazes about him in a critical mood,
nuist be struck by the great inequalities in tlie conditions of the beings surround-
ing him.
On the one hand, he sees vast masses of workers working long hours, often
at most dangerous and unhealthy occupations, and getting in return hardly the
scantiest of tlie necessities of life. He sees this starving, slaving mass of workers
afflicted with the terrible social scourges of unemployment, crime, prostitution,
lunacy, consumption, and all the other forms of social, mental and physical de-
generacy whicli are the inseparable companions of poverty.
On the other hand, he sees a comparatively small number of idle rich revelling
in all the luxuries that modern society can produce. Though they do nothing
Useful for society, society pours its vast treasures into their laps, and they
squander this wealth in every way that their depraved and sated appetites can
suggest. Tlie monkey dinners, dog suppers, pig luncheons, hiring of n,oblemea
for servants, buying of princes for husbands and cartloads of valuable art
treasures for notoriety, and the thousand and one other insane methods of the
American aristocracy to flaunt its wealth are too well known to need recapitu-
lation here. Our observing worker must indeed conclude that something is radi-
cally wrong in a society that produces such extremes of poverty and wealth, and.
toil and idleness.
Some Fake Causes and Quack Remedies
His inquiries as to the cause of these inequalities are met by a shower of
answers from retainers of the rich. He is told that they are due to the trusts,
the tariff, to the fact that the workers don't "save,"- that they "drink,", that they
are unfit to survive in the great social struggle for the survival of he fittest
from which the rich have emerged the victors, etc, etc. But even the slightest
examination of these answers will show their superficiality and inability to
explain the great inequalities in modern society.
Poverty with its terrible co-evils and wealth with its luxuries are not caused
by the trusts or the tariff. They are to be found in all industrial countries alike,
whether they have trusts and tariffs or not.
Neither are they caused by the workers "squandering" their wages in "drink"
and the rich "saving up." A few years ago it was shown that the yearly wages
of the anthracite coal miners amounted to $40.00 less than the cost of the actual
necessities of life. It has been recently calculated that the street railway-
workers of Chicago receive wages enough to buy only two-thirds of the necessities
of life. The same is true, more or less, of every category of workers. Even
if the workers spent not a cent for drink they couldn't "save," as they would
still want for prime necessities. And even if a worker expended nothing of the
two dollars per day average wages he received, and "saved" it all for 2,000 years,
his savings at the end of that time would amount to but a fraction of the fabulous
sums amassed by American multi-millionaires in a few years while revelling in
luxury. To say that the workers are poor because they "drink" and don't "save"
is absurd.
The argument that the rich are rich because they are capable and the poor
are poor because they are incapable is belied everywhere. Thousands of wealthy
stockholders are drawing dividends from industries they have never even seen —
let alone to know anything of them or their operation. A goodly share of this
interest-drawing aristocracy — if not the majority — is composed of jperverts and
mental degenerates of various types, such as the Thaw and McCormick heirs-
of malodorous renown. To say that these degenerates and the mediocre balance
of the aristocracy occupy their present positions of affluence because of their
superior capacities is to insult common intelligence.
The Teue Cause and Its Cure
The fallacies of the various other orthodox explanations for the social in-
equalities and their terrible effects will at once be apparent to the intelligent
inquiring worker. He must seek deeper for the true explanation. He will find
it in the wages system, which is the foundation institution of modern society.
130 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
The Wages Sys fern. —The means whereby society gains its livelihood : the shops,
mills, mines, railroads, etc., are owned by the comparatively few individuals
ihe rest of society, m order to work in the industries and procure a living, must
secure the permission of these individuals. As the number of applicants for
jobs IS far greater than the needs of the industries, there is such competition
tor the available positions that those who secure them are, in return for the
privilege to earn a living, forced to give up to the owners of the industries the
lions share (in the United States four-fifths) of the abundant products the
highly developed machinery enables them to produce. The owners of the in-
dustries take advantage of their strategic position and steal the greater portion
of the workers' product, giving them, in the shape of wages, barely enough to
.live on.
The wages system of robbery is responsible for the great extremes of poverty
-and wealth to be found in modern scciety. It has existed ever since the very
beginning of industrialism and its effects grow worse daily. Every invention of
a labor-saving device, by increasing the army of the unemployed and making
the competition for jolis keener, enables the owners of the industries to more
thoroufdily exploit their slaves. Thus the wages system has the effect of making
inventions of labor-saving devices curses to the bulk of society, instead of bless-
ings as they should be.
The Revolution. — The w^^ges system is the most brazen and gigantic robbery
'ever perpetrated since the world began. So disastrous are its consequences on
the vast armies of slaves within its toils that it is threatening the very existence
of society. If society is even to be perpetuated — to say nothing of being organized
upon an equitable basis — the wages system must be abolished. The thieves at
present in control of the industries must be stripped of their booty, and society
so reorganized that every individual shall have free access to the social means
of production. This social reorganization will be a revolution. Only after such
a revolution will the great inequalities of modern society disappear.
The Means to the Revolution
The Class Struggle. — For years progressive workers have realized the necessity
for this revolution, -^"'liey have also realized that it must be brought about by
the workers themselves.
The wages system has divided the immense bulk of society into two classes —
the capitalist class and the working class. The interests of these two classes are
i-adically opposed to each other. It is the interest of the capitalist class to rob
the workers of as much of their product as possible and the interest of the work-
ers to prevent this robbery as far as they can. A guerilla warfare — known as
the class struggle and evidenced by the many strikes, working class political
eruptions and the many acts of oppression committed by capitalists upon their
workers — constantly goes on between these opposing classes. The capitalists,
who are heartlessness and cupidity personified, being the dominant class of
society and the shapers of its institutions, have organized the whole fabric of
society with a view to keeping the working class in slavery. It is, therefore, evi-
dent that if the workers are to become free it must be through their own jpfforts
arid directly against those of the capitalists. Hence the revolutionary slogan,
"The emancipation of the workers must be wrought by the workers themselves."
Rejeciion of Political Action and Acceptance of Direct Action. — It goes without
saying, that for the workers to overthrow capitalism they must be thoroughly
organized to exert their combined might. Ever since the inception of the revolu-
tionary idea the necessity for this organization has been realized liy progressive
workingmen and they have expended untold efforts to bring it aliout.
These efforts have been almost entirely directed into the building of working
class political parties to capture the State — it being believed that with such a
party in control of the State, the latter could be used to expropriate the capitalists.
The Socialist parties in the various countries have been laboriously built with this
idea in view. But of late years, among revolutionists, there has been a pro-
nounced revolution against this program. Working class political action is rap-
idly coming to be recognized as even worse than useless. It is being superseded by
the direct action ^ of the labor unions.
This rejection of political action and acceptance of direct action has been caused
by the failure of the former and the success of the latter. Working class political
1 This much-maligned term means simply the direct warfare — peaceful or violent, as the
case may be — of the workers upon their employers, to the exclusion of all third parties,
such as politicians, etc.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 131
parties, in spite of tlie great efforts spent upon them, have been distinct failures,
wliile, on tbe other hand, labor unions, though often despised and considered as
interlopers by i-evolntiouists, have been pronounced successes. For a long time,
practically ininoticed, they went on all over the world winning the most substan-
tial victorii'S for the working class. It was only th<> continued failure of political
action that led revolutionists to study them and to make a dispassionate compari-
son of their achievements, possibilities, structure, etc., witli tli/)se of the work-
ing class political party. The result of this study is the growing rejection of
political action and the rapid development of the revolutionary labor unions, or
Syndicalist movement, which is attracting the attention of the whole workl.
In the following pages the various phases of this new movement, designed to
free the working class, will be discussed.
SYNDICALISM
I. The Goal of Syndicalism ^
The Syndicalist movement is a labor union movement, which, in addition to
fighting the every-day battles of the working class, intends to overthrow capitalism
and reorganize society in such a manner that exploitation of man by man through
tlie wages system shall cease. The latter phase of this triple task — the estab-
lishment of a society wcu'thy of the human race — is the real goal of Syndical-
ism and the end for which all its efforts are finally spent. Consequently, an under-
stantling of the manner in which the new society shall be organized is a matter
of first importance to Syndicalists and they have given it much thought.
THE OPERATION OF THE INDUSTRIES
Anti-Sitatism. — At this early date, though many of the minor details of tbe
organization plan of the new society can only be guessed at, many of its larger
outlines are fairly clear. One of these is that there will be no State. The Syndi-
calist sees in the State only an instrument of oppression and a bungling adminis-
trator of industry, and proposes to exclude it from the future society. He sees
no need for any general supervising governmental body, and intends that the
workers in each industry shall manage the affairs of their particular industry;
the miners shall manage the mines; the railroaders manage the railroads, and so
' on through all the lines of human activity.
Current Sinulicalist Theory. — Just how the workers shall be organized to man-
age their Industries has been a matter of much speculation. The current Syndical-
ist theory is that the labor unions in the various Industries will each take over
the management of their particular industry; that "the fighting groups of today-
will be the producing and distributing groups of tomoi-row." "
This theory, while based on the correct principles, that the State is incompetent
to administer industry, and that the most competent bodies possible to do so are
the workers actually engaged in the industries, is in all probability incorrect in
itself. There are other organizations of workers, overlooked by the formulators
of the above theory, that are far more competent to carry on industry than are
the labor unions. These are the shop organizations of modern industry.
Shop Orynnizatians. — By the shop organization of an industry is meant the
producing organization of workers in that industry. It includes every worker in
that industry, whatever his function may be. All industries, including the pro-
fessions, etc., have such shop organizations more or less well developed. To carry
on production of any kind without a shop organization is impossible.
The superiority of these shop organizations to the labor unions for the admin-
istration of industry is manifest. They have been especially constructed to carry
on production in all its phases, and are daily doing .so; while labor unions are
simply fighting organizations of workers, knowing, as such, nothing about the
operation of industry. Tiiese shop organizations will not perish with the fall
of capitalism, but, barring some initial confusion, due to the I'evolution, will
continue on in much their present .shape into the future society. To try to replace
these highly developed and especially eonstructed pi-oducing organizations by the
labor unions — which have been built for an entirely different purpose — would be
" "Syndicalism" is the Fronoh term for labor unionism. It is florived from the word
"syndicat." or looal labor union. To (listin!.'nish themselves from conservative unionists,
French rebel unionists call themselves revolntionarv Svndicalists. The former are known
as conservative Syndicalists. In foreicn usa^e the French meaning of the term Syndicalism
has been modified. It is applied solely to the revolutionary labor union movement.
' C. G. T. convention, Amiens, 1906.
132 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
-as foolish as unnecessary. There will be no need to change the "fighting groups
■of today into the producing and distributing groups of tomorrow." These produc-
ing and distributing organizations already exist. The labor unions will serve
a very different purpose in the future society, as will be shown later.
Autonormj of Shop Organizations. — In the future society the shop organizations
■will be perfectly autonomous — each automatically regulating its own affairs and
requiring no interference from without. The iM-oducing force of society will be
composed of autonomous units — each industry constituting a unit. The begin-
nings of this industrial autonomy are seen in the more highly monopolized indus-
tries of today. These industries are becoming automatic in their operation.
Chance and arbitrary industrial dictatorship are being eliminated from them.
The whole industrial process is becoming a matter of obeying facts and figures.
In a monopolized industi-y the national demand for its product flows inevitably
to it and it regulates its production automatically to conform to this demand.
In the future society all industries will be monopolized and each will regulate
its production according to the demands placed upon it by the rest of society.
"The relations between the various industries will be simply the filling of each
•other's orders for commodities."*
This principle of autonomy will extend to the component parts of the various
Industries, as arbitrariness in an industry is as detrimental as between industries.
This principle is also being more and more I'ecognized and accepted in modern
industry. The recent breaking up of the Harriman railroad system into five
autonomous subsystems is proof of this.
As the activities of the autonomous shop organizations will extend over all
social production, including education, medicine, criminology, etc., there will be
no need for a general supervising body to administer industry — be it the State
■or the labor unions. And as there will be no slave class in society and no owner-
ship in the social means of livelihood, the State will have lost the only other
reasons for its existence — the keeping of the working class in subjection and
Ihe regulation of the quarrels between the owners of the industries.
Initiative. — The statist, while admitting, perhaps, that a certain amount of
Butonomy is necessary between the industries and also between their component
parts, and that, to a certain extent, they will automatically regulate themselves,
will, nevertheless, insist that very many instances occur in which these autono-
mous bodies are incapable of carrying on the multiple functions of society, and
that they must submit to legislative bodies. He will pose the question of initia-
tive: ""Who, in the new society, will decide on the adoption of far-i-eaching meas-
tures, such as the creation of new industries, reorganizing of old ones, adoption
-of new industrial processes, etc., which will affect all society?" And he himself
will quickly answer : "The majority of the representatives of all society in the
government."
But this conclusion is entirely fallacious and at variance with the laws of
modern production, as the following tyi^ical example, taken from modern industry,
will show : Suppose steel costs $10.00 per ton to produce and a new process is
invented, by whicli steel can be produced for $8.00 per ton. The question of the
adoption of this new process — surely one affecting all society — is merely a question
of whether or not it will pay interest on the cost of its installation. It Is Purely
A Matter of Figures and Is Sf;TTLED in the Steel Industry i^ONE. Society as a
"Whole Is Not Consulted. The Steel Industry Dictate/s to the Rest of
Society in Matters Pertaining to the Steel Industry. And this is perfectly
logical, even from an idealist standpoint, as it is manifest that the workers in the
steel industry are the most competent of all society to decide on matters relating
to the steel industry.
There is nothing democratic in this procedure ; but it is that of modern industry.
And it has been so successful in the development of the industries under capitalism
that it is very unlikely it will be changed in the future society. And why should
it be? Suppose, for instance, the scientifically organized medical fraternity,
from experience and figures at hand, decided that a certain hygenic measure, such,
for example, as vaccination, to be necessary for society's welfare, would it be
logical for a rational society to submit such a proposition to a referendum vote
of a lot of shoemakers, steel workers, farmers, etc., who know nothing about it,
or to a government of their representatives equally ignorant? Such a procedure
would be ridiculous. Even luider capitalism the incompetence of governments to
decide such questions is being recognized, and the decisions of specialists of vari-
^ For the fiiiKlcimental idea of this paragraph — the automatic operation of industry —
the authors are indebted to J. A. Jones of New York.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 133
ous kinds are boinj: more and more taken as the basis of laws regulating their
particular social functions. In the future society these decisions, coming from
thoroughly organized specialists — doctors, educators, etc. — who then will have
no interest to bilk their fellow beings, as they now have — will be the social laws
tiieniselve.s governing these matters, even as the decision of the steel industry
is now social law in matters pertaining to^he production of steel. This undemo-
cratic principle will be applied to all the industries.
The fear that one industry might impose arbitrary measures upon the rest of
society is groundless, as the same impulses for the improvement of the indutries,
though in a different form, will exit then, as now. In the unlikely event of such
arbitrariness on the part of one industry, the use of direct action tactics on the
part of the other industries would soon make it reasonable again.
Selection of Foremen, Superintendents, Etc. — In the future Syndicalist society
the ordinarily unscientific custom of majority rule will be just about eliminated.
It will be superseded by the rule of facts and figures. Not only will the in-
dustries be operated in the undemocratic manner above outlined ; but, the
responsible positions in them will be filled in a manner all at variance with
democratic principles. The foremen, superintendents, etc., will be chosen on the
score of their fitness ; by examination, instead of on the score of their ability
to secure the support of an ignorant majority, through their oratorical powers,
good looks, influence, or what not, as is the ordinary democratic procedure.
Syndicalism and democracy based on suffrage do not mix.
DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL PRODTJCT
The question of the system for the division of the social product in the nev^
society has not been the subject of nnich discussion by Syndicalists. However,
they very generally accept the Anarchist formula : "From each according to
his ability ; to each according to his needs." They will abolish all ownership
in the social means of livelihood and make them free for each to take what
he needs.
They believe that when all are free to help themselves from the all-sufficing
products of society they will no more misuse their opportunity than people
now misuse the many enterprises under capitalism — streets, roads, bridges,
libraries, parks, etc. — which are managed according to the Anarchistic principle
of each taking what he needs. The prevailing code of ethics will prevent
would-be idlers from taking advantage of this system.
Syndicalists generally repudiate the Socialist formula : "To each the full
social value of his labor" and its accompanying wages system of labor checks.
They as.sert, with justice, that it is impossible to determine the full value
that individual workers give to society, and that if this is tried it will mean the
perpetuation of social aristocracies."
II. The General Strike
Some Si/ndicalist Ethics. — The Syndicalist is characterized by the harmony
that exists between his theories and his tactics. He realizes that the capitalist
class is his mortal enemy, that it must be overthrown, the wages system
abolLshed and the new society he has outlined established, if he is to live; and
he is proceeding to the accomplishment of these tasks with unparalleled direct-
ness. He allows nothing to swerve him from his course and lead him in an
indircetion.
The Syndicalist knows that capitalism is organized robbery and he con-
sistently considei's and treats capitalists as thieves plying their trade. He knows
they have no more "right" to tlie wealth they have amassed than a burgVar has
to his loot, and the idea of expropriating them without remuneration seems
as natural to him as for the footpad's victim to take back his stolen property
without paying the footpad for it. From long expei'ience he has learned that
the so-called legal and inalienable "rights" of man are but pretenses with
whicli to deceive woi-kingmen ; that in reality "rights" are only enjoyed by
those capable of enforcing them. He knows that in modern society, as in all
age<5, might is right, and that the capitalists hold the industries they have
stolen and daily perpetrate the robbery of the wages system simply because
^ For fiillor and very intorpstinj; details on a probable system of division of the social
product, as well as that of the division of labor, in the future society, the student is recom-
mended to read Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread," procurable from Mother Earth
Publishing Co., 55 West Twenty-eighth Street, New York City. Price, |1.00.
134 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
they have the economic power to do so. He has fathomed the current systems
of ethics and morals, and knows them to be just so many auxiliaries to thie
capitalist class. Consequently, he has cast them aside and has placed his
relations with the capitalists upon a basis of naked power.
In his choice of weapons to fight his capitalist enemies, the Syndicalist is
no more careful to select those that are "fair," "just" or "civilized" than is
a householder attacked in the night by a burglar. He knows he is engaged in
a life and death struggle with an absolutely lawless and unscrupulous enemy,
and considers his tactics only from the standpoint of their effectiveness. With
him the end justifies the means. Whether his tactics be "legal" and "moral,"
or not, does not concern him, so long as they are effective. He knows that
the laws, as well as the current code of morals, are made by his mortal enemies,
and considers himself about as much bound by them as a householder would
himself by regulations regarding burglary adopted by an association of house-
breakers. Consequently, he ignores them insofar as he is able and it suits his
purposes. ,He proposes to develop, regardless of capitalist conceptions of
"legality," "fairness," "right," etc., a greater power than his capitalist enemies
have; and then to wrest from them by force the industries they have stolen
from him by force and duplicity, and to put an end forever to the wages system.
He proposes to bring about the revolution by the general strike.
The General Strike Theory. — By the term "general strike," used in a revo-
lutionary sense, is meant the period of more or less general cessation of labor
by the " workers, during which period, the workers by disorganizing the
mechanism of capitalist society, will expose its weakness and their own s<-reng4i ;
whereupon, perceiving themselves possessed of the power to do so, they will
seize control of the social means of production and proceed to operate them
in their own interest, instead of in the interest of a handful of parasites, asi
heretofore. The general strike is the first stage of the revolution proper.
There is nothing strained or abnormal in the general strike theory, neither in
the supposition that the workers can so disorganize capitalist society as to be
able to seize the industries, nor in the supposition that they will do so once they
realize they have the power. Both conclusions flow naturally from the everyday
experiences of the workers.
The power of the workers to disorganize and paralyze the delicately adjusted
capitalist society and the inability of the capitalists to cope with this power
are shown by every large strike conducted by modern methods. This has been
even more clearly demonstrated than usual by the recent great strikes in England.
The two-day strike of the railroaders paralyzed England, and the frantic capi-
talist class hastily brought it to a close. The 'recent strike of the coal miners
was even more effective — the capitalists frankly acknowledging that England
faced the most desperate situation in its whole career. If the English capitalist
class was in such desperate straits during these strikes of single categories of
conservative workers, what condition would it be in before a general strike of a
revolutionary working class? It would be helpless and would have to accept any
conditions the workers saw fit to impose upon it.
The everyday tactics of the workers strongly indicate the truth of the con-
clusion that they will expropriate the capitalists as soon as they learn they have
the power to do so. In their daily strikes they pit thr^ir strength against that of
their employers and wring from them whatever concessions they can. They
don't remain long content with these concessions, and as soon as they are able
they proceed to win more. They are insatiable, and, when the general strike
proves their ability to do so, they will have no scrui^les against expropriating
the capitalists. This expropriation will seem the more natural to them then,
as they will be fortified by the Syndicalist conception that the capitalists are
thieves and have no "right" to their property.
The partial strike of today, in which a comparatively few workers disorganize
an industry and force concessions from their employers, is but a miniature of the
general strike of the future, in which the whole working class will disorganize
all the industries and force the whole capitalist class to give up its ownership of
them.
The General Strike and the Armed Forces. — Once the general strike is in active
operation, the greatest obstacle to its success will be the armed forces of capi-
talism— soldiers, police, detectives, etc. This formidable force will be used
energetically by the capitalists to break the general strike. The Svndica lists
have given much study to the problem presented by this force and have found
the solution for it. Their proposed tactics are very different from those used
by rebels in former revolutions. They are not going to mass themselves and
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 135
allow themselves to be slaughtered by capitalism's trained murderers in the
orthodox way. Theirs is a safer, more effective and more modern method. They
are going to defeat the armed forces by disorganizing and demoralizing them.
A fruitful source of this disorganization will be the extreme difficulty the
armed forces will experience in securing .supplies and transportation. Modern
armies, to the effective, nmst have immense arsenals, ix)wder works and other
industrial establishments behind them to furnish them their supplies of ammuni-
tion, arms, food, and clothing. They also must have the railroads coustantly
at their dispo.sal f(U- transportation. When the general strike has halted these
industries the army will be stricken with i)aralysis. Another source of dis-
organization will be the division of the armed forces into minute detachments
to guard the many beleaguered gates of capitalism. The strikers, or revolution-
ists, will be everywhere, and will everywhere seize or disable whatever capitalist
property they can lay their hands on. To protect this property the armed forces
will have to be divided into a myriad of guards and .scattered along the thousands
of miles of railroads and around the many public buildings, bridges, factories, etc.
The wealthy capitalists themselves will also need generous guards. The most
important industries, such as transportation, mining, etc., will have to be operated
in some manner. To do this will require many thousands more of soldiers and
police.
The result will be that the armed forces will be minutely subdivided, and
through the loss of the solidarity and discipline, from whence they derive their
strength, they«.will cease to be a fighting organization. This will degenerate
into a mass of armed individuals scattered far and wide over the country.** These
individuals can be easily overwhelmed and disarmed, or what is more likely,
as they will be mostly workingmen and in sympathy with the general strike,
induced to join the ranks of their striking fellow workers. Once the disorganiza-
tion of the armed forces is complete the revolutionists will seize the unprotected
industries and proceed to reorganize society.
Syndicalists in every country are already actively preparing this disorganiza-
tion of the armed forces by carrying on a double educational campaign amongst
the workers. On the one hand, they are destroying their illusions about the
sacredness of capitalist property and encouraging them to seize this property
wherever they have the opportunity. On the other, they are teaching working
class soldiers not to shoot their brothers and si.sters who are in revolt, but, if
need be, to shoot their own officers and to desert the army when the crucial
moment arrives. This double propaganda of contempt for capitalist property
"rights," and anti-militarism, are inseparable from the propagation of the general
strike.''
OBJECTIONS
Preliminary Organisation. — A favorite objection of the opponents of the gen-
eral strike theory (mostly Socialists) is that the success of the general strike
implies such a degree of preliminary organization and discipline on the part of
the workers that, were they possessed of it, they wouldn't need to strike in order
to enforce their demands.
Preliminary organization unquestionably aids very materially to the success
of strikes, but all great strikes — which differ only in degree from the general
strike — prove to us that this ju-eliminary organization by no means has to be
as thorough as the objectors insist. They show us that vast masses of unor-
ganized workers can be readily provoked into revolt by the contagious example
of a few, and, also, that these workers, once on strike, are in a few days easily
and effectively organized — though for years previous untold efforts have been
expended to organize them. They prove that, to a very large extent, great strikes
break out spontaneously and, also, that they spontaneously produce the organiza-
tion so essential to their success. The Lawrence strike of textile workers is a
typical instance of a succes.sful strike without preliminary organization. The
24.000 strikers, of twenty nationalities, at the opening of the strike had hardly
a fragment of organization ; a couple of weeks later they were thoroughly
organized.
In all probability, the general strike, at least in its incipient stages, will follow
the course that any number of modern great strikes have taken. Only a small
8 This is no far-fptchpcl tlipory. It is lustifled hv everv moflern great strilcp. The hig
l^renr-h railroart strike of 1910 is tvpipal. Thonsanrts of sokliers were used as strilce breakers,
nntl tliousniuls more scattered along the railroads to guard them. Manv more were used,
in on PS and twos, to guard the hridws. pnblip bnildines. etc.. in Paris and other cities.
c. JV'' ^^^'I'lPif is recommended to read Arnold Roller's excellent 10-cent pamphlet. "The
bocial General Strike," procurable from George Bauer, P. O. Box 1719, New York City.
136 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
part of the workers will be organized ; this organized fraction, under some strong
stimulus, will provoke a great strike, vast masses of unorganized workers, seeing
an opportunity to better their conditions and caught in the general contagion
of revolt, will join the strike, organizing themselves meanwhile; the strike will
spread ; society will be paralyzed, and the revolutionary workers, perceiving their
power, will pi'oceed to put an end to capitalism.
The success of the general strike does not necessitate the voluntary striking
of every worker. Modern industry is so delicately adjusted, and the division
of labor so complete, that if the bulk of the workers in a few of the ^-called
strategic industries — transpor4:ation, coal mining, steel making, etc.- — quit work,
the rest of the workers would be forced to do likewise through lack of materials
and markets for their products. No doubt, the workers forced to quit thus,
who would be mostly unorganized, unskilled, and the oppressed of the oppressed,
would readily fall in with the program of the revolutionists once the general
strike was well under way.
The objection that universal preliminary organization is necessary to the suc-
cess of the general strike is a shallow one. It serves as a convenient excuse for
designing politicians and labor leaders to keep labor unions from striking.
Starvation. — The general strike will not be broken by the workers being starved
into submission, as is often objected. The general strike will be so devastating
in its effects that it can last only a few days, during which period, if need be,
the workers, accustomed as they are to starvation, and sustained by the enthu-
siasm of the revolution, could live on the most meager rations. To get these
rations, the Syndicalists intend to confiscate, as far as possible, all provisions
found in the cities. They will also encourage the numerous poor farmers, tenants
and agricultural wage workers to cast their fortunes with them, to revolt against
the State, their landlords and employers, and to seize the land they occupy.
Until production is normally resumed, the Syndicalists will trade to these farmers
the amassed wealth of the cities for their foodstuffs. More than one revolution
has been starved out by the farmers refusing to part with their products in ex-
change for worthless paper money. The Syndicalists have learned this lesson
well and intend to give the farmers the substantial commodities they desire in
exchange for their products. The army will be so busy protecting capitalist
property and so ipermeated with rebellion that it will be at once incapable and
unwilling to prevent this method of pi-ovisioning the revolution.
Bloodshed. — Another favorite objection of ultra-legal and peaceful Socialists
is that the general strike would cause bloodshed.
This is probably true, as every great strike is accompanied by violence. Every
forward pace humanity has taken has been gained at the cost of untold suffering
and loss of life, and the accomplishment of the revolution will probably be no
exception. But the prospect of bloodshed does not frighten the Syndicalist worker,
as it does the parlor Socialist. He is too much accustomed to risking himself in
the murderous industries and on the hellish battlefields in the niggardl.v service
of his masters, to set much value on his life. He will gladly ri.sk it once, if neces-
sary, in his own behalf. He has no sentimental regards for what may happen
to his enemies during the general strike. He leaves them to worry over that
detail.
The Syndicalist knows that the general strike will be a success, and the timid
fears of its opponents will never turn him from it, any more than will their
arguments that it is an "illegal," "unfair" and "uncivilized" weapon.
III. The Daily Warfare of Syndicalism
The Partial Strike. — The Syndicalist is a possibilist. While attending the time
he will be strong enough to dispossess his masters by the general strike, he carries
on a continual guerrilla warfare with them, winning whatever concessions he
can from them. In this daily warfare he uses a variety of tactics — chosen solely
because of their effectiveness. Of these, the one most commonly used is the
partial strike.
The Syndicalist is opposed, on principle, to the partial strike, as he would
much rather settle with capitalism by the general strike. But realizing the im-
possibility of accomplishing the general strike at present, owing to the unedu-
cated and unorganized state of the working class and knowing, also, that strikes
offer the workers the best opportunities to secure this education and organization,
he does the next best thing by provoking strikes wherever they have a reasonable
chance for success. He makes these strikes as large, as revohitionary and as
nearly approaching his general strike idea as possible.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 137
Tlie result of this policy is that in countries where the Syndicalist movement
is strong strikes are taking on an extent and revolutionary character, and achiev-
ing a success unknown in countries with conservative labor movements. A
typical instance of the success of Syndicalist tactics is seen in the case of the
printers and building trades' laborers of Paris. The unskilled building trades
laborers are S.vndicalists, and use revolutionary tactics. The skilled printers
are Socialists, and use conservative tactics. Result: "Three-fourths of the
printers earn no moro, perhaps less, than the building trades laborers." * Of
this success, Emile Vanderveld, a prominent Belgian Socialist, and, by no means,
a friend of Syndicalism, was forced to admit in a recent address that the Syndi-
calist UCL (General Confederation of Labor) of France, with about 400,000
members, has accomplished more practical results than the numerically five times
stronger Socialist unions of Germany."
The S^cah. — A large portion of the Syndicalists' success in their strikes is due
to their energetic treatment of the strikebreaker. According to Syndicalist
ethics, a poverty stricken workingman, in his predicament, can do anything save
scab. He may beg, borrow, steal, starve or commit suicide, and still retain
the friendship and esteem of his fellow workers; but, let him take the place
of a striker and he immediately outlaws himself. He becomes so much vermin,
to be ruthlessly exterminated. The French Syndicalists are especially merciless
towards scabs. They are making strikebreaking such a dangerous profession
that scabs are becoming pleasingly scarce and expensive. They literally hunt
scabs as they would wild animals. This war on scabs is popularly known as
"La chasse aux renards" (The fox chase).
Sahotagc. — Next to the partial strike, the most effective weapon used by Syn-
dicalists in their daily warfare on capitalism is sabotage.^" Sabotage is a very-
general term. It is used to describe all those tactics, save the boycott and the
strike proper, which are used by workers to wring concessions from their em-
ployers by inflicting losses on them through the stopping or slowing down of in-
dustry, turning out of poor product, etc. These tactics, and consequently, the
forms of sabotage, are very numerous. Many of them are closely related in
character. Often two or more kinds of sabotage are used simultaneously or in
conjunction with the strike.
Perhaps the most widely practiced form of sabotage is the restriction by the
workers of their output. Disgruntled workers all over the world instinctively and
continually practice this form of sabotage, which is often referred to as "soldier-
ing." The English labor unions, by the establishment of maximum outputs for
their member, are widely and successfully practicing it. It is a fruitful soui'ce
of their strength.
The most widely known form of sabotage is that known as "putting the ma-
chinery on strike." The Syndicalist goes on strike to tie up industry. If his
striking fails to do this, if strike breakers are secured to take his place, he ac-
complishes his purpose by "putting the machinery on strike" through temporarily
disabling it. If he is a railroader he cuts wires, puts cement \in switches,
signals, etc., runs locomotives into turntable pits, and tries in every possible way
to temporarily disorganize the delicately adjusted railroad system. If he is a
machinist or factory worker, and hasn't ready access to the machinery, he will
hire out as a scab and surreptitiously put emery dust in the bearings of the ma-
chinery or otherwise di.sable it. Oftentimes he takes time by the forelock, and
when going on strike "puts the machinery on strike" with him by hiding, stealing
or destroying some small indispensable machine part which is difficult to replace.
As is the c;ise with all direct-action tactics, even conservative workers, when on
strike, naturally practice this form of sabotage — though in a desultory and
unorganized manner. This is seen in their common attacks on machines, such as
street cars, automobiles, wagons, etc., manned by scabs.
Another kind of sabotage widely practiced by Syndicalists is the tactics of
either ruining or turning out inferior products. Thus, Ijj^ causing their em-
» "La Vio OiivriPi-p." April 20. 1912. n. 110.
" Piprrc Kainus. "Geufralstrcik iind Diroktc .\ktion," p. 26.
'"The torm ".sat)ota.ire" is (ierivod from the old and widespread habit of oppressed and
poorly paid workers, at'tinj}: oji the priix-iple of "Poor work for poor wages," to deliberately
lessen the quantity and fpiality of their product.s. This cnstom, whieli is the basic one of
all sabotajre. known in Scotland as "so canny," was described in France by the ar^ot ex-
pression "travailler a conps de sabots." 'Poniret. Le Sabotatre. p. .'?.) This may be freely
translated "To work as one wearing wooden shoes:" that is. to work a little slower and
more clumsy than one more favorably shod. It was from this arsrot expression that Emile
Poucret. a prominent Syndicalist, derived and coined the word "sabotage" (literally "wooden
shoeage"), now in universal use amongst Syndicalists.
138 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
ployers financial losses, they force them to grant their demands. The numerous
varieties of this kind of sabotage are known by various terms, such as "passive
resistance," "obstructionism," "pearled strike," "strike of the crossed arms," etc.
The French railroad strike of 1910 offers a fine example of this type of sabotage.
The strike was lost and 3,300' men were discharged because of it. As a protest
against this wholesale discharge, an extensive campaign of passive resistance
on the railroads was started. The workers worked, but only for the purpose of
confusing the railroad system. In the freight sheds shipments of glass were laid
flat and heavy boxes piled upon them ; "this side up with care" shipments were
turned wrong side up ; fragile and valuable articles were "accidentally" broken ;
perishable goods were buried and "lost," or ruined by being placed close to other
shipments, such as oils and acids, that spoiled them. Also a complete confusion
was caused by the deliberate mixture and missending of shipments. On the roads
engines broke down or "died" unaccountably ; wires were cut ; engines "accident-
ally" dumped into turntable pits; passenger train schedules were given up, trains
arriving and departing haphazard. But the worst confusion came from the mis-
sending of cars. Thousands of cars were hauled all over France in a haphazard
manner. J'or instance, the billing of a car of perisliable goods intended for the
north of France would be so manipulated that the car would be sent to the south
of France and probably "lost." At a place just outside of Paris there were, at
one time, 1,800 of such "lost" cars — many of them loaded with perishable freight,
consigned to no one knew whom. The most ridiculous "accidents" and "mistakes"
continually occurred — for tliis is the humorous form of sabotage. To cite a
typical instance : Army oflicials in one town received notice of the arrival of a
carload of dynamite for them. They sent a large detachment of soldiers to con-
voy it through tlie town. On arrival at its destination tlie supposed carload
of dynamite turned out to be a "lost" sliipment of potatoes.
As a result of this pearled strike the railroads had to employ thousands'
of additional employes in a fruitless attempt to straighten out the ridiculous
tangle. They eventually had to reemploy the discharged workers.
The Italian railroads, several years ago, were completely demoralized by a
campaign of obstructionism waged by their employes. By the workers simply
living up to the letter of the regulations of the companies — which were similar
to those in force on all railroads, but which are generally ignored by workers
for the sake of expediency — they made it impossible to further operate the
railroads until their demands were granted.
For several years the building trades workers of Paris have extensively prac-
ticed this form of sabotage. By systematically working slow and clumsy and
deliberately spoiling their work and building material, they have demoralized
the building industry. The building contractors are unable to cope with these
insidious tactics. In 1910 they called a mass meeting of 80,000 capitalists, land-
lords, and architects to devise ways and means to combat them.
This meeting, which, by the way, failed to discover the sabotage antitoxin, was
an eloquent testimonial to the effectiveness of sabotage. It is doubtful if any
such meeting has ever been necessary to combat strikes, however extensive they
may have been. Indeed sabotage has proven so successful that there are many
who believe it will finally supersede tl)e strike entirely. In France, so great is
the fear of the masters of sabotage, that i-ebel public speakers refer to it only
under danger of long imprisonment. This fear is by no means confined to France.
The mere threat of tlie striking textile woi'kers of Lawrence to sabote their
machinery and product in case they were forced back to work was a powerful
deterrent to prevent their masters from breaking their strike. These scared
individuals admitted that there are 1,000 ways in which rebellious workers can
spoil cloth without fear of detection.
"Badigeonage" (literally, stone colorage) is another variety of sabotage that
has been effectively used. The barbers of Paris forced their employers to grant
them their demands by throwing eggs filled with acid against the painted fronts
of the barber shops, which, after such treatment, had to be repainted. Of the
2,300 barber shops in Paris 2,0C0 were subjected to this treatment from 1902 to
1906, while the "badigeonage" campaign lasted.
"La bouche ouverte" (the open mouth) is another type of sabotage often used.
By "la bouche ouverte" workers financially hurt their employers by telling the
latter's customers of the deceptions practiced upon them. Building trades workers
tell building inspectors and architects of poor material used and cause it to be
condemned and the work to be done over again, striking waiters expose the
filthiness of the restaurants, etc.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 139
Workers engaged in selling their masters' wares directly to the public have-
effective, oven thouiih luiiianied, metliods of sabotage: The waiter gives extra
large portions of food to his customers and undercliarges them for it. Tiie drug
clerk gives generously of pure drugs, instead of adulterated ones, as he is sup-
posed to. Tlie grocer's clerk forgets to charge for all the articles he has sold, etc.
The various kinds of sabotage are applied singly or collectively, just as cir-
cumstances dictate. Some kinds can be used in one industry that cannot be
usi'd in another. There are but few industries, however, that cannot be saboted
in one wav or anotlier.
l-'undaiiicntul Principle of Suhotage.— Sabotage has been grossly misrepresented
by those interested in fighting it. It has been alleged that saboters put strychnine
and other poisonous stuffs in food ; wreck passenger trains, and otherwise injure
the public. These allegations are without foundation, as it is tlie first principle
of working chtss sabotage that it be directed against the masters' pocketbooks.
I'ractic 's tending to injure the public, or secure its ill will, are tabooed. The
syndicalists leave it to their masters to jeopardize the public's safety through,
their adulteration of food, saboting of safety appliances, etc.
Weapon of Minoriti/. — Sabotage is peculiarly a weapon of the rebel minority.
Its successful application, unlike the strike, does not require the cooperation of
all the workers interested. A few rebels can, undetected, sabote and demoralize
an industry and force the weak or timid majority to share in its benefits. The-
syndicalists are not concerned that the methods of sabotage may be "under-
handed" or "unmanly." Tliey are very successful and that is all they ask of them.
They scoff at the sentimental objection that sabotage destroys the workers pride
in his work. They prefer to be able to more successfully fight their oppressors,,
ratiier than to cater to any false sense of pride.
Nco-Malthu-sianisni. — The syndicalist is a "race suicider." He knows that chil-
dren are a detriment to him in his daily struggles, and that by rearirg them he is
at once tying a millstone about his neck and furnishing a new supply of slaves
to capitalism. He, therefore, refu.ses to commit this double error and carries on
an extensive campaign to limit birtlis among workers. He has been a powerful
factor in reducing births in France, which, according to recent statistics, are
annually 35,000 less than the deaths. He is turned from his course neither by
the inspired warnings of physicians nor the paid appeals of patriots. He has
no race pride and but little fear. He sees in "race suicide" an effective method
of fighting his masters, therefore he uses it.
Another interesting and effective syndicalist method of solving the child
problem is to send strikers' children to surrounding districts, where they are
taken care of by other workers until the strike is over. These tactics have been
u.sed with telling effect time and again.
The syndicalist is as "unscrupulous" in his choice of weapons to fight his every-
day battles as for his final struggle with capitalism. He allows no cousideratioa
of "legality," "religion," "patriotism," "honor," "duty," etc., to stand in the way of
his adoption of effective tactics. The only sentiment he knows is loyalty to the
interests of the working class. He is in utter revolt against capitalism in all its
phases. His lawless course often lands him in jail, but he is so fired by revolu-
tionary enthusiasm that jails, or even death, have no terrors for him. He glories^
in martyrdom, consoling himself with the knowledge that he is a terror to his
enemies, and that his movement, today sending chills along the spine of interna-
tional capitalism, tomorrow 'will put an end to this monstrosity.
"IV. Syndicalism and Political Action "
Syndicalism is a revolutionary labor union movement and philosophy calcu-
lated to answer all the needs of the working class in its daily struggles, ia
the revolution, and in the organization of the new society. It rejects entirely
and bitterly opposes the working class political movement — whose chief repre-
sentative is the international Socialist Party— which has set the same task
for itself.
Syndicalism's rejection of political action and opposition to the Socialist
movement are due to: (1) the superiority of direct action to political action;
(2) that the Syndicalist and Socialist movements are rivals and cannot co-
operate.
In this pamphlet the term "political action" is used in its ordinary and correct sense.
Parliamentary action resulting from the e.xercise of the franchise is political action. Par-
liamentary action caused by the influence of direct action tactics, such as the passage
of the minimum -wage bill in England during the recent coal strike, is not poll tioar action..
It is simply a registration of direct action.
140 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
( 1 ) SUPERIORITY OF DIRECT ACTION
Achievements of Direct Action and Political Action. — The superiority of direct
action to political action in winning concessions from capitalism is clearly seen
in a comparison of the achievements to date of the direct action and political
action mo\'«ments.
All over the world practically all substantial concessions, such as shortening
of the working day, increases of wages, protection in industry, etc., wrung
by the workers from their masters, have been won through the medium of
the labor unions. The political parties, on the other hand, have accomplished
practically nothing for the working class. Karl Kautsky, a prominent Socialist
^writer, writing of what the workers have accomplished by political action in
<5ermany — where they have by far the largest political party in the country —
;says : —
"The period of rapid change after the fall of Bismarck brought some little
progress in Germany and France. In 1891 was enacted the law which estab-
lished for women — who until then were unprotected — the eleven-hour maximum
-workday. In 1892 this regulation was also introduced in France.
"That was all ! Since then no progress worthy of the name has been achieved.
In Germany we have, in the entire seventeen years, come so far that just now
the ten-hour workday for women has been established. The male workers
yet remain fully unprotected. On the field of protection for male workers, as
well as those of all other social reforms, complete stagnation reigns." '^
This is the proud seventeen-year record of the great German Socialist Party,
which has absorbed untold efforts of German revolutionists. Its previous
twenty-five years of history are even still more barren of results. Compared
to the achievements of the German labor iniions, which, by no means, use
modern tactics, the petty conquests of the Socialist Party dwindle into in-
significance. The labor unions, though considered of minor importance and
neglected, and even opposed, by the political leaders of the German working
■class, have in all cases secured great advances in wages, shortening of the
workday, and other important benefits, too numerous to mention, for their
members. Had the workers composing them been without labor unions and
■dependent solely upon the Socialist Party to defend their interests, they would
have been reduced to a condition of serfdom.
The same political stagnation that Kautsky complains of in Germany exists
in every capitalist country. This is especially true of the United States, where
the workers, in spite of their continual dabbling in politics, have gained prac-
tically nothing by political action. Wherever they enjoy higher standards of
living, safeguards in industry, etc., these are directly traceable to their labor
unions. Unorganized workers are ordinarily wretched slaves suffering the
lowest standard of living, the greatest exploitation and exposure to danger
in industry. They lead a mere animal existence and are a fair example of
what workers of all kinds would be were they destitute of labor unions.^^
Reasons for Superiority of Direct Action. — The chief cause for the greater
success of the labor unions than the political party is found in the superior
efficacy of direct action to political action. The former is a demonstration of
real power, the latter merely an expression of public sentiment. A couple
of instances, taken from late labor history, will illustrate this point :
During the recent Lawrence textile strike, 24,000 workers, in the course of
a couple of months, won important concessions in wages and improved work-
ing conditions, not only for themselves, but also for some 350,000 other workers
in the same industry who took no part in the strike. In England, 1,000,000
coal miners, during their recent short strike, forced the British government to
adopt the so-called "revolutionary" minimum wage bill. This strike shattered
the long-accepted doctrine of the irresponsible relations between employer
and employed in England. It is now coming to be a recognized principle that
the workers have a right to a living wage at least.
For either of these groups 'of workers to have secured the same ends by
political action would have been next to impossible. Of themselves alone they
never could have done so, as minorities are negligible quantities in politics.
To have accomplished even the preliminary steps to such victories they would
have had to secure the political support of practically the wliole working class.
^ Kautsky, "Der Weg ziir Macht," p. 77.
'^ An early German political argument against the labor unions was that they were relics
■of the old guilds, and that the workers composing them were the most reactionary of the
•working class.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 141
Even then they would have had no guarantee that their efforts had not all been
in vain, as the financial powers— who are only to be coerced by demonstra-
tions of forct' — have time and again llagrantly disobeyed the iwlitical mandates
of the working class. The many working class laws declared unconstitutional
by the United Stales Supreme Court and the hundreds of "dead letter" laws
on the statute books of the various states are sufficient proofs of the masters*
contempt for working class political action. It is to be remarked that the
Supremo Court hasn't the power to declare unconstitutional the eight-hour day,
improved working conditions, or any other concessions won by direct action,
even tliDUgh they have been won by the most insignificant minority of workers.
This is an eloquent testimonial to the efficacy of direct action.
Another tribute to the value of direct action — next in importance to the
growth of the Syndicalist movement itself— is the growing tendency of Socialist
politicians to recognize and concede functions to the labor unions. At first these
politicians could see no good whatever in the labor unions and openly fought
them.* However, little by little, they have had to, at least partially, recognize
their worth and to quit 'their open warfare upon them, until now they have
been universally forced to assign to them the task of maintaining the standard
of living of the workers under capitalism. Many European Socialists even
advocate winning the universal franchise by the general strike, which they
have vainly tried to win by political action. The Belgian Socialist Party
took this humiliating stand at its last convention.
Another cause of the inferior achievements of working class political action
is that the Socialist Party does not take advantage of even the slight oppor-
tunities it has to help the workers. The Socialist Party, all over the world,
unlike the labor unions, which are composed solely of workers with common
economic interests, is composed of individuals of all classes — however conflicting
their interests may be. It necessarily organizes on the basis of political
opinion, not economic interests. The nonworking class elements control it
everywhere and inject themselves into whatever offices the party wins. Once
in office these ambitious politicians fritter away their time with various vote-
catching schemes, such as the reduction of taxes, "clean government," "social
peace," etc., while the working class is starving. They neglect to exploit even
the few opportunities political action offers to improve the conditions of the
working class.
FoUtieal Action as a Revoliitioiinnj Weapon. — In addition to being superior
to the political party in accomplishments to date, the labor unions are also mani-
festly superior as the means to bring about the revolution.
Socialists, from time to time, have indorsed several theories for the expro-
priation of the capitalist class. The founders of Socialism, under the influence
of the French revolutions, believed that the workers would violently seize control
of the government and expropriate the capitalists. This theory was almost uni-
versally held by Socialists until the military systems in Europe reached the
point of development where a mere fraction of the people, in the army, could
defeat the balance in open warfare." It was succeeded by the ridiculous make-
shift theory that the workers, after capturing the government by the ballot, will
peacefidly vote the capitalists' expropriation — the latter being supposed to stand
unresistingly by while their property is being "legally" taken away from them.
This absurd notion is in turn being supplanted by the theory that the workers,
after getting control of the government, will buy the industries from their present
owners. Modern Socialists, with but few exceptions, generally indorse one or
the other of these two latter theories. We will consider them in turn.
Confiscation Without Remuneration.— Forty-thvee years ago, Liebknecht, who
believed "the social question a question of power, and, like all questions of power,
to be settled on the streets and battlefields," disposed of those dreamers who
supposed the capitalists will allow their property to be voted away from them.
In his pamphlet "Die politische Stellung der Socialdemokratie, etc., amongst other
gems he has the following: "However, let it be accepted that the government
makes no use of its power, and, as is the dream of some Socialistic 'phantasy
politicians,' a Socialist majority of the Reichstag is secured — what would this
majority do? Hie rhodus hie salta. This is the moment to revolutionize society
and the State. The majority passes a 'world's historical' law, the new era is
born — alas, no; a company of soldiers chase the Socialists out of the temple.
And, if the gentlemen don't submit to this calmly, a couple of policemen will
" The failure of the Paris Commune was another factor in the rejection of this theory,
(See chapter VII.)
142 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
escort them to the city jail, where they will have time to think over their
quixotic project."
Since Liebnecht wrote the above the developments have all been such as to
render it still more unlikely that the capitalists can be "legally" expropriated
without remuneration. Not only has the Socialist Party become so conservative
that it is inconceivable that it could ever rise to the revolutionary heights of
Liebknecht's supposed parliamentary majority, but even representative govern-
ment itself is, as far as the workers are concerned, obsolete. The great capitalist
Interests have corrupted it root and branch. They buy wholesale whatever
legislators, judges, etc., they need, just as they buy other commodities necessary
in their industries.^^ If the puppet government, for some reason or other, does
anything contrary to their wishes, they either coerce it into reasonableness again
or calmly ignore it. To suppose that this lickspittle institution, and especially
under the stimulus of the Socialists, can ever forcibly expropriate the capitalists,
is absurd.
Confiscatmi With Remuneration. — The Socialist plan of buying the industries
is also a dream. The capitalists will never voluntarily sell the industries that
lay them their golden eggs. If they do dispose of them to the State it will only
be because the new financial arrangements suit them better. The inherently weak
State can never foice them to make a bargain unfavorable to themselves. To do
this will require power, and this power lies alone in direct action.
But it is idle to even speculate on the aroused workers cowardly stooping to
try to buy back the industries stolen from them. When the psychological
moment arrives, the working class, hungering for emancipation, will adopt the
only method at its disposal and put an end to capitalism with the general strike,
as outlined in a previous chapter.
Thus, in both achievements to date and in promise for the future, direct action
is far superior to political action. The political party has accomplished almost
nothing in the past and offers even less promise for the future ; whereas the labor
union has won practically all the conquests of the workers in the past and also
offers them the only means to the revolution.
(2) eivalry between syndicalist and socialist mo\^ments
The Syndicalist moyement does not co-operate with, but, on the contrary, op-
poses the Socialist movement, because, from long experience, it has learned that
the two movements are rivals to each other and cannot co-operate together. This
rivalry flows naturally from the conflicting theories upoii which the two move-
ments are built.
The Socialist "Tioo Wings" Theory. — According to this universal Socialist
theory the many problems faced by the working class in its battle for industrial
freedom ai"e of two distinct and separate kinds, viz., political and economic. It is
asserted that these questions are so fundamentally different that two distinct
organizations must be built to solve them ; one, the Socialist Party, to operate
solely in the political "field," and the other, the labor unions, to operate solely on
the economic "field." The two "wings" of the labor movement are thus to com-
plement each other, each devoting itself to its peculiar problems.
According to this theory the Socialist Party is by far the most important
organization of the two, as the political questions, over whose solution it has
sole jurisdiction, are much more numerous and important than the economic
questions under the jurisdiction of the labor unions. Indeed, according to it, the
labor unions are merely auxiliaries to the political party in its great work of the
emancipation of the working class. Their chief functions are to hold up the
standard of living of the workers '* "to mitigate, as far as possible, the ravages
of capitalism" by acting as benefit associations, and to serve as voting machines
until the political party shall have overthrown capitalism.
The Syndicalist Theory. — The Syndicalists quarrel violently with the "two
wings" theory, which gives to the labor unions functions of minor importance.
'^ The much-herakled custom of demanding signed resignations from Socialist candidates
for office has proven a distinct failure in keeping Socialist office holders free from this uni-
versal corruption, which implies nothing short of the bankruptcy of representative
government.
1' This niggardly concession was made to the labor unions by the politicians only when
it could be no longer withheld.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 143
They maintain that there is hut one kind of indnsti-ial question — the economic —
and that hnt one workintr class orsani/.atioii — tlie hihor unions — is necessary.
They assert tliat tlie so-called iwlitical "field"' does not exist and that the Socialist
Party is a usurper. They have proven time and again that they can solve the
many so-called political questions hy direct action. By strikes, sahotage, etc.,
tliey force governments to take swift action on old age pensions, minimum wages,
militarism, international relations, child lahor, sanitatltm of woikshops, mines,
etc.. and many other questions supposedly luider the natui-al .iurisdiction of the
Socialist Party. And. as has heen pointed out. the Syndicalists have no need
for the Socialist I'arty, neither in the accomplishment of the revolution nor in the
organization of the new society — the lahor unions also suflicing for these tasks.
The Syndicalists insist that the lahor unions alone represent the interests of the
working class and that the Socialist Party is an interloper and a pai'asite."
THE WAR BETWEEN SYNDICALFSTS AND SOCIALISTS
The result of these opposing conceptions of the functions of the labor union
is a world-wide fight between political and direct actionists for the control of
the labor union movement. Roth are endeavoring to model it according to their
theo"ies. The Socialists are trying to subordinate it to the Socialist Party and
the Syndicalists are bitterly contesting this attempt and trying to give the labor
union its full development.
Caufirff of the War. — The fight between the Syndicalists and Socialists is inevi-
table. On the one hand, the Syndicalists, believing in the all-sufficiency of the
labor union, naturally resist all Socialist attempts to limit its functions, while,
on the other hand, the S^'cialists, for the sake of their party, are forced to combat
the encroachments of the labor iinion. This latter statement admits of easy
explanation. The first consideration for the success of the Socialist program
is the capture of the State by the Socialist Party. To do this requires the sup-
port of practically the entire working class. Logically, any influence tending to
alienate any of this suppoit is an enemy to the Socialist Party and is treated as
such. Everyday experience teaches that revolutionary labor unions, by winning
great concessions for their members, by successfully operating in the so-called
political "field," and by carrying on an incessant anti-political campaign — which
is inevitable if a union is to escape the political apron strings and take vigorous
action — have a decided tendenc.v to make these workers slight, or even reject
entirely, the much-promising hut little-accomplishing Socialist Party.
The Socialists have noted this and correctly view the Syndicalist movement —
even as the Syndicalists do the Socialist movement — as a rival to their own.
They recognize that every great victory it wins pulls working class support from
their party and is a defeat for their movement, and that every defeat the Syn-
dicalist movement suffers, by driving workers back to the Socialist Party, is a
victory for the latter. They know that the Syndicalist and Socialist movements,
both claiming juri.sdiction over the whole working class, cannot exist in harmony.
H'nce. they logically fight the Syndicalist movement and attempt to subordinate
the labor unions to the Socialist Party. In their efforts to conserve the interests
of the S">cialist Party they even go so far as to deliberately break strikes, and
thus compx'omise the interests of the working class. Modern labor histox'y is full
of such instances. To cite but a few :
Social i St Treachery. — In 1904-6 the French labor unions, in the face of strong
Socialist opposition, carried on a vigorous national propaganda for a universal
eight-hour day. to take effect May 1, 1906. As the appointed day approached an
epidemic of strikes broke out all over France and a revolution seemed imminent.
At this critical juncture, the Socialist journal "Le Reveil du Nord" "discovered"
that the whole movement was a conspiracy to overthrow the I'epublic and re-
estabMsh the monarchy. The government, using the supposed conspiracy as a
pretext, threw .some 50.000 troops into Paris and many of the strike leaders into
jail. This action, coupled with the evil effect on the workers of such a statement
coming frnni so-called nn-oinfionists, unquestionably did much to detract from
the success of the movement.^'
" Thp same attitiule obtains towards all other so-called working class political parties.
18 Krit>;kv. "L'Evohition (In Svndicalisme entrance," p. 359-370.
'" The immenso labor unions of Germany, which are controlled by the Socialists, are fair
tynes of Socialist unions. They seldom strike, and never use modern tactics. Possessed
of the latent power to overthrow c.nnitalisni they content themselves with serving as voting
machines and mutual benefit societies.
83078 — 46 10
144 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
In 1910, the French railroad unions declared a national general strike on all
the railroads in France. The Socialists, fearing the consequences to their political .
party of such a great direct-action victory as this strike promised to be, delib-
erately broke the strike by keeping at work the railroaders on the strategic East
R. R., whose unions they dominated. This road, the most strongly organized in
France, at the behest of the notorious Socialist Prime Minister Briaud, hauled
scabs and soldiers to break the strike. The failure of the East R. R. to strike
threw confusion into the ranks of strikers and the strike was almost completely
lost. It was, though a wonderful exhibition of the power of direct action, in
many respects a great Syndicalist defeat, and, consequently, indirectly, a great
Socialist victory.
Arnold Roller, in his pamphlet, "The Social General Strike," cites many
similar instances of Socialist betrayal of working class interests. To quote
but one ; —
"In February, 1902, the proletariat of Barcelona rose under the call of the
general strike and was able to resist the police and army for a whole week.
Pablo Iglesias, the leader of the Spanish Social Democracy, requested his follow-
ers everywhere to act as strike breakers and denunciators of the general strike.
In some districts the Socialists even went so far as to send, during the general
strike struggle, deputations to the government to announce their loyalty and to
assure them that they, as law-abiding citizens, had nothing to do with the 'revolt.' "
The CamjHiiyn Against Direct Action. — In additioh to fighting Syndicalism by
breaking revolutionary strikes, Socialists universally combat it by carrying on a
continual warfare upon it in all its manifestations, both in and out of the imions.
Indeed, it is one of the regular functions of Socialist politicians to drug labor
unions into quietude by telling the workers by word and pen what cannot be
done by direct action."
The Socialists are naturally inveterate enemies of the general strike — the gen-
eral strike many of them favor as the means to the conquest of the universal
suffrage is distinctly understood to be very different to the general strike of the
Syndicalists; it is an auxiliary to political action, not a substitute for it — and
they have even forbidden the discussion of it in the German labor unions. They
are also rabid opponents of sabotage. Pouget, in "Le Sabotage," says that in the
C. G. T. conventions in France the number of Socialist delegates present could
always be determined by the vote against sabotage as a working class weapon.
As its last convention the American Socialist Party showed itself "true to name"
by adopting a resolution recommending the expulsion of all party members
advocating the use of sabotage.
Retaliation hy Syndicalists and Some Conseqnences. — The Syndicalists are not
tamely submitting to these attacks from the Socialists but are vigorously resisting
them. Tlieir oppositiion is carried on chiefly by a campaign of anti-parliamen-
tarism, by abstinence from voting and by getting control of the labor unions and
plainly showing them to be more effective organizations than the Socialist Party.
In France, where the Syndicalists have secured almost c<omplete control of the
labor nnions, they have clearly shown the inherent conflict of jurisdiction be-
tween the Syndicalist and Socialist movements, and the necessity for the sub-
jugation of the former to the latter if they are to co-operate together. A couple
of years ago the Socialist Party had an old-age pension bill (popularly known
as "Viviani's old-age pensions for the dead") enacted. The C. G. T., the French
general labor organization, condemned the law and decided to resist its enforce-
ment by all the means at its disposal. In the resultant attempt of the govern-
ment to force the law upon the unwilling workers the Socialist Party openly
allied itself with the government against the C. G. T.
This incident made it clear that if the labor movement is to be spared the
humiliation of having one of its "wings" fighting against what the other one
has fought for, either the labor unions must be subordinated to the Socialist
Party and forced to unquestioningly accept whatever doubtful bargains it makes,
or the Socialist Party must go out of existence.
"The Nigger in the Woodpile." — This unseemly warfare between the two
"wings" of the labor movement may seem incomprehensible to the novice. He
may ask : "If the two movements are incompatible, and if the Syndicalist move-
ment has proven itself so far superior to the Socialist movement, why isn't the
Soc-alist Party given up and the labor unions developed?" The explanation
Is simple: Though there are undouotedly many sincere workers who honestly
believe in the superiority of political action to direct action, and who are con-
scientiously active in the upbuilding of the Socialist Party, they are but a minor
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 145
factor in the hitter's constant botrayal of the interests of the workers. This
is natural, as it is incomprehensible that rebel workers Wiould deliberately betray
their own interests for the sake of an organization that wins them nothing. The
real force behind the Socialist war on Syndicalism is the horde of doctors, lawyers,
preachers and other non-working class elements universally infesting and con-
rrolling the Socialist Party. These elements, who have no economic interests
in common with the workers, see in the working class revolt simply a fine oppor-
lunity to worm themselves into the innumerable rich places of power and afflu-
ence in the State. Consequently they defend, by sophistry and treachery to
the working class, the political movement necessary to their conquest of the State.
The prosaic, but asiriring, Syndicalist movement, with its few mi.serable official
IHisitions — the C. G. T. of France has but three rcgidarly paid officials at $50.00
l>er month each — which are, moreover, often fraught with great personal c'.anger
of imprisonment, has no attractions for the ambitioiis politicians. The fact that
it is more effective in defending the interests of the working class than is the
Socialist Party is of no moment to them. It doesn't "pay" as good as the So-
cialist Party, and, as it is a competitor of the latter, it must be suppressed.
Hannonizers of SocialiKm and SijiidicaUst)i. — There is a group of Socialists in
the United States who are attempting to harmonize the Socialist political move-
ment and the revolutionary direct-action movement on a somewhat original
theory. They would have the labor movement consist of revolutionary labor
unions on the one hand, and the Socialist Party on the other. The labor unions
would be the superior organization, the Socialist Party being a sort of helper
tiO them. The functions of the Socialist Party are described by Wm. D. Haywood
and Frank Bohn in their pamphlet, "Industrial Socialism," p. 54 : "The great
purpose of the Socialist Party is to seize the powers of government and thus
prevent them from being used by the capitalists against the workers. With So-
cialists in political offices the workers can strike and not be shot. They can
picket shops and not be arrested and imprisoned. Free lorn of speech a.id of
the press, now often abolished by the tyrannical capitalists, will be secured to
the working class. Then they can continue the sliop organization and the edu-
<'ation of the workers. To win the demands made on the industrial field it is
absolutely necessary to control the go\jrnment, as experience shows strikes to
have been lost through the interference of courts and militia."
At first glance this plan of capturing the State solely for the purpose of pre-
A-enting the use of the courts and armed forces against the workers seems plausi-
ble, but experience has shown it to be impracticable. As pointed out earlier,
to cari\v out any national political program involves the construction of a great
political organization. This, as has been time and again demonstrated, the
workers refuse to do unless it can win important concessions for them — which
is impossible — -or the workers have not yet learned the value of direct action —
-which condition the Industrial Socialists by no means desire. Let the workers
once get this knowledge — as Haywood and Bohn would have them — and they
will build up their labor imions and desert the barren Socialist Party. They will
also be inevitably forced to fight tlie latter in defending their unions from the
attacks of the designing Socialist politicians, who will strenuously resist all
attempts to strip their party of ix)wer or prestige. Vague expectations of one
day being able to use the armed forces in their own interests — expectations which
have been sadly disappointed wherever Socialists have gotten into power — will
never prove a sufficient incentive to make the direct actionists perform the huge,
if not impossible, task of purging the Socialist Party of its non-working class
elements and building up the political organization necessary to capture the
State. An organization which, moreover, would be cursed with all the weak-
nesses of parliamentarism and, consequently, foredoomed to failure.
OTHER POINTS OF CONFUCT BETWEEN SYNDICALISM AND SOCIALISM
Besides the inherent and incurable jurisdictional quarrel between the Syndi-
calist and Socialist movements there are numerous other matters over which they
are in direct conflict. A few of these will be discussed :
Society. — A fundamental point of conflict between Syndicalists and Socialists
is their resi)ective attitude towards Society.
The Socialist Party announces itself as the party of Society and proposes to
defend its interests even before those of the working class. Karl Kautsky, the
well-known German Socialist writer, expresses the Socialist position when he
says: "Social development stands higher than the interests of the proletariat,
146 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
and the Socialist Party cannot protect proletariat interests which stand in the
way of social developuftnt."""
The chief result of this theory and the reason for its invention is- that in great
strikes, where the welfare of Society is alleged to be in danger, the Socialists have
a good excuse for breaking these strikes. This was the excuse of the Socialists
for keeping the railroaders at work during the recent great Swedish strike.
Recently Emile Vandervelde, the leader of the Belgian Socialists, questioned as
to his attitude to strikers in the public service, in case he became elected Minister,
replied: "What would I do? Exactly what we do when there is a strike in the
personnel of one of uur cooperatives. I w*)uld exhaust all the means of concilia-
tion ; I would do everything to avoid the struggle. But, if in spite of my efforts,
the strike broke out I would say to the personnel : 'I have exhausted all means
of conciliation ; I have satisfied your demands as far as possible, but I can concede
nothing more without compromising the general welfare. And now, since you
force me to defend tfiis general welfare against the tyranny of your trade interest,
I oppose to your incontestable right to strike, the right, not less incontestable, to
replace you by workers more devoted to the interests of the community.' " "' 1 bus
the government employes are warned that if they strike they will be replaced
by Socialist scabs.
The Syndicalist takes no cognizance of Society. He is interested only in the
welfare of the working class and consistently defends it. He leaves the rag-tag
mass of parasites that make up the nonworking class part of Society to look after
their own interests. It is immaterial to him what becomes of them so long as
the working class advances. He is not afraid of "turning the wheels of prog -ess
backwards," in thus constantly confining himself to the interests of the working
class, as he knows that by freeing the working class entirely he will give social
development the greatest stimulus it has ever known.
The State. — The Socialist is a statist. He considers the State as the logical
directing force of Society and proposes to perpetuate it in the futvire society by
confiding to its care the ownership and management of all the industries. He is
a vigorous advocate of "law and order" and preaches implicit obedience to the
State's mandates, good, bad and indifferent. He recognizes the legal rights of
the capitalists to their property and proposes to change the laws that he says
give them this ownership.
The Syndicalist, on the other hand, is strictly an antistatist. He considers the
State a meddling capitalist institution. He resists its tyrannical interference in
his aifairs as much as possible and proposes to exclude it from the future society.
He is a radical opponent of "law and order," as he knows that for his unionsi
to be "legal" in their tactics would be for them to become impotent. He recog-
nizes no rights of the capitalists to their property, and is going to strip them
of it, law or no law.
Constant quarrels rage between the Syndicalists and the Socialists over this
matter of legality ; the Socialists trying to make the unions "legal" and the Syndi-
calists trying to make them effective. There is grave danger that in some great
revolutionary crisis — which is bound to be "illegal" — the Socialists, in their zeal
for "law and order," and the preservation of the State, will ally themselves with,
the capitalists and proceed to extremes against the outlaw Syndicalists, and
thus lead the workers to a terrible defeat. This tendency is already a marked
one, as the cited instance of the old-age pension bill in France proves.
Patriotism and Militarism. — The Socialist is necessarily a patriot and a mili-
tarist. According to his theory, for the workers of a given country to emancipate
themselves, they must control their government. Naturally, for this government
to have any power it is necessary that it enjoy political independence. Hence
the Socialist considers each nation justified in warring on other nations to secure
or maintain this independence. The international Socialist Party stands com-
mitted to this patriotic policy. This, of course, involves militarism, and Socialists
the world over are militarists. August Bebel, the German Socialist leader, in his
book, "Nicht Stehendes Heer, sondrrn Volkswehr," urged that, in order to the
better defend Germany, every able-bodied male should be a soldier from earliest
boyhood to old age. He says school and work boys should be drilled during
their spare time, Sundays, evenings, etc. Jaures, the noted French Socialist
leader, advocates that tlie sons of labor union officials be placed in command of
the companies of boy soldiers he would organize to defend France. The militarism
20 "Zur Agrar Frage," p. 318.
^^ "Risveglio," Geneva, May 25, 1912.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 147
of various otlior Socialist leaders, such as Ramsey McDonald of England, and
Pablo Iglcsias of Spain, is notorious.
The Syndicalist is a radical antipatriot. He is a true internationalist, knowing
no coiuitry. Ho opposes patriotism because it creates feelings of nationalism
among the workers of the various countries and prevents cooperation between
them, and also, because of the militarism it inevitably breeds. He views all forms
of militarism with a deadly hatred, because he knows from bitter experience that
the chief function of modern armies is to break striltes, and that wars of any
kind are fatal to the labor movement. He depends solely on his labor unions for
protection from foreign and domestic foes alike and proposes to put an end to
war between the nations by having the workers in tlie belligerent countries go
on a general strike and tlius make it impossible to conduct wars.
This Syndicalist method of combating war is looked upon with violent disfavor
by the Socialists, who consider war a political question and, therefore, no concern
of the labor unions. A few years ago, during a Morocco crisis, the C. G. T. sent
a delegate to tlie Socialist labor unions of Germany to organize an antiwar dem-
onstration to propagate the plan of meeting a declaration of war by an interna-
tional general strike. He was referred to the Socialist Party as having jurisdic-
tion, and thus action on the matter was avoided. At the international Socialist
convention, in Copenhagen, 1910, the German Socialist Party delegates success-
fully opposed a similar proposition on the grounds that the labor unions alone had
authority to declare a general strike. Thus the Socialist politicians, on one oc-
casion, referred the question to the Socialist Party, and on the other to the labor
unions, and in both cases avoided taking action on this momentous question. Tliis
is a fair example of Socialist perfidy when the interests of the working class
conflict with those of the Socialist Party.
The Syndicalist and Socialist movements have a hundred fundamental points
of conflict. They are absolutely unharmonizable, either on the orthodox Social-
ist theory or that of the Industrial Socialists. The Syndicalists, realizing that
the two movements cannot co-operate, have chosen the more efficient one, the
direct action movement, and are developing it and vigorously fighting its
natural enemy, the political movement. This fight is to the finish and the
rebel worker must get "on one side of the barricade or the other." He cannot
stay on both sides. And if he calmly studies the two movements he will
surely arrive at the Syndicalist conclusion that the direct action movement is
the sole hope of the working class, and that the parasitic political movement,
next to the capitalist class itself, is the most dangerous enemy of the working
class.
VI. The Relations of Syndicalism to Anarchism, Socialism and Industeial
Unionism
In revolutionary circles a great deal of confusion exists as to the relations
of Syndicalism to Anarchism, Socialism and Industrial Unionism. A few words
on this subject may, therefore, be timely.
The Two Great Revolutionarif Movements. — Almost since the conception of
the revolutionary idea, revolutionists have divided themselves into two general
schools — Anarchist and Socialist — and have organized themselves accordingly.
These schools are the antipodes of each other in many respects.
The Anarchist is an individualist. He is an anti-democrat, having a supreme
contempt for majority rule. He opposes authoritarianism in all its manifesta-
tions. He is an inveterate enemy of the State and its laws, and would establish
a society in which they will not exist. In his tactics he is a direct actionist.
The Socialist, on the other hand, is a collectivist. He is a democrat and a
firm believer in majority rule. Yet with comical inconsistency he also favors
authoritarianism and always institutes strong systems of centralization in
his vast organizations. He is a statist and legalitarian par excellence, and
would perpetuate the State in the future society. He is a political actionist.
The famed collectivist doctrine of the class struggle was fon^uiiated and
propagated by him — Anarchists generally either ignoring or repudiating it.
From Impossihilism. to Possibilism. — Originally both the Anarchi-st and Social-
ist movements were impossibilist. Both scorned to strive for petty concessions
from capitalism and carried on a vigorous propaganda of their ideas, both
believing that when they had created sufficient revolutionary sentiment capital-
ism would be overthrown by a sudden popular uprising.
The Socialist movement was the first to recede from this impossibilist position.
Its parliamentary representatives early began bargaining with those of other
148 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
parties. This bargaining and compromise has gone on until the Socialist move-
ment has become strictly possibilist and strives for all kinds of petty reforms.
This evolution from impossibilism to possibilism has produced a profound effect
on the Socialist movement. It has given up its old vitalizing doctrine of the
class struggle and has degenerated into a movement of the poor and dis-
contented of all classes against the common oppressor.
Being less exposed to temptation, the Anarchist movement, as a whole, re-
mained impossibilist much longer than did the Socialist. Its first important
step toward possibilism was taken in the famed "raid" (mentioned in following
chapter) when large numbers of Anarchists joined and captured the French,
trade unions. This Anarchist "raid" on the labor unions brought three great
movements into direct contact — viz., Anarchist, Socialist, and Trade Union.
A general flux of ideals, tactics, organization forms, theories, etc., took place.
The outcome of this was that the Anarchists, retaining their individualistic
principles but little modified, their hatred for the State, etc., fairly incorporated
the Trade Union movement into their own. They adopted the labor union
as their fighting organization form, and its peculiar type of direct action as
their fighting tactics. They also adopted the ex-Socialist doctrine of the class
struggle — which had long been anomalous in the all-class Socialist movement —
as their fighting theory. In thus adopting a new fighting organization form,
tactics and theories, they gave birth to the possibilist Anarchist or Syndicalist
movement which is everywhere rapidly absorbing the impossibilist Anarchist
movement. Syndicalism has placed the Anarchist movement upon a practical,
effective basis. It has at once given it a clear-cut aim (the emancipation of
the working class) and the most powerful organizations in modern society
(the labor unions) to achieve this aim. Before the advent of Syndicalism the
Anarchist movement confusedly and ineffectively appealed to all society and
was destitute of oi'ganization. Like the Socialist movement, the Anarchist
■movement has also become possibilist.
The Antaoonism Between Anarchism and Syndicalism. — Syndicalism, besides
its continual warfare with Socialism, which has already been sufiiciently ex-
plained and described, has also an important point of quarrel with Anarchism.
Though both movements are at one in the matters of principle, ideals, etc.,.
there is much friction between them. The cause for this is not hard to find.
The Anarchist movement proper is an educational one. It says in effect :
"The misery of SQciety is due to its ignorance. Remove this ignorance and
you abolish the misery." Consequently it places strong emphasis on its at-
tempt to found the modern school ; its educational campaigns against the
State, church, marriage, sex slavery, etc. Anarchism is striving for an in-
tellectual revolution.
The Syndicalist movement, on the other hand, is a fighting movement. It
ascribes the miseries of the workers to the wages system and expends prac-
tically all its efforts to build a strong fighting organization with which to
combat and finally destroy capitalism. Syndicalism is striving for an economic
revolution.
The Syndicalist accepts on principle the Anarchist positions on the modern
school, nea-Malthvisianism, marriage, individualism, religion, art, the drama,
literature, etc., that go to make up the intellectual revolution ; but he expends
energy upon their propagation only in so far as they contribute to the success
of his bread and butter fighting organization. He opposes capitalist institu-
tions in the measure that they oppose him. He does not combat them from
any theoretical standpoint. If the church opposes him, he fights it in return.
Otherwise he leaves it alone and devotes his energies to combating more active
enemies. Consequently many of the intellectual favorites of the Anarchists
receive scant courtesy from him. The Anarchist objects to tliis, calling the
Syndicalist a "poi-k chop" revolutionist, and tries to make an "intellectual"
revolutionist of him. But in vain, as the Syndicalist considers the economic
revolution a hundredfold more important tlian the "intellectual" revolution^
and is bending all his efforts to its accomplishment.
Syndicalism and Industrial Unionism. — Unlike Syndicalism, the Industrial
Union movement of Anglo-Saxon countries is a product of the Socialist movement.
It was officially born at the gathering of Socialist politicans who founded the
I. W. W. in Chicago, 190.5. Although since then it has progressed far toward
Syndicalism by the rejection of political action and the adoption of direct action
tactics, many traces still linger of its Socialist origin. In these it naturally
differs from Syndicalism. A few of the more important ones will be briefly cited r
The Industrial Union movement is universally engaged in a Utopian attempt
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 14&
to bniUl a new and revolutionary labor movement independent of all other labor
organizations. Industrial Unionists are in the impossibilist stage of development.
S.vndiealists, on the contrary, are strictly possibilists, they having emerged from
iinpossibillsm, and wherever their movement normally develops they revolutionize
the old unions rather than build new ones. The Industrian Union movement
is essentially democratic and statist, while the Syndicalist movement is
radically opposed to democracy and the State. The Industrial Unionists pro-
pose to operate the industries in the future society by a government composed
of representatives of the unions, whereas, the Syndicalists propose to exclude the
State entirely from the new society. Industrial Unionists are authoritarians,
their national labor unions being highly centralized and their local unions desti-
tute of autonomy, w'hereas Syndicalists are anti-authoritarians, their national
labor unions being decentralized and their local unions possessed of complete
autonomy. Another difference between Industrial Unionism and Syndicalism
is that tile former puts emphasis on the industrial form of organization and the
"One Big Union" idea, while the latter emphasizes revolutionary tactics. Indus-
trial Unionists also preach the doctrine that there are no leaders in the revolu-
tionary movement, whereas a fundamental principle of Syndicalists is that of
the militant minority (outlined in Chapter IX).
VII. History of Syndicamsm
Syndicalism originated in France. From there it has spread all over the
civilized world. That France, though comparatively a backward country eco-
nomically, should be the birthplace of this ultra-modern movement is not surpris-
ing.- For various reasons, which lack of space forbids enumerating here, France
has ever been in the vanguard of social progress — the other nations sluggishly
following in its wake, profiting by its social experiences. During the past 125
years it has been the scene of numerous revolutions, often embracing the most
fundamental changes in social relations. It has passed through so many of these
radical social changes that it has been well termed "the home of revolutions.""
As a result of these revolutions, the French working class, which played a prom-
inent part in all of them, has had the most varied experience of any working class
in the world. It is only natural that its labor movement should have reached
the highest stage of development. To briefly cite merely a few of these ex-
periences will show how extensive they have been and how naturally it is that
Syndicalism has resulted from them.
THE GAMUT OF SOCIAL EXPERIENCE
The Oreat Revolution. — ^The French working class, 120 years ago, saw the
infamous tyrannies and cla.ss distinctions of the ancient regime overthrown, and
"Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" established by the great revolution. Later
it saw these tyrannies and class distinctions reappear in new forms. It earned
that through the revolution it had merely changed masters and that the high-
sounding equalitarian phrases of the revolution were but mockeries.
Utopian ySocialiftm. — After this great disappointment its militants conceived
the idea of Socialism as the solution of their problem. At first they drew up
beautiful ntopias of co-operative societies, believing that the capitalists and the
workers had but to learn of their advantages to accept them. They even went so
far as to establish offices* to which the capitalists could throng to give up
their property to the new society. These Utopians naturally failed.
State Socialis7n From Above. — In 1848, after a long propaganda of socialistic
ideas, the first serious attempt was made to establish Socialism. As a result of
a sudden eruption, Louis Phillipe was driven from the throne, principally through,
the efforts of the workers, who found themselves practically in control of the
situation. The workers demanded the establishment of Socialism and agreed
to starve three months while the government was inaugurating it. They finally
forced the reluctant and AA-eak government to appoint a committee "to bring about
the revolution." Among other "rights" eventually granted them, the workers
were given the "right" to work, and great national workshops were established in
Paris at which thousands were given employment. The capitalists, daily growing
stronger, decided to put an end to this state Socialism. They abolished the
workshops, giving the unemployed the option of starving or joining the army.
The workers revolted and for three days held a large portion of Paris. They
^ The economic backwardness of France is often used as an argument against Syndicalism,
150 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
finally listened to the appeal of a politician and surrendered, only to see thousands
of their best slaughtered in the terrible June massacres.
Co-Opcratives. — Doubly disillusioned by this disastrous experience with state
Socialism "from above" and political treachery, the militant minority of the
French working class turned for emancipation to the co-operative plan. They
built up a great co-operative movement, but after years of experiment with it they
very generally gave it up as imsuccesstul.
Ihe Commune. — Then came the great spontaneous working-class revolt of 1871 ;
the establishment of the Commune; the vain attempts of the workers' govern-
ment to serve as the directing force in the new Socialist society ; the quarrels
between the various political factions ; the fall of the Commune and the hor-
rible massacres, imprisonings, exilings, etc., that "decapitated the French work-
ing class." ^^
Working Class Political Action. — After this lesson of the futility of trying to
establish Socialism by a violent seizvire of the State, a return was made for a few
years to the co-operative plan and the political policy of "reward your friends
and punish your enemies." These makeshift programs were soon succeedefl by
the idea of gradually and "legally" gaining control of the State by working-class
political action. The organization of the Socialist Party in 1879 followed as a
matter of course.
Syndicalism. — After a long, varied and bitter experience with working-class
political action, the progressive French militants cast this much-heralded pro-
gram aside — even as they had the other tried and found wanting plans ot "Brother-
hood of Man," state Socialism "from above," co-operation, violent seizure of the
State, "reward your friends and punish your enemies" political action, etc. And,
finally, after veritably running the gamut of social experience; after trying out
practically every social panacea ever proposed, and after finding them one and
all failures, they at last turned to the labor union as the hope of the working class.
Labor unions had existed and been tiie mainstay of the working class ever since
the great revolution, but their worth was long unrecognized by the militant
workers who spent their time experimenting with more promising organizations.
But as these glittering competitors of the labor unions all demonstrated their
worthlessness, the value of the latter finally came to be recognized. The Syn-
dicalist movement resulted. Syndicalism is thus a product of natural selection.
REPUDIATION OF POLITICAL ACTION
The last and perhaps most interesting phase in the evolution of French working-
class fighting tactics to Syndicalism was the repudiation of political action.
Many causes contributed to it. One of the first — in addition to the growing
knowledge of the ineffectiveness of political action — was the splitting of the
Socialist Party, shortly after its foundation, into several warring factions. These
factions carried their feuds into the labor unions, to their decided detriment.
Many unions were eithft- destroyed outright or degenerated into political study
clubs.
A reaction soon to,ok place against this devitalization of the unions, and to
the cry of "No politics in the unions" they were placed on a basis of neutrality
toward political action. This neutrality soon developed int,o open hostility, when
the designs of the politicians to subjugate the unions became unmistakably evi-
dent. Tlie Anarchists — whose movement was stronger in France than in any
other country in the world — perceived this anti-political tendency in the unions,
and, considering them a fertile field for their propaganda, during the ■90s made
their celebrated "raid" upon them. This event — which Sorel says is one of the
most important in modern history — may be said to mark the birth of Syndicalist
movement proper."*
The revolt against political action and the development of Syndicalism were
given a great stimulus when the Socialists gained a considerable degree of
political power in 1900 as a result of the Dreyfus affair. Then the fundamental
antagonisms between the Syndicalist and Socialist movements became clear.
23 Marx and Engels in a late preface to the Manifesto of the Communist Party remark
of the Commune : "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., 'the working class
cannot simply lay hold of the ready made State machinery, and wield it for its own
purposes.' "
2^ Syndicalism was not recognized as a distinct movement until the C. G. T. convention
at Amiens, in 1906. One delegate thus announced it : "There has been too much said here
as though there were only Socialists and Anarchists present. It has been overlooked that
there are, above all, Syndicalists here. Syndicalism is a new social theory."
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 151
The Socialist rt'prest'iitniivt^s, eitlun- in their own interests or that of their
party, deliberately betrayed tlie interests of the working class. The three So-
cialist ministers — IMillerand, with his "social peace" schemes; Viviani, with
his "old age pensions for the dead," and Briand, with his soldier scabs — drove
thousands of workers out of the Socialist and into the Syndicalist movement
and made the rupture between the two movements complete.
LATER HISTORY
Since the advent of the Socialist to political power the course of the Syndicalist
movement has been phenomenal. Getting control of the C. G. T. and most of
its constituent organizations, the Syndicalists have made modern Freiach labor
history a long series of spectacular strikes, etc., such as the eight-hour-day
movement of l!)04-6, the postal strike of 1909, the railroad strike of 1910, etc.,
which have shaken French capitalism to its foundations. And the successes of
the Syndicalist movement have not been confined to France. The movement
has been transplanted into practically every capitalist country and is everywhere
making great headway. This is especially true of England, where the recent
series of great strikes, instigated by the Syndicalists, has startled the world.
The working classes in these countries that have imported Syndicalism have
not had the extensive experience of the French working class, so they did not
spontaneously generate Syndicalism as the latter did. By importing, ready made,
the Syndicalist philosophy, tactics, ethics, etc., so laboriously developed in
France, they are skipping several rungs in the evolutionary ladder and profiting
by the century and a quarter of costly experiences of the French working class.
VIII. Syndicalism and the American Labor. Movement
For various reasons — but principally because of the great opportunities that
have existed until recent years for individual workers to better their condi-
tions— American workers as a class are more backward in the defense of their
interests than are the workers of any other country. Their labor unions, with
their antique lighting tactics and obsolete philosophy, are the laughing stock of
revolutionists the world over. They are utterly unfit to combat the modern
aggregations of capital. The working class, whose sole defense they are against
the capitalist class, is in retreat before the latter's attacks. If this course is to
be arrested and the workers started upon the road to emancipation, the American
labor movement must be revolutionized. It must be placed upon a Syndicalist
basis.
This revolution must be profound, as American labor unions — save that they are
aggregations of workers organized to fight their employers — have but little
in common with Syndicalist unions. Some of the principal changes necessary
in ideals, forms, tactics, etc., will be indicated in the following pages.
"A Fair Day's Pay for a Fair Day's Worky — This formula expresses the
vague ideal for which the majority of American labor unions are striving. Such
unions grant the right to their masters to exploit them, only -asking in return
that they be given a "fair" standard of living. It is a slave ideal.
The eradication, through education, of the ignorant conservatism from whence
this slave ideal springs, is the most imijortaut steps to be taken in the placing
of the American labor movement upon an effective basis. The workers must
learn that they are the producers of all wealth, and that they alone are entitled
to enjoy it. Inspired by this knowledge, they will refuse to recognize the claim
of their masters to even the smallest fraction of this wealth. They will then
have a keen sense of their wrongs and a bitter hatred for capitalism, instead
of their present indifference. They will then war in earnest upon their masters
and will never rest content until, by the abolition of the wage system, they wiU
have forced them to disgorge their ill-gotten booty.
Harmony of Interests of Capital and Lahor. — Along with the slave ideal of "a
fair day's pay for a fair day's work" must go the idiotic doctrine of the harmony
of interests of capital and labor, which many labor leaders are so fond of
enunciating.
This doctrine is a veritable monument to the ignorance of American workers,
and the participation of their union officials in the notorious Civic Federation —
which is founded on this doctrine — is a crime and a disgrace to their movement.
The workers will have to learn the self-evident fact that in almost every respect
the interests of the workers and their employers are diametrically opposite and
unharmonizable ; that the workei's produce just so much, and that it is to their
152 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
interest to retain as much of this product as they can, through higher wages,
shorter hours, better working conditions, etc., whereas it is to the interest of
their employers to rob them of as much of this product as possible, through
low wages, long hours, wretched working conditions, etc. They must learn that
the great strikes now convulsing the world are battles in the inevitable world-
wide warfare between the capitalists and working classes over the division of
the product of labor, and that his warfare must go on until the working class
has vanquished the capitalist class and abolished the wage system. And, finally,
they must learn that any labor leader who preaches the harmony of interest
doctrine is either an incompetent ignoramus or a traitor to the working class,
and should be treated as such.
Craft Vnionism and the Contract. — Craft Unionism — or, more properly. Sec-
tional Unionism, as all nonrevolutionary labor unions, whether organized on
craft or industrial lines, are alike commonly designated "craft" unions — is a
prolific source of weakness to the labor movement. By its division of the working
class into various sections, each of which, knowing and caring little about the
interests of the others, shortsightedly tries to defend the narrow, immediate
interests of its own members, Craft Unionism cripples the fighting power of the
workers. It sends the working class piecemeal to fight the united capitalists,
who, in addition to their own power, artfully use that of the great mass of workers
at peace with them to crush the few in revolt.
Their visual method of pitting one section of the working class against another
is by the contract. An employer will make contracts, each of which expires at
a different date, with the various "craft" unions of his workers. When the first
contract expires and the "craft" union directly concerned goes on strike, the
balance i-emain at work and thus help to defeat it. These unwise unions are
similarly trounced,, one at a time, at the expiration of tlieir contracts. So com-
mon has this custom become that Craft Unionism has come to signify but little
better than union scabbery. As it robs the workers of their fighting force, Craft
Unionism is rightfully looked upon as one of the strongest supports of the
capitalist system.
The fundamental error of Craft Unionism is that it takes no cognizance of
the class struggle. It attempts to successfully pit small fractions of the working
class against not only the great power of the capitalist class, but also against
that of the balance of the working class. The remedy for it and the contract
evil, which is its inseparable companion, is for the workers to learn that they
all have interests in common and that if they will develop their tremendous
power and make their interests prevail, they must act together as a unit. Having
learned this, they will discard the suicidal "craft" union motto of "Each for
himself and the devil take the hindmost," and adopt the revolutionary slogan of
"An injury to one is the concern of all." They will replace the inefficient partial
strike of Craft Unionism with the potent general strike of Syndicalisln and forge
forward on the road to economic liberty.
Autonomy. — The scabbery of the "craft" unions upon each other is chiefly
ascribed by Industrial Unionists to the fact that these unions — both A. F. of L.
and independent — are autonomous ; that is, each reserves to itself tlie right to
work or strike as it sees fit, and to otherwise generally transact its own affairs
regardless of the others. They claim that if the workers were organized into
strongly centralized unions and under the direct control of an all-powerful
executive board, this union scabbery would cease. Their theory is that this
beneficent executive board- — which in some miraculous way is going to be revolu-
tionary, no matter what the condition of the rank and file — would always force
all the unions out in support of all strikers, however few they might be.
This absurd remedy flows naturally from the Industrial Unionists' shallow
diagnosis of the cause of imion scabbery. Even the most cursory examination
of labor history will show that while occasionally organized workers, through
pure ignorance, will scab on each other, by far the greater part of union scabbery
is due not to the autonomy of the luiions, but to the lack of it ; to the dictatorial
powei's of the officials of the various national unions. These officials, either
through the innate conservatism of officialdom, fear of jeopardizing the rich
funds in their care, or downright treachery, ordinarily use their great powers
to prevent strikes or to drive their unions' members back to work after they have
struck in concert with other workers.
Indeed, it is almost the regijlar order of procedure for the rank and file of
"craft" unions, during the big strikes, to surge in revolt in support of the striking
workers, and for the union officials to crush this revolt — often with the most
unscrupulous means. Every big American strike produces instances of this
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 153
repression of the rank and file. The present newspaper strike in Chicago fur-
nishes a couple of typical ones. The stereotypers pooled their grievances with
the pressmen and struck. For this their local union was immediately expelled
from the national union by the general officers on the pretense that it had violated
its contract. As a companion feat to this, Jim Lynch, the notorious head of
the International Typographical Union, personally prevented the printers from
iilso joining the strike.
The evil of centralized power in labor unions is by no means confined to the
American labor movement. It is a world-wide phenomenon. For instance, the
great English working-class revolt of the past couple of years has occurred in
the face of the most determined opposition of the union leaders, who, instead of
being in the van of the movement, as they should be according to the Industrial
Unionist theory, are being dragged along, willy nilly, in its wake. The immense
German labor unions also give abundant proofs of the evils of centralization.
These unions are the nearest approach in form to the Industrial Unionist ideal
of any unions in the world. They are all ruled by powerful executive boards —
the local unions being destitute of the right to strike at will, raise strike funds,
or even to elect their own local officers. The result is that they rarely go on
strike, their union dictators simply refusing to allow them to do so. The type
of ultra revolutionary executive board, dreamed of by the I. W. W., which will
force the workers to strike together, has not developed in practice.
Syndicalists have noted this universal baneful influence of centralized power
in labor unions and have learned that if the workers are ever to strike tog:^ther
they must first conquer the right to strike from their labor union officials. There-
fore, it is a fundamental principle with them the world over that their unions be
decentralized and that the workei-s alone have the power to decide on the strike.
The C. G. T. of France, which is, for its size, by far the most powerful labor
organization in the world, is a typical decentralized Syndicalist union. In it the
various national craft and industrial unions ^ are strictly independent of each
other; they being bound together by only the most general regulations regarding
per capita tax, etc. The federated unions in the various localities (bourses du
travail) are also autonomous, each deciding for itself all important matters, such
as the strike, etc. For instance, the National Federation of Building Trades
Workers is divided locally in Paris into thirty-four local craft imions. Each of
these local unions individually I'etains the right to work or strike at will, regard-
less of the decision of the other thirty-three local unions in the same national
imion, or of the decision of the national union itself. And yet these thirty-four
autonomous local unions can show a better record of solidarity and general strikes
than any other building trades organization in the world. The matchless soli-
darity that characterizes them is due to the iinderstanding of their members
that they have interests in common, and not to the compulsion of some beneficent,
omnipotent executive board a la I. W. W. Indeed, long experience has taught
the French unions that the first consideration for solidarity is the abolition of
meddling executive boards.
What is needed in the American labor movement is not less autonomy, but
more of it. The executive boards of the various national unions will have to be
stripped of their legislative powers and these powers vested in the local unions
where they belong. Even though these local unions at present may be hampered
by ignorance of their true interests, they are a hundred times rather to be trusted
with power than a few national officials who are exposed to all kinds of corrupt
and conservative influences. The working class can never emancipate itself by
proxy even though its proxies be labor union officials.
Labor Fakers. — The American labor movement is infested with hordes of dis-
honest officials who misuse the power conferred upon them to exploit the labor
"^ Thore are both craft and industrial unions in the C. G. T. Syndicalists by no means
put as stronff pniphasis unon thp industrial form of labor union as the Industrial Unionists
do. They know that industrial unions, -when pronerly orjranized, viz., in a decentralized
form, by brinjrins: tlie -vrorkers into closer touch with each other, eliminatine many useless
officers, headquarters, etc.. are iindonbtedly superior to a number of craft unions covering
the same c.ntecrories of workers, and they appreciate fhem accordintrly. But they also know
that when industri.il unions are improporlv ornranized. viz.. in a centralized form, bv throw-
ins vast masses of workers under a small dictatorial executive board they are inferior to a
number of craft unions covering the same categories of workers. This is obvious, as the
workers in the various craft union''- — even thoucrh these be centralized — are aMe to exert a
certain amount of influence upon their executive beards : whereas. ■v<-here each cnteeorv of
workers is but a small unit in a bi<r centralized industrial union thei- .lenvnrids for strike,
etc.. are icrnored by the conclomerate executive board. This is well ' iStrated in Germany,
where the unions have decidedly lost in viffor by massing ther Ives into centralized
industrial unions.
154 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
movement to their own advantage, even though this involves the betrayal of the
interests of the workers. The exploits of these labor fakers are too well known
to need recapitulations here. Suffice to say the labor faker must go.
The French labor movement presents several excellent methods of exterminat-
ing and preventing the labor faker. The chief of these is the decentralized form
of the unions. This form, by taking the power out of the hands of executive
committees, takes away the very foundation of labor fakerism, viz., delegated
power. Another method is to make official positions financially unattractive
to fakers by attaching but small salaries to them (the two secretaries of the
C. G. T. receive only $50.00 per month.) This custom of paying small salaries
has also the wholesome effect of making labor union officials feel like working
men, instead of like capitalists, as many American labor leaders do. Another
faker deterrent is to make official positions so dangerous — owing to the "illegal"
tactics of the unions their officials are in constant danger of imprisonment — that
fakers have small taste for them. French Syndicalists also object strenuously
to individuals making a profession of labor leading, and it is a common occurrence
for high union officials to go back to the ranks on the expiration of their terms
of office.
The result of these methods is that the French labor movement is remarkably
free from labor fakers. As a rule, only the best and most courageous of the
workei's accept the dangerous and poorly paid official jiositions. These workers
vie with each other in venturesomeness and keep the prisons full. If, however,
in spite of these checks, a faker does develop, he is given short shift. He is
disposed of with the most convenient expedient, "legal" or "illegal." American
workers couldn't do better than to apply French methods to their faker pest.
The IJrislciJlcd. — The pernicious and widely prevalent policy of excluding un-
skilled workers from the labor unions must cease. For their own immediate
interests — not to mention class interests — the skilled workers, for two leading
reasons, must have the co-operation of the unskilled workers in their industries.
In the first place, labor is so specialized and simplified in modern industry that
when the ordinary so-called skilled worker goes on strike his place can readily
be filled by an unskilled worker who has even the most rudimentary knowledge
of the trade. Skilled woi-kers have lost innumerable strikes from this cause.
The only way to prevent this scabbery is to take into the union all skilled and
unskilled workers directly connected with a given craft or industry. This will
make them all realize their common interests and prevent their scabbing upon
each other.
And in the second place, the skilled workers in the larger industries are in
such a minority that they cannot seriously disorganize these industries — and
without this disorganization of industry they cannot win concessions from their
employers. To be able to win they must pool their demands with those of the
unskilled workers, and, by striking with them, bring whole industries to a
standstill. This involves letting the unskilled workers into their unions.
Job TiiistK. — The .iob trust unions are a curse to the American labor movement.
With their Jiigh initiation fees, closed books, apprenticeship restrictions, etc..
they are prolific producers of the scab. Like the strictly skilled workers' unions,
and for the same reasons, they must go. They must be succeeded by broad
unions with low initiation fees and a universal free transfer system. These
unions must be inspired by class ideals and organized on the principle of "Once
a union man. always a union man."
Lec/alitii. — The campaign for "law and order" tactics that is continually carried
on in the unions by various kinds of legalitarians and weaklings exerts a bad
influence upon them. It must cease. The workers must be taught to use all
kinds of successful tactics — whether these have been sanctioned by the ruling
class or not. Had the workers awaited legal jjermission they never would have
built up their labor iniions. as these organizations and their fighting tactics have
always been illegal, and have been developed in the face of most drastic govern-
mental persecution. For the labor unions to become legal would be for them to
commit suicide. All laws calculated to hinder their growth and activities have
been made only to be broken. A vigorous campaign must be waged in the unions
to aijprise the workers of this fact.
Overtime, Fast Working, and Piece Work. — These three factors, by increasing
the army of the unemployed, are very detrimental to the labor movement. They
must all three be abolished. The workers must refuse to work overtime and
by the piece. They must also give up their present rapid rate of work, and, by
systematically saboting their work, turn out as little as possible of it. This
slowing down of production will have the same effect as a shortening of the
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 155
Tvoi-kiiig day. It \Yi!l provide finploymtMit for thousands of workers now iinem-
plo.voil, and will place the wliolo working class in a much better position to
enforce their demands upon their employers.
Sick and Dculh Bcnejits. — The beneficial institutions with which American
labor unions are loaded uiuiuestionably very seriously lessen the tighting abilities
of these unions. They prostitute the unions from tlieir true functions as aggres-
sive organizations lo the false ones of defensive organizations. They do this by
causing great sums of money to be piled up in the hands of national committees,
who, of course, have full power to pi-otect these funds. These connuittees, wish-
ing to prevent their funds from being jeopardized by strikes, ordinarily use this
power to prevent strikes and to direct the minds of tlie woi-kers into insiu'ance
channels. Such funds are fruitful sources of harmful cennalization. Rebels
all over the world are unanimous in their condemnation.
Strike Benefits. — Large strike benefits are doubly detrimental to the labor
movement. On the one hand, like sick and death benefits, they cause centraliza-
tion and weaken the action of the unions by placing large funds in the hands of
ixnverful national conunittees, who keep these funds intact by preventing strikes.
And, on the other hand, they cause the workers to depend for success upon their
niggardly savings — which are utterly eclipsed by the immense funds of the capi-
talists— instead of upon their economic power, which is invincible.
The modern strike, dependent upon funds for success, is ordinarily long, legal
and a failure. Such strikes are obsolete. The successful type of modern strike
is short and depends for its success upon the disorganization of industry it
causes. The funds, if any are needed to finance it, are usually raised in the heat
of the battle from non-striking workers, who at such times are ready givers.
Small strike funds held by local unions, may be permissible, but large strike
funds held by national committees are strictly to be condemned.
The Unions and Politics. — A word of caution on this point: The Syndicalists
in the United States have ahead of them a long and hard fight with the poli-
ticians for the control of the labor movement. They run but one serious danger
in this fight, and that is that their hatred for the politicians may lead them
to write antipolitical clauses into the preambles and constitutions of the
unions under their control.
Labor unions are organizations of workers organized on the basis of their
common economic interests. To be successful they require the cooperation
of workers of all kinds, regardless of their personal opinions. Consequently
they cannot, without disastrous consequences to themselves, make personal
convictions — whether in regard to politics, religion or any other matter foreign
to the labor unions — a qualification for membership in them. Therefore,
Syndicalists must keep the unions under their control officially neutral toward
politics. Let their policy be '"No politics in the union." As individuals they
can safely fight the politicians to their hearts' content.
This is the policy of the French Syndicalists and has proven very successful
in the C. G. T. This organization, though controlled by the Syndicalists, is
officially neutral toward politics. As a consequence it has in its ranks several
unions controlled by Socialists, not to mention the thousands of Socialists
in tlie other unions under the control of Syndicalists. If the C. G. T. took an
antipolitical stand it would undoubtedly lose this large Socialist element and
the French labor movement would suffer the calamity of being split into two
■warring factions.
In the foregoing pages only the more important evils afflicting American
labor unionism have been gone into, and their remedies indicated. Lack of
space forbids the discussion of the many minor ones with which it bristles.
Bnt the rebel worker, in his task of putting the American labor movement
upon a Syndicalist basis, will have no diflSculty in recognizing them and their
antidotes when he encounters them.
To revolutionize the American labor movement, Syndicalists must follow
the course taken by successful Syndicalists the world' over, viz., develop the
existing unions and organize unions for those workers for whom at present
none exist.^' The natural course of evolution for a labor movement — even as
**Tlie I. W. W. i)lan of building an entirely new and revolutionary labor movement, on
the theory that the old conservative unions are incapable of evolution and must go out
of existence, is a freak. It was arbitrarily invented by the Socialist politicians who
founded the I. W. W. A few years previous, these politicians, in launching their political
rnovement. had condemned all existing political parties as nonworking class by nature and
founded the Socialist I'arty, to which they gave a monopoly of representing" the political
interests of the working class. When they felt the need for an economic "wing" to their
movement, as the Socialist Party was progressing favorably, they followed exactly the same
156 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
for individual workers — is gradually from the conservative to the revolutionary.
Syndicalists are natural educators and leaders of the working class and by
actively participating in the labor movement they can greatly hasten this
evolution. They can best make their influence felt upon the labor movement
through the medium of the organized militant minority.
THE MILITANT MINORITY
In every group of human beings, be it Y. W. G. A., A. F. of L., M. & M.,
Salvation Army or what not, there are to be found a certain few individuals
who exercise a great influence over the thoughts and actions of the rest of
the mass of individuals composing the group. They are the directing forces
of these groups— the sluggish mass simply following their lead. They are
natural leaders and maintain their leadership through their superior intellect,
energy, courage, cunning, organizing ability, oratorical power, etc., as the case
may be. They are militant minorities.
The labor movement, owing to its peculiar nature, is especially fertile in
and responsive to the efforts of militant minorities of various sorts, such as
Syndicalists, Anarchists, Socialists, Craft Unionists, Clericals, etc., who are
each striving to control it for their own ends. All over the world it will be
found following the lead of one or more of these militant minorities. The
most potent of all the militant minorities in the labor movement are the
Syndicalists, whose vigorous philosophy, ethics, and tactics— which are those
par excellence of the labor movement— coupled with their unflagging energy
and courage, born of the revolution, make them invincible in the struggle
between the various militant minorities for the control of the labor movement.
Scattered through conservative unions, they simply compel the great mass
of workers into action and to become revolutionary, in spite of the contrary
efforts of other militant minorities. It was for the Syndicalist militants that
the term "militant minority" was coined, and it is ordinarily applied solely
to them — a somewhat incorrect usage, which, however, will henceforth be
complied with in this pamphlet.
Organization and Poiver of the Militant Minority. — French Syndicalists have
noted the great power of the militant minority, and by thoroughly organizing
and exploiting it have made their labor movement the most revolutionary and
powerful in the world. The Syndicalists in England, Spain, Italy, etc., patterning
after the French, have achieved their success by using similar tactics.
The usual French method of organizing the militant minority in a given union
is for the Syndicalists in this union- to establish a paper devoted to their interests.
Through the columns of this paper, which is the nucleus of their organization,
they at once propagate revolutionary ideas, standardize their policies, instigate
strike movements, and organize their attacks on the conservative forces in the
unions. A fighting machine is thus built up which enables the Syndicalists to'
act as a unit at all times and to thoroughly exploit their combined power.
The power of the militant minority, when so organized is immense. Let us cite
the recent French railroad strike as an illustration of it. Until a couple of years
ago the French railroad unions, dominated by Socialists, were so conservative
that it was a common saying that they would never strike again. But a few
months after the militant minority deposed the Socialist railroad union dictator,
course as they had pursued at the latter's founding; they condemned all existing unions
and founded the I. W. W., to which they generously gave a monopoloy on representing the
economic interests of the working class. They made absolutely no investigation of the
problems presented by a universal dual labor organization — as the minutes of the first
I. W. W. convention show. They jumped at the conclusion that if a new political party
could succeed, so could a new universal labor organization.
The dual organization theorv of the I. W. W. has no justification in this country — where
the I. W. W. is a distinct failure and the old unions are showing marked capacities for
evolution — nor in any other country in the world. In every European country, where
similar attempts have been made to ignore the old conservative unions and build new revo-
lutionary movements — as in Germany, England (I. W. W.), and Sweden — these attempts
have been failures and the Syndicalist movements are weak, while in every European country
where efforts have been made to revolutionize the old unions — as in France, England
(Syndicalist leagues), Snain. Italy, Portugal — they have been successful, and the Syn-
dicalist movements are strong.
The comnarative effectiveness of the two methods has been recently strikingly illustrated
in the English labor movement. For several years the I. W. W. had unsuccessfully tried to
found a new revolutionary movement independent of the old trade union movement, when,
a couple of years ago, a few Syndicalists, headed by Tom Mann, began propagating revolu-
tionary ideas in the old unions. The recent series of srreat strikes and the rapid growth
of Syndicalism In England are eloquent testimonals to the effectiveness of their tactics.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 157
Gueraid, France was shaken by the recent great strike of 50,000 railroad workers.
This strike, wiiich, tliough broken by the Socialists (as related in an earlier chap-
ter), was one of the nios^t remarkable demonstrations of workiug-class power and
solidarity that have ever occurred, was directly due to the activities of the militant
minority. The persecution which followed the strike enables us to estimate ap-
proximately the numerical strength of this minority. In all, o,300 workers were
discharged' from throughout the railroad service — nonstriking roads included —
on the pretense that they were responsible for the strike. But of this number
it is doubtful if more than 1,000 were militant Svndioalists, as the persecution
was so rigorous that hundreds of men were discharged for simply saying the
strike was justified .or something similar, and other hundreds were discharged
as agitators by bosses who had stored up petty grievances against them and seized
this favorable opportunity to get rid of them.
And it is to the activities of these approximately 1,000 militants that this
epoch-making strike must be credited. They were the real moving force behind
the strike. By their vigor, courage, arguments, etc., they drew the mass of work-
ers after them in spite of their own indifference, governmental opposition, Social-
ist hostility, etc. They were the life of the strike — the leaven tha/t leavenetl'i the
whole. The rest of the workers were but little better than pawns or putty — to be
manipulated as the militants chose.
Similar instances of the power of the militant minority might be cited from
the history of almost every union in France, in all of which the militant minority
is more or less organized. The handfuls of oi-ganized rebels in these unions, with .
the cooperation of their national organization, which, like that in the individual
unions, is formed through rebel papers, are rapidly winning the labor movement
from Socialist control, and are infusing it with revolutionary spirit and making
a vigorous fighting machine of it.
The Militant Miuoritii in the United States.— The militant minority, which is
such a potent factor in the French labor movement, is utterly disorganized in the
American labor movement. Even its existence as a factor in the labor move-
ment— to say nothing of its potentialities — is unsuspected by all save a com-
paratively few observers. This state of affairs is directly due to the I. W. W.
Ever since its foundation, seven yeai-s ago, the I. W. AV. has carried on a vigor-
ous propaganda of the doctrine that the old conservative unions are incapable of
evolution and must be supplanted by a "ready-made" revolutionary movement.
Beginning as it did, at a time when American revolutionists were almost entirely
unacquainted with the principles and powers of the militant miiiority, this doc-
trine has produced a profound effect upon them. In fact, practically all of them —
Anarchists, Socialists and Industrial Unionists alike — have accepted it unquestion-
ingly as true. They have become obsessed with the notion that nothing can be
accomplished in the old unions, and that the sooner they go out of existence the
better it will be for the labor movement. As a natural consequence they, with
rare exceptions, have either quit the old unions and become directly hostile to
them, or they have become so much dead material in them, making no efforts to '
Improve them. The result is a calamity to the labor movement. It has been liter-
ally stripped of its soul. The militants who could inspire it with revolutionary
vigor have been taken from it by this ridiculous theory. They have left the old
unions, where they could have wielded a tremendous influence, and gone into
sterile isolation. They have left the labor movement in the undisputed control
of conservatives and fakers of all kinds to exploit as they see fit."
Practically all the unions showed marked evil effects of the desertion and dis-
arming of their militants. Of the innumerable instances of such that might be
cited let us mention only the typical case of the Western Federation of Miners.
According to a staternent made recently by Vincent St. John— at present secre-
tary-treasurer of the I. W. W. — the W. F. of M., when it was in its best fighting
days, several years ago, was dominated and controlled by a fighting minority of
about ten percent of its membership. This militant minority was so well or-
ganized and effective, however, that it compelled the whole W. F. of M. to be a
fighting organization. It was a living proof of the power of the militant minority.
But today the W. F. of M. is a conservative organization. It has lost its former
vigor and is rapidly developing into a typical Socialist labor union-voting ma-
chine. This decline is due to the disorganization of the W. F. of M.'s once power-
^ Had the militant majority of French railroads adopted this course of tactics, there
is little doubt but that their great strike would never have occurred.
158 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
ful militant minority, whicli occurrecl wlien the W. F. of M., because of a fac-
tional quarrel, withdrew from the I. W. W. On this event the bulk of the W. F. of
M. militants, being obsessed with the patriotic I. W. W. doctrine that none other
than an I. W. W. union can be revolutionary, either quit the W. F. of M. or be-
came inactive in it. The Haywoods, St. Johns, Heslewoods, and the other strong
militants, who had made the W. F. and M. the fighting organization that it once
was, quit fighting to control their union. They became merely onlookers so far as
it was concerned. The result is that the Socialists are left in almost undisputed
control of it, to the sad detriment of its fighting spirit.
Many similar instances of the disorganization of the militant minority in the
various unions might be cited did space permit. But American direct-actionists
are finally arousing themselves from the inaction that has crippled them so long.
They are beginning to realize that the dream of the I. W. W. is impossible and
that tlie American labor movement, in becoming revolutionary, will follow the
natural evolutionary course taken by the labor movements of all countries.
They are beginning to realize that while they have been separated from the
labor movement, mumbling phrases about the impossibility of doing anything
in the old unions, the Socialists — who are rapidly freeing themselves from the
I. W. W. idea — have been driving the old line craft union fakers before them and
taking charge of the labor movement. They are getting an inkling of the powers
and possibilities of the militant minority and are proceeding to oragnize it. This
organization is the Syndicalist League of North America.
THE SY^JDICALIST LEAGUE OF NOETH AMERICA
The Syndicalist League of North America is an organization of Syndicalists,
formed f<jr the purpose of effectively propagating Syndicalist tactics, principles,
etc.. among all groups of organized and unorganized workers. IT IS NOT A
LABOR UNION, AND IT DOES NOT ALLOW ITS BRANCHES TO AFFILI-
ATE WITH LABOR UNIONS. It is simply an educational league with the task
of educating the labor movement to Syndicalism.
The S. L. of N. A. plan of organization, somewhat similar to that of the
Industrial Syndicalist League, which is playing such a prominent part in the
present revolution in the English labor movement, is a variation from the French
plan. In addition to founding Syndicalist papers in the various industries, it
organizes the rebels into dues-paying leagues. These Syndicalist leagues, which
enable the militants in many ways to better exploit their power, are of two
kinds, viz., local and national. A local Syndicalist league consists of all the
Syndicalists in a given locality, and a national Syndicalist league consists of
all the Syndicalists in a given craft or industry.
The S. L. of N. A. is a possibilist organization with a practical program. It
considers the Utopian policy of a universal dual organization a most pernicious
one because it at once introduces disastrous jurisdictional wars in the labor
movement and destroys the efficiency of the militant minority. Its first principle
is unity in the labor movement. It is based on the demonstrated fact that the
labor movement will become revolutionary in the measure that the individuals
composing it bec<)me educated. It is, therefore, seeking to bring about this
education by the exploitation of the militant minority. Consequently, it seizes
every opportunity to introduce betterments, great or small, into the labor move-
ment. Though in existence but a few months, it has already achieved remarkable
success. It is responsible for the removal t>f a number of abuses from, and the
introduction of a number of improvements into several international unions.
It is also a potent fact,or in the various localities where it has branch leagues
established.
The S. L. of N. A. is demonstrating that the American Jabor movement is ripe
for a revolution and that the conservative forces opposed to this revolution
are seemingly strong only because they have had no opposition. It is making
them crumble before the attacks of the militant minority, organized and conscious
of its strength.
All workingmen interested in *his movement to place the American labor move-
ment upon a Syndicalist basis can secure full information regarding the S. L.
of N. A. by communicating with
(Whereupon, at 4: 30 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Thursday,
November 8, 1945. )
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AxMEHICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 159
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES
House of Representatives,
COMMIT'IKK (>N UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES.
W-\shin<:t()x. D. ('., Thursday, November 8, l9Ji5.
The c'oiiiinitti'e met at Id a. in.. IIoii. Joliii S. Wood (chairman) presiding.
The Chaikm.vn. The comniittee will i)lease he in order. Are yon ready to
proceed. Mr. Adanison?
Mr. ADAMSoN. Yes. sir. Will yon lake the stand, please, Mr. Foster?
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM Z. FOSTER, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY, NEW YORK, N. Y.— RESUMED
Mr. AiJA.M.sOi\. .Mr. Foster, how many hooks and pamphlets vi'onld you say yon
have written since the one on syndicalism, which you say you have repudiated?
Mr. FosTKii. Half a dozen hooks and 'M or 40 pamphlets.
Mr. Adamson. And do you also contrihute articles to magazines and newiy-
paiHM-s?
Mr. Fosrt:ii. Thai's right.
Mr. Adamson. And you also speak and lectni-e around from time to time? Is
that true?
Ml-. Fo.-TEK. Yes. I do.
Mr. Adamson. Are your literary and speaking activities conducted by you
exclusively for and on account of the Connnunist Party, or do you receive com-
pen.sation ix'rsonall.v for them?
Mr. Foster. No ; I work for the ("ommunist Party.
Mr. AOAMSON. And all the revenues from your activities go into the Com-
munist Party?
Mr. Fosi'Ku. That's right, all of them.
Mr. AnAMSoN. And how do you obtain your compensation from your literary
work? Do you copyright your books?
Mr. Foster. The hooks are copyrighted, I understand, and during the course
of the yeai-, I think I have received all told two or three hundred dollars in
royalties. That is all.
Mr. AoAMSox. But all of your compensation and your expenses then come
from the Connnunist Party?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. ADAjrsoN. And during the life of the Communist Association, yo\i con-
tinued yoia- activities with them just as with the Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. Just the same tiling, the same relationship.
Mr. Adamson. You have a "Z" in your name, Mr. Foster. What does thai
stand for?
Mr. Ft STER. It is just a pen name.
Mr. AoAMSoN. It doesn't stand for any particular name?
Mr. Foster. No significance heyond that.
Mr. AoAMsoN. There was at one time a William Zachariah or Zacharias Foster
active in strik«'s in St. Louis. Are you the same man, or is that a different man?
Mr. Ff>8TER. I couldn't say. I have participated in strikes in St. Louis. I
don't know whether it refers to me or not.
Mr. Adam.son. Well, I understand this Foster said that the employers in St.
Louis had agreed to pay him $15,U|00 for stopping the strikes out there. Are
you the same man?
Mr. Fost>;r. No : I am sure it wasn't ine now.
Mr. AnAMSoN. But you are the Foster who was active in strikes and the
incident at Herrin, III., .some years ago?
Mr. FOSTER. No; I am not.
Mr. Ai.'AMSO.x. You had nothing to do with that?
Mr. Foster. No, only insofar as I miglit have writi3h about it from a distance.
Mr. AuAMSoN. Were you ever associated, politically or otherwise, with Emma
Goldman?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. ADAMSt)N. Weren't you in Russia with her at one time, or at the same
time?
Mr. FosTra. Yes ; she was there at the same time I was.
83078 — 46 11
160 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Adamson. And were you both there in connection with business for the
Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. No; I was not there on business for the Communist Party. I
was really there in connection with the Trade Union Educational League. That
was before I was a member of the Communist Party.
lylr. Adamson. Would you tell us something about the Trade Union Educational
League?
Mr. Foster. The Trade Union League has been lifniidated some 15 years ago.
I would like to know what that has gf)t to do with these hearings?
Mr. Adamson. You mentioned it, Mr. Fostei'. And whnt, if any, coiuiection did
that league have with the Connnunist movement?
Mr. Foster. At that time, none.
Mr. Adamson. Well, what did it have subsequently?
I\Ir. Foster. What has that got to do with un-Amerifan activities?
Mr, Adamson. I don't know.
Mr. Foster. I don't mind coming down here and being persecuted day after
da,v with these norusensical hearings, but let us at least confine ourselves to
real questions. It is getting so I liave to serve a sentence before this committee
instead of coming here for information. I think it is about time we are done
with this ridiculous i>erformance.
Mr. Adamson. I don't want to ask you anything that would incriminate you.
■ Mr. Foster. You are not incriminating me.
Mr. Adamson. If there is any reason why you are afraid or do not wish to
answer the question, if you will so state, I will not press it.
Mr. Foster. There is no danger of you incriminating me. You are just annoy-
ing me That is all.
Mr. Adamson. Very well, suppose you tell us. then, the connection of the
Trade Union League with the Commuiiist movement.
Mr. Foster. Well, I protest against this digging up of ancient history for the
purpose of creating a red scare in the country. I should think this connnittee
would [earn from your exi^erience in New York City a few days ago that this
stuff is I little bit on the stale side, this red baiting.
The Chairman. Mr. Foster, do you refuse to answer the question?
. iMr. Foster. No, I do not i-efuse to answer the question, Mr. Chairman, but
The Chairman (interposing). Please answer it, then, and let us get along.
Mr. Foster. I am willing to get along. I am willing to dispense with the
hearings altogether. So far as getting along is concerned, I think it has been
ridiculous so far.
The Chairman. Well, the committee is not concerned with your opinion.
Mr. Foster. I was brought here, I believe, to express ray opinion.
The Chairman. You are here to answer questions.
Mr. Adamson. No one has restrained you from expressing your opinions, Mr.
Foster. All through the hearing you have had great liberty of action.
Mr. Foster. I have been badgered here like a criminal. That is what has
b.ippened to me. I haven't been given an oppoi-tunity to half answer many of
the questions that have been put to me. You would not dare to treat any other
witness like you have treated me, and like you treat other Communists before
the committee.
Mr. Adamson. Suppose you answer it in your own way now.
Mr. Foster. I have answered it that I think it is nonsensical to dig up the
history of an oi-ganization that was liquidated some 10 or 15 years ago, or more.
• Mr. Adamson. You have made frequent references to trade unions in your
testimony, and you have mentioned this league.
Mr. Foster. I mentioned it in answer to a direct question from you.
IMr. Adamson. Well, will you tell us what connection that organization had
with the Communist movement?
Mr Foster. I answered that it had no connection at the period you mention,
nor ;<fterwards. for that matter.
Mr. .iDAMSON. It is your statement, then, that this league has never had any
C'onnectioti with the Communist movement?
Mr. Foster, I repeat my answer, Mr, Chairman, and I request that this ridicu-
lous line of questioning be stopped.
The Chairman. Your answer originally was that it did not at that time.
You have answered now or ever?
Mr. Foster. I answer or ever. Communists belonged to it, and that is all.
Mr. Adamson. How many times have you been to Russia, Mr. Fostei?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMEIUCAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 161
Mr. FosTF.R. Oh, I have been thoie a number of times. What has that got
to do with un-American activities?
Mr. Adamson. Was it your practice to go every year?
Mr. Fo.sTF.R. Plenty people go to Russia.
Mr. Adamson. And was it your practice to go every year?
Mr. Foster. I think the trouble is not euough go to Russia. If more went
to Russia we would probably learn something about the country, and maybe
woidd adopt a litfle more friendly attitude than we are following.
Mr. Adamson. I agree with you that a lot more people in this country ought
to go to Russia.
Mr. Foster. You included. It would be very educational for you, I think.
Mr. Adamson. Do you speak or read Russian?
Mr. Foster. 'No. I read a little bit, not much.
Mr. Adamson. You have never written, then, in Russian?
yiv. Fo-ster. No. sir.
Mr. Adamson. When you go to Russia, Mr. Foster, or when you have been
in Russia, all your transactions over there then are carried on through in-
terpreters? Isn't that true?
Mr. Foster. Well, obviously, if I don't siieak Russian, and I want to com-
municate with Russians, somebody has to tell me what they are saying. I
think that follows logically.
Mr. Adamson. So that everything that is told to you over there you get
second-hand. Is that true? You are not able to speak or read the Russian
language even when you are there?
!Mr. Foster. 1 would like to know what this nonsensical line of questions is
leading up to. What is the purpose of such a question?
Mr. Adamson. Isn't that true?
]\Ir. Foster. What are you trying to wangle out of me;?
The Chairman. He says Mr. Adamson, he doesn't write it oi- speak it. It
obviously follows that whatever information he gets througli the Russian
language must come through interpreters.
Mr. Foster. Like anybody else in the coxintry where they don't speak the
language.
Mr. Adam.son. By the way, Mr. Foster, did you assist in the management
or conduct of the communistic meeting that was held on September 24th at
Madison Square Garden in New York? I believe you said you made a
speech there?
Mr. Foster. I spoke at a meeting on approximately that date.
]Mr. Adamson. Did you assist in the arrangement for the meeting, or were
you just a speaker?
Mr. Foster. I was a speaker.
^Ir. Adamson. You had nothing to do with the meeting, the setting of it?
Mr. Fostee. Not particularly ; no.
Mr. Adamson. Weren't those proceedings at that meeting broadcast?
Mr. Foster. No : not to my knowledge.
Mr. Adamson. They were not on the radio?
Mr. Foster. No.
Mr. Adamson. Then you don't know whether your speech went out over
the radio or not?
Mr. Foster. I am sure it did not.
^Ir. Adamson. And is that the meeting where the si)eech by Mr. Laski was
delivered by radio from London? Do you remember that?
Mr. Foster. No ; that was a different meeting.
Mr. Adamson. Which meeting was that, that you have in mind? Maybe we
are not talking about the same meeting.
Mr. Foster. I guess not. The meeting that I spoke at was a Communist
Party meeting.
Mr. Adamson. On what date?
Mr. Foster. I could not say the date. It was some months ago.
ilr. Adamson. Did you attend the meeting of September 24th, the meeting where
Mr. Laski's speech was transmitted by radio?
Mr. Foster. No. What is that your affair, whether I attended it or not?
Mr. Adamson. I want to know whether you had any part in the management
of the meeting.
Mr. Foster. I have a right to attend any meeting I please, and it is none of
your business whether I attended it or not.
162 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Adamson. Well, did you have any part in the arrangements for the
meeting?
Mr. Foster. None whatever.
Mr. Adamson. And I believe that meeting was conducted under the auspices
of the Spanish Relief Committee. Do you know that?
Mr. Foster. I do not. You liad better aslj them.
Mr. Adamson. Are you acquainted with that organization? .
Mr. Foster. I have heard of it in a general way.
Mr. Adamson. You don't know, then, what the details were on the arrangement
of the meeting on September 24th?
Mr. Foster. Nothing.
Mr. Adamson. And you are not familiar with the oi'ganization known as the
Spanish Relief Committee?
Mr. Fostb:r. Is that an un-American meeting, to meet to celebrate the Spanish
revolt or Spanish struggle against Fascism? I should think the American people
would be very proud of their jjart in such an affair.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Fostei-, did you know before the meeting, or since tlie meet-
ing, about Mr. Laski's speech attacking the Catholic Chui'chV
Mr. Foster. I knew nothing about it. I read it in the paper the next day.
Mr. Ranicin. Who is Mr. Laski?
Mr Adamson Mr Laski is. I believe, one of the leaders in England of the Com-
munist movement
Mr. Foster. That is an example of how little you know about the Communist
movement. Mr. Laski has nothing whatever to do with the Communist movement
in England.
Mr. Adamson. Then will you tell us who Mr. Laski is?
Mr. Foster. He is one of the leaders of the Labor Party.
Mr. Adamson. Where, in England?
Mr. Foster. In England.
Mr. Adamson. And did you know anything at all about his .speech before the
meeting?
Mr. Foster. I answered that once, nothing.
Mr. Adamson. You only saw it in the newspaper after the meeting?
Mr. Foster. That's right.
Mr. Adamson. And, as I understand it, Mr. La.ski's speech was transmitted by
i-adio to the United States. He was not here in i>erson. Is that correct?
Mr. Foster. I don't know. I read it in the newspapers. That is all I know
about it.
Mr. Adamson. You referi'ed to the purpo.se of the meeting. What do you under-
stand the object of the meeting was?
Mr. Foster. I don't understand anything about it except in a general way ;
it was a Spanish relief meeting.
Mr. Rankin. Do you have a copy of that Laski speech, Mr. Adamson?
Mr. Adamson. Yes.
Mr. Rankin. I think we had better see what it is.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert a copy of Mr. Laski's re-
marks in the record here.
Mr. Foster. I hope Mr. Laski is not supposed to be un-American too. Is he?
Mr. Adamson. I 'don't know very much about Mr. Laski, Mr. Foster. You know
more about him than I do.
Mr. Rankin. Is he an American?
Mr. Adamson. No, sir; Mr. Laski is a politician in England, and we have
received a copy of his speech.
Mr. Rankin. What I want to know is how was his speech made in New York?
Mr. Adamson. Apparently it came by radio, and it is quite a mystery, Mr.
Rankin, as to how they sandwiched it in at the right time, apparently it came
over without censoi-ship or regulation.
Mr. Rankin. Have you a copy of his speech?
Mr. Adamson. We will have it here in a few minutes, Mr. Rankin. I will go
along now, and when it comes in I will present it. I have seen a notice in the
Daily Worker, Mr. Foster, which indicated that there is to be another big meeting
in New York on November 14, at which Mr. Novikov, the Soviet Minister Counselor
and the Under Secretary of State are scheduled to speak. Are you also going
to speak at that meeting?
Mr. FosTES. No.
Mr. Adamson. Do you know what the purpose of that meeting is?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 163
Mr. FosTFR. I just know what I have read in the papers about it, that it is
some sort of a nuM>tiiif; to cultivate Auierioaii and Soviet frieiulsliip, which I
think it a very patriotic endeavor.
The CiiAiKMAN. Mr. Foster, do 1 understand that yon, as the titular head of
the Communist Party, did not have any connection at all with the arranging this
meeting? ~
Mr. FosTFK. Nothing whatsoever.
The Chaikman. Who arranged it? Do you know?
Mr. Foster. I have no idea, beyond what I have read in the newspapers.
Mr. AoAMSON. Mr. Foster, if you have read the statements in the Daily Worker,
I believe the last ad that I saw was signed by the Soviet-American Friends, or
the A.ssociation for American and Soviet Friendship. What is the name of the
organization? Do you know?
Mr. FosTra. I c<'Uid not tell you. It is something like that.
Mr. AoAMSON. 1 also noticed that the tickets were up as high as $2.40 apiece.
Did you notice that in the ad too?
Mr. FoSTEnt. No ; I did not. But I don't see anything wrong about that. I see
Republicans and Democrats holding meetings where they charge $100 a throw
to get in. or more. I thiidi it is a very laudable thing to hold such meetings and
to get the American people acquainted with our Allies.
Mr. Adamson. I recall that in your previous testimony you volunteered the
information that religion in the Soviet Republic is absolutely unrestricted. I be-
lieve you said that there was no restraint on it.
Mr. Foster. I said something else too in my testimony, that I am not going to
allow you to question me about religion, neither one way nor the other.
Mr. Al)AM^o^^ AVell, you volunteered this information, and what I wanted to
know was just what you could tell us of your own personal knowledge about that.
^Ir. Foster. I am not going to tell you anything about it.
Mr. AuAMsoN. Then you volunteered the information before, Mr. Foster, and
I thought you might be able now to enlighten us to the extent of your knowledge.
Mr. FO.STER. I am not going to.
Mr. Adamson. You refuse to answer that question?
Mr. Foster. I refuse to answer any questions with regard to religion, whatso-
ever, because I know the purpose of such questions, which is to create religious
bigotry and division in the country, and I am not going to make myself a party to
such a proposition.
^Ir. Adamson. Do you wish to retract the statement made at prior hearings
concerning religion?
Mr. Foster. There is only one statement that I made that I wish to modify.
Mr. AuAMsox. What is that? Go ahead.
Mr. Foster. That is where I characterized the Truman Administration or
President Truman as yielding to the pressure of the imperialists in the country.
I wish to state instead that by his Navy Day speech I think the Pre.sident has piit
himself at the head of the militant imperialists of the United States, and that
the foreign policy that is now developing is highly dangerous to the peace of the
world and to the objectives that we fought and won this great war for. That is
the only modification of my testimony that I want to make.
Jlr. Adamson. V>'ell, Mr. Foster, that is interesting, and I wonder if you would
be good enough to tell us just briefly what you base that expression of opinion on?
Wh.v has the situation changed so suddenly?
:Mr. Foster. Well, among other things I base it upon the situation in China.
I thiidv that our active support of the Chiang Kai Shek government, to the)
extent of intervening in the war, the civil war there against the Yunan giov-
ernment. is an imperialist interference, that it is a danger to the peace in the
Far East, and can well precipitate a serious civil war in China. In fact, it is
my opinion that if it had not been for this active support of the <'hiang Kai Shek
govcnniient by the United States we would not have had even the situation that
we have got now in China. I think it is n(me of our business how the Chinese
peoi)le settle this affair, and that our job is to get our troops out of China tas
quickly as possible.
Mi-. Adamson. When you refer to the Yunan government you mean the Com-
munist organization in China, don't you Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. Yes ; the Communists are leading it. It repre.«!ents some 100 to 150
million Cliinei^e. They are not all Conununists. I wish they were, but luifor-
tunatelv they are not. That is one example. I think also that our interference
in the Balkans is an imperialist interference, and that it is unjustified from the
83078—46 12
164 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
standpoint of American national interests. I think the policy that Mr. Byrnes
has identified himself with there has been or is primarily an attempt to save
what can be saved from the old and disastrous policy of surrounding the Soviet
Union with a belt of hostile states, reactional states.
Mr. Abamson. And you feel that the Administration has no right to interfere
in any way in the Balkans?
Mr. FoSTE^K. I didn't say that. The United States lias a perfect right under
the arrangements that have been made to consult with the commissions and to
work with the Soviet Union for the purpose of setting up democratic states in
those areas, but not for building a series of reactionary states around the Soviet
Union.
I think the experience in Finland and Hungary goes to prove conclusively that
the Soviet Union, in so far as it has any influence in the matter, is building up,
strengthening democracy and is not interfering with the democractic rights of
these people.
Mr. Adamson. Now, Mr. Foster, since you have mentioned the Balkans, I want
to show you an article that appeared this morning in one of the Washiiigton
papers. It is a dispatch by Larry Seur, one of the foreign correspondents, dated
November 7, from Paris, and the headline reads "Terror Reigns in Balkan Area."
The article contains the statement of several priests describing the death of 243
inmates of a monastry there.
Mr. Foster. I dont' have to look at it. All I have to look at is the name of
the paper, the Times-Herald. That tells the whole story. That tells the whole
story. This is a sample of the war mongering that is being cai'ried on by these
papers against the Soviet Union. I want to say that from all the reliable infor-
mation reaching the United States, that it is an unmitigated lie. The peaceful
election in Hungary just a couple of days ago, or a few days ago, is the best
answer to that, in which, instead of the Soviet Union forcing a Communist
majority, as was alleged in such rags as this, actually the most conservative party
in the country carried the majority of the votes, entirely without interference
from the Soviet Union.
Mr. Adamson. Then your opinion is that Larry Seur's dispatch is false and
unfounded?
Mr. FosTEat. Exactly. Not only false and unfounded, but it is deliberate war
mongering as well, and this committee should not allow itself to be made a party
to such action.
Mr. Adamson. Well, Mr. Foster, aren't you being given full opportunity to
express your opinion about the article? That doesn't make us a party to it.
Mr. FosTEM. That perhaps does not make you a party to it, but the mere fact
that this committee can lend credence to such trash as that— and that is the
stock in trade of this committee, apparently, from what has gone before — in fact,
from the line of questioning that has been followed, undoubtedly this committee
is displaying a strong anti-Soviet bias, and is lending itself to the war mongering
propaganda that is now going on in the United States — in fact, it is cultivating
it, and this is a danger to our country and to the rest of the world. Every war
monger in the country is receiving inspiration and encouragement from this
committee.
Mr. Adamson. Would you characterize the President's Navy Day speech then
as war mongering?
Mr. Foster- I would characterize the President's Navy Day speech as an im-
perialist speech, a speech which is supporting those elements who are seeking
to advance American interests — that is, what they consider to be American
interests, what they pretend to be American interests — at the expense of
many other nations of the world, and to the serious endangerment of peace
and democracy and the prosperity that the American people are trying to build
up in the aftermath fo this war. And I have just given you an example about
China, the peoples of the Far Ea.st, the colonial peoples who have been oppressed
and exploited for so long by these imperialist powers are now determined
to be free, and it is our job to help them to be free, in India and India-Asia
and the Malayan areas and Indo-China ami China; and our job, if we are
to take seriously the purposes for which this gi-eat war has been won, is to
lend our support to these forces, and not the reactionary forces that are trying
to suppress and keep them in servitude, and if we attempt to do this, as we
are now attempting to do in China, we will pay heavily for it. We will not
advance our interests in the Far East.
Mr. Rmvktn Did the witness say he objects to the United States aiding
Chiang Kai Shek in this war?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 165
«
Mr. Foster. The war is over. I believe.
Mr. Rankin. I mean during the war.
Mr. FosTEK. During the war we all worked together, Chiang Kai Shek's gov-
ernment, the Communist government — the Communists in China did 10 times
the fighting that the Chiang Kai Shek government did, but the Chiang Kai
Shek government was a part of the combination that carried through the war.
And we are not raising objections on that score. We are speaking particularly
now in the aftermath of the war. where the Chiang Kai Shek government is
trying to set up a reactionary dictatorship in China, in the face of the opposition
of the masses of the Chinese people. And he will not succeed, not even with
our help, and I hojie that the Administration will show intelligence enough to
pull our troops out of China, where they have no business participating in this
Chinese war.
Mr. Adamson. Well, Mr. Foster, if this then supplies and sends relief in one
form or another to China, which organization or group would you turn the
material over to? What are you going to do about that?
Mr. Foster. We have no business sending what you call "supplies" — I assume
that is military supplies. The war is over. When we cut off our lend-lease
to Soviet Russia, when we cut off our lend-lease to Great Britain we cut it off
all over the world, and we should cut it off to China as well. And the excuses
that American troops are needed in Cliina in order to secure the surrender of
the Japanese is a lot of nonsense. The Japanese have surrendered, and all we
are doing is trying to buttress up this sliaky Chiang Kai Shek government.
Mr. Rankin. I understand that the President has ordered the withdrawal of
the United States Marines from China.
Mr. Foster. I hope so. The progressive people of America will applaud him
for doing so. We have no business there. Not only that, but should not give
the Chiang Kai Shek government active support in any way that will stimulate
this civil war in China. I think it is to America's interest that this matter be
adjusted, and I think furthermore that we ouglit to pull General Wedemyer
out of there, who is a reactionary trouble maker. We ought to pull Ambassador
Hurley out of there, who iis also a trouble maker.
Mr. Rankin. The United States has recognized the Chiang Kai Shek govern-
ment, has it now?
Mr. Foster. That is right.
Mr. Rankin. Do you think we should break off relations with Chiang Kai
Shek?
Mr. Foster. I didn't say that. I said we should not lend support in any way,
shape or form, morally, financially, physically, militarily or of any kind, to the
Chiang Kai Shek government against the masses of the Chinese people. That is
what it amoimts to at the present time.
Mr. Rankin. You say "moral support"? Do you think ye should continue to
recognize them?
Mr. Foster. I don't think we should encourage the Chiang Kai Shek govern-
ment in our press or by the promises of loans or any other way that will lead
him to continue — lead that government to continue this civil war. but on the
contrary, the adminitstration should speak out clearly that it is the will of he
American people — and I am sure it is the will of the American people, if you
listen to the radio and if you read the newspapers — that this civil war be
averted, and that unity be established with China. It is to the interest of the
Chinese people, it is to our interest, that there be a stable, democratic government
established there as quickly as possible.
The Chairman. I was intrigued by your statement a while ago that you think
we should withdi-aw Mr. Hurley as our Ambassador to China. Would you
replace him with an.vbody else?
Mr. Foster. I think we should send an Ambassador there.
The Chairman. And we should maintain diplomatic relations with that gov-
ernment?
Mr. Foster. With the Chiang Kai Shek government. That is the legally
recognized government. But I think we should send a progressive Ambassador
who, instead of lending his activities to policies that have produced this civil
war, we should set out to bring about unity in China, and I am sure that if the
administration of our country really set on a determined policy of helping the
Chinese people to unify their government, it would succeed.
The Chairman. I understood a minute aso that you spoke critically of the
American Government seeking to advance the interests of the United States
166 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
at the expense of other nations. Do you consider that to be the object of the
Government?
Mr. Foster. That the United States should advance its interests at the
expense of other people?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. F0STE2!. No ; I think that is a very un-American policy. That is contrary
to the interests of the American people. We are living in a world where we
have got to cooperate with the other nations, and this can only be done on a
give-and-take basis. It cannot be done on the basis of the United States at-
tempting to boss the world, and that is our policy at the present time.
The Chairman. How far would you go, then, to the extent of seeing to it that
the American people are in no better condition economically than the other
nations of the world?
Mr. Foster. No.
The Chairman. Would you make a balance in standards of living?
Mr. Foster. No ; the American jpeople have no need whatsoever to sacrifice
their standards of living. If intelligent policies of collaboration are developed
with other nations, instead of us sacrificing our standards of living, undoubtedly
we could improve them. Because if w edo not develop this collaboration, you
may be sure that we are going to be in for an economic crisis that will ruin
the standards of living that we have achieved in this country. We must work
with these people for our own benefit.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster, are you acquainted with any of the officials who
have been sent to this country by the Soviet Government to take over the
property and assets of the old Russian Orthodox Church here?
Mr. Foster. No, sir.
Mr. AuAMSoN. And you don't know, then, whether they are members of the
Communist Party or what they do?
Mr. Foster. I haven't the slightest — I object to such questioning. It is none
of my business whether they are members of the Communist Party or not, and
I don't think it is any of yours.
Mr. Adamson. Well, it might be, Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Well, ask them, then. They are competent to tell you. I don't
know whether they are members of the Communist Party, and if I knew I
wouldn't tell you.
Mr. Adamson. What is the present machinery or contact with the Communist
Party in the Soviet Union today?
Mr. Foster. Contact by whom?
Mr. Adamson. You are one of the officials of the party. Let us say you.
Mr. Foster. What contacts the American Communist Party has with the
Soviet Communist Party?
» Mr. Adamson. Yes.
Mr. Foster. None whatsoever.
Mr. Adamson. Y"ou have no communication with them at all? Is that
correct?
Mr. Foster. Nothing.
Mr. Adamson. Now, Mr. Browder told us that prior to the formation of the
Communist Association in 1943 there was such international organization be-
tween all the Communist parties of the world, but I believe he also said that
since 1943 there had been none. Do you agree with him on that?
Mr. Foster. Prior to 1943 there used to exist a Communist International.
It has been liquidated.
Mr. Adamson. And I wonder if you could explain to the committee the
mechanics of liquidation? How was it liquidated, Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. Well, as I remember, the expcutive committee made a statement
that if the Comintern shouM be liquidated, and the various parties voted to
liquidate it, and that settled it.
Mr. Adamson. Do you mean the party in the United States voted on that
question?
Mr. Foster. No ; it did not. We had disaffiliated from the Comintern 2 or 3
years prior to that.
Mr. Adamson. About what date was that?
Mr. Foster. I can't say offhand. I think it was in 1940 or 1941.
Mr. Adamson. And was there a central committe in Moscow that handled
the relationships between the parties in the various countries?
Mr. Foster. During the days of the Communist International?
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 167
i>
Mr. Adamson. Yes.
Mr. FosTEX. Well, that is a matter of public knowledge.
Mr. Adamson. I suppose you are quite familiar with this book entitled
"History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik). Edited by
a Commission of the Central Committee of the Connuunist Party, Soviet Union,
and authorized by the Central Committee." Was that the governing
organization V
Mr. Foster. May I see it? [Mr. Adamson handed the book to Mr. Foster.]
Governing organization of what?
Mr. Adamson. Of the international relations between the Communist Party?
Mr. Foster. No ; from the text there it says a committee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Adamson. Then this committee had nothing to do witli the so-called
Comintern? Is that right?
Mr. Foster. Only to the extent that it was affiliated with it, like all the rest
of the Communist parties of the world.
Mr. Adamson. It was just one branch of their activities, then?
Mr. Foster. It was a member party.
Mr. Adamson. Now. Mr. Browder and Mr. Stachel both told us that they
still regarded the Soviet Government as the greatest and most reliable government
in the world. I believe their language was "the greatest and most reliable
government of the United Nations." Do you agree with that?
Mr. Fo.sTER. Reliable in what sense?
Mv. Adamson. I don't know. I remember they said "the greatest and most
reliable of all the United Nations."
Mr. Foster. Well, if you are implying "reliable" in the sense of developing
democracy, then the answer is "yes." Any socialist government is more defi-
Tiitely and fundamentally a government for peace than any capitalist govern-
ment, and inasimich as there is only one socialist government, that is the most
reliable government from a peace standpoint of any government in the world.
If you mean the most realiable in the sense of fighting against Fascism, the
same thing is true. A socialist government can be depended upon definitely to
be the firmest and most reliable element in the struggle against Fascism, and
far more so than any capitalist government. Whatever other way you mean —
reliable in the sense of solving the problem of full employment? It will solve
the problem of full employment — well, why not solve it. we will not solve it. We
are not moving to the solution of the problem of full employment, principally
because the great employers of the country don't want to solve it. They want
10 or 1.5 million unemployed workers in the country, so that they can weaken the
trade unions, so that they can play Negro against white, .so they can play
veteran against worker, and reduce the living standards of the workers. These
kinds of things will not exist in a socialist country, of which there is only one
as yet, namely, the Soviet Union. They will solve these problems, and in this
sense they are the most reliable. If you mean reliable in the sense of establish-
inug good relations between the different national elements in the country, this
is also the case.
The greatest scandal, the blackest mark on our civilization at the present
time is the outrageous condition in which the 13,000.000 people of our country
are kept, and members of this committee are sharing very definitely in keeping
the Negro in this situation. Such a thing is absolutely nonexistent in the Soviet
Union. There the nations live on the basis of absolute equality. Or on the
question of antisemitism. our country now, unfortunately, is infected by this
virus of antisemitism to a degree that it is a national danger. Yes, and Mr.
Rankin sitting here has lent his high position definitely to the cultivation of
antisemitism and anti-Negroism.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, that statement, of cour.se, is not true.
Mr. Foster. If you are ashamed of it. Mr. Rankin, you should tell America
that you are ashamed of it, not try to wiggle out of it here.
The Chairman. You will answer questions. Mr. Foster, and not state your
opinions with refereftce to members of the committee.
Mr. Foster. But, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, Mr. Rankin is a
national leader.
The 'Chairman. I prefer that you do not use the name of any member of this
committee in your criticisms.
Mr. Foster. They use my name. My name is as good as Rankin's, I hope.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster
168 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Mr. Foster (interposing). Just a minute. I haven't finished this point. On
this question of antisemitism and anti-Negroism, such things are absolutely
prohibited and nonexistent in the Soviet Union. Those things are a crime in
the Soviet Union, and on such matters certainly the Soviet Union is the most
reliable country in the vporld.
Mr. Adamson. And if a Negro stood up in the Soviet Union and opposed the
Soviet Government or Communist Party, he would be nonexistent pretty quick
too, wouldn't he?
Mr. Foster. That is one of these assertions that can not be substantiated.
Mr. Adamson. Well, you said so, as long as you are on that
Mr. Foster (interposing). I may say that if a Negro in the Soviet Union was
to stand up and oppose the Soviet Government, under which for the first time
in his life he was really treated as a man and as an equal, and if he opposed it
the people would think he was crazy.
Mr. Adamson. Now, Mr. Foster, just let me refresh your recollection. In
1930, when you were testifying before a committee, Mr. Nelson asked you this
question :
"If any man would rise up on tlie street corner in Russia and inveigh against
the Soviet Government, he would be taken out and shot. What about that,
Mr. Foster?
"Mr. Foster. Yes. I will explain that. The situation of the Soviet Union
is quite different from the situation in the United States. In the United States
the whole productive processes, the industries, are owned by private capitalists
and exploited for the benefit of a small ruling group of capitalists, and the gov-
ernment is the instrument for maintaining this exploitation in which millions
of workers are exploited and forced into unemployment and the conditions they
comprehend. In the Soviet Union the industries are owned by the workers, the
government is their government and is carried on for the benefit of the masses.
In America the worker who stands up and proposes the advocacy of the Soviet
form of government and the struggle for the improvement of his condition, is
taking a stand on the side not only of the interests of the working class but of
the whole progress of human society, but the man who rises, the capitalist agent
who arises in the Soviet Union and proposes the overthrow of the Soviet gov-
ernment and to reestablish capitalism there, proposes to turn the wheels of
society backwards. The worker in America who fights the program of the Com-
munist party, fights for the progress of society in general. The capitalist who
proposes the overthrow of the Soviet government is the enemy of human society."
Is your opinion still the same, that anyone who would stand up and criticize
the Communist Party in Russia would automatically back the capitalists and
be sliot?
Mr. Foster. Of course not.
Mr. Adamson. Will you explain your change of heart on that, Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. First of all, I have had no change of heart. But what is all this
about the complexion of the Soviet Government?
Mr. Rankin. I have listened with deep interest to this testimony. Now I have
several questions I want to ask yoi: about it.
Mr. Foster. I made these remarks in answer to direct questions. If you want
me to enlarge here upon the system of socialism in the Soviet Union, I will be
glad to do so.
Mr. Adamson. Well, why not talk about the question of personal liberty, the
thing that we started out on? In this country you can stand up and criticize
the Government all you want to, can't you, Mr. Foster?
Mr. FosTEai. No.
Mr. Adajison. You make speeches all the time, don't you? You called the
President of the United States the No. 1 imperialist today.
Mr. Foster. Yes ; and you see what I get for it. I am haled before this com-
mittee and badgered day after day and pilloried all over the country as being
un-American. That is what I get for saying things which members of this com-
mittee have admitted were perfectly legal to say.
Mr. Adamson. And you will be able to sell more pamphlets and books, won't
you?
Mr. Foster. What about that? What is the implication of that?
Mr. Adamson. Tell us how it is hurting you.
Mr. Foster. Because the woi'kers — I will tell you how it is hurting me and
how it is hurting the workers of this country. This system of red baiting
that this committee is organizing and is the chief spearhead for that in the
United States, is one of the greatest social menaces in our country. It serves
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 169
to cultivate precisely those ideas of antiseiuitisin and Fascism, anti-Negroism,
the very ideas that Hitler came to power on, by inculcating them in the minds
of the iJeoplP- You attempt to call me here and put me on the spot as un-
American. I want to reply to that by saying that I consider the most un-
American institution in America is precisely this conunittee here, and if it
wants to do a patriotic service to our country it should dissolve itself and let
us be done forever with this shameless succession of witch-hunting committees
.that are a disgrace to our American democracy.
Mr. ADAMsoN. Let me call your attention, Mr. Foster, to a magazine with which
I am sure you are familiar.
Mr. Mt'Ndt. Before you get to another point I would like to have Mr. Foster
answer your other question. He said that in Russia if somebody stood up and
opposed the Government, as he can do here, he would be shot.
Mr. Ad.'msox. That's right.
Mr. MuNDT. Here all that happens is that he is hauled before the committee,
explains himself, and then he goes out and criticizes the Government some more,
and that is perfectly legal in America and we woxild not restrain him from
doing it. I would like to know what he means by having greater liberty in
liussia liy being shot.
Mr. Adamsox. I assumed lie didn't want to answer the question directly.
Mr. Foster. I will be very pleased to answer that question. This raises the
whole question of democracy. You want me to enlarge upon democracy in
the Soviet Union?
Mr. Mttxdt. I would like to have you enlarge now on your claim that a
government where a man will be shot if he criticizes the government is a
better goverinuent than one where he can say anything he likes and nothing
will be done about it.
Mr. Foster. I want to state that democracy in a socialist country, in any
socialist country, must be superior to the democracy in any capitalist country,
and inasnuich as there is only one socialist country, that applies to that par-
ticular country. One of the supreme examples of democracy is precisely the
regulations or the attitude of the people toward the question of various races
or nationalities that make up the people, something that we should learn from.
The supreme expression of democracy entirely over all is precisely the owner-
siiip of the great industries of the country by the people of the country.
Mr. MuNDT. You haven't asked the question about the man being shot for
standing on a street corner and attacking the government. You think that is
a better government than one where he can say what he pleases and nothing
is done about it?
Mr. Foster. I want to answer that as follows
Mr. MuNDT (interposing). Answer it "yes" or "no," then elaborate with your
speech afterwards.
Mr. Foster, Anybody who would stand up — any man who would stand up in
the street in Moscow and advocate the return of capitalism would be looked
upon as a nut.
Mr. Mtjndt. And he would be shot.
Mr. Foster. He would not he shot either.
;Mr. :\IrNDT. I tliou^ht you said he would he shot.
Mr. Foster. No, I did not.
Mr. AuAMsoN. Yes, you did.
Mr. Mtjndt. Will you read his statement?
Mr. Foster. Of conr.«e I didn't say such a thing. The fact of the matter is
for many years after the Revolution people advocated the return to capitalism
freely in the Soviet Union.
Mr. Mt'ndt. And a lot of them were shot after the purge trials in Moscow.
Mr. Foster. Yes, sir. Not only tliat, but tliey deserved to be shot. They were
traitors to their country. One of the greatest political events in modern history
was precisely those so-called "purge" trials in Mo.scow. That is what strength-
ened the Russian people and strengthened the Russian arms. If the leaders —
just a minute now — I am talking — if the leaders of the Spanish Republic
had had the intf'lligence that the leaders of the Soviet Republic had, and elimi-
nated the Francos and other ti'aitors who are trying to overthrow ther
government and set up a Fascist regime, the whole iiistory of Europe would
have been different. Yes, it was to our interest as Americans that this purge
was carried through, and it will stand out in history as one of the gi-eatest
blows that was struck for liberty in our time, particularly this purge in the
170 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Soviet Union, and I thought that tlie intelligent people of America had finally
come to understand that that was so.
Mr. MuNDT. If you advocate the theory that you can strengthen the system
of government by shooting all the i^eople who oppose it, by that same theory
you should shoot in this country all the people who oppose the present
Administration? You would be in favor of that?
Mr. Foster. These people did not oppose- the Soviet form of government.
What they did was to set up connections with Germany and Japan, and were
organizing a conspiracy to overthrow the Soviet Government by armed force.
Mr. MuNDT. What was the date of these purge trials?
Mr. Foster. The date of them was the latter part of the 30's. And it was
that precisely that steeled and armed the Soviet people and unified them by
cleansing their ranks of these traitorous elements, that enabled them to make
the great stand that they did. We were fed in this country on lies in this
paper that your attorney has used authoritatively here, this Times-Herald and
others, lies that the Soviet Government had gotten rid of all — had purged all
its competent generals. Well, it looked as though they must have left plenty
of good ones, judging by the military record they made during the war.
Mr. MuNDT. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the counsel
be permitted to read again Mr. Foster's statement about how they preserve civil
liberties in a government by shooting those who oppose it.
Mr. Adamson. Why not let Mr. Foster read it?
Mr. Foster. You read all right. You are doing very well.
Mr. Adamson. You ai-e much more eloquent than I.
Mr. Foster. No ; I don't want to read it.
Mr. Adamson. This is from page 376 of part 1 of the House hearings. Investi-
gation of Communist Propaganda.
Mr. Rankin. What date?
Mr. Adamson. That was the Fish committee hearings, held June 9 and 13,
1930, Seventy-first Congress, second session, piu'suant to House Resolution No.
20. Mr. Foster testified, and that is the statement I have read to Mr. Foster.
It is on page 376.
Mr. MuNDT. Read it again. I think it ought to go into the record again.
Mr. Adamson (reading) :
"Mr. Nelson. If we are correctly informed, any man who would rise on the
street corner in 'Russia and inveigh against the Soviet Governn}ent would be
taken out and shot.' What about that?
"Mr. Foster. Yes. I will explain that."
And then he went into the long explanation tliat I read.
Mr. Foster. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is perfectly obvious. I said
I would explain it, which signified a willingness to explain the situation, not
agreement with the idea that people should be shot for advocating capitalism
in the Soviet Union.
The Chairman. Do you now, Mr. Foster, embrace any different ideas than
that expressed in the excerpt read a while ago?
Mr. Foster. No ; substantially that is correct, but certainly not with the
distortion that your attorney attempts to put on it, that it is an agreement
that people should be shot.
The Chairman. It will be put into the record.
Mr. Adarlson. Mr. Foster, you said to Mr. INIundt here that .some of these
people who were purged were shot because they had entered into some relation-
ship with Germany. If my memory serves right, didn't the Soviet Government
enter into a very definite relationship with Germany around 1938 or 1939?
Mr. Foster. There we go again, another oorp^'e disinterred.
Mr. MrNDT. I just want to get the thing straightened out here. You say they
had a right to shoot these other peojDle for the same thing.
Mr. Foster. In answer to your question I will reply shortly that I think it is
the consensus of opinion of the most intelligent Americans, those who know
what is going on in the world, that the Soviet-German pact, by giving the Soviet
Government an opportunity to strengthen its forces, was one of the most decisive
contributing factors to the winning of this war.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster, are you familiar with the magazine, Political
Affairs?
Mr. Fostp:r. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. Of which, I believe, Eugene Dennis is the editor, and V. J.
Jerome is the managing editor, and it says here "A magazine devoted to the
theory and practice of Marxism and Leninism."
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 171
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. AiuMsoN. As a matter of fact, you contribute to that magazine, don't you,
Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. Occasionally.
Mr. An.XMsoN. And the October issue— —
Mr. R.ANKiN (interposing). Just a moment at this point. I think the record
ought to show that during the time that this Soviet-German pact was made—
shortly after it was made, and while it was in existence, Germany attacked
Poland, and incidentally the war broke out between the western Allies and
Germany.
Mr. AoAMsoN. Well, Mr. Rankin, if my memory serves me right, and subject
to correction by Mr. Foster, I think that Germany and Russia invaded Poland
simultaneously, one from the east and one from the west.
^Ir. Rankin. I think Germany invaded tirst. That is my recollection.
Mr. Adamson. Maybe a couple of days ahead of Russia, but if my memory
serves nie right, the Russian army moved into Poland from the east, didn't
they, ]Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. Yes. And that is another thing that I think the military experts
in the war are agreed upon precisely, that the advance of the Red Army half
way across Poland was one of the major strategical moves that tended to break
the offensive of the German army, by providing two or three hundred additional
miles to cushion the initial shock of the Germany army in its drive against
Moscow. If the Russians had not taken over eastern Poland, Hitler would
have taken it and would have been that much stronger.
Mr. Rankin. There was no move on the part of Russia to join the Allies until
Germany attacked Russia, as I remember.
Mr. Adamson. That is right.
Sir. Foster. That is not true. The fact lOf the matter is that as far back as
1035. and even earlier in the League of Nations, the Soviet Government raised
the issue of an international peace front of democratic countries to prevent the
incursions of the Fascist Germany and militaristic Japan, and if the countries.
Great Britain, France, and the United States, had joined with the Soviet Union
at that time. Fascism would have been nipped in the bud and this great war
would have been avei-ted. But unfortunately the reactionaries controlling the
British Government and the French Government, supported by our full reaction-
ary forces in the United States, had a different idea, namely, of stimulating
Germany to attack the SoviPt Union. The record of the Soviet Union has been
one of active cooperation with the democratic peoples all the way through, and
in fact, right up to the very outbreak of the war the Soviet government was
cooperating with the democratic countries, and only when it saw that they had
no intention of attempting to stop Hitler was the pact formed. According to
Benes, the head of the Czechoslovak Government, the Soviet Government pro-
l>osed itself alone to come to the aid of Czechoslovakia after it had been abandoned
by the western powers at Munich.
Mr. Mr NOT. That was when?
Mr. Foster. That was in 1938.
Mr. MuxDT. Is it your position and contention that President Roosevelt was
reactionary?
Mr. Foster. President Roosevelt was a great liberal, one of the great liberals
of our period, but it is a matter lOf common knowledge, I think, that President
Roosevelt was subject to a great reactionary pressure in Congress — not to say
that he al.-^o did not make some mistakes himself and carry out some conservative
p,olicies. but he was pressed by these reactionary forces in Congress, and un-
doubtedly was pu.shed into numerous policies that he otherwise would not have
gone into.
Mr. Mt'ndt. That was not a congressional act. That was an Executive act.
You might hold that President Roosevelt was a great liberal in the clutches of
such reactionaries as Henry Wallace and Harry Hopkins, perhaps. They were
advising him at the time.
IMr. Foster. I don't think that the Executive is divorced from the legislative
branch of our Government, and it is simply ridiculous to assume that the Execu-
tive can carry on a policy independent .of Congress.
Mr. Adam.son. WpII, Mr. Foster, following Mr. Mundt's question, isn't it true
that Mr. Molotov made a very dramatic speech shortly after the pact was signed
between Russia and Germany, in which he said that Germany is in the position
of a state striving for the earliest termination of war and for peace, while
172 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
Britain and France "which only yesterday were declaring against aggression, are
in favor of continuing the war and are opposed to the conclusion of peace"?
Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, I protest against this line ot questioning.
Mr. Adamson. You have expressed an opinion here that that pact was in the
interest of America.
Mr. Foster. No, I express no opinions except when I am pressed by you. I
want to insist that this whole line of questioning is designed, deliberately de-
signed, to furnish the Soviet haters of America with material with which to
poison the minds of the American people and to develop a war spirit in our
country, and I resent being called upon to answer any questions along this line,
not because I do not feel competent to answer them, but because I refuse to be,
even indirectly, a party to such war mongering as the line of your questioning
implies.
Mr. Adamson. Let me I'ead you something, here, Mr. Foster.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I think that somebody ought to speak out at this
point. Certainly it is my view, and I think the view of every member of the com-
mittee, that we do not want any war with Russia. We do not want any war
with anybody else.
Mr. Foster. But you are heading — the whole purpose of this questioning is to
cultivate such "a spirit.
Mr. Rankin. I am not asking these questions, but I just don't want it to be
stated in this record that the members of Congress and the President or the
leaders of this country want a war with anybody at this time. We have had
enough war. What we want now is peace and prosperity throughout the world. ,
Mr. Foster. Why don't you suppress this line of war-mongering questioning
then?
Mr. Rankin. Because I think his questions are a matter with the counsel
himself.
Mr. Foster. Yes ; but the counsel is not an independent agent. If he is asking
irresponsible questions — as he is — it is the duty of the chairman to call him
to order and suppress those questions as a menace to the interests of our
country and the peace of the world.
The Chairman. Your statement is then that you prefer not to reply to the
question at all?
Mr. Foster. Because it is a war-mongering question, and it speeds propa-
ganda, like Gerald K. Smith and Father Coughlin, and other elements like that.
The Chairman. You have stated your reason?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. Mr. Foster, let me read to you a paragraph from this maga-
zine here, which— by the way, you are one of the contributors this month.
Mr. Rankin. What is that magazine?
Mr. Adamson. This is the magazine, Political Affairs, and I am reading
Mr. Rankin (interposing). Where is it pulilished? Who is the editor?
Mr. Adamson. It is published in New York, and it is a magazine devoted to
the theory and precepts of Marxism and Leninism, and I am reading from
page 875 :
"The American people must therefore conclude that while the United States
can easily dispense with the House Committee on Un-American Activities, it
cannot afford to do without the American Communist Party, least of all now,
when all the signs point to stormy weather ahead. The responsibility for
giving our country the stronger, more united, independent Marxist party its
needs rests squarely upon our shoulders."
Now, Mr. Foster, I assume that you are familiar with that article and that
that summarizes your attitude too?
Mr. Foster. 100 percent. I say the Communist Party in the United States —
that is for the quotation. I don't know the whole article — the Communist
Party of the United States will be flourishing and growing and prospering when
this Un-American Committee is just a sad ftiemory that the American people
will try to forget about.
Mr. Mundt. Especially this committee.
Mr. Foster. This committee like all the rest of them. I think the House,
particularly the House, is infected with this disease of setting up im-American
committees. Why don't they look at what is happening in the world? Look
at the New York elections. They tried to settle that on the basis of red
baiting, and they got kicked in the face by the voters of New York. I told
you that Rankin wouldn't get away with it, and he didn't get away with it
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA 173
in New York either, nor anywhere else. This red baiting has been good, but
the old gray mare isn't what she used to be. It conies as a great surprise
that tlie peoples of the world are waking up, are beginning to see through this
Hitleriau tactic of red baiting. But they are learning just the same.
The Chairman. Have you any other questions?
'Mv. Adamson. Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CTiAHiMAN. Tliat Mr. Foster can answer briefly? We are going to have
to adjourn very soon.
Mr. Adamson. This magazine article further states, Mr. Foster :
"The secret of our strength and dynamic vitality is indeed to be learned
from a study of the Marxist-Leninist science by which we live."
Is that al.-^o in accord with your views?
Mr. Foster. That is right.
Mr. Adamson. And I also note in the magazine here several statements which
bear directly on your expressions here today. Apparently the only interest
expressed by the.se writers in the Negro or the .Jewish race are for the purpose
exclusively of indoctrinating them with Connnunism and rallying them to sup-
port your oi-ganization. Isn't that true? Isn't that your only interest?
Mr. Foster. I didn't get that.
Mr. Adamson. Well, for example, "We must continue the trend in training
Negroes and IMarxist-Leniuist teachers."
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Mr. Adamson. Is that your only interest in them?
IMr. Foster. Of course not.
Mr. Adamson. No?
Mr. Foster. Our first and primary interest in the Negro people is to win
them tlie position of full citizenship nnder the American Constitution and our
democratic institutions, the right to work, the right to live, full economic,
political and social equality with all the people of America. This is our prin-
cipal object.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I move that we go into executive session. It
is nearly 12 o'clock. We will have to be on the floor at 12, and we have some
things that we want to discuss here.
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. Foster. Am I finished, Mr. Charrman?
The Chairman. Mr. Foster, would you mind waiting for just a few minutes
outside?
Mr. Adamson. Before we adjourn, I will place in the record the address by
Mr. Harold Laski, delivered September 24, 194,5.
(The paper referred to appears in the appendix as exhibit No. 9.)
(Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee went into executive session, at
the conclusion of which the committee adjourned.)
Exhibit 9
Address by Professor Harold Laski
September 24, 194.5, 9 : 30 p. m. E. W. T.
[Recorded at American Broadcast Co. News Room, New York]
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful to your committee for enabling me to
take part in your meeting tonight. Of course, I speak to you in a purely
personal capacity, as a British private citizen speaking to American private
citizens. But I think and I hope that I speak that is thought be the over-
whelming majority of liberal minded people in this country.
The cau.se of Republican Spain has come to be in this generation what the
liberation of the Russian people was in the harsh days of Czarist tyrann.v. It
is one of the supreme tests of our devotion to freedom. We in Britain and you
in the I'nited States have a heavy debt to Republican Spain, negatively at
least. Onr timidity made possible the victory of France. Our statesmen hid
beneath a veil of hypocrisy not only their own disregard for truth and justice
174 INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN A(?riVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
but their willingness to allow a whole people to be crucified in the service
of appeasement. At uo time can they have been aware that Hitler and Mvisso-
lini were deliberately making Spain a theatre of experiment for the Second
World War. At no time either can they have failed to know that noninterven-
tion was a tragic farce, intended to assure victory to a rebellious general
who symbolized in himself all the main elements of brutal reaction. They
must have known, too, that both psychologically and politically the victory of
France in which they were partners — even if they were silent partners — was an
impoi-tant milestone on the road to the Second World War.
Now that grim struggle has ended in the victory of the United Nations.
But Mr. Chairman, the Spanish people still remain in Franco's prison. No
honest observer anywhere can deny that a regime like his makes it impossible
for the ordinary citizen of Spain to have access to any one of the four freedoms.
Executions still continue on a massive scale. Torture is still a common feature
when supporters of the Republic fall into the hands of the political police. The
prisons are still full of men and women whose only crime is that they dreamed
of what you and I dream, of their right to be free. Most of what there was
of thought and ideas in Spain is now either dead or in that grim poverty
which is haunted by the endless frustration of political exiles.
Everyone knows that Franco's regime has been a massive failure — corrupt
and cruel and ignorant — that it has no support from any interest in Spain
itself which is entitled to self-respect. And everyone knows, too, that through-
out the World War he was the fawning satellite of Hitler and Mussolini, the
servant of their effort, the enthusiast of their purpose, and that the only
reason which kept Spain a formal neutral in the European struggle was Franco's
fear of what might happen to him if he put arms in the hands of the Spanish
people. I do not share the view of those who think we should be grateful
because at a critical time he did not complicate our strategic problems in the
Mediterranean. His motive was not good will, but fear, the knowledge that
his power hung by a thread. He showed his own attitude unmistakeably when
he sent the Blue Division to fight against the Soviet Union. Franco was
neutral because he was afraid. But at a nod from his Nazi and Fascist
masters, does anyone doubt that he would have laid Spain at their feet. The
neutrality of cringing cowardice is no sort of title to the respect of free people —
least of all when it is permeated with ill will to every principle of freedom.
What then, with our victory, Mr. Chairman, is to be our policy in Spain?
Are we to allow the tragedy to go unmitigated in its barbarism, while govern-
ments sigh that they are not their brother's keeper? Does anyone honestly
think that the Spain Franco has made can be other than a poison in the fellow-
ship of Peoples? Isn't it obvious that there will come a stage when its yoke
will be found intolerable, and that it will provoke a new and more barbarous
war? And is that not the alternative if we contiime the policy of silent inaction,
that Franco will do some sort of deal with one or other of the claimants to the
Spanish throne, and that perhaps after a fake plebescite has been staged we
shall be told that the monarchy has been restored by the free choice of the
Spanish people? A Spanish monarchy for what and for whom? Is a monarchy
issuing from some ugly deal with Franco or the Falangists likely to tackle
agrarian reform? Is it likely to prevent the Roman Catholic Church in Spain
from remaining a rich monopoly at the expense of mass poverty? Is there any
prospect that a successor, perhaps a son of Alfonso XIII, will give the effort
proportionate to the need in things like education or health or housing, or that
wholesale dstruction of special privilege, which has been the historic curse of
Spain? Can anyone see a Spanish king even attempting to make his army
anything more than an instrument of the protection of vested interests and a
ready weapon of popular repression? Merely to ask these questions is to answer
them.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that our duty is to withdraw recognition
from France. It is in exile; the Republic is still in being. The Cortes has met;
it has elected a President. I do not doultt that given the good will and the
aid of the United Nations, the controversies inevitable to an emigration can be
overcome, and there can emerge a united government of all the popular forces
which, with our backing, would swiftly break through the trembling hold of
Franco and his supporters upon that power they have so consistently abu.«ed.
Let me add that the Republican Goveriunent w<iu1d be built oiit of men and
women who have proved, like Negrin and Fernando de las Rios and Palancia,
their devotion to the cause of freedom and Democracy in Spain.
INVESTIGATION OF UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES AND PHOPAGANDA 175
And if it be said that recognition of tlie Kei)ublic will be the signal for a
civil war in Spain, there are two sudicient answers. The first is that the
Potsdam conference has already refused Franco Spain any right into the new
world organization. If that isn't an invitation to the Spanish people to over-
throw Franco, I don't know what it means. And the second is that if we had
not inventtul the doctrine of nonintervention — a dishonest invention and still
more dishonestly applied by Great Britain and America — the Spanish Republic
would still be in power today. We must pay the price of our tacit connivance
at its assassination. I ask you to remember that we have always intervened
in this war when we thought our intercuts required it — Iceland, Greenland,
Persia, the Azores, British policy in Greec(>, Kussian policy in Finland and the
Balkans. They are impressive enough illustrations of this theme.
Do we pursue a policy of watchful waiting out of respect for the official view
of the State Department in Washington or the Foreign Office in London, or are
we afraid of the hostility of the Vatican to our support of a democratic re-
surgence in Spain':' Or are we hoping that we can build there a foundation
for the kind of monarchy symbolized by King George of the Hellenes or the
House of Savoy in Italy — ^monarchies incapable of roots in democratic constitu-
tionalism, because their past has made the acceptance of their bonafides im-
possibe by any democratic citizen, British or American, with self-respect. Do
our governments expect us to show any enthusiasms for a monarchy that would
be comprised befoi-e it began to rule'? I hope I can say with confidence that
neither President Truman and Mr Byrnes nor Premier Attlee and Mr. Bevin
think so little of our intelligence as to assume that we can be fooled so simply.
Our peoples did not make the innnense sacrifices of this war to perpetuate
either a tyranny like that of Franco or an unedifying mythology like a
Vatican-sponsored King of Spain, trying hastily to learn the vocabulary of the
Four Freedoms, while making it painfully evident that the words have no
meaning for him.
It's time democratic powers became the trustees of Democracy. It's time that
they regarded their trusteeship not as a thing of which they are ashamed, but as
a thing of which they can be proud. The iK)st war world will be more endure
part democratic, part Fascist that the I'nited States could have endured half
slave and half free. As Liucoln said, on the eve of your civil war, "It must be
all one thing or all the other." We ought to have learned pretty properly the
habits of tyranny from our experience of the interwar years. Don't let us forget
that it is a weed that grows in every corner. Don't let us forget either, ithe
lessons stamped so ineffaceably on oui' genei'ation that if v"^ acquiesce in tyranny
abi-oad, sooner or later we become blind to its slow and persistent growth at
home.
Every influence which bids us avert our eyes from the Spanish scene is an
influence that always seeks to limit the boundaries of freedom everywhere among
our.selves. This is a moment not for inertia but for action. Let us be sure that
what we do to and for the Spanish people we do to and for ourselves. Tlie chance
is there — the duty is clear. The influence of a bold policy will be wide and
wholesome. It is not a chance that we can evade, neither America nor Britain.
It is not a chance our governments can evade, if they have any decent respect for
the opinions of Mankind. Let us therefore go forward.
X
jTfiliBii
3 9999 05445 213y
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11