(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Investigation of un-American propaganda activities in the United States (Communist party) Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session, on H. Res. 5, to investigate (1) the extent, character, and objects of un-American gate (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 propaganda 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. ... the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda 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. .."

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