(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 "Structure and organization of the Communist Party of the United States. Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-seventh Congress, first session. November 20, 21 and 22, 1961"

'Mm 



mm 



mi 




ill 



'■■'I 




il 



ii 



Hfitt 



^^^■_Hl 





I 


k 


i; 





mm 






\%iS J\k\J \ 







iUUJlililiUiaUU 



H|?OH0W 



■ HUiWmiv 



il INDEX 

Page 

Washington Bookshop Association 483 

WQQW (radio station, Washington, D.C.) 483 

Publications 

Aviation Week 4&4 

New York Times '. 511 

People's World, The 515 

Worker, The 515, 516 

o 



STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COM- 
MUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

PART 1 

"*"^'^'*<' '^'.U-(,t U««mV 
DfP(^«rrEO py T^f. 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF REPfiESENTATIYES 

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



NOVEMBER 20, 21, AND 22, 1961 
(INCLUDING INDEX) 



Printed for the use of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities 




STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COM- 
MUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

PART 1 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES 

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



NOVEMBER 20, 21, AND 22, 1961 
(INCLUDING INDEX) 



Printed for the use of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
83743 WASHINGTON : 1962 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 

FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 
MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio 

CLYDE DOYLE, California AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan 

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana DONALD C. BRUCE, Indiana 

WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia HENRY C. SCIIADEBERG, Wisconsin 

Fbank S. Tavenner, Jr., Director 
' Alfred M. Nittle, Counsel 

John C. Walsh, Co-counsel 
GwEXN Lewis, Administrative Assistant 
II 



CONTENTS 



PART 1 

Page 

Synopsis 555 

November 20, 1961: Testimony of: 

Francis J. McNamara 567 

Leon Nelson 587 

Francis J. McNamara (resumed) 596 

November 21, 1961: Testimony of: 

Robert Friedman 607 

Francis J. McNamara (resumed) 619 

Homer B. Chase 624 

Afternoon session: 

Homer B. Chase (resumed) 637 

Alexander Bittelman 651 

November 22, 1961: Testimony of: 

Francis J. McNamara (resumed) 665 

Afternoon session: 

Abraham B. Magil 677 

Francis J. McNamara (resumed) 706 

Index i 

PART 2 

Appendix 713 

Index i 

m 



Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

The legislation under which the House Committee on^Un-American 
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946]; 60 Stat. 
S12, which provides: 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, * * * 

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Rule X 

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES 

17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members. 

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 



(q)(l) Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(A) Un-American activities. 

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit- 
tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, 
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda 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 
(iii) all other questions in relation thereto that wotild aid Congress in any necessary 
remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi- 
gation, together ■with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such 
times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, 
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and 
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under 
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any 
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person 
designated by such chairman or member. 



Rule XII 

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT BY STANDING COMMITTEES 

Sec. 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws 
and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces- 
sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative 
agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdic- 
tion of such committee; and, for that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports 
and data submitted to the Congress by the agencies in the executive branch of 
the Government. 



RULES ADOPTED BY THE 87TH CONGRESS 

House Resolution 8, January 3, 1961 
******* 

Rule X 

STANDING COMMITTEES 

1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, 
******* 

(r) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members. 
******* 

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 
******* 

18. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American activities. 

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or b^' subcommittee, 
is autliorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, char- 
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(2) the diflfusion 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 Constitu- 
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in 
any necessary remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi- 
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times 
and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has 
recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and 
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under 
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any 
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person 
designated by any such chairman or member. 

******* 

27. To assist the House in appraising the administration of the laws and in 
developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary, 
each standing committee of the House shall exercise continuous watchfulness 
of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject 
matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, for that purpose, 
shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the House by the agencies 
in the executive branch of the Government. 

VI 



i 



SYNOPSIS 

At public lioarings in Washington on November 20-22, 1961, the 
eoniinittee explored the structure, organization, and leadership of the 
Connnunist Party of tlie United States, its guiding principles and its 
ties with, and complete subservience to, the Soviet Communist Party. 

During these hearings, the committee received testimon}^ from its 
director of research, Francis J. McNamara, and interrogated five 
witnesses who had played key roles in recent Communist Party 
activities, either as party officers or staff members of the party's 
official newspaper. A total of 110 docmiients, including both publicly 
and secretly distributed Communist writings, was introduced during 
the hearings. 

Testimony and evidence before the committee revealed that (1) the 
Communist Party of the United States is a paramilitary organization, 
whose members are required to respond with lock-step obedience to 
directives channeled down to them through a hierarchy of party officials ; 
(2) nonelected, self-perpetuating party officials enforce obedience with 
the aid of martial disciplinary procedures; (3) the membership does not 
participate in policy decisions, and dissent constitutes heresy in the 
Connnunist Party; (4) the system of organization is patterned after 
the select and secret party of professional revolutionists developed by 
Lenin prior to the Bolshevik overthrow of the Russian Government in 
1917; and (5) the Communist Party of the U.S. remains completely 
subservient to the Soviet Union. 

PARTY STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 

With the use of visual aids Mr. McNamara provided a graphic 
presentation of the Communist Party's organizational structure from 
the National Board — the top ruling clique — down to clubs operating 
in industrial plants and local residential neighborhoods. The top 
Communist leaders and the positions they held in the party were 
also identified. 

The committee's research director testified as to the functions of 
the various organizational units of the party — the national convention, 
national committee, national executive committee, national board, 
national commissions, and many subordinate groups operating on the 
district, state, county, city, section, and club levels. He pointed out 
that this paramilitary party structure — operating under the Com- 
munist principles of monolithic miity and democratic centralism — 
provides the Red leaders with the necessary tools for enforcing their 
will upon party members. Mr. McNamara reviewed the reorganiza- 
tion of the party apparatus, begun in 1959, which sought to stream- 
line and increase the efficiency of the party by eliminating mmecessary 
bureaucracy between the national and local levels of the organization. 
He also described the effect of Khrushchev's 1956 de-Stalinization 
speech which precipitated a wide split and much confusion in the 
party ranks, and led many American Communists to call for the 
incorporation and practice of certain democratic procedures within 
the party. 

555 



556 COMIVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UXITED STATES 

COMMUNIST TESTIMONIALS ON THE TRUE NATURE OF THEIR PARTY 

T3'pical of those American Communists who took a new and more 
objective look at their o\\'ti Communist organization after Khru- 
shchev's revelations about Stalin was Robert Friedman, then city editor 
of the Daily Worker. Mr. Friedman's \\Titings, in the Daily Worker 
under his own name and in a secret, internal bulletin of the New 
York State Communist Party under the alias "Robert Mann," made 
charges going to "the very nature of the Communist Party, its pro- 
cedures, structure and methods of work." Friedman was called as a 
witness and interrogated regarding his knowledge of certain basic and 
totalitarian operational procedures of the party which he had revealed 
in the New York party bulletin, Party Voice, under date of June 1956: 

I joined the movement in my late teens at the height of the depression. * * * 
But, although I had had no long experience in other organizations, trade union 
or otherwise, I quickly came to recognize a disparity between the methods of 
work, either already existing or fought for by Commimists and others in organi- 
zations and unions and in the party organization itself. 

In the unemployed organization to which I belonged, I insisted on elections, 
minutes, motions, decisions, check-up, majority rule and parliamentary process. 
In my club [of the Communist Party], I became increasingly conscious of the 
absence of all this * * *. 

We swallowed whole the concept of a tightly disciplined, "chain-of-command" 
type of organization, adopted from abroad. 

Robert Friedman told the committee that he had not been a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party in the past 4 years and was presently 
"anti-Communist" and opposed to the Communist system. He con- 
firmed that the principle of "democratic centralism" — on which the 
Communist Party, USA, is admittedly organized — is "just a pretty 
word to cover and cloak the totalitarian Soviet system of govern- 
ment." However, Friedman refused on grounds of possible self-in- 
crimination to answer any and all committee questions involving an 
acknowledgment of his own past participation in the party. 

Witness Leon Nelson was interrogated by the committee regarding 
proposals he advanced to the National Committee of the Communist 
Party in June 1956 for the democratization of the party. Then organ- 
izational secretary of the New York State Communist Party, Nelson 
had also urged the party to "cast off to positions of greater independ- 
ence of policy and public expression from positions we have held in 
the past in regard to our relationship to the Soviet Union and other 
lands of Socialism." In his report to the National Committee, which 
was received in evidence, lie had further objected to the fact that 
party organizational concepts were taken "lock, stock, and barrel" 
from Lenin; that nonelected leaders issued policy decisions without 
consultation with the membership; and that even the few democratic 
procedures provided for in the party constitution were never actually 
practiced. 

Documentation produced at the hearings revealed that Mr. Nelson 
had lost his position with the important New York State party organ- 
ization in June 1957 and that, within another year, other officers of 
the State organization, holding similar views, had left in the face of 
the party's com])lete (lomination by a staunchly pro-Soviet faction. 
Nelson responded to all committee questions on recent Communist 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 557 

Party devolopTnonts and his own participation therein by inv^oking 
the lifth-anienchncnt provisions against self-incrimination. 

Exhibits introduced in the hearing showed that other Communists 
considered the party's constitution as largely a propaganda docu- 
ment; that the party is not a "political party as the American people 
understand it," but rather a "semi-military" or "war-military" organ- 
ization, ruled despotically with the aid of a harsh system of discipline. 

In October 1956, an entire Brooklyn club of the party protested 
against the prevailing practice which required that "once a policy 
decision has been made, it must never be questioned as a matter of 
party discipline." The club complained that "Discussion in many 
areas has taken place in an atmosphere of intimidation" and "Differ- 
ences of opinion have often been construed as 'antileadership tend- 
encies' and outright 'deviationism.' " ^ 

One party leader declared that "whatever Stalin said became our 
policy" and another member that, American Communists were "living 
our lives, to some extent, vicariously, as Soviet citizens." Yet 
another Communist described the party in America as "a minature 
Soviet party in both organizational form and domestic outlook." A 
fourth Communist reminded his fellow comrades: 

The American Communist Party does not approach the American people with 
clean hands, as far as the Soviet Union is concerned. The American Communist 
Party repeated, as gospel truth, which it sincerely believed, every lie told by the 
Soviet Union about its living standards, about Tito, about democracy in the 
Soviet Communist Party, about the Moscow trials, about the electoral system, 
about the Doctors' Case, the stamping out of Jewish culture. 

The hearings disclosed that the majority of the leadership of the 
Communist Party of the U.S. was at odds with the new (post-Stalin) 
Kremlin bosses. This majority even advocated that the U.S. party 
<assert a measure of independence from the Soviet Union, but a mi- 
nority group of American Red leaders held out for continued total 
subservience to Moscow. This minority group was headed by the 
late William Z. Foster, who was national chairman of the Com- 
munist Party of the U.S. at the time of Khrushchev's de-Staliniza- 
tion speech in 1956, and was named honorary chairman at the 16th 
National Convention of the party in 1957, a year before the conflict 
between his group and the majority leadership was resolved. Evi- 
dence introduced at the hearings demonstrated that the Kremlin 
threw its weight behind Foster, and went all out to settle the Ameri- 
can Communist Party conflict in favor of his minority faction. 

Although A. B. Magil, former foreign editor of the Daily Worker, 
invoked the fifth amendment when called to testify before the com- 
mittee, documents introduced in the hearings showed that lie had been 
one of manj^ American Communists castigated personallv by the 
Soviet Communists for expressing views in opposition to those held 
by the Fosterites. 

The hearings disclosed that Moscow made its first effort (following 
Khrushchev's February 25, 1956, speech against Stalin) to regroup its 
confused Communist parties in other countries on June 30, 1956, when 

1 "Deviationism" in Communist terminology means departing, either to the left or right, from the correct 
party line. Generally speaking, right deviationists (opportunists) want to go slower and pursue a "softer" 
course than does the party leadership, while left deviationists (sectarians) call for bolder and more unyielding 
tactics to fulfill Communist aims. 



558 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party adopted a 
resohition of censure at::ainst ItaHan Communists. The resohition, 
which served as a warning to dissenting Reds evervwliere, condemned 
Itahan Connnunists for criticizing the Soviet Government and de- 
manded a resumption of international Communist "solidarity" under 
Soviet leadership. This warning from Moscow^ served to put a brake 
on the independent thinking stimulated within the American Com- 
munist Party by the shock of Khrushchev's charges against Stalin a 
few months earlier. This was the assessment of Comnmnists them- 
selves. There was an immediate abject response to the Soviet Central 
Committee by such American Conununist leaders as Chairman Foster 
and the late Eugene Dennis, then general secretary of the party. 

The committee's hearings called attention to a rapid succession of 
other Soviet statements, widely propagated by Soviet press, radio, 
and international Conununist journals. The still recalcitrant Ameri- 
can Communist officials and writers came under bitter, personal 
attack. The Soviets took issue with Communists in the United 
States who — ■ 

demanded, instead of democratic centralism, adoption of the principle of "demo- 
cratic leadership," the right of the minority to organize factions, to reject and 
refuse to submit to majority decisions, to "fight to become the majority." 

and 

campaigned for withdrawing their Parties from the international Communist 
movement and, above all, for severing contact with the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union. 

The Soviet leadership extolled the merits of the traditional Leninist 
form of party organization w4th its "unity" and "uniform discipline" 
and accused "reformists" of attemptuig "to reduce the revolutionary 
proletarian party to the level of ordinary bourgeois parties." The 
deviating opinions of American Communists, such as John Gates and 
witness A. B. Alagil, were quoted with derision by Soviet Communists, 
who did not hesitate to resort to name-calling or quoting out of con- 
text in their effort to quell the revolt in the American Communist 
Party. According to Soviet statements, the majority of American 
leaders and their adherents during this period of conflict were "anti- 
Marxist," "unstable elements," and "unhealthy" forces. 

French Communist leader Jacques Duclos, a Soviet intermediary, 
was enlisted to promote a victory for Fosterite forces in the U.S. Com- 
munist Party. The ouster of American Conunimist chief, Earl 
Browder, in 1945 had been precipitated by a condenmation from 
Duclos, then acting as Stalin's intermediary. Duclos sent two sharp 
messages to the 16th National Convention of the Communist Party, 
USA, held hi February 1957. He w'arned American Connnunists 
that changes proposed by "reformist" elements involved "dangerous 
departures" from Communist principles of party organization, ex- 
emplified by tlie Soviet Communist Party. 

Although William Z. Foster, national chairman, appealed to other 
party leaders to heed the words of Moscow and Duclos, the party 
convention did nothing to resolve the internal struggle. A "collective 
leadership" body, representative of the main contending factions, was 
installed at the 16th National Convention, in strikuig similarity to 
the collective leadership then prevailing in tlie Soviet Union while 
Khrushchev vied with other Soviet Communists for supreme power. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 559 

The power struggle within the Communist Party, USA, continued 
unabated for another year — featured, as the committee hearings 
demonstrated, by intrigues among various factions of American Com- 
munists, each seeking undisputed domination of the party organiza- 
tion, together with a continuing barrage of Soviet interventionist 
decLirations. 

In November 1957, Khrushchev, who had finally attained domi- 
nance over the Soviet Government, called representatives of 65 
Communist parties throughout the world to Moscow. Declarations 
signed as a result of this meeting called for, and recognized, the neces- 
sity for unity of the interiuitional Communist movement under Soviet 
leadership, and condemned Communists who would deviate from the 
Soviet norm. 

Leaders of the main contending factions in the U.S. Communist 
Party admitted that the international Communist declarations at 
Moscow pla3^ed a key role in enabling the abjectly pro-Soviet faction 
of American Communists to reorganize and assume undisputed con- 
trol of the top party bodies in February 1958. The resolution of the 
U.S. party power struggle in Moscow's favor was further assisted by 
the intrigues of the pro-Soviet faction, and by continuing resignations 
of Communists who despaired of any change in the traditional party 
operation. 

A new National Executive Committee of the CPUSA (eight of the 
nine members of which had long been identified as unwavering sup- 
porters of Soviet Communist leadership) was installed. Almost im- 
mediately, this new group adopted a public statement aligning the 
party organization in America with the policies of the world's Com- 
munist parties enunciated at Moscow in November 1957. 

HEARINGS DISCLOSE RECENT COMMUNIST DISCIPLINARY CASES 

The mterrogation of witnesses Homer Chase and Alexander Bittel- 
man dealt with very recent disciplinary actions by the Communist 
Party leadership. 

In 1960, Homer B. Chase served as "organizer" (the top official) 
of the New England District of the Communist Party, USA, and 
held membership on the party's National Committee. In October 
of the same year, the National Secretariat — a five-man body then 
representing the pinnacle of leadership in the American party organiza- 
tion — circulated a letter among party members within the New 
England District, charging Chase with opposition to party "policy," 
and announcing that action against him would be on the agenda of 
the next meetuig of the National Committee. The letter demanded 
that New England Communists repudiate Chase and take steps to 
establish a new district leadership. 

Further, the National Secretariat warned Communists in the New 
England District that any actions taken in support of Mr. Chase 
violated the party's organizational principles of "democratic central- 
ism" and "Party discipline." Otlier significant observations were 
made in the letter regarding party procedure following the termi- 
nation of the power struggle in 1958: 

During the past few years, our party has successfully weathered the most 
severe crisis in its history. It has * * * defeated the onslaught of revisionism,, 
as well as the assaults of the ultra-left dogmatists from within its ranks. 



560 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

In these struggles the 17th National Convention [1959] was a major landmark, 
registering an impressive advance toward the unification of the Party. This was 
expressed in Comrade Gus Hall's concluding remarks in these words: "Above 
all — and of crucial importance — emerging from the 17th Convention is the fact 
that we have one part}', one policy and one direction. . . . The policy, line 
and direction set forth at this convention will be the policy, line and direction for 
the whole Party, for everj' member, including national committee members and 
officers." 

:(: * :^ * * * :i: 

We are now at a point where the looseness of the past on policy questions, 
growing out of the severe ideological struggles through which we have passed, 
can no longer be tolerated. Today the Party must demand that every leading 
comrade, without exception, adhere to and fight for the Partj-'s policies * * *. 

A lengthy bill of particulars on Mr. Chase's differences with prevail- 
ing party "policy" included the charge that he was "guilty of irre- 
sponsible anti-Soviet statements." His opposition to various party 
tactics — such as Communist participation in the 1960 electoral 
campaign — was also cited as an example of what the party leadership 
labeled as "sectarian" or "ultra-left dogmatist" deviations. Mr. 
Chase was subsequently ousted from leadership of the party's New 
England District. His National Committee membership was revoked 
in January 1961. 

When Chase was interrogated by the committee on this docu- 
mented record of party disciplinary action, he refused on constitutional 
grounds to discuss his relations with the Communist Party. His 
volubility with respect to his personal views, however, was instructive, 
in light of the response it had provoked from the Commimist Party 
leadership. Chase testified, for example, that he had "always re- 
garded Stalin as an outstanding humanist"; that Klirushchev's 
attacks on the late dictator were unjustified and against the interests 
of the working class; and that "the outstanding Marxist-Leninist" 
is the Chinese Communist leader, Mao Tse-tung. 

Another disciplinary case, acted upon at the January 1961 meeting 
of the Communist Party's National Committee, was that of Alexander 
Bittelman, for years the party's leading spokesman on matters of 
Communist theory. Although Mr. Bittelman was one of the founders 
of the Communist Party, USA, and long an occupant of high national 
office, the present party leadership decided to tlirow him out of the 
organization he had served for more than 41 years. 

Alexander Bittelman was among those American Communists who, 
to use his own words, took "a fresh look" at the theory and practice 
of communism after Khrushchev embarked on his de-Stalinization 
campaign in 1956. In October 1957, the Daily Worker — then under 
the editorship of the reformist John Gates — published a series of 12 
articles by Bittelman, in which he discussed the prevailing party crisis, 
re-examined various Communist theoretical and programmatic con- 
cepts, and offered his proposals for a i)e('uliarly "American" road 
to socialism. He suggested, for example, that American Communists 
strive for a new, intermediate goal of a "welfare state," which would 
precede an eventual "peaceful and constitutional transition" to a 
Communist system of government in this Nation. 

William Z. Foster immediately took up the cudgels against Bittel- 
man, accusing him of "revisionism"— the type of deviation from 
"true" Marxism-Leninism which Foster and the Soviet Commimists 
were attributing to the majority leadership of the Communist Party, 
USA, at this time. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 561 

In 1958, following the takeover of party leadership by rigidly 
Moscow-oriented Communists, Bittelman's views were publicly 
condemned by fellow members of an important party committee en- 
gaged in preparing a draft program for the party's next national con- 
vention. In 1959, Bittehnan announced plans to publisli a book 
written by him expounding his views on an "American" road to social- 
ism. Although the new party leadership threatened hini with dire 
consequences if he published it, the book was released in September 
1960. 

The National Secretariat of the party immediately instructed 
Mr. Bittehnan's local party club to terminate his membership. The 
club obeyed in November 1960, and the action was affirmed by the 
National Committee in January 1961. 

In his appearance before the committee, Mr. Bittehnan refused, on 
constitutional grounds, to answer any and all questions dealing with 
the Comnmnist Party or his participation in its affairs. Documents 
introduced in the course of the committee's interrogation of this 
witness included the statement of charges by which the party's 
National Secretariat justified the expulsion of Bittehnan. The 
Secretariat accused him of violating the "Party principles of demo- 
cratic centralism," "insistent defiance of Party discipline," and 
advocacy of "views in direct opposition to the very principles of the 
organization which he joined to uphold." 

The National Secretariat of the Communist Party, to prove that 
Bittelman was guilty of "departure from Marxism-Leninism," "bour- 
geois individualism," and other heresies, quoted from the new Soviet 
textbook, Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, which was published in 
1959 for the stated purpose of providing a "scientifically sound, though 
popular, elucidation of the Marxist-Leninist teaching" wliich, the Soviet 
editors reminded, was "not a dogma but a guide to action." The 
National Secretariat used excerpts from this book to show that 
Bittelman was guilty of "reformist and revisionist" deviation in fore- 
seeing an "evolving" of capitalism into communism, rather than 
"a clear-cut program of decisive struggle against the capitalist monop- 
olies * * * for the overthrow of the dictatorship of a handful of mo- 
nopolist aristocracy," 



STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNIST 
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 



MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1961 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

WasJdngto n, D.C. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

A subcoiimiiltee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in the Caucus Room, Old House Office 
Building, Washingtju, D.C, Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman 
of the subcounnittee) presiding. 

Subcommittee membei's present: Representatives Morgan M. 
Moulder, of Missouri, chairman; William M. Tuck, of Virginia; 
Donald C. Bruce, of Indiana; and Henry C. Schadeberg, of Wisconsin. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., director, and Alfred 
M. Nittle, counsel. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

The Committee on Un-America,ii Activities met here in Washington 
on April 26, 1961, and adopted the following resolution: 

BE IT RESOLVED, that hearings by the Committee on Un-American Activ- 
ities or a subcommittee thereof, to be held at such phace or phices as the Chairman 
may direct, on such date or dates as the Chairman may determine, be authorized 
and approved, including the conduct of investigations deemed reasonably neces- 
sary bj' the staff in preparation therefor, relating to: 

1. The present structure and organization of the Communist Party of the 
United States, its strategic and tactical methods and objectives, and its inter- 
national conspiracy aspects, in order that the Committee and Congress may be 
informed of the extent, character and objectives thereof for the purpose of the 
adoption of remedial legislation designed to protect the national security of the 
country. 

2. Any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee which it, or any 
subcommittee thereof, appointed to conduct these hearings, may designate. 

A subcommittee was appointed by Chairman Francis E. Walter to 
conduct the hearings commencing today, and I insert the following 
record of appointment: 

November 9, 1961. 
To: Mr. Frank S. Tavexxer, Jr. 
Director 
House Committee on Un-American Activities 

Pursuant to the provisions of the law and the Rules of this Committee, I hereby 
appoint a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, consisting 
of Honorable Morgan M. Moulder as Chairman, and Honorable WiUiam M. Tuck, 
Honorable August E. Johansen, Honorable Donald C. Bruce, and Honorable 
Henry C. Schadeberg as associate members, to conduct a hearing in Washington, 
D.C, Monday, November 20, 1961, at 10:00 a.m., on subjects under investigation 

563 



564 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

by the Committee and take such testimony on said day or succeeding days, as 
it may deem necessary. 

Please make this action a matter of Committee record. 

If any Member indicates his inabiUty to serve, please notify me. 

Given under my hand this 9th day of November, 1961. 

/s/ Francis E. Walter, 

Francis E. Walter, Chairman 
Committee on Un-American Activities. 

These hearings, originally set for June 17th, have been postponed 
a number of times due to the press of other committee business, and 
I desire to emphasize that the holding of the hearings at this time 
has no connection whatever with the registration provisions of the 
Internal Security Act of 1950, which are now in the process of being 
enforced. 

It is the avowed purpose of the World Communist Alovement, of 
which the Communist Party of the United States has alwaj^s been 
an integral part, to destroy our free society — b}^ violent means if 
need be — and to supplant our constitutional government by Soviet- 
style dictatorship. As recently as December 1960, 81 of the world's 
87 Communist parties, after a meeting at Moscow, imanimously 
affirmed this long-standing and basic Communist objective in the 
following language of their manifesto : 

The Marxist-Leninist Parties head the struggle * * * for the accomplishment 
of the Sociahst [meaning Communist] revolution and the establishment of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat in one form or another. The forms and course of 
development of the socialist revolution will depend on the specific balance of the 
class forces in the country concerned, on the organization and maturity of the 
working class and its vanguard, and on the extent of the resistance put up by the ruling 
class. [Emphasis supplied.] 

The new Soviet textbook. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, 
which was issued in 1959 for the "guidance" of Communists through- 
out the world, stated the Communist strategy even more bluntl}*: 

Wherever the reactionary bourgeoisie has a strong army and police force at its 
disposal, the working class will encounter fierce resistance. There can be no 
doubt that in a number of capitalist countries the overthrow of the bourgeois 
dictatorship will inevitably take place through an armed class struggle. 

and 

Of course, it would be wrong to think that power can be won by parliamentary 
means on any election day. * * * Marxists-Leninists do not have so primitive 
a conception of the coming of the working class to power through the parliament. 

The aforementioned Moscow meeting of Communist party repre- 
sentatives from every corner of the globe also boasted that "The 
world Communist movement has become the most influential political 
force of our time" and that "Communists throughout the world are 
united by the great doctrine of Marxism-Leninism and by a joint 
struggle for its realization." 

Comnmnists in the United States, at their last national convention 
in 1959, rcaflirmed their adherence to the principles of Marxism- 
Leninism and their unity with the Soviet and other foreign Communist 
parties on so-called "ideology" and their common goal of the worldwide 
establishment of communism. 

Pm'suing a mandate of Congress and Public Law 601 of the 79th 
Congress, this committee has been engaged in gathering information 
concerning the operation of tliis worldwide conspiracy within the 
United States, so that the Congress might be adequately advised of 
the facts and, therefore, prepared to consider or enact such remedial 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 565 

or amendatory legislation as, from time to time, may be deemed neces- 
sary in the interest of the national security. This is a grave and vital 
responsibility. 

Today we pursue our inquiries into an area involving the present 
structure, organizational principles, and functioning of the Communist 
Party, U.S.A., vrith particular reference to the methods by which its 
leadership and policies have been determined in recent years and the 
precise nature of the relationship between the party organization in 
this country and the international Communist movement dominated 
by the Soviet dictatorship. 

Marxism-Leninism is the constitutional basis of Communist policy 
and organization. While Marx provided the theoretical or philosoph- 
ical basis for the Communist revolution, Lenin is the originator of the 
militant Communist Party we know today and which is the device or 
instrumentalit}^ created by him to ensure the success of the World 
Communist Movement. This contribution to world disorder and 
oppression has created a status of equal godship for Lenin with Marx 
in the cult of materialism — a cult which is the moral equivalent of the 
Thuggee of India — and explains the constant association of the two 
names, Marxism-Leninism, by the devotees. Marx did not see Com- 
munists forming a party strictly separate from, or opposed to, other 
working class parties. The parties which formed during his lifetime 
were working class parties, with elected leaders loosely held together 
by similar programs or platforms. It was for Lenin to provide the 
perhaps original concept of the monolithic revolutionary party, with 
clear delineation of its organizational programs, methods, and details. 

Although a measure of originality can be attributed to Lenin in his 
concept of the Communist Party, it must be realized that he was 
inspired by his environment of Russian revolutionary history, just as 
Marx was influenced by the theories of the Utopians who preceded 
him. I believe it reasonable to say that Lenin undoubtedly owes his 
inspiration to Sergei Nechaev, who was active around 1870 as the head 
of the People's Retribution group, or Society of the Axe, together with 
the leader of another revolutionary group named Peter Tkachev. 

Nechaev was not a Marxist, but a nihilist. His goal was the over- 
throw of monarchy and the substitution of minority rule. He was 
a teacher in Petersburg and organized student disorder. With his 
own hands, he murdered a young student who defected from his 
leadership. His slogan was, "Everything for the revolution. The 
end justifies the means." He set up cell groups, which were not let 
into the ultimate plans of the conspiracy. Members were designated 
by numbers in order to conceal their activities. He provided detailed 
rules of organization, together with a philosophy for the revolutionists. 
According to Nechaev, and these are his words: 

The Revolutionist * * * is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no 
affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being 
is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion — the revolution * * *. 
Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with 
the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, 
conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues 
to inhabit it with only one purpose — -to destroy it * * *. He despises public 
opinion. He hates and despises the social morality of his time, its motives and 
manifestations. Everything which promotes the success of the revolution is 
moral, everything which hinders it is immoral * * *. The nature of the true 
revolutionist excludes all romanticism, all tenderness, all ecstasy, all love. 

83743 — 62 — pt. 1 2 



566 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nor was Tkachev a Marxist, but he, too, believed in conspiratorial- 
type organization and the establishment of minority rule. He said, 
"The people, of course, is necessary for a social revolution. But only 
when the revolutionary minority assumes the leadership in this 
revolution." Lenin adopted and applied these precepts in toto, and 
indeed acknowledged the contributions of the authors. 

The creation of a militant and savage party, which would lead 
the world "proletariat" in rebellion, was a task to which Lenin de- 
voted his life. He said that the party "must stand at the head of 
the working class * * * and not follow in the tail of the spontaneous 
movement." He, therefore, directed the creation of organizations of 
revolutionaries whose profession would be that of a revolutionary. 
The organization of the party and its leadership would "proceed from 
the top." In setting up the Communist Party as an organization of 
professional revolutionaries, he recognized that such a party "must 
of necessity not be too extensive and as secret as possible." Further, 
the party must be a "small, compact core, consisting of reliable, 
experienced and hardened workers, with responsible agents in the 
principal districts and connected by all the rules of strict secrecy with 
the organizations of revolutionaries," and would consist of people 
"who will devote to the revolution not only their spare evenings, but 
the whole of their lives * * *." 

In a series of writings, speeches, and directives recorded in numerous 
volumes, which constitute a sort of Communist demonology, Lenin 
devised principles that still govern the basic organization and objec- 
tives, as well as tactics and strategy, of the Communist parties 
throughout the world. 

Successive Soviet dictators have introduced various tactical innova- 
tions to meet the exigencies of the existing world situation; these 
changes and Soviet interpretations of Lenin's old pronouncements 
make up the so-called Marxist-Leninist doctrine, which represents the 
articles of faith for Communists throughout the world. Bolstered by 
the fact that the USSR was the first, and for many years the sole, 
nation under actual Communist rule, the Soviet dictatorship became 
the supreme authority for the World Conmiunist Movement. Auto- 
cratic Soviet direction of the world's Communist parties was un- 
challenged and not even questioned during Stalin's long and brutally 
tyrannical reign. 

The disputes with respect to ideology and policy which have arisen 
among Communist parties following Soviet dictator Khrushchev's 
"de-Stalinization" campaign in 1956 have not ended Soviet dominance 
of the World Commimist Movement. While the movement today 
may lack a single unchallenged center, as in Stalin's day, it continues 
to remain firmly united on Soviet pre-eminence and the goal of the 
speediest possible world Connuunist victory. As was pointed out in 
the 81 -party manifesto previously referred to: 

The Communist and Workers' Parties unanimously declare that the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union has been, and remains, the universally recog- 
nized vancjuard of the world Communist movement * * *. 

To maintain party solidarity, both as to organization and objectives, 
Lenin urged a regard for "tlieoretical struggle" as of equal importance 
to the "economic and political struggle." The world movement must 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 567 

maintain strict unity. Tlicrc must be no depart uiv, either to the 
right or lel't of the party ideology and leadership. An entire new 
vocabulary was created for tlu- theoretical dialogue, including such 
interesting expressions as revisionism, deviation, adventurist, left 
sectarianism, dognuitism, right opportunism, autonomism, econo- 
niism, and reformism. Wv siiall determine, in the course of these 
hearings, the manner in which such principles and Soviet leadership 
are. in certain ])asic aspects, followed, enforced, and maintained 
witliin the Connnunist Party of tlie United States. 

Tiiose expected to testify during the course of these hearings 
include a competent research analyst on the staff of this committee 
and a number of individuals who have been prominent in the organi- 
zational activities and theoretical dialogue of the Communist Party 
of the United States. 

Would you call your first witness, please. 

Air. NiTTLE. Francis J. McNamara. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which 
you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. McNamara. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS J. McNAMARA 

Mr. NiTTLE. For the purpose of the record, would you please state 
your name. 

Mr. McNamara. Francis J. McNamara. 

Mr. NiTTLE. What is your occupation? 

Mr. McNamara. I am presently employed as director of research 
for the Comnnttee on Un-American Activities. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As director of research, Mr. McNamara, were you 
asked to supervise and take part in certain studies of the Communist 
Party in preparation for these hearings? 

Mr. McNamara. I was. 

organizational structure of U.S. communist party 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did these studies concern, among other things, the 
organizational structure and leadership of the Communist Partv? 

Mr. McNamara. They did. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Could vou tell us what vou found concerning Com- 
munist Party structure? 

Mr. McNamara. As far as the structure is concerned, FBI Director 
J. Edgar Hoover in his report for fiscal 1961 included a chart which 
showed the organizational setup of the Communist Party, among 
other things. This chart, with the nonstructural items deleted, has 
been enlarged and reproduced as an exhibit for this hearing. It is 
now being placed on the easel to my right. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that that chart be introduced 
in the record of this hearing and designated Committee Exhibit 
No. 1. 

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit referred to will be admitted as a part 
of the record. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 1" follows:) 



568 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Committee Exhibit No. 1 



COMMUNIST PARTY, USA 

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 



NATIONAL CONVENTION 

(Scheduled to meet biennially) 



NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

(Scheduled to meet semi-annually) 



NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

(Scheduled to meet bimonthly) 



3E 



NATIONAL BOARD 

(Scheduled to meet weekly) 
National Headquarters - 23 W. 26th St., New York City 



iz 



3 C 



DISTRICT(2I) 
4V 



STATE 
HZ 



Ik 



NATIONAL 
COMMISSIONS 



COUNTY 



A£ 



REVIEW INT'L AFFAIRS 



CITY 
HZ 



ORGANIZATION JEWISH 



SECTION 



EDUCATION NATIONAL GROUPS 



A£ 



CLUB 



FARM NEGRO 



YOUTH TRADE UNION 



DEFENSE WOMEN 



OTHERS 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 569 

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNaniara, would you please give us some 
explanation of this chart, beginning with the highest, the national- 
level, units of the party? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. The Communist Party constitution, 
adopted in 1957, Article V, entitled "National Organization," Section 
1, states: 

The highest authority of the Party is the National Convention which is author- 
ized to make poUtical and organizational decisions binding upon the entire Party 
and its membership. Regular National Conventions shall be held every two 
years, within the first six months of the year. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNamara, in reply to my question, you quoted 
the Communist Party constitution. Is this a reliable document? 

Mr. McNamara. The U.S. Communist Party constitution, like 
that of the Soviet Union, is largely a propaganda document, as will be 
demonstrated conclusively in these hearings. To a great extent, it 
is no more than a mere piece of paper designed to give a democratic 
window dressing to a totalitarian, monolithic organization, to mislead 
non-Communists into believing that the Communist Party actually 
operates on democratic principles. 

Despite this, however, the constitution is useful in demonstrating 
the formal organizational setup of the party; and of course, it is essen- 
tial to consider the constitution, the proclaimed basic principles of 
the party, when dealing with the party's real nature, and to show the 
great gulf which exists between the party's actual practices and the 
democratic principles which are so piously enunciated in the consti- 
tution. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You have a copy of the Communist Party constitu- 
tion before you? 

Mr. McNamara. I do. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that this docu- 
ment be introduced as Committee Exhibit No. 2 and retamed in the 
files of the committee. 

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit referred to will be made a part of the 
files of the committee. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 2" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Has the Communist Party lived up to its rules with 
reference to the holding of national conventions? 

Mr. McNamara. It has not. The constitution states that its 
national conventions will be held every 2 years, and within the fu'st 
6 months of each year. The 16th National Convention, at which this 
constitution was adopted, was held in February 1957. The 17th 
National Convention was held in December 1959, obviously not 
within the first 6 months of that year, as the constitution provides; 
and the time that elapsed between the two conventions was much 
closer to 3 than to 2 years. 

According to the constitution, too, the IStli National Convention 
of the Communist Party should have been held within the fu'st 6 
months of this year. To date, however, there has not been a word said 
about the holding of such a convention. 

Moreover, it cannot be argued that the Supreme Court decision 
upholding the registration provisions of the Internal Security Act 
is responsible for this. That decision was not handed down until 



570 COMMTNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

June, aiul a fonvention could have been held any time before then; 
and if the part}- had intended to abide by its constitutional provisions 
on this matter, there surely would have been some word in the early 
part of the year, at least, about plans for a convention within the first 
6 months — ^even if it later were to be called off. 

Mr. NiTTLE. AMien was the 15th National Convention of the 
Communist Party held? 

Mr. McNamara. The loth National Convention of the Communist 
Party was held in December 1950. There was a gap of 7 3'ears between 
that convention and the 16th. 

This happened because the party was almost complete!}" under- 
ground during that period. This was a period in which over 100 of 
its national leaders were convicted under the Smith Act conspiracy 
clause in courts of original jurisdiction. Conventions and all large 
gatherings of the Communist Party were abolished during this period 
as a security measure. This was an effort on the part of the party 
to protect its leaders and key functionaries from exposure and possible 
additional prosecutions under the laws of this land, primarily the 
Smith Act. 

Mr. NiTTLE. How are party delegates selected for its national 
convention? 

Mr. McNamara. According to Section 2, Article V, of the con- 
stitution, they are elected by secret ballot at state and district con- 
ventions which precede the national convention. 

Now, the number elected from each state or district is determined 
by the "approximate" — the constitution says — proportion of the total 
membership, nationally, represented by each state or district. 

The national leadership of the party actually has the power to rig 
the representation from each state or district according to its desires. 
The constitution states that this approximate proportion of delegates 
from each state and district will be established "as the National 
Committee may determine." 

This is found in lines 6 and 7 of Section 2, Article V, page 12, of 
the constitution. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In his opening statement the chairman of this sub- 
committee quoted from Lenin as to the nature of party organization 
and quoted Lenin to the effect that the party must be "a small, 
compact core," and that the party "must of necessity not be too ex- 
tensive and as secret as possible." 

Now, in fact, did you find that principle of secrecy applied in the 
meetings of the national convention? That is to say, are the national 
conventions of the party open meetings? Are representatives of the 
press, radio, and television permitted to cover these conventions, 
as they are permitted to cover conventions, national conventions, of 
the Republican and Democratic Parties? 

Mr. McNamara. The Communist Party conventions are secret. 
Only the party members are permitted to attend them. There was 
a slight and, I might add, a calculated departure from this rule in 
the case of the 16th National Convention of the party held in 1957. 
The Daily Worker of February 8, 1957, on page 1, published an article 
about this forthcoming convention, and the item opened with the 
following words: 

In an unprecedented move, the National Committee of the Communist Party 
yesterday voted to propose to the opening session of its 16th national convention, 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 571 

due to convene here tomorrow, the admission of a group of non-Communist 
observers from the civil liloerties, peace and church movements. 

It is interesting to note the use of that word "unprecedented." 
Here the official organ of the Communist Party admitted that its 
conventions had always been secret up to this time. 

Now, in making this decision, the National Committee of tlie 
Communist Party, I believe, was trying to offset the effect numerous 
Smith Act convictions and trials had had on the thinking of the 
American people about the Communist Party. There is no doubt 
that, as far as the overwhelming majority of Americans were con- 
cerned, these trials had convinced them beyond all reasonable doubt 
that the Comnmnist Party was a secret, conspiratorial organization, 
completel}" un-American in character. For the first time in 7 years, 
the Communist Party felt that perhaps the climate of opinion had 
changed enough for it to come out into the open and actually hold a 
convention. It hoped that by permitting some preselected observers 
to attend its convention, it would create the impression that it was 
actually adopting some democratic rules of operation. 

The national convention accepted the proposal of the party's 
National Committee on this point, and 11 so-called observers were 
admitted to cover the convention. They were a mixed group: radicals, 
pacifists, some persons with long records of front affiliations; and they 
included A. J. Muste, who, as J. Edgar Hoover pointed out, "has long 
fronted for Communists." 

It was Muste, a former follower of Stalin's slain Communist foe, 
Leon Trotsky, who had proposed this move to the party and who had 
also suggested the names of persons who should be invited as observers. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the article 
from which Mr. McNamara has read, a Daily Worker article of Febru- 
ary 8, 1957, be introduced in the record of this hearing as Committee 
Exhibit No. 3. 

Mr. Moulder. The article referred to by the witness will be marked 
Committee Exhibit No. 3 and admitted as a part of the record. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 3" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Will you proceed, Mr. McNamara? 

Mr. McNamara. After the convention, 8 of these 11 observers 
did just what the Communist Party wanted them to do. They signed 
a statement which said, among other things, that the Communist 
Party convention was "democratically conducted." And then they 
went on to denounce the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee's 
"inquisition into political opinion," which was allegedly evidenced by 
the committee's calling Eugene Dennis, who had been the party's 
general secretary, to testify in a hearing that followed the convention. 

One ti-uly independent observer at the convention, however, did not do 
what the party had hoped. Carl I. Rachlin, an attorney for the New 
York Civil Liberties Union, testified before the Senate Internal Secu- 
rity Subcommittee that the Communist Party's break with Moscow, 
alleged to have taken place at this convention, was not real and that it 
was designed to confuse the courts and the people of this country. 
Various debates and moves taken at the convention to create the im- 
pression that the party was adopting democratic principles, he said, 
were merely tactical and efforts on the part of the party "to get back 
into the good graces of the American people." 



572 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Needless to say, after this happened, non-Communist observers 
were never permitted to attend a convention again, and the 17th 
National Convention of the party, held in December 1959, was com- 
pletely secret; only party members were allowed to attend it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. What is the main business of the national conv^ention 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr. McNamara. The convention has two primary tasks: one, to 
elect officers of the party, and second, to determine party lines, poli- 
cies, strategy, tactics. 

In preparation for all conventions, tentative or draft resolutions are 
prepared on various topics and are circulated among the party units. 
A main political resolution is also drawn up. The party constitution 
says all this will be done 90 days in advance of the convention, to 
give party members and units time to examine these proposed policies 
and analyze them. 

The main political resolution, as a rule, is very broad in its scope. 
It contains the party's analysis of its present condition and situation, 
factors which provide opportunity for the party and factors which 
are obstacles to the party's achievement of its goals. It outlines the 
strategy and tactics the party intends to use in the period immediately 
ahead to advance the party cause and the cause of world communism. 
It contains the major propaganda themes the party will use, and 
it also spells out those areas of emphasis or concentration for the 
party — -where it will devote most of its energy in the fields of agita- 
tion, propaganda, recruiting, and so on. 

There is no need to go into these draft resolutions in great detail. 
There are numerous samples of them in Part 4 of the Committee's 
hearings, held in May 1960, on the Northern California District of 
the Communist Party. 

As I said before, these draft resolutions are distributed among the 
clubs where, in theory, they are studied, discussed, and analyzed; 
and suggestions for changes in them are then forwarded to national 
headquarters by those who have differing viewpoints on the subjects 
encompassed by the resolutions. 

And again, in theory, at the convention, these draft resolutions are 
discussed, debated, and then adopted as proposed, or with amend- 
ments. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You have spoken of debate at the national convention 
on the draft resolutions. This sounds as though they were employing, 
or allowing the employment of, a democratic process. Is this really 
so? 

Mr. McNamara. Well, it only sounds democratic. The draft 
resolutions, of course, are prepared by the party's leaders, who are 
thus free to determine their content; and as these hearings will 
develop, evidence will be presented to show the paramilitary nature 
of the party; its procedures for enforcing monolithic unity, as it is 
called, in the ranks of the party and thus seeing that convention 
resolutions and actions express what the leadership wants said and 
done. 

In addition, of course, in the background, there is also Moscow 
and what it wants. The Kremlin — today Klirushchev — ultimately 
determines all major convention actions and resolutions. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You say that Moscow determines the policies and 
actions adopted and taken at party conventions. Could you give 
us an example of this? 



COIMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 573 

Mr. McNamara. There are many, and some will be introduced in 
the bearings later on. I will just mention one very briefly- — the 
party's position on the American Negro. 

Years ago, in the 1920's, Stalin decided that Negroes in the United 
States were a separate race or people and that in line with his ideas 
on the national question, as it was called, they should be a nation 
apart from the whites in this country; they should secede from the 
U.S., actuall}", and a separate Negro republic should be set up in the 
South in the states where they comprised a majority of the population. 

Now, party members in this country found this a very unrealistic 
and impractical position, obviously a hindrance to their recruiting 
and propaganda activities among Negroes. The American Negro 
did not want to secede from the U.S. or to set up a separate nation. 
He considered himself — and is — just as much an American as any 
white man. 

U.S. party members carried this message to Moscow on numerous 
occasions over the years, even while they were turning out reams of 
propaganda to the effect that a separate republic for Negroes had to 
be set up in the South; but as long as Stalin lived, Moscow would 
never change its position on this subject. Stalin could not admit 
that he had been wrong. 

Suddenly, however, at the 17th National Convention of the party 
in 1959, this separate republic idea was officially and formally dropped 
and the party line cynically switched to the theme of full integration 
for the Negro. This switch had been telegraphed by a resolution 
adopted a year earlier by the party's National Committee. 

Ivlirushchev could permit this switch, because he was not admitting 
an error on his part. This had been Stalin's policy. 

Moreover, changing this policy in this way served his aim of dis- 
crediting Stalin with the U.S. Communists, because he was ditching, 
finding wrong, a Stalinist policy. Khrushchev also must have realized 
that this was a good tactical move. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do reversals of policy, such as this, usually take 
place at party conventions? 

Mr. McNamara. Normally they do not. This was really quite 
unusual, to have a complete reversal of tlie party line. For the most 
part, there are no drastic or major changes in party policy, strategy, 
or tactics made at a convention. The conventions tend merely to 
formalize, give official approval to, tactics, strategy, and policies 
that have been followed for some time. 

The reason for this is that the Communist Party is continually 
assessing and reassessing its position; and, as conditions change, it 
shifts. The party is very flexible. It shifts its strategy, tactics, and 
so forth, to meet changing conditions. 

Now, obviously, conditions, national or international, do not change 
overnight. They don't change within the 2 or 3 days that the party 
is meeting in convention. And for this reason, there is normally no 
need for a major change that develops in the course of a convention. 

For the most part, as I said before, the convention usually merely 
formalizes the type of activity that the party has been carrying out 
for some time in the past. And there is very little radical change of 
any kind, as the normal thing. 



574 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNamara, you have told us about the national 
convention, which is the highest echelon of the Communist Party of 
the United States. Could you now tell us about the function and 
make-up of the National Committee? 

Mr. McNamaka. The constitution of the party, Section 9, Article 
V, states: 

Between National Conventions, the National Committee is the highest authority 
of the Party, representing the Party as a whole, and as such has the authority to 
make decisions and take actions necessary and incidental to the good and welfare 
of the entire Party, and to act upon all problems and developments occurring 
between Conventions. 

At present the National Committee has approximately 60 members. 
The Worker of December 20, 1959, reported that at the 17th National 
Convention of the party, a National Committee of 60 members had 
been elected, 25 from an at-large voting list, and another 35 from a 
list nominated by state delegations. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Was this in accord with the party constitution? 

Mr. McNamara. No, it was not. Technically, it was a violation 
of the constitution. The constitution adopted in 1957 states that 
National Committee members at large shall not "exceed one third of 
the total membership of the National Committee." The 25 elected 
at large at the 17th National Convention comprise approximately 42 
per cent of the National Committee membership, which violates the 
constitution. 

I have prepared a committee exhibit which lists those persons who, 
according to committee information, are presently members of the 
Communist Party's National Committee, broken down into those 
elected from the at-large list and those elected from the districts. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this exhibit be marked 
Committee Exhibit No. 4 and introduced in the record of this hearing. 

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 4" follows:) 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 575 

Committee Exhibit No. 4 

Communist Party, U.S.A., National Committee 

1961 

A f embers at Large 
Name District 

1 . James S. Allen New York 

2. Herbert Aptheker New York 

3. Philip Bart New York 

4. Erik Bert New York 

0. Jesus Colon New York 

6. Benjamin J. Davis, Jr New York 

7. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn New York 

8. Simon W. Gerson New York 

9. GusHall New York 

10. Clarence A. Hathaway New York 

1 1 . James E . Jackson New York 

12. Arnold Johnson New York 

13. Geraldine Lightfoot Illinois 

14. Hyman Lumer New York 

15. Mildred McAdory New York 

16. George A. Meyers Maryland-D.C. 

17. William L. Patterson New York 

18. Pettis Perry So. California 

19. Irving Potash New York 

20. Danny Queen Illinois 

21. Al Richmond No. California 

22. Mortimer Daniel Rubin New York 

23 . Jacob (Jack) Stachel New York 

24 . William Weinstone New York 

25. Helen Allison Winter Michigan 

26. Henry Winston New York 



576 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 



Committee Exhibit No. 4 — Continued 
Members Elected by Districts 



NEW YORK 

1 . William Albertson 

2. Michael Crenovich 

3. Miriam Friedlander 

4. Betty Gannett 

5. Paul Robeson, Sr. 

6. Xathan Rosenbluth 

7. James Tormey 

8. Louis Weinstock 

ILLINOIS 

1. Flora Hall 

2. Sam Kushner 

3. Claude Lightfoot 

4. James West 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

1. Benjamin Dobbs 

2. Dorothy R. Healey 

3. Charleiie Mitchell 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

1 . Albert Jason Lima 

2. Roscoe Proctor 

3. Juanita Wheeler 

MICHIGAN 

1 . Thomas DeWit t Dennis, Jr. 

2. Carl Winter 

OHIO 

I. Edward Cliaka 



OHIO — continued 

2. Anthony Kn^hmarek 

NEW .)ERSEY 

Patrick Toohey 

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND 
DELAWARE 

Thomas Nabried 

MARYLAND-D.C. 

Jacob Green 

INDIANA 

Emanuel Blum 

AVISCONSIN 

Fred B. Blair 

MINNESOTA-DAKOTAS 

Sam Davis 

OREGON 

Xorman Haaland 

MISSOURI 

Morris Childs 

NORTHWEST 

Burt Nelson 

SOUTH 

1. Hunter Pitts O'Dell 

2. John Stanford 



Mr. McNamara. I might point out that Henry Winston is a recent 
addition to the National Committee of the party. He had been serv- 
ing a prison term, was recenth^ released, and shortly thereafter was 
named to the party's National Committee. 

Although the constitution saj's that the National Committee "shall 
meet at least four times a year," it is today operating, as the chart 
indicates, on a semiannual meeting basis. One meeting of the Na- 
tional Committee was held in Januaiy of this 3"ear; another in August. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are the meetings of the National Committee open to 
the public? 

Mr. McNamara. They, too, are completely secret. However, the 
party does publish, from time to time in its own organs, the major 
reports made at these meetings by the top-ranking officials of the 
party. This is so that the raid^-and-fde mem})ers of the party will 
know the propaganda lines, the type of agitational activity, and so 
forth, that the party leaders have deemed most important as of the 
moment. In order to communicate the messages of the leaders of the 
party to the rank-and-file members, kc}' reports that are presented at 
the meetings of the National Committee will be published in party 
organs such as Political Affair!^. 



Committee Exhibit No, 5 



NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, C.P., U.S.A. 

CONDUCTS AFFAIRS OF PARTY BETWEEN MEETINGS OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE 




EUZABETH FLYNN 

NATtOHkL CHAIRMAN 



GUS HALL 
GENERAL SECRETARY 



BENJAMIN DAVIS 
NATIONAL SECRETARY 




CLAUDE UGHTFOOT 

VICE CHAIRMAN 



PHILIP BART 

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL SECRHARY 



HYMAN LUMER 
NATIONAL EDUCATION SECRETARY 



JAMES JACKSON 
EDITOR, THE WORKER 



IRVING POTASH 

NATIONAL LAIOR SECRETARY 



NATIONAL rRESS DIRECTOR 



HENRY WINSTON 
VICE CHAIRMAN 






GEORGE MEYERS 

CHAIRMAN, MD.-O.C. DISTIIG 



JAMES WEST 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, IlLINOI' DISTlia 



THOMAS DENNIS, JR. 
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MICHIGAN DISTRICT 



CLARENCE HATHAWAY 
CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK DISTRia 



ANTHONY KRCHMAREK 
CHAtlHAN, OHIO DISTRICT 



ALBERT J. LIMA 
CHAIRMAN, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OlSTRia 



CARL WINTER 

CHAIRMAN, MICHIGAN DISTRICT 



DOROTHY HEALEY 

CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRIH 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 577 

THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

Mr. XiTTLE. In the chart of the party structure which you have 
disphiyed for us, you next mention in the chain of connnand the Na- 
tional Executive Committee. How does this fit into the party 
structure? 

Mr. McNamara. While the National Committee is the party's 
highest authority betwecMi conventions, it is too large and unwieldy a 
group to meet frequently. It is for this reason that the party has a 
smaller National Executive Committee. The party constitution. 
Article V, Section 7, states: 

The National Committee shall name an executive committee and any other 
officers and committees it deems necessary. 

The party's National Executive Committee at present averages 18 
to 20 members, each one of whom is also a member of the National 
Committee. It is scheduled to meet every 2 months. It serves, in 
eflFect, as the representative of, or the substitute for, the National 
Committee between its semiannual meetings. 

The Worker of April 30, 1960, reported that at the first meeting of 
the party's National Committee, held after its 17th National Con- 
vention in December 1959, the National Committee had elected a 
National Executive Committee of 18 members "to direct the work of 
the Party between full committee meetings." 

At this point, I would like to introduce as an exhibit the chart on 
the easel to my right, which indicates that it contains the photographs 
of the present members of the National Executive Committee of the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that that exhibit be marked 
Committee Exhibit No. 5 and introduced into the record of this 
hearing. 

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 5" appears on 
opposite page.) 

THE NATIONAL BOARD AND SECRETARIAT 

Mr. NiTTLE. I see next in the chain of command the listing of the 
National Board of the Communist Part}^. What is its function and 
what is its role? 

Mr. McNamara. Even the National Executive Committee, por- 
trayed on this exhibit, is too large an organization to conduct the 
day-to-day affairs of the party. Because of this, at the party's last 
convention, a five-man Secretariat, as it was called, was elected. 
The Secretariat was scheduled to meet weeldy at the party's national 
headquarters at 23 West 26th Street in New York City. The Secre- 
tariat, the one elected at the last convention, was made up of top- 
level party officials. 

The Worker of December 20, 1959, reported that the National 
Committee had designated the Secretariat elected at that time "to 
conduct the current work of the Party." The five members of the 
Secretariat elected were Gus Hall; the late Eugene Dennis; Benjamin 
J. Davis, Jr.; James E. Jackson; and Hyman Lumer. 

The make-up of the Secretariat corresponded closely to that of the 
party's highest officials. At the end of the 17th National Convention, 



578 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

the National Committee had elected the following persons as party 
officers: General Secretary, Gus Hall; Chairman, the late Eugene 
Dennis; Vice Chairmen, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Claude Light- 
foot; and National Secretary, Benjamin J. Davis, Jr. Of these five 
top officers, tlii*ee — Hall, Dennis, and Davis — ^were named to the 
Secretariat. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is this Secretariat still functioning? 

Mr. McNamara. No. It has been replaced by the party's National 
Board, which is indicated on tlie chart and about which you asked a 
moment ago. The National Board is composed of 10 members and, 
as the chart indicates, is scheduled to meet weekly at the party's 
national headquarters in New York City. 

1 would like to offer for the record at this time an exhibit which 
lists the members of the party's National Board, those men who are 
the ruling clique of the party. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that that document be intro- 
duced as Committee Exhibit No. 6. 

Mr. Moulder. So ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 6" follows:) 

Committee Exhibit No. 6 

National Board 

Communist Party, U.S.A. 

1961 

Gus Hall General Secretary 

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn National Chairman 

Henry Winston Vice Chairman 

Claude Lightfoot Vice Chairman 

Benjamin J. Davis, Jr National Secretary 

Phil Bart Organization Secretary 

James E. Jackson Editor, Worker 

Hyman Lumer Education Secretary 

Irving Potash Labor Secretary 

Jacob (Jack) Stachel Press Director, Worker 

Clarence Hathaway (Without Portfolio) 

national commissions 

Mr. NiTTLE. According to the party organizational chart. Com- 
mittee Exhibit No. 1, the National Commissions are the next highest 
units in the party apparatus. Could you tell us briefly what the 
National Commissions are? 

Mr. McNamara. These are conmiittees or bureaus set up to guide 
party activity in special fields. It is their job to work out practical 
plans and techniques for carrying out the party's programs and 
promoting its propaganda themes in particular areas. GeneraUy, 
members of these commissions are party officials or functionaries who 
specialize in certain t^-pes of part}- action, in trade unions, among 
nationality groups, j^outh, and so forth. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The organizational chart lists the major existing 
National Connnissions of the Communist Party, does it not? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 579 

Mr. NiTTLE. Could you (ell us a word about each one and its 
function? 

Mr. McNamara. For the most part, the title of each commission 
tells what it does. Some of them, however, do need explanation, 
because their functions are not apparent to the non-Communist from 
their titles. 

The Review, or Control, Commission is one example. It is the 
first one listed on the chart. 

This commission is the party's own secret police force. It is 
comparable to the MVD of the Soviet Union. It combines the 
functions of the police, the courts, and a punishment agency. It 
accuses party members when they violate discipline in any way, it 
tries them, and it metes out punishment to them. It is a commis'^ion 
or agency, of course, which does not exist in any democratic society or 
democratic political party. 

The Review Commission has also been called the Control Com- 
mission. Having charge of the party's security, it is its job to ferret 
out FBI undercover informants or anybody else in party ranks who 
may be a threat to party secrecy and the effectiveness of its under- 
ground operations. 

The International Affairs Commission, as its name indicates, directs 
party activity in the field of the foreign relations of the United States. 
Its specialty is our foreign policy, from the Communist viewpoint, of 
course. 

The Organization Commission of the party directs the placement 
of party functionaries throughout the party apparatus. This, by 
the way, is something over which the party member has no control. 
He may or may not want a certain post, but if the party directs it, 
he takes the post. It may mean breaking up his home, traveling- 
hundreds or thousands of miles, but with the party discipline as it 
exists, it is the Organization Commission which has the complete 
control over the party member in this respect. 

The Jewish Commission, next listed, as its name indicates, directs 
party activity within and aimed at Jewish groups in this country. 

The Education Commission, the next one listed, supervises and 
directs all the party's educational work. It is in charge of the party's 
schools, the textbooks used in those schools, study outlines prepared 
for them and for party units. It also controls the party's bookstores 
and all general education work conducted by party units. 

The National Groups Commission directs, or is in charge of, all 
party activity within and aimed at various nationality groups in this 
country. It also has charge of the party's foreign-language press, 
those newspapers and magazines which are published in foreign lan- 
guages to make a special appeal to certain nationality elements wnthin 
the United States. 

The Farm Commission, of course, as its name indicates, directs all 
party activity in the agricultural field. 

The Negro Commission obviously directs the party's activity among 
Negroes, supervises the preparation of pamphlets and literature aimed 
at the Negro, and directs activit}^ of all fronts wliich operate in this 
area. 

The functions of the Youth and Trade Union Commissions, I believe, 
are obvious from their names, and the same is true of the Women's 
Commission. 



580 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

The Defense Commission is in charge of all propaganda and agita- 
tional activity undertaken to protect the party, its leaders, members, 
and agents, from Federal or other prosecution under the laws of this 
land. 

The activities of the Emergenc}^ Civil Liberties Conuiiittee, for 
example, which is the successor to the old Civil Rights Congress, would 
come under the supervision of the Defense Commission of tlie party. 

The National Assembly for Democratic Rights, held in New York 
Cit}" on September 23 and 24, and the subject of hearings by this 
committee some weeks ago, was a good example of the type of opera- 
tion planned and carried out by the party's National Defense 
Commission, 

THE COMMUNIST PARTY CLUB 

^Ir. NiTTLE. I believe that pretty well covers the organizational 
apparatus on the national level. Would you now give us some 
information about the lower-level units of the party? 

Mr. McNamara. In discussing these units, I think it would be best 
to start with the lowest, rather than the highest, that is, with the 
Communist Party club. This is the basic unit of the party, the 
foundation on which it is built. 

The party constitution. Article IV, entitled "Structure," Section 1, 
states: 

The Communist Party shall be organized on the basis of clubs. Clubs may be 
constituted on an electoral sub-division, neighborhood, town, shop or industry 
basis. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, you have listed various types of clubs. Woidd 
you explain the difference between these types of clubs? What is the 
distinction between a town and a neighborhood club? How does a 
shop club differ from an industrial club? 

Mr. McNamara. Well, in a town where the Communist Partv 
did not have great strength — only sufficient members, actually, to 
make up one effective club — that club will be organized on a town 
club or town basis, with everyone in the town, no matter what their 
occupation or profession, belonging to the same club. 

In larger cities and towns, where the party has greater strength — 
sufficient numbers so that it can set up a considerable number of clubs 
or basic units — you will usually find them organized on a geographical 
or neighborhood basis. 

Here are some examples. These are the names of party clubs that 
have actually functioned in various cities in the past: The Inwood 
Club in Manhattan, New York City; the Riverside and Ocean Avenue 
Clubs in Brooklyn; tlie West Side Club in Phoenix, Arizona; the 
North Beach No. 1 Club in San Francisco. All these are examples 
of clubs operating and organized on a neighborhood basis; they are 
neighl)orliood clubs. 

Sometimes, in larger cities, you will also find that the party has 
built a system of clubs which follow the political organization of the 
city. There the party club structure will be one club for each assembly 
district, election district, or whatever the local subdivision may be 
called. 

Some examples: The Eleventh A.D., that is, the 11th Assendily 
District, Club in Brooklyn; the Seventh A.D. and Ninth A.D. Clubs 
in Manhattan, New York City. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 581 

Tilt' (liftVrence between shop and industry clubs is simply that a 
shop club is made up of workers in one plant or shop, whereas an 
industrial club would be composed of workers employed in a number 
of plants or shops, but all in the same industry. 

Some examples of shop clubs that have been organized l)y the 
CoMuiiunist Party are the Singer Club of Elizabeth, New Jersey, 
which was made up of woi'kers in the Singer Sewing Machine plant 
in that city; the General Electric Club in Newark, New Jersey, made 
up of employees of the General Electric plant there. In Chicago the 
party had organized Armour, Swift, and Wilson & Co. branches, 
composed of workers in the plants of these three meatpacking firms 
in that city. 

The term "branch" has often been used synonymously for "club" 
within the ranks of the Communist Party. It, too, designates the 
basic party unit. 

Some examples of clubs which had been organized on an industry 
basis are the Railroad Club of New Haven, the Seamen's Branch of 
San Francisco, and also the Metal Trades Club of that same city. 

SECTIONS, CITY AND COUNTY UNITS 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, will you tell us something of the next most 
significant party subdivision? 

Mr. AIcNamara. It is interesting to note that the party constitu- 
tion, after discussing the club, jumps over the intervening units which 
appear on the chart — that is, the section, the city, the county unit— 
and takes up the state organization. This is Article IV, which says: 

The State organization shall comprise all clubs in one State * * *. 

The existence of the intervening units on the chart is provided for 
in these words, which immediately follow those I have just quoted in 
the constitution. This is referring to the state organization: 

and shall have the power and duty to establish all necessary sub-divisions such 
as county, city, regional or section, organizations. 

The creation of sections, city, and county units, in other words, is 
a matter of discretion with the state organization. These inter- 
mediate units are established when it is felt there is a need for them. 
This will usually be determined by the number of party members in 
any area, their quantity; but other factors, such as geography, popu- 
lation concentration, also affect the setup of these intermediate units. 

Mr. NiTTLE. What is a Communist Party section? 

Mr. McNamara. A section is made up of a number of clubs. 
They are usually united in a section on a geographical or occupational 
basis. 

The Communist Party has, for example, industrial sections, profes- 
sional sections, waterfront sections, and also neighborhood sections, 
such as the South Side Section in St. Louis and the West Side Section 
in Detroit. 

In some cases, as the chart indicates and the constitution provides, 
city and county organizations are also set up as intervening or inter- 
mediate control organizations between the sections and the district or 
state organization. 



83743^62— pt. 1- 



582 COIVIMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

DISTRICTS 

Air. NiTTLE. Could you tell us now what a Communist Party 
district is? 

Mr. McNamara. The party constitution, after discussing the state 
organization, takes up the district organization. Article IV, Section 3, 

says: 

District organizations may be established by the National Committee. Dis- 
trict organizations may cover part of one state, or two or more states. Where a 
district organization covers two or more states, the State Committees shall be 
under the jurisdiction of the District Committee. 

Mr. NiTTLE. How many districts are there in the Communist 
Party at the present time? 

Mr. McNamara. We have prepared two exhibits to portray this. 
One outlines the composition of each one of these districts and also 
gives the names of the leaders, the Communist Party leaders, in the 
major districts in this country. 

I also have here another exhibit, a map, which I think might be 
placed on the easel at the present time. This will show that the 
party has, at the present time, 21 districts in the United States. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these documents be intro- 
duced as Committee Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8, respectively, in the 
hearing record. 

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. 

(Documents marked "Committee Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8," respec- 
tively. Committee Exliibit No. 7 follows. No. 8 appears opposite- 
p. 584.) 

Committee Exhibit No. 7 

Communist Party, U.S.A. 

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 

AND 

LEADERS OF MAJOR DISTRICTS 

(1) New England District 

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont 

(2) Connecticut District 

Connecticut 

(3) New York District 

New York — William L. Patterson, chairman 
Louis Weinstock, vice chairman 
Betty Gannett 

(4) Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware District 

Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware — Thomas 
Nabried, chairman 

(5) Western Pennsylvania District 

Western Pennsylvania 

(6) New Jersey District 

New Jersey — Pat Tooliey, chairman 

(7) Maryland-District of Columbia District 

Maryland and District of Columbia — George A. 
Aleyers, chau'man 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 583 

(8) Ohio District 

Ohio and panhandle section of West Virginia — 
iVuthon}' Krchniarek, chairman 

(9) Michigan District 

Alichigan — Carl Winter, chairman 

Thomas Dennis, Jr., executive secre- 
tary 

(10) Indiana District 

Indiana 

(11) Illinois District 

Davenport and Bettendorf areas of Iowa and the 
State of Ilhnois, exclusive of the East St. Louis 
area. 

Claude Lightfoot, chairman 

James West, executive secretary (in jail) 

Sam Kushner, vice chairman 

(12) Wisconsin District 

Wisconsin — Fred B. Blair, chairman 

(13) Minnesota-Dakotas District 

Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota — Samuel 
K. Davis, secretary 

(14) Missouri District 

Missouri; East St. Louis, Illinois; and Greater 
Kansas City 

(15) Montana District 

Montana 

(16) Southern California District 

California, exclusive of counties north of Santa 
Barbara and Kern Counties 
Dorothy R. Healey, chairman 
Ben Dobbs, executive secretary 

(17) Northern California District 

California, north of Kern and Santa Barbara 
Counties 

Albert J. ("Mickey") Lima, chairman 

(18) Northwest District 

Washington, Idaho, and Alaska- — -Burt Gale Nel- 
son, chairman 

(19) Oregon District 

Oregon — Burt Gale Nelson, chairman 

(20) Oklahoma-Arkansas District 

Oklahoma and Arkansas 

(21) Southern Region 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Virginia, and Texas — exclusive of its 17 western 
counties. 

Note. — For purposes of ready reference, numbers preceding the 
names of the districts in this exhibit correspond to the numbers on the 
map (Exhibit No. 8) indicating the district breakdown. 



584 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNamara, do you have any observations you 
wish to make about the district organization? 

Mr. McNamara. In many cases, as can be seen by glancing at 
the map, the district organization is the same as the state. Examples 
are: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, Wis- 
consin, and Oregon. Each is a district. 

Several districts are made up of one state, plus just part of another. 
The Illinois District, for example, is made up of all of that state 
(except the city of East St. Louis), plus a part of Iowa, the Davenport 
and Bettendorf area of Iowa. 

The Ohio District is composed of Ohio plus the panhandle section 
of West Virginia, that little narrow strip that runs up between the 
western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio borders. 

Some of the districts comprise several states. The New England 
District, for example, encompasses all the New England States with 
the exception of Connecticut, which is a separate district. 

The Northwest District takes in Washington, Idaho, and Alaska. 

The Southern Region is made up of 10 different states. 

In one case, we have a state carved up into two districts — Cali- 
fornia. There would appear to be two major reasons for this. One 
is the fact that, in number of party members, California ranks second 
only to New York State; and the other is the geography of the state. 
California is relatively narrow, but only in proportion to its length 
of approximately 1,000 miles, which necessitates the state being 
broken up into two separate districts for effective organizational and 
control purposes. 

In the past, the party has usually referred to its districts b}' number. 
Today, however, it refers to them by their geographical names, and 
they are numbered in these exhibits only for easy reference. 

Mr. Moulder. What are the Southern States referred to, there? 

Mr. McNamara. The Southern Region includes Alabama, Florida, 
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas — exclusive of its 17 western counties, and the State 
of Virginia. 

The Southern Region of the party is indicated by the number "21" 
on the map. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, Mr. McNamara, you have explained the struc- 
ture and nature of the party's organizational apparatus. Could you 
tell us briefly what the purpose of this rather involved organizational 
setup is? 

Mr. McNamara. Well, basically, the whole purpose of this rather 
involved structural setup is to provide a means by which the national 
leaders of the party can direct the activity of all party members along 
lines dictated by Moscow. It is to insure that decisions made on 
the national level of the party will be carried out by the party member 
on the grassroots or neighborhood level of this country. 

It can be seen from the chart depicting the party's structural setup 
that the party has actually created a large bureaucracy, over the 
years, in developing this structure. Generally speaking, on each 
organizational level you will find officials, various officials, of corre- 
sponding rank. There is, for example, a national chairman of the 
party. There is also a chairman for each of the 21 districts in the 
party, for many of the states, and for city and county units. There 
are also section chairmen and leaders, of course, in each club. 



Committee Exhibit No. 8 



COMMUNIST PARTY, U.S.A. 

DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONS 



THE UNITED STATES 




COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 585 

This same applies to inaiiy of the other units in the party, or other 
posts in tlie party, ratlier, such as those of executive secretary, or- 
ganization secretary, education director, and so on down the hue. 

I would also point out that the National Connnissions in many 
cases are duplicated on the state or district level, and in some cases 
in even lower-level units of the party. This means, as I stated before, 
that the party has created a very large bureaucracy within its ranks. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is this organization, as set up on the chart, permanent 
and unalterable? Are there any changes contemplated in it, or 
possible? 

]Mr. McNamara. Well, at the present time, there is considerable 
evidence that the party is not completely happy with this setup and 
that a major reorganization of the party is now under way. I will 
mention just a few items which tend to bear this out. 

The first one was made public before the party held its last con- 
vention in December 1959. An article was publislied in tlie November 
1959 issue of Party Ajfoirs, which is an inner party organ published 
by the Natioiuil Committee of the Communist Party and intended 
for the eyes of Communists only. 

The article was entitled "Improve Methods of Party Leadership," 
and was written by Jack Stachel, presently the party's national 
press director and a member of its National Executive Conmiittee 
and also its National Board. Stachel has been a top leader of the 
party for many years and is one of its "old Bolsheviks." 

The article reads in part as follows: 

In order to carry out today's Party tasks with our present membership and 
resources, it is necessary to carry through a policy of concentration in every 
aspect of our work, to learn how best to utilize our membership, our leading person- 
nel, our finances, etc. It is necessary to simplify the Party organization and 
apparatus. It is certainly not correct, even in the largest districts, with the 
present relatively small membership, to have the kind of setup that was appro- 
priate when the membership was many times as large. Very often all the forces 
are busy manning the gradation of committees and have little time left for mass 
work. This also leads to delay in transmitting decisions from the Party com- 
mittees to the membership. Each Party organization should examine this 
question with the view to simplifying cumbersome apparatus, establishing more 
direct contact between leadership and membership and the involvement of all 
the leading personnel in executing as well as making decisions. 

I believe there is no doubt that this was a planted article, published 
in advance of the party convention witli the purpose of preparing the 
party members for certain organizational changes that the party 
leadership had decided would be made in the party structm-e. 

Mr. NiTTLE. What other evidence of party reorganization have 
you found? 

Mr. McNamara. On the same lines, a draft resolution on party 
organization liad been prepared in advance of tlie 17th National 
Convention. This resolution was circulated among the party units 
and adopted at the convention, with no more than a few minor changes 
in wording. It was then published in the March 1960 issue of Political 
Affairs, to impress party members both with its importance and its 
content. 

Also on September 29, 1960, the National Executive Committee of 
the party met and adopted a number of motions entitled "Some New 
Aspects of Party Organization." 

Now, one of the results of these directives — the Stachel article, 
the convention resolution, and the National Executive Committee 



586 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

motion — was seen in The Worker of Sunday, December 11, 1960, 
page 12, in an article which appeared under the headUne "State 
Communists Map Stronger Mass Work." This article concerned 
a meeting of the full New York State Committee of the Communist 
Party, and the opening paragraph reads as follows: 

Important steps were taken last week-end to streamline the N.Y. State organi- 
zation of the Communist Party and also to strengthen its mass work in a number 
of fields. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the National Execu- 
tive Committee Sept. 29, 1960, document and the Dec. 11, 1960, 
Worker article be introduced as Committee Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10, 
respectively? 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection Committee Exhibits Nos. 9 and 
10, referred to by counsel, will be made a part of the record. 

(Documents marked "Committee Exliibits Nos. 9 and 10," respec- 
tively, and retained in committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNamara, what is the significance of these 
developments? 

Mr. McNamara. In summary, it can be said that a reorganization 
of the party has been planned and is being carried out. Stud}^ and 
analysis of these documents reveal that this reorganization consists 
primarily of eliminating intermediate administrative and control 
groups in the party, those intervening between the clubs — ^the basic, 
lowest-level units — and the district or state organizations. 

The purpose here is to get rid of duplication, red tape, and some of 
the party's unnecessary bureaucracy, to free the intermediate-level 
leaders for work with the clubs, the rank-and-file people in the party. 

As much as possible, the party wants to increase its contacts between 
the club members, the club miits, and its national, district, and state 
leaders. 

It is also trying to free the clubs from a lot of the administrative 
detail that has been bogging them down as a result of the creation of 
these intermediate units and their structural apparatus, and to strip 
the clubs down for more effective action on the community and local 
level. 

In place of the former sections, the city and county units in the 
party, it is setting up central bodies, which are being created on the 
same general level. These bodies, however, instead of being made up 
of administrators and bureaucrats, are made up of representatives 
from the clubs. 

It is planned to have these groups meet on a regular basis with 
national party leaders and district-level leaders. 

As far as the clubs themselves are concerned, emphasis is being 
placed upon building up the community clubs, particularly in "work- 
ing class" neighborhoods. 

The party is also emphasizing the creation of shop clubs, rather than 
industrial clubs. It is trying, largely, to get rid of the industrial club 
and shift their members to the community or neighborhood club, 
where the party feels these people can do more effective work, es- 
pecially in the field of political activity. 

It believes tliat if it concentrates more on reaching the workers in 
tiioir homes on community and neigliborhood problems, it will have a 
better chance of achieving what has been one of its major objectives 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 587 

for a considerable niiinber of jaws now, and that is the creation of a 
third party in this country. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of the 
witness at this moment and respectfully request that he be permitted 
to step aside while we interrogate another witness, and then it is 
expected that Mr, McNamara will resume his testimony. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess for approxi- 
mately 5 minutes. 

(At this point there was a short recess.) 

Mr. Moulder. Are you ready to proceed? The committee will be 
in order. 

After conferring with my colleagues on the committee, the Chair 
announces that the hearings will continue tomorrow and Wednesday 
and will be held in the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee 
hearing room in the New House Office Building, Room 1334. 

Are you ready to call your next witness? 

Mr. Nittle. Yes. Leon Nelson. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which 
you are about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF LEON NELSON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

MICHAEL B. STANDARD 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Nelson, will you, for the purposes of the record, 
please state your full name? 

Mr. Nelson. Leon Nelson. 

Mr. Nittle. I see that you are represented by counsel. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Would counsel kindly identify himself? 

Mr. Standard. Yes. Michael B. Standard, 25 Broad Street, New 
York City. 

Mr. Nittle. Are you appearing here today, Mr. Nelson, in response 
to a subpena served upon you by the Committee on Un-American 
Activities? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Nittle. Will you tell us where you live? 

Mr. Nelson. My address is 2345 East First Street, Brooklyn, 
New York. 

Mr. Nittle. What is your present occupation? 

Mr. Nelson. I must respectfully decline to answer that question 
on the grounds of the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Are you presently employed by the Communist Party 
of the United States in any official capacity? 

Mr. Nelson. Once again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer 
that question, as I stated previously. 

Mr. Nittle. Is it correct to say, Mr. Nelson, that you have been 
active in the Communist Party of the United States for quite a number 
of years, and as a functionary in that party? 

Mr. Nelson. I must once again, sir, decline, respectfully, to answer 
that question on the grounds that I stated previously. 

Mr. Nittle. Were you associated with the Young Communist 
League in New York City in 1937? 



588 COMIVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Nelson. I am sorry to continue giving the same answers I 
gave before, but I must respectfully decline to answer that, too, as 
I have stated previously. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Nelson, I hand you a reproduction of the cover 
page and page 41 of the Year Book of the Young Communist League 
of America for the year 1937, and ask you whether you are the Leon 
Nelson represented here as sending greetings to the League? 

Mr. Moulder. Have the record show that the witness is examining 
the document referred to by counsel. 

Mr. Nelson. I must once again, sir, respectfully decline to answer 
that question, based on my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the document be intro- 
duced into the record as Nelson Exhibit No. 1. 

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Nelson Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Nittle. I show you now a reproduction of an article from the 
Daily Worker, dated August 5, 1940, wliich contains a statement to the 
effect that in the 1940 New York electoral campaign, a Leon Nelson 
was a candidate on the Communist Party ticket for the office of 
Assemblyman from Kings County, New York, Second Assembly 
District. 

Is this a correct report of the fact? 

Mr. Moulder. Let the record show that the witness is examining 
the newspaper article referred to by counsel. 

Mr. Nelson. Once more I respectfully decline to answer the 
question, based on my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Daily Worker just 
referred to be introduced in the record of these hearings as Nelson 
Exliibit No. 2. 

Mr. Moulder. That part of the Daily Worker referred to, j^ou 
mean? 

Mr. Nittle. Yes, that part of the paper to which I referred. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it uill be admitted. 

(Document marked "Nelson Exhibit No. 2" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Nelson, the Daily Worker of July 18, 1947, 
identified you as an organizer for the Williamsbm'g Section of the 
Communist Party in Brooklyn, New York. I hand you a reproduc- 
tion of this article in the Daily Worker and ask whether you, in fact, 
served in that capacity. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Moulder. Let the record show that counsel handed the 
document referred to, to the witness and the witness examined the 
document. 

Mr. Nelson. Once more, sir, I respectfully decline to answer that 
question, based upon my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. Air. Chairnuin, 1 ask that tlie document referred to 
be introduced in the record as Nelson Exhibit No. 3. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Nelson Exhibit No. 3" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Nittle. On May 6, 1955, the committee received sworn testi- 
mony from Mildred Blauvelt. Mrs. Blauvelt in 1950 was an under- 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 589 

cover agent, working- witiiin the Coinmunisl Party on behalf of the 
New York City Police Department. She testified that she knew you 
to be functioning in the year 1950 as labor director of the Brooklyn 
Conununist Parly. Was she correct in her testimony? 

Mr. Nelsom. Based upon my privileges of the fifth amendment, I 
must respectfully decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt by saying at this time that quite 
often witnesses who have been named by other people appearing 
before this committee as members of the Communist Party, have com- 
plained that they never have had the opportunity to refute or deny 
the identification. 

You are now being given the opportunity to deny the statement 
made by counsel to the effect that another witness said you were a 
member of the Communist Party. Do you care to deny that at this 
time? 

Mr. Nelson. I once again, sir, will answer the way I have answered 
previously and I assert my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Nelson, in the course of your long service in the 
Communist Party, in a functionary capacity, did you not attain the 
position of participating in the top councils of the national party 
organization? 

Mr. Nelson. I must once again assert my privileges under the 
fifth amendment not to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Were you, as of June 1956, the organizational secre- 
tary of the New York State party organization? 

Mr. Nelson. Again, sir, I assert my privileges under the fifth 
amendment and respectfully decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Nittle. Is not the New York State Communist Party organi- 
zation the largest of all of the party organizations in the various state 
and district subdivisions of the national party apparatus? 

Mr. Nelson. I cannot answer that question, sir, based upon my 
privileges under the fifth amendment and I respectfully decline to 
answer that. 

Mr. Nittle. I now show you a reproduction of an article that ap- 
peared in the Daily Worker under date of June 29, 1956. This article 
reported that a regular meeting of the National Committee of the 
Communist Party of the United States had been held on June 22, 23, 
and 24, 1956, at the national offices of the party in New York City. 
The Daily Worker account states, and I quote: 

The third day was devoted to an examination of party organization questions. 
A report was given by Leon Nelson, New York state organizational secretary, 
dealing with problems of party organization in New York. * * * The report of 
Nelson will be pubUshed shortly in the party's national discussion bulletin. 

Are you the Leon Nelson referred to in that article? 

Mr. Nelson. Once again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer 
that question, asserting my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Daily Worker article 
referred to be introduced as Nelson Exhibit No. 4 and made a part of 
the printed record. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Nelson Exhibit No. 4." See Appendix, 
pp. 713, 714.) 

Mr. Nittle. As a participant in the deliberations of the National 
Committee of the Communist Party, as organizational secretary of 



590 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

tlie important New York State party organization, you were aware, 
were you not, of the fierce struggles within the party at that time 
over the proper role of the party and the validity of its organizational 
principles? 

Mr. Nelson. Once more, sir, I refuse to answer that question, 
asserting ni}^ privileges under the fifth amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The article refers to a discussion, on the second day, 
of a draft statement on questions relating to the special report of 
Khrushchev. The article states: 

After considerable discussion, a committee was elected to edit the draft and 
incorporate suggestions made at the meeting. 

Do you recollect the discussions relating to the report of 
Khrushchev? 

Mr. Nelson. Once more, sir, I must decline to answer that ques- 
tion, asserting my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did not the discussion relate to the issue whether the 
party organization in the United States would follow the leadership 
of Khrushchev in the Soviet Union? 

Mr. Nelson. Is that a question? I didn't get that. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would you repeat the question? 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Nelson. Once again my answer would be the same as I have 
given to the previous question, asserting my privileges under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Nelson, you were yourself deeply involved in this 
internal party conflict which was created by Khrushchev's de- 
Stalinization speech before the 20th Soviet Communist Party Con- 
gress in February of 1956, were you not? 

Mr. Nelson. I must respectfully decline to answer that question 
as well, asserting my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, in your report to the National Committee of 
the Communist Party in June of 1956, did you not declare that there 
was a need for an agonizing reappraisal of the party's work? Did 
you not also state that it was your opinion that the 20th Congress 
of the wSoviet Communist Party and the revelations regarding Stalin 
sharply aggravated a bad situation and — I am quoting your article — 
"added a moral crisis in the Party"? 

Mr. Nelson. Is that the close of the question? 

Mr. Nittle. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. I once more respectfully decline to answer that 
question, asserting my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I hand you a reproduction of an article which ap- 
peared in Party Voice, a bulletin of the New York State party organiza- 
tion intended only for Communists, under date of July 1956, pages 
3 to 8 inclusive. 

Mr. Moulder. Have the record show that the document was 
handed to the witness. 

Mr. Nittle. The article is headed, "The Status of Our Party," 
and there is an editorial note whicli explains that the article actually 
represents excerpts from a "report by the State organizational 
secretary on the New York State organization, given to the National 
Committee." Would 3^ou look over this document and confirm 
whether or not this accurately represents a part of your remarks 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 591 

delivered before the National Coniiiiittee of the Cominunist Party 
on June 24, 1956? 

Mr. Nelson. Asserting my privileges under the fifth amendment, 
sir, I must respectfully decline to answer that question. 

^Ir. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the document be marked 
Nelson Exliibit No. 5 and made a part of the printed record of the 
hearings. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Nelson Exhibit No. 5." See Appendix, pp. 
715-724.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Nelson, your report expresses concern over past 
losses in the Connnunist Party membership and the need "to anchor 
our membership in the trade union and the mass movement" in the 
United States. In the language you used and to which I have just 
referred, your motives in preparing this report were those of a loyal 
Communist interested in building the strength of the party in this 
country and its influence among non-Communists, were they not? 

Mr. Nelson. I respectfully decline to answer that question as well, 
as I have stated to the previous question, asserting my privilege 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. This article further indicates that you appeared to 
offer a number of criticisms of the existing Connnunist Party practices 
and you make a number of suggested changes. I would like to call 
your attention to a number of statements which were contained in 
your report to the National Conunittee of the Connnunist Party. 
You posed these questions in your report : 

a. Is it correct and do we need a monolithic Party today? 

b. Should our Party affairs be governed by democratic centralism? 

And you say further : 

I believe these are valid and legitimate questions for examination. 

Now, would you tell us what "monolithic Party" and "democratic 
centralism" signify in terms of actual party practices? 

Mr. Nelson. I assert my privilege under the fifth amendment, sir, 
to respectfully not answer that question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Of course, in your report to the National Committee, 
which appears to be incorporated in the article previously referred to 
as the report of the State organizational secretary, in which capacity 
you served at that time, you seem to have answered your own ques- 
tions, the questions you raised and which I just quoted, by declaring 
that in your judgment, such concepts were "not synonymous with 
democratic form." You also declared tliat the concepts for building 
an American Marxist Connnunist Party were taken "lock, stock and 
barrel" from Lenin. 

Would you amplify these statements for the benefit of the com- 
mittee? 

Mr. Nelson. I must decline to answer that question, sir, asserting 
my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In this article, you complain to the National Com- 
mittee that, and I quote again from that article : 

Monolithic structure for a party organization clashes with democratic practices. 
For example, when a higher body concludes on some question of policy and then 
prepares to discuss such a policy with a lower body, the principle objective must 
be that through such discussions such policy questions would be either enriched, 



592 COIVIMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

modified or changed. But this has not been the practice of relationships of higher 
bodies to lower bodies in the Party. 

You, in fact, were objecting, were you not, to the authoritarian 
nature of the party as you have known it? 

Mr. Nex,son. Once more, I dechne to answer that question, sir, 
asserting my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You suggest further in this article that the party — 
meaning the Communist Party — begin "living by our adopted con- 
stitution," which you also admit requires revision, "to provide 
greater guarantees for democratic practices in our Party." 

You then state — and I quote again from your article — "We did 
not abide by the Constitution." 

May I interpolate; you are referring there to the constitution of 
the Communist Party, and not to the Constitution of the United 
States, is that right? 

IMr. NBLSoisr. Is that a question, sir? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Your question is assuming that he made the state- 
ment, and I think that it should be preceded by asking if he made the 
statements which you have read. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The witness has pleaded the fifth amendment to 
questions relating to his authorship of this statement. I will conclude 
the statement, if the chairman pleases. I quote from the article: 

We did not abide by the Constitution in the impermissible way in which the 
membership dues a few years ago were increased in the most unilateral, auto- 
cratic method, or the way people are put into posts and never elected by the 
membership, and a hundred and one other instances of lack of democratic pro- 
cedure in our Party. 

Mr. Nelson, the question is: Would you provide the conmiittee 
with "other instances" which demonstrated the autocratic nature of 
the party organization? 

Mr. Nelson. Once more, sir, I assert my privileges under the fifth 
amendment to decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Nittle. Now, in this article, among the mistakes — and "mis- 
takes" is your quote — which you attribute to the party in the past is 
the fact, regarding which you undoubtedly had personal knowledge, 
that "Many, many hundreds were expelled unjustly, thereby also 
weakening confidence of thousands who remained in the Party." 

Now, would you give us an illustration of this unjust expulsion 
procedure to which you referred? 

Mr. Nelson. My answer would be the same as T have given to the 
previous question, that is, I respectfully decline to answer, asserting 
my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Further, you advocated to the National Committee, 
did you not, changes in the form and structure of the part}'^ to make it 
a "democratic" organization? 

Mr. Nelson. My answer would be the same as I have given to the 
previous question, asserting my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You also proposed, did you not, that the Communist 
Party in this country — and I quote again from your article — "cast 
off to positions of greater independence of policy and public expression 
from positions we have lield in tlie past in regard to our relationship 
to the Soviet Union and otlier lauds of Socialism." 

The "new position," which 3^ou urged, "should be along the lines of 
those expressed first by the Daily Worker.^' 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 593 

You also claiincd, did you not, that "This can go a long way towards 
destrojang the false charge of foreign agents' hurled at our Party since 
its very inception." 

Did you not advocate those changes? 

Mr. Nelson. Sir, I must once again respectfully decline to answer 
that question, asserting my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, since you made this report of June 1956, you are 
well aware, are you not, that the Daily Worker''s position, which you 
defended, has since been repudiated by the Communist leadership as 
revisionist or, in the Communist Party jargon, as "right deviation- 
ist" and that the editor of the Daily Worker, John Gates, who advo- 
cated this position which you seem to advocate, resigned his position 
as editor of the Daily Worker in January of 1958 and quit the Com- 
munist movement in disgust. Is that not correct? 

Mr. Nelson. 1 didn't get the question that was directed at me. 
That is a general statement. Could you repeat the question and I 
will try to answer? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let me rephrase it this way: You are aware that the 
position which you advocated, was the position which John Gates 
advocated at that tune? 

Mr. Nelson. I must respectfully, once again, refuse to answer that 
question based upon my privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Nelson, were you not aware, 
at the time you made your argument in favor of a more democratic 
arrangement within tlie Connnimist Party, that your position was con- 
trary to party ideology as laid down by Lenin and other Connnunist 
theorists? 

Mr. Nelson. I once again decline to answer that question on the 
same grounds as stated previously. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would it not be correct to refer to your position, 
which seeks to introduce democratic debate and discussion on party 
polic.v within the ranks, as "opportunism" in Communist Party 
jargon? 

Mr. Nelson. Once again, I decline to answer that question on the 
same grounds as stated on the previous question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you aware that Lenin, in his article, "One 
Step Forward, Two Steps Back," referred to the position which you 
advocate, namely, a diffuse and loose party organization, as the 
position of "opportunists"; that the advocacy of a position of "pro- 
ceeding from below," rather than taking orders from the top, was 
described by him as an expression of the "mentality of the bourgeois 
intellectual"? ^ 

Were you being mfluenced by your democratic environment in the 
United States, in making your suggestions to the party that it deviate 
from what appeared to be Leninist policy? 

Mr. Nelson. Once again I decline to answer that question on the 
same grounds as stated previously. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you now aware that in the manifesto of 81 
Communist parties, which was issued in December 1960 at Moscow, 
there is a direction that the party will not tolerate what Lenin referred 
to as opportunism? The manifesto contains this statement: 

Revisionism, right-wing opportunism, which mirrors the bourgeois ideology 
in theory and practice, distorts Marxism-Leninism, emasculates its revolutionary 
essence * * *. 



iHCUA, Facts on Communism ,Vol. 1, p. 78 (Dec. 1959), House Doc. 336, 86th Cong. 



594 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Are you aware of this position on the subject taken by the World 
Communist Movement under Moscow's leadership? 

Mr. Nelson. I must decline to answer that question and assert my 
privileges as I stated before. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You were in attendance at the party's 16th National 
Convention, which was held in New York City, February 9 to 12, 
1957, were you not? 

Mr. Nelson. I must once again decline to answer that question, 
sir, on the same grounds as stated previouslj^. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is it correct to say that that convention was stale- 
mated between various factions and that the party did not settle do'wn 
until the follo\ving year of 1958, when the power struggle was won 
by those who opposed your particular view? 

Mr. Nelson. Was that a question? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. I did not realize it was a question. I am sorry. 
Could I have it repeated, please? 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Nelson. I am sorry, but once more I must decline to answer 
that question, asserting my privileges, as I have stated before. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, you are no longer organizational secretary of the 
New York State party organization; is that correct? 

Mr. Nelson. I cannot answer that question, asserting my privi- 
leges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Was not, in fact, your position taken over by George 
Walsh Watt in an election which was announced in the Daily Worker 
of June 7, 1957? 

Mr. Nelson. I must refuse to answer that question, sir, asserting 
my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In this same election. New York State party chairman, 
George Blake Charney, was demoted to vice cliairman, and Benja- 
min J. Davis was installed as the new chairman of this important New 
York State party organization. Is that not correct? 

Mr. Nelson. Once again, I assert my privilege not to answer that 
question on the basis as I stated before. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, the report in the Daily Worker, Friday, June 7, 
1957, fm-ther states that there were no opposing candidates and all 
officers were elected by acclamation. 

Did you offer yourself as a candidate in tliat election? 

Mr. Nelson. I must once again decline to answer that question, 
sir, asserting my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTr;E. Why didn't you offer yourself as a candidate in that 
election for organizational secretary, tlie position you liad held up to 
that point? 

Mr. Nelson. My answer is the same to that as I gave to the pre- 
vious question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Was your candidacy not recognized, in fact, because 
of the report to the National Committee that you rendered in June 
of 1956? 

Mr. Nelson. I decline to answer that question, sir, asserting my 
privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would you tell us just how the Communist Party 
conducted that election? 

Air. Nelson. My answer is the same as I have given to the previous 
question. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 595 

Mr. NiTTLE. Wore voii disciplinocl in any way or censured by the 
party because of the apparent "opportunist" views of party organiza- 
tion taken by you? 

Mr. Nelson. JMy answer is the same as to the previous question, 
asserting my privilege under the fifth amendment, and I decHne to 
answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you completely stripped of all functionary 
positions in the Connnunist Party because of jour effort to introduce 
more democratic procedures into it? 

Mr. Nelson. Once more I assert my privilege not to answer any 
questions, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Benjamin Davis, who was installed as chairman in that 
1957 election, was a very vigorous advocate, along with William Z. 
Foster, of a tightly disciplined, monolithic party organization, sub- 
servient and obedient to the Soviet Communist Party, was he not? 

Mr. Nelson. I cannot answer that question, sir, asserting my 
privileges, as I have stated previously. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Daihj Worker article 
of Friday, June 7, 1957, be marked Nelson Exhibit No. 6 and made a 
part of the printed record. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
(Document marked "Nelson Exhibit No. 6." See Appendix, 
pp. 725, 726.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, according to the New York Times report of 
March 8, 1958, George Blake Charney, whose public statements on 
the need for party reform are similar to your own, and other officers 
resigned their posts in the New York State organization of the party, 
in protest against the pro-Soviet line adopted by the National Com- 
mittee in February of 1958 and subsequently endorsed by the New 
York State organization under Benjamin Davis' leadership. That is 
the report of the New York Times. 
Do you agree with that report? 

Mr. Nelson. Once again, I decline to answer that question, sir, 
asserting my privileges as I stated previously. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The Worker of Sunday, March 9, 1958, also carried a 
report relating to the subject matter of the previous question and 
contained the statement that three administrative officers of the state 
committee submitted their resignations from the state staff and ex- 
ecutive board: George Blake Charney relinquished his post as execu- 
tive secretary; George Watt, as organization secretary; and William 
Lawrence, as treasurer. It refers then to a joint statement, read by 
Charney, who declared that their fundamental differences ^vith the 
policy direction of the national and state committees, and their belief 
that these bodies had reversed the decisions of last year's national 
convention, made it impossible for them to function effectively as 
state officers. 

Is that a correct report? 

Mr. Nelson. I must once again decline to answer that question, 
sir, asserting my privileges as I have stated previously. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chaimian, I ask that the items referred to in the 
Neio York Times and The Worker be marked Nelson Exhibits Nos. 7 
and 8, respectively, and made a part of the printed record. 

Mr. Moulder. The docmiients referred to by counsel will be 
admitted as part of the record. 



596 coM]vnj]sriST party of the united states 

(Documents marked "Nelson Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8," respectively. 
See Appendix, pp. 727 and 728, 729.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you presently a member of the Communist Party 
of the United States? 

Mr. Nelson. I must decline to answer that question, too, asserting 
my privileges as I have stated previously. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you regard the present organization of the Com- 
munist Party, to borrow your ex-pressions, as autocratic, monolithic, 
and pro-Soviet? 

Mr. Nelson. I decline to answer that question as well, sir, on the 
same grounds as stated previously. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness has not answered any questions except 
as to his name. 

I want to ask you one question. Do you approve of the resumption 
of the nuclear testing which Khrushchev has been conducting in the 
Soviet Union? 

Mr. Nelson. I would like to consult my counsel for that. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. I must decline to answer that question as well, sir, 
asserting my privileges. 

Air. Moulder. Are there any questions? 

Mr. Bruce. Mr. Nelson, at this moment, are you under the 
discipline of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Nelson. I respectfully decline to answer that question, sir, 
asserting my privileges. 

Air. AIouLDER. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. AIcNamara 
resume his testimony. 

Air. Moulder. The record will show Air. AIcNamara recalled. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS J. McNAMARA— Resumed 

Air. Nittle. Mr. McNamara, you have described the structural 
framework of the Communist Party of the United States. Will 3^ou 
now explain how the party actually operates on the basis of this 
organizational structure? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. 

Anyone who looks no deeper into the party than the constitution, 
which has been introduced as an exhibit in these hearings, and the 
organizational structure, which has been portrayed in charts intro- 
duced in the hearings, might be inclined to accept the party's claim 
that it is simply another legitimate, democratic, political organization 
functioning in the United States. However, if we stop to consider 
the fact that the apparatus portrayed in these exhibits is actually 
copied from the party organization established by Lenin before his 
successful overthi'ow of the democratic regime in Russia in 1917, then 
it immediately becomes apparent that the party is anj^tliing but an 
American democratic political group. 

Air. Nittle. What are the basic features of this Lenin type of 
organization? 

Air. McNamara. First of all, I would point out that tliis structure, 
which has been portrayed in the exhibits, is primarily a secret or under- 
ground apparatus. The identity of the membership and all but a 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 597 

small part of the leadership of the Coininunist Party has always been 
concealed l)y the party. Tliis secrecy, of course, is obviously necessary 
to a conspiratorial organization which is seeldng the overthrow of 
lawfully constituted government by unconstitutional means. 

Just for comparison: Anyone could call any newspaper in this 
country today and ask for the leadership of the Republican Party or 
the Democratic Party, or you could call the parties themselves, and 
you would have no trouble in getting the names of all of the leaders 
and the party setup. However, you cannot call the Communist 
Party and obtain the information that has already been introduced 
in this hearii:ig on its organizational setup, its leadership, the members 
of the National Committee or the National Executive Committee and 
the National Board, and the names of its district leaders, and so on. 
To state it truthfully, for the most part, these names have been 
introduced in these hearings only through breaches m party security. 
It takes investigation and diggmg and leaks in the party's ranks to 
obtain much of this information. 

Now, bearing in mind the basic distinction between an open and 
legitimate party seeking to obtain certain objectives through constitu- 
tional processes and a secret and conspiratorial force with revolutionary 
aims, one can better understand the Communist Party and how it 
operates as a paramilitary organization. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Can you illustrate that? 

Mr. McNamara. This can be illustrated, and I wiU do so, by state- 
ments made by Communist Party members themselves. By way of 
background, before introducing these statements, however, I would 
lilve to point out that Khrushchev's attack on Stalin in 1956, at the 
20th Soviet Party Congress, had a shock effect on the Communist 
Party in this country. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You have reference to Khrushchev's revelations at 
the 20th Soviet Communist Party Congress in February of that year? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. Khrushchev at this time was making his 
bid for the power, the complete power, that Stalin had maintained 
over the Soviet Union and the entire World Communist Movement. 
By attacking Stalin, he created consternation in many Communist 
parties. He condemned the policies and practices of the man whom 
Communists throughout the world had followed unquestioningly for 
approximately 30 years. It is apparent that Khrushchev could not 
have foreseen aU of the consequences of his de-Stalinization speech, 
in which he denounced his predecessor as an egotistical, brutal tyrant, 
guilty of the murder of thousands of innocent Russians — ^Communists 
as well as non-Communists. 

One of the effects of his speech was that in the Communist parties 
throughout the world there were defections of many members; in some 
cases, other party members and leaders called for the creation of inde- 
pendent national Communist parties; and still others, taking their cue 
from Khrushchev himself, simply apologized for the past mistakes and 
supported Khrushchev, the new Czar in the Kremlin. 

By 1957, Klnushchev had attained supreme power in the Soviet 
Union and, during that year, sought to repair the damage that he 
himself had done to the Soviet party's control, its authority and 
leadership, over parties m all other nations of the world. As will 
be demonstrated later in these hearings, this included intervention 

83743— 62— pt. 1 i 



598 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

in the affairs of the United States Communist Party and, as a result 
of it, abject compHance with his orders by United States Communists. 

For a short period, however, U.S. Communists with ideas of a new 
independence of Soviet leadership, as well as Communists who opposed 
any such change, spoke theu- minds with amazing frankness, in viola- 
tion of all securitj^ procedures, in the Communist journals of this 
country. In doing so, they created a devastating indictment of the 
party. Today they would like to erase the statements they made 
from the record, I am sure, because, for the most part, the people 
who made them have capitulated to the Ivremlin. They have sub- 
jected themselves, in spite of their disagreement with what w^as being 
done, to the will of Moscow. Today I am sure that they A\ish that 
some of the things the}' said had never been said, or at least had 
never been made a matter of public record. 

Mr. NiTTLE. John Gates, formerly editor of the Daily Worker, 
played a prominent role in this controversy, did he not? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, and as editor in chief of the Daily Worker, 
he allowed the pages of this principal and official organ of the United 
States Communist Party to reflect many innerparty developments, 
discussions, and disagreements with a candor that had not been seen 
in the American Communist movement since the 1920's. As pre- 
viously pointed out, he resigned from The Worker and the Communist 
Party in January of 1958. 

To illustrate the franlmess of the Communist statements made dur- 
ing this period, I would like to quote one by John Gates himself in 
the Commimist magazine Political Affairs, issue of November 1956, 
in an article entitled "Time for a Change." In this article, Gates 
made the following statement: 

We are not a political party as the American people understand it. Political 
parties in America are electoral organizations primarily. We must admit we 
are not that today if we are honest with ourselves. 

This was the statement of a man who had, for a good many years, 
been editor of the party's official organ. 

Then there was another Communist, identified only as "Gene P.," 
who made the following statement on page 10 of the October 1956 
issue of Party Voice, which states on its cover that it is "A publica- 
tion" — I am sorry — "A Bulletin Issued by the N.Y. State Communist 
Party." He said — 

the idea of a Party is not a true description of our role past or present and will 
probably not be true in the future. In this country a political party engages in 
electoral struggles in the main. We have participated in the electoral scene to 
a negligible extent. We are not primarily an electoral organization and often 
when we chose to enter the political lists we did so under euphemisms: People's 
Party, etc. Our electoral intentions differ considerably from those of most 
political parties. To most Americans the title Party has a definite meaning. 
To us it has not had that meaning. 



-'o* 



Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the part}' documents be 
introduced as Committee Exhibits Nos. 11 and 12, respectively, and 
filed in the committee records. 

Mr. Tuck (presiding). Unless there is objection, and the Chair 
hears none, it is so ordered. 

(Documents marked "Committee Exhibits Nos. 11 and 12," re- 
spectively, and retained in committee files.) 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 599 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would you, based upon the evidence supplied by the 
Coinniunists themselves, show us by which organizational principle 
the Communist Party operates? 

Mr. McNamara. As I stated before, the Comnmnist Party in this 
country is patterned on Lenin's party organization which was set up 
in prerevolutionary Russia. This fact was actually a source of 
complaint in the Communist press during the period I have referred 
to. One Conmiunist named Don Amter, writing in Party Voice for 
November 1956, observed that, "Our party has based itself on the 
same model for 37 years" and that "a party based on a model Lenin 
developed for that revolutionary situation is incorrect for us." 

Another Communist, writing m Party Voice for June of 1956 under 
the initials "B. S.," noted that Lenm's rules for a Communist Party 
organization had a "war-military character." 

John Gates in his article in Political Affairs, in November of 1956, 
which I have just quoted from, denounced the Communist Party 
organization as a "semi-military type of organization," and for doing 
so he was roundl}^ denounced by the late William Z. Foster, the 
party's national chairman for many years, who was an unwavering 
supporter of the Lenin type of party. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I request that the Don Amter state- 
ment in the Party Voice publication dated November 1956 be desig- 
nated Committee Exhibit No. 13 and filed as a part of the record. 

Mr. Tuck. Unless there is objection, and the Chair hears none, it 
is so ordered. 

(Docmnent marked "Committee Exhibit No. 13" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Then, Mr. McNamara, it appears that the Communist 
Party's plethora of regional and local subdivisions are chiefly channels 
or chauis of command from the top. Is that correct? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. All of these organizational units 
which are portrayed in the charts, which depict its overall setup, 
might be compared to the various chains of command in a military 
organization, an army. You would have your comparable division, 
and also regimental, battalion, company, and so forth, headquarters. 
The difference is that the Connnunist Party is not purely a military 
organization, but rather a paramilitary organization, established to 
conduct class warfare, rather than warfare on purely military lines. 

There are two basic Communist party prmciples that enable the 
party to enforce this chain of command right from the top down to 
the lowest level. They are referred to or known as "democratic 
centralism" and "monolithic unity." 

Communist propaganda, for the benefit of non-Communists, claims 
that democratic centralism actually enables party members to decide 
policy, through the media of the various party subdivisions below the 
national level; that members are bound b}^ decisions which emanate 
from above but this is, nevertheless, a truly democratic process because 
the decisions are all based on majority views that have actually 
flowed up from the lower ranking members of the party. 

Actually, however, democratic centralism, as practiced in the Soviet 
Union and in the Communist Party of the United States, has meant 
only a one-way channel of command, emanating from the top of the 
Communist Party hierarchy, the National Executive Committee and 
the National Committee, and based on decisions reached by them 



600 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

with rare consultation with lower-level functionaries in the party, 
and much less with the mass membership or rank-and-file members. 
All party members are required to adhere to the decisions made by 
the top-level national leaders. They are also required to suppress 
any dissenting A-iews, according to the equally important prmciple 
of monolithic unity. 

There is no question about the fact that these principles, this in- 
sistence that the entire party membership always pursue identical 
policies and propaganda lines, increase the effectiveness of the party 
organization. However, to enforce this undemocratic method of oper- 
ation, a rigid disciplinary mechanism operates within the party. This 
is the National Review Commission, which I referred to before in 
explaining the organizational setup of the party. Review commis- 
sions operate on a state as well as a national level, and party mem- 
bers are kept in line by the threat of disciplinary action conducted 
by this organization, such as removal from party office, public censure,^ 
or expulsion from the party itself. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The Communist Party, then, has no use in its own 
organization for the democratic processes which its propaganda pre- 
tends to champion? 

Mr. McNamara. We know it hasn't, and this has been stated on a 
considerable number of occasions by Communist Party members 
themselves, particularly during this period that I referred to earlier, of 
1956 and 1957. 

One Communist writing in Party Voice of June 1956, under the name 
of "Robert Mann," in an article entitled "Toward An American Form," 
described this basic conflict between what the party preaches and what 
it actually practices. Mann said he had joined the party in his late 
teens, at the height of the depression of the 1930's. Then he made 
this statement: 

But, although I had had no long experience in other organizations, trade union 
or otherwise, I quickly came to recognize a disparity between the methods of work, 
either already existing or fought for by Communists and others in organizations 
and unions and in the party organization itself. 

In the unemployed organization to which I belonged, I insisted on elections, 
minutes, motions, decisions, check-up, majority rule and parhamentary process. 
In my club, I became increasingly conscious of the absence of all this, but decided — 
not uniquely, no doubt — that it didn't matter because all Communists were of a 
single mind, anyhow, and it was a waste of time to bother with forms when we 
shared the higher democracy of common purpose. 

Then he asked this question: 

But what was at the root of these methods? 

And he provide the answer: 

I think the answer lies here. We swallowed whole the concept of a tightly 
disciplined, "chain-of-command" type of organization, adopted from abroad. 

Tliat means, no doubt, from the Soviet Union. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, 1 ask that this article from Party 
Voice of June 1956 be introduced as Committee Exhibit No. 14 
and made a part of the printed record. 

Mr. Tuck. Unless there is objection, and the Chair hears none, 
it is so ordered. 

(Do('ui)ient marked "Committee Exhibit No. 14." See Appendix 
pp. 730-734.) 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 601 

Mr. NiTTLE. Tlien it appears that the chief voice of the Communist 
Party's membership as it relates to the formation of party policy is 
limit ed to their j^articipation in the election of party officers? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true, but even here the party's practices 
differ from its stated policy. Democratic centralism, as destined in 
the Soviet constitution, allegedly included tlie eh^ction of all loading 
party bodies from the highest to the lowest. This is the onl}- "demo- 
cratic" element in the concept. Khrushchev's revelations in 1956 
regarding Stalin's brutal tyranny over the Soviet Communist Party 
members, as well as over the vast body of non-Communist Soviet 
citizens, however, confirmed that this Soviet constitutional ])roviso 
was a dead letter in tluit country and nothing but a sham. 

Similarly, the constitution of the United States Communist Party, 
which for many years frankly expressed the party's adherence to the 
]n-inciplo of democratic centralism, also always specifically provided 
that — and I am quoting what it said: 

Every member of the Party who is in good standing has the right to participate 
in the making of its poHcies and in the election of its leading committees, 
officers and delegates. 

That is in Article VI, Section 1. 
Again. Article VI, Section 2, states: 

All decisions of any club, committee or convention are made by a majority 
vote after thorough discussion * * *. 

Finally Article IV, Section 1, provides: 

The officers and executive committees of the clubs shall be elected by the 
membership by secret ballot annually. 

The United States party's constitution, like the Soviet, proclaimed 
democratic principles, the right of rank-and-file party members to 
take part in all important decisions, in the election of all oflBcers. 

Mr. NiTTLE. What is the actual practice of the Communist Party 
with respect to the election of its leaders? 

Mr. McNamara. In answer to that question, I will quote a party 
member, writing under the initial ''K" in the September 1956 issue 
of Party Voice. In an article entitled "Gaps Between Leaders and 
Members," this is what he said: 

In my nine years in the Party I have never participated in, nor witnessed, a 
secret ballot election of leaders, either to club positions, or other posts of respon- 
sibility, although Article VI, Section 1 of the Party Constitution clearly states 
this as a RIGHT of membership. I have questioned many oldtimers as well as 
new members regarding this. Invariably they express amazement that this sec- 
tion exists at all. * * * 

Not too long ago membership dues were increased. Resistance to this was 
widespread. Here again directives were issued to the cadre on lower levels. 
The question was placed in such a way that to object became tantamount to dis- 
loyalty to the Party. If this type of thing had occurred in our Union we would 
not have hesitated to raise questions of constitution, and properly so. How are 
we to justify this to non-Party people, let alone Party members? Surely this 
absence of a constitution in practice could hardly persuade them of the demo- 
cratic character of our Party. 

There is another example: The entire membership of a Brooklyn 
club of the Communist Party protested to Party Voice, and this is 
found in the issue of October of 1956, about the "insufficient member- 
ship participation in the determination and continuous evaluation of 
policy and tactics." 



602 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Among the six specific faults found with the party's operation and 
organization was the fact that: 

The top leadership has enjoyed an almost unlimited tenure in office having 
never been exposed to the healthful process of election. 

Perhaps the most graphic description of how the party organization 
actually functions has been provided by a Flatbush club of the party 
in Brooklyn, New York, whose resolution, complaining about its being 
in the "untenable situation of proclaiming one set of principles and 
living another," was published in the January 1957 issue of Party 
Voice. Here is what the club's resolution revealed with respect to 
the party's actual operations: 

We were in principle a party always in close contact with the peoj^le, collective 
in our way of work, monolithic and at the same time democratic in its operation, 
constantly checking and improving itself through criticism and self-criticism. 
In practice there was an almost total denial of the right, let alone the necessity, 
of criticism from below. Any attempts at such criticism, or expression of differ- 
ences with a proclamation, formulation of program, was almost always looked 
upon with suspicion, or denounced as anti-Party activity, factionalism, or, at 
the very best, immaturity. Programs, tactics, policies, theoretical formulations, 
tended to flow from the top down, with every obstacle and discouragement 
placed in the way of any movement in the opposite direction. The Party took 
on an almost military character, with stimulating club discussions and collective 
activities replaced by orders, mobilizations and directives. A group of little 
functionaries was encouraged to develop whose actual activity was that of 
"errand boys" and message carriers from higher bodies to lower, and who 
shuddered at any independent thinking from below. The leadership was supposed 
to be chosen by, and responsible to, the members, and close to them. In practice, 
election became a mere formality. Leaders were appointed, co-opted, announced 
to the membership, with discussion of their qualifications limited to closed com- 
mittees. The leaders were generally known to the members only through 
occasional articles or public speeches. Lower leaders were appointed to Party 
organizations of mass organizations, shifted from post to post, from community 
to community, from task to task, without any discussion with the people involved. 

Mr, NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the three articles to which 
Mr. McNamara referred, be introduced as Committee Exhibits Nos. 
15, 16, and 17, respectively, and that Exhibits 16 and 17 be made a 
part of tlie printed record of these hearings. 

Mr. Tuck. Unless there is objection, and the Chair hears none, it 
is so ordered. 

Mr. Bruce. Those are all party publications, are the}'-? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir. 

(Documents marked "Committee E.xhibits Nos. 15, 16, and 17," 
respectively. Exhibit No. 15 retained in committee files. See 
Appendix pp. 735-739 for Exhibit 16 and pp. 740, 741 for Exhibit 
No. 17.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNamara, do the national conventions of the 
Communist Party provide for any membership participation in the 
formulation of party policy and the selection of its leadership? 

Mr. McNamara. They provide just about as much as the rubber- 
stamp Soviet congresses presided over by Stalin and his successor, 
Khrushchev. The 16th National Convention of the United States 
Communist Party is a good example. It was lield in February 1957, 
at the height of the dispute among Communist leaders over the proper 
role or couj-se for the party in view of KIn-ushchev's denunciation of 
many of Stalin's past policies and actions. 

Now, implicit in Khrushchev's denunciation, of course, was the 
imputation of error on the part of every Connnunist party which had 
supported and justified Stalin's policies in the past. The intensive 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 603 

debate and disagreement witliin the ranks of the party on this issue, 
even at the very highest level, had been unmatched in party develop- 
ments since the days of the 1920's. 

Here is an example of how a rank-and-file party member felt about 
influencing, in any way, the developments at a party convention. 
One Connnunist wrote an article, which appeared in Party Voice in 
November 1956 under the name of "Dan Henry." This Dan Henry, 
whoever he was, was a complete supporter of the late Stalin and an 
opponent of all of those Communists who had switched their loyalty 
to Khrushchev, the new head of the Soviet Communist Party. 

Khrushchev was an opportunist, Henry said. He complained that 
members of the National Committee of the United States Conmiunist 
Party were admitting that there were differences of opinion within 
that body, but that they were refusing to let the rank-and-file party 
members know "what the disagreement was." He wrote, in part, 
as follows: 

The issue will be decided at the convention to be held in February and we know 
conventions and special meetings seldom originate new programs and policies 
but convene only to give force to policies and programs already agreed upon. The 
struggle around these programs and policies having taken place prior to the con- 
ventions and special meetings. 

As we have seen, the policy and program has already been adopted with the 
opposition having no opportunity to struggle against them. 

The issue will be decided also by the views of these who attend the convention 
and who can attend the convention. 

Who will attend the convention? First of all it will be mainly the American 
Party's leadership who are all basically agreed on the present policy and program 
with minor differences. 

Secondly, it will be the secondary functionaries of the Party who have achieved 
their status as functionaries of the Party not on their understanding and ability 
to apply Marxist theory in the class struggle but have achieved it mainly on the 
question of availability and compliance with existing policy and program. 

Very few rank and filers will attend the convention * * *. 

So the major representation will be the top leadership and the secondary func- 
tionaries who are all basically agreed before hand with but minor differences on 
the policy and program to be adopted. 

This was a party member, speaking from experience, on the chance 
the average rank and filer had to influence anj^thing that took place 
at a party convention. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Party Voice article 
which Mr. McNamara read, be introduced in the record as Committee 
Exhibit No. 18. 

Mr. Tuck. Unless there is objection, and the Chair hears none, it 
is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 18" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did the party's national convention in February of 
1957 follow the pattern predicted by the writer, Dan Henry? 

Mr. McNamara. For the most part it did. The principal factions 
in the party's top leadership agreed in advance of the convention that 
the convention would continue the same basic party organization 
and the same leadership, and that debate in an effort to resolve their 
dift'erences would be resumed after the convention. 

The resolutions adopted at the convention indicate that concessions 
were made by all the major factions, leaving the real solution of the 
conflict in the party to subsequent power politics within the party's 
national leadership, aided and abetted, of course, by Comnmnists 



604 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

from abroad. This aspect of the Communist Party's operations will 
be developed more fully later in these hearings. But this one incident 
is an apt illustration of the undemocratic organization of the party. 

Mr. Henry, actually, was wrong in one respect in his statement — 
when he said that the party's leadership in 1956 was "all basically 
agreed on the present policy and program with minor differences." 

These differences miglit have been minor to Mr. Henry, who 
represented an extreme view and one not widely held in the party, 
the view that the party should reject Moscow's guidance because of 
Klirushchev's unjust and opportunist treatment of Stalin who was 
still worthy of the greatest respect. But contrary to what Henry 
said, the chief party protagonists who were arguing for and against a 
multitude of proposed organizational and policy changes, though 
they accepted the Khrushchev charges against Stalin with the same 
faith they had once accepted Stalin himself, actually differed basically 
in the methods they proposed to avoid being proven \\Tong again in 
the future. 

These were basic, strong differences and they were not minor ones, 
as Henry implied. 

Mr. NiTTLE. To return once more to the character of the party 
structure in the United States, it appears then that this elaborate 
organizational apparatus is basically intended to channel directives 
from the top party leadership down to the main body of party mem- 
bers, organized in local clubs and comprising the real woi-king force 
in the partA" organization? 

Mr. ^IcNAMARA. That is true. Again we have confirmation of this 
from a Communist, one who identified himself — as most of them do in 
writing in these internal party publications — only by a first name, 
"Mort," a party member from Buffalo, New York. His statements 
appeared in the November 1959 issue of Party Voice. 

In it he wrote, in part, as follows: 

The national committee meets with each other and with the state leadership; 
the state leadership meets with each other and the county leadership, on down the 
line till it gets down to the club member who is the one who is supposed to carry 
out the policies amongst the masses. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, the staff has no further questions of Mr. 
McNamara at this time. We propose to recall him later and we ask he 
be permitted to stand aside for the time being. 

Mr. Bruce. May I ask a few questions? 

Is it a fact that these letters appeared in party publications and that 
the denunciations of the change of policy did appear as letters to the 
editor or as writings in party publications? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. 

Mr. Bruce. Has not a technique which shows even more the 
totalitarian aspect of the Communist Party been that, when they are 
getting ready to harden up, or perhaps take a new approach on a 
specific policy — has it not been, in effect, perhaps to encourage a bit 
of deviation? I recall specifically in China a few years ago, when 
there was a hardening up, Mao made a speech that ideas should blos- 
som like the flowers, and shortly after the ideas "blossomed," there 
was a mass purge. This has happened in other places as well. 

Is it not possible that part of their technique here is to weed out, as 
they are liardening to the luird core, the potential deviationists, by 
giving a limited amount of encouragement and hope to some of these 
people, in order to get rid of the soft spots in the party? 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 605 

Mr. McNamara. Tlioro may have boon; that factor may have been 
involved to some extent in this, and certainly it is a way of uncovering 
the "weak sisters," those who do not adhere basically to the party 
line. I also think, however, that there is another factor in this situa- 
tion, and that was the fact that John Gates, who was clearly a devi- 
ationist, happened to be editor in chief of the Daily Worker at that 
time. Now, if you had had someone else in there, like Benjamin 
Davis or William Z. Foster, I don't think that these dissenting voices 
would ever have been permitted to appear in the Daily Worker. 
Then, too, you had quite a deviationist group in the New York party, 
and it was the New York party bulletin, you see, in which a lot of this 
deviationist expression took place. 

Mr. Bruce. It does have the effect of hardening the party. 

]Mr. McNamara. Y^es, there is no question about that, that it has 
the effect, as I have said before, of tipping the party leadership off to 
the "weak sisters," the deviationists within the ranks, and aids the 
real hardening and toughening of the position and organization that 
is to take place. 

The people of the party would like to get rid of the deviators and 
they tip their hand. There are many authorities who believe that 
Mao Tse-tung's famous speech about letting "one hundred flowers 
bloom," was, in part at least, a device to encourage the deviationists to 
speak their piece, so that he could identify them and take care of them. 

Mr. Bruce. They move in many devious ways, do they not? 

Mr. McNamara. That is right. ' 

Mr. Bruce. Thank you. 

Mr. Tuck. The hearings will be in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow 
morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., Monday, November 20, 1961, the hear- 
ings were recessed, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m. Tuesday, November 
21. 1961.) 



STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNIST 
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 



TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1961 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D.C. 
public hearings 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to recess, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1334, New House 
OflSce Building, Washington, D.C, Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chair- 
man of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Subcommittee members present: Morgan M. Moulder of Missouri; 
Donald C. Bruce of Indiana; and Henry C. Schadeberg of Wisconsin. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., director, and Al- 
fred M. Nittle, counsel. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

Call your fu-st witness. 

Mr. Nittle. Robert Friedman. 

Will you swear the witness, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which 
you are about to give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT FRIEDMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR. 

Mr. Friedman. I do. 

Mr. Nittle. For the purpose of the record, will the witness please 
give his full name. 

Mr. Friedman. Robert Friedman. 

Mr. Nittle. I see that you are represented by counsel, Mr. Fried- 
man. Is that correct? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Would counsel Idndly identify himself? 

Mr. Rauh. Joseph L. Rauh, 1625 K Street Northwest, Washington, 
D.C. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Friedman, have you been known by any other 
name? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Friedman. If I may, I would like to make a brief statement 
to the committee; very short. 

Mr. Moulder. Would you answer the question? 

Mr. Friedman. May I make a two- or three-sentence statement? 

607 



608 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Moulder. In connection with your answer you may make a 
statement, but answer the question which is now pending. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. AIouLDER. Then you may make any explanation jou wish to 
make. 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I would like respectfull3' to plead the fifth 
amendment in answer to that question, on the ground that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

I would like to add, however, that I am not a Communist, a member 
of the Communist Part}^, and that I am opposed to the Communist 
system. 

Mr. Moulder. We do not hear you very well. Will you speak 
louder, please. 

Mr. Friedman. I am sorry. I thought I was talking quite loudly. 

All right. I would like to respectfully plead the fifth amendment 
on this and similar questions, on the ground it may tend to incrim- 
inate me, and I would like to add briefl}' to say that I am not a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party; that I am opposed to the Communist 
system; and that I defend American democracy". I have not been a 
Communist Party member at any time durmg the past 4 j^ears. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Friedman, I presume you have had the oppor- 
tunity to read the chairman's opening statement. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, I have just glanced at it and read through 
it. 

Mr. Nittle. You are aware that the committee, through docu- 
mentation and the testimony of witnesses, is attempting to develop 
factual information wliich will disclose the essential nature and char- 
acter of the United States Communist Party, and particularly its 
structure, organization, procedures, and international ties. 

We have subpenaed you to testify at this hearing because we 
believe that you possess knowledge which will help the committee in 
arriving at the truth, so that the Congress might be adequately 
informed to assist it in carrying out its law making function. 

It is the committee's hope that you will cooperate in this inquiry, 
but first, of course, we would like to establish for the record your 
competence to speak on this subject with a degree of knowledge. 

I present for your inspection a reproduction of certain pages of the 
June 1956 issue of Party Voice. The front cover of this issue states 
that that publication is "A bulletin issued by the New York State 
Communist Part}^" 

I call your attention to page 25 of that issue, which is the beginning 
of an article entitled "Toward an American Form," allegedly written 
by one Robert Mann, M-a-n-n. 

The second paragraph in the second column of that article opens 
with the following sentence: 

I joined the movement in my late teens at the height of the depression. 

Is it not a fact, Mr. Friedman, that the Robert Mann who wrote 
that statement is actually you? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Friedman. Well, sir, I would like to repeat that I have not 
been a member at any time during the past four years, and I must 
respectfully plead the fifth amenchnent for any period prior to that. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer that question. 
You have opened the door. If you are claiming the privilege, then you 



COM]\rUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 609 

should Imve done so at the begimiing. Now, you have said that you 
are not now a member of the Communist Party and have not been 
during the past 4 years, indicating that you are opening up the fact 
that you were previous to that time a member of the Communist 
Party; and he is asking you a question pertaining to that period of 
time. 

Mr. Friedman. Well, sir, respectfully, I would Hke again to plead 
the fifth amendment in answer to the question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you in that article stating that you had joined 
the Communist Party as a young man during the 1930 depression? 

Mr. Friedmax. I must plead the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, this document was introduced yester- 
day as Committee Exhibit No. 14. (See Appendix, pp. 730-734.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Friedman, I hand you a reproduction of page 4 
of the Daily Worker of February 28, 1957, which features an item 
entitled "Speak Your Piece." 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. I ask you to examine the letter — a letter under the 
title "Earl Browder On Night Beat," which is signed by one 
Robert Friedman. 

Would 3^ou please examine the next to the last paragraph of this 
letter, in which the author refers to Earl Browder, in a TV appearance, 
\vriting off his former associates in the Communist Party as "political 
bankrupts." I ask you also to note the opening words of the last 
paragraph, which are: "I do not believe that I am politically 
bankrupt * * *." 

Is it not a fact that you are the Robert Friedman who wrote that 
letter to the Daily Worker; that in writing those last quoted words you 
were proclaiming the fact that you were then a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully, again, plead the fifth amendment 
in reply to yom* question, and state again that I have not been a 
member in the past four years. 

Mr. Moulder. What is the date of the document? 

Mr. NiTTLE. The document is dated February 28, 1957. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you want that document in the record? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I ask that it be introduced at 
this point. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Friedman Exhibit No. 1." See Appendix, 
pp. 742, 743.) 

Mr. Moulder. May I ask counsel, if he would, to develop more 
about the background of Mr. Friedman, where he was born, where he 
lives, his educational background, and his present occupation? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, sir. 

What is your present occupation Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. Friedman. I am a newspaper man. 

Mr. Nittle. By whom are you employed? 

Mr. Friedman. I am employed by the New York Post newspaper. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Wliat is your educational background? 

Mr. Friedman. I am a high school graduate. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Of what school? 

Mr. Friedman. De Witt Clinton High School, in New York City. 

Mr. Moulder. I didn't understand you. 



610 COIVIMUNIST PARTY OF THE IINITED STATES 

Mr. Friedman. De Witt Clinton High School, sir, in New York 
City. 

Mr. Moulder. Wliere were you born? 

Mr. Friedman. In New York City. 

Mr. NiTTLE. How long have you been employed by the New York 
Post? 

Mr. Friedman. Since the end of summer in 1958. 

Mr. Moulder. In what capacity? 

Mr. Friedman. I am night city editor, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Before the New York Post, what was your employ- 
ment? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, for a brief period I was employed on a weekly 
newspaper, the Westchester News, now defunct. 

Mr. Moulder. And then prior to that? 

Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully plead the fifth amendment in 
answer to that question, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. How old are you? 

Mr. Friedman. I am 45, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Where do you now reside, specifically? 

Mr. Friedman. You want the street address? 3130 Irwin Avenue, 
New York City. 

Mr. Nittle. Was high school the extent of your education? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, except for one incomplete evening college 
session. 

Mr. Nittle. Where was that education obtained? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, that was the College of the City o New 
York, at night. 

Mr. Nittle. Have you been engaged, as a teacher, at any time? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment in answer to 
that question, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Friedman, I hand you a reproduction of a cata- 
log of the Jefferson School of Social Science, for the fall term of the 
year 1950. I call your attention to pages 12 and 15, which lists one 
Robert Friedman as an instructor of a course entitled "Principles of 
Scientific Socialism," a course given especially for members of the 
Labor Youth League. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Nittle. You are the Robert Friedman, are you not, who taught 
this course? 

Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully plead the fifth amendment in 
answer to your question, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. This, of course, referred to the Labor Youth 
League courses at the Jefferson School of Social Science, where Robert 
Friedman was teaching the principles of scientific socialism on May 
15th at 8:15 p.m. It saj^s: 

Recognizing the tremendous importance of the education of youth, the Jefifer- 
son School is devoting almost its entire resources on Tuesday evenings to a special 
program of courses for members of the Labor Youth League. All of these courses 
are designed to further the education of youth in the principles of scientific 
socialism. 

Did you teach such a course there at that school? 
Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully plead the fifth amendment, sir. 
Mr. Nittle. I ask that the document be introduced in the record. 
Mr. Moulder. So ordered. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 611 

(Document marked "Friedman Exhibit No. 2". See Appendix, 
pp. 744-746.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. You know, of course, Mr. Friedman, that the Jeffer- 
son School of Social Science was a Communist Party school, and that it 
had been found to be such by the Subversive Activities Control Board 
after extensive hearings, as well as having been cited by the Attorney 
General of the United States and by this committee? 

Mr. Moulder. You are referring now to the Jefferson School of 
Social Science. 

]Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment in answer to your 
question, sir. 

Air. NiTTLE. You also loiow that the Labor Youth League was 
at that time the youth section of the Communist Party, and has been 
cited as such by official agencies of this Government? 

Mr. Friedman. I just plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, is it not correct to say that you 
would not have been permitted to teach this com'se at the Jefferson 
School unless you were not only a party member, but also considered 
to be, by the party, a person well informed on the doctrines of Marx- 
ism-Leninism? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you know Jack Kroner? 

Mr. Friedman. I beg your pardon, sir? 

Mr. Moulder. Are you acquainted with Jack Kroner? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Air. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. I see he is listed in the document referred to by 
counsel, with you, as a teacher on principles of scientific socialism at 
the Jefferson School of Social Science. His classes are 6:30 to 8:30 
p.m.; and Robert Friedman, 8:15 to 9:45 p.m. You say you do not 
know him? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Friedman, I present for your inspection a repro- 
duction of page 12 of the Daily Worker of May 5, 1947, and call your 
attention to the statement contained therein, that you were then the 
chairman of the Daily Worker unit of the American Newspaper Guild. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is that an accurate statement of the position you 
held at that time? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment, sir, in answer 
to the question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this document be introduced 
into evidence as Friedman Exhibit 3. 

Mr. Moulder. So ordered. 

(Document marked "Friedman Exhibit No. 3" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. I hand you a reproduction of the Communist magazine 
New Masses, July 1, 1947 issue, page 18, and I call your attention 
to the name of Robert Friedman, which appears on that page as the 
author of a review of a book entitled The Hour Glass, by David 
Alman. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you the David Friedman who wrote that review? 

Mr. Friedman. You mean Robert Friedman, sir. 



612 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UXITED STATES 

Mr. XiTTLE. Yes, of course. 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. XiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask the document be introduced 
as Friedman Exhibit No. 4. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Friedman Exhibit No. 4" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Nittle. I hand you a reproduction of the Communist Party 
magazine. Political Affairs, January 1955 issue, pages 63 to 65, 
containing a review of Theodore H. ^^'llite's book. Fire in the Ashes. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Nittle. I call your attention to the fact that the name Robert 
Friedman appears on page 63 as the author of the book review. 

Are you the Robert Friedman who wrote that review for Political 
Affairs? 

Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chairman, I request that the document be 
introduced as Friedman Exhibit 5. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection; Exhibit 5. 

(Document referred to marked "Friedman Exiiibit No. 5" and 
retained in committee files.) 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Friedman, I hand a^ou a reproduction of the 
Communist Party magazine, Masses and Mainstream, April 1954 issue, 
pages 55 to 57, containing a review of Annette Rubinstein's book, The 
Great Tradition in English Literature, written b}^ Robert Friedman. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Air. Nittle. I also hand to you a reproduction of pages 47-48 of 
the November 1955 issue of that magazine which contains the story 
entitled "Situation Wanted," \vi-itten by Robert Friedman. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

It is a fact, is it not, Mr. Friedman, that you are the Robert Fried- 
man of these two exhibits? 

Mr. Friedman. I respectfully plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Exliibits Nos. 6 and 7 be 
introduced into evidence. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Documents marked "Friedman Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7," respec- 
tively, and retained in committee files.) 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Friedman, the committee has made an analysis 
of the book reviews that you have written for The Worker and Daily 
Worker in past j^ears. It seems that, as a general rule, you have 
always had good things to say about any Commmiist or pro-Comnm- 
nist book. On the other hand, it was noticed that you seemed to be 
consistently and unfavorably critical of every anti-Communist book 
you reviewed. I could give you some examples, if you w^sh. 

However, we are interested m knowmg whether you were a free 
man as a book reviewer for the Communist Party and the Daily 
Worker, or whether or not you had to accept orders and were under a 
discipline that compelled you automatically to attack every anti- 
Communist book whether it was good or bad, true or false? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, sir, I would like to plead the fifth amendment 
to the question, and I would like to reiterate that I am anti-Communist 
in my views now, and I oppose the Communist system. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Friedman, we have been very hopeful, in view of 
your opening statement, and very happy about it when you indicated 



COMlSrUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 613 

that you were opposed to the Communist system. We feel perhaps 
that you might be wilhng, under those circumstances, to give this 
committee factual information on the subject of communism, so that 
the Congress will be adequately informed of its operation. If you 
are sincerely opposed to the Communist system, is it not fair for us to 
assume that you would be pleased to tell us about it? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I would have to plead the fifth amendment 
to the question; and to reiterate again, as firmly as I can, that I am 
not now and have not been at any time during the past four years 
a Communist. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Friedman, you have stated that you are not 
now and have not been a member of the Communist Party during 
the past foiu- years; that you are opposed to the Communist system. 
What are your reasons, and will you state the reasons, for your 
opposition to that system? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, if you wish — ^and I don't want to burden 
you with a long statement — I will tell you very briefly what my present 
views are. 

Mr. Moulder. All right; because that will be testing your good 
faith as to what you stated as the reason for disassociating yourself 
frojn the Communist Party. 

Mr. Friedman. I believe that the Communist system is dictatorial, 
that it provides no free opportunity for its people to choose their 
leaders or form of government; that it permits no dissent; that it 
stifles creative arts; and I believe that in the present juncture of 
history, the Soviet Union has correctly aroused the shock and anger 
of the world by breaking the agreement to halt nuclear testmg and has 
endangered the world. I believe that the Soviet Union created the 
present Berlin crisis, and I believe that the Soviet Union has officially 
sanctioned and encouraged anti-Semitism. 

I could go on, but I think that would suffice for you. Those are 
my firm opinions. 

Mr. Moulder. You say that you are not now a Communist, and 
have not been during the past four years. Can you be more accurate 
as to the approximate time when you separated youreelf from active 
membership and participation in Communist Party affairs? 

Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully plead the fifth amendment in 
answer to that question. 

Mr. Moulder. And just what action did you take at that time to 
achieve a dissociation from the Communist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully reply and plead the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Bruce. In your statement, you say in your opinion the 
Communist Party is dictatorial. Was I correct in hearing you to 
that effect? 

Mr. Friedman. I said that the Communist system is dictatorial, 
and I had specific reference to the Soviet form of government, but I 
would not challenge the description to a political party. 

Mr. Bruce. Do you believe that the Communist Party in the 
United States — from your observance, being anti-Communist, accord- 
ing to your statement — is under the discipline of the international 
Communist movement? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, sir, I have no present knowledge of it. 

83743 — 62— pt. 1 5 



614 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE IINITED STATES 

Mr. Bruce. Do you have any knowledge from past experience or 
observation that would lead you to believe that the Communist 
Party, U.S.A., is under the discipline of the international Communist 
movement? 

Mr. Friedman. I would have to plead the fifth amendment, sir, in 
answer to your question, except that I would like to repeat that I 
have not been a member at any time during the past four years. 

Mr. Bruce. You realize, of course, from your statement that you 
have not been a member at any time in the past 4 years, you leave 
it wide open to anyone to evaluate your statement on the basis that 
prior to that time, and with the evidence that has been introduced, 
you did have know^ledge of the Communist movement rather inti- 
mately. And T would simply like to point out the obligation, perhaps, 
to a system based on freedom, of an individual who sees the fallacy 
of the Communist discipline and dictatorial methods, to help prevent 
other people from being snared into the trap of the Communist 
movement, perhaps innocently at fu-st. 

Do you feel there is an obligation for the ex-Communist, perhaps, to 
contribute to the knowledge of people, so that they can be better 
educated and alerted to the danger of the Communist movement? 

Mr. Friedman. I appreciate what j^ou say, sir, but I must respect- 
fully plead the fifth amendment in answer. 

Mr. Bruce. You do not feel that there is an obligation on the 
part of the ex-Comnmnist to make up for some of the operations they 
participated in while they were in the Communist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully plead the fifth amendment, sir, 
in answer to you. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Friedman, we are much interested in your state- 
ment with reference to the Soviet system as being dictatorial; also 
fiu-ther interested in your conclusion that the Communists in the 
Soviet Union are anti-Semitic. 

Th.ere has been a controversy in the newspapers with relation 
to the recent jailing of three Jews in Russia, without open trial. And 
I was particularly interested in a report in the New York Times of 
November 13th, 1961, a report of a meeting of B'nai Brith at which 
Mr. Label A. Katz spoke and charged that — 

Unlike other religious bodies in the Soviet Union, synagogues are not permitted 
to maintain a central organization or formal contacts with one another. In 42 
years, Soviet authorities allowed only one printing of 5,000 copies of the Hebrew 
prayer book. 

Did you find from your experience in the Communist Party that 
Communists were not only opposed to the Jewish faith, but to all 
religious faiths? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment in answer to 
your question, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. You are aware that the Soviet Government has re- 
cently denied any oppression of the Jews. They deny that they are 
anti-Semitic. 

Mr. Friedman. I have read tliat, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Is that another Soviet lie? 

Mr. Friedman. I l)oh('ve it is, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. In your later writings, while you were in the Com- 
munist Party, you were becoming increasingly aware that the Com- 
munist Party in the Ihiited States Avas not a democratic organization. 
Is that correct? 



COMJVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 615 

Mr. Friedman. I iiuist plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I want to return to the first exhibit ^ presented to you, 
the June 1956 issue of Party Voice, a pubhcation of the New York 
State Communist Party containing:: the article you wTOte for that 
publication, under the name Robert Mann, and entitled "Toward 
an American Form." 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

]\Ir. NiTTLE. Was not the very title of this article an indirect state- 
ment tliat the Communist Party, about which you were \\Titing 
and of which you had been a member for so many years, was not 
American, but was of an alien and undemocratic form? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment, sir, in answer 
to 3^our question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would I be wrong in asking you, Mr. Friedman, 
whether you plead the fifth amendment in this instance because of 
my assertions relating to 3^our past membership in the Communist 
Party, rather than because you now maintain a sympathy toward 
this system? 

Mr. Friedman. Will you repeat that question, sir? 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Friedman. I have no sympathy whatsoever, unequivocally. 

Mr. Moulder. For what? 

Mr. Friedman. For the Communist system, for the teachings of 
communism. 

Mr. Moulder. Are 3^ou referring to the present Commimist system, 
or the philosophy of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. I have no sympathy for the Communist philosophy 
or for the Communist system of government or Communist teachings. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In writing that article, Mr. Friedman, you were maldng 
a plea to Communist Party members, to the effect that certain changes 
which you were suggesting would bring it in line, more in line at least, 
with democratic processes? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You stated in that article, at the bottom of column 1, 
page 25, that you wanted to go to — 

the very nature of the Communist Party, its procedures, structure and methods 
of work. 

Now, did you not make that statement then because your many 
3'ears of activity in the party had taught you the undemocratic nature 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You went on to state that after joining the Communist 
Party: 

I quickly came to recognize a disparity between the methods of work, either 
already existing or fought for by Communists and others in organizations and 
unions and in the Party organization itself. 

Then you proceeded to explain and spell out just what that disparity 
was. 

I quote you again from Party Voice: 

In the unemployed organization to which I belonged, I insisted on elections, 
minutes, motions, decisions, check-up, majority rule and parliamentary process. 
In mv club — 



> (Committee Exhibit No. 14. See Appendix, pp. 730-734.) 



616 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE XJNITED STATES 

that is, in the Communist Party club, of which you apparently stated 
you were then a member — 

I became increasingly conscious of the absence of all this, but decided — not 
uniquely, no doubt — that it didn't matter because all Communists were of a 
single mind, anyhow, and it was a waste of time to bother with forms when we 
ghared the higher democracy of common purpose. 

In other words, Mr. Friedman, were you coming to realize at that 
time that the procedures and methods of the Communist Party were 
violative of the spirit of democratic institutions and democratic 
groups? But were you saying you felt that did not matter too much 
then? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr, NiTTLE. In the third column of page 25 of that article, it 
^eems you really got down to the heart of the fault you found with 
the Communist Party, after some 20 years or more of service in it. 
You wrote: 

I think the answer lies here. We swallowed whole the concept of a tightly 
disciplined, "chain-of-command" type of organization, adopted from abroad. 

Did you mean by that, Mr. Friedman, that the Communist Party 
of the United States was simply a carbon copy of the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union? 

Mr. Friedman. I must plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Friedman, if you turn to the last page of that 
article, under the subhead "Democratic Centralism," you wrote: 

I have read and heard a good deal in recent months about the violations of 
"democratic centralism." Yet I have seen nowhere any questioning of the prin- 
ciple itself. 

Mr. Moulder. What is the date of that? 
■ Mr. NiTTLE. Will you give us the date of that publication? 

Mr. Friedman. June, 1956. 

Mr, NiTTLE. Were you coming at that time to realize that the 
typical Communist semantic employed in that expression, "demo- 
cratic centralism," was a contradiction in terms? 

Mr. Friedman. I must respectfully plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Perhaps you could tell us if and when you came to 
realize that the Communists had invented and created a pecuhar 
jargon of their own; by which they deceitfully attempt to confuse non- 
Communists and perhaps even to bring Communists into thinking 
that they are engaging in a democratic process when they are not? 

Mr. Friedman. I nuist plead the fifth amendment sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you regard the expression, "democratic central- 
ism," as a contradiction in terms? 

Mr. Friedman. Do I now regard it as a contradiction in terms? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. As a man who has written a good deal, thought 
a good deal, as a man who is well informed and experienced, won't 
you tell us whetlier as a scholar, this expression itself shows its own 
inconsistency? 

Mr. Friedman. Well I thank yon for the term "scholar." I don't 
deserve it. But I will tell you what my Ijelief is about it. 

I think that "democratic centralism" is just a pretty word to cover 
and cloak the totalitarian Soviet system of government. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The expression is a complete fraud, is it not? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe so. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE XJNITED STATES 617 

Mr. NiTTLE. It is a complete fraud, like the Communist expression 
"peaceful coexistence," is it not? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I would say that the word "peaceful coexist- 
ence" means nothing unless it is lived up to. It is only a word. 

Mr. NiTTLE. What do you think this expression means? 

Mr. Friedman. Peaceful coexistence? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. Does it mean something special in Communist 
Party lingo? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I would plead the fifth amendment, but if 
you want my personal views on what I think the term means to me, 
I would gladly say so. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would you tell us what you think the term means? 

Mr. Friedman. I think that the term "peaceful coexistence" is 
just as much, in its sphere, a cloak for whatever Russian foreign 
policy exists at the moment, whether aggressive or nonaggressive. 
But I don't think it means per se what it says. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, if one examines the Communist 
literature, one reaches the same conclusion. Communists realize, of 
course, that sometimes non-Communists will get hold of what they 
write, and they don't want to be too clear; is that not correct? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I must plead the fifth amendment, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. For example, Stalin, as early as 1927, talked about 
"peaceful coexistence." And he explained what it was. He said: 

We must not forget Lenin's statement that as regards our work of construction 
very much depends upon whether we succeed in postponing war with the capitalist 
world, which is inevitable, but which can be postponed either until the moment 
when the proletarian revolution in Europe matures, or until the moment when the 
colonial revolutions have fully matured, or, lastly, until the moment when the 
capitalists come to blows over the division of the colonies. Therefore, the main- 
tenance of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries is an obligatory task 
for us. Our relations with the capitalist countries are based on the assumption 
that the coexistence of two opposite systems is possible. i 

Did he not mean by that simply this: We, the Soviet Communists, 
must maintain the peace until we are ready for war. We are in a 
period of reconstruction. We can't upset the apple cart. If we go 
to war now we will destroy everything we have. We must wait 
until the balance of power shifts. And therefore, during this period 
of construction, we must maintain the peace. So tliey called it peace- 
ful coexistence. Would you say that is a correct interpretation? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I haven't read it. I have been trying to 
follow you, and it sounds so. It sounds so. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let us see how that Lenm policy of "peaceful co- 
existence" is carried to the modern day. Perhaps you can help us 
again. The manifesto of 81 Communist parties which was issued in 
December 1960 after a meetmg in Moscow, likewise employing 
Communist double talk, stated: 
The policy of peaceful coexistence meets the basic interests of all peoples. 

May I mterpolate for a moment? By "peoples," they mean 
Communist people. 
Then they go on : 

This policy strengthens the positions of sociahsm. 

By "socialism," they mean communism. 

1 HCUA, Facts on Communism, Vol. I, p. 112 (Dec. 1959), House Doc. 336, 86th Cong. 



618 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

And further: "Peace is a lo^-al ally of socialism" — and tliis is the 
significant part — "for time is workuig for socialism against capitalism." 

Can you tell us what they mean by that? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I have no personal knowledge of what they 
mean. I can try to interpret it for my o^vn self, but it is not too clear. 

Mr. NiTTLE. And let us go to their further statement, which may 
help clarify the matter. This is tucked away in another section of 
the 81 -party manifesto: 

The time is not far off when socialism's share of world production will be greater 
than that of capitalism. Capitalism will be defeated in the decisive sphere of 
human endeavor, the sphere of material production. 

Do you not regard that statement as related to the doctrine of 
"peaceful coexistence"? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I have no personal knowledge of the subject, 
but I would say that I have every confidence that our country will 
match and surpass any other country in the world in material 
production. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are they not saying, in effect, that when they are 
able to out-produce us, they will be in a position to defeat us, and 
then the policy of peaceful coexistence may not be necessary any 
longer? Would I be correct and justified in assuming that? 

Mr. Friedman. I have no personal knowledge, but again I repeat 
that I think that no American need fear that this country will be 
second best to anybody. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am very pleased to hear of your confidence. Cer- 
tainly we are not defeatists. We are far ahead. And let us maintain 
that position. 

Perhaps you did read the manifesto of the 81 Communist parties? 

Air. Friedman. I may have read a newspaper account, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. They boast therein of an alleged terrific progress made 
in Communist Russia, do they not? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I know the}' have boasted repeatedl}', and 
I presume they may have there. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is it not rather odd that they are now, this week, 
pleading poverty, and are practically admitting the failure of their 
system to the United Nations, in an attempt to avoid their budgetary 
responsibilities? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, I would say that is a contradiction. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Does anyone know when a Communist speaks the 
truth? 

Mr. Friedman. I would have to plead the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Moulder. Does counsel have any other evidence or any other 
documents? 

Mr. NiTTLE. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bruce. Mr. Friedman, I think anyone who has studied the 
Communist Party has been aware of the personal struggle that many 
members of the party go through as the dictatorial and regimental 
pattern gets through to them, and their revolt internally against this 
violation of human dignity and rights becomes clear. And I can, 
havmg observed over the years men who have been hi the party and 
have come out of the party — sometimes it does take them 3'ears, 
actually, to readjust their sights in total. 

I have been interested in your statement and your very forceful 
statement that for the last 4 years you have not been in the Com- 



COIVIMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 619 

munist Party, and that you clearly realize the monolithic pattern of 
the Soviet-directed operation, and your statement that you are now, 
as of the last four years, anti-Communist. 

And I can understand possibly, in view of certain conflicts that 
have been generated witliin our society, why jou may in your own 
mind not wish to answer certain questions here. But let me ask you 
this: Have you voluntarily made yourself available to other Govern- 
ment agencies to provide information to help in the preservation of our 
free system, during this period of the last four years, such as the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir, I have not. And I honestly believe that 
my best service to my country is to support its institutions, which I do, 
and to defend it if called upon, which I will. 

Mr. Bruce. Would you make yourself available to Government 
agencies, which have been supported and praised, almost without 
exception, except from the Communist Party, such as the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation? 

Mr. Friedman. I would have to consider anything that my Gov- 
ernment would ask of me, sir. 

Mr. Bruce. What was that answer? 

Air. Friedman. I said I would have to consider any request that 
the Government made of me. 

Mr. Bruce. But you do not feel that voluntarily there is an obli- 
gation on your part to go to these people and to unburden yourself of 
what may have transpired in prior years? 

Mr. Friedman. No, I have not felt that, sir. 

Mr. Bruce. That is all. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Schadeberg? 

Mr. Schadeberg. No questions. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNamara. 

Mr. Moulder. We are recalling the same witness, Mr. McNamara? 

Mr. Nittle. Yes, sir. Mr. McNamara, the research director of 
this committee, will continue his testimony of yesterday. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS J. McNAMARA— Resumed 

Mr. Nittle. Air. AIcNamara, you have referred to Communist 
statements respecting the rigid discipline within the party. Can you 
describe in somewhat greater detail how such discipline is maintained? 

Mr. McNamara. In my testimony yesterday, I indicated there 
were two basic party principles, democratic centralism and monolithic 
unity, which require that all party members respond in a solid phalanx 
to any directives from the top leadership. 

I also mentioned the fact, in describing the party's structure, that 
it has a Review or Control Commission and that this commission 
operates down on the lower levels of the party, as well as on the 
national level. 

It is through this commission that this discipline is also enforced. 
Through it, on all levels of the party, disciplinary measures can be 
introduced against any party member who deviates in any way from 
the party doctrine and directives. 



620 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Over the years, the committee has had extensive testimony on this 
subject. This last year, for example, there was introduced, in one of 
our hearing records, testimony and documents which revealed that 
one Communist Party organizer had been expelled from the party 
because he had disagreed with certain policies of higher officials in his 
state. And this happened to this man in spite of the fact that he had 
the support of other Communists in the section and club to which he 
belonged. It happened to him in spite of the fact that he was con- 
victed of charges he never knew the exact nature of. They had never 
been spelled out for the man. And he was not even allowed to attend 
the trial at which he was convicted. 

This is one example. 

Mr. Moulder. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. McNamara. I have, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you have any statement to make concerning 
his testimony, as applying to the statement that you have just made, 
or do you wish to comment on his testimony in that respect? 

Mr. McNamara. I believe the article Mr. Friedman wrote, under 
the name Robert Mann, definitely confirms statements and evidence 
that were introduced in the hearings yesterday, and will be further 
introduced today, showing that there is an essential tieup between 
this discipline of the party — its lack of democracy — and its structure; 
that the two go together hand in hand. He revealed in his article 
in Party Voice that he felt this — ^just prior to his break with the party 
he came out with it openly and said so in party circles— that they 
had adopted a foreign structure, an alien type of organization that 
was completely undemocratic in its setup, and it was just because of 
the very nature of the party that there could not be anything like 
real democracy in it. 

Mr. Moulder. Is dissent to any degree permitted within the party 
organization? 

Mr. McNamara. Only to a very minor degree. As far as the rank- 
and-file party member is concerned, there is practically non,e allowed. 
Obviously, however, those high in the national leadership do have 
more freedom in this respect. 

And again I would like to introduce statements made by Commu- 
nists themselves to substantiate this point. 

Dm'ing the party controversy that erupted into the open in 1956, 
the degree to which dissent was to be allowed or introduced in the 
party was debated very fiercely. And one Communist, who wrote 
simply under the designation of "Gene P.," in the publication Party 
Voice, October 1956, made the following statement on page 11: 

Some comrades speak of introducing the right to dissent into our present struc- 
ture. But this right and the actual exercise of it is the very antithesis of our 
present structure. It will, I believe, prove impossible to reconcile the two in life 
and one or the other will have to go. 

In other words, here you have a Communist stating on the basis 
of his experience in the party that there never had been the right to 
dissent before. The.y are talking of introducing it in the party. 

And then, again, speaking on the basis of his experience in the party 
ranks, he says he is convinced it will never fit in with the party struc- 
ture and organization. They can have one or the other, but they can 
have no freedom, no dissent, if the party maintains its present setup. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 621 

Howard Fast, the former Communist Party member and novelist, 
who severed his ties with the party in the course of this controversy, 
maintained the same thing as this Communist Party member did. 

Writing in Prospectus, the November 1957 issue, page 38, a non- 
Coninmnist publication, after his break with the party. Fast said: 

The dynamic organizational force and structure of the party tends toward two 
very different currents, a power-hungry, dictatorial, inliuman, and anti-human 
direction in the leadership, and a confining, tliouglit-constricting, submissive, and 
frustrating direction among the rank and file. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the statements which have 
just been read be retained in the committee records as exhibits in 
this case. 

Mr. Moulder. So ordered. 

(Documents marked "Committee Exhibits Nos. 19 and 20," respec- 
tively, and retained in committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNamara, the procedures in the Communist 
Party in the United States appear to have a strong resemblance to 
those which Ivhrushchev confirms were employed against Soviet 
Party members by what he called "the capricious and brutal tyrant 
Stalin." 

Would you comment on that statement? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. And it is also true that the charges 
which have been made against U.S. Communists recently, those who 
happen to disagree with other Communists with more power, are 
also reminiscent of the charges which Khrushchev himself is today 
using to crush certain of his opponents in the Soviet Communist 
Party. Those who have followed the proceedings of the recent 22nd 
Congress of the Soviet Communist Party will recall how Khrushchev 
denounced as "anti-Party" and "Stalinist" others within his party 
bureaucracy who had challenged his policies. 

In some instances, these charges he made were palpably false. 
Former Premier Malenkov, for example, was thus attacked by 
Khrushchev, but Malenkov had, in fact, promoted a post-Stalin 
program w^hich Khrushchev himself followed when he came to com- 
plete power within the Soviet Union. 

I would like to read from an article entitled "Party Democracy and 
Dissent," which appeared in the New York party bulletin. Party 
Voice, issue of June 1956, pages 3 and 4. The author, a Communist 
who was identified only by the initials "B. S.," describes how "anti- 
leadership" had become a standard charge in party expulsions and 
how it discouraged dissent within the ranks of the party members. 
This is what he said : 

What has been the main ideological weapon that has militated against the 
practice of democracy in our Party? Each "prosecutor" at an expulsion knew 
full well that there were a series of standard charges that had to be put into each 
case in order to make it stick: anti-leadership, undisciplined, anti-working class, 
and for the poor soul who would dare to attempt to argue his or her case, the 
cardinal crime of breaking the unity of the Party and in reality wanting it to 
degenerate into a debating society. It is the concept of monolithic unity which 
we must examine. 

In the name of monolithic unity we have learned to stand by while important 
dissent was expunged from our ranks. 

And then this American Communist, B. S., went on to ask this 
pertinent question: 

Isn't it true that we borrowed literally from tlie CPSU [that is, the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union] on this question of monolithic unity? 



622 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

The manner in which this concept serves as a club with which the 
bureaucrats in the American party can compel obedience by the 
lower-level rank-and-file party members was also spelled out in the 
same article by the same writer. He said: 

As long as we have a section organizer or a club organizer, or anyone who, when 
unable to convince a member, a sympathizer of the correctness of a hne, can take 
recourse to the need for monolithic unity, then 3-ou must run the risk that the 
Party's ears are closed to the masses. * * * 

So long as we place major emphasis on the danger of our becoming a debating 
society and the danger of the influx of bourgeois ideas, then we must run the risk 
that .somewhere honest and correct opinion will be characterized as an effort to 
do that. 

And then he concluded that the party, in spite of its professions for 
certain democratic processes in America, had actually "cultivated a 
contempt for bourgeois democracy" for "many years." 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the article 
from which Mr. McNamara read be introduced as a committee 
exhibit and made a part of the printed record. 

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 21." See Appendix, 
pp. 747-750.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you have any further documentation on the way 
in which dissent has been suppressed in the party organization? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, Yesterday I introduced a document in 
the record. Committee Exhibit No. 16, which I would like to quote 
from again. This document contained the complaint of a Brooklyn 
club of the Communist Party, which appeared in Party Voice, issue of 
October 1956. And among other thmgs, this club — this was a posi- 
tion the club as a whole had adopted— made these charges against the 
Communist Party: 

Differences of opinion have often been construed as "anti-leadership tenden- 
cies" and outright "deviationism." Discussion in many areas has taken place 
in an atmosphere of intimidation not conducive to honest and critical evalua- 
tion. 

and 

Too frequently the concept of "democratic centralism" has been taken to mean 
that once a policy decision has been made, it must never be questioned as a 
matter of party discipline. 

In addition, a regional party committee dealing with Communist 
work in the cultural field made a similar finding, which was also 
published in Party Voice, the issue of January 1957. This regional 
party committee said: 

But monolithic, in practice, has come to mean that only one interpretation of 
what the program and practice should be has been allowed to exist. Dissents 
have either been frowned upon, silenced or exorcised, as the case may be. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I request that this Communist Party 
document be marked as an exhibit and retained in the committee files. 

Mr. Moulder. So ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exliibit No. 22" and retained in 
committee files.) 

(At this point Mr. Schadeberg left the hearing room.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did not the 16th National Convention of the Com- 
munist Party, wliich was held at the height of the party's internal 
controversy in February 1957, specifically add to the party constitution 
what appeared to be a new right of dissent for party members? 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 623 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, it did that, primarily under the influence 
of the Gates faction, which was quite strong at that time. Gates, 
however, and many of those who supported him subsequently left the 
party. And while the exact language of this new proviso has not 
been deleted from the constitution, new provisos tightening the 
party discipline were added at the 17th National Convention held 
about 2}^ years later, in December 1959. 

And even this new guaranty of dissent, as introduced in the 
party constitution in 1957, had a qualifying clause which rendered 
its implementation a matter of discretion, actually, with the party 
leadership. The clause read as follows: 

Every officer and member shall have the right to express a dissenting opinion 
on any matter of Party policy with respect to which a decision has been made 
by majority vote of the appropriate Party committee or convention, provided 
that such dissenting officer or member does not engage in factional or other 
activity which hinders or impedes the execution of such policy. 

That is in Section 2 of Ai'ticle VI. 

In other words, the higher party leaders can always make the 
finding that this dissenting party member or officer is taking a posi- 
tion in Ms dissent which hinders or impedes the execution of party 
polic}^, and therefore he is silenced. His dissent, the so-called right 
to dissent, spelled out in the constitution, means absolutely nothing. 

Mr. NiTTLE. "V\Tiat evidence can you present with respect to the 
continued existence of discipline and a monolithic party today? 

Mr. McNamara. The National Committee of the Communist 
Party held its first meeting in March 1960 — that is, its first meeting 
after the December 1959 convention. And at this meeting, James 
S. Allen, one of the members of the National Committee and a long- 
time party functionary, made the observation that the convention 
had marked "our victory over revisionism." 

This meant, translated from party jargon, that the party had 
triumphed over all dissenters of the John Gates variety. 

These people had either been expelled from the party; they had quit 
the party or had surrendered and accepted party discipline, so that the 
party once more, really, had attained monolithic unity. It had gotten 
rid of all those whose views were not considered sufficiently pro-Soviet 
and revolutionary in character. 

Then Allen stated, according to an article entitled "Recovery 
After the Anti-Revisionist Struggle" in the June 1960 issue of Political 
Afairs, that: "During the next two years at least, the party wUl be 
shaped and guided by this National Committee." 

He also stated: 

I hope the National Committee will proceed immediately to restore democratic 
centralism as the acknowledged principle of party organizations, as decided by the 
Convention. 

Now, in testimony yesterday, I introduced quite a few exhibits 
which showed that this democratic centralism — which was being 
restored, Allen said, under the new National Committee — was an 
authoritarian technique of control within the party; that the claim it 
was a democratic technique was a fraud; that numerous party members 
had stated this; they had learned it from their experience over many 
years. 

So once again you had from a long-time, high-ranking official of the 
party the statement within its meeting that this authoritarian rule 



'624 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

was being restored, that all the dissenters had either been gotten rid 
of or they liad bowed down and given up their right to dissent, their 
hope to dissent, and had accepted party discipline. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the text 
of Mr. Allen's remarks be marked as an exhibit and retained in the 
committee records. 

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 23" and retamed in 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, does the actual party practice bear out today 
the authoritarian principle of operation? 

Mr. McNamara. It does. This expression of dissent, disagree- 
ment, within the party ranks, which characterized the period 1956-57, 
has been ended. The expression of dissenting views has been elimi- 
nated from the Communist press. This began in the year 1958, 
when a staunchly pro-Khrushchev paramilitary party organiza- 
tion group finally was installed in all the important top leadership 
positions of the U.S. Communist Party. Many members and leaders 
who failed to fall in line with the new leadership were subjected to stern 
disciplinary action, ranging from demotion from party leadership 
positions to outright expulsion from the part}^. 

Some of these men, of course, will appear in these hearings as wit- 
nesses. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, at this point we would like to have 
Mr. McNamara stand aside. We expect to recall him at a later point 
in the hearing. 

At this time we would like to interrogate another witness. 

Mr. Moulder. All right. Call the other witness. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Homer Chase. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Chase, will you be sworn? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 
before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Chase. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HOMER B. CHASE 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chase, for the record, would you please state 
your full name? 

Mr. Chase. My full name is Homer B. Chase. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Where do you reside? 

Mr. Chase. My legal residence is Washington, New Hampshire. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You indicated your legal residence. Do you have 
an actual residence elsewhere? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, I live in Boston at the present time; Dorchester. 

Mr. NiTTLE. At the Dorchester Hotel; is that right? 

Mr. Chase. I didn't say that. I said I live in the Dorchester 
section of Boston. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I see. You live in the Dorchester area of Boston? 

Mr. Chase. That is correct. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is that the area in which you conduct your business? 

Mr. Chase. Conduct my business? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes; or jour occupation. 

Mr. Chase. Not necessarily. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you have an occupation hi the Dorchester area? 

Mr. Chase. In Dorchester? No. 



COMIVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 625 

Mr. NiTTLE. Wliat is your occupation, Mr. Chase? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I would see no reason or point, after listeninj^ to 
and reading this document that I have, in entering into this. I can 
see in no way how it will assist Congress in their deliberations, or 
this connnittee or this subconnnittee. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you mean to indicate by what you have said that 
you have no knowledge of the operation of the Communist Party 
within the United States? 

Mr. Chase. No, I haven't said that at all, 

Mr. NiTTLE. I thought perhaps you indicated that when you said 
you could not contribute to this discussion. 

Mr. Chase. I said that I did not see how my occupation could 
contribute to it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you employed by the Communist Party at this 
tune? 

Mr. Chase. It would seem to me that tlie discussion of political 
parties, their programs, their actual personnel, would be proscribed 
by the first amendment in an investigative committee of this type, 
and I would certainly utilize all the rights that are available to me not 
to answer that question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you feel it is also proscribed by the fifth amend- 
ment? 

Mr. Chase. Oh, 3'es. Oh, yes, because many citizens have been 
involved in prosecutions — -I don't use the word ''persecutions," but 
"prosecutions" — because of such testimony. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let me ask you, in order that the record may be clear: 
In refusing to answer the question I propounded, are you invoking 
the first amendment to the Constitution? 

Mr. Chase. I am noting it, yes. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you also intending to invoke the fifth amendment 
of the Constitution? 

Mr. Chase. Well, since the committee, I assume, I like to assume, 
has great respect for the first amendment, it may not be necessary 
at this moment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The committee respects the entire Constitution. 

Mr. Chase. As do I. 

Mr. NiTTLE. But there are only certain constitutional privileges 
that are pertinent to a refusal to respond to an inquiry of this 
committee. 

Mr. Chase. Certainly you wouldn't argue that the first amendment 
doesn't protect a person from a discussion of political beliefs. I 
don't think Congress has come to that conclusion, have they? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Wliat are you pleading as a refusal to reply to the 
question? 

Mr. Chase. Which question was that, please? 

Mr. Moulder. \^^iat your occupation is. I assume that is tha 
question pending. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chase. Well, I certainly wish to utilize the first amendment, 
and whatever other constitutional rights are necessary or available 
to me. 

Mr. Bruce. Do you invoke the fifth amendment, sir? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I haven't as of yet, no. I thmk that if the com- 
mittee presses the question I will invoke the fifth amendment. I will 
go that far. 



626 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Bruce. Air. Chairman, I ask that you direct the witness to 
answer the question. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question as 
to what his occupation is. 

Mr. Chase. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. Moulder. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Chase. In that case, I plead the first and fifth amendments 
and respectively — respectfully — or in other words I decline to answer. 

Mr. Nittle. I note that you are not represented by counsel, Mr. 
Chase. 

Mr. Chase. That is correct; onlv inasmuch as I act as mv own 
attorney, m my own limited 

Mr. Nittle. Well, you have previously appeared before this com- 
mittee — as a matter of fact, on Alarch 20, 1958, in the course of a 
committee investigation into the activities of the Communist Party 
in the New England area — have you not? 

Mr. Chase. I have appeared previously before a subcommittee. 
I believe it was a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities 
Committee. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you have information as to the witness's occu- 
pation at the present time? If so, state what it is, and ask him if 
that is true, if that is his occupation. 

Mr. Chase. I would like to point out in this connection, if I may, 
that it hasn't been established, here, that I have an occupation. 
There are a number of million people unemployed in the country. 

Mr. Nittle. You testified before, Mr. Chase, that you were a 
lumber worker, did you not? 

Mr. Chase. That is correct. I believe that is correct. I don't 
have the transcript available, but to the best of my recollection that 
would be — — 

Mr. Nittle. In addition to having been a lumber worker, you 
have had other occupations, have you not? 

Mr. Chase. Well, here I think you are getting into a field that I 
would decline to discuss. I think that whatever contribution I would 
make would not be limited — of course, this is my opinion — it wouldn't 
be a determining factor what occupation I had been in, or occupations. 

Mr. Nittle. Prior to your activities in the New England area 

Mr. Moulder. May I say the reason for asking that question is to 
determine whether or not your occupation may relate to the subject 
of our inquiry, and whether or not you are in a position to give us 
information concerning the objectives of the committee's investiga- 
tion. And it is for the committee to determine whether or not it is 
relevant to aid and assist the connnittee in its work. 

Mr. Nittle. If it please the Chair, I propose now through a series 
of questions to elicit perhaps the competence of this witness to testify 
in relation to the subject of the inquiry. 

Prior to your activities in the New England area, you were chair- 
man of the State Communist Party organization in Georgia, were 
you not, Mr. Chase? 

Mr. Chase. Well, obviously, when we get into the question of 
Georgia, where we have this extremely limited political freedom, 
where a vast number of our citizens aren't even able to vote, not even 
able to vote for the lack of choice that we were given in presidential 
candidates 



COMIVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 627 

Mr. Moulder. Would you answer the question? 

Mr. Chase. — then it is not up to me, until this is corrected by 
Congress or the Executive, to discuss political activities in Georgia, 
without endangering the lives of the citizens. 

Mr. Moulder. That isn't responsive to the question. 

Answer the question, and make any comments which you wish to 
make in explanation, or in support of your answer. 

Mr. Chase. Well, it certainly hasn't been the procedure with the 
previous witnesses. 

Mr. Bruce. Mr. Chairman, I request that you direct the witness 
to answer the question. 

Mr. jSIouLDER. The witness is directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Chase. And what is the question, again, please? 

Well, I think I know the gist of it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. Chase. I decline to answer that question under my rights 
under the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, your period as the Georgia chairman of the 
Communist Party, I believe covered the years 1947, 1948, 1949, and 
1950. Would you affirm or deny that? 

Mr. Chase. No, I would not. 

Mr. Bruce. Wliat was that? 

Mr. Chase. I would neither affirm or deny it. 

Does the committee have any objection if I smoke? 

Mr. Moulder. Quite all right. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I inquired whether Mr. Chase had been the Georgia 
Communist Party chairman in the years 1947 to 1950, inclusive. 

Mr. Bruce. As I understand, your first answer was no, you do not 
deny it, and then you qualified that answer. 

Mr. Chase. No ; he asked me do I deny or affirm it, and I said I do 
not either deny or affirm it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you in fact the Georgia chairman of the Com- 
munist Party during those years? 

Mr. Chase. I decline to answer that question under my constitu- 
tional rights. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, when you say "constitutional rights" 

Mr. Chase. And for the reasons given. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You include the reasons given? 

Mr. Chase. The reasons of political freedom and the lack of same 
in Georgia. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you ever reside in Georgia? 

Mr. Chase. Certainly. 

Mr. Moulder. How long did you reside there? 

Mr. Chase. Well, let's see. I first came into Georgia for paratroop 
training from Texas, I believe, in 1944. 

Mr. Moulder. Were you in the militarv service there, then? 

Mr. Chase. What? 

Mr. Moulder. You were in the military service? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, I took my paratroop training in Fort Benning, 
Georgia. 

Mr. Moulder. And how long did that take? 

Mr. Chase. The paratroop training? I think it lasted in my case 
about 6 weeks, 6 or 7 weeks, to get om' wings. 

Mr. Moulder. And then did you go back to Georgia? 



628 COMLIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

I am asking 3^011 this: Were you ever a resident of Georgia, occupied 
with any other activities other than in the mihtary service? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I can answer the first part. I was a resident of 
Georgia when I was not occupied with the military service. 

Mr. Moulder. And how long did that continue? 

Mr. Chase. I think I was in Georgia from around 1947 through 
1950. 

Mr. Moulder. And during that period of time, what was your 
occupation there? 

Mr. Chase. That question I decline to answer, for the reasons 
previously given. 

Mr. Moulder. You are claiming the provisions of the Constitution? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. 

Mr. NiTTLE. During that time, Mr. Chase, you were in fact on the 
pajToll of the Communist Party as an organizer and chairman in 
Georgia, were you not? 

Mr. Chase. Again, for the reasons given, I do not choose to answer 
that question. 

Mr. Nittle. You have had other residences in the South, have 
you not, prior to your period as Georgia chairman? 

Mr. Chase. In the South? Yes. That is right. 

Mr. Nittle. I don't wish to take advantage of the assumption in 
the question that you were Georgia chairman, although you appear 
to have agreed or submitted to that statement. 

Let me put it this way: Prior to the time we indicated that you 
had been the Georgia chairman, you did reside in the South? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I am answering the question as to whether I had 
residence in other places. There has been no proof; not established 
here. 

Mr. Nittle. In the 1940's for some period you did also serve as an 
organizer for the Communist Party in the State of Florida, did you 
not? 

Mr. Chase. In 1940? 

Mr. Nittle. In the 1940's, for some period. 

Mr. Chase. Oh, 1940? 

Mr. Nittle. Let me be a little more specific. 

On November 29, 1954, a Mr. Edwin Waller — 

Mr. Chase. Mr. who? 

Mr. Nittle. Waller. 

Mr. Chase. W-a-1-l-a-c-h ? 

Mr. Nittle. Edwin E. W-a-1-l-e-r — testified before this commit- 
tee. During the course of his own period of membership in the Com- 
munist Party in Florida for the period 1945 to 1948, ho said he had 
known you, and that you held the position of full-time organizer for 
theparty in Florida. 

Would you care to affirm or deny the sworn testimony of Mr. Waller 
at that time? 

Mr. Chase. No. I wouldn't care to affirm or deny it. Actually, 
I am not very much interested in it. 

Mr. Nittle. 'Were you in fact tlio Florida organizer for the Com- 
mvmist Party durinir the time of which Mr. Waller spoke? 

Mr. Chase. Again, for the reasons that I give, that I feel that you 
are infringing on my rights as a citizen under the fu'st and fifth, and 
the general spirit of the Bill of Rights, I would not answer that 
question. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 629 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you not also a delegate at the 16th National 
Convention of the Communist Party, which was held in New York 
City in February, February 9th to 12th, in the year 1957? 

Air. Chase. In the year 1957? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. Chase. I would decline to answer that question for the previous 
reasons. 

Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt at this point? 

First I wiU ask you: Did you volunteer for the military service, or 
were you drafted? 

Mr. Chase. I was drafted. 

Mr. Moulder. And where were you residing at the time you were 
drafted? 

Mr. Chase. I volunteered for the paratroops; to make myself per- 
fectly clear, because I was drafted. 

Mr. Moulder. At that time were you a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Chase. Well, that question, for the reasons previously 
given 

I don't like the monopoly of this, but I will cheerfully discuss with 
this committee philosophical questions on the issues of the day or the 
issues past. 

Mr. Moulder. On the issue of communism? 

Mr. Chase. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. Moulder. Will you discuss the issue of communism? 

Mr. Chase. Oh, certainly. 

What did one witness say? He said it kind of timidly, but he said 
he wasn't a scholar. Well, perhaps immodestly, I believe that I 
am a bit of a scholar, perhaps a hillbilly scholar, but nevertheless a 
bit of a scholar. And I would discuss these questions and gladly 
give my opinions of them. But as to membership, it would be against 
my moral principles to get into this question. 

Mr. Moulder. Are 3^ou now a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Chase. The same answer would have to apply, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chase, what is your educational background? 
I mean by that, formal education. 

Mr. Chase. Formal education? A graduate of Dole Grammar 
School in Washington, N.H., a graduate of Hillsboro High School, 
and a graduate of the Aviation Cadets Preflight Training School 
in Texas, including the college at Pennsylvania. 

They had a short college term to go with it. That is the formal 
education. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chau-man, the committee has compiled a record 
of Mr. Chase's past activities in the party as Exhibit 1 ; we would like 
simply to retain this in the committee files. ^ 

(Document marked "Chase Exhibit No. 1," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Moulder. Can you read it? 

Mr. Nittle. We have covered most of it in the questioning. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Chase, did you ever sign any document, or 
were you requested to sign any document, while in the military service 
or while seeking employment any place, where you were asked the 

1 Chase Exhibit No. 1, includes The Worker identification (December 5, 1948, p. 2) of Chase as Commu- 
nist Party chairman for the State of Georgia. 



83743— 62— pt. 1- 



630 COIVIMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

question as to whether or not you were a member of the Communist 
Party or any other subversive organization seeking the overthrow of 
our form of government by force and violence? Were you ever re- 
quested to take an oath concerning your Communist Partj^ affiliation? 

Mr. Chase. As far as I can recall, the only oath I took while in 
the service was the oath that everyone else took. 

Mr. ^Moulder. Then did you apply for any position where you 
were asked to take an oath concerning affiliation with the Communist 
Party or any subversive organization? 

Mr. Chase. I didn't get the first part of that organization. The 
acoustics here 

Mr. Moulder. Have you ever sought employment or been 
requested to fill out an application or take an oath concerning your 
affiliation with the Communist Party in connection with your efforts 
to secure employment? 

Mr. Chase. I would decline to answer that question under my 
rights, under the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. Moulder. Have you ever traveled to a foreign country? 

Mr. Chase. Certainly. 

Mr. Moulder. In making the application for a passport, did you 
fill out any application form concerning your affiliation with the 
Communist Party or any subversive organization? 

Mr. Chase. To tell you the truth, 1 don't recall. I don't recall 
what the provisions were on the passport when T went abroad. It was 
a number of years ago. And I don't recall. 

Mr. Moulder. To what foreign countries did you travel? 

Mr. Chase. I traveled in Spain, France, Germany, and I am not 
sure — Belgium, definitely. I don't know about Holland. 

Mr. Moulder. And while in those countries, did you participate 
in any Communist Party or Soviet Union party activities? 

Mr. Chase. Have I ever participated in any 

Mr. Moulder. Well, while abroad did you attend any conference 
or confer with Communist Party leaders in those countries? 

Mr. Chase. Well, of course, the situation over there is somewhat 
dift'erent than here. 

I am explaining this in order to be able to give an intelligent answer 
to your question. 

Even though those are capitalist countries, they have a more 
civilized approach to the Communist movement in most European 
countries than we do here, and while I migiit have conferred with a 
Communist or a Connnunist leader without even knowing it — I mean 
it would ])e a very difficult question to answer. 

Mr. Moulder. You would know it if you discussed it with any 
Connnunist, would you not? 

Mr. Chase. Discussed what? 

Mr. Moulder. Conimimist Party activities and their plans in 
their respectiv(^ countries. 

Mr. Chase. Well, 1 have already indicated that I have studied 
somewhat tiie contemporary scene and the activity of the various 
political parties, and I probably (liscuss(>d them wherever I have been. 

Mr. Moulder. Well, did the Connnunist Party of this country or 
any other country pay your expenses in connection with the travels 
that you have mentioned? 

Mr. Chase. No. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 631 

Mr. Moulder. Did you pay the expenses yourself? 

Mr. Chase. Well, some of my travels — I don't want to give you a 
false impression- -were paid for by your uncle. 

Mr, Moulder. By "your uncle"? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, the Government of the United States. I went 
abroad as a soldier. 

Mr. Moulder. Well, you are referring to your military service? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, yes. 

Mr. Moulder. I am referring to how many trips you have niade 
to foreign countries not in the capacity of military service. 

Mr. Chase. All right. And where does this come in, now? At 
what point are we now? 

Mr. Moulder. A very clear point. You traveled abroad, you say, 
and you seem to be willing to discuss the trips you made while in the 
military service. But when you v/ere not in the military service and 
traveling abroad, where you seemed a passport, I ask you who then 
paid your expenses. 

Mr. Chase. Oh. I reckon I did. 

Mr. Moulder. Did the Communist Party of this country or any 
other country provide the money for your expenses? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I think I've already answered the question. 

Mr. Moulder. No, you have not convinced me about it. What 
was your answer? 

Mr. Chase. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. Moulder. What was your answer? 

Mr. Chase. I said I paid it. 

Mr. Moulder. Well, who gave you the money to pay it with? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I realize I don't look very prosperous, but a trip 
to Europe, when I went to Em'ope, was not quite the expensive affair 
that it is today. I don't see that it has been established that anybody 
would have to pay it for me. 

Mr. Moulder. Did the Communist Party of this country or any 
other country provide you with the money with which you paid the 
expenses? 

Mr. Chase. No. 

I am not implying that it would be bad if they did, or good if they 
did. I am just simply saying "no." 

Mr. Bruce. Have you traveled overseas, outside of your military 
service, in the interest of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Chase. No, there is no need to thresh around it, so to speak. 
I fought in Republican Spain against Franco in 1937 and 1938. 

Now, as to whether in your mind this fight against fascism, which 
of course included the Communist Party of Spain, was aiding com- 
munism — well, this is already a philosophical question. 

Mr. Bruce. Were you a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. 

Mr. Moulder. Counsel, may I see the document (Chase Exhibit 
No. 1) previously mentioned? 

(Document was handed to Mr. Moulder.) 

^Ir. Chase. Incidentally, since the document was mentioned, I 
would have to enter an objection to its submission to this committee, 
since the witnesses that have testified evidently have not been cross- 
examined, and the facts as far as I can ascertain haven't been estab- 
lished. 



632 COIVIMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

I realize that the rules of Ibis committee may not recognize my 
objection, but I feel duty bound to make it. 

Mr. Moulder. This document, briefly, refers to your Communist 
Party activities, such as being the chairman of the Communist Party 
of Georgia, in which you spoke on behalf of the Communist Party of 
Georgia over station WATL and distributed a leaflet entitled "The 
1948 Elections; the People Must Act." 

Now, at the present time, are we to imderstand that you reside in 
Boston? 

Mr. Chase. That is correct. 

Mr. Moulder. And you claim the protection of the Constitution 
in refusing to answer questions concerning whether or not you are 
now a member of the Communist Party, or an official of the Com- 
munist Party at the present time? 

Mr. Chase. That is correct. 

Mr. Moulder. Any other questions? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. We have several, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chase, the Massachusetts Commission on Subversive Activ- 
ities, in its 1958 report, prints an account of the New England District 
1 convention of the Communist Party. At this convention the 
district elected delegates to the 16th National Convention of the 
Communist Party, the latter being held in February 1957, and the 
report prints an account to the effect that you were nominated, but 
not elected, as one of the delegates to the National Convention. 

Will you explain by what procedure you were able to attend the 
National Convention as a delegate from the State of Massachusetts? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I am forced to enter an objection to this ques- 
tion, because it hasn't been established that I was a delegate. You 
see, you loiow that this is not a proper question in any court of law 
in the United States. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you a delegate to the 16th National Convention 
of the Communist Partv, held Februarv 1957, in the City of New 
York? 

Mr. Chase. And I think I have already declined to answer that 
question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. And were you in fact at that convention a delegate 
from the New England District? 

Mr. Chase. I would be forced to decline. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chase, you were selected for membership on the 
National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States as 
a result of action taken at a subsequent convention, the 17th National 
Convention of the Communist Party, which was held in New York 
City December 10th to 13th, 1959, were you not? 

Mr. Chase. For the reasons given previously, in my testimony, 1 
would decline to answer that question. 

I wonder if I could make a brief statement at this time? 

Mr. NiTTLE. In fact, you had membership on the National Com- 
mittee, wliicli is the highest governing board of the Communist 
Party of the United States, with the exception of the National Con- 
vention itself? ^ 

Mr. Chase. Well 

> See Exhibit No. 81, p. 2.S84, Apnendi\ (PnrI 4) of the hearings. The Northern California District of the 
Communist I^arty, Structure— Objectives — Le:ulership, May -June 19i')ti, San Friuicisco, California, which 
shows that Chase's inembership on the National Comniittee of the Connnunist Party was a matter of the 
committee's public records. 



COMJVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 633 

Mr. NiTTLE. And had been, in fact, a delegate to the National 
Convention. Is that not correct? 

Mr. Chase. Whether it is or is not, I would not care to answer the 
question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you claim your constitutional privileges? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. And here I would like to say 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, we want to proceed. 

Mr. Chase. Could I enter a brief statement here on this whole 
question, that I think might simplify matters? 

Mr. NiTTLE. There is no question pending, Mr. Chase, at the 
present time. I ^vill, however, give you a question to which we would 
ask you to reply. 

At the time you were named to National Committee membership, 
were you a member of the National Committee as a representative 
of the New England District of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Chase. I decline to answer that question. 

^Ir. NiTTLE. Would you tell us whether you know what states com- 
prise the New England District of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Chase. What states? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. Chase. No, I wouldn't. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is your answer in fact, "No"? 

Mr. Chase. I wouldn't enter into that. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You do not wish to respond to the question? 

Mr. Chase. No. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would I be correct in saying that the New England 
District of the Communist Party includes all of the New England 
States with the exception of Connecticut? 

Mr. Chase. I wouldn't care to comment whether you are correct 
or incorrect. 

You see, my objections here are not only limited to the first and 
fifth amendments. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Does the Communist Party, as Mr. McNamara indi- 
cated in his testimony, determine the district area in accordance 
with the strength of the membership of the party in the area to be 
served? 

Could you tell us something about the situation in the New England 
States, as to why the New England District comprises all of the New 
England States with the exception of the State of Connecticut, and 
whether or not the State of Connecticut is constituted in a separate 
district? 

Mr. Chase. You mentioned IMr. McNamara in the question. Just 
what are the qualifications of Mr. McNamara on this subject? 

Mr. Moulder. The question is • 

Mr. Chase. I heard the gentleman. You said he testified yester- 
day. And his name is included in the question. Now, I think that 
in order to have a question which a witness might possibly respond to 
in a responsive fashion, I should know, and I don't know— perhaps 
it is because I haven't read the papers carefully, and so on — ^^just who 
is Mr. McNamara, where he comes from, and what his qualifications 
are, as a witness, an authority on political parties. 

Mr. Moulder. Well, let's take the statement that was made and 
forget that Mr. McNamara made it. Let's assume I made the 
statement. 



634 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Chase. Oh, Mr. McNamara is no longer in the picture? 

Mr. Moulder. Could 3'ou tell us about the establishment of the 
party bureaucracy in the various State areas? 

Mr. Chase. Well, no, I could not. 

Mr. Moulder. You could not, or you will not? 

Mr. Chase. I will not. 

Mr. Moulder. And I assume that that is on the basis of the same 
privilege, the constitutional privilege? 

Mr. Chase. Well, that is true, and also because this is a very 
dijQ5cult place to really come up with answers on. For instance, 
democratic centralism was discussed here before. Now, democratic 
centralism 

Mr. Moulder. I am sorry, but we have a limited amount of time, 
and there is no question pending. However, I will proceed, if j^ou 
will allow me. 

Mr. Chase. I was askmg to further explain my answer to this 
question. 

Mr. Moulder. All right. 

Mr. Chase. Well, on this question of democratic centralism, which 
was discussed here, now, I think that we should understand that 
almost every organization in the United States that is national in 
scope proceeds and organizes itself on the basis of democratic central- 
ism, including the American Legion, religious societies, churches, trade 
unions, et cetera. Democratic centralism, as I understand it, is a 
setup whereby you have effective leadership at the same time you 
get effective opinions from down below. 

Mr. Bruce. Is this the Communist Party definition of democratic 
centralism? 

Mr. Chase. Well, it is Homer Chase's definition, the man you 
subpenaed, of democratic centralism. And as a student, I would 
think that this is Lenin's — very roughly and crudely. I didn't put 
it as roughly as Lenin or Stalin, who has been maligned here in 
shameful fashion. 

Mr. Bruce. Do you believe that Stalin and Lemn have been 
maligned before this committee? 

Mr. Chase. That is right. I think especially these references to 
Stalin, one of the great leaders of World War II, and who, together 
with leaders of om* own countr}^ smashed Hitler fascism — I think 
they are completely out of place. And I thmk that this is not the 
place for them, and I don't think it does honor to this committee or 
any other committee to entertain such. 

Mr Bruce. You have opened this subject, and on the basis of this 
you undoubtedly are greatly affronted by Mr. Klu'ushchev's attacks 
upon Stalin? 

Mr. Chase. I don't know if "affronted" is the word. 

Mr. Bruce. Disturbed? 

Mr. Chase. Much of what has been said by Mr. Ivlu-ushchev and 
other people I don't think is going to correspond to, or does correspond, 
to, the facts of history, or is useful to the world working class movement. 

Mr. Bruce. Would you care to define the use of that term, "the 
world working class movement"? 

Mr. Chase. We have a situation where — I have a clipping in my 
pocket — you have capitalists owning great ownership in South 
America, et cetera. The working class also has to make efforts. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 635 

Mr. Bruce. Speaking of the world working class movement, you 
are referring generally to Communist parties world wide? 

Mr. Chase. I would certainly include Communist parties in the 
world organization of the working classes. They have been very 
successful in leading the working class in many areas. 

Mr. Bruce. Have you ever had instructions in the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Chase. Have I, personally? 

Mr. Bruce. Yes. 

Mr. Chase. Well, that question I wouldn't care to, for the reasons 
given, go into; because, you see, it is not what I — anything that I have 
done. And I have made my share of mistakes. I have no apologies 
to make. I have no apologies to make for it. But the facts of life 
are that when I start on organizational activity I involve other people. 

Mr. Bruce. Am I correct in assmiimg that you feel that the 
Communist Party, U.S.A., perhaps has made a mistake in twisting 
with the Khrushchev line against Stalin? 

Mr. Chase. I think that anyone who doesn't recognize that the 
attacks on Stalin are attacks on the dictatorship of the proletariat, 
which is a necessary part of the working class holding control — — 

Mr. Bruce. You are saying that Khrushchev is attacking the 
proletariat? 

Mr. Chase. Well, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the theory. 
I didn't say — I said "anyone." I didn't specify Khrushchev at this 
time. 

Mr. Bruce. Khrushchev is the one who has attacked Stalin. 

Mr. Chase. I think the changing of Stalingrad to Volgograd, or 
whatever it is, is bound to encourage the warmongers, particularly 
in Germany. And I know what the name Stalingrad meant to the 
German militarists. I was there in World War II. And I think that 
the attacks on Stalin — and now, I heard over the radio, on Gottwald 
of Czechoslovakia — are not in the interest of advancing the working 
class either in this country or in any other country. 

Mr. Bruce. WTien you say "the working class," you mean the 
Communist parties world wide? 

Mr. Chase. No, no, no. I don't exclude the Communist Party 
from the working class. You see, if you wiped out, by some wave of 
your wand, the Communist Party of the United States, every member, 
the class struggle in the United States would produce a Marxist-Lenin- 
ist revolutionary movement. It produced it before the Russian revo- 
lution, before the Chinese revolution, and it certainly 

I think I have made my point: that you are dealing with the objec- 
tive situation, which inevitably moves in certain directions. And the 
struggle between the working class and the capitalist class produces a 
vanguard organization, call it what you may. And no act of Congress 
can stop it. 

I am sorry. I wanted to say that, as long as I am down here. 

Mr. Bruce. With jour eulogy of Stalin, I believe Stalin has said 
that the Communist Party is the vanguard of the working class. Do 
you agree with Mr. Stalin? 

Mr. Chase. I think that that concept, as applied and carried out 
by Stalin — who can disagree with it? Look at what Stalin did. He 
took an illiterate country, a backward country, and under the dic- 
tatorship of the proletariat brought it up to the point where they 
were able to beat Hitler, develop heavy industry. 



636 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Bruce. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, to which you 
refer, were not many millions of people slaughtered in the Soviet 
Union? 

Mr. Chase. Well, people were slaughtered in the Soviet Union by 
Hitler, but 

Mr. Bruce. I am speaking of Mr. Khrushchev in the Ukraine, 
when he was one of Stalin's right-hand men. 

Mr. Chase. Well, I have always regarded Stalin as an outstanding 
humanist, and I don't think there was any slaughter in the Ukraine. 
We used to read these headlines ■ 

Mr. Bruce. I rest my interrogation at that point. 

Mr. Chase. We used to read these headlines from Riga, one time 
in Finland, about all these peasants dying, and everybody was dying 
in Russia, and they came out about every week in the Boston American, 
sometimes in the Herald. But lo and behold, it seems they had a lot 
of people left there in spite of all these stories. 

Mr. Bruce. The poor ones, that is. 

Mr. Chase. May I comment on this also — I am commenting on an 
official document, which you might like to hear my opinions on. 

Mr. Bruce. I have ended my interrogation. 

Mr. Moulder. Any other questions? 

Mr. Nittle. Yes. 

I note in the questioning by the committee members, I believe you 
expressed approval of Stalin. Perhaps you will agree with what 
Khi-ushchev himself said about Stalin prior to his famous statement 
of condemnation in February 1956. As I read this, I want to see 
whether you agree with what Klu-ushchev then said. 

One of Khrushchev's earlier statements about Stalin, which I quote, 
was made in 1939, at the 18th Congress of the Communist Party of 
the Soviet Union. At that time, Khrushchev said: 

"Long live the greatest genius of humanity, our teacher and leader, victoriously 
guiding us toward Communism, our beloved Stalin." ^ 

Then in 1946 — Khrushchev said in a speech at the Republican 
Confe J ence of Leaders of Agriculture in the Ul<Taine : 

Hail the leader of our Party, the leader of our people, the organizer of victory, 
our great Stalin! 

And as late as the fall of 1952, which was a little over 3 years 

before Khrushchev made his famous de-Stalinization speech to the 

20th Congress, he said to the 19th Congress of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union : 

Long live the wise leader of the Party and the people, the inspirer and organizer 
of all our victories, Comrade Stalin! 

Now, when was Khrushchev correct — at the 19th Congress, or at 
the 20th Congress? 

Mr. Moulder. What is the question? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, he has two questions in there. 

Mr. Moulder. Are you asking the witness to ma a comment on 
that statement? 

Mr. Nittle. Yes. 

Would you make a comment on those quotations? 

Mr. Chase. Well, T think that — of com-se, j^ou mention me. Would 
I agree? I am speaking as an American student, a humble student, 

1 HCUA. Ffict^ on Communism, Vol. II, p. 156 (Dec. 1960), H. Doe. 139, 87th Cong. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 637 

as one who has read StaHii and read the speeches of Kln-ushchev and 
read Lenin and read others, and 1 would say that 

Of course, Khrushchev was speaking as a colleague of Stalin, and 
I speak as I describe myself. 

Air. Moulder. You speak as what ? 

Mr. Chase. As I describe myself, as an American who has studied 
the works and wTitings of these people. 

By and large, I would think that Khrushchev's valuation of Stalin 
as an inspirer and organizer of victories has to be signed as correct. 
It has proved correct. And I don't think anybody questions it. 
No student of history questions it. Of course, George Bernard Shaw 
says history will tell lies, as usual. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you express yourself along that line at Com- 
munist Party meetings in this country? 

I ask you : Do you so express yourself at Communist Party meetings 
in this country? 

Mr. Chase.^ Well, I— 

The Communist Party meetings have not been established. If 
you are going to insist 

Mr. Moulder. I am asking you now. It is a direct question. 

Mr. Chase. I am not going to answer that. I will add that I 
express myself anywhere I am along these lines, if that would satisfy 
you. 

Mr. Moulder. Including Communist Party meetings? 

Mr. Chase. I didn't say including Comnmnist Party meetings. 
I said anywhere that I am and to whoever I talk to. (Coining down 
on the plane today if the fellow next to me had started this subject, 
I would have told him that. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chase, was it not precisely 
your view of Stalm, which was contrary to present Conununist Party 
policy, the very reason you were recently disciplined by the Com- 
munist Party of the United States and removed from your position 
as organizational director of the New England District of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Moulder. Do you have an answer to make to that? 

Mr. Chase. Yes, I think I have to invoke my constitutional rights. 

Mr. Moulder. All right. 

Any other questions? 

Mr. NiTTLE. With permission of the chairman, the questioning is 
expected to continue for approximately another half hour or so. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will recess until 2:30 p.m. 

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Tuesday, November 21, 1961, the 
committee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1961 

(The hearings were reconvened at 2 :30 p.m., Mr. Moulder presiding.) 
Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 
The committee recalls Mr. Chase. 
You may proceed, Mr. Nittle. 

TESTIMONY OF HOMER B. CHASE— Resumed 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chase, you were subjected to disciplinary action 
by the Communist Party organization this jea^r, were you not? 



638 COMJVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Chase. Well, at the risk of boring you \^'ith repeated answers, 
I feel that this is an invasion of my rights as an individual. 

Mr. Moulder. Could you speak out a little more? 

Mr. Chase. I do not feel this question is pertinent, as I understand, 
to the purposes of this committee and I would refuse to answer it 
under the fifth and fu-st. 

Mr. Nittle. I hand you, Mr. Chase, this reproduction of an article 
which appeared m The Worker, January 29, 1961, which will be 
identified as Exhibit 2. The article states that actions taken by the 
National Committee of the Communist Party during a meeting over 
the last weekend included the unanimous removal of — and now I 
quote from the article^ — ^"Homer Chase, former district organizer of 
New England, from the national committee for persistent violation of 
party policy * * *." 

Mr. Chase, would you describe to the committee the circumstances 
which led to your ouster from the top councils of the Communist 
Party in this country? 

Mr, Chase. No, I would not. 

Mr. Nittle. Do you refuse to do so on the basis of the constitu- 
tional privileges you have asserted in the course of this hearing? 

Mr. Chase. That is correct. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the document be introduced 
into the record. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Chase Exhibit No. 2" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Nittle. The grounds for your ouster, Mr. Chase, are given as 
"persistent violation of party policy." 

Would you tell us in what manner you violated party policy? 

Mr. Chase. No, I wouldn't care to go mto that question. 

I would like to say this, that I think that perhaps you are not trying, 
but the net result is that the questions as they are being put and in 
light of the testimony by other witnesses, Mr. McNamara, for one, 
you are attempting to give the impression that there is something odd, 
subversive, strange about differences within the left-wing progressive 
movement. 

Mr. Moulder. If there isn't, why don't you answer the question? 
You are claiming the first and fifth amendment. 

Mr. Chase. And I think, also, that you are giving the impression — 
I don't say you are trying; I don't make charges loosely — that the 
discussions which, so far as I know, were held openly in the left-wing 
press and so on, on the question of President Kennedy and whether 
he was a lesser evil and whether the peace aspirations of the people 
and the defense of the rights of other countries could bo defended 
and advanced in the interest of the working class and the Negro 
people by supporting Kennedy. 

Mr. Moulder. You oxv going clearly far afield. 

Mr. Chase. This discussion was out in the open. 

Mr. Moulder. You are claiming the discussion was in the open. 
If you vnW permit the answer, we will let you make any soapbox 
speech you want to make, but until you do answer the question, you 
sliould not be permitted to carry on your theory of the controversy 
within the Communist Partv. 



COMlVrUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 639 

Mr. Chase. It seems to me I should have a riglit to make a state- 
ment in order that my presence here wouki not be used for 
purposes 

Mr. Moulder. It is not responsive to the question. Tlie question 
asked you was to explain liow you were expelled from an official 
position in the top ranks of the Communist Party and you have not 
answered that question. You claimed the privilege under the 
Constitution. Evidently, you want to make a speech al)out it. 

Mr. Chase. As I already indicated, if I were a Member of Congress, 
I would not think it fit to investigate into the democratic affairs of 
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or any other minority 
party and I have to object to this as an American citizen. 

Mr. Moulder. Is the Communist Party a recognized political 
party in this country? 

Mr. Chase. I recognize it. I think it exists and I think it has a 
histor^^ 

Mr. Moulder. Ask the next question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Prior to your removal or expulsion as a member of the 
National Committee of the Communist Party, you had been removed 
from your leadership of the large New England District of the Com- 
munist Party, had you not? 

Mr. Moulder. It calls for either a du'ect answer or a refusal to 
answer under 3'our protections as provided by the Constitution. 

Mr. Chase. There is no possibilities for an objection to these ques- 
tions because I only have a layman's knowledge of the court of law, 
but isn't it true when a fact has not been proved, to base further ques- 
tions on an unproved fact or an unproved question puts certainly the 
person in the witness stand in a very strange position? But in any 
case 

Mr. Bruce. I request that you direct the witness to answer the 
question. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to respond to the question. 

Mr. Chase. I consider it an invasion of my rights as an American 
citizen and I decline to answer. 

Air. NiTTLE. I would like you to look at the reproduction of another 
document which we identify as Chase Exhibit No. 3. This docu- 
ment is a three-page mimeographed letter, dated October 1960, and 
addressed, "To the Members of the New England District." It is 
signed by the "National Secretariat (CPUSA)," tlie five-man Politburo 
which represented the pinnacle of leadership in the Communist Party 
of the United States. 

The letter deals entirely with the activities of one Homer B. Chase. 
I am sure the contents arc already well known to you. This letter 
from the top National Secretariat makes certain charges against you. 
You are aware of these charges, are you not, as set forth in that letter? 

Mr. Chase. Well, I haven't read the letter. I mean it is a rather 
lengthy document. Do you wish me to peruse it? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. We will give you time to read it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Moulder. Let the record show that the witness is examining 
the document to which counsel has just referred. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I see that you have concluded your examination of 
the document. Are you now prepared to answer the question? 



640 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Chase. May I ask one question for clarity? 

Mr. AlouLDER. Do you mean for a clarification of the question? 

Mr. Chase. Yes. This seems to deal — the contents of this 
document 

Mr. Moulder. What is the question? 

Mr. NiTTLE. The question, Mr. Chairman, was, is he aware of the 
charges, set forth in that document, against Homer B. Chase. 

Mr. Moulder. Against Homer B. Chase? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. What clarification do you wish? 

Mr. Chase. The document submitted to me seems to allege that 
I have attacked Adlai Stevenson and other Democratic Party leaders. 
Is tliat why I have been subpenaed to Washington? 

Mr. Moulder. Ai*e you the Homer B. Chase referred to in this 
document? 

Mr. Chase. I wouldn't loiow. 

Mr. Moulder. If j^ou refer to it in that manner, then you admit 
that you are the Homer B. Chase referred to? 

Mr. Chase. I said this alleged document seems to allege on the 
question per se, I would definitely decline to answer this. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In that document issued by the National Secretariat 
of the Communist Party, you are accused of conduct which "is not that 
of a responsible Party leader," but "what would be expected from 
adventurers and provocateurs." 

That is a rather strong allegation, Mr. Chase. Do you accept it 
as a statement of fact? 

(Representative Moulder left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Chase. I cannot accept the document, nor the statements 
within it, as a statement of fact. 

(Document marked "Chase Exhibit No. 3." See Appendix pp. 
751-753.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chase, over the several months preceding the 
issuance of this October 1960 letter of the National Secretariat, you 
are accused therein of having "established a record of repeated opposi- 
tion on major policy questions" during your attendance at meetings 
of the National Committee of the party. Whom did you oppose? 

Mr. Chase. I would decline to answer that question for the reasons 
given hitherto. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You were a member of the National Committee and, 
as such, a representative of your party district on the National 
Committee. Did you not have as much voice in the party policies 
as the other members of the National Committee? 

Mr. Chase. I again repeat that I do not understand what you are 
driving at, what the reason is for this question, what you are trying 
to bring out 

Mr. Bruce (presiding). I would direct the witness to answer the 
question. 

Mr. Chase. If I were in a court of law I would object to the ques- 
tion, but again, I would invoke the rights given to mo, whatever 
rights I have, to refuse to answer such a question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Does not the action taken in your disciplinary case 
demonstrate that the autocratic natm-e of the Communist Party, 
clearly revealed by Communists for a brief period between 1956 and 
1958, has been unchanged to date? 



COJMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 641 

Mr. Chase. I object to the question. It lias not been proved that 
there is a case. We have one document, from whence it comes no 
one knows, or a photostatic copy of a document, and Mr. Bruce, I 
object to the question and ask that the attorney be restrained from 
asking further questions along this line. 

Mr. Bruce. Repeat the question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would the reporter read the question? 

(Reporter read from tlie record as requested.) 

Mr. Bruce. 1 rule the question is pertinent to the hearing and I 
direct you to answer the question. 

Mr. Chase. 1 nuist refuse to answer the question under my rights 
of the Constitution. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Tliat letter of the National Secretariat made certain 
specific charges, namely: that you opposed the party's electoral policy; 
that every meeting of your party district committee between March 
1960 and October 1960 "has been taken up with the introduction of 
documents calling for a reversal of the national policy"; and that 
you called for a boycott of the 1960 presidential elections although 
"this tactic has been plainly repudiated by the Party. ' 

Were you guilty of these crimes against the Communist Party 
leadership? 

Mr. Chase. Without accepting the last phrase, I can very proudly 
say that I urged upon the working class a boycott of the election and 
then of the Negro people and whoever I coidd influence because it 
seemed to me that neither Mr. Nixon nor Mr. Kennedy was anythiing 
but carrying forward the program of Mr. Rockefeller, and I, not 
agreeing -with the orogram of Mr. Rockefeller, feeling that it boded 
ill for my class and country, urged a boycott of both of those candi- 
dates, and I would remind you that it was said that Mr. Rockefeller 
could have run on the Democratic ticket and then he called in the 
Vice President of the United States, gave him an all-night lecture, and 
they refused. 

Mr. Bruce. That is not pertinent to the question. 

Mr. Chase. It seems to me pertinent. That is the best I can 
answer it. 

Mr. Bruce. You avoided the pertinent part of the question. 

Mr. Chase. Which was what, the last phrase there? 

Mr. NiTTLE. In taking the position which you have just explained, 
was that not taken in opposition to the national policy of the Com- 
munist Party, and was not opposition to national party policy the 
precise reason for your expulsion from the National Committee and 
yom- removal as organizer for the New England District of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Chase. This is something that, obviously, I would be in no 
position to answer if I thought the question was valid and was not 
infringing on the rights of the innocent and involving me in prosecu- 
tions I cannot afford 

Mr. Bruce. Are you invoking the first and fifth amendments? 

Mr. Chase. I am. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The National Secretariat of the Communist Party sets 
forth that you have also been guilty of "an unceasing stream of attack 
and slander against the national leadership," for you allegedly charac- 
terize the leaders as "usurpers of power" and "guilty of dishonesty 
and worse." Quoting further, "In short," states the letter, "the 
party leadership is habitually referred to by Comrade Chase and his 



642 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

followers in language which is customarily reserved for the most 
dangerous enemies of the Party and the working class." 

Were you guilty of this name-calling? 

Mr. Chase. Name-calling? Do you mean that specific name- 
calling? 

Mr. NiTTLE. As alleged in the letter of the National Secretariat to 
the New England party members. 

Mr. Chase. This is still from the document that you submitted 
here — and it is clear that the authorship — you are not sa3dng that I 
wrote this, are you? 

Mr. NiTTLE. You know very well that is a photostatic reproduction 
of the very letter that was circulated by the National Secretariat 
among the New England members, do you not? 

Mr. Chase. I think I decline to answer that question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chase, was not the real leadership of the Com- 
munist Party of the United States in this very five-man Secretariat 
which sent that communication to the New England members of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Chase. The very real leadership? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. Chase. I don't even know just what you are referring to 
here now. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You were a member of the National Committee of the 
Communist Party and presumably a part of the national leadership? 

Mr. Chase. And, therefore, you conclude that since we haven't 
established that, that we should go on on the basis of the nonestablish- 
ment of that and that I should answer this question. Well, I would 
decline to discuss that under the rights. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The National Secretariat, in its bill of particulars 
agamst you, explains that the Dorchester Club had appealed to the 
national leadership to mtervene because you, their district leader, were 
distributing a newsletter with statements contrary to party policy. 
The National Secretariat further states it then adopted a motion call- 
ing for an end to "the flaunting of Party policy" m New England by 
yourself and your supporters. The motion stated that if you did not 
obey "the Secretariat calls on the district to elect a leadership which 
will." The power of the Secretariat is pretty clearly revealed here, 
isn't it? 

Mr. Chase. I imderstand that that is your opinion. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am asking for your opmion, for your knowledge. 
My knowledge? 
Yes. 
I would not care to discuss the question before this 



Mr. 


Chase. 


Mr. 


NiTTLE. 


Mr. 


Chase. 


committee. 


Mr. 


Nittle. 


Mr. 


Chase. 


Mr. 


Nittle. 


Mr. 


Chase. 



On what basis do you refuse to respond to the inquiry? 
That is right. 
I say on what basis? 

On the basis of the first and fifth amendments and on 
the basis that I think that this committee is a little like King Canute 
trying to hold back the tide. I don't want to make you appear more 
absurd than you are. 

Mr. Nittle. Did you say tlio same thing of the Communist Party 
policy which you are charged with flaunting? 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 643 

Mr. Chase. Sometimes I am accused of flamiting; a great many 
people and forces. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The National Secretariat has also charged that you 
have been "guilty of irresponsible anti-Soviet statements, implying 
that the Soviet IJnion is guilty of a racist approach to the Chinese 
people." 

At the regional meeting of the National Committee, you are charged 
with saying that "bj^ taking part in the Olympics, the Soviet Union 
was guilty of participating in the rape of Taiwan!" 

Mr. Chase. I have never said that the Soviet Union was guilty of 
participating in the rape of Taiwan, and I have never accused the 
Soviet Union in any connection of racist attitudes. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In such event, the National Secretariat was in error 
in making those charges against you in this circular letter. Is that 
what you mean to say? 

Mr. Chase. I think I said what I meant to say very clearly. 
Limited as I am, inarticvdate as I may be 

Mr. NiTTLE. There is a difference of opinion between the National 
Secretariat and you as to what was actually said. Is that correct? 

Mr. Chase. I never regarded my relationships with other people — 
I regard them as important. 

Mr. NiTTLE. According to the Secretariat's circular letter, your 
removal was not as easy as they had anticipated because the New 
England District which you headed held a meeting and rejected the 
command of the Secretariat. 

Then the Secretariat further reveals that it had been forced to refer 
the case to the next meeting of the National Committee. The Secre- 
tariat's letter of October 1960, however, appeals once more to party 
members in your district, "to repudiate the actions of Comrade Chase 
and those who support him, and to take steps to establish a leadership 
which will fight for the line of the Party." But, apparently, you were 
ousted from your district leadership before the National Committee 
took up your case and voted your expulsion from the National Com- 
mittee in January 1961. 

Now, will you tell us how the Secretariat finally succeeded in re- 
moving you from your functionary duties in the New England District 
of the party? 

Mr. Chase. Well, this collection of conclusions that you base your 
question on, the preface to the question — ■ — ■ 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is the preface a statement of fact, or isn't it? 

Mr. Chase. Well, there is no question but that many of these con- 
clusions that you have drawn, not all of them, colored in such a way 
that I think you are giving a wrong impression to the committee for 
which you serve. 

As to the specific question, I must invoke the rights that have been 
discussed. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is there any question now in your mind, Mr. Chase, 
that the Communist Party of the United States is today presently 
firmly adhering to the Leninist principles and policies of democratic 
centralism and monolithic unity? 

Mr. Chase. Well, one would hope that all working class parties 
are attempting to achieve monolithic unity in following the Leninist 
line of democratic centralism. 

Mr. Bruce. You did not answer the question. 



644 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Chase. It may be that I am not equipped to answer such a 
question. I make this observation in the hope tliat it would further the 
understanding — because in the opinion of this witness whom you 
subpenaed to Washington, I consider it important for the peace of 
the world, for the great changes that are taking place and wdll take 
place — the working class followers. 

Mr. NiTTLE. There will be other opportunities for making speeches, 
but would you please answer the question? 

Mr. Chase. Making speeches is not limited to me. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Apparently you were not able to make them in the 
Communist Party, although you seem to be able to make them here. 

Mr. Chase. You infer that I am frustrated. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did not the National Secretariat in this document 
which we are discussing, warn your district members that actions 
taken in support of your views violated democratic centralism and 
party discipline; and weren't your \dews denounced as being "sec- 
tarian"? 

Mr. Chase. And that is a question? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. Did they not so warn your district? 

Mr. Chase. I decline to answer this question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. On what ground do you decline to answer the question? 

Mr. Chase. Well, first, I decline it because I think the American 
people and the Congress should pay for attention to theoretical ques- 
tions of Marxism and Lenmism that are imposed upon a \vitness here. 
I cannot answer them without being misunderstood and surely, you 
don't want a \vitness to come before you and leave a false impression. 
And then, you are referring to a specific document, the validity of 
which I have not admitted nor accepted 

Mr. NiTTLE. Nor have you denied its acceptance. 

Mr. Chase. Neither accepted nor denied and, therefore, I have to 
invoke the privilege. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Perhaps you can avoid some misunderstanding by 

giving your interpretation of some of this language. What was meant 
y this charge against you of "sectarianism"? What does that mean 
in Commimist jargon? 

Mr. Chase. Mao Tse-tung, the outstanding Marxist-Leninist, says 
that the Communists call people revisionists who weaken the working 
party. He said that a struggle has to be put up against dogmatism 
and sectarianism but that the main danger at this time is revisionism. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Khrushchev also made similar statements. I note 
in the 81 Communist parties' manifesto, which was issued in Decem- 
ber of last year, it is said, "Dogmatism and sectarianism in theory 
and practice can also become the main danger at some stage of de- 
velopment of individual parties, unless combated unrelentingly. 
* * * they isolate Commimists from the broad masses of the working 
people, doom them to passive expectation or leftist, adventurist 
actions in the revolutionary struggle, prevent them from making a 
timely and correct estimate of the changing situation * * *." 

Can you tell us what that double-talk means? 

Mr. Chase. In the first place, you are somewhat quoting it out of 
context. You see, they said originally that the main danger 

Mr. NiTTLE. You have discussed what Mao Tse-tung meant by 
sectarianism. I am asking if you can tell us what Khrushchev means 
on the same subject. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 645 

Mr. Chase. What arc you quoting from here? 

Mr. NiTTLE. The 81 party manifesto. 

Mr. Chase. That is not necessarily Khrushchev. There were 
Communist parties from all over the world in attendance there but I 
can tell you 

Mr. NiTTLE. Just a moment. Let us explore that. Khrushchev 
is the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? 

Mr. Chase. Before you get ofi" on that, I can explain to you in 
rather simple language, in my own simple language. That, of course, 
as the national liberation struggles, working class struggles become 
more intense, as the efforts of the monopolists and materialists become 
more intense to hold on to what they got, the status quo, their influ- 
ence creates within the w^orking class certain problems and certain 
ideologies which tend to deflect the working class from effective — and 
the vanguard parties has used the terms dogmatism and sectarianism 
[to describe tliese ideologies] and the other is revisionism, which is re- 
vising the teaching of Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You didn't mention Khrushchev. 

Mr. Chase. Is it my understanding that this committee is support- 
ing Khrushchev's criticism of Stalin? I don't want to suggest that 
this committee will be investigated. 

Mr. NiTTLE. No. We are merely inquiring as to the reasons for 
your expulsion from positions of leadership, and as to the organization 
and practices of the Communist Party, making particular reference 
to and exploring its monolithic character. 

Mr. Chase. Monolithic? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you not depart from this line by adopting the 
Stalinist view as opposed to the Khrushchev view? Was not that the 
reason for your expulsion? 

Mr. Chase. Modesty — I don't want to talk about myself all the 
time plus the fact I don't want to get involved in some legal pro- 
cedures, plus the other limitations, I would invoke the first and fifth 
on this specific part of the question. I think I have given you a good 
healthy answer on the other question, the germ of it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chase, in an attempt to underline the necessity 
for vour removal from leadership in the C-ommunist Party, this same 
letter of the Secretariat called attention to General Secretary Gus 
Hall's statement at the party's 17th National Convention in Decem- 
ber 1959, which they quote, "Above all — ^and of crucial importance — 
emerging from the 17th Convention is the fact that we have one 
party, one policy and one direction * * *." 

The Secretariat further declared — ^reminded you of the con- 
vention statement — that "Party unity is our most precious possession." 

In view of that, I ask you, is there any room for dissent in the 
Communist Party organization? 

Mr. Chase. Well, as a student of this writings and teachings, 
contemporary events, I would have to say that there was room for 
more room for dissent, for real discussion on real problems within 
the parties of the working class than there ever was or could be in 
the parties of the capitalist class and you have to speak relatively. 
It is not the only party tliat exists. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Apparently, you were expelled from leadership of 
the Communist Party because of that expression of view. Is that 
not correct? 

83743—62 — pt. 1 7 



646 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Chase. I don't want to quote Shakespeare that all the world 
is a stage; one man in his tune plays many parts. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am surprised that you are quoting: a non-Marxist. 

Mr. Chase. Actually, for Shakespeare to have been a Marxist 
would be rather difl&cult. He was ahead of his time, Shakespeare, 
in that respect. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, would you respond to the question. We will 
return to the issue. 

Mr. Chase. I would decline to answer that question under the 
first and fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The Secretariat in this statement also noted 

Mr. Chase. Also, in that 

Mr. NiTTLE. Also noted in that statement, to which we have re- 
ferred as Exhibit 3 — do you wish to have this exhibit before you? 

Mr. Chase. Since we are laying great credence to it 

Mr. NiTTLE. We will pass it to you. 

Mr. Chase. We always have to take into account that some pro- 
vocateur or agent or personal enemy of people named might write one 
of these things. That is another reason why you have to use the first 
and fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let me come back to the statement, which says that 
in weathering "the most severe crisis in its history," there had been 
defeated two types of party deviation — "the onslaught of revisionism" 
and "the assaults of the ultra-left dogmatists." 

Your views in the Secretariat letter of October 1960 are labeled 
"sectarian," as previously noted, an expression which appeared to be 
used interchangeably by the party with "ultra-left dogmatists." 

In your removal from party office, Mr. Chase, the partj^ would say 
that they had eluninated another "ultra-left dogmatist," is that 
not correct? 

Mr. Chase. Certainly, I am not equipped to answer that question 
as to what someone else would say. At the most, I express my own 
opmions. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You can't tell us any tiling about that inquiry? 

Mr. Chase. I didn't say that. Although I have said that also, 
that I don't feel that it would be correct for me to do so imder the 
circumstances. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In party parlance, you are at the opposite pole from 
the "revisionists" or the "right deviationists" who are also some- 
times referred to as "autonomists." 

Mr. Chase. As what? 

Mr. N ittle. That is the crime of which dissenters of the John Gates 
variety, mcluding preceding witnesses on the stand, Robert Friedman 
and Leon Nelson, were allegedly guilty. Is that correct? 

Mr. Chase. It beats me. 

Mr. Nittle. Didn't you acquire some familiarity with Commimist 
dialectics in your many, many years of party service, as an organizer 
in the South, as an organizer of the entire New England District, as a 
member of the National Committee of the Communist Party? Are 
you sincere in telhng us that you can't help us in this inquiry because 
you don't know? 

Mr. Chase. I haven't said I don't know. I am not implying that 
I don't know. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE TJNITED STATES 647 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chase, if you do loiow, perhaps you will answer 
this question 

Mr. Chase. This committee is not really representing the needs of 
the American people, or even attempting to, under this inquiry. 

Mr. NiTTLE. That is j^our opinion. 

Mr. Chase. I swore to tell the whole truth. I should express it 
honestly. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Perhaps you will give us your opinion • 

Mr. Chase. It serves no useful purpose, 

Mr. NiTTLE. Perhaps you will give us your opinion on this question. 

Mr. Chase. I thought you wanted to listen to my constructive 
criticism. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Isn't it a fact that in the Communist movement, here 
as well as abroad, viewpoints which are opposed to the then prevailing 
leadership have been lumped together either in one category or the other, 
previously referred to as being either "revisionist" or "sectarian"? 

Mr. Chase. What are the last two words? 

Mr. NiTTLE. "Revisionist" and "opportunist" are the terms com- 
monly applied to those Communists who allegedly deviate to the right 
of the "correct" Communist theory and policy; "sectarian" and "dog- 
matist" are terms employed against deviationists whose views are 
considered ultra-left or ultra-revolutionary. 

Mr. Chase. There is no question since Marx and Engels first 
developed the science of Marxism that this has been a problem for 
the Marxists throughout the world, and that the resolving of it always 
steels and strengthens the parties as they go along. 

These aren't profane words that you are dealing with. These are 
problems that spring out of real life, real struggles, real issues. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is the Communist and Leninist doctrine of the denial 
of the existence of God a profane view? 

Mr. Chase. You see here, you are entering into a discussion on 
theology which is obviously proscribed by the first amendment and 
the writings in no way of Marx, Engels 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am not asking you about your personal beliefs. I 
am asking you about the principles of Marxism-Leninism. 

Mr. Chase. I object and I think I do so in defense of the rights of 
freedom and religions of all Americans, and I am proud to act in their 
behalf in my limited fashion and ask that you be overruled on that 
question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Does not the Communist Party consider that view a 
deviation from party doctrine? 

Mr. Chase. I take it that you grant that the question you asked 
previously was incorrect. Now what? 

Mr. NiTTLE. I haven't done so. I have asked you whether your 
view on freedom of religion is Communist policy, or a deviation from 
that policy. 

Mr. Chase. I think there is actually more freedom of religion 
certainly developed where the working class is in power than there 
has ever been when the capitalists or the feudalists have been in 
power and I submit to you the history of Joan of Arc for the feudalists. 
She didn't enjoy much of it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is not a Communist with "rightist" views one who 
makes too many concessions to non-Communist democratic govern- 



648 COiVOlUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

ments and ideology, which the Communist movement seeks to 
supplant? 

Mr. Chase. The democratic governments — I trust that is a small 
"d" in your question. You are not referring to the Kennedy govern- 
ment; you are referring to democratic, small "d" government? 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am referring to the Communist application of ter- 
minology, whether or not their use of the term "rightist" means 
getting too soft in the party struggle. 

Mr. Chase. Oh, no, not necessarily at all. That is a vulgarization 
of the whole question. As far as a democracy, as I understand it — — ■ 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am not talking about democracy. I am talking 
about the Communist Party's interpretation of the expression "right- 
ist," an expression of their theoretical jargon. 

Mr. Chase. Do you want to know what a rightist is? 

Mr. NiTTLE. I have asked you whether the Communists mean by 
"rightist" that the line is too soft. 

Mr. Chase. Under the pressures of imperialism and their agents 
certain people [who] call themselves Marxists, revised the teachings 
and the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. That is 
wdiat that means, in the very simple language, it is very plain. It is 
not the full answer, but it is a very essential part of it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let's move to the next expression, "sectarian." That 
is the word comprehending the reason for w^hich you have been 
replaced by the National Secretariat. It describes the radical, the 
man wdio is too wild in the movement. Is that not correct? 

Mr. Chase. Sectarian is generally used by Marxists as referring 
to those who advance slogans which are not realistic, not possible, 
which do not consider time, conditions, and place. 

Mr. NiTTLE. And the National Secretariat accused you of being 
sectarian, a dogmatist, and an adventurist. Now, those are all 
synonomous terms? 

Mr. Chase. I would not necessarily say they are. They are not 
necessarily completely identical or synonymous, but that is not the 
point at all, whether or not, even if we granted, which I have not 
granted, that Homer Chase was accused of all these points — what 
difference does that make? He is only one individual. 

The only purpose that would help the capitalist government is if 
the capitalist government has representatives and agents within the 
working class that are able to make use of these deviations and errors. 
And I take it for granted that this is a capitalist government. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chase, I hand you a reproduced document which 
is marked Chase Exhibit 4. It is The Worker of August 12, 1956, 
which contains an article under your name. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Air. NiTTLE. In that article, it appears you state that in the period 
1949 to 1953 the party "bureaucracy" conducted an attack on the 
membei-ship and secondaiy leadership in which: 

Expulsions reached heights never dreamed of by Browder. Many more members 
were made ineffective because of unjustified shinder. Members were expelled 
without steps provided for in the Party constitution, often under the guise of 
security or "the difficult objective situation." 

I merely ask you, Mr. Chase, if that is a correct statement and 
whether or not that statement is contained in The Worker for that 
date? 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 649 

Mr. Chase. 1 would have to assign that question as an invasion of 
the first anicndnient, as a negation of the first amendment, the right 
of the freedom of the press, asked in this connotation and, therefore, 
I would refuse to answer it. 

Mr. Bruce. Do you refuse to answer that on the basis of just the 
first amendment? 

Mr. Chase. Well, it is also, of course, in my opinion, an attempt, 
whether conscious or not, to negate the fifth amendment, and I would 
also invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Bruce. You invoke the first and fifth? 

Mr. Chase. Yes. There is no question that the freedom of the 
press — the intent has always been understood. Articles in the press 
are not open for question by the Congress. 

.Mr. Bruce. We wanted to clarify your answer. I wanted to be 
sure you meant the first and fifth amendments. 

(Document marked "Chase Exhibit No. 4." See Appendix, pp. 
754-756.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Didn't 3'ou make an unfortunate choice of words in 
criticizing party bureaucracy? I mean by that, isn't that criticism 
of bureaucracy a departure from Leninist ideology? 

Mr. Chase. If j^ou would separate those into two parts, I would 
answer the latter one. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Answer the latter one; that will be satisfactory. 

Mr. Chase. I would say that Lenin himself was the foremost critic 
of bureaucracy as an expression of bourgeoisie within the working 
class, so the answer would have to be no; on the contrary. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am going to read to you a brief excerpt from Lenin. 

Mr. Chase. It is always a pleasure. 

Mr. NiTTLE. His article, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back," if 
I may first summarize, advocates the centralized discipline of a bureau- 
cratically organized party, and he describes it as follows: 

Bureaucracy versus democracy is the same thing as centraHsm versus autonomism; 
it is the organisational principle of revolutionary political democracy as opposed 
to the organisational principle of the opportunists of Social Democracy. i 

Is it not clear to you that Lenin advocates bureaucracy and charges 
those who resist it as autonomists, that is, individualists who do not 
adhere to democratic centralism? 

Mr. Chase. It is far from clear to me. What he is talking about, 
or he might have been talking about — I am not familiar with that very 
short quote — but what Lenin wrote on was the ineffectiveness of the 
German Social Democrats, that they had all of the forms of democratic 
leadership but they had no principle and they use the word "democ- 
racy" to cover up the fact that they were not serving their class in- 
terests. 

Incidentally, this failure of the German Social Democrats cost the 
lives of a lot of American boj^s. They would have done better to 
listen to Lenin more. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Will you tell us, Mr. Chase, how is the correct party 
position and policy determined in the United States Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Chase. How is it? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. How is it determined? Who lays it down? 

1 HCUA, Facts on Communism, Vol. I, p. 84 (Dec. 1959), House Doc. 336, 86th Cong. 



650 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Chase. Well, one would hope that it is determined on the 
basis 

Mr. NiTTLE. May I stop you there? We are not interested in your 
hopes. We are interested in what was your experience of the facts. 

Mr. Chase. My experiences don't seem to me to be able to — 
personal experiences are very often far from a guide to the correct 
answer, the personal experiences of one person. That is a subjective, 
individualistic approach. 

Mr. Bruce. I direct the witness to answer the question that is 
pending. 

Mr. Chase. The way it was posed, and I think the attorney realized 
that I have no choice but to invoke the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Isn't it correct to say, Mr. Chase, that the correct 
position and policy is laid down for the Communist Party and its 
entire membership by the individual holding supreme power in the 
Soviet Union? 

Mr. Chase. Well, this, of course, has been alleged against the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am asking vou whether this is the fact or whether it 
isn't from your knowledge and experience. 

Mr. Chase. From everything I have read and studied and every- 
one who I have talked to and seen, I would say this is a dangerous 
discussion and error of great multitude 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let's pause a moment. 

Air. Chase. Let me finish the question. You are asking a very 
pertinent question. The inference in that question is that those who 
seek a revolutionary solution to the problems affecting America, and 
they are very grave, presentl.y the danger of a nuclear holocaust and 
everybody knows it, those who seek a revolutionary solution are auto- 
matically ipso facto agents of a foreign power. This is absolutely 
wrong and dangerous. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Apparentl}'^, Mr. Chase, you do not seem to be follow- 
ing the party line. Let me refer 3^ou to the declaration of the 81 
Communist parties again, who make the statement which was quoted 
in the speech of Chau*man Moulder yesterday afternoon. The 81- 
party manifesto of December 1960 sets forth: 

The Communist and Workers' Parties unanimously declare that the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union has been, and remains, the universally recognized 
vanguard of the world Communist movement * * *. 

Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. Chase. That has nothing to do with your former question. 
They are talking about theoretical contributions there and it has been 
obviously 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do vou agree with the statement of the 81 Com- 
munist Party manifesto? 

Mr. Chase. In three or four words or two sentences, do 3'^ou want 
me to answer that question? 

Mr. Bruce. I think the question is clear. He asked whether you 
would agree with it or not. 

Mr. Chase. As of that date — you see, the trouble with such ques- 
tions is that there obviously has been changes. The world is in a 
state of change and obviously the Chinese party is contributing — 
making major theoretical contributions in the world of Marxist- 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 651 

Leninist movement, and tlierefore, to answer that yes or no would be 
impossible for this farm boy from New Hampshire. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a farm boy from New Hampshire, you have done 
a lot of what mio:ht be called good writing while you were in the Com- 
nmnist Party, did you not? 

Mr. Chase. There is no question — well, you don't want me to 
seriously answer that. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You have been more than a farm boy from New 
Hampshire? 

Mr. Chase. Yes. A lot of farm boys from New Hampshire have 
been more than farm boys. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Abraham Lincoln was a farm boy? 

Mr. Chase. Yes. I wish more Congressmen would follow the lead 
of Congressman Lincoln. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you now a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Chase. Well, with all due respect, I would submit that that is 
beyond the province of this committee and I would invoke the first 
and fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Bruce. The witness is dismissed. 

The committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes. 

(Brief recess.) 

(Representative Moulder returned to the hearing room during the 
recess.) 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. Call your next 
witness, Mr. Nittle. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Alexander Bittelman. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about 
to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Bittelman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER BITTELMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY 

COUNSEL, LAWRENCE SPEISER 

Mr. Nittle. Would you state your full name for the record, please? 

Mr. Bittelman. Alexander Bittelman. 

Mr. Nittle. Where do you live? 

Mr. Bittelman. Croton-on-Hudson, New York. 

Mr. Nittle. Are you presently employed? 

Mr. Bittelman. I am retired. 

Mr. Nittle. Would you state your age for the record? 

Mr. Bittelman. I will be 72 come January. 

Mr. Nittle. Where were you born, Mr. Bittelman? 

Mr. Bittelman. I was born in what was formerly known as Russia. 

Mr. Nittle. I see you are represented by counsel. 

Mr. Bittelman. Yes. 

Mr. Nittle. Would counsel please identify himself for the record? 

Mr. Speiser. I am Lawrence Speiser, with American Civil Liberties 
Union, 1612 "I" Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Nittle. I assume you have had an opportunity to read the 
Chairman's statement as to the purpose of this hearing? 

Mr. Bittelman. Yes, I glanced through it. 



652 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. To establish your competence to testify with refer- 
ence to the subject under inquiry, I will have to go briefly through 
your past history. 

You actually participated in the founding of the Communist Party 
of the United States as far back as 1919; is that correct? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I am afraid I will have to decline to answer, and 
I do so claiming the privileges of the fifth amendment and of the 
first amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I have before me the official Communist Party 
newspaper, The Worker., dated January 25, 1948, which identifies 
you not only as a charter member of the Communist Party of America, 
but also as a national leader of the Communist Party for more than 
two decades. Was that 1948 article a correct statement of your 
party activities in this country? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I will have to decline again on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I offer The Worker article as Bittelman Exhibit No. 1 
for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection the document will be admitted 
as part of the record. 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 1." See Appendix, 
pp. 757, 758.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Referring to this same Worker article, I note that 
you were also credited with carrying on revolutionary activities in 
Russia as far back as 1908. According to the article you were 
deported by the Russian Czar in that 3^ear and sent to the Arctic; is 
that correct? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I again respectfully wish to decline on the same 
grounds. 

Air. NiTTLE. Did you have a personal acquaintanceship with 
L6nin during your Russian revolutionary days? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I must make the same reply. I decline to answer 
on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would you care at all to amplify your experience in 
the Russian revolutionary movement? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I will have to decline on the same ground 
respectfully. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you arrive in the United States from Russia 
in the year 1912? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Ycs. That is right. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would it be a fair question to ask if you emigrated 
to the United States for the purpose of establishing a revolutionary 
movement here? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. No, 1 dou't think it is a fair question. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you, in fact, come here for the purpose of strength- 
ening the Communist revolutionary movement in America? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. lu 1912? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, when you arrived. 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I will decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. On what grounds do you decline? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Claiming the privileges of the first and fifth 
amendments. 



to 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 653 

Mr. NiTTLE. In the year 1919, were you not appointed by the 
National Organizing Committee of the Communist Party of America 
as a member of a committee to formulate a jorogram, the initial one, 
and did you not serve for that purpose as a member of a committee 
jointly with others among whom were named Louis C. Fraina, D. 
Elbauni, Alexander I. Stolditzky, Nicholas I. Hourwich, Dennis E. 
Batt, Maximilian Cohen, Jay Lovestone, and H. M. Wicks? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I rcspcctfully decline to answer on the same 
ground. 

Mr. NiTTLE. And were you not also as far back as 1922 a member 
of the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party in the 
United States, then know as the Workers Party of America? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Same answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You have also been editor of The Communist, one of 
the early Communist Party publications which is now known as 
Political Affairs, a theoretical organ of the present C^ommunist Party 
of the United States? Is that not a correct statement? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, you have written voluminous 
articles for the Communist press over the past years and you specialize 
in Communist theory; is that not correct? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer on the grounds of the first 
and fifth amendments. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, you have long been recognized, 
and until recently, as the leading exponent of Communist theory in the 
United States; is that correct? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce as Bittelman 
Exhibit No. 2 this list of references from the Communist press showing 
Mr. Bittleman's membership on the National Committee of the 
Communist Party and the Central Executive Committee of the 
Workers Party of America. 

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 2" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. This may be an unpleasant fact to refer to, but you 
were convicted under the Smith Act, were you not, in 1953, along 
with Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and other leaders of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Nittle. And you completed a 3-year prison sentence as a 
result of that conviction on May 26, 1957? 

Mr. Bittelman. The same answer. 

Mr. Nittle. I show that fact for the purpose of inquiring of you 
why, after the years of devoted and faithful service to the Communist 
movement in the United States, you should now, this year, in your 
old age, be expelled from membership in the Communist Party? 

Mr. Bittelman. I respectfully decline to answer on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Nittle. You were engaged in Communist Party activity at the 
height of the very bitter party controversy which was precipitated by 
Khrushchev's de-Stalinization speech at the 20th Congress of the 
Soviet Communist Party in February of 1956, were you not? 

Mr. Bittelman. Same answer. 

(Representative Moulder left the hearing room.) 



654 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. From your long exporionce in the Communist Party 
would you say that such a struggle as was created by Khrushchev's 
speech had not been witnessed in the ranks of the Conuuunist Party 
since the late 1920's, when disputes were ended by ouster of botli the 
Lovestone faction, accused of riglit deviations, and the Cannon "left- 
deviationist" faction? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I must respectfully decline to answer on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You undoid)tedly recall how Stalin personally and 
directly intervened to end the dispute t hat was then raging in the 1 920's 
in the Communist Party of the United States, and directed the installa- 
tion of a new leadership, monolithicly subservient to the will of 
Moscow. Do you not recall that situation? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. T dcclinc to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Could you tell us what knowledge you possess regard- 
ing the intervention of Moscow again to bring an end to the bitter 
struggle within the Communist Party of the United States and which 
wracked the party between the years 1956 and 1958 because of 
Khrushchev's de-Stalinization speech? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I rcfuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did Moscow refuse to intervene in the difficulties 
that the Communist Party in the United States underwent? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Bittelman, I now hand you a reproduction of an 
article from The Worker dated January 29, 1961, identified as Bittel- 
man Exhibit No. 3, which reports the actions taken by the National 
Committee of the Communist Party of the United States at a meeting 
over the last weekend. 

This article states that the National Committee "unanimously 
affirmed the expulsion of Alexander Bittelman." I also hand you a 
reproduction of an article from The Worker dated vSunday, December 
4, 1960, identified as Bittelman Exhibit No. 4, which states that the 
Westchester (New York) Club of the Communist Party, of which 
Alexander Bittelman had been a member, voted unanimously on 
November 14, 1960, to expel him from the party. The article states 
the club's action was "taken on the recommendation of the National 
Secretariat of the Communist Party." 

These actions of November 1960 and January 1961 shut you out 
from any participation now and hereafter in the Communist Party 
of the United States and of the World Communist Movement, do 
they not? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. T must decline to answer on the grounds of the 
first and fifth amendments. 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 3" and retained in 
committee files.) 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 4." See Appendix, 
pp.759, 760.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Ts it correct to say, Mr. Bittelman, that the loss of 
your membership in the Westchester (New York) club of the Com- 
munist Party, approved by the National Secretariat and approved by 
the National Committee of the Communist Party, means that you are 
actually a total outcast from any one of 80-odd Communist Party 
organizations in the world movement? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. T didn't get that question. 

(The x^ending question was read by the reporter.) 



COMIVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 655 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you outcast and barred from any further activity 
in the World Communist Movement? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I dochue to answer. 

(Representative Moukler returned to the hearing room.) 

]\Ir. NiTTLE. In Exhibit 4, which you have before you, there is a 
statement of charges against you by the National Secretariat of the 
Communist Party of the United States. Exhibit 4, to which I referred, 
is The Worker of December 4, 1960. The Secretariat charges that 
you have now brazenly violated the party principles of democratic 
centralism and have been guilty of "insistent defiance of party 
discipline." 

Would 3''0u care to explain to the committee how you defied party 
discipline? 

Mr. BiTTELMAK. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. These same charges were leveled at the preceding 
witness, Homer Chase. Mr. Chase was accused of having a left or 
sectarian viewpoint while you are condemned as a revisionist or right 
deviationist. You are at the opposite pole from what Mr. Chase 
was described as being in the Comnmnist dialectic. Would you give 
us your definition of those terms — "sectarian" and "revisionist" or 
"right deviationist"? 

Mr. BiTTELMAX. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. How does the National Seci'etariat arrive at the 
correct decision in making its determination whether a particular 
member of the Communist Party is a deviationist, and whether to the 
right or to the left? 

Mr. BiTTELMAV. T must decline, respectfully, on the same grounds, 

Mr. NiTTLE. The offense with which you were charged is the 
allegation that you proposed new theoretical principles to the party 
organization. Now, to quote the National Secretariat on that point, 
they allege that these theoretical ideas were "in direct conflict with 
the Party's Marxist-Leninist theoretical principles." What was the 
source of the so-called party theoretical principles which you, as a 
leading theoretician, were found guilty of abandoning? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I must decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is that source Moscow? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Is that a question? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I must decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you possess knowledge which would make it 
possible to give an answer to that question if you chose to respond? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Bittelman, let us review briefly the events leading 
up to the very drastic disciplinary action that was taken by the 
Communist Party against you. 

Beginning on October 1,1957, a series of 12 articles written by you 
appeared in the Communist Partv newspaper, the Daily Worker, under 
the overall title "I Take a Fresh Look." In these articles you discuss 
the current party crisis and various Communist theoretical and pro- 
grammatic concepts, such as the party's relations with the trade union 
movement, its view of capitalism, including, and this is most significant, 
a possible American road to communism. 

Your major proposal is that Communists in America should work 
for a new, intermediate goal of a welfare state to precede what you 



656 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

say must ultimately turn into an outright Communist society in 
this country. 

This welfare state as you conceive it, would exist during a capitalistic 
economy, but the government, and I quote you, "assumes full respon- 
sibility for the economic and social welfare and security of the people." 

Have I represented your views correctly, Mr. Bittelman? 

Mr. Bittelman. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I must decline to 
answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce as Bittelman 
Exhibit No. 5 a list of the titles and dates of various articles written 
by Mr. Bittelman, to which I have referred, and several of the articles. 
In addition, I would like to introduce, also as a part of Exhibit 5, an 
article from the February 1958 issue of Political Affairs entitled "Key 
Problems of Party Program," in which Mr. Bittelman further explains 
his views. I ask that they be incorporated in the record of the hearings. 

Mr. Bruce (presiding). Without objection, they will be admitted. 

(Documents marked "Bittelman Exhibit" No. 5. See Appendix, 
pp. 761-780.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Bittelman, we are not interested in your personal 
views beyond the extent to which they will illustrate and enlighten 
us as to the mechanism by which the party resolves its differences. 
After your vieAvs were expressed and presented in the Daily Worker 
in October of 1957, William Z. Foster, in the same month proceeded to 
write two lengthy articles denouncing your views, and the articles 
were printed in issues of the Communist journal. Political Affairs, 
for December 1957 and January 1958; is that not correct? 

Mr. BiTTELMAX. I must decline to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Until tliis conflict split the party ranks in 1956, 
William Z. Foster was the national chairman of the Communist Party 
and its undisputed top leader, wasn't he? 
' Mr. Bittelman. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Nittle. You do recall, do you not, that Foster denounced 
you in this article as espousing what he called the right deviationist 
or revisionist cause of John Gates? 

Mr. Bittelman. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I must decline to 
answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Nittle. Foster also charged you with emasculating the "uni- 
versally valid" principles of Marxism-Leninism and likened you to 
Jay Lovestone, the top party leader who was expelled, as I previously 
mentioned, from the party back in 1929 as a right deviationist, and 
Earl Browder, another famous head of the party organization, who 
was ousted from leadership as a right deviationist in 1945. 

When these persons were expelled in those years, you were in agree- 
ment, were you not, as to the characterization which the party applied 
to them, and you approved their removal on those grounds? 

Mr. Bittelman. 1 am awfidly sorry but 1 must decline to answer 
again on the same ground. 

Mr. Nittle. T would like to remind you of a statement that you 
made in the (^onnnunist magazine Political Affairs, l)ack in October, 
1946. You said: 

the history of the development of the internal life of our Party is the history of 
struggle against opportunist and aHen groups within the Party — Lovestoneism, 
Trotskyism, Browderism * * *. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 657 

All Communist Partios achieve their unity, ideological clarity, and strength 
only in constant struggle against opportunism — Right opportunism and Leftist 
sectarianism * * *. 

You also declared at that time that — 

the principles and ideology of our Party are those of Marxism-Leninism, as formu- 
lated by Lenin and Stalin * * *. 

You, yourself, are now accused of deviation from Marxism-Leninism, 
Do you agree with the substance of the charges which have been 
leveled against you by the Communist Party leadership? 

Mr. BiTTELxMAN. Same reply, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Foster's criticism of Mr. 
Bittelman contained in the December 1957 and January 1958 issues 
of Political Afairs be marked Bittelman Exhibit No. 6, and incorpo- 
rated in the printed record of tlie hearings. 

I also ask that the excerpts from Mr. Bittelman 's own statements in 
Political Afairs of October 1946 be marked Bittelman Exhibit No. 7, 
and made a part of the committee records. 

Mr. Bruce. Without objection, they will be admitted. 

(Documents marked ''Bittelman Exhibit No. 6." See Appendix, 
pp. 781-812.) 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 7 retained in committee 
files.) 

(Representative Schadeberg left the hearing room.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. After William Z. Foster accused you of fallacies and 
deviation from the correct line, you then wrote an answer to Foster's 
charge. You wrote in the February 1958 issue of Political Afairs, 
that Marxist theory was always being developed and you recognized 
the need to avoid right and left deviationism. You also challenged 
Foster for failing to offer any positive program for an "American" 
road to communism. 

You also continued to present your views at meetings of the party's 
Draft Program Committee on which you held membership in 1958. 
This party committee, whicli was preparing a program for adoption 
at the forthcoming 17th National Convention of the Communist 
Party, finally adopted a statement rejecting your views as "a basic 
departure from Marxism-Leninism and as an expression of modern 
revisionism in the United States." Is that a correct statement of 
the facts? 

Mr. Bittelman. I must decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the action of the Draft 
Program Committee, as reported in Political Affairs, December 1958, 
be marked Bittelman Exhibit No. 8 and incorporated in the hearing 
record. 

Mr. Bruce. Without objection, it will be incorporated in the record. 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 8." See Appendix, 
pp. 813-816.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. The National Secretariat charges, Mr. Bittelman, 
that in 1959 you announced plans to publish a book expounding your 
views and that when the National Executive Committee of the Com- 
munist Party asked you to submit it for review to them you did, but 
you declared that you would publish that book irrespective of the 
National Committee's views. 

It is stated that the National Executive Committee on October 14, 
1959, informed you that the book "conflicts with fundamental Marxist 



658 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

theoretical principles" and represents in some respects "a platform of 
struggle against the principles and policies of the Party." 

The National Executive Committee thereupon warned you that: 

Should you proceed in any case to publish it on your own * * * you should be 
fully aware from our August discussion with you what the consequences of such 
an act would be. 

You were in 1959 threatened with expulsion, were you not, if you 
continued to espouse your views and publish this book contrary to 
theirs? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I am sorry but I must decline to answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The National Secretariat reported that your book 
appeared, nevertheless, in a multigraphed form in September 1960, 
and this is what the Secretariat stated : 

By this action Bittelman has brazenly violated the Party principles of demo- 
cratic centralism and taken the path of anti-Party struggle, together with the 
revisionists who left the Party previously, and has thereby forfeited his right to 
membership. The National Secretariat therefore recommends his immediate 
expulsion from the Communist Party. 

The Secretariat's statement of charges on the basis of which the 
Westchester Club of the party expelled you in November of 1960 and 
which was confirmed by the National Committee in January 1961, 
appears in somewhat more detail in the issue of Political Afairs for 
December 1960. The full document reveals that the Secretariat in- 
dulged in its usual name-calling, which occurs in its disciplinary cases, 
and utilizing the usual Communist dialectic, said that you were guilty 
of "factional, disruptive, anti-Party activities," of being imbued with 
"bourgeois individualism," otherwise kno^\^l as autonomism. 

You may have heard me read the extract from Lenin in which he 
uses the expression "autonomism" as a right deviationist departure 
from the Marxist-Leninist theory of class struggle. You had an 
"American" way to communism. I ask you this question, Mr. Bittel- 
man: There is no room, is there, in the Communist Party organization 
of the United States for individualism, otherwise expressed as 
"autonomism"? 

Mr. Bittelman. I am sorry to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You did not question the accurac}^ of any of the 
statements I have made as factual matter in my preface to that 
question? 

Mr. Bittelman. I must decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the excerpts from the 
complete statement of charges by the National Secretariat in the case 
of Air. Bittelman, wliich appeared in Political AJfairs for December 
1960, be marked as Bittelman Exhibit No. 9 and be incorporated in 
the record. 

Mr. Bruce. Witliont objection, they shall be so marked and 
inserted in the record at this point. 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 9." See Appendix, 
pp. 817-826.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Your efforts to introduce various innovations in the 
American Communist program were always aimed at the ultimate 
establishment of a Commmiist system in America, judging from your 
writings and activities. Yet, the national leadership of the party says 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 659 

you wore incorrect. What doterniines wliat program and policies are 
correct for the (Communist Party in the United wStates? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Air. BiTTELMAN. Sorrv, but I must refuse to answer on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would it be going too far to ask, Mr, Bittelman, 
if you fear reprisals from the Communist Party should you at this 
time divulge any information to this committee about the activities 
of the Communist Party in the United States? 

Mr. Bittelman. Mr. Chairman, I have been given the grounds for 
my answers. I declare the privileges of the first and fifth amendments 
of the United States Constitution. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are not the correct theories and theoretical approaches 
to Marxism-Leninism determined from abroad, actually? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. When you devised various new ideas for the American 
party to consider, namely, your own American road to communism, 
were you not in fact responding to what you thought was the Moscow 
line at that time upon the death of Stalin? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Weren't you attempting to anticipate the shift as a 
faithful party member? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You had no deliberate intention of departing from 
the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, did you? 

Mr. Bittelman. Same answer, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I will pursue that a little further. 

Khrushchev's report, delivered for the Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Soviet Party 
Congress, appeared in New Times, a Soviet publication under date 
of February 16, 1956, preceding the composition of your 1957 articles 
wherein you espouse the American road to socialism or to communism. 
He refers to a possible parliamentary achievement of communism 
in some non-Communist countries and that "It is probable that more 
forms of transition to socialism will appear." 

Of course, by socialism he meant communism, am I correct? 

Mr. Bittelman. Same answer, Mr. Chairman, 

Mr. NiTTLE. Khrushchev also quoted Lenin to support his thesis 
that not ail nations will arrive at socialism in the same way, and he 
said — ■ 

each will contribute something of its own in one or another form of democracy, 
one or another variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, one or another rate 
at which sociaUst traiisformations will be effected in the various aspects of social 
life. 

May I interpose a moment. When Khrushchev talks about a "form 
of democracy," does he not mean communism? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that excerpts from Khrushchev's 
report, to which I have just referred, be marked Bittelman Exhibit 
No. 10 and retained in committee files. 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 10" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. That is a use of the Communist reverse language, isn't 
it? 



660 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I refusG to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. This new Khrushchev hne had earher been called to 
the attention of American Communists in a Pravda editorial on July 
16, 1955, and that was reprinted in the local Communist organ 
Political Affairs in September of the same year. 

Pravda, describing Klirushchev's efforts to achieve a rapprochement 
with the Yugoslav Communists — and bear in mind this was only a 
declaration of political expediency in relation to the Yugoslav 
Communists — ^had declared that — 

different countries can employ different forms and methods of dealing with the 
concrete problems of socialist [meaning communist] construction depending on 
their distinctive historical and national features. 

Did you believe that these remarks of Khrushchev, the leader of 
world communism today, was an invitation to you as a leading theore- 
tician of the American Communist Party to work out what might be 
described as an American Communist ideology? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I must 
decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you aware that many Communists both here and 
abroad did exactly that? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. And you were one of them; is that not so? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Despite your long years of experience as a theoretician, 
you misinterpreted the Khrushchev statement. If you had read 
farther — and I presume you did — you would have noted the signifi- 
cance of what he says additionally in that same speech that — ■ 

there is no doubt that in a number of capitalist countries violent overthrow of the 
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the sharp aggravation of class struggle con- 
nected with this are inevitable. * * * 

In the countries where capitalism is still strong, and has a huge military and 
police apparatus at its disposal, the reactionary forces will of course inevitably 
offer serious resistance. There the transition to socialism will be attended by a 
sharp class, revolutionary struggle. 

Did you not ignore those words when you formulated an American 
road to communism, Mr. Bittelman, and which you flatly proclaimed 
in your writings in 1957 would lead to "A peaceful and constitutional 
transition to socialism" in the United States? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Same answer, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You were rejecting, in effect, the Khrushchev view of 
violent revolution as the road to socialism for America, laid down by 
the Soviet Party Congress, were you not? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. On the other hand, William Z. Foster, who had the 
dubious honor of dying on Russian soil, had a very solid Moscow- 
backed basis when in October of 1957 he attacked your concept of a 
"peaceful and constitutional transition" to communisjn in the United 
States. 

Foster charged you had "muted" — ^that is his word — the "national 
class struggle," almost "to the vanishing point," and that by fore- 
seeing a peaceful transition to cominunisin here "with but little class 
struggle" you would k\ive the (^oniinunist Party in America with 
"very little leading or lighting to do." 



COMJVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 661 

Would you disagree with what I have said? 

Mr. BiTTLEMAN. I iiiust dechiie to answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you famiUar, Mr. Bittehiian, and I presume you 
are, with the contents of the declaration issued in November 1957 
at Moscow by the Soviet Communist Party, and 11 Communist 
parties from nations under Communist domination? 

Perhaps I could further identify the declaration in this way. Rep- 
resentatives of Communist parties met in Moscow November 14 to 
16, 1957. The declaration was published in full in Political Afairs 
of December 1957, a magazine that you formerly edited. The text 
was that supplied in English by the Hsinhua News Agency of Peking. 

Do you recollect that declaration? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Same answer, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you recall that the declaration condemned re- 
visionists who would "deny the historical necessity for a proletarian 
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat during the period of 
transition from capitalism to socialism, deny the leading role of the 
Marxist-Leninist party, reject the principles of proletarian inter- 
nationalism * * *"? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I must decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The National Secretariat's charges, supporting your 
expulsion, quoted from Soviet authorities in an effort to demonstrate 
the mistaken natm-e of your views. Would you care to comment on 
that? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr, NiTTLE. Referring again to the complete statement of charges 
against you in Political Afairs, the National Secretariat of the 
Communist Party of the United States cited as authority the new 
Soviet textbook entitled Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism.^ In 
this book Khrushchev apparently attempts to provide the World 
Communist Movement with what he calls the correct theory, policy, 
and practices. The Secretariat found justification for your expulsion 
in the following pronouncement in this Soviet text : 

To the reformist and the revisionist program of a state monopoly capitahsm 
"evolving" into socialism the Marxist-Leninist parties counterpose a clearcut 
program of decisive struggle against the capitalist monopolies, against their 
domination, for the overthrow of the dictatorship of a handful of monopolist 
aristocracy. 

Mr. Bittelman, that language and the circumstances leading to your 
expulsion really unmasks the party's propaganda pretensions to non- 
Communists, that the Communist Party is just another political party 
seeking objectives through peaceful and constitutional means; does 
it not? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I must decline to answer on the grounds of claim- 
ing the privileges of the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The leadership of the Communist Party in the United 
States, responding to directives from Moscow, maintains and insists 
on maintaining the Communist Party of the United States as a revo- 
lutionary party, determined to impose by force the views of a minority 
upon the majority of the people of this country, is that not correct? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I dechuc to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
grounds. 

83743 — 62 — pt. 1 8 



662 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. Except for an increasingly subtle refinement of its 
propaganda — in which the Communist Party envelopes its operations, 
first to prove more attractive to non-Communist Americans, the 
better to deceive us and, second, to counter various anti-subversive 
laws — the Communist Party since its inception has undergone no 
truly basic change in organizational principles and methods of opera- 
tion. Is that not a correct statement of fact, Mr. Bittelman? 

Mr. Bittelman. Same answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Have you yourself, Mr. Bittehnan, made a change in 
your views regarding the nature of the Communist Party in this 
country since you helped found it in 1919? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you recall a pamphlet that you wrote in 1937 
under the title Milestones in the History of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In this pamphlet, which we will identify as Bittelman 
Exhibit No, 11, you outlined instance after instance during the years 
1921 and 1929 in which the Communist International intervened in 
the affairs of the American Communists to end factional fights and 
settle party policy. You declared : 

Is there a single class-conscious worker in the United States who * * * would 
reproach the Comintern for "interfering" in American affairs or reproach the 
American Communists for accepting this "interference"? 

Your answer to that question in the article was "No." 

In the same pamphlet you stated that the Comintern "has grown 
into a true world party," and "all Communist Parties are carrying 
out one single line of the Comintern." 

In the 1920's and the 1930's you did not then question the right of 
Stalin's Comintern to intervene directly in the affairs of the Com- 
mijnist Party in the United States, did you, Mr. Bittelman? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that excerpts from this pamphlet 
Milestones in the History of the Communist Party written by Mr. 
Bittelman be marked Bittelman Exhibit No. 11 and be incorporated 
in the record. 

Mr. Bruce. Without objection they will be so marked and incor- 
porated in the record. 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 11." See Appendix, 
pp. 827-829.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Air. Bittelman, hearings by the Special Committee 
to Investigate Un-American Activities in 1939, produced voluminous 
evidence and documentation relating to the arbitrary method by which 
the Comintern officials and Stalin himself repeatedly made decisions 
involving, not only the form of the party organization in America, 
but also the leadership. Was that not your experience in the Com- 
munist Part}^ of the United States? 

Mr. Bittelman. Sorry, I must decline to answer on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bittelman, do you recollect 
the cable from Moscow which was responsible for eliminating you 
from party leadership in America for two years beginning in 1929? 

Mr. Bittelman. What was the question? 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 663 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you recollect the cable from Moscow? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Same answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The cable eliminated you from party leadership be- 
ginning in 1929 for 2 years. Do you recollect it? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Nittle. On Stalin's orders, you personally were disciplined — 
and this is the way you were disciplined then — you were given a 2- 
year Comintern assignment in India, were you not, Mr. Bittelman? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. 1 decline to answer respectfully on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Bruce. Where did he go? 

Mr. NiTTLE. To India as a disciplinary measure. 

Mr. Bruce. Were you ever in India? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, you did serve the 2 years in 
India as your disciplinary penance to the Communist Party? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Is that a question? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. Is that not a correct statement? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chairman, I ask that excerpts from the testimony 
of Benjamin Gitlow, a Communist leader in the late 1920's, before the 
Special Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities in 1939, be 
marked Bittleman Exhibit No. 12 and retained in committee files. 

I would also like to include with this exhibit, statements from a 
study entitled American Communism and Soviet Russia, by Theodore 
Draper. 

Mr. Bruce. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Documents marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 12" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Nittle. Finally, Mr. Bittelman, let me state it appears that 
back in the 1930's, according to the Daily Worker of February 18, 1935, 
which I have before me, you also quoted copiously from Marx, 
Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Comintern documents to prove that ''the 
proletarian revolution is inevitable in the United States." 

According to this article, which I submit for incorporation in the 
printed record as Bittelman Exhibit 13, those who disagreed with 
that position were guilty of "bourgeois and reformist argument." 

Today the World Communist Movement and the American party 
organization are using your old arguments of the 1930's, and they are 
using your same epithets, the Communist theoretical jargon created 
by Lenin, to eliminate you from the party today and to discredit 
your theories of a peaceful and American road to "socialism." 

Is this not a correct statement? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
grounds. 

(Document marked "Bittelman Exhibit No. 13." See Appendix 
p. 830.) 

Mr. Nittle. For the sake of the record, Mr. Bittelman, when 
Khrushchev and Communists speak of "socialism," that is just a 
nice word for Communist control, isn't it? 

Mr. Bittelman. I decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
grounds. 



664 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. Certainly they are not referring to the type of social- 
ism — that of Norman Thomas, for example — which intends to proceed 
through constitutional processes? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. Is that a question? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. They are referring to revolutionary imposition of the 
will of a minority upon the majority of the American people, rather 
than an operation through constitutional processes, is that not 
correct? 

Mr. BiTTELMAN. I am awfully sorry, but I decline to answer on 
the same grounds. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Bittelman, certainly we respect your constitu- 
tional right to plead the first and fifth amendments which 3^ou have 
consistently done this afternoon. However, I think the open record 
of your own activity, and from information in the files of this com- 
mittee, indicates that you have indeed been active in a leadership 
position over the years in the Communist Party, United States of 
America. While, as I say, we do respect your right to invoke the 
privileges of the great Constitution of the United States, I must say 
that it is regrettable that, with this opportunity to serve your Nation 
by providing most important information to the Congress of the 
United States, you have chosen to invoke the privileges of the Con- 
stitution rather than provide this very vital information which you 
obviously, from your position, can provide. I would like to give you 
the assurance that if in the future, by some change of thought or 
conscience, you feel you would like to serve this Nation by providing 
us or other governmental agencies with this vital information, we 
would welcome it from you. 

The witness is dismissed. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 21, 1961, the sub- 
committee was recessed, to be reconvened at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, 
November 22, 1961.) 



STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNIST 
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 



WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1961 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D.C. 

public hearings 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-Ameriean Activities 
met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 1334, New House Office 
Building;, Washington, D.C, Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Subcommittee members present: Representatives Morgan M. 
Moulder, of Missouri; William M. Tuck, of Virginia; August E. 
Johansen, of Michigan; and Donald C. Bruce, of Indiana. 

Staff members present: Alfred M. Nittle, counsel. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. McNamara will be recalled as a witness. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS J. McNAMARA— Resumed 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. McNamara, in your previous testimony you have 
established for the record the skeletal structure of the Communist 
Party in the United States, the identity of the top national leadership, 
and the organizational principles by which it is evident that the 
leadership autocratically directs the activities of the thousands of 
rank-and-file party members and lesser party officials scattered 
throughout the United States. Through the statements made by 
Communists, disputing with other Communists, and through the 
committee's interrogation of a number of participants in the Com- 
munist conspiracy, the record of these hearings thus far includes 
practical illustrations of how the party operates on the principles of 
a paramilitary organization, created by Lenin in prerevolutionary 
Russia. 

The most important principles of party organization, it was shown, 
are democratic centralism, monohthic unity, and discipline. In 
terms most Americans will understand, they have resulted in an 
organization which functions on a unilateral chain-of-command basis, 
which permits no dissent from top party leadership directives, and 
which requires a lockstep performance by thousands of Conimunist 
Party members who daily carry out assignments, avowedly aimed at 
hastening the overthrow by violence of our constitutional form of 
government in favor of Soviet-style dictatorship. 

Why is it that these organizational principles have continued to 
govern the Communist Party operation in the United States, where 

665 



666 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

all our traditions, as so many dissenting Communists have themselves 
pointed out, might imply at least the gradual assimilation ol' some 
democratic processes b}^ local Communists? 

Mr. McNamara. Once a person joins the Communist Party, rather 
than having an assimilation of democratic ideals, there is, if I might 
coin a word, a process of "dissimilation" of democratic ideals and 
principles. This is because of the party psychology and strategy in 
dealing with its members. 

The party tries to surround them so completely with communism 
that tlie\^ will eventually become ideal Communists. In their cell 
meetings and clubs they receive a steady indoctrination in Communist 
principles and ideology. They are sent to Communist Party schools 
for formal instruction. They read Communist Party newspapers, 
Communist Party magazines, Communist Party literature on numer- 
ous topics. The party tries to build a Communist wall around its 
members to insulate them from influence by democratic ideals, 
thoughts, or processes. 

I do not mean by this that the party tries to cut them off completely 
from all contact with non-Communists. It is just the opposite, be- 
cause it is Communist doctrine that a Communist party which severs 
its ties completely with the non-Communist masses, becomes useless. 
It is no good — for the obvious reason that, once it does this, it cannot 
effectively promote the spread of world communism and eventually 
world conquest. 

However, the psychology of the part}^ member when he has con- 
tact with a non-Communist individual or organization is such that it 
militates against the absorption or assimilation of any democratic 
ideals. He has such contact with a mission. It is to sell connnunism, 
one phase or another of the party line, to these non-Communist groups 
or individuals. 

So that, as far as the party can maintain this, the party member is 
subjected to a steady, more concentrated assimilation of Communist 
ideals and a corresponding steady loss of any democratic ideals. He 
has these ideals, usually, to some extent when he joins the party. He 
has been brought up as an American, with democratic ideals. The 
party does everything it can to see that he loses these. 

Basically, however, these principles to which you have referred 
continue to operate in the party because the party has never been a 
"domestic" organization in the sense that any of our political parties, 
unions, or civic organizations are domestic or American. The Com- 
munist Party, from the very begimiing, alienated itself from American 
democratic processes in several ways: 

First of all, by frankly stating its objective of overthrowing this 
Government by force and violence if necessary; 

Secondly, it consolidated this alienation from everything that is 
democratic and American by imitating the party princi})les that were 
set up by Lenin for his prerevolutionary organization in Russia; 

And finally, it has perpetuated its alienation by pledging its primary 
loyalty to a foreign power, the Soviet Union. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Perlians, then, we should examine the nature of the 
relationship between the Communist Parties of the United States and 
of the Soviet Union, to which I assume you have reference? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. In spite of the fact that at the present time 
there are some small Conmumist countries whose leadership evidences 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 667 

some adherence to the (/hinesc Coiiiumnist Party, the Coiunumist 
Party of the United States, it will be demonstrated in these hearings, 
continues to take its direction first of all fi-om the most powerful 
Communist nation, the Soviet Union, the recognized head of the 
World Connnunist Movement, and to support the Soviet Union by 
every means available to it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. But this is contrary to the propaganda claims of the 
Communist Party and the statements in its constitution, is it not? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. But these hearings have already demon- 
strated the fallacy of such United States Communist Part}^ propa- 
ganda — the speciousness of the democratic principles spelled out in 
the party constitution, which are attempts to make the American 
people believe they are a legitimate political, American, and demo- 
cratic organization. The Communists' own statements which have 
been introduced in the record, statements not designed for non- 
Communist consumption, confirm, as we will show, the continued 
obedience of the United vStates party to the Krendin. 

Mr. NiTTLE. This means, does it not, that the national leadership 
of the party and its arbitary actions within the American party 
organization, which have been clearly revealed, are not the primary 
som'ce of the policies and program on which all American Communist 
activities are based? 

Mr. McNamara. This is true. Anyone who has attended these 
hearings and heard all that has gone into the record must ask them- 
selves: How did the leadership of the U.S. Communist Party deter- 
mine what was "correct" policy? What was "correct" program? 
What was "correct" theory? What was the "correct" type of party? 
What was their criterion for these judgments? 

Yesterday, there was on the witness stand one Alexander Bittelman, 
a charter member of the Communist Party. For years and j^ears he 
has been recognized by United States Communists as the party's 
top-ranking theoretician, its expert on Marxism-Leninism. Yet the 
national leadership has found that he has advocated policy that is 
now determined not to be correct. 

We have shown that John Gates, a long-time party leader, a man 
who held the important post of editor in chief of the party's Daily 
Worker — ^wliich is not merely a newspaper but a directive and theo- 
retical organ as well — has also been found guilty of incorrect policy. 

Homer B. Chase, who was on the stand yesterday, was a long- 
time organizer for the party. He, too, has been found guilty of in- 
correct policy. 

How are these determinations made? 

It can be shown, in every case, that the deviations charged to in- 
dividuals within the party are based on the line laid down by Nikita 
Khrushchev in Moscow, who has replaced Stalin as the boss of the 
World Commmiist Movement. 

Of course, the Communists will claim this is due merely to the fact 
that they have views similar to Khrushchev's. They just happen to 
agree, to think the same vf&y. However, to offset this claim, it can 
be shown that the Soviet Communists intervened directly in the 
bitter factional fighting in the United States Communist Party in the 
years 1956-58; that Moscow promoted a change in the leadership of 
the United States party, downgrading those United States Com- 
munists who showed some varying signs of independence of the 



668 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Kremlin; and that they elevated to ruling status a clique that is 
abjectly servile to the Kremlin in everything it says. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The monolithic, disciplined party organization in 
America today continues to operate as an agency of the Soviet dic- 
tatorship, despite the temporary upheaval in party ranks that took 
place while Stalin's succession was being fought out in the Soviet 
Union. Is that not a correct statement? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. But before going into some of the 
actual developments which prove this, demonstrate it, I would like 
to place in the record a few statements by Communists themselves 
which will demonstrate that the party followed Stalin slavishly up 
to the time of his death on March 5, 1953. 

One such item: In April 1956, the National Committee of the 
Communist Party held its first full meeting subsequent to Khruschev's 
de-Stalinization speech at the 20th Soviet Party Congress. At this 
meeting, Daily Worker Editor-in-Chief John Gates declared that the 
monolitliic character of the Communist movement had come to mean 
that "whatever Stalin said became our policy." He also told the 
National Committee that Marxism -Leninism had been "whatever 
Stalin said it was." ^ 

Second, an unidentified member of the Communist Party, speaking 
his mind in the July 1956 issue of Party Voice, an internal Communist 
Party publication, declared that he and other American Communists 
have been "living our lives, to some extent, vicariously, as Soviet 
citizens." 

He said that he had attended the Communist Part3''s Jefferson 
School in New York City but had never had a class on what Jefferson's 
ideas or theories meant and how they affected hun. On the other 
hand, he noted, "the History of the CPSU" — that is, the History of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — "has always been required 
reading in the Party." 

He said that the party operated on the basis of "slavish dependence 
* * * on everything Soviet — culture, philosophy and theory," and 
that "we thought the Russian Communists had all the answers and 
all we had to do was to get it from them." 

As a result of this slavish obedience to Moscow, this Communist 
pointed out, everything the Communists in the United States are 
doing today "looks like a reflection of the Soviet Party's 20th Con- 
gress." 

Mr. Tuck (presiding). The documents from which you have read 
will be marked as Committee Exhibits Nos. 24 and 25, respectively, 
and filed with the committee records. 

(Documents marked "Committee Exhibits Nos. 24 and 25," 
respectively, and retained in committee files.) 

]VIr. NiTTLE. This raises the pertinent question, Mr. McNamara, as 
to whether the American party organization continued this slavish 
dependence on Moscow following the death of Stalin in 1953. 

Mr. McNamara. Here is what one Communist says on that sub- 
ject. Again I quote from Party Voice, the issue of December 1956, 
an article written by a party member identified only by the initials 
"L. W. M." He is describing the party's role with respect to the 

' Gates synopsizos his roniarks at this meeting on pp. 16G, 167 of his book, The Story of An American 
Communist (Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1958). 



COMAIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 669 

Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership and its subsequent record 
after Stalin's death. He slated: 

The American Coinimuiist Party does not approach the American people 
with clean hands, as far as the Soviet Union is concerned. The American Com- 
munist Party repeated, as gospel truth, which it sincerely believed, every lie 
told by the Soviet Union about its living standards, about Tito, about democracy 
in the Soviet Communist Party, about the Moscow Trials, about the electoral 
S3'stem, about the Doctors' Case, the stamping out of Jewish culture. 

and 

it [the Communist Party] must free itself completely of the charge of being a 
"foreign agent." * * * It is a matter of proving that they do not regard the 
Soviet word as gospel, that they are not apologists, that they judge the Soviet 
Union on the basis of facts and not propaganda handouts, that they study Soviet 
developments independently * * *. 

Then this -^Titer went on to pronounce his judgment that an inde- 
pendent view of Soviet developments on the part of the United States 
Commimist Party is still ''not the case today." 

He then stated that, during 1956, United States Communist Party 
leaders had, in fact, shown "cringing subservience" to pronounce- 
ments and criticisms from Aioscow. I would like to hold the exact 
details of the subservience he complained about for insertion in the 
record at a later stage of these hearings. 

Another Communist, whose wiitings under the name of "Dan 
Henr}^" have already been introduced into the record as Committee 
Exhibit No. 18, also called attention to the fact that the party's 
leadership had adhered completely to Khrushchev and that its "blind 
acceptance" of all his revelations at the 20th Soviet Party Congress 
represented no improvement whatsoever in the way of independent 
action, that is, over the party's previous blind acceptance of every- 
thing Stalin had done when he was the boss of the World Communist 
Movement. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the article from the Decem- 
ber 1956 Party Voice be made a part of the printed record of the 
hearings. 

Mr. Tuck. Unless there is objection, and the Chair hears none, it 
is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 26." See Appendix, 
pp. 831-836.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did not the death of Stalin in 1953 affect the party 
organization in America in some way? 

Mr. McNamara. Not basically nor in any major way because, by 
force of habit, I guess you might say, and by ideology, the United 
States Communist Party and its leadership continued to support and 
echo the pronouncements made by whoever seemed to be "top dog" 
in Moscow at the moment. 

It must be remembered that the disciplined, monolithic structure 
of the United States Communist Party has always viewed the Soviet 
Union as the fatherland and has considered itself as part of an inter- 
national proletarian vanguard sworn to support and defend this father- 
land against all so-called enemies. 

In bolder and older days, the American Communists even publicly 
took an oath to fulfill this duty. This oath received in those days as 
much emphasis as their so-called historical mission of bringing about 
the downfall of capitalism and the victory of communism on a world 
scale. So just as the American organization in 1924 accepted Stalin 



670 COMJVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

as Lenin's heir — and this was based, not on any great pre-eminence 
on Stalin's part, but just the mere fact of his undisputed control of 
the Soviet party apparatus — so after Stalin's death in 1953, the 
United States party immediately bowed down to the new high priest- 
hood in Moscow, which was known as the collective leadership. There 
were no immediate repercussions or trouble of any kind. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Perhaps it would be well to clarify the record as to the 
natm-e of the Soviet leadership in the post-Stalin era, particularly 
with respect to the exact time at which Khrushchev emerged as supreme 
leader. 

Mr. McNamara. Briefly, it could be summarized in this way: 
In 1953, in March, the Soviet Union lost a dictator who had answered 
to no one and no organization, actually, during the some 30 years 
that he had ruled the Soviet empire and the World Communist Move- 
ment. Immediately after his death, the Central Committee of the 
Soviet Communist Party became the decision -maker for world com- 
munism, while Georgi Malenkov was named to the post of Soviet 
Premier. 

Khrushchev was part of this collective leadership, having obtained 
the post of first secretary of the party, that is, the boss, the top post 
in the party, in September 1953. The power struggle that ensued 
and in which leading Soviet Communists maneuvered and fought 
for Stalin's mantle is now a matter of history. 

In February 1955 Malenkov was forced to resign, and Khrushchev's 
increasing influence on Soviet affairs became clearly evident. He 
succeeded gradually in eliminatmg opposition and, by late 1957, had 
pretty well established his monopoly rule of the Soviet regime. 

In March 1958, Nicolai Bulganin, who had succeeded Malenkov as 
Premier, was forced out. Khrushchev became Premier of the Soviet 
Government at that time. His pre-emmence, his absolute rule, was 
thus demonstrated — because he had achieved the two posts which 
Stalin had held for many years. He was top man in both the Com- 
munist Party and in the Government of the Soviet Union. 

Mr. NiTTLE. How did the power struggle in the Soviet Union affect 
the party organization in America? 

Mr. McNamara. Not to any great extent, and there was no funda- 
mental change in the United States party during this period. Of 
course, there were minor changes in party propaganda and in some of 
its ta(;tics. There was, for example, an all-out return to the united- 
front tactic which was dictated by the new leadership in Moscow. 
This was the tactic that had been so effectively employed by Com- 
munists in the United States in the 1930's. 

Under this tactic, Communists ostensibly cooperate with non- 
Communist individuals and groups of any type, from socialists to 
capitalists, from free thinkers to Catholics, for alleged common 
objectives, such as today — this is the l)ig theme of all the party's 
united-front effort — for "peace." Conununist organizations, fronts, 
attempt to establish joint ventures with non-Communist groups. 
And then they have the "united-front-from-below" tactic, in which 
they try to achieve the same objective by the infiltration of individual 
Conmiunist Party members into non-Connnunist groups. This, 
today, is a major tactic being employed by the United States party. 

Under Stalin's more rigid prior strategy, the Communists in the 
United States had found much more difficult going. It had tended to 



COIVUVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 671 

alienate thorn from the American people. Under his policies, for 
example, the Communists had come out and made statements to the 
effect that they would always refuse to bear arms against the Soviet 
Union in the event there should be a war between this and that nation. 

The subject of tactical change is pertinent and important in any 
consideration of the degree to which the Soviet Union controls the 
United States party, but there is so much information on this subject, 
and it is so broad, that T think we might just end our consideration of 
this subject at this time and possibly get into it later on in the hearings. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Between the death of Stalin in 1953 and the 20th 
Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in February 1956, none of 
the events in Moscow that then occurred interfered with the con- 
tinued smooth functioning of the party organization in the United 
States. Is that correct? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. It was not until Khrushchev made 
his denunciation of Stalin in a secret speech before the 20th Soviet 
Party Congress on February 24 and 25, 1956, a speech that was 
leaked out through the representatives of other parties and eventually 
published by the United wStates State Department, that an upheaval 
developed. This upheaval split the United States party's top leader- 
ship. It introduced some changes in the party's constitution which 
could have affected its basic structure and principles, and it also, of 
course, generated a great amount of confusion among the thousands 
of rank-and-file Communists in this country and in many other na- 
tions who had been accustomed to lock-step performance in obedience 
to everything said by the Soviet leadership. Communists are re- 
quired, and always have been as part of their ideology and discipline, 
to accept everything that Moscow says. 

After Ivlirushchev's denunciation of Stalin, they were in a very 
uncomfortable position. They had to admit tha' they had been 
wrong for some 30 years, basically, in deifying and worshiping and 
supporting and doing everything Stalin said, or else they had to defy 
the authority of Stalin's possible successor, Khrushchev. The fact 
that Klirushchev had confirmed Stalin's unjustified assassination or 
liquidation of thousands of good Communists and Soviet citizens 
who were just expendable to him, the lack of judicial process in the 
Soviet Union, the revelations about the slave labor camps, Stalin's 
attempts at self-deification — ^thcse and other revelations made by 
lOirushchev were just too much for many Communists, who simply 
left the organization in disgust. Then those who did not leave had 
varying reactions. William Z. Foster, the national chairman of the 
United States party, simply apologized for all his past mistakes and 
sought to continue the operation of the same type party, the same type 
apparatus, under Khrushchev's leadership. John Gates, the editor in 
chief of the Daily Worker, wanted to revise the party, to change it 
into a political association based on democratic processes and pro- 
cedures with independence of Moscow, while actually seeking, how- 
ever, to bring about a Communist America. Others had still different 
views. They wanted a change in the leadership, or just certain 
democratic elements or procedures introduced into the party, its 
structure, discipline. 

Others, again, wanted a disciplined, monolithic, revolutionary 
organization which rejected Khrushchev's leadership and remained 



672 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

loyal to the basic principles that had been laid down by Stalin over 
his 30 years' reign. 

The same situation tliat dev(>loped within the I'nited States party 
developed in many other Communist parties of tJie world. Italy, 
France, Great Britain, Canada are examples. The explosive impact 
of Khrushchev's attack on Stalin was also seen in the uprising of the 
Hungarian people in the autumn of 1956 and the riots in Poland 
earlier in the same year. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. McNamara, may I interrupt your presentation 
for a moment? 

Did you have the opportunity to see an item in the Wa'^hington Post 
this morning titled "Row of Italian Reds Cracks Leader Front"? 

Mr. McNamara. No, I didn't see that. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I have just come upon this myself. I will read from 
it, as I think the article will demonstrate very clearly tlie timeliness 
and significance of what you have been telling us, particularly your 
reference to Italy and other Communist parties throughout the world 
undergoing the same experience as that which the American party 
has undergone. 

It appears, however, that while the American party organization 
has solved its problems, at least for the time being, the situation has 
not been similarly solved even today in Italy. May I read a small 
extract from that article to which I refer in the Washington Post, 
Wednesday, November 22, 1961, page A-11. Then I would ask for 
a brief comment from you. This is an article written bv Leo J. 
Wollemborg : 

Rome, Nov. 21 — -Developments of the last few days have sharply spotlighted 
a significant and novel feature of the crisis that is racking the Italian Communist 
Party as a result of the recent Moscow congress and the further downgrading of 
Stalin. 

This time, the shock waves originating from Moscow have not only shaken the 
Red rank and file, but have also cracked the solid front that the Italian Com- 
munist leadership had maintained even when it was confronted with the first 
de-Stalinization back in 1956. 

It now appears that in the meeting of the Party's Central Committee held after 
the return from Moscow of Palmiro Togliatti, unchallenged leader of Italian com- 
munism for 25 years, he was the target of extremely sharp attacks from many of 
his younger lieutenants. 

Even more significant, an account of the attacks, although considerably toned 
down, was printed in the official Party daily at the behest of those Communist 
"Young Turks" and without Togliatti's approval or even knowledge. At the 
same time, the paper did not print a single passage of the sharp reply that Togliatti 
reportedly addressed to his critics at the end of the meeting. 

Two days later, the veteran leader took the second round by resorting to similar 
tactics. The Party daily i)ublished a resolution, allegedly approved unanimously 
by the Central Committee, which in effect embodied the Togliatti line. It en- 
dorsed the new wave of de-Stalinization hiunched in the U.S.S.R. and ignored the 
differences that had emerged in the Central Committee except for a pointed 
warning that any such differences would play into the hands of anti-Communists. 

That is an extract from the article. I ask that the article be intro- 
duced in the record of these hearings as an exhibit, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tuck. Unless there is an objection on the part of some member 
of the committee, and the (liair hears none, the article will be ad- 
mitted as an exhibit. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 27" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. McNamaha. By way of comment, I would make three brief 
observations. One, I think 1 stated in my testimony the other day 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 673 

that Khruslichev could not have foreseen fully all the results of his 
de-Stalinization speech. I think this exemplifies that. He has 
created turmoil throughout the Comnmnist world by that speech. 
He has weakened the unity of the World Communist Movement hy it. 
I have no doubt that he has often regretted it for this reason. 

Second, as generally known, the Italian Connnunist Party is the 
largest one outside the Iron Curtain. This demonstrates one of the 
problems faced by the Communist movement. The larger the party, 
the more difficult it is so thoroughly to indoctrinate every single party 
member that you will always get complete, unswerving obedience; 
the more difficult it is to control the party as a whole. That is why, 
as a general rule, following the Hungarian uprising and some other 
events which portrayed tlie evil of communism, you generally had 
more defections among the larger European Communist parties than 
you had in the American Communist Party. 

The third point I would make, or observation, is that I think this 
article proves quite conclusively that the United States Communists 
are much more completely subservient to Moscow than are the 
Italian Comnmnists because trouble of this kind, as these hearings 
will demonstrate by documentation and facts introduced, has been 
ended in the United States party. This severe factionalism, strife, 
disagreement within the top leadership no longer exists. The party is 
completely and w^holly going dow^n Khrushchev's line. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, how long did the situation prevail in the party 
organization in this country, which appears now^ to be erupting anew 
in the Italian Communist Party? 

Mr. McNamara. It existed for almost 2 years. It erupted into 
the open, or at least into publications of the Communist Party, in the 
spring of 1956. This fact has provided us non-Communists with a 
chronicle of the major battles fought in this inner-party struggle and 
with the positions taken by the various factions involved in it. How- 
ever, it took the new^ party leadership clique until the 17th National 
Convention in December 1959 to consofidate its victory in this dispute. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Was this disruption of the party operation in America 
settled by mutual agreement of the contenders? 

Mr. McNamara. "No, it was settled by Soviet intervention. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would you ex-plain by what method this intervention 
took place? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, with a little background information first. 
Khrushchev himself actuafiy must bear a good bit of the blame for 
the fervor with which many U.S. Communists — who were by no 
means disrespectful, actually, of the new Soviet leadership^ — discussed 
how American Communists might develop some ideas of their own 
for a change in the methods of achieving communism in this country. 

In 1955, he held conversations w^ith Tito with the view of cementing 
relations which, he claims, Stalin had disrupted. In the course of 
these conversations, he made pronouncements regarding possible 
"independent roads" to socialism— by which he meant communism. — 
depending on the specific conditions existing in various countries. 
These remarks and similar remai-ks made at the 20th Congress of the 
Soviet Connnunist Party led many American Communists and Com- 
munists in other parts of the world, including the Italian Communist 
Party, for example, to believe that some independence of Moscow had 
official approval, that it was okay, and that they could exercise a 



674 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

certain amount of independence of their own. Exhibits with respect 
to these statements made by Klirushchev were introduced yesterday, 
I beheve, in the interrogation of the witness Alexander Bittehnan. 

The seriousness of the repercussions, first from Khrushchev's revela- 
tion of Stalin's crimes and second from the misinterpretation on the 
part of Communists of this post-Stalin policy toward non-Soviet 
Communist parties, compelled the production of a lengthy, clarifying 
pronouncement by the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist 
Party. This was made on June 30, 1956. It was issued within 4 
months, actually, of the time when Khrushchev made his attack on 
Stahn at the 20th Soviet Party Congress. The Central Committee,, 
which issued this statement, was at the time the ruling group. It 
was the "collective" government in the Soviet Union. 

This statement inveighed against Communists whose loyalty to the 
Soviet Union had weakened as the result of these two developments. 
It warned them that they were serving the capitalist enemies of 
communism by the ideas they had expressed. The Central Com- 
mittee statement reminded Communists throughout the world of the 
need "for proletarian internationalism" and "loyalty to Marxism- 
Leninism," a catch phrase which always had rallied Communists, 
everywhere to the support of the Soviet Union in the past. It 
pointed out that simply because the Comintern and Cominform no 
longer existed, it did not follow that "international solidarity" and the 
"need of contacts" between the various Communist parties had "lost 
significance." With these and many other expressions of the need for 
Communists everywhere to "rally together and strengthen their ties,"^ 
the Central Committee of the Soviet party sought to restore the unity 
which had been disrupted and broken by Khrushchev, restore that 
unity under Soviet leadership. It singled out for special attack, 
Togliatti, the Italian Communist leader, for "incorrectly" interpreting 
the revelations regarding Stalin as a sign of degeneration of Soviet 
society. 

This pronouncement of the Central Committee was broadcast by 
radio from Moscow, reprinted in Communist journals throughout the 
world, and also published in the Daily Worker here in this country 
under date of July 3, 1956, for the benefit of members of the United 
States Communist Party. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the statement of the Soviet 
Central Committee of June 30, 1956, be marked as an exhibit and 
incorporated in the printed record. 

Mr. Tuck. Unless there is an objection of some member of the 
committee, and I hear none, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 28." See Appendix, 
pp. 837-853.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. What success did this Soviet effort to regain its 
leadership obtain? 

Mr. McNamara. This effort received great attention from the 
Soviet leadership in spite of the fact that at that time, we must recall, 
the leadership was itself locked in a power struggle, which was not 
resolved until Khruslichev in the summer of 1957 won out over the 
Malenkov-Molotov faction. After defeating these opponents, 
Khrushchev devoted more attention to the situation in tlie World 
(Communist Movement, which was still charactei'ized by signs of 
aspiration for a certain amount of independence from the Kremlin on 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 675 

the part of national Conmiimist parties, particularly those in the 
Western World, by a record of actual riotinj:; in Pohuul and Hungary 
and stress on national conimunisni, so-called, on the part of the 
Yuo:oslav Communists. 

In November 1957, there was an international Comnmnist con- 
ference held, called by Khrushchev. It issued a manifesto of com- 
mon purpose and unity, or "adherence to Marxism-Leninism," as it 
said, under the leadership of the Soviet Union. Sixty-five of the 
80-odd Communist parties of the world signed this manifesto. In 
addition, 12 Communist parties which actually controlled the govern- 
ments of nations in Europe and Asia signed a famous declaration 
against revisionism and in favor of "proletarian internationalism." 
The Yugoslavs, however, did refuse to sign this latter statement. 

On the basis of a series of such meetings of Communist parties 
throughout the world, Khrushchev endeavored to repair the damage 
he had done to the monolithic structure of the World Communist 
Movement and the damage he had also done to many of the individual 
parties. These international conferences of Communist parties of 
the world were bolstered by a steady stream of directives that came 
out of Moscow in the form of speeches bv Khrushchev himself and 
other faithful Soviet and foreign Communists. They were also 
bolstered by numerous articles which appeared in the Soviet press 
and in international Communist journals such as International Affairs, 
which is printed in Moscow in some 18 languages and read by Com- 
munists in every nation of the world. 

The capitulation of individual Communists and Communist parties 
to the call of Moscow for strict adherence to its dictates followed with 
varying degrees of rapidity. As we saw from the Washington Post 
article of this morning, there has not yet been complete capitulation 
on the part of the Italian Communist Party. Some Communist 
parties have continued to show some signs of independence. But the 
Communist Party of the United States, as material to be introduced 
in these hearings will reveal, capitulated completely to these calls from 
Moscow for complete subservience to everything it said, did, requested, 
or demanded. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Just one more matter, Mr. McNamara: I note that 
the 81 Communist Parties' manifesto, which was issued after the 
last meeting of November-December 1960, contains certain state- 
ments of interest. I would quote two or three of them, for your 
comment in relation to what you have just said: 

It is the supreme internationalist duty of every Marxist-Leninist Party to work 
continuously for greater unity in the world Communist movement. 

******* 

_ The Communist and Workers' Parties hold meetings whenever necessary to 
discuss urgent problems, to exchange experience, acquaint themselves with each 
other's views and positions, work out common views through consultations and 
co-ordinate joint actions in the struggle for common goals. 

******* 

The Communist and Workers' Parties unanimously declare that the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union has been, and remains, the universally recognized van- 
guard of the world Communist movement, being the most experienced and steeled 
contingent of the international Communist movement. 

Mr. McNamara. I believe it is apparent from that excerpt from 
the statement signed by 81 of the world's 87 Communist parties in 
Moscow December 5, 1960, that Khrushchev has succeeded at least in 



676 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

getting all the Communist parties of the world to give complete lip 
service to his demand for absolute unity of the World Communist 
Movement and the complete subservience of every single Communist 
party to Moscow. I think that, as far as the overwhelming majority 
of Communist parties of the world are concerned, it is much more 
than lip service. There are some, a few, such as the Italian Com- 
munist Party, where there is still some deviationism and disagreement. 
But, for the most part, the Communist parties of the world have 
rallied to the position that Moscow is the supreme power; the Soviet 
Party, the top party. They must look to it as the vanguard and 
follow its example and directives. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Mr. McNamara be per- 
mitted to stand aside. We would like to call a witness, and then 
have Mr. McNamara conclude his testimony later. 

Mr. Tuck. Mr. Bruce would like to ask a question. 

Mr. Bruce. Mr. McNamara, is it not true that in their writings, 
consistently over the years, the Communist dogmatists and theoreti- 
cians have always maintained the position that communism is not 
nationalistic, but is international in character? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. 

Mr. Bruce. Actually, the Western World, to a great degree, perhaps 
makes a mistake in equating communism with Russians, as such. 

Mr. McNamara. I think that is one of the most dangerous errors 
made by non-Communists with good intentions. They tend to 
identify communism with the Russian people. Remember that at 
the time of the Hungarian uprising there was only one group of men 
who went to the assistance of the Hungarians who were fighting for 
their freedom, and these were Russians who defected from the Soviet 
Army and actually turned their guns on their own commanders. 
The Russian people — 200 million-odd — are, like the people of C^hina 
and of the other Communist nations, slaves of the system. We know 
from the testimony of the hundreds of thousands of refugees that have 
come from behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains in recent years, 
that they hate their oppressors, hate the governments which rule 
them. It is a very bad mistake to tend to identify communism with 
the Russian people. 

Mr. Bruce. Is it not also true that the Communists, the world 
organization of Communists, regarded the Communist establishment 
of the Government of Russia as merely a home base, as a launching 
pad for their international organization, right from the beginning? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. But I do think that over the years 
it has been more than that. They also ascribe to the Soviet party a 
primacy in the W^orld Connnunist Movement. 

Mr. Bruce. It is the original launching pad? 

Mr. McNamara. That is right. Actually, of course, the earliest 
Communist theoreticians did not think that Russia would be the first 
Communist nation. They expected it to be one of the countries of 
Western Europe, one of our industrialized cultures, rather than the 
Soviet — I mean Russia — -which was so largely agricultural, that they 
would capture first. 

Mr. Bruce. Even going back into the early Marxist theorists and 
so forth, they clearly recognized the need to establish a base in one 
country as the home ground, as it were, from which they could then 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 677 

send their tentacles out throughout the entire world, with the disci- 
pline originating from this captured home base? 

Mr. McNamara. This is unquestionably true. In the early years 
and until quite recently, in fact, the Communists always made much 
of the "capitalist encirclement" of Kussia, and how this one base of 
w^orld communism that had been established had to be protected at 
all costs. This was the prime duty of every Communist in the world, 
to protect that base — and to end the capitalist encirclement of the 
Soviet Union by creating other Communist regimes. 

Mr. Bruce. Is it not also true on the international party operation 
that the discipline we are talking about here of all Communist parties, 
incorporates basically three phases of operation — the loyalty to the 
Soviet military operation; loyalty to the faith of the Communists, the 
motivating factor, the dedication to the so-called principles of Marx, 
Engels, Lenin; and to the conspiratorial apparatus, the mission- 
aries of the Communist movement, that all three are invoked as an 
acceptance of discipline on all Communist parties of the world? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. 

Mr. Bruce. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Tuck. We thank you very much, Mr. McNamara, and the 
committee will be glad to hear from you later on. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. Wednesday, November 22, 1961, the 
committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 p.m. the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1961 

(The committee reconvened at 2 p.m., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder, 
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.) 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. Call your next 
witness. 

Mr. NiTTLE. A. B. Magil. 

Mr. Moulder. You do solemnly swear that the testimony which 
you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. MAfiiL. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM B. MAGIL, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

SIDNEY DICKSTEIN 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would you state your full name for the record, please? 

Mr. Magil. Abraham B. Magil. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I believe you are represented by counsel, are you not, 
Mr. Magil? 

Mr. Magil. I am. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Will counsel please identify himself for the record? 

Mr. DicKSTEiN. Sidney Dickstein, 1411 K Street, N.W., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You are appearing here today in response to a subpena 
served upon you by this committee, is that not correct, Mr. Magil? 

Mr. Magil. That is correct. 

Mr. NiTTLE. What is your present residence? 

Mr. Magil. 180 Riverside Drive, New York City. 



83743—62— pt. 1- 



678 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. Wliat is your present occupation? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. I must respectfully decline to answer invoking the 
constitutional protection of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you on the payroll of the Communist Party at 
this time? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Where were you born, Mr. Magil? 

Mr. Magil. Philadelphia. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Would you give us a thumbnail sketch of your past 
occupations? 

Mr. AIagil. I must again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, the committee is anxious to question you 
regarding your knowledge of certain recent developments within the 
Communist Party of the United States. The committee understands 
that you have had a long experience in that organization, chiefly in 
the important role of publicist and journalist, is that correct? 

Mr. Magil. Fifth amendment. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. To establish your long intimacy with organized com- 
munism in America and your competency to testify on this subject, 
I would like to refer you to an issue of the Daily Worker dated January 
18, 1930, which identifies you at that time as an instructor in the 
Communist Party Workers' School. Was that report oi your activity 
at that time by this Communist newspaper a correct representation? 

Mr. Magil. With all due respect, I am again invoking the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you also over a period of time extending from 
1930 to approximately 1955 serve the Communist Party, from time 
to time, as an instructor in its schools? 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you lecture before the California Labor School 
in the period between 1953 and 1955? 

Mr. Magil. Again I stand on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, in this connection the committee has 
compiled a list of references from the Daily Worker to be identified as 
Magil Exhibit No. 1. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. According to the Communist magazine. New Masses, 
for February 1931, you were an American delegate to the Second 
World Plenum of the International Bureau of Revolutionary Litera- 
ture, which was held in the Soviet Union in November 1930. You 
were reported to be representing the John Reed Club, and also repre- 
senting at that meeting a publication. New Masses. Did you attend 
that Second World Plenum? 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. That plenum was held at Kharkov in Russia, was it 
not? 

Mr. Magil. I am again resorting to my constitutional privilege 
of invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you have any recollection of the platform adopted 
by that world conference of Communist intellectuals, convened 
there at Kharkov in accordance with this item in New Massesl 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 679 

Mr. Magil. Respectfully I nuist give you the same answer. 

Mr. NiTTLE. May I ask you this question now: Would you defend 
the United States against the Soviet Union in the event of attack by 
that country upon this? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Air. Magil. With all due respect, I must again invoke the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. At the Kharkov conference to which I just referred, 
was it not a part of the platform of the "intellectuals" gathered there 
to subscribe to the following program, and I quote: 

if you are a revolutionary writer or artist, you must fight not only against the 
war danger, but, more positively, in defence of the fatherland of all the workers 
and revolutionary intellectuals of the world, the Soviet Union. 

Did you participate in the adoption of that program? 

Mr. Magil. I am again invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In the event the Soviet Union attacked the United 
States, would you assist the Soviet Union against the United States? 

Mr. Magil. I must once more with all due respect invoke the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Is it a program of the Communist Party within the 
United States to serve as a military organization, and to conduct 
rear warfare in the event of an attack upon this country by the Soviet 
Union? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I hand you Magil Exhibit 2, and ask whether you will 
identify that as a correct statement of the platform as it appeared in 
the New Masses at that time? 

Mr. Magil. I once more invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were not the John Reed Clubs which were organized 
in the United vStates an instrumentality of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Magil. Once more the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I state for the record that the John 
Reed Clubs were the subject of a finding by the Special Committee 
on Un-American activities in 1940. That the publication. New 
Masses, is a Communist periodical has been attested to not only by 
the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, but also by the 
Attorney General of the United States, and the Subversive Activities 
Control Board. I request that Magil Exhibit 2 be filed with the 
committee records. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 2" and retained m com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you report for the Daily Worker the proceedings 
of the Ninth Convention of the Communist Party of the United States 
dm-ing the period June 24-28, 1936? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you deny the validity of that factual assertion, 
which is based on your own writing in the Daily Worker in the issue 
of June 26, 1936? 

Air. Magil. I am in fact invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The proceedings of a convention subsequently held 
in May 1944, which temporarily transformed the Communist Party 



680 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

into the Communist Political Association, record you as a member of 
the pulilicity and press conunittee for that convention. The com- 
mittee also has information that you were in attendance at the Com- 
munist Party 16th National Convention, which was held in New 
York City February 9-12, 1957. 

Would you care to verify your participation in these conclaves of 
party leadership during those years? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the protection of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chau'man I ask that the public references to the 
convention activities of Mr. Magil be identified as Magil Exhibit 
No. 3. 

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit referred to by counsel will be filed watli 
the committee records. 

(Document marked "^Slagil Exhibit No. 3" and retained in com- 
mittee fdes.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Has not your principal function in the Communist 
Party organization for many years past been as a writer and editor 
of party publications? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I want to show you a reproduction of an article from 
the Daily Worker dated January 15, 1957, in which your appointment 
as editor of The Worker, the Sunday edition of the Daily Worker, was 
announced by its editor in chief, John Gates. 

The article states that your association with the Daily Worker began 
in 1928, when you joined the Daily Worker staff as a copy reader. 
The article states that you later served on the Daily Worker editorial 
board, and as the newspaper's correspondent in Israel and Mexico. 

Would you confirm the accuracy of that biographical sketch? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke tlie fifth amendment. 
' Mr. NiTTLE. Subsequently on October 21, 1957, the Daily Worker 
reported that you would no longer serve as editor of the weekend 
Worker, because you had assumed the assignment of foreign editor of 
the Daily Worker, and your columns were to appear three times a 
week in the paper. Is that an accurate description of your journal- 
istic assignment for the Communist Party for the period beginning 
October 1957? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these reproductions from 
the two issues of the Daily Worker just referred to be marked as 
"MagU Exliibits Nos. 4 and 5," and be incorporated in the record of 
the hearings. 

Mr. Moulder. Witliout objection, it is so ordered. 

(Documents marked "Magil Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5." See Appendix, 
pp. 854 and 855.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, the Daily Worker of January 15, 1957, 
to which I have just referred, Exhibit 4, states that in the late 1930's 
and early 1940's you were one of the editors of Neio Classes, and later 
became associate editor of the monthly Alast^es and Mainstream. 
Copies of these publications in our files show that at various times 
between 1930 and 1948 you were contril)uting editor, associate editor, 
and executive editor of New Classes. After Aktv Alasses merged with 
a Jnagazine known as Mainstream to become Masses and Mainstream 
in March 1948, you were listed as contributing editor to the magazine 
in 1950 and associate editor during the years 1953-1956. Is this an 



COMIVrUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 681 

accurate representation of your position witli these Communist 
publications? 

Mr. Magil. Again I am invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Am I correct in describing these pubhcations as official 
publications of the Comnmnist Party of the United States? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer, the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The news items concerning the official positions held 
by Mr. Magil on the staff of New Masses and Alasses and Mainstream, 
as reported hi those publications, will be marked Magil Exhibit No. 6 
and filed witli the committee records. 

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit will be so marked and filed with the 
committee records. 

(Document marked "]Magil Exhibit No. 6" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, your last announced assignment which 
we have established was as foreign editor of the Daily Worker, as a 
result of 3'our appointment to that position in October 1957. The 
Daihj Worker ceased publication on January 13, 1958, and only the 
weekly Worker continued to be issued. Earlier in that same month, 
John Gates, who had appointed you to your position, resigned from 
both the editorship of the Daily Worker and from the Communist 
Party. Your bylines did not continue to appear in the new weeldy 
Worker after January 26, 1958. Would you tell the committee how 
long after that date you continued to function as a staff member on 
that Conmiimist Party newspaper? 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The committee understands that you left The Worker 
staff, in fact, in the spring of 1958. Is that correct? 

Mr. ]Magil. Once more with all due respect, I invoke the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Have you since the spring of 1958 continued to 
mamtain your membership in the Communist Party? 

Mr. Magil. Again I uivoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Have you since the spring of 1958 been denied any 
position of responsibility, such as you undoubtedly had as editor and 
writer for the party's official newspaper? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke tlie fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Has any position of responsibility in the Communist 
Party been denied to you, as the result of internal party disputes 
which followed after Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin at the 20th 
Soviet Party Congress in 1956? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In view^ of the facts in possession of the committee 
and which you have not denied, it appears that you have a great 
deal of infomiation witli reference to Communist Party activities 
during tliis critical period of 1956 to 1958, and with particular refer- 
ence to the way in which the party dispute was finally settled. In 
your case, as a staff member of the official Communist Party news- 
paper, you were certamly in a key position to observe the develop- 
ments throughout that crisis, which the then National Chairman 
William Z. Foster described as aft'ecting both the organization and 
the ideology of the party. Would you agree with Foster's characteri- 
zation of the internal dispute, which was featured so prominently in 
every issue of the Daily Worker, beginning in the spring of 1956? 



682 COJVIMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In so characterizing the party dispute, I was quoting 
expressions which appeared as statements of William Z, Foster in the 
internal party bulletin, Party Voice, of January 1957, in an article 
entitled, "Origins of the Crisis in the CPUSA." 

I will hand you a copy of the statement to which I have just referred 
and ask you whether you have ever read that article. 

(Witness examines document.) 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I respectfulW request, Mr. Chairman, that this Party 
Voice article be marked Magil Exhibit No. 7, and filed in the commit- 
tee's records. 

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit will be so marked. 

(Docmnent marked "Magil Exhibit No. 7" and retained in the 
committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Foster was the leading opponent, was he not, of John 
Gates and other so-called revisionists, who sought varying degrees of 
internal party democracy and a certain degree of independence of 
Moscow? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, Foster's own position, which he stated at great 
length in the party's theoretical journal, Political Affairs, was to 
retain the party organization as it had operated in the past, as a 
revolutionary monolithic organization subservient to Moscow. He 
praised democratic centralism as a "Leninist form of organization," 
and declared it to be a major asset to the party. He called for the 
party's close sympathy with the first country of socialism, the USSR. 
He wanted no weakening of the principle of "proletarian interna- 
tionalism, "which was another way of expressing the international ties 
of , the Communist Party in the United States with the party at 
Moscow. 

In addition, in one of his first responses in the Daily Worker of 
April 4, 1956, to the Khrushchev revelations, William Z. Foster posed 
possible excuses for Stalin's excesses. He was an apologist for Stalin. 
He warned against jumping to conclusions, such as those to the effect 
that discipline was no longer necessary in the party organization in 
America. 

Further, he bemoaned the current lack of a Communist Interna- 
tional, or at least an international Communist journal, for the con- 
veyance of what he said was brotherh^ criticism. 

Foster even declared on this occasion, which was in April 1956, that 
"The famous Duclos article showed how helpful such criticism, when 
well-based, could be." This, of course, was reference to the French 
Communist leader, Jacques Duclos, who was Stalin's personal emissary 
in ousting Earl Browder from leadership of the American Communist 
Party 10 years earlier. 

I would like to recall to your attention these two written statements 
by William Z. Foster, in order to refresh your recollection of the 
opposite views on party organization held by various top party na- 
tional leaders in this very critical period between 1956 and 1958. 

I deal at greater length with the position of Foster because his 
position has not yet been clearly established on the record, in contrast 
with the many other Communist statements that have been in- 
troduced, which proposed changes in the party structure following the 



co:M]vruNisT party of the united states 683 

John Gates' scheme for an independent democratic Communist 
pohtical action association. 

Would you describe for the committee, Mr. Magil, what position 
you took in the course of this bitter dispute between the Foster and 
the Gates factions of the Communist Party in the United States 
during the period 1956-1958? 

Mr. MAGn.. Respectfully I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, the article by William Z. Foster, 
which appeared in Political AJfairs for December 1957, was introduced 
yesterday as Bittelman Exliibit No. 6. (See Appendix, pp. 781- 
795.) 

I now request that Foster's article in the Daily Worker of April 4, 
1956, be marked Magil Exhibit No. 8 and incorporated in the record 
of the hearings. 

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit will be so admitted. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 8." See Appendix, 
pp. 856-858.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. William Z. Foster, who as national chairman had every 
reason to be cognizant of the status of the party, declared that re- 
visionists grew in number following Khrushchev's revelations and 
came to dominate most of the staff of the Daily Worker. He pointed 
out that the revisionists had, and I quote, "a majority of 27 to 1 on 
the New York State Committee [of the party], and it had a strong fol- 
lowing in various other state committees of the Party." He said fur- 
ther that by December 1957, revisionism was "very strong in all the 
leading committees of the Party," and "Its main strength is that it 
controls and uses the Daily Worker as its special mouthpiece." I am 
quoting from the December 1957 issue of Political Affairs, previously 
introduced as Bittelman Exhibit No. 6. 

Were you not yom*self described as a revisionist as the result of your 
writings in the Daily Worker, which criticized excesses in discipline and 
lack of democracy in the party organization? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you not in fact a member of the majority, re- 
ferred to by William Z. Foster as on the staff of the Daily Worker, 
who were described as revisionists and opposed to the Foster faction? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Magil, you were even casti- 
gated by a Soviet spokesman who spoke on behalf of the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union, is that not a correct statement? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I hand you a reproduction of a very lengthy article 
which appeared under your byline in The Worker of July 22, 1956, 
and ask if this represented your position on American party organiza- 
tion in the light of Khrushchev's revelations of February 1956? That 
article will be designated as Magil Exhibit No. 9. 

(Witness examined document.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. You have examined that, I presume. Mr. Chairman, 
I ask that Magil Exhibit No. 9 be incorporated in the record of the 
hearings. 

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 9." See Appendix, 
pp. 859-863.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Perhaps you want to hold that for a moment, Mr. 
Magil. I shall make some references to it. You wUl note that part 



684 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

of your article is entitled "For a New Look at Democratic Centralism," 
and begins by stating: 

Revelations of abuses and crimes that took place in the Soviet Union under 
Stalin's one-man rule have focussed attention on the question of democracy under 
socialism and within the Communist Parties. 

(Representative Bruce left the hearing room.) 
Mr. NiTTLE. You state further: 

As our discussion has developed, the question has occasionally been raised 
whether the chief structural principle of Communist Parties in all countries, 
democratic centralism, is valid for the United States. 

But in that article, Mr. Magil, you do not advocate the complete 
abandonment of the principle of democratic centralism, do you? 

Mr. Magil. Again I mvoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You do complain that some party members "write 
and speak as if our Party were the most undemocratic organization 
in the United States," and then you answer that the party, as a rep- 
resentative of the working class, is "by its very nature immeasurably 
more democratic than the parties of big business or other organiza- 
tions * * * uTespective of the practices and procedures that prevail 
in them." 

You are far from agreement with Jolui Gates and many other so- 
called revisionists who expounded against the undemocratic, auto- 
cratic, Soviet — subservient nature of the party in this period, is that 
not correct? 

Mr. ]Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You were to the right, but not too far. Is that a 
correct characterization of your position? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I stand on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You demonstrate yourself to be C{uite a scholar Avith 
relation to Communist Party doctrme and theory, and mdeed ol 
Soviet history, in your series of writmgs during that period. You 
trace the history of democratic centralism to Lenin's Bolshevik 
organization in Ilussia. But you maintain conditions necessitated 
"extreme centrali/.ation in the ALirxist party, sometimes at the ex- 
pense ol internal democracy, and strong discipline, often akin to mili- 
tar}^ discipline." You even quote Lenin's instructions to other Com- 
munist parties that they be built on a democratic centralism prin- 
ciple and embody, as you said, an "iron discipline bordering on mili- 
tary disciplme." You even found benefit to the American party 
organization in its adherence to such a system, did you not? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

(Representative Johansen entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you realize at the time you wrote this that the 
Communist Party organization was in fact a paramilitary organiza- 
tion? 

j\Ir. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let us examine more fully tlie changes that you 
envision for the party in 1956. You report that a Leninist provision 
for the election of party leadership has not been adhered to in the 
practice of democratic centralism. You declare, and this is your 
language, 

Thou{i;h conditions in our country are certainly much freer than they were in 
czarist Russia, how many members of Party committees — section, region, state 
committees and the National Committee — owe their posts to appointment rather 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 685 

than election, or, as it is sometimes euphemistically called, "co-option?" And 
can any Party member recall when he participated in a referendum? 

You proposed that the party organization should start practicing 
democratic ccntrahsm, in what 3'ou term its original meaning, calling 
for election of leadership and some participation by membership in 
important policy decisions. 

You also asked for, and I quote, "the right to dissent, so deeply 
embedded in the American democratic tradition * * * to be incor- 
porated into the practice of our Party." 

These are very mild suggestions that you made for the change in 
party practices, Mr. Magil, but is it a correct description to say that 
they retain discipline and enforced execution of party policy directed 
from the top? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Were you familiar, and I assume that you were, with 
the statement of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist 
Party, appearing in the Daily Worker several weeks prior to the time 
3^our article appeared, w^hich condemned Communists who employ 
the Khi'ushchev speeches to question the present Soviet leadership 
and to break the monolithic unity of the World Communist Move- 
ment? You were familiar wdtli that statement of the Central Com- 
mittee of the Communist Party, Soviet Union, were you not, that 
appeared shortly before your article? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You did not in your criticisms object at all to the 
acceptance of Soviet leadership; is that a correct statement? 

Mr. Magil. Again I plead the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. For the moment, I would like to recall for you various 
statements by other American Communists, at that same time, re- 
garding the effect the Soviet Central Committee had on the Com- 
munist dispute in this country and other countries. 

A Communist writing under the initials "E. S." in Parhj Voice, 
dated November 1956, stated this: 

Since the birth of the Soviet Union we held a view that to be at all critical of 
the USSR was to play into the hands of those capitalists who wished to destroy 
that country. 

May I interpolate a comment. This, by the way, was exactly what 
the Soviet Communist Central Committee again declared on June 30, 
1956, in its warning against straying Communists. The writer to 
whom I referred continued as follows: 

Certain corollaries to the theory of "everything good, nothing bad," about the 
Soviet Union developed as a logical result. Namely: since the CPSU was the 
first to establish socialism, the CPSU was the wisest of parties and therefore the 
final arbiter of theoretical disputes; if vou were critical of the Soviet Union, you 
were anti-Socialist; if you disagreed with a CPSU analysis you were splitting the 
unity of the international working class and aiding the Bourgeoisie. It was in such 
a context that the theory of "monolithic unity" of working class parties grew and 
flourished. 

The same Communist noted that the party's "highly rated theory 
of uncritical socialist unity" meant, and these are his words: 

If the C.P.S.U. had all the answers, if everything they did was right, what need 
had we to struggle with finding our own answers — just copy theirs. And if you 
said no, why that's tantamount to criticizing their institutions. * * * 

***♦*♦• 



686 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

This failure to strike our own national path — related closely to our uncritical 
unity approach and glorification of things Soviet — not only made us a miniature 
Soviet party in both organizational form and domestic outlook— it seriously limited 
our ability to properly assess our foreign policy outlook. 

This outspoken Communist then indicated his support of a state- 
ment issued by the National Committee of the Communist Party, 
United States of America, on June 25, 1956, stating that all Com- 
munist parties had a duty to criticize the theory and practice of other 
parties in a "friendly" way, including the Soviet Communist Party. 
This National Committee statement, it might be noted, was issued 
before the Soviet Central Committee indicted such criticism of the 
Soviet Union, and before the Soviet Central Committee's call to end 
such practice, and to return to monolithic unity of world Communists 
under Soviet leadership. The National Committee statement of the 
CPUSA was issued prior to the Soviet Central Committee indictment 
of the Italian Communist Party leader, which was to the same effect. 

I might say I introduced into the record this mornmg a report of 
an outcropping of the same problem in the Central Committee of the 
Italian Communist Party, the very issue we are discussing here. 

I quote further from "E. S." in Party Voice, November 1956, in 
which he reports on the subsequent developments in the independence 
movement of some Communists outside the Soviet Union as follows: 

Unfortunately neither the Soviet party, the bulk of foreign parties or our party 
has yet come to grips with the vital importance of practicing such relations [that 
is, of independent action]. * * * Read carefully the section of the June 30, 1956, 
C.C. C.P.S.U. [Central Committee, Communist Party of the Soviet Union] res- 
olution dealing with various comments of foreign parties. Where the foreign 
statements support the C.P.S.U. approach that is fine. But directly preceding 
the part referring to "certain of our friends" (later identified as Togliatti) who are 
not "clear," a frightening lecture about "international unity . . . splitting the 
international workers movement . . . weakening the forces of the socialist camp" 
and thus distinctly linking the type of "unclarity" shown by a Togliatti or a 
Nenni or a Steve Nelson or Johnny Gates with giving aid to the enemies of 
socialism and splitting unity. 

It goes on to say that the great debate, Marxist exchange, and bu'th 
of independent thinking, that arose after the Khrushchev report, has 
sufTered sharply following the resolution of the Central Committee 
Communist Party Soviet Union : 

Instead of inquiry and examination, we have idle praise. I am shocked in par- 
ticular by the quieting of CJomrade Togliatti. The manner in which most of the 
foreign parties went into idolatrous praise of the Cfentral] C[ommittee] resolution, 
and dropped their own questions is very disturbing. 

Then this Communist, ^viiting at that time, referred to the United 
States Communist Party organization and said, "The old cliches pour 
out from the mouths of immmerable members and leaders * * *." 

Another Communist writing to the editor of the Daily Worker on 
November 7, 1956, while you were on the staff, described the resolu- 
tion of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee as having 
"served to put a brake on our thinking." 

StUl another Comnmnist, whose words in Party Voice for December 
1956 have already been introduced as an exhibit in these hearings, 
charges that National Party Chairman William Z. Foster and General 
Secretary Eugene Dennis had demonstrated "cringing subservience" 
in their responses to the Soviet Central Committee warning of June 
30, 1956. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 687 

Do you agree, Mr. Magil, with these characterizations, by members 
of the Coimnmiist Party tJieinselves, of the effect on the American 
Communist Party organization inspired by the Soviet Communist 
Central Committee resolution? 

Air. Magil. Respectfull3' I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Do I understand that, m involving the fifth amend- 
ment, you are saying that if you were to answer the question it would 
incriminate you or could possibly incriminate 3^ou? 

Mr. Magil. It might tend to mcriminate me. 

Mr. JoHANSEX. Pardon? 

Mr. Magil. Yes, I say that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. And it might thereby make you subject to prosecu- 
tion? 

Mr. Magil. That is right. 

Mr. JoHANsEK. With whom would it incriminate you? With the 
Government of the United States or with the Soviet Union? 

Mr. Magil. I am a citizen of the United States, and I am speaking 
in legal terms when I speak. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. With whom do you feel you might be subject to 
self-incrimination if 3^ou answered these questions? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. To reply might tend to incriminate me under the laws 
of the United States and its political subdivisions. 

Mr. JoHANSEX. Were you provided or offered any opportunity^ of 
immunity with respect to such possible self-incrimination if j^ou 
answered these questions? 

Mr. Magil. No, I received no such oft'er. 

Mr. JoHANSEX. Would you feel jout way clear to answer these 
questions if there were such a possibility? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. I would in that case have to consult my counsel. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. We are trying to find out facts and information 
that go to the security of the United States, with which you identify 
yourself, and it would seem to me that if your basic loyalty is to the 
United States, you would gladly cooperate with this committee in 
providing that information. 

Air. Magil. I don't feel that I can forego the constitutional pro- 
tection that is afforded me by the United States Constitution. 

Air. JoHANSEN. In that case, I assume your answers, if given, would 
be incriminating. That is all. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Air. Chairman, I ask that these two documents from 
which I have quoted be marked Magil Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11, 
respectively. I would also like to mclude as Alagil Exhibit No. 12 
the exact statement from The Worker of July 8, 1956, entitled "Dennis 
Comments on Soviet CP Statement," in which the partj^'s general 
secretary, Eugene Dennis, humbly welcomed the "advice" of the 
Soviet Central Committee. I request that these three exhibits be 
made a part of the record of the hearings. 

Air. AlouLDER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Documents marked "Alagil Exhibits Nos. 10, 11, and 12," re- 
spectively. See Appendix, pp. 864-869, 870, and 871.) 

Air. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, as the record demonstrates, the nature 
of the party's organization and of its relationship to the Soviet Com- 
munist leadership was not finally determined for jalmost 2 years 



688 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UlSriTED STATES 

more. As your editor in chief of the Daily Worker, John Gates, 
described events in this period, which Foster confirmed in his state- 
ments already in the record here, the Gates revisionist views were 
held by a majority of those in the party's most important leadership 
positions throughout this period, and controlled the Daily Worker. 
Foster's supporters on the National Committee level included 
Benjamin J. Davis, Jr., Robert Thompson, and eventually Eugene 
Dennis. This conflict went on and on, and the party's 16th National 
Convention in February 1957 passed resolutions which merely reflected 
some of the contending views of the party leadership, then still in 
stalemate. 

Can you tell us something about this struggle within the leadership 
to obtain supremacy? That is to say, the struggle by the Foster 
group, which was for monolithic unity and subservience to Moscow, 
to obtain dominance over the other group which at that time was in 
the majority, controlled by John Gates, and might be called the John 
Gates revisionist faction? 

Mr. Magil. Respectfully, I again must decline, involving the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. You were closely associated with John Gates on the 
Daily Worker staff, were you not? 

Mr. Magil. Once more, I invoke the fifth ainendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, we have set forth various published 
statements of John Gates as an exhibit. I ask that the above from 
The Story of An American Communist by Gates be identified as Magil 
Exhibit No. 13. 

Mr. MouLDEE. So ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 13" retained in committee 
files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil did not the Soviet Communist leaders 
intervene directly in this lengthy dispute, and did they not intervene 
on the side of Foster's minority leadership faction? 

Mr. JoHANSEN. That was as opposed to the John Gates faction. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let us look at the evidence for a moment. I refer 
you to a rather indirect endorsement of the Foster stand published 
in Pravda, the official organ of the Soviet C^ommunist Party Central 
Committee and the Moscow Party Regional Committee. This was 
carried in the New York Times on September 24, 1956, at page 20, 
and will be identified as Magil Exliibit No. 14. 

Pravda, in the course of reviewing a Foster book they recently 
published in the Russian language, eulogized Foster for his past 
record in struggling "for the purity and unity of the Communist 
Party of the L^S.A. against opportunists and diversionists." Was 
not his Pravda statement a clear and unmistakable indication that the 
Communist Party Soviet Union was supporting the Foster faction 
against the Gates faction? 

(Witness examined article and conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Isn't it by such conununications that the Conununist 
Party of the Soviet l^nion communicates witli the (^onimunist parties 
in the World Communist Movement? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 689 

(Representative Bruce entered the hearing room, and Representa- 
tive Aloulder left the room.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Air. Chairman, I ask that Magil Exhibit No. 14 
be made a part of the record of these hearings. 

Mr. JoHANSEX (presiding). Without objection, it will be made a 
part of the record. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 14." See Appendix, 
p. 872.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. By November 1956, the collective leadership m the 
Soviet Union, to which Air. McNamara referi'ed in his testimony this 
morning as a collective leadership established in Russia to solve the 
succession problems on the death of Stalin, began to issue a series of 
dh'ectives aimed against the John Gates faction, and in support of 
Foster's opposition, despite the fact that the John Gates faction was 
then far stronger in power and membership than the Foster faction. 

I hand you a translation of an article which appeared in the No- 
vember 1956 issue of Kommunist, which is a theoretical journal 
published in Moscow, as the official mouthpiece of the Central Com- 
mittee, Communist Party, Soviet Union. The Central Committee, 
I thmk you understand, held supreme power then over the Soviet 
Government. 

(Witness examined article.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. What you have there, Mr. Magil, is a translation by 
the Library of Congress of that article, which will be marked for 
identification as Magil Exhibit No. 15-a. 

I also hand you two articles from the Daily Worker of November 
26 and 27, 1956, which comment on the action taken b}^ the Moscow 
publication to which I have just referred. This may refresh your 
recollection of those matters appearing in the newspaper on which 
you were a staff member at that time. These will be identified as 
Magil Exhibits Nos. 15-b and 15-c, respectively. 

(Witness examines documents.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the last three 
exhibits to which I have just referred be offered in the record. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Documents marked "Magil Exhibits Nos. 15-a, b, and c," respec- 
tively. See Appendix, pp. 873, 874; 875; and 876.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. The Daily Worker, then under Jolm Gates' leader- 
ship, dared to criticize the Soviet use of armed troops to put down 
the Hungarian peoples uprising which had occurred in October and 
November of 1956. Is that not a correct statement? 

Mr. Magil. 1 invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The editorial from the previousl}^ referred to Moscow 
Komrnunisf, on the otlier iiand, called attention to the loyalty with 
which many other Communist parties had supported the Soviet 
armed intervention in Hungary. It then referred to the Daily Worker 
in the United States in these words: 

Naturally, there are people who, in moments of serious events, show instability, 
fall under the influence of petty bourgeois prejudices, and lose their ability to 
appraise the situation. * * * But what can we say about people who call them- 
selves Marxists, like the author of the editorial in the New York "Daily Worker" 
of November 5th, and still put on the same level the events in Egypt and Hungary? 
This author babbles about the right of self-determination, having in mind both 
Egypt which the imperialist interventionists had invaded, and Hungary where 
Soviet troops came following the call of the workers and farmers government to 
help the socialist, patriotic forces. This position of the author of [the article] 



690 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

in the "Daily Worker" does neither prove the firmness of his principles nor his 
understanding of the meaning of the processes which go on in the world. 

Was this a direct reference to the naivete of those seeking to end 
servile American Communist support to all Soviet policies? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Does it appear at all extraordinaiy to you as a man 
experienced in the affairs of this party, that a publication which is 
an official publication of the Central Conunittee of the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union should pay attention to you and to John 
Gates? Here the collective leadership, the very top echelon of 
Soviet power, which now so sorely troubles the world, has the time 
to pay attention to you and to John Gates. Is that extraordinary to 
you? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, while you and John Gates and the revisionists 
were in the majority, this did not bother Eugene Dennis, the party 
secretary. He also jumped on the Soviet bandwagon with William 
Z. Foster. He defended the Soviet troop intervention in Hungary 
and castigated the Daily Worker stand. That is their position as 
recorded in the Dai^y Worker of November 29, 1956, which will be 
identified as Magil Exhibit No. 16. 

I ask that it be incorporated, Mr. Chairman, in the hearing record. 

Mr. JoHANSEX. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 16." See Appendix, 
pp. 877-881.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, strangely enough in your case, Mr. Magil, tlie 
exhibits show that the Daily Worker, while it was under the control 
and editorship of John Gates, refused to alter its stand despite these 
clear messages from Moscow, despite these clear wai-nings and denun- 
ciations. You resisted that power play, did you not? 

Mr. Magil. Once more, I cannot answer, and I invoke the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Isn't it a principle of the monolithic imifiod party, and 
of democratic centralism, that when the top leadership in the party 
winks, the party members get the hint and obey? 

Mr. Magil. Ao:ain I invoke the fifth amendment. 

]\Ir. NiTTLE. When the Central Committee of the Soviet Union in 
such plain language "winked" at you and John Gates, why didn't 
you and Jolm Gates take the hint? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. Having singled out the New York Daily Worker in its 
pronouncements, Moscow, finding that the message was not recog- 
nized immediately, by December 1956 began to attack the entire body 
of American Communists "guilty" of trying to revise the traditional 
party organization, did it not? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. I hand you a translation from Party Life of December 
1956, identified as Magil Exhibit No. 17, prepared by the Library of 
Congress, from the monthly journal of the Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union. 

(Witness examined document.) 

Mr. Nittle. While you are reading that, let me note for the record 
that the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party made the 
following declaration through this journal- 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 691 

Not infrequently, the critical appraisal and analysis of the past activity of the 
Communist parties are being used by anti-Marxists and unstable elements in 
order to slander the previous activity of their party and to undermine its ideological 
and political foundations. The rightist [elements] within the Communist Party 
of the USA came up with an open revision of Marxism-Leninism. The}^ maintain 
that Marxism is obsolete, Leninism is a specifically Russian phenomenon, and the 
economic teaching of Marxism-Leninism does not fit the analysis of the capitalism 
in the USA where the latter develops according to "specific laws." They stand 
up against the dictatorship of the proletariat, against the Lenin-type part}', in 
place of which they offer a massive "association of Comm\inist propaganda," 
while, at the same time, they say that Socialism is a matter of the far future. 
During the pre-Convention discussion which developed, party leaders loyal to 
the Marxist-Leninist principles of proletarian internationalism, as well as its 
organization repulse the anti-Party views. 

Now, with the publication of that article in Party Life, an official 
publication of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union, dated December 1956, Foster and his supporters were 
unmistakably backed by the Soviet Union, were they not, Air. Magil? 

Mr. AIagil. Again, I must invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Air. AIagil, in view of yoiu- invocation of the fifth 
amendment, I think we should inquire whether you are presently a 
member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Magil. I must respectfully decline to answer, again invoking 
the fifth amendment. 

Air. NiTTLE. Were you censured by the Comminiist Party U.S.A. 
for your revisionism? 

Air. AIagil. Again 1 invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. It appears that you lost your official position on the 
Daily Worker, or what is now Tfie Worker, because of your views about 
monolithic unity and democratic centralism, is that not correct? 

Air. AIagil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Air. JoHANSEN. Did I understand, in response to a question asked 
earlier, that you volunteered the information you were a citizen of the 
United States? 

Mr. Magil. Yes, I am. 

Mr. JoHAXSEN. On the basis of the exhibits and the evidence that 
has been introduced, I gather, despite your invocation of the fifth 
amendment, that you possessed or retamed sufficient characteristics of 
independence and right of dissent of an American citizen to get your- 
self in the doghouse with the bosses in the Kremlin. I would just like 
to say to you that I regret exceedingly that you don't retain tnoiigh 
of it to help this committee establish the record of that persistent 
effort by the Kremlin to dictate and intervene in tlie affairs of citizens 
of the United States. I would like very much to invite you to help 
us to that end. 

Air. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the statement from Party 
Life be identified as AIagil Exhibit No. 17, and incorporated in the 
hearings. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "AIagil Exhibit No. 17." See Appendix, pp. 
882, 883.) 

Air. NiTTLE. Now the chronology unfolds. The Conununist Party 
of the United States then held its 16th National Convention in New 
York City, February 9 to 12 in the year 1957. This is subsequent to 
that Party Life notification. You were in attendance at that National 
Convention, were you not, Mr. AIagil? 

Mr. Magil. Again I must decline to answer, invoking the fifth 
amendment. 



692 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. I assert as a fact that you were in attendance. Now 
would you affirm or deny the correctness of that statement? 
Mr. Magil. I am invoking the fifth amendment. 
Mr. NiTTLE. As one of those who were in attendance at that con- 
vention, would you agree with the characterization that the conven- 
tion was a compromise among the various contending forces within 
the top leadership at that time? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 
Mr. NiTTLE. In response to the Gates revisionist forces, there were 
certain changes m the party constitution adopted at that conven- 
tion, although in fact the structure, organization, and discipline 
remained the same as demanded by the Foster forces. 

Just how those constitutional changes were to be implemented, or 
even allowed in practice, was to depend finally on which faction 
within the American Communist Party would come out on top, isn't 
that correct? 

Mr. Magil. Once more, I invoke the fifth amendment. 
Mr. NiTTLE. I hand you copies of your own articles on the conven- 
tion which appeared in The Worker of March 24, 1957, and March 31, 
1957, respectively identified as Magil ExhibitsNos. 18-a and 18-b, in 
which you declared that "real unity around the convention decisions, 
still has to be achieved," and the "fight to rebuild the Communist 
Party * * * has just begun." 
(Witness examined documents.) 
(Representative Johansen left the hearing room.) 
Mr. NiTTLE. In those statements, Mr. Magil, you were, of course, 
referring to the stalemate which continued to exist after the 1957 
convention of the Communist Party, the stalemate which continued 
to exist between these two contending forces: the John Gates type 
revisionists; and those supporting William Z. Foster's appeal for 
retention of the traditional party organization rigidly faithful to all 
Soviet dictates. Isn't that what you say in your own articles? 
Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 
Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Magil Exhibits Nos. 18-a 
and 18-b be admitted into evidence. 

Mr. Bruce (presiding). Without objection, it is so ordered. 
(Documents marked "Magil Exhibits Nos. 18-a and 18-b," respec- 
tively, and retained in committee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, in view of your position at that time, as a 
revisionist prior to your appearance at the 16th National Convention 
in 1957, and in view of the fact that you may not have had access at 
that time to the top councils of the Communist Party, I would like to 
recall to you a statement made by J. Edgar Hoovc^r, Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, in which he reported that before 
the convention opened a pre-convention meeting of top party leaders 
worked out a strategy later routin<'ly adopted by the convention, 
whereby all offices in the ])arty would l)e abolished and a new admin- 
istrative committee would be created from representatives of the 
various contending factions to direct party business. 

(Representative Joliansen returned to tlie liearing room.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. This was a collective leach'rship, being established in 

the American Communist Party and arising out of this internal party 

dispute betwee!! the Gates and the Foster factions, comparable, was 

it not, to the very sam(» procedure and solution adopted by the 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 693 

Coinmuiiist Party, Soviet Union, in the establishment of a collective 
leadership to resolve their own troubles of succession to top party 
leadership in Russia after the death of Stalin in 1953? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In creating this collective leadersliip while the party 
powder struggle continued, the party organization in America did in 
fact copy and imitate the Soviet Communist Party which was at that 
very time operating a collective leadership, did it not? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The collective leadership in the Soviet Union was 
actually the body called the Central Committee of the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union, is that not correct? 

Air. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. The Soviet Party went into a collective leadership, 
containing representatives of both contending factions, because 
Khrushchev was then contending and struggling with Malenkov and 
Molotov, to determine what faction was going to emerge and dominate 
the dictatorship of the proletariat in Soviet Russia. You know that 
is a fact as a matter of history because Khrushchev has told us about 
it, hasn't he? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, did not Soviet intervention, both direct 
and also through the intermediary of a foreign Communist Party, 
continue right up to and during the 16th National Convention? 

Mr. Magil. Once more 1 invoke the fiftli amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you deny that occurred? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do 3^ou have knowledge of those facts to which the 
question relates? 

Mr. Magil. I am invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I hand you a translation which will be identified 
as Magil Exhibit No. 19. It is from the Soviet newspaper. Scwiet 
Russia, dated February 3, 1957, and a translation prepared by the 
Library of Congress. This date, February 3, 1957, is significant, 
and I ask you note it, because it is a week prior to the opening of the 
16th National Convention of the American Communist Party. 

(VMtness examined document.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. I assume you have had an opportunity to examine 
that. The item in that Soviet publication talks about deviations 
which have appeared in the various Communist parties in non-Com- 
munist nations, and which it says help the bourgeoisie. That article 
makes specific reference to the United States, and here is what it says — 

in the USA, where the impact of the bourgeois ideology upon the working class 
is greatest, rightist elements in the ranks of the American Communist Party 
now suggest a revision of Marxism-Leninism. Recently, these elements have 
been particularly furiously attacking Leninism. They declare it a "typically 
Russian" phenomenon, and many principles of Marxism — "obsolete" and "not 
fitting" the USA. 

This Moscow publication singled out Joseph Clark, managing 
editor of the "international department" of The Worker, at that time 
the Daily Worker, for particular condemnation as a right deviationist, 
declaring he had denied " the universal character of the basic principles 
of Marxism-Leninism." 



8374.3^ — 62 — pt. 1 10 



694 COMIMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

The publication also appealed for more "proletarian international- 
ism" on the part of all Communists everywhere. 

Was this not a way of stating that Moscow was going to determine 
the ideology, the organization, and the policies of Communist parties 
everywhere, and that upstarts on the Daily Worher like yourself and 
John Gates would have to toe that line or get out? Is that not correct? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask that Magil Exhibit 
No. 19 be incorporated in the record of the hearings. 

Mr. JoHANSEN (presiding). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 19." See Appendix, pp. 
884, 885.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. You had not yet come to realize, despite your pro- 
found knowledge of Communist practices and history, that the 
Communist Party was a paramilitary organization, and that it did not 
tolerate lieutenants in its various army groups throughout the world 
dictating to the general staff and the high command at Moscow. 
You, as a private first class, and John Gates, a lieutenant in the 
American party here, were going to tell the commanding general, 
headquarters, Moscow, how to run this army, weren't j^ou? 

Mr. Magil. Again I must decline to answer, invoking the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you realize at that time, with your experience 
and understanding, that this could not be done? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you now realize that it just can't be done in the 
Communist Party, United States of America? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Or have you bowed to the discipline of the Com- 
munist Party, USA, in order to retain your membership in the Com- 
munist Party today? Have 3'ou accepted and done your penance? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

(Representative Moulder entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I suspect, translated into plain 
English, this means he got fired, but he is still loyal to the boss. 

Mr. NiTTLE. After being singled out by Moscow, do you recall that 
Joseph Clark, on the staff of the Daily Worker, then replied in his 
column in the Daily Worker on February 6, 1957, denj'ing the validity 
of the Moscow newspaper statements, and telling jMoscow that 
American Communists would find their own path hereafter? 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I hand you a reproduction of that article in the 
Daily Worker, and ask you whether that refreshes your recollection? 

(Witness examined document.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Magil? 

Mr. Magil. I must again invoke the fifth amendment. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 20." See Appendix, pp. 
886-888.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, after Joseph Clark said "nuts" to the 
Russians, he then gave up the fight, didn't he? As a matter of fact, 
he resigned from the foreign editorship of the Daily Worker and re- 
signed from the Connuunist Party in September 1957. Is that not a 
correct statement? 

Mr. M.\gil. Again I invoke the fifth ameiuhnent. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 695 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, you succeeded Joseph Clark in the 
post of foreign editor of the Daily Worker, did you not, Mr. Magil, 
after his resignation in September 1957? 

Mr. Magil. I am once more invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a Daily Worker staff member and participant in 
the party's 16th National Convention held in February 1957, you are 
familiar with the attempt by the French Communist Party leader, 
to whom I previously referred, named Jacques Duclos, now again 
serving as the intermediary for Moscow, to stimulate a settlement of 
the American party dispute in absolute conformity with the line laid 
down by Moscow? Would you give us an account of the 1957 
Duclos intervention? 

Mr. Magil. I am invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. Magil. I am invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I hand you a reproduction of various pages from the 
Daily Worker, dated February 11, 1957, which states that Jacques 
Duclos on January 21, 1957, sent a message to the American Com- 
munist Party convention, ostensibly on behalf of the French Com- 
munist Party Central Committee. According to this article, Duclos 
told the American Conmnmists — 

the Communist Party can play its role of revolutionarj' party of the working 
class acting in the interest of all the people and the nation only if it is built and 
fights in the framework of the fvmdamental principles which have been tested in 
other countries, in the first place in the Soviet Union, thanks to the victory of 
1917: only if it determines its internal life and its political struggle in the frame- 
work of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, only if it fights for its leading role 
in the revolutionary struggle for socialism. 

Duclos then had harsh words to say about the proposed convention 
resolutions, that is, of the 16th Convention of the American Com- 
munist Party, which still reflected the views of John Gates and revi- 
sionists such as yourself, and here is what he said: 

In examining with great attention the opinions expressed by different comrades 
in your discussion and the official documents like the Draft Resolution for the 
convention, the Nov. 6 statement of the CPUSA concerning the events in Poland 
and Hungary and other documents — we believe that we discern dangerous de- 
partures from these i)rinciples; we have at the same time, however, been happy to 
see that a more profoimd study of the real facts has already permitted you to 
make certain precisions and happv corrections for our common cause and the 
future of the USA. 

The Daily Worker also reports a second French Communist message. 
Duclos, in this instance as before, acted as the messenger for the 
Moscow leadership. This message contained substantially the same 
criticism, and it was received by the American Communist Party on 
February 8, 1957, the eve of its convention. Does this refresh your 
recollection, Mr. Alagil, and will you comment on the reception which 
the Duclos message received in party circles in this countiw? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. JoHANSEX (presiding). The committee will stand in recess for 
5 minutes. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Mr. JoHAXSEN. Tlie committee will come to order. Counsel will 
proceed. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, T respectfully request that the Daily 
Worker of February H. 1957, reporting the Duclos effort of 1957, be 
marked Magil Exhibit No. 21 and incorporated in the hearings. 



696 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE "UNITED STATES 

Mr. JoHANSEX. Without objection, it will be so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 21." See Appendix^ 
pp. 889-893.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Mag:il, it is stated in this same issue of the Daily 
Worker that General Secretary Eugene Dennis answered Duclos, 
claiming: that decisions would be made by the collective judgment of 
the party's convention. William Z. Foster, on the other hand, is 
reported as replying in this way : 

In its letter of greetings, signed by secretary Jacques Duclos, the Central 
Committee of the Communist Party of France is correct in warning us of revisionist 
tendencies in our Party. Many in our Party have been saying this for months 
past. And its truth is manifested by the many basic amendments made in our 
main resolution by the various state conventions. 

Foster is further reported as arguing that — 

this convention should welcome the sage and friendly advice of our French 
comrades and others. 

Now, actually, was not Foster responding to headquarters in 
Moscow, and not to a French party? 

Mr. Magil. Again I must decline to answer, invoking the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Didn't Foster know that Duclos was voicing the 
sentiments and directives of Moscow; he, Duclos, acting merely as a 
representative or mouthpiece of the Moscow leadership? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Foster knew that the Duclos letter supported his 
faction in the power struggle, just as in 1945 a Duclos article in a 
Freiich magazine helped to catapult him into the leadership of the 
party organization in America by removing the then part}' boss, Earl 
Browder. Don't you agree that this was the reason Foster welcomed 
Duclos' interference again in 1957? 

Air. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. Now, regarding the effect of the Duclos intervention 
in 1945 on the removal of Browder, the Daily Worker of February 11, 
1957, on whose staff you were employed, leaves no one to doubt what 
the reception was. Here is what the article says: 

It was an article by Duclos in 1945, condemning the program of the Communist 
Political Action Association headed by Earl Browder as revisionism of Marxism- 
Leninism that led to the upheaval which resulted then in the reconstitution of 
the Communist Party, the expulsion later of Browder * * *. 

In view of your own recorded activity at the founding convention 
of the Communist Political Association during World War II, estab- 
lished at that time while we were associated with the Soviet Union in 
the prosecution of the war against Hitler, and which was an act of 
temporary expedienc}^ of the American Communist Party at the direc- 
tion of Stalin, can you confirm that the later abandonment of the 
Communist Political Association in 1945 and the ouster of the long- 
time party leader. Earl lirowder, was actualh' Stalin's work and carried 
out through a French intermediary? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. Now, T would like to read to you a few cliarges made 
by Earl Browder himself, as recently as March 1900, whicli appeared 
in Harper's Magazine, March 1960, regarding the role that Stalin 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 697 

played in tho 1945 episode when Earl Browdcr was removed from 
party leadership in America: 

Why was Stalin able to purge the leadership of the Americiaii party, and put 
at its head a man who had been an isolated minority witliin that leadership? And 
how could this be done anonymously, as it were, by a simple article in an obscure 
Prench journal? 

In order to understand this one must ignore the widely spread fables about 
^'Comintern representatives" traveling from Moscow to direct Communist parties 
in all countries. That old method was long obsolete, and never very effective. 
The only solid representatives of Stalin among the American Communists were 
Americans themselves — a little band of "old timers" — 

presumably like Alexander Bittelman, who was a witness yesterday — • 

occupying strategic posts in the party apparatus. They were a political counter- 
part of an old-time religious sect, devoted to dogma, abjuring independent think- 
ing, and relying entirely on the head of the church for leadership. For them 
Communism was a religion, Stalin was Mohammed, and Moscow was Mecca. 

Browder further said that one of the reasons these Communists 
supported his leadership was "because so long as Moscow did not 
speak out against me, I was presumed to be Stalin's deputy in America 
in the hierarchy of authority. I was always aware that my leading 
position could be lost overnight, and that the party might break up, 
if either of these factors — prosperity for the party and presumed 
Moscow blessings — disappeared." 

Browder, however, admitted that "despite a decade of undisputed 
leadership, I knew I could not maintain that position in open struggle 
against Moscow influence." 

Now, on the basis of your experience, Mr. Magil, were the most 
solid representatives of Stalin in America, the American Communists 
themselves? 

Mr. Magil. Again I must invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these statements of Earl 
Browder, which appeared in Harper's Magazine in March 1960, be 
marked Magil Exhibit No. 22 and made a part of the committee's 
records. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 22" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. In the course of your own association in the Com- 
munist Party, did you obtain any personal knowledge regarding 
activity by foreign Communist emissaries in America? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you have such knowledge? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, if you were to indicate that you didn't 
have such knowledge, how would that possibly incriminate you? 

Mr. Magil. That question may be part of a chain, one of the 
links in the chain that might conceivably tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Only if you had such knowledge, is that not correct? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. I must stand on my constitutional rights and invoke 
the fifth amendment. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. When the witness says he must, he means he 
elects to do so. 

Mr. Magil. I choose to do so. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. That is right. 



698 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you have something more to say? 

Mr. Magil. I simply wanted to add "and the Constitution permits 
me to do so." 

Mr. JoHANSEN. There is no question about that, but the use of the 
term might suggest that the committee was somehow puttmg the 
witness under a compulsion to do something. I want the record 
very clear that the witness elects to exercise his right under the 
Constitution to invoke it. That is correct, is it not? 

Mr. Magil. That is correct. 

Mr. NiTTLE. This committee in February 1947 called before it one 
Gerhart Eisler. The committee liearings established beyond question 
that between the years 1933 and 1938, Eisler was a Communist Inter- 
national representative in America and was instrumental in the con- 
trol and direction of Communist Party operations here. The Com- 
munist International was ostensibly dissolved in 1943, but it is well 
known that the actual work of that organization continued and was 
eventually taken over by the foreign department of the Central 
Committee of the Communist Party, Soviet Union. The committee 
hearings showed that Eisler had returned to the United States from 
other foreign assignments in 1941, and that his activities prior to the 
1947 hearmgs of this committee included those of a publicist and 
analyst of party policy. His writings appeared in the Daily Worker 
under the name of Hans Berger, which was only one of his many 
aliases. As a result of your long tenure on the Daily Worker staff, 
did you acquire any information of the activities of Gerhart Eisler, a 
Soviet representative here? 

Mr. Magil. Again I must decline to answer. [ choose to decline 
to answer, invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. He is now in East Germany, I believe, helping carry 
out Soviet policy there. Is that not a matter of general knowledge 
at this time? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, the Moscow and the Duclos intervention of 
1957 did not have an immediate, or you might call it an overnight, 
effect as it did in 1945, because the Gates group slill held a majority 
of leading party posts in the country, as well as control of the Daily 
Worker, until as late as December 1957. In fact, as recorded in The 
Worker for March 10, 1957, the new National Admmistrative Com- 
mittee, the collective leadership of the party within the United States, 
sent a reply to Jacques Duclos, disagreeing with his attack on the 
organization in America. Is that not a fact? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that The Worker article be iden- 
tified as Magil Exliibit No. 23, and incorporated in the record. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Without objection, it will be so incorporated. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 23." See Appendix, 
pp. 894, 895.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, the Soviet Communist Party had also sent 
a "message of greeting" to the 1957 party convention in America, in 
which it observed that the party was "heroically fighting for the 
preservation of the party, for the strengthening of the unity of its 
ranks on the principles of Marxism-Leninism," but made no reference 
to the Gates group whom it had identified previously as the trouble- 
makers. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 699 

I hand you a translation from Pravda which is to be identified as 
Magil Exhibit No. 24, and dated February 16, 1957. Pravda, as has 
been mentioned, is the Soviet Connnunist Central Committee organ. 
I also hand you an article from the March 1957 issue of International 
Affairs, which is published in the English language in Moscow, and 
identified as Magil Exhibit No. 25. 

I ask you to examine them with reference to the question whether 
the Soviet Communists publicized the 16th National Convention in 
1957 as being a victory over the Gates forces, and again castigated the 
American "revisionists" even though they continued to hold a 
majority of party leadership posts after the convention? 

Mr. Magil. What is your question? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did not the article in Pravda regard the 16th National 
Convention as a victory for the Foster faction, and again condemn 
and castigate the so-called Gates' revisionist faction? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I request that the last two documents 
be identified as Magil Exhibits Nos. 24 and 25, respectively, and 
incorporated in the record of the hearings. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Without objection, they will be entered into the 
record . 

(Documents marked "Magil Exhibits Nos. 24 and 25," respectively. 
See Appendix, pp. 896-903 and 904-906.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Do you also recall, Mr. Magil, that in June 1957 Alan 
]Max, who was one of the Daily Worker editors serving with you on the 
staff, wrote an open letter to the Moscow editors of Intei'national 
Affairs protesting against any descriptions of the convention in 
America as a rejection of the revisionist forces in the party? 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In his protest, Max stated that Pravda. in Moscow; 
the French Communist publication L'Humanite; various Marxist pub- 
lications in Latin America ; and World News, a Communist publication 
issued from London, England, all made similar, as he said, "erro- 
neous" conclusions about the party convention in the United States. 
Did not Alan Max further say, and I quote: "How these publications 
happened to carry such similar reports, I do not know"? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. When International Affairs printed Max's open letter 
of protest in the July 1957 issue, it attached a rebuttal statement by 
William Z. Foster, who declared Max was in error and that the above 
international publications directed from Moscow were correct. The 
editors of the Moscow-based International Affairs added that they 
agreed with Foster rather than with the Daily Worker editor, Alan 
Max. Do you believe, Mr. Magil, that this was really a deliberate 
campaign on the part of Moscow, and that Alan Max was rather 
naive if he did not know how these publications happened to carry, 
as he said, such similar reports? 

Mr. ALiGiL. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Alan Max knew, and you knew, why these inter- 
national Communist publications were carrying this line, is that not 
correct? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 



700 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. ]VIr. Chairman, I ask that the statements from the 
July 1957 issue of International Affairs be made a part of the record 
of the hearings. 

Mr. JoHAXSEX. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exliibit No. 26." See Appendix, 
pp. 907-911.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. In August 1957, while this factional dispute was 
continuing within the American Connnunist Party, the Moscow 
Kommunist, previously referred to, carried an attack on John Gates, 
written by a Soviet writer named B. Ponomarev, who has been 
identified as a member of the Presidium of the Soviet Communist 
Party. This Soviet Communist official, B. Ponomarev, declared that 
the struggle against revisionists was "acute" in the United States, 
Canada, England, and Brazil. The most notable attack, at 
least in Communist circles, appeared in the December 1957 issue of 
The Kommunist and in a condensed text in Vol. X, No. 7, of The 
Current Digest of the Soviet Press. Its author was an official of the 
Soviet Connnunist Party Central Committee staff whose name was 
D. Shevlyagin. His denunciations of deviationists in the American 
Communist Party, as a matter of fact, even included the specific 
mention of your name, A. B. Magil, is that not correct? 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I ask you to examine a copy of the article in the 
Soviet Communist publication to which I have referred. For the 
purpose of the record, I am going to read into the record the matter 
to which I am referring: 

In July 1956, the Daily Worker printed an article bv A. B. Magil in which 
he raised the question, "Is democratic centralism one of the basic principles of 
Marxist-Leninist theory?" He replied: "In my view, it is not." Arguing his 
stand, he asserted that "democratic centralism, proclaimed by Lenin and the 
Bolshevist party, was the product of specific Russian conditions." "Democratic 
centralism," according to Magil, "is apphcable only under such conditions as 
exceptional economic backwardness, semifeudal social relations, absolute dictator- 
ship and absence of democracy". 

Do you recollect that article, Mr. Magil? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Ciiairman, I ask that partial translations of the 
Soviet articles to which I have just referred, the Ponomarev and the 
Shevlyagin articles, be introduced in evidence. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. It will be introduced without objection. 

(Documents marked "Magil Exliibits Nos. 27 and 28," respectively. 
See Appendix, pp. 912, 913 and 914-917.) 

Mr. Joiiansen. May I say it must be the ultimate sacrifice in 
invoking the fifth amendment to have to disclaim one's own brain- 
child. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Magil, I would like to recall to you some of the 
ver}- frank statements made by a Soviet Communist in the course of a 
severe attack 0]i deviationists in tlie World Communist Movement. 
This Soviet Communist, Comrade Slievlyagin, previously referred to, 
an official of the Central Committee staff, Communist Party Soviet 
Union, declared: 

The Communist Parties of Brazil, Great Britain, Canada, the United States 
and other countries demanded, instead of democratic centralism, adoption of the 
principle of "democratic leadership," the right of the minority to organize factions, 
to reject and refuse to submit to majority decisions, to "fight to become the 
majority." 



COMIVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 701 

Like the "nalioaal Coiuiiiunist8" in the people's democracies, the revisionists in 
the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries campaigned for withdrawing 
their Parties from the international Communist movement and, above all, for 
severing contact with the Connnunist Party of the Soviet Union. * * * In the 
guise of comradely criticism there occurred defamation of the entire experience 
of and outriglit slanderous attacks upon many of the Parties and especially the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as the leading force of the Communist 
movement. 

He then went on to sjiy that democratic centralism provided 
democracy through the election of leadership. "Centralism," he said, 
"means unity of the Party program and Statutes, unity of leadership, 
obligatory, uniform discipline and acceptance by all Communists of 
the majority's decisions." 

He further declared that democratic centralism "ensures unity of 
will and action for the Party, makes it higiily organized and gives it 
fighting effectiveness." 

Revisionists who would give a minority in the party the right to 
seek to become a majority, in effect, he said, "attempt to reduce the 
revolutionary proletarian party to the level of ordinary bourgeois 
parties." 

This ^vriter, Shevlj^agin, also castigated Communist revisionists for 
declaring that the "peaceful way of transition from capitalism to 
socialism" is "the exclusive and only way." 

Shevlyagin reminded the Communist faithful that a peaceful tran- 
sition is only "a possible way." He further said that the defeat of 
such revisionists was the "chief task" of Communist parties every- 
where. 

B}' Shevlyagin 's definition, could you be considered an American 
Communist revisionist, Mr. Magil? 

Mr. Magil. Again I respectfully invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Counsel, you are directing your question to 
whether he could be considered a revisionist at tlie time this statement 
was made, is that correct? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. Let us assume that question was asked in the 
form in which you have presented it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, let me rephrase the question in this way: 

Apart from whether or not you were in fact a revisionist at that time, 
would you be a revisionist under Shevlyagin's definition of democratic 
centralism? 

Mr. Magil. Again I am invoking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Shevlyagin quoted your Daily Worker article, which 
we discussed earlier, as an example of revisionism in the Communist 
Party of the United States. You are aware of that fact, are you not? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. He also denounced John Gates particularly, who was 
the Daily Worker editor-in-chief. He condemned a statement 
appearing in the Daily Worker by a California Communist official 
named William Schneiderman ; also writings by New York Com- 
munist official, William Norman, in a Discussion Bulletin. The Dis- 
cussion Bulletin, as you know, is a secret internal publication of the 
Communist Party in this country, but certainly not kept secret from 
Moscow as it obviously appears. 

I suggest that you knew all about the publication called Discussion 
Bulletin. I want to give you the opportunity to affii-m or deny that 
suggestion. 



702 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. "^ 

Mr. NiTTLE. As a matter of fact, Mr, MagQ, you were really 
misquoted in Moscow, were you not? 

Mr. Magil, Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I show 3'Ou a reproduction of a letter to the editor of 
The Worker on March 23, 1958, over your signature, which will be 
marked for identification as Magil Exhibit No. 29. 

On March 23, 1958, you appeared to be writing letters to the Daily 
Worker rather than composing for it. You refer in that letter to the 
Moscow criticism of yourself, and you note that the statement which 
you had made in July 1956 was long before the appearance of the 
Kommunist criticism in December 1957, 

You state on March 23, 1958: 

Even if these articles contained wrong ideas, it strikes me as highly irresponsible 
to smear two veterans of the American Communist movement as revisionists on 
the basis of single articles. However, the fact is that Shevliagin distorted the 
meaning of both articles. In the case of my piece, which appeared in The Worker 
of July 22, 1956, he not only quoted out of context, but put in quotation marks 
words I never used which changed the meaning of one passage. 

Schneiderman's article rejected the proposal of a non-party political action 
association; mine was a polemic against those who wanted to abandon democratic 
centralism. At the same time both articles proposed changes in the direction of 
greater democracy in the Communist Party. These proposals reflected strongly 
articulated majority thinking among party members * * *. 

Mr. JoHANSEN, Do I understand, Mr. Nittle, in that quotation 
that you read, a person alleged to be a member of the Communist 
Party accused Communists of smearing? 

Mr. NiTTLE. This is a reply by Mr. Magil. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. But the word "smear" was used. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, I see you are referring to that portion. The 
article begins "Even if these articles contained WTong ideas," this is 
quoting Mr. Magil's letter in The Worker, "It strikes me as highly 
irresponsible to smear two veterans of the American Communist 
movement." 

Mr. JoHANSEN. This was not the House Un-American Activities 
Committee that was smearing somebody in this instance? 

Mr. Nittle. No. It appears to me that in this instance a Soviet 
Communist was smearing American Communists, as you pointed out. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. I am going back to the fact that there was an 
accusation of a smear not directed at this committee. 

Mr. Nittle. Here the Communists were smearing each other. 

Mr. JoHANSEN". I wanted to bo sure I heard correctly. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Magil, the quotations that were used by Shevlyagin 
in Moscow made it appear that you were a gi'eater deviationist than 
you actually clainicd to be or tliought 3^011 were. He indicated tliat 
you were opposed to democratic centralism as a principle of party 
organization, whereas your article actually called for full enforcement 
of democratic centralism, which, as you said and as even Shevlyagin 
has said, included the election of parlv leaders. 

You had also called for introduction of the right of dissent. With 
that concept Shevlyagin liad no sympathy in his article, is that not 
a correct summation? 

\h\ Magil. I ngain invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle, "V\iien you were writing to The Worker in March 
1958, and stated that your article may have contained "wrong ideas," 
you had reference to the introduction of such democratic concepts 



COIVUVIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 703 

in the party organization as tlie election of leaders and the right of 
dissent, did you not? 

Mr. Magil. Again T invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Your letter to The Worker further stated that the 
National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States 
at a recent meeting had adopted a motion terming "inaccurate" the 
Komm.unist references to yourself and William Schneiderman as 
revisionists. 

Now, Schneiderman, to whom you referred, was a member of the 
National Committee of the Communist Party, UwSA, until the end of 
1959, was he not? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Why was there no declaration by the National Com- 
mittee regarding the accuracy of the Moscow condemnation of John 
Gates and William Norman? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Was there a difference between the National Com- 
mittee reference to yourself and the reference to Gates and William 
Norman, because Gates and Norman, as Shevlyagin pointed out, 
backed complete transformation of the party organization into a 
democi'atic, locally run party, abandoning principles of democratic 
centralism, whereas you had not gone that far? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did they leave room for you to remain in the party? 

Mr. Magil. I again invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did the party regard your confession of error as a 
mitigation of your particular situation so that they did not expel 
you personally from the Communist Party of the United States? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer, I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. Shevlyagin, in the statement to which we have re- 
ferred, made this statement: 

The struggle against the right opportunists was not carried through to the 
end at the Congress [referring to the Communist Party, USA, convention, Feb- 
ruary 1957.] and this has had an adverse effect upon the further work of the 
Party. Elements favoring a conciliatory stand are continuing their factional 
activity. Nevertheless, the important decisions adopted at the 16th Congress 
[meaning convention], especially the resolutions on continuing the Party's existence 
and on its activity and tasks, can greatly facilitate victory of the healthy ele- 
ments in the Party, the elements standing by Marxist- Leninist positions. 

What healthy elements was Shevlyagin referring to? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nittle. Was he not referring to the Foster faction? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer, I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Jo HANSEN. Before we proceed, I am not clear whether the letter 
Mr. Magil wrote to the editor of The Worker was incorporated in the 
record. I would certainly hope if it hasn't been that you would 
request it be so incorporated. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Chairman, I request that it be entered in the 
record as Magil Exhibit No. 29. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 29." See AppendLx, 
pp. 918, 919.) 

Mr. Nittle. Now I hand you, Mr. Magil, reproduction of The 
Worker for March 9, 1958, identified as Magil Exhibit 30, and the 
New York Times of February 22, 1958, page 5, identified as Magil 



704 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Exhibit 31, which refer to actions taken by the National Committee 
at its session on February 15 and 16, 1958. 

At this meeting of the National Committee of the Communist 
Party, USA, the entire 20-member National Executive Committee of 
the party was declared dissolved. Nine Communists were named to 
a new 15-man executive committee, with additional members sched- 
uled for selection at a later meeting. Foster, who had suffered a 
stroke the preceding October, was not personally represented on the 
committee, but there was strong support for his concepts through the 
presence of such Executive Committee members as Benjamin J. 
Davis, Jr., Eugene Dennis, James E. Jackson, Jack Stachel, and 
Robert Thompson. These latterly named persons were identified with 
Foster in support of his monolithic concepts against the John Gates 
revisionist faction. 

Are the statements of occurrences which are reflected in those items 
correct? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the two items I have just 
referred to be marked Magil Exliibits Nos. 30 and 31, respectively, 
and incorporated in the record. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Documents marked "Magil Exhibits Nos. 30 and 31," respectively. 
See Appendix, pp. 920-924 and 925.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. According to The Worker article, Exhibit 30 which 
you have just read, the new National Executive Committee assessed 
the February 1958 National Committee meeting as "an event of 
critical importance for our party" and as completely repudiating "the 
revisionist views of a John Gates." The new executive committee 
further said that, "Having adopted a clear policy perspective in 
relation to the current situation and the party, * * * the [National 
Committee] meeting undertook to elect a leadership capable of carry- 
mg out this line * * *." 

In non-Communist terms, Mr. Magil, the party was now ready to 
resinne full-scale activit\' under the leadership of Communists dedi- 
cated to the traditional monolithic, undemocratic, Soviet-oriented 
principles of party organization. Is that not right? 

Mr. Magil. Again I i voke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. And this was foreseen, was it not, when the Commu- 
nists on the National Executive (Committee who were opposed to 
Gates secured, in December 1957, passage of a National Executive 
Committee resolution, calling for immediate suspension of the Daily 
Worker which Gates edited? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. And did not John Gates' subsequent resignation from 
the Daily Worker and the party in January 19.58 clear tlie way for a 
complete leadership shake-up".' 

Mr. Magil. Same answer, 1 invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Gates subsequently described a bitter fight which 
took place within the top party leadership from the time of the 16th 
National Convention in 1957 until the time of his resignation. He 
told how the proponents of change were asked to compromise for 
convention purposes and how the Foster forces immediately thereafter 
fought all convention actions hispired by revisionists and reneged on 
giving them an opportunity to settle the matter in fair debate. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNTTED STATES 705 

Mr. Chairman, I ofTcr for idontification purposes, Magil Exhibit 
No. 32, being oxcerpts from John Gates' book 'Jlie Story of An American 
Communist. 

Do you recall that, in his letter of resigiiation, made public on 
January 10, 1958, Gates (kH^iared, "1 have come to the reluctant 
conclusion that the party cannot be changed from within and that 
the figlit to do so is hopeless"? 

Mr. Magil. That was the question concerning Gates' letter of 
resignation. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

(Document marked "Magil Exliibit No. 32" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you have knowledge of this letter of resignation? 

Mr. Magil. Same answer, I invoke the fiftli amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Did you make efforts of your own to change the party 
from within other than those efforts to which I have alluded in the 
course of the examination? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, will you look at a reproduction of a statement 
of the National Executive Committee of the Communist Party, 
USA, adopted August 12, 1958, dealing with what it calls "the evil of 
factionalism," which appeared in Party AJfairs of September 1958. 

The National Executive Committee in that statement points out a 
recent "factional act" to be — ■ 

the circulation by Comrade Abe Magil of an article expressing his views on the 
Yugoslav situation, after it had been rejected for publication by The Worker. 
Following the rejection, Comrade Magil made no effort to avail himself of other 
possible channels of publication open to hum [sic], nor did he discuss the matter 
with the Party leadership. Instead, he privately mimeographed the article and 
sent it, with a letter attempting to justify this action, to "the members of the 
Party's National Committee and to others who I think might want to read it." 

There can be no doubt that Comrade Magil, long experienced in these matters, 
was fully aware of the nature and import of his action. Hence it can be construed 
as nothing other than a deliberate piece of factionalism. As such, it must be 
condemned and Comrade Magil must be severely censured for the willful com- 
mission of sucli an anti-Party act. 

The continued circulation of factional documents, whatever their nature or 
origin, cannot be tolerated in our Party. We warn that any further instances 
will be met with immediate disciplinary action. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. This was the newly constituted party leadership 
that issued this pronouncement, is that correct? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Now, did you tliereafter comply with that du'ective or statement, 
Mr. Magil? 

Mr. Magil. Once more I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Was there any further disciplinary action other than 
your removal from the staff of The Worker? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you now simply a rank and file member, or have 
3'ou resumed a functionary capacity after that disciplining? 

Mr. Magil. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that the Na- 
tional Executive Committee statement of August 12, 1958, be marked 
Magil Exhibit No. 33, and incorporated in the record. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Without ol^jection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Magil Exhibit No. 33." See Appendix, p. 
926.) 



706 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. NiTTLE. The staff has no further questions of this witness, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Mr. Bruce? 

Mr. Bruce. Mr, Magil, are you married? 

Mr, Magil. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Bruce. Do you have children? 

Mr. Magil. One child. 

Mr. Bruce. In view of what is obvious in the testimony of at least 
your past activities in the Communist Party, doesn't it ever bother 
you to think that if you succeeded in the program outlined by the 
Communist Party, what futm^e that child would have? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. Again I decline to answer, invoking my constitutional 
privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Bruce. The question was raised a while ago, and I understand 
that you did invoke the fifth amendment, concerning the operation 
within the United States of what one could call the Soviet secret 
police apparatus. To your knowledge, is this apparatus ever engaged 
in acts of violence or even murder within the United States? 

Mr. Magil. Again I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Bruce. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Johansen. Would the possibility of such action by the Com- 
munist secret police against you have some bearing on your fear about 
self-incrimination? Is that where you might find you have incrimi- 
nated yourself if you answered these questions? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. No, that is not the basis on which I am invoking my 
constitutional rights. 

Mr. Bruce. Are you in the position now of being open to blackmail 
from the Communist Party? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Magil. Again I decline to answer, invoking the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Johansen. I have nothing further, Mr. Nittle. 

The witness is excused. 

The committee will recess for 5 minutes. 

(Brief recess.) 

Mr. Johansen. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. McNamara will resume the stand. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS J. McNAMARA— Resumed 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. McNamara, in your previous testimony you 
made reference to various efforts by the Soviet leadership to quash 
independence movements of various Communists throughout the 
world, in the 1956-1957 period, by the spoken and written word and 
various international conferences beginning with a gathering of 60- 
odd Communist parties in Moscow in November 1957. 

The committee has explored the effect of a number of these efforts 
by Moscow in course of the interrogation of Mr. A. B. Magil, who 
had the dubious distinction of personally receiving Soviet castigation 
for dcviationist views as to the proper type of organization for the 
Communist Party in America. 



COMRIUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 707 

What docs the Communists' own record show regarding the final 
effect of this Moscow campaign upon the Communist Party organiza- 
tion in the United States? 

Mr. McNamara. I have already mentioned briefly the November 
1957 gathering of Communist representatives From all over the world 
in Moscow, a gathering that was called by Khrushchev as part of 
his effort to re-establish Moscow's leadership over the World Com- 
mimist Movement, which had been seriously infected with both 
dissent and, to some extent, confusion. 

I have also mentioned the fact that 65 Communist parties signed a 
manifesto at that meeting, expressing complete unit.y with one another 
and the Soviet Union and also recognizing the Soviet Union's leader- 
ship of the World Communist Movement. 

Even more important than this declaration, however, was the one 
signed by the 12 Communist parties which actually control govern- 
ments, including the Communist Partv of the Soviet Union. This 
declaration or statement, like the previously mentioned manifesto, 
not only avowed unity of views and aims with the Soviet leadership 
but also went further. It contained a denunciation of straying 
Communists in terms that were remarkably reminiscent of some of 
the old dictates of the Communist International, or Comintern, of 
years ago. In this declaration, the weight of the world's strongest 
parties was throwai behind a call to all Communist parties on tlie earth, 
actually, to rid their ranks of all individuals, factions, and groups 
which, in the words of the declaration — 

deny the historical necessity for a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of 
the proletariat during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, 
deny the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party, reject the principles of 
proletarian internationalism and call for a rejection of the Leninist principles of 
party organization and, above all, of democratic centralism, for transforming the 
Communist Party from a militant revolutionary organization into some kind of 
debating societj^ 

Mr. NiTTLE. These were certauily questions raised by a good many 
American Communists whose statements have been incorporated in 
the record. How was this declaration greeted by American Com- 
munists? 

Mr. McNamara. Communist Party members in the United States, 
especially the deviationists, I believe, saw what this statement meant 
to them; and it appears to have plaj^ed a very important role in the 
final settlement of the dispute that had raged within the party as to 
its future nature. It should be remembered that the concepts or 
views on party organization that were denounced at this gathering in 
Moscow in 1957 and in these statements, were the views, to a greater 
or lesser degree, of those Communists who held the majority of leader- 
ship positions iji the American Communist organization. This meant, 
in effect, that the majority leadership of the United States Communist 
Party had been declared to be incorrect or revisionist by a world 
Communist forum. 

For example, John Gates, the most prominent of the revisionists in 
the American Communist Party because of his editorship of the Daily 
Worker, has stated that this November 1957 Moscow declaration was 
one of the two events which finally "decided my course." By "my 
course" he meant his ultimate resignation from the party, which took 
place the following January when he despaired of ever introducing 
any truly democratic reforms into the Communist Party, USA. 



708 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

The other event, he said, was the dissohition of the Daily Worker, 
which was ordered in December 1957 and became effective in Febru- 
ary 1958. I would Hke to quote what Gates has written regarding the 
use of the 12-party statement made by tlie Foster faction, wliicli was to 
win control of the party organization in February 1958. I quote: 

Two events decided my course. The first was the 12-Party statement at the 
Moscow celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Russian Revohition; it had 
been signed by leaders of all the Communist states, except for Yugoslavia. In 
content, it was a clear retreat to the rigid and dogmatic days of the unlamented 
Cominform. To make matters worse, Thompson, Dennis and Davis [that is, 
US Party leaders Robert Thompson, Eugene Dennis, and Benjamin Davis] now 
insisted that the American Communists must endorse this declaration — despite 
the fact that it had been evidently restricted to those states in which the Com- 
munists held power. The purpose was to establish a new loyalty test by which 
to judge party members. 

Mr. NiTTLE. That statement is contained in John Gates' book, 
The Story of An American Communist, is it not? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. That is published by Thomas 
Nelson & Sons, New York, 1958. The page reference is 188. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask that the item just 
referred to be introduced in the record as Committee Exhibit No. 29. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 29" and retained in 
committee hies.) 

Mr. NiTTLE. What was the next development in the party con- 
troversy in this country? 

Mr. McNamara. The National Administrative Committee of the 
Communist Party met on December 2, 1957. At this meeting a bitter 
fight arose because four members of this seven-man 'collective leader- 
ship" body sought to adopt a public statement, in the name of the 
entire American party organization, supporting the 12-party dechira- 
tion which had been issued in Moscow in November 1957. The four 
were Eugene Dennis, Benjamin Davis, Hy Lumer, and James Jackson, 
Opposed to them were administrative committee mend:)ers John 
Gates, Sid Stein, and Fred Fine, whom the Foster forces had been 
violently attacking for seeking to revise and reform the party or- 
ganization. 

Obviously a statement of this type would have put the Gates group 
in an untenable position because, in spite of the fact that it had been 
condemned by Moscow, it still had a majority control on other leading 
bodies of the Communist Party of the United States, 

Then, on December 20, 2i, and 22, 1957, there was a meeting 
of the party's larger ruling body, the National Executive Com- 
mittee. The pro-Gates majority in this body obtained adoption 
of a resolution censuring the four administrative committee mem- 
bers for havuig tried to act bureaucratically in the name of the en- 
tire party on so important an issue. At this same meeting, the 
National Executive Committee, according to the People' fi World of 
January 11, 1958, adopted an extremely noncommittal statement on 
the 12-party declaration. The statement, pul)lished in Political 
Afairs of January 1958, not only failed to endorse the stand taken 
by the leading parties at Moscow, but leaned a bit over in tlie other 
direction, because it warned tlie foreign Communist parties that 
American Connuunists intended to make "our own independent con- 
tribution" to communism. Voting against this NEC statement in 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE IJlSnTED STATES 709 

December, needless to state, were the four censured administrative 
committee members, Dennis, Davis, Lumer, and Jackson, who were 
joined by Elizabeth Gurle3^ Fljmn and Robert Tliompson. 

The National Executive Committee, however, also voted to suspend 
publication of the Daily Worker and to continue only the Sunday 
edition. The paper admittedly was in a critical financial status, 
suffering from a drastic loss of circulation caused both by loss of 
Gates supporters who had left the party during the crisis and, ac- 
cording to Editor Gates, by Foster's campaign against the paper. 
Gates has also charged that the pro-Foster forces, in order to achieve 
victory in the internal power struggle with the Gates forces, "delib- 
erately" withheld substantial funds which could have helped the paper 
over its financial crisis. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I ask that the article from the People's World of 
January 11, 195S, be introduced in the record as Committee Exhibit 
No. 30 and made a part of the printed record. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. It is so ordered. 

(Document marked "Committee Exhibit No. 30." See Appendix, 
pp. 927, 928.) 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Mr. McNamara, just to clarify the record, this 
reference to the four who did or attempted to issue a statement, was 
their position sympathetic to the Foster element? 

Mr. McNamara. That is right. These were the Foster-line repre- 
sentatives on the National Administrative Committee and they stood 
for complete support of Moscow. They wanted to come out with a 
statement in the name of the full American Communist Party com- 
pletely endorsing the 12-party Moscow declaration of 1957. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. I am not anticipating your subsequent testimony, 
but these four represented the element which subsequently prevailed? 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. It was after the suspension of the 
Daily Worker that John Gates resigned, as he has said many other 
Communists did, rather than continue the fight. They realized at 
this point that with Moscow behind the Foster faction lined up against 
them, their case was hopeless. There was no chance of reforming 
the party from within whatsoever. 

A new party leadership was finally installed at a meeting of the 
National Committee in New York City on February 15-16, 1958. 
This meeting abolished the party body known as the National Ad- 
ministrative Committee and also dissolved the old 20-member 
National Executive Committee, on which revisionists had so long 
held a majority. The National Committee named the following 
nine Communists to a new National Executive Committee, which 
was eventually to be expanded to 15 members: Eugene Dennis, Ben 
Davis, James Jackson, Hy Lumer, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Robert 
Thompson, Jack Stachel, George Meyers, and Albert Lima. It should 
be observed that six of these nine had been outspoken in behalf of 
all-out support of the Moscow 12-party declaration during the 
wrangling in top party councils in December 1957 and that eight of 
the nine have long been identified as unwavering supporters of Soviet 
Communist leadership. 

The nine new leaders moved quickly to show that the party at 
last was the disciplined, monolithic, faithfully pro-Soviet vehicle 
which the 12-party declaration had demanded. In obedience to a 

83743— (62— i>t. 1 11 



710 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 

resolution adopted by the National Committee at its crucial February 
1958 meeting, the new National Executive Committee issued another 
public statement on the 12-party declaration. This statement, which 
was printed in the June 1958 issue of Political A_ffairs, presents an 
interesting contrast with the previous very noncommittal statement 
made by the preceding revisionist-dominated National Executive 
Committee. The earlier statement had been printed, as previously 
stated, in the January 1958 issue of Political Ajffairs. 

This new declaration or statement was characterized by complete 
agreement with every word fashioned by the foreign Communists 
under Khrushchev's direction in Moscow in November 1957. It 
demonstrated clearly that the revisionists in the United States Com- 
munist Party had been finally and conclusively defeated in their ef- 
forts to instill some semblance of democratic and independent prin- 
ciples and actions within the Communist Party of the United States. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I request that these contrasting statements by the 
U.S. Communist Party leadership on the 12-party declaration be 
marked as Committee Exhibits Nos. 31 and 32, respectively, and 
made a part of the printed record. 

Mr. JoHANSEN, Without objection, they will be admitted. 

(Documents marked "Committee Exhibits Nos. 31 and 32," 
respectively. See Appendix, pp. 929-933 and 934-938.) 

Mr. JoHANSEN. What were the mechanics of replacement? 

Mr. McNamara. There is an exhibit introduced in the latter part 
of Mr. Magil's testimony which reveals the development there, the 
setup of a new National Executive Committee.^ 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Who did the setting up? That is what I am trying 
to ask. 

Mr. McNamara. Putting it as simply and accurately as I can, I 
would say that the Foster faction, with the backing of AIoscow, grad- 
ually took over during the early months of 1958. The Gates group 
realized that they could not remain in the Moscow party and gave up. 
Gates resigned. Most of his supporters and chief followers had re- 
signed. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. In other words, it was a takeover and an abdica- 
tion? 

Mr. McNamara. That is right. It was a surrender of the right 
deviationists, in the face of Moscow's opposition, to the Foster 
group, which stood completely by the Kremlin. 

That concludes ni}^ present testimon}^ We have prepared addi- 
tional material bringing developments within the party up to date, 
but because of the time element it ^\■iU not be possible to present that 
material now. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. I hope there will be an early opportunity to do that; 
I am most interested in the gap between the terminal period of your 
testimony and the present time. I think it would be most valuable. 

Mr. McNamara. I know Mr. Tavenner, the director, has expressed 
an interest in resuming these hearings at some future date, at which 
time the additional evidence, documentation, and testimony could be 
presented. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Very good. 

Is that all, Mr. Nittle? 

1 See Appendix, p. 925, Magil Exhibit No. 31. 



COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE XHSriTED STATES 711 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, 

Mr. JoHANSEN. The hearings today stand adjourned, subject to 
call of the C^hair. 

(Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., Wednesday, November 22, 1961, the 
subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chau\) 



INDEX 

Individuals 

A 

Page 

Albertson, William 576 

Allen, James S. (born Sol Auerbach)... 575, 623, 624 

Alman, David (Dave) 611 

Amter, Don 599 

Aptheker, Herbert 575 

B 

Bart, Philip Abraham (Phil) _ 575, opp. 577, 578 

Batt, Dennis E 653 

Bert, Erik 575 

Bittelman, Alexander (alias Raphael). 559-561, 651-664 (testimony), 667, 674, 697 

Blair, Fred Bassett 576, 583 

Blau velt, Mildred (alias Mildred Brandt ; Sylvia Vogel) 588 

Blum, Emanuel (Manny) 576 

Browder, Earl 558, 609, 648, 656, 682, 696, 697 

Bulganin, Nicolai 670 

C 

Cannon (James P.) 654 

Chaka, Edward (alias John Horner) 576 

Charney, George Blake 594, 595 

Chase, Homer Bates 559, 560, 624-651 (testimony), 655, 667 

Childs, Morris 576 

Clark, Joseph 693-695 

Cohen, Maximilian 653 

Colon, Jesus 575 

Crenovich, Michael 576 

D 

Davis, Benjamin J., Jr 575, 577, opp. 577, 578, 594, 605, 688, 704, 708, 709 

Davis, Sam 576, 583 

Dennis, Eugene (born Francis Xavier Waldron; also known as Paul Eugene 

Walsh; Milton) 558, 571, 577, 686, 688, 690, 696, 704, 708, 709 

Dennis, Thomas DeWitt, Jr 576, opp. 577, 583 

Dickstein, Sidney 677 

Dobbs, Benjamin 576, 583 

Draper, Theodore 663 

Duclos, Jacques 558, 682, 695, 696, 698 

E 

Eisler, Gerhart (aliases: Hans Berger; Gerhard; Edwards; Brown; Julius 

Eisman; Gearhart; Samuel Liptzen) 698 

Elbaum, D 653 

Engels, Friedrich (Frederick) 647, 648, 663, 677 

F 

Fast, Howard... 621 

Fine, Fred 708 

Flynn, Elizabeth Gurley 575, opp. 577, 578, 653, 709 

i 



u 



INDEX 



F&gt 
Foster, WiUiam Z.. 557, 558, 560, 595, 599, 605, 656, 657, 660, 671, 681-683, 

686, 688-692, 696, 699, 704, 708-710 

Fraina, Louis C. (also known as Louis Corey) 653 

Friedlander, Miriam 576 

Friedman, Robert (also known as Robert Mann) 556, 

600, 607-619 (testimony), 620, 646 
G 

Gannett, Betty 576, 582 

Gates, John (W) (alias Irving Regenstreif) 558, 

560, 593, 598, 599, 605, 623, 646, 656, 667, 668, 671, 680, 682, 684, 
686, 688-690, 692, 694, 695, 698-701, 703-705, 707-710. 

Gerson, Simon W 575 

Gitlo w, Benjamin 663 

Green, Jacob 576 

H 

Haaland, Norman 576 

Hall, Flora (Flo) 576 

Hall, Gus (alias for Arva Halberg) 560, 575, 577, opp. 577, 578, 645 

Hathaway, Clarence A 575, opp. 577, 578 

Healey, Dorothy Ray (Mrs. PhiUp Marshal Connelly; nee Rosenblum; 

also known as Dorothy Ray) 576, opp. 577, 583 

Henry, Dan 603, 604, 669 

Hoover, J. Edgar 692 

Hourwich, Nicholas I 653 



Jackson, James E 575, 577, opp. 577, 578, 704, 708, 709 

Johnson, Arnold 575 

K 

Katz, Label A 614 

Kennedy, John F 638, 641 

Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeevich 555-560, 

566, 573, 590, 597, 602, 621, 624, 634-637, 644, 645, 653, 654, 659, 
660, 663, 667, 669-671, 673-675, 682, 686, 693, 710. 

Krclimarek, Anthony (also known as Mike Meadows) 576, opp. 577, 583 

Kroner, Jack 611 

Kushner, Sam 576, 583 



Lawrence, William. (See Lazar, Wilham.) 

Lazar, William (also known as William Lawrence; Israel Lazar) 595 

Lenin, V. I. (alias for Vladimir Il'ich Ul'ianov; also known as Nikolai 

Lenin) 555, 

565, 566, 593, 596, 617, 634, 637, 645, 648, 649, 657, 659, 663, 

665, 670, 677, 700. 

Lightfoot, Claude 576, opp. 577, 578, 583 

Lightfoot, Geraldine (Mrs. Claude Lightfoot) 575 

Lima, Albert Jason (Mickey or Mickie) 576, opp., 577, 583, 709 

Lo vcstone. Jay 653, 654, 656 

Lumer, Hyman (alias Robert Harold Meyers) 575, 

577, opp. 577, 578, 708, 709 
M 

Magil, Abraham B 557, 558, 077-706 (testimony) 

Malenkov, Georgi M 621, 670, 674, 693 

Mann, Robert. (See Friedman, Robert.) 

Mao Tse-tung 560, 604, 605, 644, 645, 648 

Marx, Karl 565, 647, 648, 663, 677 

Max, Alan 645, 699 

McAdory, Mildred 575 

McNamara, Francis J 555, 

567-587 (testimony), 596-605 (testimony), 619-624 (testimony), 

633, 634, 638, 605-077 (testimony), 689, 706-711 (testimony). 



INDEX iii 

Pagfl 

Meyers, George A 575, opp. 577, 582, 709 

Mitchell, Charlene (Mrs. William Mitchell; nee Alexander) 576 

Molotov, Vyacheslav M 674, 693 

Muste, A. J. 571 

N 

Nabried, Thomas 576, 582 

Nechae V, Sergei 565 

Nelson, Burt 576, 583 

Nelson, Leon 556, 587-596 (testimony), 646 

Nelson, Steve 686 

Nenni (Pietro) 686 

Nixon (Richard) 641 

Norman, William (also known as Wee Willie Marron; born William 

Norman Marron) 701, 703 

O 
O'Dell, Hunter Pitts - — 576 

P 

Patterson, William Lorenzo 575, 582 

Perry, Pettis 575 

Ponomarev, B 700 

Potash, Irving 575, opp. 577, 578 

Proctor, Roscoe 576 

Q 

Queen, Danny 575 

R 

Rachlin, Carl I 571 

Rauh, Joseph L 607 

Richmond, Al 575 

Robeson, Paul, Sr 576 

Rockefeller 641 

Rosenbluth, Nathan (Nat) 576 

Rubin, Mortimer Daniel 575 

Rubinstein, Annette T 612 

S 

Schneiderman, William 701, 702 

Shaw, George Bernard 637 

Shevlyagin, D.i 700-703 

Speiser, Lawrence 65 J 

Stachel, Jack (Jacob) 575, opp. 577, 578, 585, 704, 70O 

Stalin, Josef (losif Vissarinovich Dzhugashvili) 556, 

558, 560, 573, 597, 617, 621, 634-637, 645, 648, 654, 657, 659, 662, 

663, 667-672, 682, 696, 697. 

Standard, Michael B 587 

Stanford, John 576 

Stein, Sid 708 

Stevenson, Adlai 640 

Stoklitzky, Alexander I 653 

T 
Thomas, Norman 664 

Thompson, Robert 688, 704, 708, 709 

Tito (alias for Josip Brozovich; also known as Josip Broz) 557, 669, 673 

Tkachev, Peter 565, 566 

Toe;liatti, Palmiro (also known as Alfred; M. E. Ercoli; Ercole Ercoli; 

Mario Correnti) 672, 674, 686 

Toohey, Patrick 576, 582 

Tormey , James 576 

Trotsky, Leon (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein) 571 

' Appears as Shevliagin in some references. 



iv INDEX 

W Page 

Waller, Edwin E 628 

Watt, George Walsh 594, 595 

Weinstock, Louis 576, 582 

Weinstone, William (Will) 575 

West, James 576, opp. 577, 583 

Wheeler, Jaunita 576 

White, Theodore H 612 

Wicks, H. M 653 

Winston, Henry 575, 576, opp. 577, 578 

Winter, Carl 576, opp. 577, 583 

Winter, Helen Allison 575 

WoUemborg, Leo J 672 

Organizations 

A 

Abraham Lincoln Brigade. {See International Brigade, Fifteenth.) 

American Civil Liberties Union 651 

New York Chapter 571 

American Newspaper Guild 611 

B 
B'nai Brith 614 

C 

CaHfornia Labor School 678 

Civil Rights Congress 580 

Communist International. {See International III.) 

Communist Party, Brazil 700 

Communist Party, Canada 700 

Communist Party, China 650, 667 

Communist Party, France 695 

Central Committee 695, 696 

Communist Party, Great Britain 700 

Communist Party, Italy 672, 673, 675, 676, 686 

Central Committee 672, 686 

Comniunist Party of America 652, 653 

Communist Party of the United States of America 555-7 1 1 

National Structure: 

Administrative Committee 708, 709 

Draft Program Committee (1958) 657 

National Commissions: 

Defense Commission 580 

Education Commission 579 

Farm Commission 579 

International Affairs Commission 579 

Jewish Commission 579 

National Groups Commission 579 

Negro Commission 579 

Organization Commission 579 

Review Commission (also known as Control Commission) . _ 579, 

600, 619 

Trade Union Commission 579 

Women's Commission 579 

Youth Commission 579 

National Committee 556, 559-561, 568, 570, 574, 

576-578, 582, 585, 589, 590, 591, 592, 594, 595, 599, 603, 604, 623, 
632, 633, 638-646, 653, 654, 657, 658, 668, 684, 686, 688, 703-705. 

Executive Committee 559, 

568, 577, 585, 586, 597, 599, 657, 658, 704, 705, 708-710 

Secretariat 559, 

561, 577, 578, 639-646, 648, 654, 655, 657, 658, 661 
National Board 555, 568, 577, 578, 585, 597 



INDEX ▼ 

Communist Party of the United States of America — Continued 

National Conventions and Conferences: ^*5* 

Ninth Convention, June 24-28, 1936 b79 

Fifteenth Convention, December 28, 1950 570 

SLxteenth Convention, February 9-12, 1957, New York City 557, 

558, 569-571, 594, 602, 622, 629, 632, 680, 688, 691-693, 695, 699, 

703 704. 
Seventeenth Convention, December 10-13, 1959, New York City. 560, 

564, 569, 572-574, 577, 585, 623, 632, 645, 657, 673 

Connecticut District (Connecticut) 582 

Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware District (Eastern Pennsyl- 
vania and Delaware) ^^- 582 

Illinois District (Illinois (exclusive of the East St. Louis area), 

the Davenport and Bittendorf areas of Iowa) 583, 584 

Indiana District (Indiana) j-ir" 

Maryland-District of Columbia District (Maryland and the 

District of Columbia) 582 

Michigan District (Michigan) . .... 583 

Minnesota-Dakotas District (Minnesota, North Dakota, South 

Dakota) -r-^'-V- ^^^ 

Missouri District (Missouri, East St, Louis, Ilhnois, and Greater 

Kansas City) 583 

Montana District (Montana) 583 

New England District (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

Rhode Island and Vermont) -^„ 559, 

560, 582, 584, 632, 633, 637-639, 641, 643, 646 

New Jersey District (New Jersey) 582 

New York District (New York) 582 

Northern California District (CaUfornia north of Kern and Santa 

Barbara Counties) 583, 584 

Northwest District (Washington, Idaho, and Alaska) 583, 584 

Ohio District (Ohio and Panhandle section of West Virginia) . 583, 584 

Oklahoma- Arkansas District (Oklahoma and Arkansas) 583 

Oregon District (Oregon) 583 

Southern CaUfornia District (California, exclusive of counties 

north of Santa Barbara and Kern Counties) --- 583, 584 

Southern Region (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mis- 
sissippi, North CaroUna, South CaroUna, Tennessee, Texas — 

exclusive of the 17 western counties and Virginia) 583, 584, 646 

Western Pennsylvania District (Western Pennsylvania) 582 

Wisconsin District (Wisconsin) 583 

States and Territories: 
Arizona: 

Phoenix: 

West Side Club 580 

CaUfornia: 

San Francisco: 

American Federation of Labor Section: 

Metal Trades Club 581" 

North Beach No. 1 Club 580 

Seamen's Branch 581 

Connecticut: 

New Haven: 

Railroad Club _ 581 

Florida 628 

Georgia 626,627,629,632 

IlUnois : 

Chicago: 

Packinghouse Section: 

Armor Branch 581 

Swift Branch 581 

Wilson & Co. Branch. 581 

Massachusetts : 

Dorchester Club 642 

• See also entries under States and Territories. 



vi INDEX 

Communist Party of the United States of America — Continued 
States and Territories — Continued 
Michigan: 

Detroit: Page 

West Side Section 581 

Missouri : 

St. Louis: 

South Side Section 581 

New Jersey: 
Elizabeth: 

Singer Chib 581 

Essex County: 
Newark: 

General Electric Club 581 

New York State 556, 589, 590, 594, 595, 598, 608, 615 

State Committee 586, 683 

New York City Area: 
Kings County: 
Brooklyn : 

Eleventh A.D. Club 580 

Ocean Avenue Club 580 

Riverside Club 580 

Wilhamsburg Section 588 

New York County (Manhattan) : 

Inwood Club 580 

Seventh A.D. Club 580 

Ninth A.D. Club 580 

Westchester Club 654, 658 

Communist Party, Soviet Union... 595, 621, 650, 675, 683, 685, 686, 693, 700, 701 

Central Committee 558, 659, 670, 674, 685-691, 693, 698 

Congresses : 

Eighteenth Congress, 1939 636 

Nineteenth Congress, 1952 636 

Twentieth Congress, February 1956 (Moscow) 590. 

597, 653, 659, 668, 669, 671, 673, 674, 681 

Twenty-second Congress, October 17-31, 1961, (Moscow) 621 

Communist Political Association ^ 680, 696 

Founding Convention, May 20-22, 1944 (New York) 679 

E 
Emergency Civil Liberties Committee 580 

G 
German Social Democratic Party 649 

H 
Hsinhua News Agency (Peking) 661 



International III (also known as Comintern and International Workers' 

Association) 662, 663, 698 

International Brigade, Fifteenth (also referred to as Abraham Lincoln 

Brigade) 631 

International Bureau of Revolutionary Literature, Second World Plenum, 

November 6-15, 1930 (Kharkov, Russia) 678 

J 

Jefferson School of Social Science 610, 611, 668 

John Reed Clubs 678, 679 

L 
Labor Youth League __. 610, 611 

• Appears In some references as Communist Political Action Association. 



INDEX Vil 

M 

Page 
Massachusetts Special Commission To Investigate Communism and Sub- 
versive Activities 632 

N 
National Assembly for Democratic Rights — 580 

S 
Society of the Axe 565 

T 
Thomas Nelson & Sons (New York) 668, 708 

U 
United States Government: 

Subversive Activities Control Board 611 

W 

WATL (radio station, Georgia) _ 632 

Workers Party of America: 

Central Executive Committee 653 

Workers Schools: 

New York __ 678 

Y 
Young Communist League 587, 588 

Publications 

A 

American Communism and Soviet Russia 663 

C 
Communist, The 653 

Current Digest of the Soviet Press, The 700 

D 

Daily Worker (see also Worker, The) 557, 593, 

598, 612, 667, 668, 680, 681, 689, 690, 694, 695, 698, 699, 709 
Declaration of the Conference of 12 Communist Parties, November 1957 
(Moscow) (also known as the Declaration of Communist and Workers 

Parties of Socialist Countries) 661, 675, 707-710 

Discussion Bulletin 70 1 

F 
Fire in the Ashes (book) 612 

Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism 561, 564, 661 

G 
Great Traditions in English Literature, The (book) 612 

H 

Harper's Magazine 696, 697 

History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 668 

Hour Glass, The (book).. 611 

I 
International Affairs _ 675, 699 

K 
Kommunist- 689, 700, 702 



viU INDEX 

L Pae» 

L'Humanite 699 

M 

Manifesto issued by the Conference of Representatives of 81 Communist 
Parties, December 1960 (Moscow). (See Statement issued by the 
Conference of Representatives of 81 Communist Parties, December 
1960 (Moscow)). 

Masses and Mainstream 612, 680, 681 

Milestones in the History of the Communist Party 662 

N 

New Masses 611, 678-681 

New Times 659 

New York Post 609, 610 

New York Times 595 

P 

Party Affairs 585 

Party Life 690 

Party Voice 556, 590, 598, 600-604, 608, 620, 621, 668, 682, 685 

Political Affairs 576, 612, 653, 658, 660, 661 

Pravda 660, 688, 699 

Prospectus 62 1 

S 
Soviet Russia 693 

Statement issued by the Conference of Representatives of 65 Communist 

Parties, November 1957 (Moscow) 559 

Statement issued by the Conference of Representatives of 81 Communist 

Parties, December 1960 (Moscow) (also known as the manifesto) 564, 

566, 593, 617, 618, 644, 645, 650 
Story of An American Communist, The 668, 705, 708 

W 

Worker, The (see also Daily Worker) 612, 652, 680, 681, 691 

World News 699 

Westchester News 610 

Y 

Young Communist League Year Book (19b7)_-> 588 

o 



.jiliiii" 

3 9999 05706J115 



This book should be returned to 
the Library on or before the last date 
stamped below. 

A fine is incurred by retaining it 
beyond the specified time. 
Please return promptly. 



^^B I' vu 

MTnH 




11 


fWrW