communism can exact when it is in state control, as in Russia, Hungary,
and China, and when it is not. Communists in the United States cannot
exact the death penalty; they cannot operate slave labor camps; they
cannot deport families to isolated areas. Yet the disciplinary actions
of the Communist Party, USA, as we shall see in the “purge” of Earl
Browder in 1945, show unmistakably that communists in this country
think and would like to act in disciplinary matters precisely as do
communists behind the Iron Curtain. Moreover, the stronger the Party in
this country, the more able it has been to enforce its discipline. Every
Party member should realize that, by working to strengthen the Communist
Party, he is thereby giving the Party greater power to discipline him in
the future. Today, at most he can be expelled and vilified, unless he is
subjected to the treatment given John Lautner. We can readily conjecture,
however, recalling the purge trials under Stalin, what could happen here
if communism ever controlled our government.
Communist discipline is a part of the everyday life of the Party. It is
not something that can be developed overnight or learned exclusively from
a book. It comes gradually from attending schools, reading, and doing
Party work. A “conscience of responsibility,” as one old-time member
explained it, is created; a feeling that, whatever your personal desires
and responsibilities, _the Party’s orders come first_; that every task is
surrounded by a Party “halo of sanctity,” thereby becoming an emergency
urgently demanding instant handling; that a “guilty” feeling arises if
the member relaxes for a moment or doesn’t do the job assigned by the
Party “boss.”
In the communist system, discipline means _conscious_ and _voluntary_
submission to the will of the Party. To obey Party instructions is
regarded as a high ethical duty, to be undertaken joyously and willingly
as an honor and privilege, never as bondage. Not to obey is unthinkable
and a matter of personal shame and Party irresponsibility. This is the
terrifying danger of communist discipline—that in the name of freedom, by
appealing to the most noble qualities in man, the human being is pushed
into deepest tyranny.
Communist “courts” seek out those who do not “knuckle under” to communist
discipline. If a mistake is made from bad judgment, a lapse of memory,
or lack of knowledge, that is one thing. This can be corrected by more
“education.” But if the member persists in error, that is, doesn’t follow
undeviatingly the Party line, he must be “flayed without mercy.” “... an
organization of real revolutionaries,” says Lenin, “will stop at nothing
to rid itself of an undesirable member.”
Members may be disciplined for many reasons. One of the most serious is
being a _deviationist_, that is, differing from the Party line. This
charge has led to wholesale purges in the past, including the ousting of
such leaders as Lovestone, Gitlow, Browder, and literally hundreds of
lesser members.
The Party claims to be an “advanced” element, teaching the noncommunist
masses the “glories” of socialism. As leaders, communists must be “in
front” of the less informed yet not too far ahead to be out of sight.
Just where to be at any given time is decided by the Party inner clique.
Anyone disagreeing is a deviationist, guilty of either _left-wing
sectarianism_ or _right-wing opportunism_.
Some individuals, the communists say, may stray too far to the left. They
want the Party to be more militant, to hurry up the revolution. They rush
on ahead, forgetting to guide the noncommunists. That’s wrong, says the
Party. Such an attitude would isolate the Party, make it an ineffectual
sect. These individuals are guilty of left-wing sectarianism. They must
turn around and come back.
On the other hand, many members lag behind the correct position. They
disregard the Party’s role as an “advanced teacher” and allow it to work
too closely with capitalism. They are right-wing opportunists, equally as
guilty as left-wing sectarians. They had better rid themselves of this
“capitalist complex” and catch up.
These terms sound massive. To communists, however, they are everyday
expressions. Time after time in Party meetings the charge will be
heard, “He’s an opportunist,” or, “He’s a left-wing sectarian.” To the
communists that’s like calling a man a thief or coward.
You can well imagine how these “errors” are corrected. Disciplinary
scythes can cut down anyone disliked by the leadership. If you want
to get rid of a comrade, accuse him of left-wing sectarianism or
right-wing opportunism. He’ll probably then be hauled into Party “court.”
Disciplinary vogues sweep the Party: for a while, left-wing sectarianism
becomes popular, then right-wing opportunism. After Browder’s removal in
1945 as a right-wing opportunist (also called _revisionist_), the style
was to criticize opportunism. Since the Geneva Conference of 1955 the
fashion has been to attack left-wing sectarianism.
Another serious error is _chauvinism_, applied to a member who supposedly
thinks himself superior to others.
Any member can bring charges, no matter how silly, trivial, and stupid.
That’s a communist technique: always keep members in fear. Never must a
comrade become secure, complacent, or unconcerned. He must constantly
be worrying about “what’s coming next.” This prevents the entrenchment
of Party bureaucrats and the formation of cliques; it makes discipline
easier to impose.
Perhaps, in his Party work or in his personal affairs, a member has
given more attention to Mr. A than to Mr. B. If Mr. B’s feelings have
been hurt, he may bring formal charges. In one instance, a group of
Party comrades made plans to hold a picnic, then invited two additional
comrades. The two declined, saying that by being asked at the last
minute they had been slighted. Result: they planned to bring charges of
chauvinism.
There are different types of chauvinism. _White chauvinism_, for example,
means that a white comrade, through word or deed, has “slighted” or
shown that he feels himself better than a Negro comrade. If the reverse
is true—that a Negro member considers himself superior to a white
comrade—this leads to the error of _inverted white chauvinism_ or
_Negro nationalism_. Then there is _male chauvinism_, also called _male
supremacism_, when men comrades “look down on” the position of women. In
one instance a man was accused of disapproving of his wife’s smoking.
He was a male supremacist. If a woman thinks she is superior to a man,
that’s _commandism_.
Still another cause for disciplinary action is the charge of being an
_informer_. Ever since 1949, when FBI informants testified at the first
New York Smith Act trial, communists have been terrified of informers.
They go all-out to catch “spies.” Member after member, completely
innocent of the Party’s charges, has been expelled. “If you have to kick
ten guys out to get the right one,” a comrade explained, “that’s the way
to do it.” In one instance Party officials without any authority searched
the home of a member “under suspicion.” In another instance an anonymous
letter was received at national headquarters charging, among other
things, that a high Party official was “a big bag of wind.” The Party
instantly collected typewriting samples, hoping to catch the culprit.
The Party, as part of its disciplinary program, encourages what is called
self-criticism. The communists point to this technique as proof of the
democratic nature of their Party. Actually, however, self-criticism plays
into the hands of the ruling clique, enabling it to detect discontent
and criticism of its leadership. It becomes an effective disciplinary
technique to keep the membership in submission.
Members are encouraged to criticize themselves and others. A
well-established Party admonition is: “Test your work against
Marxist-Leninist principles. Is anything wrong? Why did the registration
program fall short? Are the officers of the club doing their duties
properly? Why weren’t more pamphlets sold?” The membership is expected
to bewail its errors, to say, “We were wrong. Have mercy on us. We will
do better.” They prostrate themselves before Party bosses. For those who
don’t “confess,” there are others to point out their errors. What else
could be asked?
When a comrade confesses, the communist custom is for other members to
heap abuse on him, often in the most sarcastic and sneering manner.
“You’re a deviationist.” “You’re a chauvinist!” The idea is to drive the
member to the lowest depths of humiliation.
When Earl Browder was deposed in 1945, a national officer suggested that
he be given a job scrubbing floors at national headquarters. Browder
later told the Yonkers, New York, communist club, “If there had been any
evidence that there existed a real need for my services in this capacity,
I would gladly have given them.”
Members often work themselves into a state of frenzy, tearing apart their
best friends. Sometimes self-criticism becomes contagious, with Party
sections and committees confessing en masse.
Tongues are sharp, but comrades soon learn whom to criticize. To attack
a fellow comrade, especially one you don’t like, is the thing to do. In
attacking the club chairman the comrade had better take things a little
slowly. If he is a friend of the chairman’s superior and thinks he can
get the chairman’s job, then it’s proper. If not, he should be content
with self-criticism. Good Party manners would say “no” to disparaging a
state or national leader, unless one was assigned as a “hatchet man” for
another top official. Communist criticism flows more safely downward than
upward.
Criticism is encouraged—but it must be of the right kind. An organizer
isn’t doing his job. To criticize him is proper; that’s _constructive
criticism_, designed to make the Party stronger. “But this criticism,”
one high official said, “must never depart from the line of the Party....”
That’s the crux: Criticism must be limited to how the Party line can best
be advanced. Anything else is _destructive criticism_. It’s like a house
full of furniture. A comrade is permitted to discuss how the furniture
can be arranged, whether the blue chair should be in the front room or
the bedroom. But as soon as he questions the size of the house, whether
a new room should be added, or the entire house destroyed and rebuilt,
well, that’s too much. The Party line must not be questioned.
Some members learn the hard way. They push criticism too far and are
quickly put in place.
John was highly regarded as a club chairman. He was aggressive and a hard
worker. Promotion was his reward. He was sent by the National Committee
to another city as a section organizer. Soon things began to hum. He
reorganized some clubs. He shifted other Party activities. He was putting
his ideas to work.
Then he went one step too far. He suggested that the state organization,
headed by his superior, could be improved. John should have known better.
An organizer can work out new schemes to sell the _Daily Worker_,
to recruit members, and to reshuffle clubs; in fact, that is Party
initiative. But he doesn’t criticize state chairmen and, as John did in
this instance, threaten to take up the matter directly with national
headquarters.
John quickly became the fellow who “went up fast, down faster.”
State headquarters, in a special report, severely criticized him and
recommended additional Party training. The result: He was recalled and
assigned to an insignificant desk job. He had to learn his lesson.
Destructive criticism may lead to _factionalism_, which, in Party eyes,
is open rebellion. A member holds a critical opinion. Others agree and
soon a faction, or group hostile to the Party line, is formed. Every
resource of the Party is mobilized to destroy it.
For a show of democracy, the Party’s constitution says:
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_. [Emphasis supplied.]
In other words, in practice any criticism that “hinders” the Party line
is called factionalism and is forbidden.
Often, factionalism becomes so pronounced that an entire group is
expelled. The Communist Party, with its unreasonable discipline and
rigid structure, is peculiarly susceptible to factionalism. There are in
America today a number of Marxist factions (called _splinters_), each
small in number and with varying degrees of hostility to the Communist
Party.
Noncommunists will have difficulty in understanding the utter inhumanity
of communist discipline. It is a discipline that pervades every facet of
life, drives wedges between husband and wife, and separates families. The
best friends today, because of a Party action, may become the bitterest
enemies tomorrow.
A Party member heard that her husband, a high-ranking functionary, had
just been expelled. The shock was terrific.
He claimed that he was innocent. “I didn’t do anything,” he stated. And
he was right. The charges were completely false. But she refused to
believe. She double-checked with Party headquarters. They said he was
guilty. The more she thought about it, the angrier she became. Her eyes
grew bitter and her mouth curled with scorn. Finally her decision was
made.
“Get out of this house,” she ordered. “I don’t want you around. You’re a
traitor. Now, OUT!”
Without hesitation she accepted the Party’s version, refusing to believe
her own husband. The wedge of Party discipline had conquered. The husband
was driven away from his own home and his own child. Loyalty to the Party
supersedes all emotions of love and mercy and justice.
In California the parents of a young lady were Party members. Both had
held high offices in their section. They objected to their daughter’s
staying out with another Party member until four and five o’clock in
the morning, and claimed it was injuring her health and her progress in
school. The daughter’s boy friend complained to a Party functionary that
he was being discriminated against because he was a Negro. The girl’s
mother, a former section chairman, defended her action. The daughter
then took the floor and charged her parents with chauvinism. They were
expelled and the daughter then married the complainant.
The Party’s constitution provides a number of specific penalties of
increasing severity, including expulsion.
The mildest Party penalty is _reprimand_, usually designed to assist
Party members in correcting their mistakes. This may take the form of
_private censure_, such as, “You had better be on time in the future,”
or, “Your work wasn’t well organized.” Somewhat more severe is _public
censure_, whereby through written notice or public announcement a comrade
is reprimanded. In this way others know of the Party’s disapproval.
Then there is _probation_. This may involve a shift from one type of work
to another or an assignment to special tasks. If the offender is a paid
Party official, he may be demoted (for example, from a state office to
a minor position) or transferred to another city. Next is _suspension_,
usually for a specific length of time. This amounts to a temporary relief
of assignments. The most severe penalty, next to expulsion, is _removal
from office_. In such instances the comrade may be stripped of all Party
assignments and demoted to being a mere rank-and-filer. This is a hard
jolt, especially with the whole Party watching. These acts are object
lessons to the membership. “Comrade, be careful. Don’t you do the same.”
Fear plays an important role in communist discipline.
The most drastic penalty, of course, is _expulsion_, and thousands of
case examples, even of the highest leaders, form mute evidence.
Once the communists turn on a comrade, the treatment is complete. For
example:
Earl Browder, onetime General Secretary, was expelled in February, 1946,
for
... developing factional activity and for betraying the
principles of Marxism-Leninism and deserting to the side of the
class enemy—American monopoly capital.
Sam Donchin, Associate Editor, _Daily Worker_, until shifted to
leadership position on the Party’s Education Commission, was also
expelled. The _Daily Worker_ on March 12, 1951, in announcing his
expulsion, said, “Donchin was expelled for factionalism, anti-Party
activities, hostility to the line of the Party and to the Party
leadership, and white chauvinism.”
The announcement continued: “Donchin tried to cover up his factionalism
in the name of criticism and self-criticism in the Party. He
demagogically tried to identify criticism and self-criticism in the ranks
of the Party with a right to carry on factional conduct in the Party.”
Once a former member breaks with the Party and testifies or makes a
public statement, he can expect a merciless campaign of vilification. On
April 10, 1952, the well-known stage and screen director, Elia Kazan,
appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and
testified that he had been in the Party for a year and a half in the
1930’s and quit because of the regimentation and thought control that had
been directed at him. Two days later he took a paid advertisement in the
New York _Times_ explaining his reasons. _Daily Worker_ writer Samuel
Sillen on April 17, 1952, gave Mr. Kazan the full treatment with such
vitriolic words as:
We have seen a lot of belly-crawling in this time of the toad,
but nothing has quite equaled last week’s command-performance
by Hollywood director Elia Kazan.... Not even in Hitler days
did renegade intellectuals sink so low.... Kazan is not content
with being a toad. He must also be a philosopher of toadyism.
Communist discipline, however, is not blind or without a deceitful
purpose. Individuals should not be expelled impulsively but should be
shown the error of their ways. Only when he is deemed “unimprovable” is
a member to be ousted. For this reason offenders are often compelled to
perform special “disciplinary chores” to “earn their way back,” to show
through hard work, devotion, and acknowledging the supremacy of the Party
that they should be readmitted to favor. In a Northern city, for example,
an official in disfavor was placed in charge of arranging a mass meeting.
He had to “prove” himself by doing the most menial tasks—running errands,
selling tickets, recruiting ushers—he who used to be a keynoter himself.
In most instances the more menial the task, the better. In Party eyes, a
member who has gone through this self-abasement becomes a better comrade
because of it. All thought of resistance is pounded out and he becomes
a viable Party tool. He can be reprimanded, criticized, treated in a
brutally unfair manner, yet he’ll keep on working. Lash him, and he’ll
clench his teeth tighter. That’s the true revolutionary, in communist
eyes.
The key is always acknowledging the supremacy of the Party. Hence, one of
the fastest ways “back” is to acknowledge it quickly and completely.
In a Midwestern section an old-time organizer was accused of conduct
detrimental to the Party. In a report read at an executive committee
meeting he admitted his error. His conduct had been atrocious. Everything
charged was true. He should have known better. He was ready to accept
punishment. He even suggested his own removal as organizer. This attitude
was exactly what the Party wanted. The state office did not relieve the
organizer, though cautioning him that if his conduct were repeated, more
severe action would be taken. The result: public (and mild) reprimand,
not suspension or removal from office.
This explains why, in some instances, severe errors receive minor
penalties, whereas small mistakes result in expulsion. The test is
often not what a member did wrong but his attitude after the error
was committed. If the member is willing to admit his mistake, real or
fictitious, accept punishment gladly, and still maintain absolute faith
in the leadership, he will probably soon be restored to favor. If he
tries, however, to defend himself in the light of the evidence, he must
be dealt with harshly. On one occasion a member involved in domestic
difficulties replied “none of your business” to an inquiry by the
Party. He wasn’t long in good standing. In Party language, he showed no
“political capabilities,” meaning he was not amenable to discipline.
The Communist Party has a systematic campaign of creating hatred against
the expelled member. It is not enough just to expel him; he must be
vilified, blackened, and made to appear the scum of the earth.
These individuals become “spies,” “stool pigeons,” “rats,” “Trotskyites,”
“renegades,” and “degenerates.” To communists, ordinary curse words have
no meaning. They have a vocabulary all their own. Hence, “opportunist,”
“deviationist,” and “anti-Party” are their choicest terms of defamation,
of characterizing a person as being the meanest, foulest, most
black-hearted derelict imaginable.
The higher in Party leadership the ousted member has risen, the greater
must be the efforts to defame him. For example, Robert Wood, the Party’s
onetime Eastern railroad organizer, was expelled with an explosive
statement in the _Daily Worker_ on March 23, 1951, which said:
... various violations of Party discipline, for panic in the
face of the fire of the class enemy, for acts endangering the
Party, for issuing instructions in the name of the Party which
were unauthorized and false, for acts of white chauvinism, and
for conduct unbecoming and inconsistent with his post of Party
leadership.
From the campaign of vilification there arises a fantastically bitter
element of communist discipline and hatred. Every man, woman, and child
in the membership must be mobilized against the accused. One Party
manual, written by a top leader, recommended:
1. Photograph the spy, and print his picture in the _Daily
Worker_ and in leaflets and stickers....
2. Organize systematic agitation among the workers where the
spy was discovered.
3. Mobilize the children and women in the block in the part of
town where the stool pigeon lives to make his life miserable;
let them picket the store where his wife purchases groceries
and other necessities; let the children in the street shout
after him or after any member of his family that they are
spies, rats, stool pigeons.
4. Chalk his home with the slogan: “So-and-So who lives here
is a spy.” Let the children boycott his children or child;
organize the children not to talk to his children, etc.
This represents the utter depths of depravity, hate, and inhuman venom
to which the Party will descend in order to wreak vengeance on an
expelled member.
An expellee must have no association with any member of the Party—even
though that member be his own father, mother, wife, or husband.
“Associating with the enemy” is the usual charge. This means the
splitting of families, the tearing apart of friends. In one instance
a woman member was expelled. Her husband was instructed to leave her
and the children. When he refused, he was expelled. Another member who
remained friendly was also ousted. It becomes a dizzy merry-go-round of
personal spleen.
Once a communist is expelled and there is a likelihood that he might
become a government witness, then the communists go to work to
compile such information as is available to discourage the witness
from testifying for fear of exposure or of being discredited in
cross-examination by a communist lawyer. In one case a woman rose to
a prominent position in the Party. When she later left the Party, the
communists reportedly compiled a large file of her early indiscretions
and weaknesses. Consequently, she has always been most reluctant to
testify.