While you were a member of the Communist Party were you acquainted with
an organization known as the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. DENNETT. I was.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly,
what that organization was?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, it was an effort on the part of the
Communist leadership in this country to bring about the organization of
unorganized workers. It had the idea that they should be organized in
industrial unions. This is because its leader was William Z. Foster,
and William Z. Foster had been an active leader in A. F. of L. unions.
As a matter of fact, he was the leader of the great steel strike of
1919, and in the course of that strike he drew certain conclusions
about the way it was conducted, namely, that it was next to impossible
for the workers to obtain the kind of solidarity they needed to win
when they were divided into so many different craft organizations.
So it was Foster who gave the greatest attention to this question of
getting the maximum strength through organization of the workers in
unions. And the Trade Union Unity League was an effort to organize
these unorganized workers.
Now to the best of my knowledge some of the greatest success of the
Trade Union Unity League occurred right here in the Northwest.
When I came into the district in 1932 there was a comparatively young
fellow by the name of James Murphy who was the head of the Trade Union
Unity League here. He was a lumberworker. He was a bona fide worker. He
knew the language, he knew the habits, and he was able to get around
the same as any “bindle stiff.”
For fear some might not understand the use of the term, in the old days
loggers had to carry their own blankets when they went from place to
place. And the way they carried them caused them to be called bindle
stiffs.
These fellows were very adaptable. They were very skillful at
traveling under adverse conditions, overcoming all kinds of physical
difficulties. The stories of Paul Bunyon are not something out of the
figment of the imagination entirely; they grew out of the huge efforts
that the Northwest lumberworkers had to make in order to live.
So Murphy was a very successful organizer. He organized a very large
number of people in the National Lumberworkers Union. He had an
assistant by the name of Roy Brown who was almost equally successful.
I do not recall the names of the others who were active in that
organization, but I do know that they met with great success organizing
miners here in the Northwest. They organized fishermen.
Mr. TAVENNER. What connection did those organizations have
with the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. DENNETT. They were all national unions in the Trade Union
Unity League. And one of the greatest successful organizing drives was
conducted among fishermen here in the Northwest.
A person who is now deceased, by the name of Emil Linden, was
profoundly successful in organizing fishermen on the Columbia River and
here in Puget Sound.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was he successful in the organization of groups
affiliated with the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. DENNETT. That is right.
The fishermen’s unions, as a matter of fact, had the distinction
of having been organized and affiliated directly with the Red
International of Labor Unions, which had a headquarters in Prague at
that time.
Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by saying that the Trade Union
Unity League was affiliated with or a part of the Red International of
Labor Unions?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, they paid dues to an international
organization, and this particular fishermen’s group which originated
here were affiliated directly with the Red International of Labor
Unions, and they paid dues directly to the headquarters in Prague.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did that make them virtually a part of the Red
International of Labor Unions?
Mr. DENNETT. They were.
Mr. MOULDER. What period of time was that?
Mr. DENNETT. That was way back in about 1931 or 1932, or 1932
or 1933.
Mr. TAVENNER. Where was the seat of the headquarters of the
Red International of Labor Unions?
Mr. DENNETT. At that time it was in Prague.
Mr. TAVENNER. Among the documents which you have turned
over to the staff of the committee and which we have examined is
one entitled “The Trade Union Unity League, Affiliated to the Red
International of Labor Unions.”
Will you examine it and state whether or not you can identify it as one
of the documents which you turned over to us?
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. DENNETT. If it has got my initials on it is mine; and it
has.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you return it, please?
Mr. Chairman, I think I should read into the record at this point
several paragraphs which I see in this document.
Mr. MOULDER. Very well.
Mr. TAVENNER (reading):
The national center of the revolutionary industrial union movement
in the United States is the Trade Union Unity League, organized in
Cleveland, August 31, 1929. The TUUL coordinates and binds all the
revolutionary union forces into one united organization. It leads
and directs the general struggle of the new union movement. It is
the American section of the Red International of Labor Unions.
Is that just what you have been telling us, Mr. Witness?
Mr. DENNETT. Correct.
Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to read again from page 35 of this
document.
In the event of an imperialist war it will mobilize the workers to
struggle against American imperialism and to transform this war
into a class war against the capitalist system itself.
Do you recall that as one of the objectives of the Trade Union Unity
League?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, of course, I do. It is very plain. It is in
black and white. I think that it has to be admitted by anyone with any
knowledge of the subject that that was the objective, that was the
policy. That goes back a long way. That goes back to Lenin’s teaching.
It goes back to the teachings of Marx. In fact, it goes back to the
teachings of almost any of the philosophers, the idea that when a
given set of circumstances becomes impossible to withstand it is to be
expected that somebody is going to break the bonds somewhere.
Mr. TAVENNER. I find this following paragraph on the same page
under the title “Defend Soviet Union”:
The Trade Union Unity League especially organizes and educates
the masses to fight in defense of the Soviet Union. The Soviet
Union is the stronghold of the world’s working class. It is the
cause of the workers in all countries. The overthrow of the Soviet
Union by the capitalists would mean not only the slaughter of
tens of thousands of Russian workers but would mark the beginning
of the worst period of reaction internationally that the world
has ever known. It would lead to widespread Fascist terrorism,
and wholesale destruction of workers’ economic, political, and
cultural organizations and the wiping out of conditions won by
the workers through a century of sacrifice and struggle. It would
throw back for decades the development of the world labor movement.
The workers must fight to the end in defense of the Soviet Union.
Is that paragraph in accord with what you understood at the time to be
the objectives of the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, shortly after my induction into the
Communist Party I, as recounted earlier this morning, became the
district agitprop director. In that position at that time we had the
special privilege of receiving the first issues of all new pamphlets or
magazines or anything like that that were issued. At that time there
came into my possession a document with the title “The 21 Conditions
for Affiliation With the Communist International,” and among those
conditions these points that are set forth in this document you have
just read cover some of those conditions.
Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, was there a strict linking
together through this organization and through the action of the
Comintern, of the control of the Communist Party in this country by the
international organization?
Mr. DENNETT. I think that has to be acknowledged by anyone who
is familiar with the record at all.
However, there is one little addendum that should be inserted at this
point, that at a later point in the history of the Communist Party in
the United States--I believe it was about the time the Voorhis Act was
passed--under the leadership of Earl Browder the Communist Party in the
United States took steps by formal resolution adopted at convention
to completely disassociate itself legally from any of this previous
material. They attempted to satisfy and comply with the provisions of
the Voorhis Act.
And in their effort to do so they adopted a resolution in which they
repudiated all of this political statement and line that we are now
talking about. That was a formal act.
Mr. TAVENNER. There was considerable testimony before this
committee at the time it attempted to interrogate Max Granich and
his wife, who were connected with a news facility which transmits
from Europe to this country decisions of the Communist Party on an
international level, and we heard a number of witnesses, including
Louis Budenz, who was connected with the Daily Worker.
The testimony is very clear that that action you have spoken of was
a device, not in good faith a severance or a disavowal of what had
happened before. But it was a device, to keep the Communist Party from
being liable under provisions of the Voorhis Act to which you have
referred, of representing a foreign country.
Mr. DENNETT. Browder visited here in the Northwest during the
time this action was being taken, and he explained it to our district
bureau in this fashion, that the law was clearly aimed at putting the
Communist Party out of business, and that the Communist Party was
determined to not be put out of business, and it was going to comply
with the act to the best of its ability, but that certainly did not
mean that the Communist Party was going to disavow its sympathy with
the working class throughout the world and the various sections of the
Communist Party throughout the world.
There was great apprehension on the part of our district bureau about
the action. We feared that perhaps the Communist Party was going
nationalist on us, and we thought that was a heinous crime, that you
should always be internationalists. And Browder was reassuring us that
the Communist philosophy was still internationalist and would continue
to be internationalist, but that the formal connection and the formal
affiliations would have to be dispensed with.
He felt that the party was strong enough to travel along the road, as
it needed to, without the direct intervention of the Comintern.
And, of course, it was shortly after that the Comintern itself was
dissolved.
Mr. TAVENNER. How long did this organization, the Trade Union
Unity League, remain in effect in this area? And when I say in effect,
I mean in existence.
Mr. DENNETT. Until the organization of the CIO.
As the organization of the CIO approached or became clear that it
was going to come in, the policy of the Red International of Labor
Unions was modified by the international headquarters in Prague. It
was modified because the 12th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the
Communist International had reviewed the developing world situation,
had noted with alarm the rise of fascism in Germany, and resolved that
somewhere their policies were not being too effective and, therefore,
they must make certain modifications and allow for a little more
flexibility than they had before.
You must understand that one of the conditions which existed as a
condition for organizing these Red trade unions was that those workers
so organized were virtually obliged to declare their loyalty to the
cause of the Communist Party. Now that did not mean that they had to
be members of it, but it meant that they had to express their sympathy
with the efforts of the Soviet people and they had to accept the idea
that the objectives of the working class and of the Communist Party
were the same.
Therefore, they didn’t meet with much success in the United States
in organizing these Red trade unions because the average worker who
was confronted with this choice would say, “The devil with you.” He
wouldn’t make a choice of that kind.
Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, they realized they could not
sell communism to the rank and file of American labor if it knew what
they were buying.
Mr. DENNETT. They certainly couldn’t sell it under that label
to the American worker. They rejected it.
Mr. TAVENNER. A label is for the purpose of describing an
item; is it not?
Mr. DENNETT. I can accept your statement; I think you are
right. I think that confirms our experience.
Mr. MOULDER. This was in a period, the conditions and
circumstances of which offered a ripe opportunity for the exploitation
of labor in this country by the Communist organizations.
Mr. DENNETT. That is very true. And you must understand that
we met with an uneven success.
I have described to you that in the Northwest we did meet with great
success among the lumber workers, among the miners, and among the
fishermen. We did meet with great success there because a very large
number of those workers originally had been with the Industrial Workers
of the World. And they weren’t afraid of a Red label. Wherever you
found workers who were not afraid of a Red label they could accept such
organization in good faith. But in most of the industrial centers in
the East except in places where desperation was at the breaking point
they did not meet with success.
I am thinking now of the situation which obtained in the textile mills
of Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill following the First World War. In
those places the Industrial Workers of the World were successful in
offering leadership to those workers. And it is true that in some parts
of the South, contrary to the usual idea, in some parts of the South
the Red leaders were quite successful in organizing.
I remember vividly the Gastonia strike, and that was completely Red
leadership. There is no question about it. They were the only ones that
had the tenacity to stay with it under such adverse circumstances. But
they stayed with it and they met with great success. They organized
thousands and thousands and thousands of workers.
Mr. TAVENNER. Would you say, generally speaking, the rank and
file of labor would not accept the Communist Party if the Communist
Party label were on it?
Mr. DENNETT. That is true. They wouldn’t accept even the red
cards which were used.
It was a peculiar thing. It seemed as though it was a badge of honor
to some people, but something of a shock and surprise to others that
the membership cards very often were printed in a very deep red color
in the various unions of the Trade Union Unity League. And, of course,
some of the membership cards of the Communist Party at that time were
in identically the same color. The only addition was the hammer and
sickle was imposed upon it as well. And it would be a very easy matter
to become mixed up or confused if you didn’t look carefully at some of
those cards in that period of time.
But to complete the point that you are concerned with at this moment,
it is true that the program as set forth by the Red International of
Labor Unions did not meet with the uniform success which they hoped
for in the United States. So in 1935--I believe it was in 1935, it may
have been a little bit earlier than that--following the 12th Plenum of
the Executive Committee of the Communist International’s decision that
a sharp turn must be made in the mass work, that they must combat the
rise of fascism by allowing greater flexibility to organize masses to
resist the onrush of fascism, they took note of the situation in the
United States and concluded that they could not prescribe the exact
conditions under which to organize the workers in the United States.
That gave the opening which permitted the top leadership of the
Communist Party in the United States to grant the request of most
of the organizers in the Trade Union Unity League to dissolve their
organizations and permit them to join the new rising organizations
which were developing as industrial unions, and also to join the
appropriate American Federation of Labor unions.
In other words, at the time of the split between the A. F. of L. and
the CIO in the United States of America the Communist movement declared
that it was logical and necessary to give up its own identity, which it
did when it sacrificed the industrial unions that it had organized. And
by 1935 they issued instructions that the industrial unions under the
Trade Union Unity League must dissolve.
And I recall the regret which some of the fishermen had in having
to give up their affiliation with the Red International of Labor
Unions and go into what they call the “finky” organization, the
International Seamen’s Union. They didn’t like it. They resented it.
But nevertheless, as good soldiers, they obeyed the order. Later on it
didn’t take them more than a couple of years when they were embarrassed
whenever I would remind them that they had a Red origin. And the
leadership there came to dislike me with a very firm resolve because
I would never permit them to forget that they did have a Red origin
and that I was ashamed of them being backward about taking progressive
steps.
They caused me no end of concern because they were trying to be as
conservative as the stanchest Republican when, in fact, they had a
very, very Red origin.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, would it be correct to analyze
the situation you have described generally in this way: Beginning in
1935, and from then on, when the Red international of labor unions
gave up the idea of having its own organizations within labor under
its own label in this country, was the principal problem in dealing
with the question of communism a matter of infiltration or attempted
infiltration by the Communists into the leadership of all the unions in
which they had a chance to gain leadership?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, I recognize that the term infiltration
is used to imply generally that somebody did something with a secret
purpose.
Now that may have been true. So far as my own knowledge is concerned,
we took it in stride. We didn’t think that there was anything special
about it. We declared our objective to be the organization of all the
workers. And, of course, we were part of all the workers. And as long
as we could maintain that philosophy we were satisfied that we were
part of the organization.
Mr. TAVENNER. When you say part of the organization, what do
you mean?
Mr. DENNETT. I mean that those members that were organized by
the Communist Party in the Trade Union Unity League, when they gave up
their identity as members of a Trade Union Unity League organization,
such as the national lumberworker’s union or the fishermen’s union or
the miner’s union or something of that kind, they had the opportunity
to become members of the appropriate union which was organizing in that
field. In the case of the Northwest it was at that time the woodworkers
federation, which was organized, in part, under the leadership of the
carpenters and joiners, but against the wishes of the top leadership of
the carpenters and joiners.
The top leadership, especially Mr. Hutcheson (William), was fearful
of these rebels from the Northwest. He was afraid that if they became
organized strong that they might cause him some trouble in his
organization. And he put in a great deal of effort to see to it that
they didn’t succeed in that.
Well, it is true that these rough-and-ready lumberworkers were willing
to take on all comers so far as opposition was concerned. And Mr.
Hutcheson seemed to be no bother to them, no more than anyone else
would be. They didn’t fear anyone. They just proceeded to organize as
best they could. But they were so thoroughly indoctrinated with the old
Wobbly notions, that is, the Industrial Workers of the World ideas,
they were very strong individualists, and they didn’t take kindly to
the kind of discipline which doesn’t explain why it gives an order,
and, consequently, the Communists in the woodworkers had a great deal
of trouble.
As a matter of fact, the organization of the woodworkers federation
was punctuated with stormy upheavals at every convention. The various
caucuses which were led by the Communists and led by some of the old
Industrial Workers of the World and led by some of those who wanted
their loyalty to the carpenters and joiners and some who wanted their
loyalty to the new organization of the CIO, these various groups
were unable to compose and resolve their differences. It was never
completely resolved. To this day it is not completely resolved.
The result of it today is that, well, of course, I realize there is a
new merger in prospect, but the lumber workers in the Northwest were
divided between the A. F. of L. and the CIO to such an extent that
they were unable to use their full strength to bring it to bear during
negotiations with their employers, and they have suffered very, very
much here in the Northwest.
Mr. VELDE. You are making a very fine story of the methods
used by the Communist Party in infiltrating labor unions.
I want to ask you this: from your experience as a member of the
Communist Party, which of the unions in this area were most
successfully infiltrated by the Communist Party?
Mr. MOULDER. May I ask during what period of time?
Mr. VELDE. During the whole period of time since the
Communists started infiltrating.
Mr. DENNETT. I think it would have to be said that it was
lumber. Actually, to begin with, it was the marine unions. The
organization of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific was something
that was inspired by the Communist Party because the Communist
Party called for the organization of industrial unions, industrial
organization. And that was a result of Foster’s leadership.
Mr. VELDE. You think they were more successful in lumber than
in the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, I do. I do for the reason that in the
maritime unions at the outset the Communists furnished the aggressive
leadership which initiated the organization of all of the maritime
unions, but it didn’t take very long before those workers, upon getting
together, found that they had differences with those leaders. And the
sailors union particularly made a sharp break with the Communists early
in 1935, not over the issue of Communists but over tactical application
of policy.
The Communists at that time were opposed to Harry Lundeberg’s
organization of the tanker strike. And Mr. Lundeberg felt that he had
the right to go out and improve the conditions of a contract by a
process known as job action.
Now the Communists couldn’t possibly condone a thing like that because
that permits individual action, and the Communist philosophy and theory
did not permit variations of that kind.
It is also true that the old conservative leaders in the labor movement
likewise frowned upon such an action. So you will find that if you have
familiarity with it you will very often find that the most conservative
people and the most radical people, if you go to the point of referring
to the Communists, you very often will find that they are in agreement
more on policy and on discipline than other people in between. Because
both extremes depend upon centralized authority in order to maintain
their positions, whereas the other people in between are a little bit
more apt to make their decision on the basis of the merits of the given
situation--a little more flexibility.
Mr. VELDE. Before you get back to your story, let me ask you
this:
The distinguished chairman was not present at our hearings here last
June, but I am sure that counsel and our investigator and Mr. Dennett,
too, recognize the fact that the great majority of the loyal labor
unions in this area cooperated with this committee 100 percent last
June. While our gratitude was expressed at that time, I again want to
express gratitude to these local labor unions who cooperated with this
committee and did everything within the bounds of reason to eliminate
the Communist movement from this area.
Mr. DENNETT. Mr. Chairman, may I be privileged to just make
one comment about that?
Mr. MOULDER. Yes.
Mr. DENNETT. I have conferred with Mr. Wheeler, and I have
expressed the idea to Mr. Tavenner that I think that it is a mistaken
idea to refer to me as a cooperative witness or to refer to another
witness as an uncooperative witness. I am here to testify to facts
that I know. And I think that the question of cooperation is sometimes
subject to misconstruction.
And the reason I say that, is because the other day while I was
conferring with Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Tavenner and my counsel, I received
a phone call, and this phone call had a conversation of two words that
came from the other end. A person said, “Rat--stool pigeon.”
I am sorry that people who have been my friends over the years cannot
see that I feel that it is my duty and my obligation to testify as to
facts. I am sorry that they feel as embarrassed or bitter as they do.
I suppose before these hearings are over I will probably have as many
people hate me as people even know me. That is not my concern.
I recognize that we do have some major problems to resolve, and I am
fully aware that the Congress of the United States has made efforts in
many different directions, many of which I am not in agreement with.
But I think that I do owe the obligation to you gentlemen and to the
Congress and to my fellow Americans, that to the best of my knowledge,
I will give you the benefit of my knowledge and my experience, and we
will just let the chips fall where they may.
Mr. VELDE. I don’t want to become involved in an argument with
you.
Mr. DENNETT. I don’t either.