Mass organizations must be divided into two large groups: mass
organizations supporting the Communist parties and other mass
organizations fighting the Communist Parties. To the first
category belong the revolutionary trade unions. ILD, WIR, etc.
Organizations of the second kind are in their turn divided
into two groups: 1) formerly non-Party mass organizations like
reformist christian and other reactionary trade unions, sport
organizations, etc. and 2) all kinds of organizations politically
hostile to us, such as the Social-Democratic Party, various
Fascist political unions, etc.
In all non-Party mass proletarian organizations, such as trade
unions, sport organizations, tenants’ organizations, etc.
the Party should form fractions embracing all Communists and
sympathizers. There are thousands of decisions about fractions
in mass organizations, but up to now the position in all Parties
with regard to fractions is bad. In the first place fractions
are far from being organized everywhere. In the second place,
organized fractions in the majority of cases work without the
direction of the Party Committee. So, the Party Committees should
before all find out whether fractions exist everywhere, where they
should be established, and in the second place it is essential
that Party Committees should direct the work of the fractions
and that the fractions should in the strictist way carry out
all the directions of the corresponding Party Committees. In
the constitution of the Communist Party it is laid down that a
fraction has the right to appeal against the decision of a Party
Committee. A Party Committee is bound to examine the protest of a
fraction against its decision in the presence of a representative
of a fraction. The decision of a Party Committee is binding on a
fraction and there is no appeal against it: it should be accepted
without argument and put into the life without delay. At present
in practice directions of the Party Committee are frequently not
carried out by fractions. The task of the Party is to see that
every fraction carries out these directions in the strictest way.
With regard to fraction members who avoid carrying out directions,
the most serious explanatory work must essentially be undertaken
and in case of necessity, the strictest Party measures should
be taken even up to expulsion from the Party, for otherwise the
Party will be completely unable to direct the work of a fraction.
There may be cases when swift interference of the Party Committee
is called for, while it may be impossible to convene a full
meeting of the Party Committee to give out such a new direction.
For example, some trade union Congress or other is being held.
Before the congress the fraction meets, called together by the
Party Committee and jointly works out instructions. But during the
Congress questions may come up which have not been foreseen in the
directions of the Party Committee. What is to be done? Should the
committee meet immediately? And how can this be arranged, when
questions may arise at any moment which are absolutely unexpected
and which must be reacted to at once? For such cases the Party
Committee must nominate a special group of three comrades or a
plenipotentiary representative, who could decide in the name of
the Party Committee. At the meeting of the fraction it should be
explained that for the leadership of the work of the fraction the
Party Committee has nominated a group of three comrades consisting
of such and such comrades, or such a plenipotentiary, and that
the intervention of these comrades, their propositions, should be
looked upon by all fraction members as official directions of the
Party Committee and carried out without any argument. In this way
uninterrupted guidance of the Party Committee is guaranteed in the
work of the fraction.
Mr. DENNETT. I would only say that the existence of a
document of that kind probably was more responsible for Mr. Browder’s
insisting that the central committee disavow all previous documents
which had been issued prior to, I think, 1938. That one was issued
much earlier. This was issued in the period just as the depression was
starting. In fact, the depression had not reached its maximum at the
time that document came out, and it anticipated the depression was
coming, and laid out plans how to take advantage of the depression for
revolutionary purposes.
Mr. TAVENNER. I notice under section 17 of this document a
reference to the voluntary character of the person’s membership in the
Communist Party. This reference reads:
The Communist Party is a voluntary organization, but every worker
who voluntarily joins the ranks of the Communist Party accepts
iron party discipline. If that discipline seems very hard to him,
even unbearable, then the party should not shut its doors upon him.
Mr. DENNETT. At the time I first came into the Communist
Party the most common expression I heard in that connection was that
you couldn’t leave the Communist Party voluntarily. And I think
that document intends to convey that impression because individuals
who become members of the Communist Party become privileged to
knowledge and information about their associates which, if they
leave the Communist Party, may fall into the hands of persons who
are unsympathetic to the Communist Party. And they were fearful that
whenever anything like that would occur it would hurt the working
class. As a matter of fact, most people in the Communist Party are
probably just blaspheming me up one side and down the other for
testifying here to you on these matters for that very same reason.
It is my own feeling, however, that the average member of the party is
completely unaware of the nature of the discipline. They only come in
contact with surface scratches of it.
Mr. TAVENNER. This document also refers to the importance of
establishing cells of the Communist Party among the professions, such
as the doctors and the lawyers; does it not?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes.
The attitude of the party was simply that it must win the majority of
the working class to support its position. To do so often required the
aid and assistance of prominent people.
Now this is a political tactic which every political group uses. This
is not something peculiar to the Communists, but they used it quite
effectively.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think that this document
warrants a great deal of study and analysis. It should be analyzed,
and the contents of it put into this record. It would take too long to
attempt to do it through answer-and-question form.
Mr. DENNETT. Well, it has roots in the fundamental theory of
the Communist movement, which actually should be pursued when you have
time and leisure to do so. It is not something that lends itself to
this meeting.
Mr. MOULDER. It has been admitted as an exhibit, and, by order
of the committee, if it is agreeable with Congressman Velde, consent
will be given to counsel to read such portions as he wishes to read at
this point.
Mr. VELDE. May I ask counsel, have we ever had a similar
document to this one?
Mr. TAVENNER. I was so impressed with the contents of this
document, Mr. Chairman, that I called our Washington office. I received
a reply this morning that there is neither a copy nor a record of this
document in the files of the committee.
I am unable to state without further study whether there is anything
of a similar character. But this document certainly goes into detail.
It is much plainer in its purposes than anything I have seen on the
subject.
Mr. MOULDER. How many pages are there in the document?
Mr. TAVENNER. It is 26 pages in length. However, the exhibit
covered page 1 and pages 17 through 26.
Mr. MOULDER. How do you refer to that exhibit?
Mr. TAVENNER. That is Dennett Exhibit No. 1. It is so marked.
Mr. MOULDER. From whom did you receive this document?
Mr. DENNETT. I received it when I was district agitprop
director in the district.
Mr. MOULDER. And do you know the source of it?
Mr. DENNETT. It came through the mail from the central
committee.
Mr. MOULDER. The central committee of what?
Mr. DENNETT. Of the Communist Party in New York City.
Mr. MOULDER. Let me ask you the date you received it.
Approximately in what year?
Mr. DENNETT. It must have been in about 1932.
Mr. TAVENNER. How long were you engaged in the work of an
organizer at Bellingham?
Mr. DENNETT. Approximately 1 year. The latter part of 1932
through the early part of 1933.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have any experience in youth work within
the Communist Party while you were at Bellingham?
Mr. DENNETT. Not too much in Bellingham. There was a little
work of the Young Communist League there. They did interest a few
students at the normal school. There was a normal school in Bellingham,
and they did organize, I think, a half dozen young people who became
interested in the theoretical work of Marx and Lenin. Most of those
later became members of the Communist Party.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was there an organization known as Pioneers, or
Young Pioneers, in the Communist Party?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes; Young Pioneers of America.
Mr. TAVENNER. Are you now speaking of that group?
Mr. DENNETT. No. That group I have just referred to was the
Young Communist League, which dealt with a group in the younger age,
but mature people. The Young Pioneers was an effort on the part of the
Communist Party to organize a group which would be comparable to the
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
In the Soviet Union the Young Pioneers occupied that position. It is a
position of support to the Government. It is a position of support to
the Communist Party similarly as the Scouts are here to the Government
and service organizations and patriotic organizations occupy a similar
position, parallel organization.
Mr. VELDE. There is one distinct difference, is there not?
Mr. DENNETT. I can think of several.
Mr. VELDE. The Young Pioneer movement is financed by the
Soviet State, and here in America the Boy Scout movement is financed by
good will of the American people.
Mr. DENNETT. I don’t know too much about how they finance it
there. I have an idea that they probably do finance a lot of it through
individual contributions, however, there. I think that there are dues,
membership, and that sort of thing which carries the big part of the
financing. Of course, it receives approval by the Government, and
receives favors.
Mr. TAVENNER. Were you called upon in connection with your
Communist Party duties to either organize or supervise the operation of
any of the Young Pioneer groups?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes.
There was one occasion when I was falling in some disfavor in the
eyes of the district leadership, and they wanted to get me out of
their hair. At the time a young woman by the name of Yetta Stromberg
came to Seattle from California for the purpose of organizing a Young
Pioneer summer camp. And she requested the district leadership to
assign someone from the district leadership to work with her in the
organization and supervision of this camp.
Mr. MOULDER. Can you give us the year on that?
Mr. DENNETT. I am quite sure this was in 1932. I think this
was before I went to Bellingham.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was this while you were in Seattle?
Mr. DENNETT. While I was in Seattle.
I was the one chosen to go to this camp to represent the district.
The purpose at the camp was to offer summer recreation facilities to
provide relaxation for youths, young people, under supervision of party
leadership, and to introduce them to some of the theoretical program of
the Communist Party.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was it basically an actual part of the Communist
Party plan of recruitment and indoctrination?
Mr. DENNETT. Yes, it was. I thought we were quite successful,
too.
Mr. TAVENNER. What age group attended that camp?
Mr. DENNETT. Well, at that particular camp the age limits
were not restricted too narrowly. Ordinarily the age limit would be in
the teens for the Young Pioneers. Some of them did get up just beyond,
up into the early twenties. These young people were of mixed age and
grouping.
Mr. TAVENNER. I hand you another document which we found among
the documents you turned over to the committee, and I will ask you to
identify it, if you will, as a flier advertising the camp to which you
refer.
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. DENNETT. Oh, yes. This was circulated by the party to
its branches, and was especially circulated among what we called the
language sections.
The language sections were organizations such as the Finnish
Federation, and there were some Slavic organizations; there were some
Jewish organizations, which were national in form. I mean only members
of those particular national groups belonged to those organizations.
And we were trying to offer them an opportunity to see to it that
their children had a chance to go to a summer camp and to have as much
prestige and as much satisfaction as people who went to YMCA or YWCA
camps, or Girl Scout or Boy Scout camps.
We were trying to rival them, compete.
Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, was the Communist Party
selecting what was probably to the interests of a group of people and
attempting to use it for the benefit, and the advancement of Communist
Party purposes?
Mr. DENNETT. Very true.
Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to offer the document in evidence,
and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 2,” and that it be
incorporated in the transcript of the record.
Mr. MOULDER. The exhibit offered in evidence, marked “Exhibit
Dennett No. 2,” for identification, will be admitted as a part of the
record.