Part 4

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.

I wanted to take an opportunity to say that, so I said it.

Mr. VELDE. In my use of the word cooperate, and saying that the great majority of the labor unions cooperated with us, possibly I did misuse the term, but I wanted to again express my appreciation for the way they responded, let us say, to the evidence we produced here at the last hearings.

Mr. MOULDER. I would like to say I think you are entitled to be complimented, and to the respect of the Congress of the United States and fellow American citizens, for the sincere and conscientious manner in which you are now testifying as to the facts.

Mr. DENNETT. Thank you, sir.

Mr. VELDE. I think you will find, Mr. Dennett, that you will have a lot more friends now after you get through testifying in this area than you had when you relied on the fifth amendment and refused to answer questions at a previous hearing.

Mr. DENNETT. Without trying to prolong this, I would just say that I feel a keen obligation to one group of people, and that is the fellows that I work with on the job. The fellows that I have worked closest with have always had confidence in my integrity, and even when I have been under the sharpest attacks they have remained confident that my integrity would stand up.

Mr. MOULDER. You should have more of them now.

Mr. DENNETT. To them I feel the greatest obligation. And it is mainly for them that I am testifying here today, and I hope that it will be of satisfactory use to you.

Mr. Tavenner, for your benefit, during the recess I found something which I did not know that I could find, on this question of Mr. Stalin’s insistence upon iron discipline, and I found it in a little pamphlet: The Soviets and the Individual. I do not recall the year in which this was published. I will see if I can find a date on it. Well, this is an address that he delivered to the Red Army Academy, in the Kremlin, on May 4, 1935, and in the course of it he makes a remark like this:

Of course, it never even occurred to us to leave the Leninist road. More, having established ourselves on this road, we pushed forward still more vigorously brushing every obstacle from our path. It is true that in our course we were obliged to handle some of these comrades roughly. But you cannot help that. I must confess that I, too, took a hand in this business.

Mr. TAVENNER. I believe that was after the first set of purges but before the second.

Mr. DENNETT. I read that to corroborate the oral information which was passed on to me from Alex Noral.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Let us return at this point to that period of your Communist Party experience when you were assigned as agitprop or agitation propagandist in Seattle.

You have told us that you were relieved from that position. But how long did you serve in that capacity here?

Mr. DENNETT. My memory is a little indistinct as to how long. It was only a very few months. It seems to me that it was between April of 1932 and some time in the summer of 1932 because I am quite sure that I went to Bellingham as the section organizer late in 1932.

Mr. TAVENNER. The committee would be interested in learning the nature of your activities while engaged as an agitprop in Seattle.

Mr. DENNETT. Actually in that first assignment no one seemed to know exactly what my duties were. I was struggling to find out. In the process of it I learned that the head of an agitprop department had to do almost all of his work through the organizational apparatus of the party, and it was his responsibility to see to it that the organizational structure of the party became thoroughly indoctrinated with the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, as it was called.

Now the main thing that they were concerned with was to spread the knowledge of the theory and tactics of the class struggle. And I believe from my own study that it must be acknowledged that Lenin was the greatest master of that because Lenin proclaimed that every act has a class character to it, and he contended that every act of the employer is a class-conscious act, every act of the bourgeois politician is a class-conscious act. That was his contention.

And it was his contention that it was necessary for the workers to become thoroughly conscious that this is the nature of our present-day society, and they must learn the methods by which to overcome the ruling class.

Now this stems from the teachings of Marx. Marx originally stated that the capitalist state is the executive committee of the ruling class.

That is an abstraction which is very difficult for the average person to comprehend. I used to think that the reason it was so difficult was because these people had not come into contact with the material experiences which would be convincing.

In later years, since my leaving the party, I have had to reflect upon that a little bit more carefully, and I am rather inclined today to believe that both Marx and Lenin were in error in trying to apply a uniform rule.

I think that it is foolhardy for anyone today to deny that there are many evidences of class warfare which do exist, but I believe that it is also foolhardy to think that those points of conflict are going to be resolved by engaging in class warfare because they lead ultimately to the destruction of either one or both participants in that combat.

Mr. MOULDER. May I interrupt you?

You made a very interesting and impressive statement a while ago, that both extreme radicals and extreme conservatives are inclined to assume a position of dictatorship.

In what year are we now on his associations here?

Mr. TAVENNER. We are still in Seattle during the period that he was agitprop here.

Mr. DENNETT. We are dealing with the question of the theory and tactics of the Communist Party in which it was the responsibility of the agitprop to make certain that it spreads through the ranks so that all the members understand it.

You see, there has been a great deal of effort put in to try to describe the role and function of the Communist Party. The leaders from time to time have gone to great lengths to explain it. But under Stalin’s leadership he resolved that question very firmly and very positively, that the members of the party were soldiers in the ranks, and they were obliged to obey the orders of their superiors. And he enforced that with a determination which I think is unequaled in history.

Mr. TAVENNER. Throughout your experience in the Communist Party did you observe instances of iron discipline to which you have referred?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I have been told since my expulsion from the Communist Party that I had the reputation of being one of the worst offenders in the matter of enforcing that discipline. I was very vigorous, and I did try to insist that everyone I came in contact with follow the party line to the very letter. I was among the first to sense any deviation, and I was among the first to insist that steps be taken to correct such deviation. In doing so I thought I was following the party line.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let us proceed now to the period when you were transferred to another area.

Will you tell us about that?

Mr. DENNETT. I went to Bellingham, Wash., in 1932, and found a party membership, I believe, there of seven persons.

Unemployment was our greatest problem at that time. Everyone was unemployed. And, of course, the Communist Party policy then was to organize unemployment councils. And, of course, we had an unemployment council, and it consisted of seven members.

It was the exact duplicate of the membership in the Communist Party.

No one else would join it. No one else would have anything to do with it.

Mr. TAVENNER. In what capacity were you sent to Bellingham?

Mr. DENNETT. As section organizer.

I was in charge of the party. I immediately questioned the wisdom of the policy that they had been pursuing where they had two organizations consisting of the same people, doing exactly nothing.

So I began to take rather vigorous steps. I contacted people in the district center and advised them that this was a ridiculous situation and was very unrealistic.

Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by district center?

Mr. DENNETT. Seattle was the district headquarters of the party, and I was trying to win the agreement of Alex Noral to permit me to do something to get more members, at least in the unemployed council, in the hope that if I got them in the unemployed council I might be able to work upon them to win them to membership in the Communist Party.

But Noral was very adamant. He insisted that I must follow the exact directions which the national leader, Herbert Benjamin, had issued with respect to the policy of unemployment councils. And, of course, Herbert Benjamin had earlier outlined that the organization of the unemployed was one of the most important political tasks confronting the party because he called attention to the fact that the Russian revolution had obtained its greatest strength because it had organized the unemployed prior to the 1905 revolt, and that during the course of the 1905 revolt these unemployed organizations became Soviets, they became councils, and that when the 1917 revolution broke out these soviets had been reconstituted and the unemployed had comprised a very essential part of the organization to begin with, and therefore the masses of unemployed in the United States were looked upon as the elementary core around which it might be possible to develop a Soviet power in the United States.

Mr. MOULDER. To what period of time are you now referring?

Mr. DENNETT. That was in 1932.

We had another situation in Bellingham at that time. Noral had been there prior to my assignment. He wasn’t their section organizer, but he had been there on a visit as the district representative, and he had taken part in disciplining some people who apparently, prior to my arrival, had had ideas similar to my own, namely, that the people who were unemployed should be organized for the purpose of getting some assistance to solve their problems of hunger and housing and clothing, and that that should be the center of our attention.

But Noral was adamant with my predecessor as he was with me and had brought about the expulsion of a person there. A person who is known by the name of M. M. London.

Mr. London had adopted this name of London in honor of Jack London. It was not his real name at all.

But Mr. London was a very sharp-thinking person and very devoted to his neighbors and associates, and felt that the unemployed, the people who were suffering should be fighting for immediate relief whereas the unemployment councils had offered the slogan that the solution must be in the form of unemployment insurance.

Well, to the person who is hungry the hope of unemployment insurance, which required the adoption of legislation, which would take a longer period of time, wasn’t a very realistic thing.

But the demand for immediate relief was a very realistic thing. And the people in Bellingham flocked to the banner of London, and London organized what was known as the people’s councils.

He had as his able assistant a man by the name of George Bradley. George Bradley had had no connection with the Communist Party at that time or prior to that time. George Bradley at that time was an unemployed railroad worker. London, I believe, was an unemployed seaman at that time, who was actually living on a farm.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was London’s real name?

Mr. DENNETT. I do not know. I never have known. I think he took legal steps to have London established as his proper name. I think that is his legal name.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know in what court and at what time he took that action?

Mr. DENNETT. I have no knowledge of that. I say that I think that is true.

Mr. TAVENNER. Proceed.

Mr. DENNETT. In a county with a population of, at that time, about 40,000--there were, I guess, about 60,000 in the county, and there were about 40,000 in the city. London had succeeded, London and Bradley had succeeded in organizing the people’s councils until it actually had a dues-paying membership of over 60,000, and we were stewing around with 7 people. And we were trying to contend that our program was a better program than his.

I finally violated district discipline and joined the people’s councils myself. It caused great consternation in the district. The district leader, Mr. Alex Noral, threatened to have me expelled because I had violated discipline. The leaders of the people’s councils were fearful that I had joined to infiltrate their ranks.

So I was damned on both sides. It seems to have been my lot through the biggest part of my life.

It is immaterial to me, however. I think that my decision was correct because before the year was over we changed the situation until we had approximately 150 members in the Communist Party, and the unemployed movement was under the leadership of the people’s councils, and practically all of our people were in those people’s councils exerting an influence in them. It was not a decisive influence but it was an influence, and it did have a lasting effect because we recruited some people who later rose to great heights in the party, and they served the party very well and ably and as devotedly as they knew how.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Tavenner, we will resume the hearings after the noon recess. It is now 12 o’clock.

Congressman Velde, do you wish to make a statement before taking the noon recess?

Mr. VELDE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that most of us remember our hearings last June as a result of which two witnesses who appeared before us were cited for contempt.

I was very pleased and happy to learn that both of these witnesses, who were unanimously cited for contempt by the House of Representatives, were found guilty.

I want at this point to express my appreciation to Judge Bolt, to United States Attorney Moriarty, and United States Attorney C. E. Luckey for the promptness and efficiency and fairness exhibited during the trial of these two cases.

We all remember that the witness, George Tony Starkovich, was one of the most contumacious witnesses who has ever appeared before this committee in my experience.

I certainly hope that the Supreme Court, upon his appeal--while he certainly has the right of appeal--will affirm the decision of the United States district court.

Mr. MOULDER. Thank you, Mr. Velde.

Mr. Dennett, you will return promptly at 1:30. The committee will stand in recess until 1:30 o’clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION, MARCH 17, 1955

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will be in order.

Is Mr. Jerry O’Connell in the hearing room?

(There was no response.)

Mr. MOULDER. Will the officer standing at the door call for Jerry O’Connell in the corridor.

(There was no response.)

Mr. MOULDER. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

TESTIMONY OF EUGENE VICTOR DENNETT, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, KENNETH A. MacDONALD--Resumed

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, you were describing to the committee the formation of the unemployed councils in Bellingham and the success which the Communist Party had in having its members become members of that organization. You also described for us in a general way the extent of influence that the Communist Party had in those organizations, in those councils, by reason of having its own members become members of the councils.

I ask you why the Communist Party was interested, and why it made a fight to get its own members into these unemployed councils. What was the purpose of it?

Mr. DENNETT. Our purpose was at that time to find some way of prevailing upon the unemployed organizations to adopt a program we were advocating.

At that particular time it consisted mainly in fighting for the adopting of the slogan of demanding unemployment insurance. And I think that that is a point which must be remembered by everyone.

Many people accept unemployment insurance today as a principle, but they don’t know that its origin in the United States, at least, came because the Communists seized upon that as a means of winning the support of the masses of unemployed people.

And any ordinary person should have known in that period, if you look back from now, they should have known that that was a necessary step to be taken. But at that time the resistance to it was terrific.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you saying it was the desire of the Communist Party, by these methods, to win support of the masses?

Mr. DENNETT. Correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. To win support in what way?

Mr. DENNETT. To win them to an interest--I should say, first, an interest in the Communist Party; then to lead them along the path of struggling against the capitalist system which would ultimately, they hoped, result in the replacement of the capitalist organization of a Soviet form of society.

Mr. TAVENNER. Would you say that the Communist Party made that type of effort in almost every form of our society?