Hearings regarding the communist infiltration of the motion picture industry. Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first session. Public law 601 (section 121, subsection Q (1947)

COMMUNISM IN MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY 507 woiilil tiiul that tlie organization tie-up is that of integration ; hut the emphasis cannot he overstated, tlie work of such coiuniittees must l)e considered a work of importance, of cnllural im])ortance, along the central activity of the party as a whole. Another difliculty iu regard to tliese committees, or to cultural work carried on without committees hy some of our party hodies, is the tendency to limit cultui-al activity to festive occasions, to Lenin Memorial, May Day, and other red-letter days, etc. It is very good to feel that we have forces who come to the assistance of the party and heautify and intensify the party's agitational work, hut the time has c(»me when we must register our dissatisfaction with any policy which limits cultural activities to simply occasional entertainment, to gala entertainment, even though it he Bolshevist-gala entertainment. We have to have day-to-day cultural activity as part of the class struggle, as part of the general sti'uggle foi' building tlie front of the American people for democracy, for culture, and in doing this the party everywhei'e will, in the course of time, realize that there is anything to he regretted it is the late start in integrating this cultural work with our genei'al campaign — the minutest day-to<lay activities. The prohleni that I want paiticularly to stress tcmight is the problem which has caused us real concei'n in the course of tmr experience — that of our re.sponsihility to the cultural workers. And we are dealing with human factors. We are dealing with heterogeneous liuman factors — nmcli more heterogeneous than any other social components of the Connnunist Party. The Communist Party is a monolithic party. The wcu'king class is a homogeneous class but it becomes monolitliic to the extent that we l)()lslievize the memhei'ship of our party, make them tlioroughbred Communists. A realistic view of the situation shows us tliat in the cultural forces much work lias to he done by our party, and wlien we .speak of our party I do not mean .just the leadership of the party, but every party comrade, both in regard to him.self and evei-yone with whom he comes in contact. We have won many cultural people to our fold as members and friends and sympathizers, but recruiting, unless it is followed by the next step, the step of solidifying, helping, rendering permanent tliis recruiting, we liave not really done the recruiting; in otlier words, solidifying our gains in the course of winning these people. If this is a problem for the party as a whole, how mucli more is it a problem in regard to tlie workers in the cultural tield, for with theii valuable e(]uipnient they bring in varying forms draw-backs which reflect themselves in tlieir work, unless we help them to fivercome it. Draw-liacks that are hang-overs of past environments, past miseducation, jtast outlook on life and societ.v. Such trail's as liberalism, which has nothing in common with progressivism. Speaking of lil>eralism, or to round out the word, rotten liberalism, su'h traits as academicism, viewing a topic, an issue, almost witli a Hamletic waver, between yea and na.v. What has this in common with the Communist theory and practice? But we find it still in oui' midst — i»ure and simple professionalism. It it merely a cari'y-over of an organized notion of our function in which one has not yet learned to make the synthesis between his political program and his pi-ofessional conti-ibution to the carrying out of that progi-am. And, of course, hyjiei-individualism. that direct cur.se of them all — all of which constitutes susceptibilities to Trotskyism and other alien classes. Certain examples which will illusti-ate at the present moment the danger of jiermitting such notions to remain in oui' midst. How often do we come across certain individuals mingling with us who advance the following idea about the people's front : for examiile, that Dimitrov's rejtort finally recognized that they wei'e right all the time. In other words, that Dimitrov's report is a concession to the petty bourgeoisie — the party in the past is now repudiating hy the seventli congn'ss line, and now that the party has ]iroved itself worthy they may .join it. What doe.s this mean'/ Can we allow such notions to manifest themselves politicall.v':' We have written extensively in our writings and jieriodicals — Comrade Browder's people's front illustrated for us to see that the adoption of a new line does not constitute a repudiation but. on the contrar.v. it constitutes a necessary historic transition to a new tactic rendered requisite hy a develoiiing situation. Now. he who is oj'posed to the adoption on the part of the working-class party of the correct tactic stands on the side lines sneering that "They liave changed their line." This sneering reflects itself in shadows of grimaces on the part of some of our weaker comrade.s. We must overcome such notions in our midst. We welcome them Cthe comrades) b\it we do not welcome their interest on tlie