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)

508 COMMUNISM IX MOTION PICTUHE INDUSTRY basis of tlu'ii uiKlcistandinjj that that which they arc joiiiiiii:' is imt a pai'ty (»f coniiiiunisni. It is our duty to chirify theso comrades. We have a task to perform ; we are educators ; we are traiisforuiers of consciousness ; and tliat transformation of consciousness does not end with the roj^istration of a .iriven candiiiate to tlie party but be.iiins with tliat moment, for then we liave the administrator — the channel throu;,di whicli to do it. Anotiier manifestation of this — the tendency to abuse and distort the criticism contained in tlie word ".sectarianism." How often do we not tind that when a certain liberalism begins to insinuate it.self and when it is criticized correctly that very often we find countercharges that criticism is sectarianism. Yes ; we have — ■ we hope for good — thrown sectarianism out the window. \Ve have established ourselves as being on the highroad to becoming a mass party. We hope before very long to count our nmnbers in terms of hundreds of thousands. 'I'liat is a .prospective with a program. We built qualitatively as well as quantitatively, and we cannot, and should not, permit the charge contained in the word "sectarianism" to cover the employment of opportunism, conscious or unconscitms. To illustrate this with an in.stance: The book Red Star Over China, which has created confusion in the party and around the party. The action of the party in adopting a critical attitude to the book, in keeping the boctk from circulation in our party bookshops, has not been completely understood by many comrades. I think it should be stated in all due fairness to tho.se comrades that the party did not come out quickly enough with an authentic opinion on the book; and, of course, there were many speculations. It was necessary and imperative to have prompt reviews of the book, to make the matter clear before our members. Of course, the party has an attitiide to the book : there were reviews in several periodicals. Here is a book written by a man who undoubtedly is disposed as a friend and well-wisher of the Chinese people. A man who is, you might say, profoundly sympathetic, and attached to the Chinese Soviets, and who wrote a boi>k that is in many pages inspiring. I'et those who have read the book carefully, those wh(» have followed the review in the Communist, will conisa to the conclusion that the book brings forward Trotskyite conclusions that actually damage an otherwise valuable documentary accoiuit. In fact, the philosophy of the book is that comnnmism is adorable if it arises as a Chinese phenomenon. A .sort of new except ionalism cut off from international communism — not only cut off, but Snow's thesis seems to be that wherevei the Comm-unist International enters as a factor it brings about tragedy and ruin in the wake of the Chinese revolution. And as for the Soviet Union, that is the villain of the piece. Snow maintains that the Communist International is, or is used as, a sort of vest-pocket bureau of the Soviet Foreign Office. This is purveying Trotskyism. W'e do not say that Snow is a Trotskyite. We do not say that Snow is a Trotskyite, but we do say that by his unclarity and by his failure, his professional failure, to check on data, a responsibility wliich he owes to himself as a foreign correspondent, he has made hin^self a vehicle for carrying Trotskyite poi.son into his book; and, therefoi'e, notwithstanding the great value of his book in many other ways, we have to register this deep-going criticism in the hope that thereby be will i)erhaps put forth a new edition in which he will make the corrections that we have indicated. I mention this as an instance in the party of sectarianism. The word is used by friends and comrades. W^hyV Because they abuse the word "sectarianism." In fact, it would be extremely sectarian to Trotsky not to have taken the attitude that we have taken to such a word. There is an antitoxin to drive out this remaining poison in the system of certain of the people that come toward us. This antitoxin is the valuable fiow of education — of study of Marxism, Leninism, which we owe as educators, as members of the party, to those who come toward us. We have to devi.se the necessary methods to help overcome this. Of course, we don't mean in the book learning; we mean practice. Far too many of these people somehow or other are members at large, not because they have been assigned due to their strategic posts that they may occupy in the camp of the enemy, in Wall Street or other places. Tliey have sort of placed themselves at large. I cite an instance where a i-epresentative of the central committee set out to visit a certain group at large to conduct an instructive talk on a vital political subject and he was told that they couldn't reveal themselves. In other words, they don't know us and we don't know them. They missed the study, the work, the'activity, the helpful guidajice, and the contact with the life of the basic party •organizations.