feel it is a conspiracy and a great portion of that party would be a military fifth column to do the bidding of persons of other governments when the time came. The point went through my mind that merely outlawing the Communist Party won't cover the problem. We found we have to do more than that, more than provide a statute to outlaw the Communist Party, but also to outlaw many of the things they are doing. And whether there are Communists or anybody else doing those things, they should be prosecuted; that is, the conspiracy to overthrow this Government by other means than constitutional and orderly processes. Should we not write a statute like that? Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes; I believe that is so. I didn't intend to limit it to the Communist Party, but I realize you are to hear another important witness so I cut my argument short. Mr. PETERSON. In the preliminary case the court held that action wrong but even there the court pointed out that there are acts that don't constitute treason because treason is the hardest thing to prove. It provides for confession in open court. But they pointed out that where there is a conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force and violence it is a criminal offense. I think your presentation was very fine and your brief will be very helpful to the committee. Mr. SULLIVAN. If I can say this, in concluding: After a thorough examination of the law there is no doubt in my mind that the existence of the Communist Party can be outlawed by judicial action. All you have to do is just go back to your basic definition of criminal conspiracy, take your evidence link by link and simply prove your case in a court of equity. Now, as I stated before, if equity will take jurisdiction as it has in hundreds of cases to enjoin an organization from polluting a stream or water, even though the question may be novel and no precedent set, I am convinced it will certainly take jurisdiction on that basis, of an organization that is polluting the blood stream of the country. Mr. PETERSON. Equity developed by taking jurisdiction of new and novel questions as they came along. Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. I have a case here that I don't want to take the time of the committee to read, but I have several cases, mostly on that point that I left with Mr. Gaston for you. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Sullivan, you are familiar with the bill I have introduced to the committee for consideration? Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. Mr. MCDONOUGH. I testified before the committee last week and in my testimony I stated that I did not distinguish between the socalled Communist Party in the United States and the Communist Party in Soviet Russia or in the satellite countries. Do you agree with that? Mr. SULLIVAN. Most heartily I do. You have evidence to that effect. You have evidence from Mr. Budenz and you have evidence from Mr. Foster. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Do you further agree that a so-called party that we have been referring to as the Communist Party of the United States that advocates conspiracy and is an international conspiracy in its concept could exist as a political party in the United States and should exist in the United States as a political party? Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir; I do not, because I do not believe furthermore that it is a political party. Just because it calls itself a political party does not necessarily mean it is fundamentally a political party. Basically it is a criminal conspiracy to violate the safety and the peace of the Nation, regardless of what it may call itself. Mr. MCDONOUGH. In other words, you believe that any political organization in the United States that goes beyond the purview of constitutionality should not be allowed to exist in the United States? Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir; I do. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Any political party that comes within the purview of the constitutionality of the United States should be allowed? Mr. SULLIVAN. Should be. Mr. MCDONOUGH. And if it proceeds to modify the form of the Government of the United States under the terms of the Constitution, that is perfectly agreeable with you, is that your belief? Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. Mr. NIXON. Just a moment, Mr. McDowell would like to say something. Mr. MCDOWELL. You are an officer of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which is one of our highly respectable soldier's veteran groups in the United States. Do you think the Veterans of Foreign Wars with all of their prestige and the love the American people have for them would advocate the suggestions you have made here and would adopt it as a program? Mr. SULLIVAN. They already have, sir. Mr. MCDOWELL. Or sponsor it or test it in a court? Mr. SULLIVAN. I wrote a mandate last February, that is a year ago this month. I am sorry I have not a copy with me but it calls upon the President of the United States to instruct the Attorney General to institute legal proceedings to outlaw the Communist Party and that in lieu thereof, the commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars is authorized to take such steps as he deems necessary to accomplish such results. That mandate was adopted by the Department of the District of Columbia, Veterans of Foreign Wars, last February. Last September that same mandate was adopted by the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars at Cleveland. I might say I wrote that mandate predicated on the brief I have just read to you. We are still awaiting action. Mr. MCDOWELL. Now your brief is very able. It presents a legal thought that I had not heard of before. It appears the Veterans of Foreign Wars would do a great service to the country if they could force this thing to the notice of the court by using their ingenuity and their respectability and their desire to be of help to the country. They could force this before a court in some fashion. I think it would be a very fine thing that the Veterans of Foreign Wars could do. I hope they do it. Mr. NIXON. Mr. Stripling, will you call the next witness. Mr. NIXON. Mr. Burnham, will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. BURNHAM. I do. Mr. NIXON. Will you identify the witness? Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Burnham, will you please state your full name and present address? TESTIMONY OF JAMES BURNHAM, AUTHOR; PROFESSOR, Mr. BURNHAM. My name is James Burnham, 137 East Seventythird Street, New York 21, N. Y. Mr. STRIPLING. When and where were you born, Mr. Burnham? Mr. STRIPLING. What is your profession? Mr. BURNHAM. I am a teacher. I have been on the faculty of New York University since 1929. Mr. STRIPLING. Would you give the committee a brief résumé of your professional background? Mr. BURNHAM. Let me see, I have been on the faculty of New York University since 1929. Most of the time in the department of philosophy, with a few years in other departments. I have also, during the past 20 years been an active student of modern political movements, in particular totalitarian movements and I have written a great variety of articles and essays and books on the general subject of these modern movements. The chief books have been the Managerial Revolution which was published in 1940, the Machiavellians published in 1942, and last year a book called the Struggle for the World. Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Burnham, you are here at the request of the committee and at the invitation of the committee? Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. STRIPLING. You are here at the invitation of the committee to give your opinion on certain legislative provisions now before the committee which seek to outlaw the Communist Party. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, I have. Mr. STRIPLING. In line with the procedure of the committee, if you will read that statement at this time, the committee will direct questions to you afterward. Mr. BURNHAM. Revolutionary totalitarianism, of both the Communist and the Fascist varieties, is a development of the twentieth century. In the late eighteenth century, when the basic ideas and institutions of modern democratic government took form, totalitarianism did not exist, and had not even been thought of. It is not surprising, therefore, that we find unprecedented difficulties today when we try to solve the problem of totalitarianism. Two facts are of decisive significance: First, totalitarianism has never won a free democratic majority within any nation; it has always taken power by force and subversion, counter to the majority will. Second, totalitarianism has nevertheless, since its first major eruption in 1917, conquered a steadily expanding percentage of the nations and peoples of the earth. The defeat of the major Fascist totalitarianisms in the Second World War has already been more than counterbalanced by the further spread of Communist totalitarianism. These two facts seem to prove that the methods so far used for the defense of democracy are not adequate. If the process of the past 30 years continue unchecked, we must anticipate the world defeat of democracy. Within the United States there is at the present time no strong and organized Fascist movement. Whatever may be the case in the future, the specific totalitarian threat today is from communism. Communism is in no sense an ordinary political party comparable to the political parties that have functioned in the United States or in other nations with parliamentary institutions. Communism is a world-wide, conspiratorial movement, politically based upon terror and mass deception, which has for its objective the conquest of a monopoly of world power. In spite of frequent shifts in tactics and propaganda, the fundamental Communist program has never varied. The Communists do not aim at any "reforms" of existing institutions, or at any changes that can be achieved by peaceful or constitutional means. Their object, as stated in their own words and proved by their own actions, is to smash and destroy the institutions of nonCommunist society, and to substitute new revolutionary social arrangements that will guarantee their own monopoly of power. Communism is a world movement, which operates within all nations, and already holds full power over a vast area comprising the former Russian Empire together with the territories and peoples conquered since 1939. So long as communism remains a major world force, it is impossible for any given nation to solve fully its own internal Communist problem by purely internal measures. The full solution requires an adequate world policy. However, a partial solution for the internal problem can be provided by correct internal measures; and these in turn can contribute to a world solution. The proper and necessary internal measures for the defense of democracy against communism should be planned with three principal purposes in mind: 1. Education. The people should be informed, accurately and fully and continuously, about the nature and activities and strategy and tactics of communism. This educational task can be in part accomplished by qualified and concerned private citizens. Its scope and importance are such, however, that supplementary activities by the government are also needed. 2. Exposure. Communism is peculiarly characterized by the systematic use of deception. Communists perform in a perpetual masquerade. As individuals and in groups they appear before the public today as "progressives," tomorrow as "patriots," last week as "liberals," next month as "simple humanitarians," tonight as "defenders of free speech," yesterday as "honest trade unionists," at breakfast as "Twentieth Century Americans," and at dinner as "the voice of the people." It is impossible for an ordinary citizen to keep track of all the disguises. The defense against communism requires, therefore, a continuous campaign of exposure. The masks should be stripped from Communist individuals and from Communist front organizations. They must be labeled for what they are, so that every citizen may know, and may be guided by his knowledge. This continuous exposure also needs the aid of Government resources and agencies. I understand the bill introduced by Representative Mundt (H. R. 4422) to be designed to implement this work of exposure. If the exposure of the Communists is to function in fact as a defense of democracy, it must be carried out with the most scrupulous care and accuracy. The reactionary tendency to lump genuine Communists together with socialists, liberals, honest progressives, and others who may in one or another legitimate way be critical of certain abuses in our society or who may advocate some project reform, is one of the greatest services that can be rendered to communism. The precise purpose of exposure must be to separate and isolate the Communists from all the rest. 3. Illegalization: The experience of the past 30 years proves that in the end education and exposure will not be a sufficient defense against communism. The Communist movement will have to be outlawed. The only real question is one of timing. Whether the action will be taken while its object can be accomplished by ordinary methods of legal enforcement, or whether it will wait until a future when the issue will have to be decided by a civil war. If we permit a murderer the free run of our house, we can expect that in the end someone is going to get killed. If we are willing to accept in a football league a team that makes up its own rules, and stabs opponents instead of tackling them, then we shouldn't be surprised if that team wins. No serious student of modern politics questions the facts. The objective of the Communist movement in the United States, as in every other non-Communist nation, is to destroy the existing government by illegal means, by violence and terror. The Communist movement is the agent of a sovereignty other than that of the United States Government. Even under existing laws, its illegalization is called for. Nevertheless, the contemporary Communist movement is unique. It seems to me to be the duty of Congress to establish the facts, and by specific statute to define unambiguously the intention and policy of the Government. The objections that have been brought against the policy of illegalizing the Communist movement do not stand against the weight of the facts. It is argued, for example, that illegalization would merely "drive the Communist underground." The fact is that the most serious part of the Communist movement is already underground. Illegalization would deprive the underground apparatus of the cover and protection and funds that they now enjoy from the legal organizations. It is argued that illegalization would violate the constitutional guaranties of free speech and assembly. But these guaranties have never been and could never be interpreted in an absolute sense. Democracy does not give its citizens the right, for example, to advocate and organize for mass murder, rape, and arson. In general, the principles of democratic government cannot be interpreted in practice in such a way as to make democratic government itself impossible. The rights and freedoms of democracy are properly extended only to those who accept the fundamental rules of democracy. If this is not the interpretation, the democratic government is necessarily self-defeating. It cannot defend itself. It welcomes and fosters, in effect, its own murderer. The specific goal of communism (as of fascism also) is to destroy democratic government, and to replace democratic government by totalitarianism. The rules of democracy cannot be intelligibly in 71315--48- -25 |