Communist activities; from the two Communist Party publications, the Daily Worker and the New Masses; and from the Union for Democratic Action.

Following the pattern of the New Republic and the Union for Democratic Action, the magazine New Masses, weekly organ of the Communist Party, features an article entitled "Wanted A Victory Congress." This article also ridicules the Congress of the United States and publishes the pictures of the Members of Congress in exactly the same fashion as that used by Henry Luce's Time magazine. The article in the New Masses was written by Bruce Minton, alias Richard Bransten, alias Richard Brandenstein.

The Union for Democratic Action, in collaboration with the New Republic, recently published a 32-page document entitled "A Congress to Win the War." The union announced its plans to print and circulate a minimum of 1,000,000 copies of this document.

Parenthetically, it may be said that Malcolm Cowley, one of the editors of the New Republic, published a volume of poetry in February of this year in which volume he described enthusiastically the capture of the Capitol in Washington by a revolutionary mob.

The Union for Democratic Action purports, in its 32-page document, to analyze the votes of the Members of Congress on 20 arbitrarily chosen bills which have been up for passage during the past 22 years. Ten of these measures were in the field of foreign policy and 10 in the field of domestic affairs. Where the Member of Congress voted in accordance with the union's opinions, he is given a plus sign; where he voted contrary to the union's views, he received a minus sign. According to the union's tabulation, only 18 Members of the House of Representatives have all plus marks.

Completely disregarding its own tabulation, the Union for Democratic Action concludes its document by calling for the defeat of a group of Representatives and Senators whom it describes as "The Obstructionists."

The Union for Democratic Action betrays a remarkable fact concerning its own objectives-namely, that its interest in winning the war against the Axis Powers is a secondary matter. This is clear from the fact that the union calls for the purge of various Members of Congress whose voting record on the 10 measures dealing with foreign policy has been 100 percent in support of the administration. The only possible conclusion which can be drawn from the union's position is that it belongs to that relatively small group of radicals who are trying to use the war emergency to advance their own revolutionary programs within the United States.

The viciousness of the document put out by the Union for Democratic Action and the New Republic is strikingly manifest in the following statement:

"This minority of obstructionists turned to the despicable Nazi trick of asserting that it was the Jews who were leading America into war."

That, of course, is a cowardly lie, and must be known as such to its authors. The union offers no evidence for its statement, as indeed it would be impossible to offer any such evidence. The names of these so-called obstructionists are set forth at the end of the union's study. The union dare not falsely ascribe to them severally or collectively any statements to the effect that "the Jews were leading America into war." It is the Union for Democratic Action itself which has injected the hateful matter of racial prejudice into the election campaign. It is the union which is guilty of trying to work "the despicable Nazi trick."

THE PERSONNEL OF THE UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

The extraordinary attack upon Congress made by the document of the Union for Democratic Action becomes understandable when the identities of those who make up the union are exposed.

This vituperative and scurrilous document was presumably the work of the research council of the Union for Democratic Action. The union's research council is headed by Lewis Corey, described in the union's literature as its research director. Who is Lewis Corey?

In the first place, Lewis Corey is not the real name of the man who bears the title of research director of the Union for Democratic Action. For many years, the man who now calls himself Lewis Corey was known in the International Communist world as Louis Fraina. Why Friana has now attempted to conceal his true identity under the name of Lewis Corey, we do not pretend to know. We do know from several years of investigation of the Communist movement, that it is a common practice among Communists, as among criminals, to attempt to avoid recognition by the use of aliases. At any rate, the entire Communist world is well aware of the fact that the man who now goes by

the name of Lewis Corey was known for years as Louis Fraina. In setting forth Corey's record in the ensuing paragraphs, we shall refer to him as Fraina. In the committee's files, Louis Fraina is an oft-recurring name and there is absolutely no question about the fact that he is the man who now poses as Lewis Corey. It is altogether fitting that an organization such as the Union for Democratic Action with its pretenses concerning democracy should employ a man of the character of Louis Fraina.

While it is definitely known that Louis Fraina, alias Lewis Corey, traveled to Russia and other parts of the world around 1920-23, the records of the State Department do not show that Corey or Fraina had a passport in either of those names. The presumptive evidence is. that Corey, alias Fraina, had a passport in yet another name. That was the same offense for which Earl Browder was sent to the penitentiary for 4 years. Of course, the statute of limitations has run on Fraina's offense, but perhaps the Union for Democratic Action will step forward and tell the public under what name Fraina, its research director, obtained his fraudulent passport.

Better than anyone else, Louis Fraina fits the characterization of the "original Communist in the Western Hemisphere." The first Communist convention held in the Western Hemisphere was convened in Chicago on September 1, 1919. The assembled delegates elected Louis Fraina as their temporary chairman. At that convention-a photograph of which is in the files of our committeeFraina assumed the leading role in drawing up a program for the overthrow of the United States Government. Among the planks in that first Communist convention's platform-a plank written personally by Fraina-was one which reads as follows:

"Participation in parliamentary campaigns which in the general struggle of the proletariat is of secondary importance, is for the purpose of revolutionary propaganda only."

Inasmuch as Fraina has now entered the American "parliamentary campaign" of 1942 as the research director of the Union for Democratic Action, it is enlightening to have his own words describing the purpose of such campaigns.

Louis Fraina was the first Communist editor in the United States. With headquarters in Boston, Fraina edited the Revolutionary Age, a magazine devoted to the overthrow of the United States Government. In an issue of his magazine dated July 12, 1919, Fraina called for "the annihilation of the fraudulent democracy of the parliamentary system." The early issues of Fraina's magazine are in the files of our committee.

Louis Fraina served on the executive committee of the Communist International. His Communist activities extended to many countries. For a period of time, he was stationed in Berlin. Lenin commissioned Fraina to go to Mexico to organize a Communist revolution.

In 1932, after Fraina had already assumed the name of Corey, he participated in the election campaign on behalf of the Communist Party's candidates, William Z. Foster and James W. Ford.

In 1934, Fraina published his most important book, The Decline of American Capitalism. The volume appeared under the name of Lewis Corey. Fraina's conclusion, incorporated in the last sentence of his 600-page book, was stated as follows:

"American civilization depends upon Communist revolution, and, given the dominant economic position of the United States, the victory of the American working class will make a mighty contribution to the building of world socialism and a new world civilization."

Faina is not the only leader of the Union for Democratic Action who has tried to conceal his true identity under a new name. Listed on the union's letterhead as a sponsor of the organization is one J. B. S. Hardman. Hardman's real name is Jacob Salutzky, born in Grodno, Russia. Like Fraina, Salutzky was once a nationally prominent leader of the Communist Party of the United States.

In later years, Salutzky, alias Hardman, was a leader of an organization known as the Conference for Progressive Labor Action. The program of this organization, in whose writing Salutzky had a major part, called for the destruction of the "sham democracy" of the United States. The publicly avowed purpose of the organization in which Salutzky was a national executive committeeman contained the following:

"It aims to inspire the workers to take control of industry and government, abolish the present capitalist system, and build a workers' republic."

Even though the majority of the leaders of the Union for Democratic Action do not have records like those of Fraina and Salutzky, most of them have col

laborated more or less extensively with the front organizations of the Communist Party. In addition to this revealing fact, many of the Union for Democratic Action leaders have written books expounding their views on politics and economics. These books give uniform evidence of the Marxist or nearMarxist views of their authors. For example, Reinhold Niebuhr, chairman of the Union for Democratic Action, has been a prolific exponent of Marxist philosophy. In his book, Reflections on the End of an Era, Niebuhr declares:

"For the next decades those who desire to make a moral choice between the semimoral alternatives of politics must make a choice between hypocrisy and vengeance."

This is the very essence of the shady morality of Karl Marx, and Niebuhr makes it clear that his choice is for the side of vengeance. Niebuhr throws further light upon his Marxist philosophy by his statement that "the Old World which hides its injustices behind the forms of justice is embattled with a New World which expresses its protests against injustice in vindictive terms."

All of which means, in simple language, that Niebuhr elects the vengeance of the new Socialist order in preference to what he calls the hypocrisy of the capitalist order. Niebuhr has been the secretary of an organization which called itself the United Christian Council for Democracy. That organization's platform included the following explicit references to the American system:

"We reject the profit-seeking economy and the capitalistic way of life with its private ownership of the things upon which the lives of all depend.

"We propose to support the necessary political and economic action to implement these aims."

So far as the head of the Union for Democratic Action, Reinhold Niebuhr, is concerned, it is unmistakably clear on what basis he proposes to carry out his desired purge of Congress. In the light of his voluminous writings and his political affiliations, it becomes farcical for Niebuhr to assert or imply that he merely desires "a Congress to win the war." What Niebuhr and his associates want is a Congress that will not interfere with their schemes for social revolution.

Thomas R. Amlie, director of the Washington bureau of the Union for Democratic Action, has made his own position with respect to parliamentary procedures emphatically clear. In an article entitled "The Collapse of Capitalism," Amlie publicly renounced three things: Liberalism, gradualism, and constitutional means as instruments for obtaining the economic and political changes which he deems desirable. On the subject of liberalism, Amlie wrote: "I have always considered myself a liberal-at least until a year and half or 2 years ago." Amlie proceeded thereupon to attack the premises and procedures of the socalled gradualists, the persons who desire to bring about the end of private ownership in the means of production by a gradual encroachment of public ownership until finally the whole system of private ownership and free enterprise has been eliminated. Amlie called specific attention to the failures of the European Social Democrats to do away with capitalism by their gradualist program. Amlie's own exact language is as clear as anything could be on this question. "The Social Democrats," he wrote, "will never be able to administer the 'coup de grace.' They are congenital parliamentarians." Of course that is precisely what all the Communists have said about gradualism, social democracy, and parliamentarism a thousand times over since the inception of the Communist movement. Whether Amlie is a Communist or not, there can be no doubt that his views as expressed by himself on these tremendously important political and economic questions coincided perfectly with the views of the Communists. His unconcealed scorn for Social Democrats on the ground that they are "congenital parliamentarians" is a direct attack on the parliamentary or legislative branch of our democratic form of government.

Before concluding the article from which we are quoting, Amlie took his stand four square on the side of revolution as opposed to constitutional methods of change. "The question arises," he wrote, "whether a program of this kind could be carried out by constitutional political means. Very frankly I do not believe that the change will be brought about by orderly constitutional means. In the pages which follow immediately, we present a chart showing the affiliations of 50 of the leaders of the Union for Democratic Action with the agencies and fronts of the Communist Party. This chart makes clear the important fact that the Union for Democratic Action is composed chiefly of individuals who have been a significant part of the interlocking directorate of the Communist movement in the United States. As the leaders of the Union for Democratic Action would probably put it, this chart contains the evidence of their political conduct before Pearl Harbor.