|Home Rand's Books Other Books Magazines Texts Biography Forums Websites Critics Miscellaneous Search Email Us|
|You Are Here: Home > Texts > Rand's HUAC Testimony|
|Stuck in another site's frames? Escape!|
The following is a full transcript of the testimony by Ayn Rand before the United States House of Representatives' Committee on Un-American Activities (commonly known as the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC1) on October 20, 1947. To make Rand's testimony more meaningful to contemporary readers, this transcript includes explanatory notes and background material. None of the speakers' words have been altered or omitted.
The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) became a permanent (or "standing") committee of the House in January 1945. It had existed on a temporary basis since 1938. HUAC was supposed to investigate "un-American propaganda" in the United States. Although it also investigated pro-fascist or pro-Nazi activity, HUAC is most widely known for its investigations of suspected Communist influence in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Along with the investigation of Alger Hiss, the investigation of Communist influence in the motion picture industry is one of the defining episodes in the committee's history. HUAC would continue to exist into the 1960s, but these memorable hearings are its best-known legacy. The committee's name was changed in 1969, and it was abolished in 1975, when jurisdiction over investigation of foreign influence was transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.2
The first HUAC investigations of Communism in Hollywood occurred in 1940, when Representative Martin Dies, a Texas Democrat, was chairman of the committee. Dies convened meetings of the committee in Los Angeles and questioned several actors and writers, including actor Humphrey Bogart and writer John Howard Lawson. All denied either being Communists or knowing with certainty that any of their co-workers were Communists. These early hearings ended with Dies finding no credible evidence of Communist activity in the movie industry. Once the United States entered World War II in 1941, the Soviet Union was an ally, and Congress had little interest in exposing any Communist activities in Hollywood.
The end of the war brought increased fear of Communism in the United States. In the 1946 elections, the Republican Party won control of the House of Representatives. As a result, conservative Representative J. Parnell Thomas, a longtime member of HUAC, became its chairman. Thomas initiated a new investigation into Communist influence in Hollywood.
In September 1947, HUAC subpoenaed 41 witnesses to testify at formal hearings. Of these, 19 were considered "unfriendly" witnesses because they said they would not cooperate with the committee's investigation. Eleven of the unfriendly witnesses eventually came to the hearings in October 1947. The unfriendly witnesses included John Howard Lawson, who had previously testified in 1940, plus fellow writers Alvah Bessie, Lester Cole, Ring Lardner Jr., Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, and Dalton Trumbo. Also called were writer/producer Adrian Scott, writer/director Herbert Biberman, and director Edward Dmytryk. These ten refused to answer questions, denounced the committee, and were held in contempt of Congress. The contempt citations led to brief prison terms for all ten when the Supreme Court refused to reverse their convictions. (The eleventh unfriendly witness, German-born writer Bertolt Brecht, testified he wasn't a Communist. He then promptly went back to Europe, where he lived in Communist-controlled East Berlin.)
The witnesses who denounced the committee became known as the "Hollywood Ten." They were blacklisted from the movie industry for many years afterward. The blacklist itself was not developed by HUAC, but by a group of studio executives. The executives met shortly after the hearings and adopted a resolution against employing Communists, including the Hollywood Ten. With the exception of Dmytryk, who later changed his position and cooperated with the committee, the Hollywood Ten either did not work on American movies or used pseudonyms for most of the 1950s.
In contrast, the "friendly" witnesses all agreed to testify about Communist influence on Hollywood movies. The friendly witnesses included studio heads Jack Warner and Louis B. Mayer, and actors Gary Cooper, Robert Montgomery, Ronald Reagan, and Robert Taylor. The friendly witnesses were called to testify first, followed by the unfriendly witnesses.
HUAC's second round of investigations of Communists in Hollywood ended after the testimony of the Hollywood Ten. The committee began a new series of investigations of Communist influence on movies in the early 1950s and continued them for several years.
HUAC is sometimes confused with the Senate Committee on Government Operations, which included Senator Joseph McCarthy. The Senate committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was particularly active in investigating suspected Communists in the 1950s, especially after McCarthy became it's chairman. The House and Senate committees were two separate bodies. McCarthy was not involved in HUAC and never served in the House of Representatives. Although he was a freshman senator in 1947, McCarthy had not yet begun his well-known campaign against Communism, which he initiated in February 1950. The later investigations of Hollywood that HUAC began in 1951 might be interpreted as a reaction to the anti-Communist furor raised by McCarthy, but he had no influence on the 1947 hearings at which Rand testified.
Both HUAC and McCarthy's Senate committee were also different from the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, which was the Senate's direct equivalent to HUAC.
Ayn Rand was one of the "friendly" witnesses who cooperated with the committee during the 1947 hearings. Rand's testimony, like that of the other friendly witnesses, was given just before the debacle of the "Hollywood Ten." She did not testify during either the earlier (1940) or later (1950s) investigations that HUAC conducted about Hollywood.
At the time she was called to testify, Rand was already well-known in Hollywood for her opposition to Communism. She originally planned to testify about two movies -- Song of Russia and The Best Years of Our Lives. The former was made during World War II, with the fairly obvious purpose of making Americans feel more comfortable about being allies with the Soviets during the war. The latter was a popular post-war film that had won several Academy Awards, including the Oscar for best picture. Rand was later asked to testify only about Song of Russia. Some members of the committee thought it was too risky to criticize a popular film like The Best Years of Our Lives. Upset by that she was only allowed to discuss one older movie that was obvious propaganda, Rand demanded a chance to give additional testimony. After some argument, Chairman Thomas eventually offered to recall her later in the hearings. He never did recall her. Her testimony as it stands concerns only Song of Russia.
Asked years later about the hearings, Rand said that they were a "dubious undertaking," "futile," and "nothing but disappointments." She did not think the government could not legitimately investigate the ideological penetration of Communism into the movies. It could only show that there were members of the Communist Party working in the industry. She did believe, however, that it was acceptable for the committee to ask people whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its political goals, and investigating possible criminal activities was an appropriate role of government. "I certainly don't think it's any kind of interference with anybody's rights or freedom of speech," she said.3
Regardless of the effectiveness of the hearings as a whole, Rand was glad to have the opportunity to gain media exposure on the subject. She also supported the efforts of private employers to reduce the influence of Communists on the movies. As she put it in an earlier essay she had written on the subject, "The principle of free speech requires ... that we do not pass laws forbidding [Communists] to speak. But the principle of free speech ... does not imply that we owe them jobs and support to advocate our own destruction at our own expense."4
For more detailed biographical information about Ayn Rand, see the Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ.
Rep. J. Parnell Thomas1, Chairman of the Committee: Raise your right hand, please, Miss Rand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ayn Rand: I do.
Chairman Thomas: Sit down.
Mr. Robert E. Stripling2, Chief Investigator: Miss Rand, will you state your name, please, for the record?
Rand: Ayn Rand, or Mrs. Frank O'Connor3.
Stripling: That is A-y-n?
Rand: That is right.
Stripling: Is that your pen name?
Stripling: And what is your married name?
Rand: Mrs. Frank O'Connor.
Stripling: Where were you born, Miss Rand?
Rand: In St. Petersburg, Russia.4
Stripling: When did you leave Russia?
Rand: In 1926.
Stripling: How long have you been employed in Hollywood?
Rand: I have been in pictures on and off since late in 1926, but specifically as a writer this time I have been in Hollywood since late 1943 and am now under contract as a writer.5
Stripling: Have you written various novels?
Rand: One second. May I have one moment to get this in order?
Rand: Yes, I have written two novels.6 My first one was called We the Living, which was a story about Soviet Russia and was published in 1936. The second one was The Fountainhead, published in 1943.
Stripling: Was that a best seller -- The Fountainhead?
Rand: Yes; thanks to the American public.
Stripling: Do you know how many copies were sold?
Rand: The last I heard was 360,000 copies. I think there have been some more since.
Stripling: You have been employed as a writer in Hollywood?
Rand: Yes; I am under contract at present.7
Stripling: Could you name some of the stories or scripts you have written for Hollywood?
Rand: I have done the script of The Fountainhead, which has not been produced yet8, for Warner Brothers, and two adaptations for Hal Wallis Productions, at Paramount, which were not my stories but on which I did the screen plays, which were Love Letters9 and You Came Along.10
Stripling: Now, Miss Rand, you have heard the testimony of Mr. [Louis B.] Mayer?11
Stripling: You have read the letter I read from Lowell Mellett?12
Stripling: Which says that the picture Song of Russia13 has no political implications?
Stripling: Did you at the request of Mr. Smith, the investigator for this committee, view the picture Song of Russia?
Stripling: Within the past two weeks?
Rand: Yes; on October 13, to be exact.
Stripling: In Hollywood?
Stripling: Would you give the committee a break-down of your summary of the picture relating to either propaganda or an untruthful account or distorted account of conditions in Russia?
First of all I would like to define what we mean by propaganda. We have all been talking about it, but nobody --
Stripling: Could you talk into the microphone?
Rand: Can you hear me now? Nobody has stated just what they mean by propaganda. Now, I use the term to mean that Communist propaganda is anything which gives a good impression of communism as a way of life. Anything that sells people the idea that life in Russia is good and that people are free and happy would be Communist propaganda. Am I not correct? I mean, would that be a fair statement to make -- that that would be Communist propaganda?
Now, here is what the picture Song of Russia contains. It starts with an American conductor, played by Robert Taylor,14 giving a concert in America for Russian war relief. He starts playing the American national anthem and the national anthem dissolves into a Russian mob, with the sickle and hammer on a red flag very prominent above their heads. I am sorry, but that made me sick. That is something which I do not see how native Americans permit, and I am only a naturalized American. That was a terrible touch of propaganda. As a writer, I can tell you just exactly what it suggests to the people. It suggests literally and technically that it is quite all right for the American national anthem to dissolve into the Soviet. The term here is more than just technical. It really was symbolically intended, and it worked out that way. The anthem continues, played by a Soviet band. That is the beginning of the picture.
Now we go to the pleasant love story. Mr. Taylor is an American who came there apparently voluntarily to conduct concerts for the Soviets. He meets a little Russian girl15 from a village who comes to him and begs him to go to her village to direct concerts there. There are no GPU16 agents and nobody stops her. She just comes to Moscow and meets him. He falls for her and decides he will go, because he is falling in love. He asks her to show him Moscow. She says she has never seen it. He says, "I will show it to YOU." They see it together. The picture then goes into a scene of Moscow, supposedly. I don't know where the studio got its shots, but I have never seen anything like it in Russia. First you see Moscow buildings -- big, prosperous-looking, clean buildings, with something like swans or sailboats in the foreground. Then you see a Moscow restaurant that just never existed there. In my time, when I was in Russia, there was only one such restaurant, which was nowhere as luxurious as that and no one could enter it except commissars and profiteers. Certainly a girl from a village, who in the first place would never have been allowed to come voluntarily, without permission, to Moscow, could not afford to enter it, even if she worked ten years. However, there is a Russian restaurant with a menu such as never existed in Russia at all and which I doubt even existed before the revolution. From this restaurant they go on to this tour of Moscow. The streets are clean and prosperous-looking. There are no food lines anywhere. You see shots of the marble subway -- the famous Russian subway out of which they make such propaganda capital. There is a marble statue of Stalin thrown in. There is a park where you see happy little children in white blouses running around. I don't know whose children they are, but they are really happy kiddies. They are not homeless children in rags, such as I have seen in Russia. Then you see an excursion boat, on which the Russian people are smiling, sitting around very cheerfully, dressed in some sort of satin blouses such as they only wear in Russian restaurants here. Then they attend a luxurious dance. I don't know where they got the idea of the clothes and the settings that they used at the ball and --
Stripling: Is that a ballroom scene?
Rand: Yes; the ballroom -- where they dance. It was an exaggeration even for this country. I have never seen anybody wearing such clothes and dancing to such exotic music when I was there. Of course, it didn't say whose ballroom it is or how they get there. But there they are -- free and dancing very happily.
Incidentally, I must say at this point that I understand from correspondents who have left Russia and been there later than I was and from people who escaped from there later than I did that the time I saw it, which was in 1926, was the best time since the Russian revolution. At that time conditions were a little better than they have become since. In my time we were a bunch of ragged, starved, dirty, miserable people who had only two thoughts in our mind. That was our complete terror -- afraid to look at one another, afraid to say anything for fear of who is listening and would report us -- and where to get the next meal. You have no idea what it means to live in a country where nobody has any concern except food, where all the conversation is about food because everybody is so hungry that that is all they can think about and that is all they can afford to do. They have no idea of politics. They have no idea of any pleasant romances or love-nothing but food and fear. That is what I saw up to 1926. That is not what the picture shows.
Now, after this tour of Moscow, the hero -- the American conductor -- goes to the Soviet village. The Russian villages are something -- so miserable and so filthy. They were even before the revolution. They weren't much even then. What they have become now I am afraid to think. You have all read about the program for the collectivization of the farms in 1933, at which time the Soviet Government admits that three million peasants died of starvation. Other people claim there were seven and a half million, but three million is the figure admitted by the Soviet Government as the figure of people who died of starvation, planned by the government in order to drive people into collective farms. That is a recorded historical fact.17
Now, here is the life in the Soviet village as presented in Song of Russia. You see the happy peasants. You see they are meeting the hero at the station with bands, with beautiful blouses and shoes, such as they never wore anywhere. You see children with operetta costumes on them and with a brass band which they could never afford. You see the manicured starlets driving tractors and the happy women who come from work singing. You see a peasant at home with a close-up of food for which anyone there would have been murdered. If anybody had such food in Russia in that time he couldn't remain alive, because he would have been torn apart by neighbors trying to get food. But here is a close-up of it and a line where Robert Taylor comments on the food and the peasant answers, "This is just a simple country table and the food we eat ourselves."
Then the peasant proceeds to show Taylor how they live. He shows him his wonderful tractor. It is parked somewhere in his private garage. He shows him the grain in his bin, and Taylor says, "That is wonderful grain." Now, it is never said that the peasant does not own this tractor or this grain because it is a collective farm. He couldn't have it. It is not his. But the impression he gives to Americans, who wouldn't know any differently, is that certainly it is this peasant's private property, and that is how he lives, he has his own tractor and his own grain. Then it shows miles and miles of plowed fields.
Chairman Thomas: We will have more order, please.
Rand: Am I speaking too fast?
Chairman Thomas: Go ahead.
Rand: Then --
Stripling: Miss Rand, may I bring up one point there?
Stripling: I saw the picture. At this peasant's village or home, was there a priest or several priests in evidence?
Rand: Oh, yes; I am coming to that, too. The priest was from the beginning in the village scenes, having a position as sort of a constant companion and friend of the peasants, as if religion was a natural accepted part of that life. Well, now, as a matter of fact, the situation about religion in Russia in my time was, and I understand it still is, that for a Communist Party member to have anything to do with religion means expulsion from the party. He is not allowed to enter a church or take part in any religious ceremony. For a private citizen, that is a nonparty member, it was permitted, but it was so frowned upon that people had to keep it secret, if they went to church. If they wanted a church wedding they usually had it privately in their homes, with only a few friends present, in order not to let it be known at their place of employment because, even though it was not forbidden, the chances were that they would be thrown out of a job for being known as practicing any kind of religion.18
Now, then, to continue with the story, Robert Taylor proposes to the heroine. She accepts him. They have a wedding, which, of course, is a church wedding. It takes place with all the religious pomp which they show. They have a banquet. They have dancers, in something like satin skirts and performing ballets such as you never could possibly see in any village and certainly not in Russia. Later they show a peasants' meeting place, which is a kind of a marble palace with crystal chandeliers. Where they got it or who built it for them I would like to be told. Then later you see that the peasants all have radios. When the heroine plays as a soloist with Robert Taylor's orchestra, after she marries him, you see a scene where all the peasants are listening on radios, and one of them says, "There are more than millions listening to the concert."
I don't know whether there are a hundred people in Russia, private individuals, who own radios. And I remember reading in the newspaper at the beginning of the war that every radio was seized by the government and people were not allowed to own them. Such an idea that every farmer, a poor peasant, has a radio, is certainly preposterous. You also see that they have long-distance telephones. Later in the picture Taylor has to call his wife in the village by long-distance telephone. Where they got this long-distance phone, I don't know.
Now, here comes the crucial point of the picture. In the midst of this concert, when the heroine is playing, you see a scene on the border of the U.S.S.R. You have a very lovely modernistic sign saying "U.S.S.R." I would just like to remind you that that is the border where probably thousands of people have died trying to escape out of this lovely paradise. It shows the U.S.S.R. sign, and there is a border guard standing. He is listening to the concert. Then there is a scene inside kind of a guardhouse where the guards are listening to the same concert, the beautiful Tschaikowsky music, and they are playing chess.
Suddenly there is a Nazi attack on them. The poor, sweet Russians were unprepared. Now, realize -- and that was a great shock to me -- that the border that was being shown was the border of Poland. That was the border of an occupied, destroyed, enslaved country which Hitler and Stalin destroyed together.19 That was the border that was being shown to us -- just a happy place with people listening to music.
Also realize that when all this sweetness and light was going on in the first part of the picture, with all these happy, free people, there was not a GPU agent among them, with no food lines, no persecution -- complete freedom and happiness, with everybody smiling. Incidentally, I have never seen so much smiling in my life, except on the murals of the world's fair pavilion of the Soviets. If any one of you have seen it, you can appreciate it. It is one of the stock propaganda tricks of the Communists, to show these people smiling. That is all they can show. You have all this, plus the fact that an American conductor had accepted an invitation to come there and conduct a concert, and this took place in 1941 when Stalin was the ally of Hitler. That an American would accept an invitation to that country was shocking to me, with everything that was shown being proper and good and all those happy people going around dancing, when Stalin was an ally of Hitler.
Now, then, the heroine decides that she wants to stay in Russia. Taylor would like to take her out of the country, but she says no, her place is here, she has to fight the war. Here is the line, as nearly exact as I could mark it while watching the picture:
"I have a great responsibility to my family, to my village, and to the way I have lived."
What way had she lived? This is just a polite way of saying the of life. She goes on to say that she wants to stay in the country because otherwise, "How can I help to build a better and better life for my country." What do you mean when you say better and better? That means she has already helped to build a good way. That is the Soviet Communist way. But now she wants to make it even better. All right.
Now, then, Taylor's manager, who is played, I believe, by Benchley20, an American, tells her that she should leave the country, but when she refuses and wants to stay, here is the line he uses: he tells her in an admiring friendly way that "You are a fool, but a lot of fools like you died on the village green at Lexington."21
Now, I submit that that is blasphemy, because the men at Lexington were not fighting just a foreign invader. They were fighting for freedom and what I mean -- and I intend to be exact -- is they were fighting for political freedom and individual freedom. They were fighting for the rights of man. To compare them to somebody, anybody fighting for a slave state, I think is dreadful. Then, later the girl also says -- I believe this was she or one of the other characters -- that "the culture we have been building here will never die." What culture? The culture of concentration camps.22
At the end of the picture one of the Russians asks Taylor and the girl to go back to America, because they can help them there. How? Here is what he says, "You can go back to your country and tell them what you have seen and you will see the truth both in speech and in music." Now, that is plainly saying that what you have seen is the truth about Russia. That is what is in the picture.
Now, here is what I cannot understand at all: if the excuse that has been given here is that we had to produce the picture in wartime, just how can it help the war effort? If it is to deceive the American people, if it were to present to the American people a better picture of Russia than it really is, then that sort of an attitude is nothing but the theory of the Nazi elite -- that a choice group of intellectual or other leaders will tell the people lies for their own good. That I don't think is the American way of giving people information. We do not have to deceive the people at any time, in war or peace. If it was to please the Russians, I don't see how you can please the Russians by telling them that we are fools. To what extent we have done it, you can see right now. You can see the results right now. If we present a picture like that as our version of what goes on in Russia, what will they think of it? We don't win anybody's friendship. We will only win their contempt, and as you know the Russians have been behaving like this.
My whole point about the picture is this: I fully believe Mr. Mayer when he says that he did not make a Communist picture. To do him justice, I can tell you I noticed, by watching the picture, where there was an effort to cut propaganda out. I believe he tried to cut propaganda out of the picture, but the terrible thing is the carelessness with ideas, not realizing that the mere presentation of that kind of happy existence in a country of slavery and horror is terrible because it is propaganda. You are telling people that it is all right to live in a totalitarian state.
Now, I would like to say that nothing on earth will justify slavery. In war or peace or at any time you cannot justify slavery. You cannot tell people that it is all right to live under it and that everybody there is happy. If you doubt this, I will just ask you one question. Visualize a picture in your own mind as laid in Nazi Germany. If anybody laid a plot just based on a pleasant little romance in Germany and played Wagner music and said that people are just happy there, would you say that that was propaganda or not, when you know what life in Germany was and what kind of concentration camps they had there. You would not dare to put just a happy love story into Germany, and for every one of the same reasons you should not do it about Russia.
Stripling: That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thomas: Mr. Wood.
Rep. John S. Wood23: I gather, then, from your analysis of this picture your personal criticism of it is that it overplayed the conditions that existed in Russia at the time the picture was made; is that correct?
Rand: Did you say overplayed?
Rand: Well, the story portrayed the people --
Wood: It portrayed the people of Russia in a better economic and social position than they occupied?
Rand: That is right.
Wood: And it would also leave the impression in the average mind that they were better able to resist the aggression of the German Army than they were in fact able to resist?
Rand: Well, that was not in the picture. So far as the Russian war was concerned, not very much was shown about it.
Wood: Well, you recall, I presume -- it is a matter of history -- going back to the middle of the First World War when Russia was also our ally against the same enemy that we were fighting at this time and they were knocked out of the war. When the remnants of their forces turned against us, it prolonged the First World War a considerable time, didn't it?24
Rand: I don't believe so.
Wood: You don't?
Wood: Do you think, then, that it was to our advantage or to our disadvantage to keep Russia in this war, at the time this picture was made?
Rand: That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Wood: Well --
Rand: But if you want me to answer, I can answer, but it will take me a long time to say what I think, as to whether we should or should not have had Russia on our side in the war. I can, but how much time will you give me?
Wood: Well, do you say that it would have prolonged the war, so far as we were concerned, if they had been knocked out of it at that time?
Rand: I can't answer that yes or no, unless you give me time for a long speech on it.
Wood: Well, there is a pretty strong probability that we wouldn't have won it at all, isn't there?
Rand: I don't know, because on the other hand I think we could have used the lend-lease supplies25 that we sent there to much better advantage ourselves.
Wood: Well, at that time --
Rand: I don't know. It is a question.
Wood: We were furnishing Russia with all the lend-lease equipment that our industry would stand, weren't we?
Rand: That is right.
Wood: And continued to do it?
Rand: I am not sure it was at all wise. Now, if you want to discuss my military views -- I am not an authority, but I will try.
Wood: What do you interpret, then, the picture as having been made for?
Rand: I ask you: what relation could a lie about Russia have with the war effort? I would like to have somebody explain that to me, because I really don't understand it, why a lie would help anybody or why it would keep Russia in or out of the war. How?
Wood: You don't think it would have been of benefit to the American people to have kept them in?
Rand: I don't believe the American people should ever be told any lies, publicly or privately. I don't believe that lies are practical. I think the international situation now rather supports me. I don't think it was necessary to deceive the American people about the nature of Russia. I could add this: if those who saw it say it was quite all right, and perhaps there are reasons why it was all right to be an ally of Russia, then why weren't the American people told the real reasons and told that Russia is a dictatorship but there are reasons why we should cooperate with them to destroy Hitler and other dictators? All right, there may be some argument to that. Let us hear it. But of what help can it be to the war effort to tell people that we should associate with Russia and that she is not a dictatorship?
Wood: Let me see if I understand your position. I understand, from what you say, that because they were a dictatorship we shouldn't have accepted their help in undertaking to win a war against another dictatorship.
Rand: That is not what I said. I was not in a position to make that decision. If I were, I would tell you what I would do. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that our country was an ally of Russia, and the question is: what should we tell the American people about it -- the truth or a lie? If we had good reason, if that is what you believe, all right, then why not tell the truth? Say it is a dictatorship, but we want to be associated with it. Say it is worthwhile being associated with the devil, as Churchill said, in order to defeat another evil which is Hitler. There might be some good argument made for that. But why pretend that Russia was not what it was?
Wood: Well --
Rand: What do you achieve by that?
Wood: Do you think it would have had as good an effect upon the morale of the American people to preach a doctrine to them that Russia was on the verge of collapse?
Rand: I don't believe that the morale of anybody can be built up by a lie. If there was nothing good that we could truthfully say about Russia, then it would have been better not to say anything at all.
Wood: Well --
Rand: You don't have to come out and denounce Russia during the war; no. You can keep quiet. There is no moral guilt in not saying something if you can't say it, but there is in saying the opposite of what is true.
Wood: Thank you. That is all.
Chairman Thomas: Mr. Vail.
Rep. Richard B. Vail26: No questions.
Chairman Thomas: Mr. McDowell.
Rep. John R. McDowell27: You paint a very dismal picture of Russia. You made a great point about the number of children who were unhappy. Doesn't anybody smile in Russia any more?
Rand: Well, if you ask me literally, pretty much no.
McDowell: They don't smile?
Rand: Not quite that way; no. If they do, it is privately and accidentally. Certainly, it is not social. They don't smile in approval of their system.
McDowell: Well, all they do is talk about food.
Rand: That is right.
McDowell: That is a great change from the Russians I have always known, and I have known a lot of them. Don't they do things at all like Americans? Don't they walk across town to visit their mother-in-law or somebody?
Rand: Look, it is very hard to explain. It is almost impossible to convey to a free people what it is like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship. I can tell you a lot of details. I can never completely convince you, because you are free. It is in a way good that you can't even conceive of what it is like. Certainly they have friends and mothers-in-law. They try to live a human life, but you understand it is totally inhuman. Try to imagine what it is like if you are in constant terror from morning till night and at night you are waiting for the doorbell to ring, where you are afraid of anything and everybody, living in a country where human life is nothing, less than nothing, and you know it. You don't know who or when is going to do what to you because you may have friends who spy on you, where there is no law and any rights of any kind.
McDowell: You came here in 1926, I believe you said. Did you escape from Russia?
McDowell: Did you have a passport?
Rand: No. Strangely enough, they gave me a passport to come out here as a visitor.
McDowell: As a visitor?
Rand: It was at a time when they relaxed their orders a little bit. Quite a few people got out. I had some relatives here and I was permitted to come here for a year. I never went back.
McDowell: I see.
Chairman Thomas: Mr. Nixon.
Rep. Richard M. Nixon28: No questions.
Chairman Thomas: All right. The first witness tomorrow morning will be Adolph Menjou.29
To view the explanatory notes, please visit the separate notes page or click on any of the footnote number links in the text above.
The philosophy of Ayn Rand, a twentieth-century novelist and philosopher, is known as Objectivism. The Objectivism Reference Center provides resources about Rand, her ideas, her works, and places where those are discussed and debated. Visit the Site Information page for details on site policies. Suggestions for additional materials or additional links are welcomed.
Copyright © 1999-2009 by Richard Lawrence. All rights reserved.