Posts Tagged ‘Stalin’

Along Came a Spider…

October 31, 2012

Purge Net

Dupe – Dupe – Dupe


The Chronicle Telegram (Elyria, Ohio) Dec 2, 1952

Red Satellite

Florence Morning News (Florence, South Carolina) Dec 5, 1952

LAW — Communist Joke Book

Delta Democrat Times (Greenville, Mississippi) Dec 2, 1952


John Dewey Slew the Little Red School House

September 14, 2012

Image from The Center for Dewey Studies

Says Teachers ‘Pale Pink.’

American school teachers, often denominated as politically “red,” average up “pale pink,” according to preliminary conclusion reached in connection with a national poll made by the John Dewey Society for the Study of Education.

The poll, extending to 3,000 teachers in the 48 states, is in charge of Dr. George W. Hartman of Pennsylvania State college. He reports that the average teacher tends to support a number of “incompatible policies” and that the “radical” group of teachers is better informed on social issues and public problems of the day than the conservatives. This latter observation probably is true of citizens generally, since the conservatives is often disposed to take the status quo for granted while the “advanced thinker” has reasons, real or imaginary, on which he justifies his position.

An outstanding contradiction was reported to be the prominence of Socialist convictions and sentiments and the relatively small number intending to vote for Norman Thomas for president. Dr. Hartman found that the “typical teacher approves of many far-reaching reforms but his dissent from the status quo is that of a gradualist rather than that of a revolutionist.” Of those polled, 59 per cent expressed the view that an annual family income of approximately $4,000 could be obtained if the productive equipment of the nation were operated at full capacity.

Under the capitalistic system, with the progressives and radicals acting as a spur in the flanks of the large conservative element, income over the years has shown a pretty consistent increase. While some might consider $4,000 a year a high average goal, it is gratifying to find that the teachers favor working toward it under the doctrine of abundance rather than that of scarcity.

Billings Gazette (Billings, Montana) Jul 23, 1936

*     *     *     *     *

“What school teachers think about public questions is important, because their thinking affects their work and tends to mold the minds of the rising generation,” says an exchange, citing 3,000 replies to a questionnaire sent out by the John Dewey Society for the Study of Education….

More than half believe that several millions of our unemployed will “never again find steady work at good wages in a capitalist society.

Only 15 per cent think teachers have a moral obligation to remain entirely neutral on debatable issues, in class and elsewhere.

Ninety-eight per cent reject the idea that the school “has no business trying to improve society.”

Three-fourths favor a federal department of education.

Sheboygan Press (Sheboygan, Wisconsin) Aug 12, 1936

Commission Finds Trotsky Innocent

New York, Dec. 13. — Leon Trotsky was informed Monday that an international commission of inquiry had found him innocent of counter-revolutionary activities and had declared the trial of 17 of his sympathizers a “frame-up.”

Dr. John Dewey, philosopher and author, was introduced to a mass meeting Sunday night as “the Zola of our age,” read the commission’s review of the evidence and concluded:

“We therefore find the Moscow trials to be a frame-up. We therefore find Trotsky and Leon Sedoff (his son) not guilty.”

Billings Gazette (Billings, Montana) Dec 14, 1937

Image from English Russia – Only in Russia!


Dr. John Dewey, professor of philosophy at Columbia university and chairman of the committee that “retried” Leon Trotsky on the charge of treason to Soviet Russia, is utterly disgusted with the Soviet as it is now being operated. This noted American philosopher spent a long, long time peering under the surface of the Trotsky case and what he finds is that the effort to make the proletariat supreme has resulted in the most ruthless and dictatorial political regime that is in operation anywhere today.

Not that he cares anything as between the two personalities Stalin and Trotsky, Dr. Dewey says, but he had hoped for much from the Russian experiment. He finds that experiment now deteriorated into a mass of misrepresentation, lies, propaganda and violence. The people of Russia are kept in ignorance of what is going on in the world and even in their own country. His views are published in the Washington Post.

To those who say that the end justifies the means, Dr. Dewey replies with a bit of philosophy, so startlingly true that its significance comes as a shock to the minds of many. That philosophy, the end justifies the means, is so deeply ingrained in the minds of many Communists that the radicals in this country resort to it in their defense of the Stalin regime by justifying the present assassinations in Russia.

But Dr. Dewey says that the means that are employed decide the ends or the consequences which are ultimately attained. Thus, when violence is used to bring about so-called political and economic reforms violence must be employed to keep the new government in power and violence becomes its principal weapon, not only upon those who are opposed but even within the party itself. Thus all idea of democracy is lost. The means have dominated the ends that were sought to be attained.

The venerable American philosopher, who because he expressed the belief that the world could learn much from the Russian experiment, was himself sometimes called a Communist, has given up all his cherished hopes for Russia. He believes that Communist Russia and Nazi Germany are growing very much alike. There is simply the employment of force to maintain a regime, the holding of the people in ignorance through vicious propaganda, misinformation and fear.

Declaring that he cares little more for Trotksy’s ideas than he does for the scheme of things that is carried on by Stalin, Dr. Dewey insists that the Trotsky trials were a “frame-up” of crooked testimony and evidence; that the Russian prosecutor did not follow the legal rules of evidence under Russian law. All of this Dr. Dewey proposes to prove not only to the satisfaction of Americans but to the confusion of the Russians themselves.

Finally he bids American radicals to see the truth. There is a growing tendency among these radicals to conceal the truth regarding Russian affairs in this country. “They can accomplish nothing by hiding the truth,” he said. “Truth, instead of being a bourgeois virtue, is the mainspring of all human progress.”

Montana Standard (Butte, Montana) Jan 2, 1938

*     *     *     *     *

Groups Are Criticized For School Meddling
(Associated Press)

New York, Feb. 24. — Curtailment of Academic freedom by pressure groups which seek to impose their doctrines on the nation’s school children was held by John Dewey society today to be “definitely on the increase.”

Describing it as one of the “most vital issues of the day” the society said in announcing the 1938 year book, teachers have been reprimanded and even dismissed from jobs for teaching accepted facts about history, science and civics which, for one reason or another, were disagreeable to certain groups in their communities.

Progressive as well as conservative organizations which seek to hamstring school teachers with rules and regulations were denounced in the year book as enemies of democracy.

Among them were listed the “ancestor worshipers” with D.A.R., Sons of American Revolution and United Daughters of Confederacy included in the category — military organizations like the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars and patriotic organizations like the National Civic Federation, the Paul Reveres and Key Men.

Greeley Daily Tribune (Greeley, Colorado) Feb 25, 1938

Lima News (Lima, Ohio) Mar 5, 1938


Dear Editor:

Public schools may not teach “religion,” at least A religion, that is settled; but the general rule in courts of law in this country is that for a witness to qualify as such and testify under oath “he must possess a conscience alive to the accountability to a higher power than human law in case of falsehood.” (American Jurisprudence, 1948 ed. page 96, vol. 58.) This rule is entirely in harmony with the federal constitution, as it was the established common law at the time of the adoption of that constitution and still obtains in states that have not changed it by their own local law.

In Soviet Russia school children are taught that there is no “accountability to a higher power” than the law of Stalin. The prevailing doctrine is found in the teaching of Karl Marx that: “Religion is the sighing of a creature oppressed by misfortune; it is the ‘soul’ of the world that has no heart, as it is the intelligence of an unintelligent epoch. It is the opium for the people.”

Such doctrine is closely akin to that of John Dewey, “who identifies religion with superstition when he says that religion originated in man’s fear and his effort to safeguard himself in every way possible against unknown and uncontrollable forces and changes.” So writes an anti-Communist Russian authority. (Demiashkevich, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, p. 113.) The same writer quotes Dewey as saying that “As a drowning man is said to grasp at a straw” so men who lacked the modern implements and skills snatched at religion as “a source of help in time of trouble.” So, the disciples of John Dewey (whether teachers or others) are naturally against teaching “accountability to a “higher power than human law,” whether you call it “religion,” “ethics,” or merely “good citizenship.”

Accordingly, they now propose to teach ABOUT religions — probably in the same manner that that topic would be treated in the World Almanac or the Book of Facts. Since there is no more mature subject than that of Comparative Religion, which embraces all the sects and philosophies, we may see at once what a synthetic plate of “bolonie” would be served out to the youngsters whose parents are still trying to teach some good old-fashioned ideas of “right” and “wrong.” Such negativistic mush would be a fraud and a fake — certainly a poor antidote against the atheism of the USSR.

If our boys are dying in Korea to save the world from communism and atheism then the public schools ought to find a way to teach these facts; but if, on the other hand, they are bleeding to preserve an adoration of John Dewey’s world of “instruments and skills,” materialistic comfort, and scientific gadgets, let’s not be hypocritical enough to dodge the issue and teach ABOUT religions. Call it “morals,” “citizenship,” or “social science,” but teach that communism, atheism and slavery go hand in hand; that the American tradition requires an “accountability to a higher power than human law.”

186 North Meyer street

Tucson Daily Citizen (Tucson, Arizona) Apr 16, 1951

Image from Fans in a Flashbulb

These Days . . .


Do you know the teachers of your children? They speak of tenure, of academic freedom, of their rights to their jobs. But what have you to say about your children? After all, they are your children and you are responsible for them, for their minds, their bodies, their spirits.

What do the teachers of your children know? What have they been taught? Have they had a broad, humanistic training or are they specialists in methods of pedagogy?

Does your child come home an say, “All fathers are alike,” when your child has repeated to the teacher some criticism you have made of the teacher or textbooks?

For instance, the other day, I heard a child talk about starvation in India. Nothing had been said about sacred cows and sacred monkeys and wild dogs who eat the food of the people and who may not be killed. Could we rescue the people of India if we sent them all our surplus wheat? The fact is that the teacher wants to make the child like the united nations and point four and all that, but the teacher did not say that the peoples of India starve because they do not grow enough food per acre and that a religion which sacrifices living human beings to living animals is partially responsible. The teacher told a half-truth for political purposes.

You need to know what a teacher believes. The teacher says that it is none of your business. The teacher says that the Constitution, under the fifth amendment, protects a citizen in his beliefs. That is absolutely true. A citizen can believe anything he likes: That the moon is made of green cheese, that Karl Marx is as great an historic figure as Moses, Jesus, Aristotle and Plato; that John Dewey was the greatest philosopher of all time. That is a teacher’s private business.

But your child is your business. It is correct that a teacher may be a Republican, a Democrat, a communist, a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Christian Scientist. He may believe that vitamins will save the world or that vaccination will ruin the world.

But none of that solves the problem of your own responsibility for your own children. No child need be sent to a school whose teachers offend a parent’s beliefs. The child must have a certain amount of “education,” according to the law. That may require the parents to pay for the upkeep of two schools. Many do.

The various organizations of teachers object to this attitude. They wish to make a fetish of the public school system and put it above and beyond criticism. In a country like ours, nothing, but absolutely nothing, should be above and beyond criticism.

(Copyright, 1951, King Features Syndicate, Inc.)

Billings Gazette (Billings, Montana) Dec 18, 1951

*     *     *     *     *

Haney Conducts Question And Answer Column Today


Professor of Economics, New York University

Highland Park, Ill., asks: “I was surprised to learn that Mr. Goslin is on the advisory staff of the National Citizens Commission for the Public Schools. What do you know of this organization? What do you think of a man in the U.S. Office of Education rebuking an Indianapolis school teacher for criticizing  British socialism?

Answer: The two facts you mention tie together. The U.S. Office of Education is in harmony with the ideas of the Nat’l Citizens Commission. Goslin is an advisor. All three agree. A,D. Morse in a magazine article on the schools links them. The fact that a representative of the U.S. Office doesn’t want socialism criticized is typical of the whole set-up. The list of members of the commission shows that it is closely interlocked with the so-called Public Education Ass’n, the CIO, and the Committee of Econ. Develoop. The Pubic Ed. Ass’n is an outfit which joins the Nat’l Education Ass’n trust in propaganda for molding “the whole child” and viciously attacking those who criticize progressive education.

I would say that they are all tarred with the same stick — progressive education slanted toward collectivism. I can find among their leaders no critics of socialism or progressive education. The Nat’l Citizens Committee (with its typical “workshop” conferences) may well have been set up in 1949 as a cover for N.E.A. propaganda, particularly designed to bring in public relations talent and newspaper and magazine publicity.

Peekskill, N.Y., writes: “Please tell me in language that a non-legal mind can understand the exact difference between a Republic and a Democracy.”

Answer: The only difficulty is with the word, democracy, which has been so abused by politicians and Communists that you can’t tell what it means, any more than you can tell what it means to be a Democrat. A republic is a state that has representative government. It is governed by representatives elected by, and responsible to, the people who have voting power. This country has always been a republic.

Originally the meaning of “a democracy” was plain: It meant direct government by all the people. In a pure and complete democracy, all the people would vote directly on all government issues. This country has never been a democracy.

But now the term, democracy, is widely used in two other ways:

(1) Some use it to mean socialism. For example, in a yearbook of the John Dewey Society (which is closely tied in with the Nat’l Education Ass’n) the following statement appears: democracy is “above all a society of and by the common working people.” According to this notion a democracy would be a socialistic society run by the labor class.

(2) Some, however, use the word, democracy, loosely to mean any society in which people are free to discuss affairs and have a vote. This definition, of course, would include republics such as ours; as it would consider a republic as a kind of indirect democracy in which control of government might be through representatives.

In view of the confusion and propaganda surrounding “democracy” you should avoid using the term, and require those who do use it to tell exactly what they mean….

News-Palladium (Benton Harbor, Michigan) Feb 19, 1952

Bob Ruark’s Roundup

NEW YORK — The old man, I guess you would call him the grandest old man, quit trying and died the other day, 92. This was John Dewey, one of the few great thinkers of the long time we call past and present, and you might say he sowed more whirlwinds than anybody else.

Dr. Dewey made one mistake. He presumed in innocent arrogance that the majority of his fellow citizens were partially as intelligent as he, and there he made his mistake. They weren’t. And aren’t. And doubtless won’t be.

John Dewey was the father of what is loosely termed “progressive education.” This is to say that he slew the little red school-house, assassinated Santa Claus, and placed an added burden of maladjustment on a civilization that had been reasonably happy with the three R’s, the little red hen, and McGuffey’s Reader. He introduced unfettered thought into the public domain, and he gods, how it got mishandled!

The old man was a fine old man, and a brilliant thinker he was, too, and a find philosopher, and a good practical psychologist, and a great educator, and, withal, he made more trouble for us than Karl Marx. Because, principally, John Dewey made a vogue of early self-determinism, and the lip readers seized on his doctrines with glad, incoherent cries.

His idea was basically, if an idea is ever basic, that the young mind should be freed to develop the richness of the moment, rather than to equip the fledgling with the standard spare parts of education for a problematical future. He was of middle age  when he first propounded the idea that modern education should be fitted to individual needs and capacities instead of being assembly-lined along the simple precepts of his fathers.

In very short, he pierced the first large loophole for mass irresponsibility and laziness of educational discipline by the adult of the immature. It is not to lessen the majesty of the man, Dewey, to say that his breadth of thought has contributed as highly to divorce rates, to suicide rates, to psychopathic incidence — and always innocently — as if he had plotted viciously against the welfare of his fellows.

Because his teachings, being fairly intricate and dependent on responsibilities, naturally got abused and soiled from handling by the inept. The story is ancient about his abrupt meeting with a nursery school brawl involving his young son and another moppet. Professort Dewey was shocked at the infantile mayhem, and was informed that this was “progressive education.” Unbridled freeing of the coarser impulses was not what he had in mind.

It is my purely private idea that the dean regarded mankind as essentially noble and simultaneously susceptible to nobility of handling at a very early age. I do not think that in his academic purity he considered a high incidence of lazy parents, spoiled brats, and incompetent candidates for self-determination.

Be all as it may, we have shown small progress in the half-century of popularity for John Dewey’s credo of education. His advanced (then) theories of literally making the child his own master do not seem to have tamed the dreary statistics of delinquency, of adult aberration, of social maladjustment, or rape, murder, dope addition, irresponsibility and general unhappiness.

Tucson Daily Citizen (Tuscon, Arizona) Jun 9, 1952

Image from Genconnection – John Dewey

From John Dewey’s book, My Pedagogic Creed, linked below:

I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends.



I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform.

I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements, are transitory and futile.

I believe that education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.

I believe that this conception has due regard for both the individualistic and socialistic ideals. It is duly individual because it recognizes the formation of a certain character as the only genuine basis of right living. It is socialistic because it recognizes that this right character is not to be formed by merely individual precept, example, or exhortation, but rather by the influence of a certain form of institutional or community life upon the individual, and that the social organism through the school, as its organ, may determine ethical results.

Title: My Pedagogic Creed
Author: John Dewey
Published: 1897
page 7 and pages 16-17

The Communist Paradise

December 14, 2011

* * * * *

The Communist Paradise
Reprinted from N.Y. Daily News.



Now it is just as well to recognize what we recognized.

It is the same old Russia as under the Czars.

There is the same old wholesale indiscriminate massacre of opponents of the despotism, whether those slaughtered be guilty or innocent of crime.

*     *     *

There is the same old conflict for position and power in which the masses are trampled under the feet of the battling factions.

*     *     *

RIGHTS, liberties, opportunities, the people of Russia had not under the Czar and have not under Stalin.

Is it not about time for all of us Americans to realize that peace and progress and happiness only thrive in the soil of liberty and free democracy?

Is it not time for us to realize that those who are attempting to transform this American Republic into a Communistic tyranny of class against class are, above all others, the Number 1 Public Enemies of our country and our people?

They are the most flagrantly seditious and traitorous element of our community.


(Extracts from an editorial which appeared in the Rochester Sunday American and other Hearst newspapers on Sunday, December 9, 1934.)

Rochester Evening Journal (Rochester, New York) Dec 15, 1934

Rochester Evening Journal (Rochester, New York) Dec 11, 1934

Rochester Evening Journal (Rochester, New York) Dec 15, 1934

Chickens Come Home to Roost

June 15, 2009

image from

Image from

I ran across this poem in the newspaper archives, while searching for something else:


You may take the world as it comes and goes
And you will be sue to find
That fate will square the accounts she owes
Whoever comes out behind.
And all things bad that a man has done,
By whosoever induced,
Return at last to him one by one
As chickens come home to roost.

Sow as you will, there’s a time to reap
For the good and the bad as well;
And conscience, whether we wake or sleep
Is either a heaven or hell.
And every wrong will find its place
And every passion loosed;
Drifts back and meets you face to face
When the chickens come home to roost.

Whether your’re over or under the sod,
The result will be the same —
You cannot escape the hand of God,
You must bear your sin and shame.
No matter what’s carved on a marble slab
When the items are all produced,
You’ll find that God was “keeping tab,”
And that chickens come home to roost.

New Castle News (New Castle, Pennsylvania) Nov 23, 1910

Thanks to our current President’s infamous preacher,  Rev. Wright, the old adage is enjoying a renewal in popularity, so I decided to do a search and see how it was used in the past. Here is just a small sample of what I found:

Chickens Come Home To Roost
Claim That Stolen Fowls Were Liberated When Auto Was Wrecked.

(Special to The News) MERCER, Pa., June 28.

“Chickens will come home to roost.” The truth of this old saw was proven here today in a criminal proceedings in which J.W. Cameron of Youngstown, O., was tried on a larceny charge. The testimony of the commonwealth witnesses proved that Cameron, who was transporting the chickens to Youngstown in an auto after committing an alleged theft at the home of P.S. Cozadd near Charleston on the Mercer-Sharon road, had an auto smashup at the McCullough bridge on this road and as a result of the wreck the chickens, which were in the tonneau of the car, were released. They went up the road to the Cozadd home which was only a short distance and went to roost at once. This point was argued by the commonwealth as being conclusive evidence that they were the property of Mr. Cozadd.

New Castle News (New Castle, Pennsylvania) Jun 28, 1919



What is the meaning of the old saying: “Chickens come home to roost?” Well, it means all the night clubs are closed.

New Castle News (New Castle, Pennsylvania) Feb 3, 1928



A stranger came to me to ask about a local citizen. The stranger wished to buy a piece of property and was afraid of being cheated. He had to depend on the local man’s word. And he wished to know whether the man’s word is good. What could I say? I hated to spoil a neighbor’s trade — knock him out of profit. But I had to be square with the stranger too. So I said to him:

“Well, this fellow once owed me some money. Many many times he promised to pay it. But he never did.”

That was all the stranger wished to know. And it goes to show that chickens come home to roost.

You make a dollar by cheating one man and lose two dollars because your reputation is damaged.

New Castle News (New Castle, Pennsylvania) Jul 16, 1929


Negro Exclusion in Party Primary Illegal

Texans are interested in a decision by the United States circuit court of appeals at Asheville, North Carolina. Ruling of the court was that the democratic party of Virginia had no right to bar “negroes and other races” from its primary. Texas has a statute which bars negroes from the democratic party primary. It was enacted by democratic lawmakers and singed by a democratic governor.

If it is illegal in Virginia then it is illegal in Texas. It is said political chickens come home to roost. They do. Just the other day the state democratic executive committee adopted a rule barring democratic negroes from the party primary. Well, these democratic leaders should read the ruling of the United States circuit court of appeals….

It goes without saying that what is good (law) for the Virginia gander should be excellent fodder for the Texas goose….

Brownsville Herald (Brownsville, Texas) Jun 18, 1930


Rosikaa Schwimmer

Rosika Schwimmer


Mrs. Rosika Schwimmer, as newspaper readers readily recall, is a noted pacifist. She first gained fame in connection with the Ford Peace Ship and a few years ago again broke into the news when she was denied citizenship in the United States because she refused to subscribe to that part of the oath of allegiance which states that the person taking the oath will take up arms and fight for the country if the need for such cooperation arises.

The matter was treated somewhat as a joke because of the sex of the protestant. We do not expect to require women to take up arms, but this was not the reason for Mrs. Schwimmer’s refusal to take the oath we require. She refused because for years she has taught and argued pacifism and because she did not think any man or woman should pledge themselves to fight for their country. Mrs. Schwimmer, be it understood, is not a communist or anything like that. She is an intelligent and moral woman, interested for years in pacifism.

Now comes this esteemed lady into the news of the day again. She has addressed the following appeal to fellow residents of America:

“Hilterism is destroying all the achievements of the women’s movement in Germany. Women are driven out of employment and the professions and kicked back into the realm of Kirche, Kinder, and Keuche — with the emphasis on Kinder. They are to be bearers of future soldiers, nothing else.

“What are America’s feminist doing against this outrage?

“The German pacifists are among the most vehemently persecuted and tortured victims of Hitlerism. Their houses are raided, their papers destroyed; they are imprisoned, tortured, kept in concentration camps and some of them face execution as indubitable information reveals.

“What are the American pacifists doing to save their unfortunate German colleagues?”

Whether we are pacifists, feminists or mere Americans of normal human sympathies we can agree that much of what she says appears to be right.

Hitler’s methods do arouse some justified indignation, but what can we do about it? Mrs. Schwimmer stands in the front line of those who have worked to keep us from having a navy of the first rank, from having an army or an air defense impressive enough to make our written protests weightily considered. How can we use effective force to compel Germany to do what Mrs. Schwimmer wants Germany to do, and at the same time destroy every factor which may lend force to our words and Mrs. Schwimmer and her kind have sought to destroy these factors.

There are times when chickens come home to roost and this is one of them. Mrs. Schwimmer would have us 100 per cent unarmed and defenseless and then when our hands are tied she would have us try to show some authority. Even if we wanted to do something our protests could not be carried far in the face of pacifistic opposition at home and nazi tenacity in Germany. Actually there is little reason for us to get heated up over what Hitler has been doing, but those who have opposed ultra-pacifism must get some pleasure from the Schwimmer dilemma.

Billings Gazette (Billings, Montana) Jul 16, 1933


soviet chickensImage from

Stalin Must Come Here To Collect Royalties
NEA Staff Correspondent

A check was ready today for Joe Stalin, representing royalties on his new book he hasn’t heard about. Joe probably won’t like it but he must come to the United States to get his money.

The book is “Stalin’s Kampf,” edited by M.R. Werner and just published by Howell, Soskin and Company, New York. It was a collection of just about everything important the Russian dictator has ever written or said publicly. wherefore the publishers are willing to pay Stalin — the Soviet way.

They’ve so written the dictator. “We will pay you those royalties,” said the publishers in a letter to the Kremlin, “on exactly the same basis as the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics pays royalties to American authors; in other words, your royalties will be held here, and you are at liberty to come to the United States at any time and collect those royalties in dollars and spend those royalties in this country.”

So the Soviet chickens come home to roost. For years the Russians have been translating and publishing foreign books, often without so much as permission or notification of the authors or publishers.

If any author wanted his money he would have to go to Russia, where he would be paid in rubles which could not be taken out of the country.

Authors, moreover, could spend their money only in a few shops — the commision shops, run on a non-gold basis.

American authors in Russia are usually published in editions of 25,000 copies. Most popular are Upton Sinclair, Theodore Dreiser, Sinclair Lewis, Eugene O’Neill and Jack London.

Dreiser has collected “only a minute part of his royalties.” The same is true of Sinclair. O’Neill, has collected nothing. John DosPassos, Mary Heaton Vorse and E.E. Cummins went over to collect part of their royalties in rubles.

Joe Won’t Be Pleased

Now it’s a Russian’s turn to collect. Frankly, the publishers don’t expect Joe to like it. As a matter of fact they point out in their letter that payment is not legally required, as the content of the book is public property and therefore not protected by American copyright.

Joe won’t like some of the quotations either. For instance, this choice bit he is supposed to have dropped one summer night in 1923, opening his heart to Dzerzhinsky and Kameney:

“To choose one’s victim, to prepare one’s plans minutely, to slake an implacable vengeance, and then to go to bed . . . There is nothing sweeter in the world.”

Brownsville Herald (Brownsville, Texas) May 7, 1940

And finally, here is soviet “chicken” picture, just because. I have no idea what it says, but the chickens look like they are going home to roost.