Reply From Goldman to Dobbs¶
Core Argument¶
Here, in a letter dated 27 April 1946, Albert Goldman delivers a blistering reply to Farrell Dobbs of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The core of the letter is a counter-offensive against what Goldman perceives as a factional manoeuvre by the SWP leadership to shift responsibility for their own political blunder onto his shoulders. The blunder in question is the SWP’s refusal to participate in a campaign to intervene in the Nuremberg trials on behalf of Leon Trotsky, specifically to demand the examination of Rudolf Hess regarding alleged agreements with Trotsky and the presentation of relevant documents.
Goldman establishes the factual sequence to refute the charge that he failed to reply to an earlier letter from Comrade Stein. He argues that Stein’s letter of 18 February did not call for a reply unless he decided to intervene personally. He then reconstructs the chronology: in December 1945, Comrade Haston of the British party informed Goldman of their plan to intervene. Goldman voiced objections—principally that it might tip off the Stalinists, who could then seek an agreement with Hess—but pledged support if the British proceeded. When they did, Goldman urged the SWP to follow suit. The SWP rejected this, offering only the conditional acceptance of Goldman’s personal intervention, a proposal they themselves doubted.
The polemic is sharp and personal. Goldman accuses the SWP leadership of permitting a defence of Trotsky to develop without their participation or initiative, and of ignoring it in their press because they did not start it. He charges them with carrying factionalism to the point where defending the founder of the movement becomes taboo. He cites a letter from Max Shachtman showing that the SWP refused to join the Workers Party in initiating a petition, a refusal Goldman and Natalia Sedova considered a purely factional move.
On the second question—whether he signed a statement published in Labour Action—Goldman confirms he did. He rejects Dobbs’ characterisation of it as a “statement of the Thomas-Well Committee,” insisting it was prepared by comrades devoted to Trotskyism and modified to attract non-Trotskyist anti-Stalinists. He defends the procedure as better than no petition at all. The letter concludes with a declaration of revolutionary independence: when the leadership of his own party rejects an opportunity for factional reasons, his conscience does not permit him to follow. He offers his personal intervention if needed and warns he may act independently to keep the issue alive.