Goldman Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From The Militant, Vol. VI No. 34, 8 July 1933, pp. 1 & 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
|
The Daily Worker recently reported the expulsion of Albert Goldman, long standing party member and leading counsel of the International Labor Defense in Chicago, from the official party ranks. A whole series of charges were filed against him. In a statement issued by comrade; Goldman and reprinted below, the expelled comrade discusses the merit of these charges on the basis of fact and his own view of the expulsion. Comrade Goldman has held a public meeting on the whole affair in Chicago, an account of which is given below. – Ed. |
Chicago, Ill. – Three hundred party members and sympathizers attended a meeting on June 28, called, by comrade Albert Goldman, on his expulsion from the Communal party. The expulsion of comrade Goldman, who has been a party member for many years and whose activity in the courts of Chicago on behalf of the revolutionary workers is the talk of the movement, caused a surprise and resentment, unexpected by the local Stalinist bureaucrats.
The subject of the meeting Criticism by Expulsion was an extremely timely one. Comrade Goldman traced the origin of his conflict with the party leadership on the question of the united front and on other fundamental questions relating to the revolutionary strategy and tactics of the Communists. His attempts to iron out these differences within the confines of the party were rendered impossible because of the strangulating hold that the bureaucrats maintain. Goldman pointed out that in every dispute he had with the party, his position was distorted and violated, simply because he was never given the opportunity to make his point of view public so that the membership could understand it.
This bureaucratic control of the Party and the lack of inner democracy or discussion, Goldman pointed out, was not a local phenomenon, but arose directly out of the conditions in the Russian party and can be traced back to the struggle against Trotsky and the Left Opposition, over the fundamental questions of the revolution. Goldman showed that his attempts to invoke a discussion on the question of the united front in general, and specifically on the defeat in Germany, was prevented by the party leadership, that exists by retaining the rank and file in state of ignorance and blind obedience. The speech had a profound effect upon these present and a lively discussion ensued. In the discussion comrades Poindexter and Becker spoke, together for forty minutes, on the party position. The speeches were a defense of the party bureaucracy. Extremely tragic was their view on Germany – where they indignantly refuse to regard the victory of Fascism in Germany as a defeat for the German working class. The essence of their remarks was that Goldman had entered the ranks of the renegades.
The meeting closed with over fifty names collected as those interested in the organization of a Communist school this coming fall, and wishing to participate.
Even a cursory analysis of the statement of district eight with reference to my expulsion shows that the main reason for the expulsion is my view on the united front tactic, especially as applied in the Chicago united front action of the unemployed workers in October 1932; my opinion of the tactics of the German Communist Party in the struggle against Fascism; and my criticism of the method of the calling of the Free Tom Mooney Congress.
My violation of discipline at the Mooney Congress, the factor that led to my expulsion, is really incidental. I was opposed to the joining of the Scottsboro issue with the Mooney issue. I was not given a chance at the Congress to explain my position. The joining of the two issues in such a mechanical manner was harmful both to the Mooney issue and to the Scottsboro issue. But I would have voted with the party had I been asked to attend the fraction meeting and given a chance to make my position clear.
But the expulsion had to come. The violation of discipline at the Mooney Congress was but the pretext. My views on the various problems confronting the American movement and the world movement are such that a conflict between myself and the party leadership was inevitable. If the party permitted freedom of discussion, that conflict would run its natural course within the party; but without freedom of discussion a breach of discipline is inevitable. [Line of text missing] typical example of the dishonesty that characterized the district eight leaders in my whole conflict with them. There is practically not a single, whole sentence in the statement which is not either a downright distortion of the facts or a wilful misinterpretation. Without claiming that there is a sharp line of demarcation between a plain misstatement of fact or, in plainer English, a downright lie and an answer, for the purpose of convenience, will deal with these two types of falsehoods under different headings.
The answer does not assume to enter into a detailed explanation of the various problems which I discussed in articles and speeches within the last eight months. It confines itself merely to a simple denial and a short explanation of all the distortions contained in the statement.
(1) “He (Goldman) was previously expelled from the Party for his opposition to the policy of the Communist Party in the Trade Unions.”
I was never expelled from the party for that reason or any other reason. I was not opposed to the policy of the Communist party in the trade unions, during the years 1920–25 when I was active in the underground party. I was opposed to the policy of some of the party leaders of those days in their tactic of the united front from above with the Hillman-Levine gang of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, a tactic which, at that time, killed the Left wing in the Amalgamated and which to a large extent explains its pitiable weakness at present.
The above falsehood has a source which, to those who are acquainted with events of that period, is quite obvious. Undoubtedly the secretariat accepted the word of that ignorant confusionist par excellence, Robert Minor. It was he who asked me not to attack the Hillman leadership at the 1922 Amalgamated convention. It was he who was most completely taken in by the shrewd and slippery Hillman. It was he who fought me bitterly at the fraction meeting of the comrades in the needle trades, subsequent to the convention. There was a complete united front between him and Hillman against the Left wingers. As a result of this unholy alliance, Minor took advantage of the vicious frame-up of Hillman and Levine against me, on the basis of which I was expelled from the Amalgamated as a spy.
Rumors pointing the finger of suspicion against me began to be circulated in the party two years after everyone knew about the frame-up and during which time I was very active in the underground party. I demanded an immediate investigation, and refrained from activity in the meantime. A committee to investigate was appointed, and not until the united front between Minor and Hillman was broken up did the committee come out with a statement branding the action of Hillman and Levine as a frameup to get me out of the Amalgamated. I was then studying law and did not go back to party activity, but I was never expelled.
(2) “... Goldman at that time (during the united front conference held in October 1932 in Chicago) defended the leaders of the Socialist Party against the Communist Party position.”
After a stupid and violent attack on Borders and the Socialist Party leadership by Williamson of the Communist Party, an attack which alienated all the rank and file of the non-party organizations, I was called upon to make a collection speech. I stated that I, for one, would accept the Socialist leaders who came into the united front at their word, and would criticize them only on the basis of their action in the united front struggle. In an article in the December issue of The Communist, (an article which was not listed in the table of contents, and which was printed immediately after Williamson’s reply – all for the purpose of giving as little prominence to it as possible) I developed my position and criticized my own statement. I refer everyone to this article which will give the lie to the statement that I defended the leaders of the Socialist Party.
(3) “On the occasions he defended the position of the Second International and that of the counter-revolutionary renegade, Trotsky ... He slandered the Communist Party of Germany” ...
I challenge anyone to find a single sentence in anything I wrote or to point to any statement that I made, indicating that I defended the position of the Second International. I have said many things about the united front, and about the German situation which were in agreement with Trotsky’s ideas. I do not apologize for that. Is there any party rule saying that one must first find out what Trotsky has said, and then say the exact opposite? The claim is constantly made that Trotsky was expelled for violation of discipline and not for his ideas. If that is so, (and I am not naive enough to believe it) is it not possible to agree with Trotsky and still be a good party member?
In the course of a discussion with the District Committee on my views. I explicitly stated that I do not consider Cannon and Lovestone counter-revolutionaries. I am still of that opinion. By virtue of what rule in the party or the Communist International, is one liable to expulsion for such an opinion? If there is such a rule, let it be made public immediately!
In what way did I slander the Communist Party of Germany? By saying that its united front tactics were incorrect? Let me call attention to the fact that when the party leaders were grandiloquently proclaiming that the Communist Party of Germany will crush the Fascists, I was warning everyone of the impending calamity. It gives me no satisfaction whatever to say that I was right. The real truth of the matter is that when one criticizes the leaders of the party, it is called slander; and when the party leaders slander everyone who disagrees with them, it is called criticism.
(4) “He developed a theory that only a united front with leaders is possible.”
What a shameful untruth! One must lose all hope in the possibility of a successful Communist movement when leaders can stoop to such misrepresentations. Fortunately we understand very well, that the Communist movement is only temporarily burdened with such “leaders”, who depend upon lies and repression for their control of the Communist party. All I can say is, where and when did I say or write anything justifying this slander?
(5) “He persistently resisted the independent role of the party in the united front, objecting to every political criticism of the American Federation of Labor or the Socialist Party leaders.”
I did not object to political criticism, but I did object to vile and stupid attacks which had the inevitable result of alienating all the non-party people from us.
(6) “The letter of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, he interpreted as agreeing with his position.”
This charge is exceedingly humorous. I did not, as a matter of fact, make that claim. How could I make that claim, when my position was that we should criticize the socialist leaders, but mainly on the basis of the issues involved in the particular united front action, whereas the Communist International came out with its advice to the various parties to refrain from criticism? It seems that many party members were of the opinion that my position was endorsed by the Communist International, and to counteract that opinion, the district leaders attributed it to me.
(7) “At the ‘Free Tom Mooney’ Congress, he made a speech in which he held the Communist Party and the Tom Mooney Molders’ Defense Committee responsible for the absence of delegates from the Socialist Party.”
I did not say a word about the Communist Party. In short, my criticism of the method of calling the Congress was that it was called under the auspices of one organization, whereas it should have been called by a provisional committee representing all tendencies in the labor movement. This very idea was advocated by the party about eight weeks before the Congress. I said that the ones who called the Congress thought of the united front tactic as something which permits one organization to invite all other organizations to its affair. One organization decides to have a congress or a hunger-march or what not, and then graciously sends an invitation to all other organizations to join it. I pointed out that the proper way is to make all organizations feel that they are participating in the calling of the united front conference. Had this been done, we would have been able to swing many more Socialist party locals and American Federation of Labor locals away from the reactionary leadership. The criticism was levelled at the Tom Mooney Molders’ Defense Committee and not a word was said about the Communist party.
(1) “Goldman developed a theory ... that there can be no united front of unorganized workers, therefore laying down a Right wing theoretical justification against any activities in the shops where the masses of workers are unorganized.”
A real gem of logic, worthy of the leaders of district eight! How the conclusion follows from the premise is a mystery which only the logicians of district eight can solve.
The statement I made in an article which was not published for one reason or other, but which the district eight bureaucrats misquoted and misinterpreted was that the united front presupposed the existence of organizations differing on fundamental principles, but agreeing to act together on some immediate issue; that the necessary attempts to organize the unorganized workers around some immediate issue would not by any stretch of imagination be considered a united front. Where, then, does the idea that there should be no activities in the shops come from? Ask the leadership of district eight! They will tell you that to invite workers to one of our dances constitutes a united front that when Negro and white workers struggle together, it is a united front; and will probably furnish you with similar examples of their conception of a united front. Can we not, must we not, establish a school where district eight leaders and similar leaders could be compelled to attend classes in the ABC of Communism?
(2) “He also developed a ‘Leftist’ theory against the united front campaign of the Communist party in election campaigns, declaring that in the elections there can be no united front of the workers since the workers already support different political parties ... He sharply opposed the policy of the Workers’ Ticket charging that this is a reformist policy to appeal to the members of the American Federation of Labor and Socialist Party to join with the Communist Party in the election struggles.”
What a jumble of misrepresentations and half-truths! Had the article which I wrote on the subject been published, I could easily refer the reader to it and the whole issue as to what I wrote would be settled. But the article was not published, so that all I can do is to give its leading ideas.
I said in that article that the united front has as its main purpose the involving of large masses of workers of different organizations in a struggle against the capitalist class on the basis of an immediate issue. I further stated that the main purpose of our parliamentary campaign should be the education of the workers in the principles of Communism; that this can best be done if the Communist party has its own candidates and conducts its campaign on its own platform; that a united front for the purpose of electing someone to a capitalist legislature is opportunism. I did not altogether exclude the possibility of a united front on the parliamentary field, but very severely criticized the tactics as pursued in Chicago.
Why then deliberately lie in attributing to me as the reason for my opposition to the united front on the parliamentary field, “since the workers already support different political parties”?
Why give the absolutely false impression that my opposition to the Workers’ Ticket was based on the fact that this is a “reformist policy to the appeal to the members of the American Federation of Labor and Socialist Party, to join with the Communist Party in the election struggles”?
Of course the lies and distortions have only one reason. To discredit with the workers who will never get a chance to read my reply to the slanderous statement.
(3) “He did not participate in any mass activity, and abstained from work in mass organizations, confining his activity to that of a lawyer, appearing in a number of cases in court, and occasionally as a speaker for the ‘Friends of the Soviet Union.’”
I do not of course claim that I did the most important work in the party. I did not organize any party units, nor did I organize any unemployed councils or industrial unions. But the statement above quoted leaves the impression that I handled very few cases and did practically nothing else besides.
For the last four years I have handled hundreds of cases for the International Labor Defense. There were times when I appeared in court every day for weeks and weeks. I spoke at least an average of three times a week, before different branches of various organizations.
I do not say this with any feeling that I did a lot for the movement, but simply to show the dishonesty contained in the above statement of the secretariat.
If freedom of discussion were to exist in the party had I been given an opportunity to talk to the membership on the various problems that I raised in my articles; had two articles which I wrote dealing with the united front on the parliamentary field and with the slogan of amalgamation of the unemployed workers’ organizations been published; had I felt that the district leaders were honestly opposed to me but were willing to permit me to discuss all the vital issues before the membership, I would now feel extremely vexed at myself for my breach of discipline at the Mooney Congress. I do not think that expulsion would have been merited, but I would feel that almost any other punishment would be well deserved. Communist discipline is something that cannot be taken too seriously. But when Communist discipline is used to trap a comrade who has ideas, it assumes a formal and obnoxious character, far removed from the ideas of Communist discipline as taught by Lenin.
Everyone knew I was a delegate to the Mooney Congress, I am quite positive that the fact that I was a delegate reached the ears of the leaders of district eight before the Congress convened. Why was I not invited to the fraction meeting where I should have been given a chance to present my views on the conduct of the Congress and on the advisability of joining the Scottsboro and Mooney issues? On the one hand, I am kept out of the fraction meeting and on the other hand, if I say anything contrary to the decision of the fraction, I violate discipline. “Heads I win – tails you lose!”
Yes, I violated discipline, but under the circumstances expulsion is not justified, and since expulsion was decided upon, it is obvious that the real reason is not my conduct at the Mooney Congress, but the fact that for the past six months or so I have dared to come out with theories of the united front tactic and with an explanation of the German situation not to the liking of the district eight leadership.
I cannot deny that expulsion would be a terrible blow. No real Communist would take expulsion from the party calmly. On the other hand, no real Communist surrenders the most cherished possession of a revolutionist, intellectual honesty and independence and integrity. Party membership and intellectual honesty should never conflict. If there is a conflict, if the party does not permit freedom of discussion within the limits of Communist discipline, if a party member must conceal his views in order to remain in the party, the expulsion is no longer a disgrace, but a badge of honor.
Woe to the party that must resort to repression and expulsion to compel members to agree with the leadership! Has it come to such a stage in the Communist movement? My expulsion indicates that it has The affirmance of the expulsion by the Central Committee of the party will prove conclusively that there is no room for a thinking revolutionist within the party.
Goldman Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 3 January 2016