The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

The resolution adopted by the conference was written by Fraina. It replaced one written by Wijnkoop, which was
too vague, and avoided the questions of communist unity and the split with the 2 nd International. Fraina put
forward the necessity of separating not only from the social-patriots, but also from the “opportunists”, in other
words the current that wavered between the 2 nd and 3 rd Internationals. This position was identical to Bordiga’s. 442
It was symptomatic that the resolution in favour of a split with a view to forming the communist party, and
against the “supposed possibility that the new British communist party could be tied to the Labour Party” – in
Pankhurst’s words 443 – should be rejected by the delegates of the BSP and by one Dutch delegate (Willem van
Leuven). As such, the resolution seemed to apply equally to the Labour Party and the USPD.
In fact, the Amsterdam Bureau became the centre of the left opposition in the 3 rd International, with executive
power since it demanded that the Berlin Secretariat, which was in the hands of the right, should confine itself to
East European business. The American sub-bureau 444 , which was in the charge of Fraina’s CP of America, could
have become a centre for left propaganda throughout the American continent. Faced with this danger, and just as
the Bureau hailed the formation of the KAPD in Germany, the Komintern decided on 4 th May 1920, to dissolve
the Bureau by radio message from Moscow. The centre of opposition henceforth moved to Germany, putting an
end to any inclination towards opposition on the part of Wijnkoop and the CPH majority.
The KAPD and the Dutch minority of the CPN
The minority of the CPH hailed the KAPD’s foundation at its Congress (4 th /5 th April 1920) with enthusiasm. 445 It
published a translation of the KAPD’s programme in its organ, De Roode Vaan. It became the KAPD’s voice in
the CPH against the Wijnkoop leadership, which contented itself with publishing the KPD’s positions against the
‘Linksradikale’. 446
Henceforth, under the leadership of Luteraan, Bernard Verduin, Bram and Emmanuel Korper 447 , the minority
formed a structured opposition, openly defending anti-union and anti-parliamentary positions – the former
directed largely against the NAS. 448 Wijnkoop could fairly consider the minority as “a Dutch KAP tendency”
and after the Komintern’s 2 nd Congress, he fought it with every means at his command (see below).
Whereas the Dutch could continue the struggle within the party, the leadership of the German opposition found
itself in a quite different position. Against the advice of Rühle, Wolffheim, and Laufenberg, they refused to
consider the formation of another party, and demanded, as the majority of the old party, the readmission into the
KPD (Spartakus) of those who had been excluded. However, the KPD (Spartakus) Congress of February 1920
refused any readmission. The KAPDs formation was precipitated by the events that accompanied the Kapp
Putsch. Levi and Brandler’s party declared that it would not attack the Social-Democrat government, but on the
contrary would support it:
442 In Italy, the ‘centrist’ tendency, fought by Bordiga, was represented by the maximalist current of Giacinto Serrati (1874-
1926).
443 P. Broué, op. cit., p. 384.
444 The sub-bureau became after the 2 nd congress the Pan-American Bureau of the Komintern. Installed in Mexico City, it
was composed of the Japanese Sen Katayama (1860-1933), Luis Fraina and the North-American, Richard (Charles) Philipps
(1895-1985), using various Spanish pseudonyms (Manuel, Gomez, Jesus Ramirez), who died in Moscow.
445 The proceedings of the KAPD’s founding congress have been republished: ‘Bericht über den Gründungsparteitag des
KAPD am 4. und 5. April in Berlin’, with an introduction by H.M. Bock in: Jahrbuch Arbeiterbewegung 5, Frankfurt/Main,
1977.
446 De Tribune of 8 th May 1920 supported the KPD. De Roode Vaan, Nos. 11 and 12 (June/July) published the KAPD’s
programme.
447 Abraham (Bram) Korper was to become one of the leaders of the KAPN.
448 The NAS had a transport federation, led by Sneevliet, who was on the right of the CPH and strongly syndicalist. The
anarcho-syndicalist NAS, with its sympathies for Wijnkoop, was a particular object of dislike for De Roode Vaan, ever
since September 1919 when it banned all discussion on parliamentarism and union (See: De Roode Vaan, No. 2, Sept.
1919).
126