The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

On these questions, the Dutch left did not go to the root of the trade union problem. It was a question of
establishing whether the “decline of capitalism” proclaimed by the 3 rd International meant that durable reforms
were no longer possible, whether the kind of gains won by the reformist unions in the 19 th century were still
possible after the war. If this were the case, then purely economic and defensive workers’ organs would be
emptied of their class aims and, under the pressure of the state, be led into class collaboration. At best, they
would disappear, like the Unionen (see below). The essential problem was seeing whether permanent defensive
organs were still possible. In fact it was much later on that the German-Dutch left was to reject the possibility of
forming any permanent economic organs (see below).
The rejection of ‘revolutionary parliamentarism’
Unlike Bordiga’s current, the Dutch Left had for a long time considered the question of participation in elections
as a secondary one. This is why it made a rather unconvincing distinction between a “material” bourgeois power
incarnated in the unions and a ‘spiritual’ bourgeois power incarnated in parliament. However, it did define
parliamentarism as an active material force, a counter-revolutionary force that was a real barrier to class
consciousness. In any case, in the Marxist definition, ideology appears as a material force.
In fact, electoral illusions are a pernicious poison for the working class. 510 They tie it to reformism and keep it
tied to the parliamentary leaders who have “led them into war, into the alliance with capitalism”. They paralyse
revolutionary activity and encourage passivity: “As such, parliamentary activity is the paradigm of struggles in
which only the leaders are actively involved and in which the masses themselves play a subordinate role. It
consists in individual deputies carrying on the main battle; this is bound to arouse the illusion among the masses
that others can do their fighting for them. People used to believe that leaders could obtain important reforms for
the workers in parliament; and the illusion even arose that parliamentarians could carry out the transformation to
socialism by acts of parliament... Parliamentarianism inevitably tends to inhibit the autonomous activity by the
masses that is necessary for revolution... thus, so long as the working class thinks it sees an easier way out
through others acting on its behalf leading agitation from a high platform, taking decisions, giving signals for
action, making laws – the old habits of thought and the old weaknesses will make it hesitate and remain
passive” 511
It followed that ‘revolutionary’ action by parliamentary deputies, even communist ones, had become impossible.
The days of a Liebknecht or a Höglund (in Sweden) who could use the parliamentary tribune were definitively
over. Before and during the war, and thus before the revolution, these two models of “revolutionary
parliamentarism” could exercise a “great influence”; but since the Russian revolution, their action “had had no
effect”. Even if the proletariat were to send more Liebknechts to parliament instead of the likes of Levi and
Wijnkoop the result would be negative: “a large part of the masses would be satisfied with their speeches and
thus their presence in parliament would have a damaging effect”. 512
However, on this point, the German-Dutch left did not touch on the real problem of the function of
parliamentarism since the war. The war had demonstrated that the centre of political gravity had moved from
parliament to the government, which could place itself above the clash of bourgeois interests and become the
510 The same argumentation can be found in Bordiga’s Theses on Parliamentarism: “...democracy constitutes a means of
indirect defence of the capitalist state by spreading throughout the masses the illusion that they can realise their
emancipation through a peaceful process and that the proletarian state can also take a parliamentary form, with rights of
representation for the bourgeois minority. The result of this democratic influence over the proletarian masses has been the
corruption of the socialist movement in the Second International in the domain of theory as well as in the domain of action”.
This similarity between the position of the Italian and Dutch-German lefts was denied later on by the bordigists in a
particularly sectarian way: “...the Marxist left and the KAPD met up over abstentionism, but only as on the field of battle,
like two opposed armies” (Programme communiste, No. 53-54, ‘Gorter, Lénine et la Gauche’, Paris, Oct. 1971-March
1972).
511 A. Pannekoek, ‘World Revolution and Communist Tactics’, translated by D.A. Smart (Pannekoek and Gorter’s Marxism
(London: Pluto Press, 1978).
512 H. Gorter, ibid.
141