The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

a) The left of the Dutch Communist Party
The attacks on the CPH opposition, after Wijnkoop gave his support to the theses of the 2 nd Congress of the
Komintern, were made more violent by the ‘Wijnkoopist’ leadership. The opposition, although solidly organised
around its organ De Roode Vaan, remained isolated; its supporters were little more than a third of the party, but
it enjoyed a big echo among the workers of the CPH. The sections in the industrial towns of Enschede and
Zwolle were in its hands. The ‘intellectuals’ like Pannekoek himself, and above all Roland Holst a ‘centrist’ by
vocation were very hesitant about conducting a struggle on the side of Luteraan and of the Korpers. Pannekoek
was much more comfortable committing himself from afar with the KAPD against the opportunism of the
Komintern than fighting practically the same opportunism in his own party. 569
For the opposition, after the 2 nd Congress of the Komintern, there was no doubt that Wijnkoop who was called
the Dutch Levi through his “totally personal and despotic” methods was preparing for “the exclusion of all
opposition currents”. 570 They could count on no support from the syndicalist, anarchist NAS, which walked hand
in hand with the CPH. As for the KAPD and Pannekoek, it was out of the question to form an opposition front
with syndicalist revolutionaries, who criticised the politics of Moscow. De Roode Vaan clearly put the NAS and
Wijnkoop on the same level: “With a few exceptions, the trades unionists of all countries adopt the view point of
treason as a principle. They are the adversaries... of the council system, of the dictatorship; they preach an
impotent pacifism in the domain of both internal and external politics.” 571 The common work carried out with
the Social Democrat union of Troelstra, the NVV, heralded a merger with it, all reasons which pushed the
Opposition to combat the NAS.
It was nevertheless the announcement of a merger between the NAS and the NVV, which, for a while, saved the
opposition. At the Congress of the CPH, held in October 1920, the leadership of the party presented a resolution,
following the line taken by the 2 nd Congress of the Komintern, recommending the dissolution of the NAS into
the NVV. A general hue and cry was raised, not only in the NAS but in the CPH. The great majority rose up
against Moscow’s union policy, and against Van Ravesteyn who was its warmest partisan. Wijnkoop made it
seem he wanted to apply the decisions of the 2 nd Congress, but in reality supported all those who, for various
reasons, criticised Russian policy. This is why he allowed the publication – unusually given the absolute and
despotic control which he exercised over De Tribune – of an article by Luteraan against the policy of the
Komintern. Luteraan emphasised “the main error of the 3 rd International which consisted of seeking to reduce all
countries to the Russian denominator”. 572 Attacked by the majority as by the opposition, the resolution was
declared “premature” by the Congress and sent back “for the next Congress”.
Wijnkoop’s tactic of using the opposition was of short duration. Several months later, in April 1921, he was to
dissolve the Enschede section. The latter had written a motion demanding that the two currents in the Party
should be represented at the 3 rd Congress of the Komintern, which was to be held in June. The opposition was
only demanding the application of the most elementary rules of workers’ democracy. In dissolving the Enschede
section, to replace it with another, the Wijnkoop leadership “resolved” in its own way the section’s demand. This
business was the beginning of a veritable witch-hunt of the dissolved Enschede section. Luteraan was excluded
from the CPH in May 1921. Wijnkoop did not stop there. He did not hesitate to heap slanders on the Enschede
militant, G.J. Geers excluded with the 40 members of the section. 573 He was accused of being a German spy,
569 De Roode Vaan, No. 6, Jan. 1920, already accused Henriëtte Roland Holst and not without reason of serving to “put the
brake on the opposition”. Pannekoek for professional reasons contented himself with writing in the theoretical review, De
Nieuwe Tijd, hidden behind pseudonyms such as J. Braak, K. Horner, L. V., Van Loo.
570 De Roode Vaan, No. 1, Sept. 1920, ‘Het congres der CP’.
571 De Roode Vaan, No. 2, Oct. 1920.
572 De Tribune, 22 Oct. 1920, cited in: M.C. Wiessing, Die Holländische Schule des Marxismus. Die Tribunisten, op. cit.
573 De Roode Vaan, No. 6, June 1921, ‘Van Deventer tot Enschede’. G. J. Geers (1893-1965), a Spanish teacher, living in
Enschede, enjoying the total confidence of his comrades, was part of the Central Committee of the KAPN in the early 20s.
After leaving the KAPN, he became hispanolog, professor at the Groningen University. He is known for his book on the
Spanish Renaissance: De Renaissance in Spanje: kultuur, literatuur (Zutphen: Thieme, 1932). After the second world war,
155