The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

groups, each one separate from the other. This might have made sense in a discussion circle, but not in a political
organisation. Nevertheless, this vision of working in small circles was not theorised at first; this only happened
after 1935, and not without encountering severe internal criticism from within the council communist movement
(see Chapter 9).
The result was that each local group wanted to function autonomously in relation to the GIC and in the same
way, by setting up working groups. In the 1930s in Holland, there was thus a whole multitude of local groups
who had their own press independent of the GIC, plus quite a few collections of individuals who refused to call
themselves a group. This was the case for example with the ‘councilist’ group in The Hague. These groups
defended the same political positions, with only minor disagreements (see Chapter 5).
Paradoxically, the GIC only recognised itself as a political fraction in the Esperantist movement, where it formed
its own council communist Esperantist fraction. 676 Thus, the GIC only found expression as a political
organisation in apolitical educational groups.
The GIC’s militants
At first, the nucleus of the group was composed entirely of schoolteachers: Henk Canne-Meijer, Theo Maassen
(1891-1974) and Piet Coerman (1890-1962), a former friend of Gorter in Bussum. Other elements came later on:
either students or workers. The contribution of these last ones, most of them young and without much political
tradition, was proof that the sources of revolutionary militantism had not dried up. The adherence of workers,
which brought some ‘proletarian blood’ to the organisation, also proved that the GIC was far from being a mere
coterie of intellectuals with an academic interest in Marxism.
However, like any small group, the GIC was very much marked by its most visible personalities, which gave
certain coloration to the life of the group.
The soul of the group was really Henk Canne-Meijer. 677 He was a former metal worker who had become a
teacher, as much to gain the free time needed for political activity as from pedagogic vocation. He was the living
proof of the immense theoretical and political capacities within the proletarian movement, the living proof that
political consciousness among the workers had not been brought from the outside by ‘bourgeois intellectuals’ as
Lenin had argued in What Is To be Done? With a mind more theoretical than practical, gifted with clarity and
simplicity, extremely upright, Canne-Meijer had certain of the typical characteristics of the self-educated. An
encyclopaedic spirit led him to engage in the study of biology and psychology. This encyclopaedic spirit, tinged
with pedagogy, had been particularly strong at certain periods of the workers’ movement, especially among the
self-educated. While such traits may not cause great problems in a small discussion circle, the same is not true
for a political organisation. Canne-Meijer, but also a number of members of the GIC, had a strong propensity for
seeing the organisation as a ‘study group’ whose function is to educate its members and the working class. This
propensity, typical of the council communist groups, could have rapidly imprisoned the GIC in pure
academicism. This was counter-balanced by the presence of other elements who were more active and wanted to
intervene in the life of the class struggle. But the GIC as a whole did not at all see itself as a mere circle of
academic studies on Marxism, content to ‘educate’ the working class elements who approached it.
The formation of the small nucleus around Canne-Meijer in 1927 coincided with Pannekoek’s return to political
activity, or at least to a certain form of activity. Having remained silent for six years, he was shaken out of his
676 PIC, No. 13, Sept. 1937, ‘Esperanto als propagandamiddel’.
677 Henk Canne-Meijer (1890-1962) had been part of the NAS – he led in 1917 De jeugdige Werker, organ of the NAS – and
the SDP. At the foundation of the KAPN, he had been on the editorial committee of the paper De Kommunistische Arbeider.
He represented the Berlin tendency within the KAPN. Between 1944 and 1947 he was a member of the Spartacusbond. In
the 1950s he became “a sceptic and withdrew from political activity” [according to an (inaccurate) article by Marc Chirik,
ICC’s leader, in the ICC’s International Review, No. 37, 1984, ‘A lost socialist’]. Netherveless, in the 50s, he was the
mentor of Serge Bricianer, who introduced in France the political thought of Pannekoek.
181