The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

precondition for the creation of an organisationally homogeneous structure was lacking. As we shall see later,
there were strong centrifugal tendencies. The libertarian elements brought anti-organisational ideas with them,
while the ex-syndicalists – especially active around Toon van den Berg in Rotterdam – were very activist and
workerist. The latter’s conception was more syndicalist than political. Moreover, the young militants, because of
their political immaturity, were inclined to follow one or other of the two tendencies, especially the former.
Organisationally, the Bond had nothing in common with the old GIC, which saw itself as a federation of working
groups. The Bond was a centralised organisation, and remained one until 1947. Its organisation was made up of
nuclei (Kernen), or total sections of six members, gathered under territorial or urban sections. The five-member
Executive Committee represented the organisation towards the outside, and was responsible to the Bond’s
Congress, the organisation’s supreme instance. As in any revolutionary organisation worthy of the name, the
Bond had elected working organs: a political commission including the editorial board and responsible for
political questions; an organisation commission for ongoing work; a control commission to verify that the
decisions taken were carried out; a financial control commission. In 1945, there were altogether between 21 and
27 people in the central organs.
Membership of the organisation was clearly defined in the statutes drawn up in October 1945. 1196 At the time,
the Bond had a very elevated potion of the organisation, and was extremely cautious in accepting new members,
demanding of them “the discipline of a centralist-democratic party”. 1197 In effect, the Bond was renewing the
tradition of the KAPD.
However, the Bond also took from this tradition some less desirable aspects. While its commissions were
centralised, it was decentralised at the total level. It considered that each “nucleus is autonomous in its own
region”. 1198 The aim of a “decentralisation of work” inevitably contradicted the centralism of the organisation.
Moreover, the Bond carried with it certain conceptions of the organisation which had blossomed in the mass
political organisations of the past. The organisation was still conceived as an organisation of “cadres”, whence
the establishment, decided at the Conference of 21-22 July 1945, of a “school for Marxist cadres”. It was not
wholly unitary. ‘Associations of the Friends of Spartacus’ (VSV) revolved around it. The VSV was in effect an
organisation of young sympathisers, with members between 20 and 25 years of age. Although they had no duties
towards the Bond, they were supposed to take part in its propaganda and contribute financially. Such a vague
distinction between militants and sympathisers added considerably to the centrifugal tendencies within the
organisation.
Another example of the weight of the past can be found in the creation, in August 1945, of a ‘workers’ aid’
organisation (Arbeidershulp). The aim was to create, within the workplace, an organism, or rather an emergency
fund, to give financial help to workers on strike. Running through this was the idea that the Communistenbond
should lead the workers’ struggle, and take the place of their spontaneous efforts at organisation. But the
‘workers’ aid” only had a short life. The discussion on the party, throughout the Bond, allowed it to clarify the
nature and function of the political organisation of revolutionaries.
In fact, ‘Spartacus’ thought that the workers’ struggles that broke out at the end of the war heralded a
revolutionary period, if not in the short term then at least in the future. In April 1945, the conference of the
Spartacusbond proclaimed the necessity of the party, and the temporary nature of its own existence as a national
1196 The Statutes were published in the Bond’s internal bulletin: Uit eigen kring (‘In our circle’), No. 5, Oct. 1945.
1197 Decision of the Conference of 21 st -22 nd July 1945, attended by 21 militants of the Kernen of Leiden, Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, and Hilversum-Bussum. See: Uit eigen kring (UEK), No. 2, August 1945.
1198 “The nucleus is autonomous in its own circle. It leads on the admission or exclusion of its members. The Central
Executive Committee is first consulted on the admission and exclusion of members.” The nucleus’ autonomy was thus
limited in theory, especially since organisational discipline was demanded: “The nuclei are required to observe the decisions
taken by the conference of the Bond, and spread the principles of the Bond, as these are and will be established by the
conferences of the Bond”.
293