The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

It is significant that this conference of internationalist groups – the most important in the immediate aftermath of
the war – had gathered together organisations from both the ‘bordigist’ and council communist currents. This
was the first and also the last attempt at political confrontation in the aftermath of the war. In the 1930s such an
attempt had been impossible first and foremost because of the terrible isolation of these currents and also
because of their divergences on the Spanish question. Essentially the conference of 1947 made it possible to
carry out a demarcation vis-à-vis the trotskyist and anarchist currents on the questions of the war and of antifascism.
In a confused way it translated the common feeling that the context of the cold war was closing a very
short period of two years which had seen the development of new organisations. In the new course, now opening
up, these forces would be dispersed unless they consciously maintained a minimum of political contacts.
This general awareness was lacking at the conference, and it closed without taking any political decisions or
common resolutions. Only the former members of the GIC and Internationalisme declared themselves in favour
of holding further conferences. This project came to nothing because of the departure from the Bond – on
August 3 rd 1947 – of the majority of the ex-GIC members. 1249 Except for Theo Maassen and Jan Appel, who
judged the split unjustified, they considered their divergences too important to be able to stay in the
Communistenbond. In fact the latter had decided to create – artificially – an ‘International Federation of Factory
Nuclei’ (IFBK) in the image of the KAPD’s ‘Betriebsorganisationen’. But the fundamental cause of the split was
the question of militant and organised activity in the workers’ struggles. The ex-members of the GIC were
accused by the militants of the Bond of wanting to transform the organisation into a “circle for theoretical
studies”, and thus of rejecting the immediate workers’ struggles:
“The point of view of these ex-members [of the GIC] was that, while continuing propaganda for ‘production in
the hands of the factory organisations’; ‘all power to the workers’ councils’ and for ‘communist production on
the basis of a price calculation in relation to average working time’, the Spartacusbond would not have to
intervene in the workers’ struggle as it presents itself today. The propaganda of the Spartacusbond had to be pure
in its principles, and, if the masses were not interested today, this would change when the mass movements
become revolutionary again.” 1250
By an irony of history the ex-members of the GIC were repeating the same arguments that the Gorter tendency
(known as the Essen tendency) had used in the 1920s, and against which the GIC itself had been formed in 1927.
Because it defended active intervention in the economic struggle – the position of the Berlin tendency of the
KAPD – it had been able to escape from the rapid process of disintegration that Gorters partisans had undergone.
The latter had either disappeared politically or – as an organisation – had evolved towards trotskyist or
antifascist left socialist positions, to participate finally in the Dutch resistance: Frits Kief, Barend Luteraan
(leader of the ‘Gorter tendency’) went through this trajectory. 1251
In the autumn of 1947 Canne-Meijer, Sijes and their partisans formed the ‘Groep van Radencommunisten’
(Group of council communists), which kept up political activity for some time. In spite of everything they
wanted to maintain international contacts, in particular with Internationalisme. In preparation for a conference
that never took place, they released an International Information and Discussion Bulletin in November 1947, that
was to have just this one issue. 1252 After publishing two or three issues of Radencommunisme, the group
1249 Circular letter of 10 th August 1947: ‘De splijting in de Communistenbond op zondag 3 Augustus 1947’,
quoted by Frits Kool, in: Die Linke gegen die Parteiherrschaft, op. cit., p. 626.
1250 ‘De plaats van Spartacus in de Klassenstrijd’ (Spartacus’ place in the class struggle), in: UEK, special issue, Dec. 1947.
1251 Frits Kief was the secretary of the official KAPN from 1930 to 1932, then with the Korpers founded the group ‘De
Arbeidersraad’, which evolved little by little to trotskyist and anti-fascist position. During the war, Frits Kief took part in the
Dutch resistance, and became a member of the ‘Labour Party’ after the war, to end up as an advocate of ‘Yugoslav
socialism’ in the 50s. Bram Korper and his brother Emmanuel had sustained the RSAP of Sneevliet in the 30s. Barend
Luteraan (1878-1970), whose responsibility in the formation of the KAPN was in fact greater than that of an already sick
Gorter, followed the same itinerary as Frits Kief.
1252 The ‘Groep van Raden-Communisten’ was to have taken care of the technical preparation for this conference (bulletins).
In a letter written in October 1947, Internationalisme made it clear that a future conference could not be organised “on a
basis of mere friendship”, and should reject any “dilettantism” in its discussions.
311