The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

carried out by the SDP – in the form of an open letter written by Gorter and addressed to the Congress, which
was never even aware of its existence – was not unconnected to this reaction. 116
The SDP’s activity was not limited to criticising the SDAP. It was essentially grounded in the class struggle, in
economic struggles and in action against war.
The international resurgence of class struggles after 1910 encouraged the party’s activity, giving it enthusiasm
and confidence. Its militants took part, with those of the NAS in the 1909 and 1910 struggles of the Amsterdam
masons who distrusted the SDAP as a ‘state party’. In 1911, the party formed with the NAS an ‘Agitation
Committee against High Costs of Living’. Thus began a long joint activity with the revolutionary syndicalists,
which helped the SDP develop its influence in the Dutch proletariat before and during the war. This joint activity
had the consequence of progressively reducing the weight of anarchist elements within the small union and of
developing an openness to revolutionary Marxist positions.
One major event was to increase the audience of both the SDP and the NAS within the Dutch proletariat: the
international sailors’ strike of 1911. On 14 th June 1911, the sailors of Britain, Belgium, and Holland – joined
later by the Americans – came out on strike, with the support of the International Transport Workers’ Federation
(ITWF) based in London. It was one of the first attempts at a general strike in an international sector of the
proletariat. But many of the national organisations took no part in the strike, despite its success in some countries
like Britain and Belgium. In Holland, the strike revealed the profound split within the workers’ movement. The
NVV union, attached to the SDAP, called a strike in Rotterdam, but without trying to extend it to other ports or
other branches of industry such as the transport workers, or the dockers who were ready to come out. The strike
in Rotterdam was fairly successful. In Amsterdam, however, it was less so. The NAS – affiliated to the
International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF in Dutch) – conducted a very combative strike, and won the
active solidarity of the dockers, who came out in support. But the government, at the request of the ship-owners,
ordered the occupation of the port by the police and the army, leading to bloody confrontations with the strikers.
The NVV chose this moment to call for a return to work, and on 9 th August the sailors were forced to go back,
isolated and defeated. Responsibility for the defeat was laid at the door of the NVV and the SDAP, which had
refused any financial support to those strikers who followed the NAS. Of the unions affiliated to the NVV, only
the confederation of rail and tramway personnel (the NVSTP), led by Sneevliet, gave any support to the sailors.
Sneevliet and Roland Holst denounced the policy of Troelstra and the NVV. In 1912, they both left the SDAP.
However, whereas Sneevliet briefly joined the SDP, Roland Holst withdrew from organised political activity. 117
The SDP’s active participation, with the NAS, in this wave of class struggle, increased its audience in the Dutch
proletariat. The class struggle was growing: the percentage of wild strikes before 1914 was very high: 45%.
‘portefeuilles question’ appears in his own Memories: Gedenkschriften. III. ‘Branding’, Amsterdam, 1932, pp. 211 and
following.
116 H. de Liagre Böhl, op. cit., p. 113.
117 Henriëtte Roland Holst condemned the SDAP’s ‘treason’ during the July 1911 strike of the sailors and dockers. She told
Sneevliet of her intention to leave the SDAP, without joining the SDP. Sneevliet was in Berlin, and passed on the news to
Rosa Luxemburg, whose answer to Roland Holst condenses her whole vision of the necessity for organisation within the left
marxist movement. After condemning Roland Holst’s attitude in 1909, when she left the Tribunists isolated (“you know that
I was strongly opposed to your remaining in the party while the others left”), and the split, she added that Roland Holst
should either remain in the SDAP or join the SDP, but never leave the organised workers’ movement: “I thought, and still
think, that you should all regroup either inside or outside: it is damaging for the Marxists to be dispersed (which does not
mean that differences of view cannot exist). But now that you want to leave the party, I should do everything I can to
dissuade you. You say that you do not want to join the SDP. Whether this be right or wrong, I cannot judge. But enough!
You will not and cannot join the SDP. In that case, your leaving the SDAP would mean leaving the social-democratic
movement! That, you cannot do. None of us can! We cannot be outside the organisation, without any contact with the
masses. The worst workers’ party is better than no party at all. And things can certainly change. In a few years, a period of
upheaval may sweep away the opportunist dung-heap. But we cannot wait for that period outside; we must continue the
struggle to the limit, however sterile it may seem” [quoted in H. Roland Holst, Rosa Luxemburg, Haar leven en werken,
(Rotterdam: WL & J. Brusse, 1935), pp. 314-315]. The R. Luxemburg’s letter is dated 11 August, 1911.
46