The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

The growth of Dutch imperialism could be seen in the massive investments in plantations (tea, rubber, coffee,
sugar, and coca) and the oil industry (Shell), and a growing military presence.
In the mid-19 th century, the problem of the radical and workers’ movement’s attitude was posed in an individual
and literary manner by the great author of “Max Havelaar” (1860) and pamphleteer Multatuli – the pseudonym
of Eduard Douwes Dekker (1820-1887) – whose humanist and anarchist positions were to influence generations
of Dutch Marxists. Multatuli – civil servant in Indonesia, dismissed from the government in 1856 after accusing
local kinglets of corruption – denounced colonial exploitation, and raised the slogan: ‘Dutch out’ (“Indië los van
Holland”). His book – famous also in the history of the Dutch literature – contributed to the official abolition of
slavery (1863) and of the forced “culture system” (1870) in Indonesia. In the 1870s, Domela Nieuwenhuis’ SDB
called for colonial independence, and above all the cessation of all colonial wars, in particular the Atjeh (Ace)
war which had just begun. But a real interest in the colonial question, with the adoption of political and
theoretical positions, only appeared with the development of the Marxist movement and the 2 nd International.
In the 2 nd International, the colonial question was closely tied to anti-militarism, since the army was used in
bloody colonial wars against the ‘indigenous’ population. There was no question of a joint struggle by the
proletariat of the colonial and colonised countries against world capital. The colonial question was part of the
‘national question’, and not of the emancipation of all humanity from capitalist rule. This is why the responses
given by the ‘orthodox’ and ‘socialimperialist’ currents in the International were situated on a national terrain:
the Marxists were in favour of the formation of new nations; the revisionists defended their own country’s
colonial policy dressed as a ‘socialist colonial policy’ in the name of the defence of ‘civilisation’.
The great specialist on colonial issues in the SDAP and the 2 nd International was undoubtedly Van Kol, who had
worked as an engineer in Indonesia. At the Paris international congress (1900), he proposed a resolution that
committed the International, not only to struggle by all means possible against the great powers’ colonial
expansion, but also to encourage the formation of socialist parties in the colonies. The resolution was adopted
unanimously. Amongst other things, it contained the idea that the struggle against a parasitic colonialism would
encourage a growth in industrial production in Europe, and hence a more rapid expansion of the proletariat. This
was Kautsky’s position, which was shared by the ‘orthodox Marxists’.
However, the SDAP leadership was soon to reveal a tendency to chauvinism. In 1904, at the Amsterdam
international congress, the same Van Kol proposed a resolution – adopted by the congress – calling on the
socialist parties to “oppose unflinchingly all imperialist or protectionist measures, all colonial expeditions, and
all colonial credits”. The resolution also called for “the tireless denunciation of the acts of oppression of which
the indigenous populations are the victims”, and to “win for them effective measures of protection against
militarist barbarity or capitalist exploitation”. But the Van Kol resolution was contradictory, on the one hand
calling for “the complete emancipation of the colonies”, while on the other demanding “for the indigenous
population the greatest liberty and autonomy compatible with their state of development”. The conclusion tended
towards a ‘progressive colonialism’, calling for “an efficient exploitation of the colonies under parliamentary
control”. Van Kol himself displayed a nationalist and colonialist attitude in declaring that “there will also be
colonies in the socialist state”.
This evolution towards chauvinism by the SDAP and its colonial specialist Van Kol was to appear clearly at the
Stuttgart international congress (1907), where the colonial question was linked to that of the struggle against the
looming threat of war. Once again, Van Kol proposed a resolution to the congress in the name of the Colonial
Commission. It declared that the Social democracy could not condemn all colonial policy “in principle and for
all time”, and that “in a socialist regime” it could be a “work of civilisation”. It was “colonisation as it exists
today” that should be condemned, since it encouraged the “threat of international complications and wars” and
“aggravated the burden on the metropolitan proletariat”; it was necessary to defend the “rights of the oppressed
regardless of race” – rights which would be guaranteed by an international agreement among capitalist
governments... Van Kol thus proposed a contradictory resolution, which repeated the anti-colonialism of the
Paris congress, while at the same time rejecting it in the name of a “positive colonial policy”. It was thus
possible to gain the support of the ‘social-imperialist’ tendency in the German party, represented by Eduard
David. The latter declared that “Europe needs the colonies”, which were “a civilising work”. In his speeches,
48