Sjoerd de Groot | Antifascist Former Resistance Fighters Netherlands

I could say a few words on “Ideological struggles against pro-imperialism, pro-NATO revisionism, and opportunism within the Communist movement”, as we have one Communist party and a number of marxist groups in the Netherlands, and they are all liable for lashing criticism on this front, but I’d rather not waste my time pulling on a dead horse, and that is exactly what all socialist groups in the Netherlands are, dead horses. Except the AFVN, of course. What I mean is that all of these groups combined make absolutely no noticeable

political impact.

I’d rather talk about a political phenomenon in our country that is of any interest.

“Contradictions between imperialist warmongers and non-warmongers; the deepening of intra-imperialist conflicts and the general crisis of imperialism” – there are deep currents in our society which oppose the NATO war drive, but do so from a right-wing dissenting perspective. In my opinion, right-wing dissidence is often a correct instinct with wrong conclusions.

Shockingly, the main source of institutional opposition to the NATO war drive comes from the right in the Netherlands. I say this, but I don’t think left and right are very useful labels in the present political landscape. Instead, a class analysis is more informative.

I try to answer two questions: what is the nature of this phenomenon, which is also reflected in other European countries, and how should anti-imperialists and communists deal with this phenomenon?

We must remember that if the situation changes in 24 hours, the tactics must also change in 24 hours, so if the situation changes in 50 years, the tactics must also change in 50 years. During the Cold War, there was a pact between the financial and industrial fractions of capital within the imperialist countries, and they bought class peace with the workers through the fruits of imperialism. However, financialization of the economy has deteriorated economic stability for the masses, disenfranchising the masses from the imperialist system, and at the same time subjugating the interests of industrial capital to those of financial capital.

This is the lens through which to view the rise of right-wing dissent. Please note that this analysis is somewhat diffuse due to the impact of cultural factors and such. The masses, left behind by capitalism and imperialism, become susceptible to politics that deliver systemic criticism. This is no longer coming from left parties, perhaps with some exceptions, since the left in the West has tied itself to liberalism, making them structural defenders of the political order. So who fills this vacuum? We should understand political parties not as families of ideas, but as fronts for representing the interests of classes of groups of society.

The liberals are the loyal servants of financial capital, like Macron, Starmer or Mark Rutte’s VVD, while the conservatives, or the right, rather represent industrial capital and small entrepreneurial capital―think of some fractions within the German CDU, the AfD, the French RN and our Geert Wilders. In the present geopolitical landscape, these latter parties are less enthusiastic supporters of imperialist wars than the liberals.

From a class perspective, this is understandable. Financial capital needs independent states, such as Russia, China, Iran and the DPRK, to be subjugated. Firstly to knock out competition in the field of international investments, particularly in Africa and Latin America, and secondly to give it access to the natural resources and labor of these countries for exploitation.

Industrial capital, on the other hand, is hurt by the present wars. Energy prices are shooting up due to the Western assault on major energy producers, putting industry out of business. Raw materials needed for industry are going up in price with the same result. Important markets are cut off due to economic warfare. Because of these interests, political parties mobilize masses on behalf of industrial capital with a right-wing political agenda.

These masses are susceptible to this because of the deteriorated economic position as a direct result of the imperialist economic and kinetic war. This is the class basis for the dissident right. The resulting contradiction between financial capital on the one hand and industrial capital and the masses on the other hand is deepened further by the revolt in the formerly subjugated countries which refuse to lend themselves to be looted for imperialist profits anymore. This new wave of revolt was kicked off by the start of the Russian SMO and is led spiritually and militarily by Ibrahim Traoré.

Now the second question is how to respond to this contradiction. To be communists, we must be materialists, and to be materialists, we must understand that we do not approach the masses based on the content of their ideas, based on their left-right orientation, but based on their material interests in relation to imperialism. Some leftists within the west disagree with this. Those groups might place themselves in the same camp as us, but they oppose the masses and are therefore our enemies.

Some other leftists agree that the masses should be approached, but their political

representatives on the right should at the same time be fought politically. This is wrong. Firstly, to gain credibility in the eyes of the popular base of the dissident right, we must show ourselves willing to dialogue with their political leaders when we agree.

Additionally, some trotskyists describe this issue through the lens of the three way fight, meaning we should oppose both the liberals and the right. However, the issue of imperialism and opposition to imperialism, regardless of whether this is ideological or not, is clearly a contradiction, and each contradiction only has two sides, not three.

Like Mao noted, whenever a country is subjugated by imperialism, this becomes the primary contradiction. Based on this understanding, the CPC sought cooperation with the KMT to fight Japanese imperialism. Based on this principle, the USSR supported the Emir of Afghanistan in their struggle against British imperialism. Based on this understanding, we should support the Russian military action against Western imperialism. Based on this understanding, we should support the right whenever it falls on the correct side of the contradiction concerning imperialism.

If we fail to do this, if we instead opt to always fight both the liberals and the right, we are fighting against both those who support imperialism and those who oppose it. In practice, this favors the camp that is the strongest politically, in other words, the liberal order. In other words, to pursue this strategic orientation would mean to reduce ourselves to the political foot soldiers of imperialism.

Instead, we should enter strategic alliances with those on the correct side of the primary contradiction, and if, after this contradiction is resolved, these political forces fall on the wrong side of the new primary contradiction, we’ll fight them when we get there. It is a victory if we can stop the flow of arms to Ukraine and the Zionist entity, even with the support of the right, and it is a loss if we fail to do so because we reflexively dismiss the right.

Through this correct strategic orientation, we can gain the support of the masses in Europe; only by speaking to the masses that follow the dissident right can we deepen their understanding and move their support from those that temporarily oppose imperialist war due to their current interests, to those who oppose imperialist war based on a consistent world view of anti-imperialism.