the Dutch Socialist Party

[Revy]

Fred Bergen recently claimed the Dutch Socialist Party was "anti-immigrant". I am not from the Netherlands so I have little knowledge about socialist left politics there. It doesn't seem to me to be true but anyway I wanted to discuss it.

He of course brought it up because of the fact that the Socialist Party USA's NYC local had some contact with the party, so it was part of his attacks on our party.

[RedScare]

I have no knowledge of Dutch politics, but Q-Collective should be able to clarify this.

[Panda Tse Tung]

It is somehow true, more anti-immigrant then the usual left social-dem party.
One of their official party-documents is specifically very racist. Though i'm not very familiar with it

[Q]

It is somehow true, more anti-immigrant then the usual left social-dem party.
One of their official party-documents is specifically very racist. Though i'm not very familiar with it

I think you're refering to "Gastarbeid & kapitaal", a pamflet writting in the early 1980's when they were still very Maoist. If I remember correctly (it has been a while since I read it) it "analyses" that migrant workers are a problem for the Netherlands and calls for giving migrant workers money to leave the country. While it is no longer to be found on their website (sp.nl (http://sp.nl)) it can still be found by googling around a bit (I don't know if a translation exists). The party never refuted the pamflet, thusly it can be assumed the party still holds these stances.

I wouldn't say that the party is racist though. It is however nationalist and chauvinist. In the European constitution referendum in 2005 for example they played on the mood of people by creating the impression the Netherlands would be "wiped out" by for example this poster:

http://www.sp.nl/nieuws/actie/grondwet/eurokaart_324.jpg

A second example is that before the unions raised the slogan "equal pay for equal work" the SP had the position that Polish migrant workers should be under severe restrictions (like only a few thousand would be able to enter the Netherlands each year) to "protect" jobs for Dutch workers.

A third example is the socalled "passport affair" in which the rightwing Party for Freedom (of which Geert Wilders is the chairman) was making a fuss out of the fact that a Maroccan got to be a minister. The SP was very much silent throughout this matter, because they fear to lose voters if they spoke out against the party of Geert Wilders.

The SP, currently the third party in the Netherlands in both seats in parliament (25 out of 150) and membership (about 50 000 members), has this stance due to two main handicaps:
1. Its lack of a international tradition. The party has its roots in a Maoist split that occured in 1965 when they splitted away from the Stalinist CPN. It never had any international outlook. Only now, due to events, they're looking towards other parties, like Die Linke in Germany and the (Maoist) PvdA from Belgium. But this remains limited to speakers on congresses and conferences really. It furthermore has an arrogant attitude because they are the biggest "new left" party in Europe currently and positions itself as being the "teacher" for other new left parties.
2. Its lack of any form of class analysis. At the end of the 1980's they dropped all references towards "Marxism-Leninism" (read: Stalinism) politically, but with it they also dropped any form of class analysis. As a result they've turned more and more towards populism. Nationalism and chauvinism are a consequence of these political stances (or better: lack thereof).

Despite all this, the SP is currently still the crystallisation point of the left in the Netherlands; everyone who considers him/herself to be on the left, looks almost automatically towards the SP. Furthermore the SP is still an active force in the class struggle, although this has been sharply diminishing over the last few years as they're more and more posing itself as a "respectable" coalition partner for Labour and the Christian-Democrats.

Lots of stuff will happen for the SP in the coming period if the Italian PRC is any indication.

[Wanted Man]

The SP were not "very maoist" in the 1980s, they already started moving away from maoism since Nixon's visit to China. But maybe the maoist influence has something to do with nationalism. The maoist idea that "the third world needs to liberate itself from imperialism" is good in itself, but people who don't fully understand imperialism can easily translate it to "The Netherlands needs to protect itself from foreign influences." Also, not only did they never officially denounce their anti-immigrant document "Guest Labour and Capital". In 2001, Marijnissen (the political leader of the SP at the time) said, during the rise of Pim Fortuyn, that the SP were the first to recognise immigration problems, referring to that pamphlet.

As you correctly say, the SP never appeared to be consistently internationalist, and they are even nationalistic and chauvinistic in some areas. As you pointed out, their anti-EU Constitution flyer appeals to the nationalistic claim that "the Netherlands are going to be swallowed up by the rest of Europe", instead of the reality: "the Netherlands, as an imperialist country, will become even further integrated into the EU's and NATO's imperialist machinery." But a party that has already shamelessly used populistic nationalism would never say something like that.

Their response to the far-right populism of Wilders and others is a mixed bag. They did issue the very useful document "What Wilders wants", which does a good job at exposing his true aims. But it was published in their theoretical journal, they don't seem to seriously campaign against right-populism. Their record in parliament on this matter is poor, IMO. Except for some dissent under Marijnissen, they just allowed Wilders to run away with the theme of immigration and spout his usual soundbytes which the media happily picked up. The previously unpopular left-liberal D66 (Democrats) gained a lot of credit by simply speaking out against Wilders, so an appeal to populism doesn't excuse the SP's silence. There are a lot of people who don't want to dismiss all immigrants or all muslims, and who don't feel comfortable with the rampant neo-conservatism of Wilders, but who are also disillusioned by Labour. There is currently no real alternative for them.

The lack of class analysis is another obvious point. I think someone did once point to an SP program that stated something like "the means of production should be socialised", but the reality is a bit different. I believe they once wrote that they stand for "social-ism": not socialism as a society, but simply a matter of "being social". Which makes for nice social-democratic politics, but not much else.

I'm not sure if I agree with you about the SP being "the crystallisation point for the left". Of course, they have an important position as the official "left-of-Labour" party, and they do draw activists. But I don't think they have as much to say about class struggle as you attribute to them. I get the idea that, at any strike action, they just issue a statement of support and maybe send some people to stand around with "The SP is here" signs. But maybe I'm getting the wrong idea entirely.

As much as I would like to write off the SP entirely, they are indeed still considered the focal point of the left-of-labour left. Many extraparliamentary left organisations work together with them on certain issues. But it's not an optimal situation, obviously. You have to avoid that such actions are only performed to bring further honour and glory to the SP, while extra-parliamentary leftists are doing all the hard work.