Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T06:25:46.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marxism, Socialism, and the Dutch Primary Schools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Erik Hansen
Erik Hansen*
Affiliation:
Union College, Schenectady, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1962, 26% of the elementary school pupils in the Netherlands attended a public school, 74% were in private or confessional schools. This has not always been the case. At the turn of the century 69% of all elementary school students were in public schools and 31% in private or confessional schools. One of the great turning points in this confessionalizing trend was the constitutional revision of 1917 which placed confessional elementary schools on a parity with the public schools in terms of state subsidy. The parliament which carried out constitutional revision was elected in 1913 and embodied 46 deputies in the clerical bloc, 38 in the liberal concentration and 16 social democrats, in the 100 seat lower house. The measure owed its passage to the social democrats who combined with the clerical bloc and some left-liberals to legislate a new school law. In 1902 the Sociaal Democratische Arbeiderspartij (SDAP), the recognized Dutch representative of the social democratic Second International, passed a resolution calling for state subsidy to confessional schools. Within the context of Dutch politics the 1902 resolution is important for two reasons. One, it laid down the guideline which the SDAP would follow until the dissolution of the party by German occupation authorities in 1940. After the Second World War a labor party, the Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA) was formed out of the ashes of the SDAP. The PvdA, acting as the logical successor of the SDAP, pursued, and continues to pursue, the policy of supporting state aid to confessional schools. In short, the labor community has aided in the confessionalizing trend by refusing to demand either a termination of aid to confessional schools or free compulsory state schools and a sharp, or total, curtailment of the existing confessional schools.

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , Winter 1973 , pp. 367 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 by New York University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See van Welderen, W. J. baron Rengers, Schets eener Parlementaire Geschiedenis van Nederland, Vol. IV: Nederland 1914–1918, by Vermeulen, W. H. Dr. (5 vols., 4th ed.; 's-Gravenhage. 1948–1956), pp. 142–185, for a brief survey of the politics of constitutional reform in 1917. The author would like to express his appreciation to his friend and colleague Professor David Potts and to Professor Val Lorwin of the University of Oregon, for their advice and criticism in the preparation of this essay.Google Scholar

2. The position of the BWP over and against both the Belgian regime and the Liberal and Catholic parties is succinctly stated in Haegendoren, Mieke Claeys-Van, 25 jaar Belgisch Socialisme. Evolutie van de verhouding van de Belgische Werkliedenpartij tot de parlementaire democratie in België van 1914 tot 1940 (Antwerp, 1967), pp. 34–40.Google Scholar

3. The school question was of such importance that it has been handled to one degree or another by virtually every survey of nineteenth century Dutch history. There is, however, no scholarly study of the school question per se. Google Scholar

4. Brugmans, H., gen. ed., Geschiedenis van Nederland, Vol. VII: Nieuwste Geschiedenis, by Verberne, L. G. J. (8 vols., Amsterdam 1935–1938), pp. 229–232.Google Scholar

5. Brugmans, H., Geschiedenis Vol. VIII: Nieuwste Geschiedenis by Verberne, L. G. J., pp. 214–219.Google Scholar

6. Ibid., pp. 250–254.Google Scholar

7. Lijphart, Arend, Verzuiling pacificate en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek (Amsterdam, 1968) pp. 101–104.Google Scholar

8. Ibid., pp. 108–109.Google Scholar

9. A scholarly, synthetic history of the S.D.A.P. remains to be written. The Marxist theorist and former party member, Sam de Wolff, offers a brief popular account in his essay, En Toch …! Driekwart eeuw socialisme in vogelvlucht (Amsterdam, 1951). Van Hulst, H., Pleysier, A., and Scheffer, A., Het roode vaandel volgen wij: Geschiedenis van de S.D.A.P. van 1880–1940 ('s-Gravenhage. 1969), present a brief summary of the SDAP's formative years in their recent popularization. Certainly the richest single source bearing on the formation and early history of the SDAP is Vliegen, W.H., Die Onze kracht ontwaken deed (3 vols., Amsterdam, 1924–1938).Google Scholar

10. The process whereby the SDAP evolved out of this split within the SDB is examined in great detail in Wansink, D.J., Het Socialisme op de Tweesprong: De Geboorte van de S.D.A.P. (Haarlem, 1939).Google Scholar

11. Lijphart, Arend, Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek (Amsterdam, 1968), p. 104.Google Scholar

12. Vliegen, , Die Onze, I, p. 427.Google Scholar

13. The importance of the northern provinces, and particularly Friesland, in the formation of the SDAP cadre is examined by van der Wal, T. in his doctoral dissertation, Op zoek naar een nieuwe vrijheid. Een kwart eeuw arbeidersbeweging in Friesland, 1870–1895 (Leyden: Universitaire Pers Leiden, 1972). For a discussion of Troelstra within this context see Mellink, A. F., “Het politiek debuut van Mr. P. J. Troelstra, 1891–1897,” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis (1970): 38–58.Google Scholar

14. Jan, and Romein, Annie, Erflaters van onze besschaving. Nederlandse gestalten uit zes eeuwen (9th ed.; Amsterdam, 1971), pp. 747–770, contains a biographical portrait of Kuyper accenting the klein burger nature of the AR movement.Google Scholar

15. Vliegen, , Die Onze, I, pp. 424–432, contains a detailed analysis of the 1901 election. Quite naturally, the election is viewed from the vantage point of the SDAP.Google Scholar

16. Verslag van het achtste congres der Socialdemocratische Arbeiderspartij op 30 en 31 Maart 1902 te Groningen (Amsterdam, 1902), p. 35.Google Scholar

17. de Vrankrijker, A.C.J., Het wervende woord: Geschiedenis der socialistische week-en dagbladpers in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1950), p. 249.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., p. 249.Google Scholar

19. See de Jong, Frits, Edz., J. Saks, Literator en Marxist: Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het Marxisme in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1954), for a superior discussion of the Nieuwe Tijd group centering on Pieter Wiedijk.Google Scholar

20. For two excellent introductions to this particular facet of Dutch social history see, Goudsblom, Johan, Dutch Society (New York, 1967), and Lijphart, Arend, The Politics of Accommodation; Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley, 1968). The Lijphart study is also available in Dutch, , Verzuiling, pacificate en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek (Amsterdam, 1968). For an introduction to the Dutch political system in historical perspective, see Daalder, Hans, “The Netherlands: Opposition in a Segmented Society,” in Dahl, Robert (ed.), Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, 1966), pp. 188–236. The best summary treatment in English of the zuilen with the context of the contemporary era is Val Lorwin's essay, “Segmented Pluralism: Ideological Cleavages and Political Cohesion in the Smaller European Democracies,” Comparative Politics (1971): 141–175. The zuilen structure was still in a formative stage in the late nineteenth-century. It crystallized between the two world wars and reached a peak after the Second World War. The concept of a zuil Lorwin dates from the inter-war era. Before the First World Dar, Dutch social critics usually used the terms volksgroepen or stand .Google Scholar

21. Den Hollander, A.N.J., et al. (eds.), Drift en Koers: Een halve eeuw sociale verandering in Nederland (Assen., 1968), embodies a series of essays which treats various themes in Dutch society in a historical perspective. Of special interest is Kruijt, J. P. and Goddijn, Walter “Verzuiling en Ontzuiling als Sociologisch process,” pp. 227–263. The question receives comprehensive treatment in Kruijt, J. P., Verzuiling (Zaandijk, 1959).Google Scholar

22. Goudsblom, Johan, Dutch Society, pp. 94–104.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., p. 103.Google Scholar

24. Vliegen, , Die Onze, I, p. 443.Google Scholar

25. de Wolff, Sam, En Toch …! pp. 122–123.Google Scholar

26. Troelstra, P. J., Gedenkschriften (4 vols., Amsterdam, 1928–1931), II, p. 251.Google Scholar

27. The primary and memoire sources bearing on the agrarian debate are too extensive to cite within the context of this essay. For a handy summary of the issues, see Harmsen, Ger Historisch Overzicht van Socialisme en Arbeidersbeweging in Nederland. Vol. I. Van de begintijd tot het uitbreken van de eerste wereldoorlog (Nijmegen, n.d.), pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

28. De Kroniek published a three article series by Frank van der Goes and an essay by Anton Pannekoek bearing on school policy in the issues of March 23, 1901, March 30, 1901, April 6, 1901, and April 27, 1901.Google Scholar

29. For an extensive treatment of the journal see Thys, Walter, De Kroniek van P.L. Tak: brandpunt van Nederlandse cultuur in de jaren negentig van de vorige eeuw (Ghent., 1955).Google Scholar

30. Vliegen, , Die Onze, I, pp. 87–93.Google Scholar

31. See especially the articles by van der Goes, Frank, “De Schoolkwestie,” De Kroniek, March 23, 1901, March 30, 1901, and April 6, 1901. Unfortunately, this fascinating man still awaits a biographer. A doctoral dissertation dealing with van der Goes is now underway by a student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen under the direction of Professor E. H. Kossmann.Google Scholar

32. A full biography of Pannekoek has yet to be written. Brendel, Cajo, Anton Pannekoek: Theoretikus van het Socialisme (Nijmegen, 1970), presents a highly sympathetic analysis of Pannekoek as a theoretician; however, his study is by no means a biography nor does Brendel deal with the earlier years of Pannekoek's career. For a very brief estimate of Pannekoek and his initial years in the SDAP see the highly personal and subjective judgments of van Ravesteyn, W., De wording van het communisme in Nederland, 1907–1925 (Amsterdam., 1948), pp. 26–27. Until 1920 van Ravesteyn and Pannekoek were political associates.Google Scholar

33. Pannekoek, Anton, “De School,” De Kroniek, April 27, 1901.Google Scholar

34. Vliegen, , Die Onze, I, p. 444.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., p. 445. For a series of brief accounts of the school fight within the SDAP, see the following: Troelstra, P.J., Inzake Partijleiding (Rotterdam, 1906), pp. 22–36; Vliegen, W.H. Die onze kracht ontwaken deed: Geschiedenis der Sociaal-democratische Arbeiderspartij in Nederland gedurende de eerste 25 jaren van haar bestaan (3 vols., Amsterdam, 1923–1938), I, pp. 443–480; Troelstra, P.J., Gedenkschriften (4 vols., Amsterdam, 1928–1931), II, pp. 251–258; van Ravesteyn, William, De wording van het communisme in Nederland, 1907–1925 (Amsterdam, 1948), pp. 27–33; de Wolff, Sam, En Toch…!, pp. 122–126.Google Scholar

36. Like so many of the figures in the Dutch social democratic movement, Ceton lacks a biographer. His career is best traced through the pages of van Ravesteyn, W., De wording … 1907–1925. Google Scholar

37. The minutes of the Utrecht conference were published in Het Volk , December 28, 1901.Google Scholar

38. Ibid. Google Scholar

39. Ibid. Google Scholar

40. Ibid. Google Scholar

41. Ibid. Google Scholar

42. Ibid. Google Scholar

43. When the SDOV conference opened, the chairman indicated that SDOV membership stood at 153, Ibid. Google Scholar

44. This judgment appears frequently in the literature of the era. For an attempt to place Troelstra within this bloc see van Ravesteyn, W., De-wording … 1907–1925 p. 35.Google Scholar

45. Ceton advanced this argument quite frequently in the pages of Het Volk. His most thorough formulation of this point appeared in a two-part article in Nieuwe Tijd , “Vrije School of verplichte Staatsschool,” (January, 1902): 37–51, and (February, 1902): 109–121.Google Scholar

46. Troelstra, P.J. commentary on Ceton, J.C. letter to the editor, in second section, Het Volk, January 21, 1902.Google Scholar

47. Troelstra, P.J., “Marx en Engels en de verplichte Staatsschool,” Het Volk, February 11, 1902. Quoting from Marx's, “Critique of the Gotha Program,” published by Friedrich Engels in Neue Zeit (1890–1891), Troelstra attempted to demonstrate that both Marx and Engels opposed the compulsory state school. This allowed critics of Troelstra to argue that Marx and Engels also opposed subsidy to confessional schools which was exactly what Troelstra was proposing.Google Scholar

48. Troelstra, P.J., “Spelen met vuur,” Het Volk, January 26, 1902. See also Ceton's protest letter, Het Volk, January 31, 1902.Google Scholar

49. See especially the editorial by Troelstra, , “De motie der S.D.O.V.,” Het Volk, February 12, 1902.Google Scholar

50. Troelstra, P.J., Inzake Partijleiding (Rotterdam, 1906), pp. 22–36.Google Scholar

51. Ceton, J.C., “Vrije School of verplichte Staatsschool,” Nieuwe Tijd, (January, 1902): 37–51, and Ceton, J.C., “Vrije School of verplichte Staatsschool,” Nieuwe Tijd (February, 1902): 109–121.Google Scholar

52. Both are quoted in Troelstra, P.J., Inzake Partijleiding (Rotterdam, 1906), p. 29.Google Scholar

53. Verslaq van het achtste congres der Sociaaldemocratische Arbeiderspartij op 30 en 31 Maart 1902 te Groningen (Amsterdam, 1902), pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

54. Gorter, Herman, letter to the editor Het Volk, March 9, 1902. The letter was provoked by a Troelstra editorial, “Een schijnbeweging” Het Volk, March 8, 1902; Troelstra replied to the Gorter letter in an editorial, “Zuiver,” Het Volk, March 11, 1902.Google Scholar

55. See Troelstra, P.J., “Twee Moties,” Het Volk, January 28, 1902, for a critique of the Gerhard position.Google Scholar

56. Ibid. Google Scholar

57. “De Vrije School,” Het Volk, March 6, 1902, embodies a reportage of the closing Bijkerk-Troelstra debate.Google Scholar

58. See, for example, the Troelstra editorial, “Spelen met vuur,” Het Volk, January 26, 1902, in the course of which Vliegen is raked over the coals on just this point.Google Scholar

59. Verslaq, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

60. Ibid, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

61. Ibid., p. 8.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

63. Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar

64. Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar

65. Ibid., p. 8.Google Scholar

66. Ibid., p. 8.Google Scholar

67. Ibid., pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

68. Ibid., p. 12.Google Scholar

69. Ibid., p. 15.Google Scholar

70. Ibid., p. 15.Google Scholar

71. Ibid., p. 15.Google Scholar

72. Ibid., p. 19.Google Scholar

73. Ibid., p. 20.Google Scholar

74. Ibid., p. 21.Google Scholar

75. Ibid., pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

76. Hoist, H. Roland, “Beginsel en Praktijk,” Nieuwe Tijd (March, 1902): 195–209; and Saks, J. [Wiedijk, P.], “Naar rechts of naar links?” Nieuwe Tijd (March/1902): 210–228.Google Scholar

77. Troelstra, P. J., Inzake Partijleiding (Rotterdam, 1906), pp. 34–36. The text of Troelstra's letter is reproduced on these pages.Google Scholar

78. Ibid., p. 34.Google Scholar

79. Schaper, J.H., “Het begint weer!” Het Volk, March 19, 1902.Google Scholar

80. See, for example, Saks, J. [Wiedijk, P.], “Tot afweer,” Het Volk, March 26, 1902; Gorter, Herman, “Ingezonden” [letter to the ediotr], Het Volk, March 29, 1902; and Schaper's reply, “Tot repliek,” Het Volk, March 28, 1902.Google Scholar

81. The SDAP delegates to the annual party congress were selected in the sections, however, little is known about the sections. As late as 1902, the SDAP commissioned the Socialist Reading Club at the University of Amsterdam to survey the sections and establish an accurate membership list. The SDAP at the grass roots during these formative years would be an attractive doctoral dissertation subject for a Dutch student. Little is known about the social composition of the party membership during this phase in its development.Google Scholar

82. Despite the Groningen resolution broad sectors of the Roman Catholic and Calvinist labor force remained in their confessional zuil. Perhaps the school resolution did not make that much difference. However, between 1894 and 1910 it undoubtedly attracted some party members from the margins of the northern, rural, klein burger, core of the calvinist community. This added support, though modest in absolute terms was important to the SDAP.Google Scholar