Talk:Socialist Party (Netherlands)

Introduction

The introduction is very bad. It uses too much abbreviations and some are not even explain (what is KEN(ml))?

It is explained, it means Communist Unity Movement of the Netherlands (marxist-leninist). I'll try to rework it further, and make a nice history paragraph. Qwertyus 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Qwertyus, I've been working on a radical revision of this article, giving the article the same structure as the GroenLinks article. So please wait until I've made that revision (which I will make before this afternoon), so I won't overlook your changes. Thanks! C mon 07:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I can see were you got your inspiration ;) Qwertyus 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to other parties

Qwertyus, I see you have removed the international comparison-text I added. I would have hoped that you would have first discussed it. I intend to add this paragraph to each of the current political parties. For some-one who does not know the Dutch political system and only knows two party systems the SP, but also the GroenLinks or the ChristenUnie, is a really strange party. That's why I thought it to be useful to add such a comparison: so that an American or an Englishman can understand what the SP is all about, by analogy. Furthermore I think it is important to stress that similar parties have and are developing in different countries. For instance the PvdA is a social-democratic party. But what kind of social-democratic party? It is not like the french PS, but more like New Labour. But it was late last night, and I probably made a mistake linking the SP to PCF. Although both parties are member of the UEL. I should have added that the SP is similar to WASG/PDS in Germany, that would have made more sense. Please explain why you removed the section, so we can come to some consensus. C mon 09:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a good idea, but I wish you'd have given arguments for your comparison. Examples of international cooperation, shared ideological ideas, etc.

Let me help you out: with some regularity, articles about the German PDS appear in the Tribune and the cadre magazine Spanning. WASG is hardly ever mentioned. Hugo Chavez and Lula da Silva are considered ideological "friends", though I'm not sure how official the support for these people, their parties and their governments is. It's certainly not unconditional. Qwertyus 09:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Maoist?

If this party was formed as a "Maoist" movement, how come it was specifically named itself as "Marxist-Leninist"?

'"The Socialist Party was founded in October 1971 as a Maoist party named 'Communist Party of the Netherlands/Marxist-Leninist' (Dutch: Kommunistiese Partij Nederland/Marxisties-Leninisties, KPN/ML)."'

I know that one is based on the other, but it just seems counter-intuitive that this could be the case. I think further clarification, at least, is needed. 131.111.144.99 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This was the normal practice in anti-revisionist movements. To distinguish themselves from the pro-Moscow Communists while asserting a claim to be the true continuation, and in some cases being founded by a split from the pro-Moscow party. 'Maoist' was more a term that outsiders used.

Thus in the Republic of India, there is a Communist Party of India and a Communist Party of India (Marxist), both national parties with seats in Parliament. Also a Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) which went for armed uprisings. This still continue though the party has fragmented into many portions, including a Communist Party of India (Maoist). --GwydionM 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"After 1994" sentence structure proposal

This suggestions is entirely related to language and in no way a comment on the content of the article.

Can the following sentence, "In 1999 it one member was elected into the European Parliament,"

be edited to,

"In 1999 one of its members was elected into the European Parliament."

without altering the intended meaning?

Thank you for your kindness,

- Rockthing 05:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

International organisations

This section need to be expanded in the sense of adding the reasons why the SP has chosen not to be a member neither of the Party of the European Left nor the Nordic Green Left Alliance. I am very curious why is that, so has anyone the answer? (Zdravko mk 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Honestly I don't know and I don't think these negatives can be answered. It's not like the SP has got a section on their site "why were aren't member of ....". What I think might play a role is that the party is Maoist in origin and there are no other Maoist parties in the world with parliamentary representation, (excluded the CP of the PRC). C mon 13:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of non-affiliation of the SP, in my opinion, is quite interesting, because the SP case is very untypical for a European party with democratic-socialist orientation. As for the Maoism, I don't think that it is relevant at all, since the SP has long ceased to be a Maoist party (Zdravko mk 12:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

From my own experience as a member of the board of the Youth wing[[1]] and having discussed this topic quite a lot with memebers of the party board some reasons for not joining with either one of these pan-european parties are:

- The SP is unlike other parties: less focussed on the 'Capitalist system' and more on local action themes - The SP usually works together with other paries only on the basis of campaignes, such as with the Iraqi Communist party in support for the conviction of a Dutch Chemical weapons dealer. - The SP is more like the Nordic green paries in style and performance, but more like the parties that formed the party of the European left in a historic sence. In recent months memebers of the board, including the party leader Jan Marijnissen have made visits to Scandinavia, Germany an Greece to discuss a closer coorperation. And C mon, although the party does have a Maoist origin, it is no longer (and hasn't been for a many years now) a Maoist party.Nielz 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the language. Confusion is that there is an international organization called the "Nordic Green Left Alliance" which consists of post-Communist parties in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Its European Parliament members sit in a single parliamentary group called the "European United Left/Nordic Green Left" (GUE/NGL). The Dutch SP is a member of this group. So, its accurate to say the SP is a member of the "European United Left/Nordic Green Left" in the European parliament. This is only a parliamentary group, however, and not an international organization that operates independently of the parliament.

Regarding the "Nordic Green Left Alliance," which does operate as an organization apart from the European Parliament: I don't think the question of affiliation would have come up, since the name "Nordic" generally means the Scandinavian countries. I don't think the people of the Netherlands would like to be called "Nordic." :) But an SP member could correct me if I'm wrong.

Finally, regarding non-affiliation with the Party of the European Left. Most, but not all, of the GUE/NGL members are in it, plus parties from non-EU states. They are primarily post-Communist parties. But left parties that are more resolutely opposed to the EU -- like the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and the Dutch SP -- chose either not to join or to be observers. --langohio (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

at least four times a year?

The part about the organizational structure states that the party board convenes at least four times a year. As far as I know it is at least once every four years.
Codegrinder 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Once every four years would not be enough. They convene at least four times a year. I don't see what is difficult or confusing about that. 94.215.58.69 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A party board that convenes one in four years? The article must be amenable to severe misunderstanding! This is a party that has more activities outside than inside parlementary bodies and react to actualities with substantial action. This require elaborate coordination and careful preparation to reach consensus. --80.100.243.19 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Populism" in infobox

There are right-wing people trying to put in changes in this article, turning it into a political article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.1.197 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The SP is not a populist party, yes you can find some stupid sources that says the party is populist. But there are a lot more sources which says it is not a populist party. A good source: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/18124/MA-2011-TJdenHollander.pdf?sequence=1 --LLTSU (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Socialism vs. social democracy

I've changed the lead and infobox to state that the SP is a social democratic party. There are two sources for this, a statement by SP MP Harry van Bommel (primary source) and a piece in New Left Review (secondary source). I know that in the Dutch context "social democratic" tends to mean "the stance of the PvdA", but it's no use labeling the SP as democratic socialist, a phrase that I've never encountered in literature by or about the SP. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ideology and issues - Immigration

The article states that the SP is critical of immigration. The party was opposed to mass immigration in their earlier days (as stated in their text "Gastarbeid en kapitaal" (guest workers and capital). However, this position has changed. They accept refugees (their site says that it is a moral obligation because the party stands for solidarity) and aren't that critical anymore of immigration as they used to be.

I'd say that their view on this issue is more complex than the article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeSoftwareEnthousiast (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed that. "Critical of immigration" is so vague that it's nearly meaningless. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung

Please note that the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung is closely related to the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Considering this close relation of the FES and the SPD, and considering the subject of this report, namely European political opponents of the SPD (such as Die Linke and the Socialistische Partij), I will have removed the claim ('far-left') associated with this source. - Krmody (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Krmody, I agree. There are enough sources in support for plain left-wing, including an academic book (Magone 2013). It may have been considered far-left in the past but it has changed, and being to the left of the PvDa does not entail the party being far-left, which unlike far-right has no clear definition, other than "leftier than thou." There is this IP who insist in adding far-left just because they cherry picked a source. Too bad two news sources just say left-wing and an academic book describe it as left-wing and outlines its evolution from Maoism to democratic socialism/social-democracy. They say "Your personal opinion on 'cherry-picking' is invalid. A reliable source says it, and you did not back up your claim otherwise." This is exactly what cherry picking is, i.e. "[a] [single] reliable source says it [is]." So no, my charge is valid, and I did back my claim by pointing there are two reliable news sources who just say left-wing, and more importantly there is an academic book (academic books and journals are way better than news sources) support left-wing and actually says, "Several smaller left-wing parties ... Dutch Socialist Party ... has moderated its ideology towards democratic socialism." Every party has a moderate and more radical factions, that does not mean we should say "Centre-left to far-left" or "Centre-right to far-right." Democratic socialist parties are generally considered centre-left to left-wing, not far-left; the latter is generally reserved to communist parties or even to the parties to the left the communist parties (just to show how there's no clear definition like there is for the far right). Davide King (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Communist party

If wiki dares to smear conservative-patriotic forces such as PVV and Forum vor Democracy as either "far-right" or "nationalist" then this party with its commie roots is a far-left extremist party.

Otherwise you engage in promoting double standards by smearing the right and promoting the left with corrupt, one-sided articles. 62.226.72.189 (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@62.226.72.189 Well it clearly describes the communist roots in the introduction of the article. Cant really be missed. But nowadays, it is clearly no longer communist. And if communism is the threshhold for far-left, then this party is also no longer far-left. Dajasj (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Notification of discussion involving this article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties regarding the inclusion of the party flag in the infobox of this article. The thread is Party flags in infoboxes. Thank you. — Ætoms ^[talk] 23:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Immigration

I've been seeing online (only twitter, nothing verified) that it appears the party is slightly following the Danish Social Democratic Party route of becoming more critical of immigration, has anyone seen any reliable sources in Dutch corroborating this so it could be added to the page? Guyb123321 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)