[D66] Liberals and Trotskyists in Antagonism: The Case of D66

[René Oudeweg]

# Liberals and Trotskyists in Antagonism: The Case of D66

## Introduction

The ideological spectrum of Dutch politics contains a wide array of 
traditions, from pragmatic liberal centrism to radical revolutionary 
socialism. Among these, the liberal-progressive party Democrats 66 (D66) 
has long embodied a reformist, institutionalist, and pro-European 
orientation, while Trotskyist groups, though marginal in electoral 
terms, have represented a revolutionary current that fundamentally 
rejects liberal democracy and the market order. This essay examines the 
antagonism between D66 and the Trotskyist left, exploring the 
historical, ideological, and strategic roots of their hostility.

## Historical Context

Founded in 1966, D66 positioned itself as a centrist-liberal party 
advocating for political renewal, democratization of institutions, and a 
socially progressive yet market-friendly economic policy. Its commitment 
to European integration and its pragmatic participation in governing 
coalitions placed it firmly within the framework of parliamentary democracy.

By contrast, Dutch Trotskyists, organized in groups such as the 
*Revolutionary Socialist Movement* (RSM) and earlier in the *Socialist 
Workers’ Party* (SWP), have remained outside mainstream politics, 
adhering to the revolutionary legacy of Leon Trotsky. They view 
parliamentary politics as insufficient for social transformation and 
argue for the overthrow of capitalism through proletarian self-emancipation.

## Ideological Antagonism

At the core of the antagonism lies a fundamental divergence on the 
nature of the state, democracy, and capitalism:

1. **The Liberal Democratic State**

    * For D66, liberal democracy is the legitimate arena for social 
progress. Its reformist agenda—electoral reform, expansion of civil 
liberties, and supranational cooperation in the European Union—reflects 
a belief in the adaptability of institutions.
    * For Trotskyists, these same institutions are instruments of 
bourgeois domination. They argue that parliamentary reforms merely 
stabilize capitalism, delaying revolutionary upheaval.

2. **The Market Economy**

    * D66 supports a regulated market economy, balancing competitiveness 
with social protections. Their liberalism is neither laissez-faire nor 
socialist, but rather technocratic and pragmatic.
    * Trotskyists reject the market as inherently exploitative. They 
call for workers’ control of production, collectivization of strategic 
industries, and international socialist revolution.

3. **Europe and Internationalism**

    * D66 is perhaps the most pro-European party in the Netherlands, 
seeing integration as a bulwark against nationalism and as an avenue for 
progressive governance.
    * Trotskyists oppose the European Union as a capitalist project, 
subordinating workers’ interests to multinational corporations and 
austerity regimes. Their internationalism differs fundamentally, 
grounded in solidarity among workers across borders rather than 
institutional integration.

## Strategic Antagonism

While the ideological gulf explains much of the hostility, the 
antagonism is also strategic. For D66, Trotskyist rhetoric and activism 
pose a symbolic threat, undermining the legitimacy of liberal democracy 
by exposing its limits and contradictions. For Trotskyists, D66 embodies 
the archetype of “bourgeois liberalism,” whose progressive rhetoric 
masks the perpetuation of capitalist exploitation.

Moreover, in moments of student and labor mobilization, D66 has often 
been perceived as a moderating force, advocating dialogue and 
compromise, whereas Trotskyists demand escalation and confrontation. 
This tension is evident in university politics, labor disputes, and 
protest movements, where the two camps frequently clash over tactics and 
goals.

## Theoretical Considerations

The antagonism can be interpreted through the lens of political theory:

* **Chantal Mouffe’s concept of agonistic pluralism** highlights how 
liberal democracies incorporate adversarial politics but often seek to 
delegitimize radical opposition. In this sense, Trotskyists occupy the 
position of the “constitutive outside” to liberalism.
* **Marxist critiques of reformism** emphasize the tendency of liberal 
parties to absorb dissent into parliamentary frameworks, thereby 
neutralizing revolutionary potential. D66 represents precisely the kind 
of reformist current that Trotsky warned would “betray” the working class.

## Conclusion

The antagonism between D66 and the Trotskyist left is not merely a 
quarrel between two minor factions of Dutch politics, but rather an 
expression of deeper conflicts between reformist liberalism and 
revolutionary socialism. D66’s faith in liberal democracy, market 
regulation, and European integration stands in irreconcilable opposition 
to Trotskyist calls for revolutionary rupture, class struggle, and 
workers’ power. While the practical political significance of 
Trotskyists in the Netherlands remains limited, their antagonism with 
D66 reveals the enduring ideological struggle between liberal 
institutionalism and revolutionary anti-capitalism within European 
political culture.

---