Hendrik de Man, Jan Tinbergen: From Cultural to Plan-Socialism Erwin Dekker, Erasmus University Rotterdam, [email protected]

The Plan is the symbol of vigor, and the emblem of self- confidence, strength and knowledge. It replaces the mythos of the dictator with clarity, intelligibility, and will-power.

M. Sluyser, 1934

In 1935 Jan Tinbergen and published the Plan van de Arbeid (Plan of Labor) in the , a political plan to get out of the Great Depression. It followed the model of the 1934 Plan de Man of Hendrik de Man in Belgium. In both countries these plans were launched along with extensive propaganda campaigns including pamphlets, brochures, songs and flags. The goal was to propose a way out of the crisis which could garner broad social support across party lines. Its combination of high-flown idealism and pragmatic solutions was the social-democratic answer to the threat of fascism, as well as the failure of the social-democratic movement to come up with good plans to combat the crisis. In fact those associated with the plan-movement felt that the social- democratic intellectuals had responded with too much complacency to the Great Depression, thinking of it as merely a symptom of a fundamentally sick social system, which would sooner or later be overthrown. On the other hand these reformers were concerned that the social-democratic parties in Europe were caught up defending an imperfect democratic capitalist system against its detractors. The plan-activists argued that this mixture of apologism and complacency attitude was likely to destroy not merely capitalism but also the social-democratic movement and the hopes of a socialist future. They sought to bring new élan and spirit to the socialist cause.

This paper will argue that the plan-movement was crucial for the development of the means and the technique of economic policy. It represented an imperative to improve the here and now towards a more just and socialist society. The Plan popularized the notion of public works and unemployment policies, along the lines of the New Deal. As Peter Dodge has put it: “What Roosevelt’s New Deal meant pragmatically in America, de Man’s Plan of Labor represented ideologically in Europe” (Dodge 1979, 290). But it also operationalized what a mixed economy would look like: the nationalization of certain sectors which already tended towards monopoly and of sectors which were singled out as having caused the severity of the economic downturn, notably finance. It created an institutional position for economic expertise, which would supplement if not replace parliament in certain matters of economic policy. The Plan of Labor was for Tinbergen the definite step towards the first macro-econometric model of the Dutch economy which he would present a year later. So the plans of labor in Belgium and the Netherlands have had great impact on the way in which modern economic policy is formulated, operationalized and executed. Most importantly for our subject Tinbergen, it marks his transition from an idealistic and culture type of socialism to a final combination of his socialist ideals with his scientific economic concerns.

The plans are at the same time interesting for they represent a rather radical break with the way in which social-democratic parties in Europe thought about policy and more generally about socialism. They represented a break in the economic thinking within the social-democratic movement which had been in the making throughout the 1920’s, when slowly but surely Marxist theory came under attack from within. The Plan of Labor is the moment that socialist goals became definitely detached from socialist means. No longer was the socialization of the means of production believed to be necessary to realize the goals of socialism. A space for a new scientific socialism was created by this decoupling, because now the socialist goals could be realized while adopting the (new) methods of science. And although the plans were self-consciously crisis-plans they nonetheless formed a crucial step on the path towards gradual reformism. More importantly than those changes still, was the fact that they sought to appeal to idealists of all parties, they sought to transcend party lines. No longer was the social-democratic party a workers party, but the plans were national attempts to get out of the crisis, and they appealed to the general national interest. The social theory underlying these plans was not one of class struggle, but of shared problems, which could be overcome if we willed it enough, and importantly of shared goals. This step would prove crucial also for thinking about social welfare after the war, as for example, in the burgeoning literature on welfare economics.

The goal of this article is to explore the intellectual origins of this plan-movement through a biographical study of Jan Tinbergen’s development in the 1920’s and 1930’s. It will demonstrate that the idealist socialist youth movement was a crucial influence and development in socialism that gave rise to this plan-movement. Hendrik de Man was an early pioneer in the socialist youth movement, Jan Tinbergen joined the Dutch Arbeiders Jeugd Centrale (AJC, Workers Youth Society) early in the 1920’s. This socialist youth movement saw itself as a socialist vanguard which would explore and demonstrate how different socialist culture would be from the dominant capitalist culture. More importantly it presented itself as a kind of socialist reformation, which sought to purify socialist idealism. Its primary purpose, at least during the 1920’s was not to reform the political-economic program of the party, but instead to demonstrate the superiority of the socialist life-style, socialist culture. As such it was often called cultural socialism.

The enlightened leadership created in this youth movement would help prepare the workers culturally for socialism, especially since capitalism degraded culture. Cultural socialism was an early counter-cultural movement that celebrated authentic folk and outdoor culture, over the latest capitalist fads. It sought an idealistic if not spiritual renewal of socialism. The socialist culture as lived in the AJC was thus a means to show that socialism could, at least partly, be realized by a mere act of will: the level of discipline, and self-discipline in these movements, is the stuff of legends. This was also the recent that they felt close affinities with the Quakers, who had similarly realized their ideals in a hostile environment.

In these youth movements socialism was transformed into a set of ideals, rather than a particular societal order, as Marxists and social-democrats still believed it to be. This move away from economic-political goals, allowed them the freedom to come up with an alternative type of planning, based on ideals rather than a fixed blueprint for society. This cultural socialism also sought to renew the idea of a scientific socialism. It argued that much of Marx’s predictions had not come true and were rooted in a flawed 19th-century idea of science, based on immutable laws. This new connection provided an opportunity for technically trained people like Jan Tinbergen and Hein Vos to renew the connection between socialist ideals and modern science, while remaining true to the ideal of a scientific socialism of the old Master.

The paper will proceed as follows. The first section will be devoted to the socialist youth culture of the 1920’s, and the particular way in which this shaped Jan Tinbergen. The second section will detail the important contribution of Hendrik de Man to this socialist youth culture, and his movement of plan-socialism. The third section will analyze the role of Jan Tinbergen in the drafting of the Plan of Labor in the Netherlands. The fourth section will analyze the impact of these Plans of Labor, and argue for their fundamental importance in the transformation of Tinbergen’s thought and social- democratic thought more generally.

The socialist youth movement The major programs of socialist worker and youth education started around WWI in a number of European countries, such as Austria, , Belgium and the Netherlands. The Dutch branch the AJC was founded in 1918 by the SDAP (Social-Democratic Labor Party) and the NVV (Dutch League of Unions), but initially it was little more than a means to keep the children off the street. This changed when it came under the direction of Koos Vorrink. He was a highly idealistic man who was particularly concerned about alcohol-abuse among workers and the youth of his day, and who more generally felt that moral standards were in steady decline, not least among the proletariat.

Under his leadership the AJC was transformed into a youth movement which, although it only boosted a few thousand members, was of great cultural impact and from which most of the mid- century leaders of the social-democractic party in the Netherlands would come. Vorrink had, from the start important intellectual and financial support from Floor Wibaut. Wibaut was an elder statesman within the social-democratic movement around 1920, perhaps best described as a Dutch Walter Rathenau. This free-sprited and progressive entrepreneur not only had behind him a successful career in business, but was also publishing a steady stream of intellectual reflections on socialism, and around the time was busy realizing the social housing projects in , which to this day are world-renowned as the ‘Amsterdamse School’. These social housing projects reflected well the combination of economic and moral improvement that was pursued, the housing projects not merely sought to raise living standards, but also alter life-styles of the proletariat by preventing alcohol-abuse and providing access to modern communication through post-offices.

The AJC would become most famous for promoting a new life-style. The movement took inspiration from the Wandervogel-movement in Germany which sought spiritual renewal through a reconnection with nature. In 1922 Koos Vorrink and the other pioneers of the AJC had realized ‘De Paasheuvel’ an outdoor campsite in the biggest natural park of the Netherlands ‘De Hoge Veluwe’. There they would jointly build a major club house and it would be their refuge away from the city. It was there that they would pioneer a new socialist life-style around folk dances and music, a close study of nature, long hikes, the recital of upliftment poetry and amateur theatre. It was a serious life-style in which there were plenty of restrictions on alcohol, smoking, snooping, and with particular styles of dress (plain but not proletarian), ways of speaking and writing (avoding the vulgar and the bourgeois, preferably written in de renewed simple spelling) and the type of movies and books one was supposed to enjoy.

Jan Tinbergen and his wife, Tine, were deeply involved in the activities of the AJC. Tine frequently wrote poetry in the magazines of the organization, in the style of Henriette Roland Holst, the most female Dutch socialist poet. These poems described the process of spiritual awakening of socialism and professed hopeful images of the future. In one of them she describes the past struggles of the working class and the better future that lies ahead:

Zij droegen het licht nog als een droom verborgen Argwaan hield naast hun hart een starre wacht Hen bonden nog de oude stille zorgen En als zij spraken was ’t bevreesd en zacht

Het hart was lang de eigen kracht vergeten Vrucht’loze twijfel hield de wil geboeid Maar in ons woont het hoge blijde Weten Licht, tot een wonder is het opgebloeid.

They still carried the light like a hidden dream Suspicion accompanied their heart like a stern guard What bound them were the old silent worries When they spoke it was soft and in fear

The heart had forgotten its own strength Fruitless doubt kept the will in chains But in us lives the blessed and joyous Knowing Light, like a wonder it has blossomed

This blend of spiritual awakening and socialist struggle was typical for the contributions to the AJC magazine ‘Het Jonge Volk’, which presented socialism as a promised land which could be reached with determination, but through suffering. Inspired by a woodcut with the engraving ‘In the dark alleys of our cities / a bright call awakens’ in the same magazine ‘Het Jonge Volk’ Jan Tinbergen wrote a short story. His contribution tells of a troop of AJC’ers who are inviting local children to their cultural evening, the poor children are reluctant and somewhat afraid. They watch from a distance, they want to sing along, but don’t know the words. But after one has joined others follow. See what we can achieve if we are just open to others, Tinbergen asks rhetorically. Once inside the venue the fear is shaken off, everybody joins into the chorus, and dances along. Now we felt stronger, we knew that we had really lived our ideal, we had shown them that life could be different, he concludes (Tinbergen 1928b).

This mixture of spiritual, if not Christian, upliftment was promoted by Koos Vorrink who thought of socialism as an open ideal, and not a particular blueprint for society. In a famous Pentecostal, the most important celebration of the AJC-year, speech he argued that socialism was not an ossified formula or a complete theory, neither is it the socialist party, instead it is the thirst for justice and the never-ending fight against injustice. Socialism is service to the community and it is to be found in human connections (Van der Louw 1974, 37). In the AJC socialism thus moved away from the struggle of the worker’s movement and instead became a movement of ideals. It was also drawn away from materialist concerns, and towards immaterial goals. Justice was important, but for the AJC-members socialism was in particular to be found in a new and more meaningful life-style. It was from this concern that the life-rules emerged. The AJC sought to be a vanguard in the exploration of a life-style that would be attainable for everyone in the socialist society. But for the vanguard it was a matter of will and determination, they could realize socialism if they willed it enough, even when the rest of society was still capitalist. A ‘utopian’ idea for which they were often mocked.

Inside the movement it meant a severe, almost Spartan discipline. But it was also a discipline and unity that made them incredibly efficient for an organization that remained relatively small, the movement never had much more than ten-thousand members. The radicalness of their alternative life-style made them very visible to the outside world. At later reunions the members could rejoice in the songs and dances that had been engraved in their brains, and frequently the members retained the living habits for the rest of their lives. Jan Tinbergen would never drink in his life, and he never got rid of the typical hair-cut which was fashionable during those days. The haircut that a barber in New York once described as the semi-crew cut. It thus created a socialist identity that extended far beyond a set of political beliefs, but one that became a practice, and it certainly was that for Jan Tinbergen. Contemporary observers were often critical of this socialism of the pathos, of style only. But that is probably selling the movement considerably short, many of them combined it with an honest inner conviction that a better way of living was possible. More importantly it provided a sense of direction, that at least in the case of Tinbergen stayed with him for the remainder of his life. In fact the way in which socialism was realized in this movement became a model for how socialism could be attained more broadly in society.

The youth movement, however, was important for one other reason, that would give it great significance in the 1930’s and that is that it was a mixed organization in terms of social class. It attracted boys and girls from the working classes, but also children of the middle-classes, and some from the upper middle-class such as Jan Tinbergen, although many of them joined the more intellectual club the Praktische Idealisten Associatie (PIA, Association of Practical Idealists). There had always been some prominent upper-class members of the SDAP, such as the aforementioned Wibaut who were attracted to its progressive nature, but there was always a distance between the old Marxist ideologues of the movement and the workers. It was in societies like the AJC that the classes integrated, and this was facilitated by the unique dress-style, and the curious combination of bourgeois and folk culture.

Tinbergen reflects on this in a brief article on the place of the student in the AJC (Tinbergen 1928a). It details his ambiguous feelings about turning his back to his own class on the one hand, and on the other hand not being able to sing along with some of the prominent lines in the AJC-songs: “We have felt ourselves / the poignant pain of work”. But it is in the AJC that he feels that class differences are finally overcome, that he could forget his social background and that we can treat one another as equals. For Tinbergen that is the most important cultural achievement of the AJC. It is this same sentiment that would underlie later attempts to create a socialist party for everyone, not just for workers, of which the plan-movement was one of the most visible outcomes (Tinbergen 1928a), and which motivated the post-war ‘Doorbraak’ (Breakthrough) movement.

Hendrik de Man and Cultural Socialism It is hard to overestimate the importance of Hendrik de Man on the socialist youth movement. Not only was he one of its international pioneers as one of the founding members of the socialist youth international, his Psychology of Socialism (Zur Psychologie des Sozialismus, 1927) was perhaps the best expression of the ethos of the movement. Before he wrote this critique of Marxism De Man had an active career behind him, in which he was involved in the negotiations to prevent the first World War I, where he accompanied the humanist Jean Jaurès. He had been sent to the Soviet Union to convince the Communists to remain in the World War, and he had visited the United States for prolonged periods of time, among other things to study Taylorism and alternative forms of firm governance by workers.

The book, although never translated into English, had an incredible reach on the continent. It was translated into fourteen languages, often right after its German publication. As his biographer Dodge notes it was hailed as the most important book since Marx’s Capital by its enthusiastic defenders, but even its critics acknowledged that it was by far the most serious critique of Marxism of the decade (Dodge 1979, 68).

De Man’s main target was the materialistic and deterministic nature of Marxism. De Man sought to demonstrate that the Verelendungsthese, the thesis proletariat would be increasingly impoverished was empirically false, and even the adjusted idea that this impoverishment increased in relative terms was contradicted by developments within capitalism. More importantly the class analysis of Marxism was faulty since the actual development of capitalism had created groups of white-collar workers, and more generally a lot of social stratification, and not just a growing proletariat. De Man —who sought to differentiate Marx from Marxism in order to provide a renewal of original Marxism, a return to the origins— argued that Marx had correctly seen that the great power of capitalism was to increase productivity and from this a rise of living standards of all, including the workers had resulted.

This development had great significance for De Man, since he believed this development, according to Marxist logic meant that socialism would fail to come about. If an increasing (lower) middle-class developed material interests that were closely tied up with current capitalist system and the proletariat did not grow into a majority there was no longer any reason to believe that capitalism would be overthrown and socialism would emerge. On the own grounds of Marxist theory, therefore, the coming of socialism thus in fact depended in modern society not merely on the support of the proletariat but also of other classes. But if these other classes were merely pursuing their material self-interests there was no hope for socialism.

But rather than despairing over this contradiction, De Man argues that this material theory had always been misguided. In fact the great blind spot of the Marxist theory had been that it had had no eye for the spiritual and moral degredation under capitalism. The real Verelendung was not material, but it was cultural argued De Man: “The farmer’s son may be boorish, and the cottager’s daughter uncouth, but as soon as they become factory-hands, their rusticity turns into vulgarity” (De Man quoted in Dodge, 1979, p. 98). A culturally and morally impoverished, if not degraded, proletariat could not possible form the firm basis for a new society. Worse yet, the socialist movement had done nothing to prevent this, and many of its current demands and strategies were purely motivated by material gain, and therefore were a reflection of the capitalist materialism, and not of the high-minded ideals of socialism, and first and foremost the ideal of justice. What was needed therefore was a reorientation on the original socialist ideals.

From that criticism De Man took a number of crucial steps that are all of fundamental importance for Tinbergen’s intellectual development and for the later emergence of plan-socialism. We will identify three here. The first is that De Man attempts to turn socialism into a set of universal values, which should be attractive to (potentially) anyone. The second is that he argues that current society is a mixture of positive developments that tend towards socialism, and negative developments that move away from socialism and the associated political program is of stimulating the good developments. Third, De Man reverses the typical Marxist order in which social change comes about, he argues that the realization of socialism requires socialist people, who’s every act helps realize socialism. Or in short socialism will grow gradually from within capitalism, but only if a socialist vanguard has a set of clear socialist goals and the will to bring it about.

Building on the earlier work of his mentor Jean Jaurès Hendrik de Man argued that socialism was not a particular theory of social development and history, but rather a set of universal values (Van Peski 1969). And these universal values were actually part of a much longer Western development which could be traced back to the rise of the bourgeoisie in the high middle ages (Dodge 1979, 91). They were the Western values that were also embodied in the Christian tradition of freedom, equality and justice, and the problem with the current social system was that it failed to realize them for all social classes. Culturally there would thus have to be great continuity between the coming socialism and the historical development of the West in the past millennium. A similar argument was to be found among the religious socialists in the Netherlands who found their most prominent voice in the female poet Henriette Roland Holst, and the leader of the AJC Koos Vorrink (Verwey-Jonker 1938, 336).

Following this line of reasoning Hendrik de Man depicted a socialism that would not be a rupture with current society, but would instead grow out of the current capitalist system. This system, as he emphasized time and again, had already been fundamentally altered through the political action of the labor movement. The trends in the current world could be divided up into those that tended towards socialism and those that obstructed the path towards it. And it was particularly at this point that De Man’s criticism was fierce, for he argued that the labor movement of his time had at best an ambiguous role in these developments. Although it had contributed significantly in bringing about social legislation and redistribution, and had redrawn the power balance in society, by now it actually alienated workers from socialism with its materialist demands.

It is here that the renewal of the socialist movement, in particular the socialist youth movement came in. For De Man the task of socialist youth movements like the AJC is to embody the moral and cultural values of the coming society. The AJC frequently met with the charge that it was too independent and in fact alienated from the worker’s movement, but in a paradoxical manner this was precisely what Hendrik de Man was looking for. The socialist culture which he favoured differed radically from the current capitalist materialist culture, and hence the culture within the socialist movement should be radically different from the existing culture. De Man frequently compared the socialists to the Quakers, a group we will meet again below, the puritan pioneers who willed and embodied the new culture in America when they first settled there. In this way socialism could be realized even without socialist economic institutions, that is without a socialist organization of the economy. The socialist youth movement, which was a-political to a fault – the AJC maintained strict discipline among its members to not express political views at odds with those of the social- democratic party - became the cultural avant-garde, which willed socialism into existence.

In 1927, within a year after the publication of his groundbreaking criticism, Hendrik de Man speaks at the Paasheuvel, the proud headquarters of the AJC (Unknown 1927). And his book is soon translated by into Dutch and widely advertised and discussed in the AJC magazines. But the connection is interesting for more than just influence, since the AJC and its members faced many of the same criticisms that De Man faced. The first of these is the fact that what they were promoting was an elite-socialism, if not in fact a misguided bourgeois illusion. Although the AJC did draw members from all social classes, it was particularly attractive to the more intellectually and culturally minded among them. Their dislike of proletarian culture, as well as strict ideas about what bourgeois culture was valuable made them elitist in the eyes even of many of the older elites in the social- democratic movement (Hartmans 1991). But they also cultivated an elitism, seeking to represent the higher cultural ideals at best latently present in the proletariat. In De Man’s thought it is very clear that he argues that the real carrier of socialism is not the proletariat, but instead a socialist elite.

Secondly De Man was criticized for being naïve when it came to realizing social change. If there was anything in Marxism was of great value it was the realization that society would not change before the economic institutions changed. Yet in De Man’s alternative vision socialism becomes a matter of will primarily, it does not require changed political institutions, only the good will of people. The socialist elite, or even the socialist movement would be a movement without an economic base, and would hence be powerless. At least according to traditional Marxist theory. But also closer to home De Man received fierce criticism for his socialism of the will. In a debate set up with religious scholars not long after the publication of his book he was heavily criticized by Karl Barth and others that his socialism was not sufficiently rooted (expand here).

Tinbergen got caught up in a much smaller issue, but one that equally demonstrates the change in attitude, and the personalized version of socialism that was adhered to. He involved himself in a debate about high income for socialists, in particular socialist professors. Tinbergen argued that high wages for professors were not justified, and in part represented an ‘unearned’ or ‘laborless’ income. In fact because of their privileged work conditions they should earn less than other workers who worked the same amount of hours (Tinbergen 1930a). Soon Tinbergen was accused of being pre- Marxist by a prominent member of the older guard within the SDAP, Van Wijk. Tinbergen naively held that socialist islands could exist within an ocean of capitalism, according to Van Wijk. But Tinbergen’s response demonstrates that the primary mode of analysis for this group of cultural socialists was no longer institutional, but moral. It was a matter of sincerity Tinbergen argued that socialist leaders would already living according to socialist standards, one that moreover would have a significant effect on the appeal of the movement (Tinbergen 1930b).

But there is also a far more personal tension in the work of De Man, one that deserves to be explored more deeply, precisely because Jan Tinbergen experienced that same tension. At one level the rethinking of socialism and the position of the intellectual in the socialist movement is praiseworthy for its honesty. De Man brings out clearly that the bourgeois intellectual who is attracted to socialism, need not be ashamed of his background, he need not even be ashamed of bourgeois culture. Yes, his class is to be blamed for economic exploitation, but at least culturally he can remain true to himself, he does not have to become one with the proletariat. The intellectual socialist of the De Man type recognizes, and is even proud, of its own bourgeois roots. On the other hand, it is easy to charge this intellectual socialist with cowardice. After all he can now have his cake and eat it too. He is no longer forced to choose between the bourgeoisie and socialism, he can now have both. The socialism is merely a matter of life-style and ideas, not a political fight. As Van der Louw, the historian of the AJC describes, societal change starts to fade to the background while improving one’s own life moves to the front.

It was for a reason that both De Man and Tinbergen were attracted to the Quakers, the puritan pioneers. What they sought to do for socialism was a purification, a reformation if you will. Socialism had to return to the original ideals, since the means by which these were now pursued, the materialist worker movement, had been corrupted. And like the Quakers had demonstrated this could be done in closed groups which realized pure socialism within. The strategy, however was not without dangers. It could quickly lead to intolerance between these communities and the outside world, and the AJC certainly met with frequent hostility (Van der Louw 1974, 211–41). And it was a completely a-political strategy, whose success completely depended on the voluntary adoption of these ideals by other groups.

The plan movement is a reaction against this lack of interest in politics in the socialist youth movements and the inward looking nature of the movement. This means it is also a challenging personal step for the intellectuals De Man and Tinbergen, more comfortable in their private study than in the midst of the political turmoil. The plan movement, however will involve them both in the heated propaganda campaigns and Hendrik de Man even in a ministerial role. They were now bearing not just the high moral standards of their cultural socialism, but also the responsibility for a political renewal of the social-democratic movement, one that would lead De Man ultimately away from socialism.

From Cultural Socialism to the Plan Movement The plan movement in Belgium really came into its own during the year 1933 and it cannot be detached from the sudden rise of fascism across the Continent and in Germany in particular (Sluyser 1934). But before we move to this movement it is important to take a brief detour to a book by a good friend of Jan Tinbergen, Jan Goudriaan. Like Tinbergen he had studied natural sciences or more precisely from civil engineering, and during the early 1930’s he worked at the cutting-edge Philips research lab NatLab, the same lab where Ehrenfest ran the seminars. The same place that offered Jan Tinbergen a position upon graduation, where he would have worked under the leadership of Goudriaan.

Like Wibaut, De Man, Taylor, Rathenau, Neurath and so many others of the age Goudriaan was a believer that the rationalization of society was taking place in many different fields. He specialized in the rationalization of business, and was the founder of business studies in the Netherlands. For this generation of thinkers it was only a small step to argue that the rationalization which was already happening in business should also take place in the state. It was this spirit which had also dominated the grand symposium on ‘World Social Economic Planning’ which took place in 1931 in Amsterdam in Colonial Institute.

In his book Socialism without Dogma’s (Socialisme zonder Dogma's, 1933)1 Goudriaan proposed one such means of planning, an international stable commodity-backed currency. An idea that Goudriaan would promote for the rest of his life, including in his work for the UN and which Tinbergen at various times helped to promote (Tinbergen 1952, 1954). However, it is primarily the first half of the book that is of interest to us here, because it provides a perfect bridge between the cultural socialism of the 1920’s and the more political plan-socialism of the 1930’s. Goudriaan makes clear that he shares De Man’s criticism of Marxism, and argues that it has been dominated by three dogma’s that have to be given up: the means (socialisation of production), the strategy (class struggle), and the scientific determinism of the 19th century (the iron laws of history and capitalism). What is left is socialism without dogma’s, a socialism of ideals consisting of peace, freedom and prosperity (Goudriaan 1933, 14). It is the faith, again the religious language is very present, in this ideal that stands above scrutiny and that is the essence of socialism. But moving beyond De Man’s work of the 1920’s, he now suggests that science is the best and undogmatic guide to figure out how these ideals can be realized.

Socialism in Goudriaan’s view is no longer the outcome of a historical process, but instead a historical task: “the world will become what we make of it” (Goudriaan 1933, 21). Such ideas were at least latently present in De Man’s thought. But Goudriaan adds to them that a critique of existing society is no longer enough, neither is fear-mongering about war, fascism or anything of the sort. This defensive strategy is that of the bourgeoisie protecting its own narrow interests, and fearful of what the future might bring. Instead was is needed is a plan that appeals to the courage of the workers, to positive ideals, to the hope for a better future. And this plan should appeal to people of all classes and confessions, not just to workers and certainly not only to members of the SDAP.

Goudriaan also adds a peculiar twist to his argument, and that will rear its head at several points in the future. His book opens with a quote from Hendrik de Man’s book ‘Masses and Leaders’ (Massen und Führer, De Man 1932): “that is why the leader should serve not the masses, but the truth. That

1 Dogma’s are also associated with a more legal form of reasoning, and it was the achievement of Goudriaan and Tinbergen to steer economics in the Netherlands away from legal traditions, towards engineering traditions. As such it thus also implies a triumph of measurement over principles. and nothing else is the duty of the intellectuals, independent of whether he practices astronomy or politics”. At this point the cultural socialism of the 1920’s becomes the political plan-socialism of the 1930’s. It is here that a cultural vanguard is transformed into a political vanguard.

Many commentators have argued that engineers like Goudriaan and Tinbergen have some kind of technocracy in mind (Hollestelle 2011, esp. ch. 6; Baneke 2008). And more generally Tinbergen is often portrayed as an exemplary technocrat. That view is, however, seriously mistaken, for it misses the cultural socialist roots of these engineers, and the fact that what for them sets the leaders apart from the masses is primarily a set of ideals, their knowledge of socialism, not their technical knowledge. The leaders of the past Goudriaan cites as exemplars, from Robert Owen to Henry Ford, are certainly not technocrats. Instead they are industrial leaders who stand out mostly because of their social vision, which they manage to combine with technical know-how and managerial skill. It is first and foremost their social vision that sets them apart from other successful entrepreneurs. Wibaut who used his entrepreneurial skill to realize social goals is the hero for them, more than a scientist who was able to apply his knowledge.

There are clear technocratic elements in their work. Hendrik de Man, for example, drew on Veblen in his work to distinguish between the engineers who cared about maximizing production, as opposed to the financiers who cared about profit (Pels 1985), but for him too, the hopeful idealism combined with the fact that it provided a path towards their realization were the main virtues of the Plan of Labor. As he had argued some years before: “The correct solution is to reintegrate the utopian element into socialism, but in a manner that one may recognize the utopia as the point of departure, instead of as the ultimate goal, as contemporary psychological reality instead of a future foundation for society” (De Man quoted in Horn 1996, 85). It was a utopia that was not necessarily attainable, but that gave a goal which could be pursued. Tinbergen made it clear that there indeed was the matter of social engineering, but before this work could start we should be clear about the principles we seek to realize, and the practical goals which results from these principles (Tinbergen 1934).

It is therefore moral leadership that is of great importance in the work of Goudriaan and that of De Man around this period. This moral leadership now extends beyond the socialist life-style of the AJC and related socialist movements, it now includes a vision for the future. That is not merely a vision as realized in the small socialist communities, but also a practical plan how a more just society can be realized. This plan derives much of its urgency from the fact that many workers and especially the middle-classes are turning away from social-democracy and liberalism. The future promised by the fascists is a romantic one that appeals to the instincts, it is one that uses the insights of psychology, and that uses the sentiments present in society, argues De Man.

The goal for the leaders that Goudriaan and De Man envision is to offer an alternative hopeful ideal, that similarly uses psychology and the sentiments present in society, but not the negative emotions of fear and suspicion, but the positive emotions of hope and justice (Goudriaan 1933, 10–12). To understand plan-socialism, therefore, it is important to study the contents of the plan, the means of planning, but it even more significant is the form in which this message is packaged. The packaging is a hopeful plan for action now. Tinbergen expresses that in his characteristic understated way, when asked about the plan in 1985: “The Plan is what brought back a certain hope. This hope was more important in those years than the details of the Plan” (Jansen van Galen 1985, 156).

This is not only a poignant observation because of its emphasis on hope, but primarily because there was anything but a clear sense of what planning would mean in practice.

The Plan and Planning? In August 1931 there was a major week-long conference which brought together hundreds of worldwide experts on planning together. The conference was called ‘World Social Economic Planning’ and was organized by two female American emigres Mary Fledderus and Mary van Kleeck. The opening speech was held by Floor Wibaut and the purpose was arrive at a joint program along which lines the world economy could be planned. But the conference was not the big success that its organizers had hoped for, although the line-up of speakers was impressive, and the crowd truly international with Asian participants, Soviets who had prepared a special booklet to inform the world about their progress in planning, economists from virtually every European country and dozens of American economists. Nonetheless Ed van Cleeff, a good friend of Jan Tinbergen, could summarize the conference as follows: “there was a will, but no way” (Van Cleeff 1931, 308; on the congress see also Horn 1996).

The congress is in fact an intersection of different planning philosophies. And these different strands of thought that hardly converge. On one extreme there is the Soviet planning, which is met with very little enthusiasm at the congress, since many of the other participants are progressive liberals or socialists, who want to differentiate themselves from communism. It is worth examining briefly here the different strands of planning which come together at this juncture, and on which the plan- socialism movement builds.

Firstly there is Taylorism, which is represented strongly at the congress, not in the least, because the conference is organized by the International Industrial Relations Institute (IRI). Taylorism, or scientific management, originated in a new style of management which emphasized labor discipline, incentive systems and more generally efficiency. But Taylorism promised not just a superior management technique, but also a change in attitudes away from the division of the surplus, to the increase of the size of the surplus, so that there was ample room to increase wages. This social idealism was even more pronounced in what became Fordism (Maier 1970). In this model there was also attention to the explicit cooperation between workers and employers, which would give rise to new labor relations.

And although it appealed greatly to Europeans, who saw it as one of the major achievements of American capitalism, by the 1930’s it had also run into serious criticism. First and foremost critics were unsure that the rationalization process was not causing an overall reduction in employment. The effects of the Great Depression were felt and sometimes even blamed on excessive rationalization, Tinbergen around this time, for example, was highly critical of rationalization as a promising strategy. As early as 1928 he had started to point out that rationalisation was not a promising strategy for workers given the unemployment levels (Tinbergen 1931b, 1928c, 1931a).

Secondly in Germany there emerged an idea of ‘Planwirtschaft’ which originated in the work of Walter Rathenau, the German industrialist who had been in charge of economic planning during WWI (Polak 1948). Otto Neurath, who was present at the conference, is one of the proponents of this model of planning, which at least in his conception is built on in-kind calculation, which does away with the distortive measure of money. Behind this preference for in-kind calculation is a more widely shared conception that that profitability and productivity are at odds with one another. Neurath’s proposals do not seek to do away with private initiative, but instead seek to better coordinate between (industrial) production and the needs and wants of individuals. This is also reflected in the subtitle of the congress: “adjustment of productive capacity and standards of living”. Wibaut arguably puts it in much better terms in his opening address: “conducting world production with the sole object of general welfare” (Fleddérus 1931). The goal of general welfare was becoming more prominent and helped make the notion of planning less partisan, less socialist, and more generally acceptable.

In the conference proceedings a third strand is added which is the cooperative movement, but for our purposes, and the general future of economic planning that would be of little significance. Instead there is another notion of planning which is of far greater importance, but which has received little attention in the existing literature, and that is largely due to the fact that it is practical in nature, and not theoretical. Although it would be wrong to say that Taylorism and the Planwirtschaft had not been born out of practical applications, these systems were promoted as a kind of integrated solutions, as systems which could be used. That was different from the attempts at planning which reluctantly but surely were pursued by different governments at the time, most notably Sweden, but the New Deal was equally important2. Although theoretically these typically had some abstract justification in early versions of the multiplier or malinvestment theories, they really are best described as experiments. And it was this type of experimentation that was crucial for the plan-socialism movement. It demonstrated a new kind of courage on the side of the state, not for nothing did the Fleddérus speak of laboratories of planning in her review of the conference (Fleddérus 1931, 69).

Tinbergen for example kept a keen eye on Sweden ever since he taught himself some Swedish to be able to speak to Scandinavian youths at an early youth international meeting near Amsterdam in the 1920’s (Tinbergen 1925, 1935, 1936). And it was in Sweden that early experiments with public works to boost employment were tried. But in 1932 Tinbergen also conducted an extensive study of the coffee-valorizations in Brazil, which attempted to limit price-fluctuations by buying up excess supplies of coffee in the good years, and selling those stocks in years with lower harvest (Van Luytelaer and Tinbergen 1932). And although this system was far from perfect as Tinbergen and Van Luytelaer readily admitted it demonstrated the possibilities, and the need to try similar things. These were experiments which occurred within the capitalist economy and it was precisely this that made them so valuable. They showed that real significant change was possible, if only we would go about matters rationally. Like De Man had emphasized these experiments demonstrated, just as earlier social legislation and the extension of the vote had done, that socialism could be achieved by reforming the current system, rather than overthrowing it.

If we are to understand plan-socialism we should think of it more as a movement than as an economic program. A systematic approach to economic-policy making and stabilization in particular was not developed until after WWII. Plan-socialism was instead an experiment in planning, that would demonstrate that a better, and most importantly a more stable economy was possible. It would show that socialism had a way forward. Hendrik de Man had emphasized that culturally socialism had to grow out of capitalism, rather than overthrow it, that was also the vision for a socialist economy. And so plan-socialism sought to build on those tendencies towards socialism which were already present. To do so it could build on new planning methods within the firm such as Taylorism and Fordism, it could build a German notion of Planwirtschaft which had its origins in war- time planning for shared purposes, and it could build on very recent experiments in state

2 These successes are also emphasized in the Dutch Plan of Labor (Commissie uit N.V.V. en S.D.A.P. 1936, 26– 27, 91). interventions. What these demonstrated was perhaps not how planning should be done, but they demonstrated that planning could be done, and given the dire circumstances of the Great Depression which only worsened after 1932, it also had to be done. Experiments were risky, but if there ever was a time, now was the time to try it.

That means that plan-socialism is more a planning of the will, than a planning of technocrats, although certainly technocrats felt attracted to it. The technocrats were trying to engineer an economy that functioned better than crisis-prone capitalism, but the particular form of plan- socialism had just as much to do with the fact that the socialists needed a powerful political answer to fascism. It is unlikely that the Plan of Labor in Belgium or in the Netherlands would have been nearly as popular within the social-democractic movement if the fascist threat had not been so urgent. As we will see both De Man, Tinbergen and Vos managed to basically overthrow the old- guard in their respective parties, this would have been unthinkable even three years earlier.

Socialist goals, fascist means? In August 1935 Ed van Cleeff sends a letter to Tinbergen, who is then busy with the work for the Plan of Labor, which would be offered to the party later that year. Ed van Cleeff is in many ways an equal to Tinbergen at the time. He too was involved in the youth movements of the 1920’s, not with the AJC, but in the closely related movement of practical idealists (PIA)3, associated with the journal Regeneratie (Regenartie). The practical idealists were more outspoken religious socialists, but like Tinbergen Ed van Cleeff was member of the free-thinking Remonstrants. And like in the AJC, in the PIA, Hendrik de Man was the central influence (Van Cleeff 1929). And in the early 1930’s they are both part of a study group on modern socialism and the economy under the guidance of the religious socialist H. Banning (add source).

It was thus as a close friend that Van Cleeff could write the letter, which contained serious, in Van Cleeff’s eyes vital criticism of the scientific bureau of the SDAP, which was working on the Plan of Labor for the Netherlands. He raised three criticisms, that all hit at the heart of the involvement of scientists in politics.

Firstly Van Cleeff argued that the scientific bureau had started working without first settling upon a good theoretical foundation, a deductive system as he calls it. This is perhaps better expressed, given Van Cleeff’s intellectual position, as saying that there had been no serious attempt to arrive at

3 Tinbergen reports on one of the early PIA gatherings in the 1920’s, at which he might have met Van Cleeff for the first time (Tinbergen 1924) a synthetic vision of man and society, which would truly move beyond Marxism or modern economics (Van den Bogaard 2001).

The second criticism was already more damning since Van Cleeff suggested that the Plan, unfinished and tentative as it was, was already being used for progaganda purposes, and what was worse yet, it was not an end in itself, but rather used as a means to save the party. Where it was precisely the aim of the Plan movement to move beyond party lines and to attract support of workers if not people of all parties, the Plan of Labor had become, even before its presentation, a tool in party politics.

But then he still had to raise his most serious criticism which hit at the heart of socialist and rationalist politics itself. Van Cleeff argued: “It really begins to appear somewhat like national- socalist methods: first we create a sentiment, then we present people with a fait accompli, and finally we have them cheer at it”4. The propaganda campaign for the Plan had already started, Hein Vos had in fact already given speeches about it to great enthusiasm of the cheering crowds, and yet the plan was far from done. Worse yet, suggested Van Cleeff propaganda concerns had already slipped into the actual analysis when it was decided that devaluation would not be part of the plan, not because it was proven to be ineffective, but rather because it was believed to generate too much criticism. Van Cleeff could have added that a consideration of budget deficits to pay for public works was ignored for the same reason (look up reference Nekkers).

Van Cleeff continued that the SDAP was, like the fascists, distorting if not poisoning democratic debate on the one hand by not presenting all the options and on the other hand by presenting a plan that had to be accepted wholesale. Party-politics will celebrate a major victory over democracy, based on soberness and rationality, he concluded.

What makes Van Cleeff critique so interesting and powerful is that it is based on values and goals that are shared by the young guns within the SDAP who are supporting the Plan-movement, most prominently Hein Vos and Tinbergen. They share Van Cleeff’s commitment to sober, factual and objective political deliberation, they share his commitment to break through traditional ideological and political barriers, and provide a plan that might appeal to everyone, and they share his commitment to introduce science into politics. In fact if one compares the SDAP Plan of Labor with its Belgian counterpart the first thing one notices is the length. The Belgian version of the BWP provides a brief introduction emphasizing the necessity to respond to the crisis, and proceeds in

4 Van Cleeff to JT, 24-08-1935, JT Letters. staccato terms with a list of demands, and is promoted under the slogan “Nothing but the Plan, Everything for the Plan”. The entire document is no more than eight pages long.

The Dutch version on the other hand is presented as a research report, consisting of over three- hundred pages of running text, including 7 appendixes full of statistical material and calculations to demonstrate the financial feasibility and budget consequences of the plan, as well as elaborate section laying out the vision on ‘Ordening’ (Ordnung, economic order) proposed by the plan, differentiating this vision from both socialization and a free market, while seriously hinting towards the type of economic order set out in the Papal Quadresimigo of 1934. The report is also not written by one man, Hendrik de Man, as in Belgium, but instead lists over twenty specialists who have contributed to the overall result, as such it already represents the type of consensus expert advice that would later become central in economic policy advice.

Yet the divide between Van Cleeff and the true adherents of the Plan-Movement is real, and Van Cleeff would ultimately resign his membership of the party in 1937. Hein Vos, seemingly replying to Van Cleeff ― Tinbergen’s reply to Van Cleeff is lost ― argues the following about democracy: “The Plan of Labor does not aspire to form a set of dictatorial government decrees. It wants to be understood for its content and aspirations. Democracy does not merely mean: influence of the people, it also means understanding by the people. For that reason the Plan-action, in all its scope and intensity, is a consequence of our democratic conviction” (Vos 1936, 52–53). At first this seems to confirm Van Cleeff’s worst suspicions, it is hardly a typical defense of democracy. But that is to misunderstand the context in important ways. What Vos does in his ‘response’ is actual entering the grounds of Van Cleeff, whose religious socialism has emphasized the development of a certain awareness, a socialist spirit in the people. The idea that aspirations are not already present but have to develop and be formed fits well with Van Cleeff’s progressive religious-socialism, in which cultural development takes a central place. So Vos does not argue that the Plan should already find full approval of the people, but instead that such approval and support should be nurtured, and the propaganda campaign within the party and outside of it actually is meant to realize this.

But the debate also brings back the relation between intellectuals, the socialist goals, and the people. The vanguard role envisioned by Hendrik de Man, who would later feel more and more attracted to the national-socialist movement, in the 1920’s was embodied in a different life-style in the socialist youth movement, but it becomes a political vanguard in the 1930’s. In Vos’ defence we clearly see that he argues that the Plan might embody certain ideals, which have not come to fruition yet among the people. The extensive propaganda campaign set up for the plan included gatherings, brochures, courses for members of the Party, flags, and mostly famously the song written by Vos:

Wij willen de ellende wenden We want to turn the misery

Wij willen de tijd bevrijd We want to liberate the time

Van het honende zorgen voor morgen From the sorrow of tommorow

Van de gesel der werkloosheid From the scourge of unemployment

Het moet, het kan! We must, we can!

Op voor het plan! On with the Plan!

Van Cleeff suggested it was unclear how we could possibly differentiate this from the propaganda of the national-socialists. After all the gatherings and marches organized to promote the plan really did make it look like the Plan-movement was taking to the streets to generate a popular movement reminiscent of the rise of the fascism in Germany and Italy. The simple answer was that the difference was in the type of ideals that were pursued. But even that was not fully true, Hilda Verwey-Jonker another prominent voice among the young reformers in the SDAP voiced serious concerns over the national character of the Plan, at odds with the internationalism of true socialism.

Tinbergen must have been caught in the middle. He was never the political agitator that Hein Vos was in the aftermath of the launch of the Plan. Vos continuously lectured and defended and promoted the Plan for every imaginable group. Yet he undoubtedly defended the Plan as a major step forward in rational politics, the appendices in the report are clearly written by him, or under his supervision, and they are used by Vos too to defend the scientific merits of the Plan. More importantly support for the Plan sets Tinbergen definitely on the pragmatist path that would mark the rest of his career. He was no longer content with statistical and theoretical studies on business cycles, he now had an opportunity to get involved in politics and to do something about the instability of the current economy. Most importantly Tinbergen would always remain open to criticism, especially those of a fundamental theoretical nature, but unlike Van Cleeff he would never let those slow down his practical projects too much. The urgency that was felt by Hendrik de Man, and that was represented by the Plan movement was shared by Tinbergen, science was a means but not the goal. When Ed van Cleeff would complete his theoretical treatise on economic order in 1939 he would write a foreword with words of high praise, but he must also have been happy that they did not wait with the plan until after this theoretical foundation was complete.

Bibliography Baneke, David Maarten. 2008. Synthetisch Denken: Natuurwetenschappers over Hun Rol in Een Moderne Maatschappij 1900-1940. Hilversum: Verloren. Bogaard, Adrienne Van den. 2001. “Economie Als Wiskundige Abstractie of Als Uitdrukking van Zingeving? Strijdende Visies Bij Het Ontstaan van Het Centraal Planbureau.” Gewina 24: 225– 41. Cleeff, Ed Van. 1929. “Hendrik de Man’s ‘Die Intellektuellen Und Der Sozialismus.’” Regeneratie: Maandschrift Voor Praktisch-Idealisme 10 (10): 294–300. ———. 1931. “Het Sociaal-Ekonomies Wereldkongres.” Regeneratie: Maandschrift Voor Praktisch- Idealisme 12 (10): 306–9. Commissie uit N.V.V. en S.D.A.P. 1936. “Het Plan van de Arbeid.” Amsterdam. Dodge, Peter. 1979. Hendrik de Man, Socialist Critic of Marxism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fleddérus, Mary L. 1931. World Social Economic Planning: The Necessity for Planned Adjustment of Productive Capacity and Standards of Living. The Hague: International Industrial Relations Institute. Goudriaan, J. 1933. Socialisme Zonder Dogma’s. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon. Hartmans, Rob. 1991. “Van ‘Wetenschappelijk Socialisme’ Naar Wetenschap En Socialisme. De Ideologische Herontiering van de SDAP in de Jaren Dertig.” In Het Twaalfde Jaarboek Voor Het Democratisch Socialisme, edited by Marnix Krop, Martin Ros, Saskia Stuiveling, and Bart Tromp, 17–46. Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers. Hollestelle, Marijn. 2011. Paul Ehrenfest: Worstelingen Met de Moderne Wetenschap, 1912-1933. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Horn, Gerd-Rainer. 1996. European Socialists Respond to Fascism: Ideology, Activism and Contingency in the 1930s. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jansen van Galen, John. 1985. “Doorbraak: Het Plan in de Herinnering van Tijdgenoten.” In Het Moet, Het Kan! Op Voor Het Plan!, 156–93. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Louw, Andre Van der. 1974. Rood Als Je Hart: Geschiedenis van de AJC. Amsterdam: Arbeiderspers. Luytelaer, Th Van, and Jan Tinbergen. 1932. “De Koffievalorisaties: Geschiedenis En Resultaten.” De Economist 81: 517–38. Maier, Charles S. 1970. “Between Taylorism and Technocracy: European Ideologies and the Vision of Industrial Productivity in the 1920s.” Journal of Contemporary History 5 (2): 27–61. Man, Hendrik De. 1927. Zur Pscyhologie Des Sozialismus. Jena: Eugen Diederichs. ———. 1932. Massen Und Führer. Potsdam: Protte. Pels, Dick. 1985. “Hendrik de Man En de Ideologie van Het Planisme.” In Het Moet, Het Kan! Op Voor Het Plan!, edited by J Th J Van den Berg, 124–55. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Peski, Adriaan M Van. 1969. Hendrik de Man. Brugge: Desclée de Brouwer. Polak, Fred L. 1948. “De Problematiek Der Welvaartsplanning En Haar Ontwikkeling in de Buitenlandse Litteratuur.” De Economist 96 (1): 161–92. Sluyser, M. 1934. Planmatige Socialistische Politiek. Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers. Tinbergen, Jan. 1924. “Verstand of Gevoel?” Kentering 1 (2): 24–25. ———. 1925. “Buitenland. Zweden.” Kentering 1 (7–8): ? ———. 1928a. “A.J.C.-Er En Student.” Het Jonge Volk 15: 76. ———. 1928b. “In Der Steden Donk’re Stegen Is Een Lichte Roep Ontwaakt....” Het Jonge Volk 15 (6): 99. ———. 1928c. “Eenmanswagens.” Het Volk, October 18, 1928. ———. 1930a. “Socialisten En Hoge Inkomens.” Het Volk, May 20, 1930. ———. 1930b. “Vóór-Marxistisch?” Het Volk, August 25, 1930. ———. 1931a. “De Landbouwkrisis: Praeadvies Uitgebracht Voor de Socialistiese Vereniging Ter Bevordering van de Studie van Maatshcappelike Vraagstukken.” De Socialistische Gids 16 (4,5): 300–313, 384–93. ———. 1931b. “Oorzaken En Bestrijding Der Werkloosheid.” De Socialistische Gids 16 (3): 169–80. ———. 1934. “Vraagstukken En Hulpmiddelen Bij Planning.” Still to Be Found. ———. 1935. “De Economische Zijde van Het Ordeningsvraagstuk.” In Ordening, 17–29. Delft: Delftsch Hogeschoolfonds. ———. 1936. “De Conjunctuurpolitiek in Zweden.” Hollandsche Revue 41 (8): 351–53. ———. 1952. “Goudriaans Analystische Economie.” De Economist 100: 401–10. ———. 1954. “De Grondstoffenvaluta Voor de Verenigde Naties.” Economisch-Statistische Berichten 39 (1909): 3–6. Unknown. 1927. “Een Gesprek Met Hendrik de Man, de Eerste Sekretaris Der Sosialistiese Jeugdinternationale.” Het Jonge Volk 14: 194. Verwey-Jonker, Hilda. 1938. “Vijf En Twintig Jaar Socialistische Theorie.” In Ir. J. W. Albarda: Een Kwart Eeuw Parlementaire Werkzaamheid in Dienst van de Bevrijding Der Nederlandse Arbeidersklasse : Een Beeld van de Groei Der Nederlandse Volksgemeenschap, edited by E Boekman, 330–48. Amsterdam: Arbeiderspers. Vos, Hein. 1936. Waar Het Op Staat: Het Plan van de Arbeid Verdedigd. Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers.