On 20 September, fascists rampaged through The Hague. This was an expression of the self-confidence of a far right that feels emboldened by the growth of parties with similar views in parliament. But on 5 October, a quarter of a million people marched through the streets of Amsterdam to show their solidarity with Palestine, often encouraged by local residents.

The far right is a serious and growing danger, but it is not unstoppable. The Red Line protest, the largest demonstration in response to international events in Dutch history, shows this. This was a protest for Palestine and especially today it was also a rejection of the far right. Rarely has the gap between official politics and public opinion been so deep. Precisely the (extreme) right-wing parties that so loudly proclaim to speak on behalf of ’the people’ represent only a minority in their fanatical support for Israel’s genocidal violence.

Meanwhile, the polls for the upcoming elections predict little good. The PVV [1] has become a party with a – larger – solid base, and the radicalisation of BBB [2] and growth of JA21 [3] strengthen the far-right bloc even further. A left as strong as possible, in parliament and on the streets, is urgently needed, but how do we achieve that? The choice is not obvious.

As far as the political programme is concerned, BIJ1 [4] is the party that most clearly opts for a radical alternative. For a small party, BIJ1 is highly visible in the Palestine and anti-fascism protests and movements, and on socio-economic issues it is clearly anti-capitalist. As one of the few organisations in the Netherlands, BIJ1 knows how to connect the struggle against racism with socio-economic struggles. With demands for affordable housing, a higher minimum wage, free public transport, and international solidarity, BIJ1 has good focal points.

A vote for BIJ1 is a vote for an anti-capitalist voice and moreover a show of support for everyone who is the target of the far right. One of BIJ1’s strongest points is that the party is well aware that solidarity with attacked groups, whether people of colour, Muslims, or trans people, is bitterly necessary. For these reasons, most SAP – Grenzeloos [5] members are voting for BIJ1.

But although BIJ1 can count on much sympathy amongst left-wing people, many will nonetheless make a different calculation. This is understandable. It is uncertain whether BIJ1 will succeed in returning to parliament. Moreover, there are too many internal squabbles that have led to scepticism about its long-term prospects.

Undoubtedly, the familiar argument of ’strategic voting’ means that many left-wing people are considering voting for GroenLinks-PvdA, whether with pain in their hearts or not. Precisely for strategic considerations, a vote for GroenLinks-PvdA is not an option for socialists.

The fusion party [6] is trapped in a contradiction it has created itself. On the one hand, there is the realisation that to win votes, it must distinguish itself from the centre and clearly choose a left-wing and ecological course. On the other hand, GroenLinks-PvdA, with Frans Timmermans [7] at the forefront, wants nothing more than to form a coalition with the (centre-)right and therefore cannot afford to offend potential partners too much.

To actually end decades of neoliberal policy, hard confrontations will have to be fought over control and capital. In this, centre-right parties such as the CDA [8] and D66 [9] will precisely be the opponent. Moreover, GroenLinks-PvdA has clearly chosen militarisation and more money for the arms industry. This makes actually implementing a social course even more difficult.

A better choice is the Party for the Animals, also for a few of our members. The PvdD [10] has developed into a solid left-wing and ecological choice. The party recognises the urgency of the climate crisis and takes good positions regarding Palestine and stopping cooperation with Israel. Unfortunately, the PvdD is also going along with the call for further militarisation. It declares that ’more money’ must go to defence and that the Netherlands must ’for the time being’ remain a member of NATO.

Precisely the rejection of militarisation can be a reason to vote for the SP. Moreover, the SP [11] is the only party in parliament that refers to a form of socialism and still manages to appeal to people who are unreachable for other left-wing parties.

But where the SP previously chose ’the Netherlands out of NATO’, the SP now also accepts membership of it. The SP’s alternative, a ’European security architecture of which the European part of NATO becomes a component’, is pie in the sky. The SP rightly states that the new NATO norm will lead to ’our public and social services being cut to pieces’. But the SP also wants to ’invest’ in the arms industry. The so-called alternative to buying weapons from American companies is ’investing in our own defence industry’ in EU countries. As if, for example, the Italian company Leonardo [12] is not already one of the major war profiteers and also supplies weapons to Israel.

In combating racism and the far right, the party also regularly falls short. After the riots in The Hague, Jimmy Dijk [13] rightly spoke about fascism. But subsequently, his party was the only left-wing party that voted for various motions introduced by the parliamentary wing of the far right. The SP once grew large as a consistent opposition party, but the party now threatens to end up on the same dead-end track as GroenLinks-PvdA. Jimmy Dijk dreams about the party’s participation in a centre cabinet – that is to say, a cabinet with pro-capitalist parties. Socialists should reject this on principle.

A centre(-left) government that cannot implement a break with decades-long neoliberal policy paves the way for disappointment and weakening on the left and growth on the (far) right. In France, Macron once came to power as the supposed blockade of the centre and centre-left against the far right. Meanwhile, his government lurches from crisis to crisis whilst Rassemblement National [14] continues to grow. In the United Kingdom, Labour stands on the eve of a historic election defeat whilst the far right is also warming up for government power there.

In the current circumstances, in which the centre-right is radicalising ever further in competition with a strong far right, left participation in a centre cabinet will at most lead to a very temporary softening of right-wing policy. But because social problems are insufficiently tackled, the price for such a short-term result will be the long-term weakening of the left. In our view, a vote for one of the left-wing parties that goes too far along with the right-wing zeitgeist contributes to this weakening of the left.

To turn the tide, the left will have to work on building its own power, its own structures and proposals for a different society. In the daily struggle for socio-economic interests and against the far right, we must cooperate and look beyond the next elections. That is even more important than which party we vote for on 29 October.

The first opportunity for this is the Climate March on 26 October in The Hague. A climate catastrophe is becoming ever more threatening. Worldwide – including in Europe – people are losing their homes, harvests, and lives through floods, droughts, and fires. The people who contribute least to this climate crisis are hit hardest by it. And meanwhile, a small group of major polluters continue to make enormous profits at the expense of us and the planet. This must change, and it can change. Climate justice must become a priority. That is why we are taking to the streets en masse in The Hague on 26 October.