[Militant No. 238, 10th January 1975, p. 4]
Only a few months ago we carried an interview with a Portuguese Young Socialist which demonstrated the phenomenal growth of the Socialist Party since April 25th 1974. [Militant No. 225].
From a tiny group with little roots in the working class, it has blossomed in the struggles since then, into a mighty force among the working class with strong support among the youth. Its programme stands far to the left of the Communist Party.
As with the development of PASOK [Andreas Papandreou’s recently formed Socialist Party in Greece], only MILITANT clearly pointed to the vital role which such a party would play, from the very early days following the downfall of the dictatorship.
Twice since April, socialist militants along with rank and file communist have decisively acted to crush attempts at reaction.
The following first hand report of the SP congress amply confirms our perspective. The British press reported Soares’ re-election – by 63% to 37%, but most significant of all for us, was the report that a motion was carried to the effect that 20 members of the Socialist Youth be on the national committee.
The pressure of the worker ranks was clear at the congress. With the youth, they will play a leading role in the coming struggles with the Portuguese capitalists, who are licking their wounds, while awaiting the opportunity to strike again.
December 1974: the first ever legal Congress of the Portuguese Socialist Party. About 750 delegates from local and factory branches, and as many visitors from the ranks of the party, meet at the University Theatre to discuss the urgent problems facing the working class.
It was a long-awaited day. Until eight months before the Socialist Party only had a clandestine existence, with all the dangers and limitations that implies.
Since April 25th, the superstructure of a degenerate fascism has been swept away and an enormous movement of the workers set in motion. Immediate economic gains have been grasped, and the trade union and political organisations have already secured a strong mass base.
In these rapid developments the militants of the Socialist Party have played a key role. This was definitely reflected in the mood of the delegates. There was an overriding awareness that the SP has a fundamental role to play, and that it has a tremendous historic responsibility to live up to the tasks facing it.
The international significance of developments in Portugal was emphasised by the large numbers of fraternal delegations and individual visitors from workers’ parties of many countries. They were given a warm welcome by the Conference, particularly the comrades from far-away Chile and nearby Spain.
The Congress had been preceded by intense discussion in all the SP branches. The debates at the Congress – three days (14, 15 and 16 December) from 9.30 to well after midnight, testifying to the seriousness of the delegates – were extremely free and democratic.
Democracy
It was a good example for some of the foreign visitors who are used to rather more stage-management at their own conferences! A great many issues were discussed: here it will be possible to report only some of the most important.
In the first session Mario Soares (Secretary of the SP and Minister for Foreign Affairs) gave the report for the Political Committee of the party. He outlined the enormous gains in democratic freedom and what he considered improved living conditions since April, and summarised the measures taken by the Provisional Government, in which the SP plays an important part. The real issues, however, were the analysis and the perspectives presented in his report.
Soares laid great stress on the fact that the Socialist Party is a Socialist and not a social democratic party. Its inspiration, he said, is clearly Marxist, and its aim is not to reform injustices under capitalism but the complete overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a classless society free from economic exploitation.
This view undoubtedly represents the feelings of an overwhelming majority of the rank and file. However, as his report went on, there was a clear divergence between this position and the actual perspectives outlined by Comrade Soares!
In distinguishing between “final objectives” and “immediate aims”, Soares put forward what is, in reality a reformist perspective. He advocated the consolidation of a strong “pluralist democracy” in which there will be a gradual advance towards Socialism. He anticipated, probably correctly, that the SP will gain substantial support in the elections to the Constituent Assembly (probably in March) and also in subsequent election to a new Legislative Assembly (possibly in November).
As part of a “left coalition government” the Socialist Party would concentrate on: (1) consolidating democracy, (2) carrying through decolonisation, and (3) imparting some dynamism to the economy.
In the present situation in Portugal, however, and with growing political crises and economic strains throughout the world, this is a rather naive perspective.
Mario Soares himself said that “pluralist democracy cannot work without a stable economic basis”. Yet the facts he gave in his speech show how very far away from economic stability Portugal is at the present time, on the basis of archaic native capitalism and dependency on international monopolies.
Economic Crisis
Inflation has already absorbed a large part of the wage increases since April, unemployment is rising and will be increased by soldiers returning from Africa, and the export industries are in crisis because of the depression of markets in Western Europe and throughout the world.
In these circumstances how can there be a gradual process in which Portugal can advance towards the final aim of Socialism? “Pluralist democracy”, the rigorous defence of freedoms through the impartial administration of the law, as advocated by comrade Soares, will not serve as a very reliable bulwark against reaction when sections of the workers and especially people in the countryside, become disappointed with the limited gains of the April revolution.
Fortunately, it was quite clear throughout the Congress that the perspectives which emerged from the General Secretary’s speech are not the perspectives of the majority of the worker-members of the SP.
Delegate after delegate came to the rostrum and hammered out the simple but basic message: that the SP must base itself on the struggle of the working class as the only force capable of achieving Socialism; that the taking over of the economy and the establishment of workers’ democracy is the only way in which permanent gains can be won and safeguarded against the reaction of the capitalists and land-owners.
A young worker delegate from the big Lisnave shipyard reminded the Congress of the key role of the workers’ commissions (Factory and workers’ commissions, thrown up in the aftermath of April 25). The working class, he said, which was the real base of the Party had played a decisive part in the fight for democracy. The working class was the backbone of democracy and the workers’ commissions are the key to the action of the working class.
Some people had tried to blame the workers’ commission for the state of the economy, but the crisis was the responsibility of the capitalists, not the workers: All Capitalists must go!
One delegate who advocated an appeal to all classes so as to inspire confidence, and woo the professional classes to provide technical expertise etc, was given a very cool reception.
Many of the contributions were summed up by the last speaker from the floor who clearly distinguished the difference between a fight for democracy and a fight for socialism. He received tremendous applause.
Overthrowing fascism, he said, was one thing; the achievement of Socialism is another. Democracy is not yet consolidated in Portugal and cannot be consolidated without Socialism.
The monopolies have still not been taken over: this is the key to economic progress. Portugal must belong, must be in the hands of those who produce: that is what socialism means.
Regrettably, however, it has to be said that the big gap between the perspectives and methods of the top leadership of the party and the instinctive class approach of the rank and file, reflected in the majority of contributions from the floor, was not clearly brought out and discussed.
The demand for immediate socialist measures from a majority of delegates was counterposed to the gradualist approach of the leadership.
But there were only very limited attempts to bring out, examine and answer the cautious, and often ambiguously-worded formulations of Mario Soares and leaders with similar views.
Differences were confused. Reformist ideas were out forward in “Marxist” or left language. At this stage most, even of the most militant members, have not clearly understood the gulf between the revolutionary tasks now facing the working class and the reluctance of the leaders of the party to tackle them with the necessary revolutionary methods.
There was no alternative report or resolution and so the General Secretary’s report was unanimously accepted.
The debate on the economic programme of the party and the report of the party economic commission was also important. The SP programme calls for the nationalisation of the banks and the monopolies, under workers control and for a radical programme of agrarian reform.
The economic conditions reporter elaborated the programme by describing the decrepit state of the economy, the problem of gross regional imbalances, inflation and rising unemployment and terrible conditions in the countryside. He called for the nationalisation as the only means of planning the economy in the interests of the workers and other exploited sections of the population – all the other plans for housing, health, education and other social programmes depended on this.
One of the best contributions to this discussion came, surprisingly enough, from a veteran member of the Socialist Party who had recently been appointed director of the National Bank!
He told the Congress that he was the only socialist bank director in Portugal and that all the other banks were directed by the “enemies of democracy”. All the banks should be taken into public control. The lesson of Chile, he said, was that 45,000 people were murdered by the reaction because the Popular Unity Government failed to take the economic power.
Capitalist Sabotage
Also, the republic was overthrown in Portugal in 1926 because the republicans did not take over the banks and the economy.
“I give you warning”, he said, “I am working among reactionaries who will be out to sabotage Socialism. We must break the teeth of reaction or we will fail”!
Again, speaker after speaker called for immediate Socialist measures to resolve the economic crisis. One pointed out that after 48 years of fascist protected existence, Portuguese capitalism was dying. Attempts to revive it could only be at the expense of the workers. We must move to socialism immediately he said.
A speaker from the workers’ commission demanded an immediate end to capitalism: the workers need solutions now, and the only solution was the complete expropriation of all the big capitalists, with no compromises except with small business-men. Only an economy planned and controlled by the workers could overcome the problems of the crisis and the economic and cultural backwardness of the country-side.
The commitment of a big majority of the rank and file to immediate socialist measures was unmistakable. But, as on other issues, there was only very inadequate discussion of the strategy and tactics that should be adopted by the party and the workers’ organisations to carry the programme of the party into practice.
In the last session of the congress came the elections for the 150-strong national committee (which elects the political committee and the secretariat). This was carried out by the very democratic procedure of presenting alternative lists which were discussed before the vote was taken.
There were two lists, ‘A’ list presented by Mario Soares and a majority of the Political Committee, and ‘B’ list presented by Manuel Serre and supporters of the Movemento Socialista Popular (a left tendency within the SP).
Both lists proposed Soares as general secretary and many of the other names were the same on both lists (Serre was included in both) but list ‘B’ included the names of a number of younger militants on the left of the party.
Soares argued that list ‘A’ represented continuity of a united experienced leadership and that it was premature to bring on new people from the rank and file. In the event, list ‘A’ received a majority, though a narrow one, getting 417 votes as against 323 votes for list ‘B’.
A majority for list ‘B’ would have meant a consolidation of the left wing. However, Manuel Serre, instead of clearly delineating a revolutionary perspective and sharply differentiating his ideas from those of Soares, thus giving delegates clear political reasons for voting against the advice of the present top leadership, tended to smooth over the differences.
Serre pointed out that a majority for list ‘B’ would mean a more militant and left wing leadership, but did not explain sufficiently clearly what this would mean in terms of programme, perspectives and tactics. Nevertheless, the vote gave a clear indication of the strength of the left in the party.
By Lynn Walsh
Schreibe einen Kommentar