💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › uisce-the-portuguese-revolution-of-1974.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:28:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Portuguese Revolution of 1974
Author: Uisce
Date: 1999
Language: en
Topics: Portugal, anti-fascism, revolution
Source: Retrieved on 3rd August from http://struggle.ws/ws99/portugal58.html

Uisce

The Portuguese Revolution of 1974

ON APRIL 25TH 1974 a radical faction within the Portuguese Armed Forces,

the MFA, revolted against the government. Until that day Portugal had

been under a fascist dictatorship for over half a century. Whether the

MFA was left or right wing inclined was unclear at the time. The

military revolt created a space where people could effect change in

their lives and the opportunity was grasped eagerly.

Left-wing activists began returning from exile, and new political

parties sprouted up. The parties all used the situation to gain

political power in the government. Ordinary folk, in contrast, used the

situation to improve social conditions in their communities and

workplaces through new autonomous organisations. It was here that the

true revolution was fought and is of most interest to anarchists.

Workers’ Struggles

Portugal was the most underdeveloped country in Europe. At the time

400,000 people were unemployed. 150,000 people lived in shanty towns,

one million had emigrated and infant mortality was nearly 8.5%. After

the revolution workers immediately began struggling against the harsh

economic conditions. Strikes had been met by brutal force under the

fascist regime but lack of experience proved no deterrent to the

Portuguese working class. During the summer of 1974 over 400 companies

registered disputes.

One of the most significant of the strikes was within TAP, the

semi-state airline. It showed whose side the supposedly radical

government was on. TAP workers had a history of militancy. In 1973 three

workers had been murdered by the paramilitary police force during a

strike.

On May 2, 1974 an assembly of TAP workers demanded the purging of all

fascists in the company and the election of union representatives to the

administration council &endash; which was in effect a council for the

bosses. When it was discovered that some of the representatives had

raised their salaries the union came under a lot of criticism. In August

an assembly of maintenance workers reduced their 44-hour week to 40

hours by refusing to work the extra four hours.

Another assembly, held without union officials, drew up a list of

demands including the purging of staff who showed “anti-working class

attitudes”, wage increases and the right to reconsider collective

contracts whenever the workers pleased. The demands were not accepted by

the government, so in response the workers declared a strike, elected a

strike committee and posted pickets. All international flights were

halted. The new Minister for Labour, a Communist Party member, called on

the workers to resume work while CP rank and filers opposed the strike

within TAP.

The TAP workers stood fast and eventually the government sent the

military to occupy the airport and arrest the strike committee. Two

hundred workers were sacked but were reinstated after mass

demonstrations and threats of further strikes. The 40-hour week was

gradually introduced. The first provisional government introduced

anti-strike laws around this time.

This government was a coalition that included the Socialist Party and

the Communist Party. The TAP strike was the first large-scale strike

after April 25^(th) and the government’s response was an indicator of

how any of the ‘post-fascist’ governments would treat workers struggles.

The working class however was unperturbed by this. In October another

400 companies registered disturbances.

The trade unions were relics of the fascist era and were considered

treactionary by many. Workers found the need for more democratic and

independent ways of organising. It had become common for assemblies of

workers to elect delegates to the committees. These committees were

normally elected annually and were subject to recall. Though most of

them were not revolutionary they were an expression of people’s distrust

of the ‘left parties’, the government and the military. By the end of

October 1974 there was about 2,000 of these committees.

In the summer of 1975 the movement began to develop further. Frequently,

when demands were ignored by management, workers would occupy their

places of employment and in many cases set up systems of

self-management. Anywhere from a dozen to several hundred workers would

take to running the businesses themselves. In Unhais de Serra 1,100

textile workers rid themselves of the management and elected a workers’

committee to run the factory.

It is estimated that about 380 factories self-managed and 500 co-ops

were in operation by the summer of 1975. Like the workers’ councils, the

co-ops were not revolutionary. They still had to contend with the

constraints of capitalism. They had to make a profit and members

received different wages. Despite many co-ops being able to reduce the

prices for goods or services, this inevitably led to competition between

different co-ops.

Amidst the growing culture of self-management the Proletarian

Revolutionary Party started a campaign to launch workers’ councils.

Delegates from major industries, and soldiers’ and sailors’ committees,

met with a large contingent of PRP members. The idea was to have

councils based on workplace, boroughs and barracks; and from these

local, regional and then a national council would be elected.

It sounded good, sadly the PRP were more concerned with creating bodies

they could dominate rather than councils capable of representing the

working class. “Working class parties” were invited to join. This showed

their very limited idea of what workers are capable of.

Giving places to political parties as well as to directly elected

workers’ delegates not only diluted democracy but also implied the

‘need’ for some sort of elite to lead the masses. If the self-proclaimed

‘revolutionary parties’ could not win enough support to get their

members chosen as delegates by their workmates, they were to get seats

as of right just because they called themselves “workers parties”. A

strange notion of democracy!

Housing Struggles

After April 25^(th) people began occupying empty property, unwilling to

wait for governmental action. The government, afraid of people’s anger,

decreed a rent freeze and allocated money and tax exemptions to

builders. The increase in homes built was inadequate and more and more

people occupied empty buildings. 260 families from a shantytown in

Lisbon moved into an empty apartment block near the city. The military

ordered them out but were forced to back down when the families refused.

In response to the housing crisis people began to organise collectively.

In older working class and lower middle class areas Autonomous

Revolutionary Neighbourhood Committees were set up. The committees were

elected from general assemblies of local residents. They arranged

occupations of property for use as free crèches, workers’ centres and

for other community services.

In Lisbon one local Neighbourhood Committee organised for some 400 empty

houses to be taken over. A “social rent” was paid that went towards

improvements. Another organisation set up was the Federation of Shanty

Town Committees. It was independent of political parties and came to

represent 150,000 shantytown dwellers. It called for new housing estates

to be built in place of the shantytowns, for expropriation of land and

for rent controls.

The housing organisations faced some of the same problems experienced by

the workers’ organisations. Neighbourhood and shanty town committee

meetings were seen as opportunities for party building by left parties.

Party members, often times well practised at public speaking and

debating, got elected to key positions on the committees and then used

them as a platform for their own particular political propaganda.

A lot ordinary residents stopped attending meetings when they felt they

were dominated by a particular group. All in all, the “workers parties”

seemed to be more a hindrance than a help to these committees. By trying

to run things in ways compatible with their ideologies they stifled the

spontaneous organisational methods of ordinary folk.

Land Occupations

At the same time one third of Portugal’s population worked as

agricultural labourers. They worked for half of the year and were

unemployed for the rest of it. When the rural workers saw their

opportunity for change they seized it whole-heartedly and began taking

over farms, ranches and unused land. At the beginning the government

rarely intervened.

There was much positive co-operation between agricultural and industrial

workers, and the various workers’ organisations. In Cabanas an abandoned

farm was occupied with the help of a local neighbourhood committee.

Machines were taken from a nearby factory to help clear the land. In

Santarem a meeting of 354 farm workers declared that a massive amount of

land was to be occupied. Other workers, armed with pickaxes, arrived in

trucks to aid the agricultural labourers and at the end of it over ten

major farms were collectivised.

Socialism seemed natural to the labourers and there was never talk of

dividing up the land. The land was worked collectively and owned by the

village as a whole. By August 1975 official statistics reported that

over 330 different land collectives were in operation

All these struggles happened against a backdrop of six provisional

governments, a few coup attempts and rumours of NATO and right-wing

conspiracies. Where the Armed Forces had created a space for radical

social development by workers it quickly reinvaded the space with

programs for government and the economy that had little to do with the

revolution. Any independent initiatives were generally stifled by the

left and centre “workers parties”.

The capitalist system itself was never truly tackled en masse and

co-ops, collectives and workers’ committees had to negotiate on

capitalist terms for the price of their labour. Even the workers’

committees were little more than workers’ self-management of their own

exploitation. One Trotskyist paper blamed the lack of revolutionary

progress on the fact that there was not a “workers party”. In fact there

were at least fifteen!