16th Congress of the Portuguese Communist Party, Lisbon

Report given to the National Board

First, I want to thank the National Board for sending me to the Congress of the Communist Party of Portugal, December 8-10, 2000. It was an incredible experience, in a beautiful place. More specifically, it was a mind-expanding, intellectually challenging, tremendously moving, and also very humbling experience.

I was one of about 62 international delegates, and experienced such a sense of -- I can't think of another way to describe it -- brotherhood; of having bonds with people from literally all over the globe, people so different, yet who have all arrived at the same place, in a certain sense, with the same grand objective. It was transformative; I felt a heightened awareness of being a Communist, and an even more intense process of thinking about what it means, what it should mean, what it means in the many different, and often very difficult, situations from which the comrades came.

About Portugal and the PCP:
I loved Portugal, Lisbon and Evora, a town south of Lisbon with a Communist-led city administration, which the international delegates visited. Belatedly, I read some about the history of the country, and its revolution, and it's quite fascinating. I really wish I had known more when I went.

The PCP is a big, influential, deeply rooted Party; a small example -- the mainstream newspaper, which I received on the plane to Lisbon, had four pages of coverage about the upcoming Congress.

When I told Lee how amazing the experience was, she said that Congresses are all like this, but I think to be at the Congress of a truly mass Communist Party in a capitalist country is amazing in a particular way.

There were 1600 delegates to the Congress, something like 62 international delegates, and probably 500 or more Portuguese guests. The Congress lasted 2 1/2 days, and was opened with a report by Carlos Carvalhas, the General Secretary. There was of course, discussion, election of leading bodies, adoption of the main political resolution, discussion on amendments to the resolution, and the closing speech by Carvalhas. The Congress was attended by representatives of many mass organizations, the central labor federation, and women's organization, and there was a huge media presence as well, including TV and radio.

A greeting from Alvaro Cunhal, the former General Secretary, who was too ill to attend, was read by a delegate.

I had prepared a greeting on behalf of our Party, but I didn't give it; only the Cuban delegate addressed the Congress. (I did fax it to them, after I got home!)

I had an official meeting with a member of the Political Commission of the Party, for which I feel I was ill prepared. In this regard, I think we could easily do better -- this is an example of something we know for sure takes place at almost every Congress (an official meeting with the leadership), and we should have something in writing from our Party, for that explicit purpose. I also spoke with foreign delegates from Britain, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Mexico, El Salvador, Angola, Cameroon, China, Vietnam, Greece, and many others. Most of these were just informal discussions, although very interesting and enriching for me personally -- but more about that in a minute.

I was interviewed by a TV station, and two radio stations, and also by Avante, the journal of the PCP. I felt very good about these; one of the PCP Political Commission members told me he'd heard the radio interview and thought it was very good, so it felt like I'd actually participated in, added something to, the Congress.

Every Congress will have something that makes it unique -- in this case, had to do with what's been going on in the Party, which I will go into a bit, because it was very interesting.

The PCP has been going through a period of internal struggle over the past year and a half, and it has also been under some attack in the mass media. The extent and content of the problem is a little hard to gauge from outside. Most of what I can say about it is based on reading Carvalhas' reports, and some on discussions I had with some of the Portuguese comrades I spent time with, as well as what the comrade from the PCP leadership with whom I met said. I also tried to "read between the lines" of the coverage in the bourgeois press.

It appears that there was a grouping that argued that Marxism Leninism is obsolete, and others who took extreme sectarian and dogmatic positions against those of the "renovators." Carvalhas basically argued that: both were extremes, and that the extreme portrayals of the issues distorted and obscured the real problems and issues that need discussing -- that the use of the media and going outside Party channels was inexcusable.

So what were some of the issues?
1. Relevance/usefulness of Marxism-Leninism; character of the Party, which extended to some questions about emphasis on the working class, importance of Party shop clubs;
2. Internal functioning, democracy, routine-ism; and,
3. Reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European socialist countries.

There was also some sharp discussion on the floor of the Congress on amendments to the main political resolution, including on whether or not to use the word "option" to describe homosexuality, and on how the Party characterizes the question of disabled people's rights. Most of the other points of contention had to do with the pre-Congress process itself, and whether it was democratic enough or not, i.e., how the amendments to the resolution were processed. Also, some proposed a Party conference on organizational questions because of continuing concerns about Party unity.

The Congress' assessment was that the main problems in the internal struggle have been overcome and that the loss of membership experienced post '91 has been halted, if not turned around. Some of the people who had been critical of the leadership were re-elected to the Central Committee. Carvalhas made the point that this was the leadership's intention, contrary to the predictions of some that there would be expulsions, etc. Most of the votes for the leadership and on the political resolution had at least some abstentions and some no votes.

What is the reason for this "second round" of internal problems? I think there are a number of factors, not all unique to Portugal: the economic situation in the country, which in a phrase boils down to the impact of European integration on the economy, setting of terms by corporations that lower living standards, etc., plant closings, de-nationalizing industries that had been nationalized after the revolution, growing debt, both of the country and of working-class families, and difficulties in organizing.

Negative developments in some of the other European Parties have also had a big impact on the PCP. And their premise is that the collapse of the Soviet Union had a huge effect on the Party and on the left generally, including ideologically and in terms of morale, that has not yet been overcome. There were some sharp debates on the role of the socialist countries, some talking about what they contributed to Portugal after the revolution, others sharply critical of problems that led to the collapse.

As well, a lot of the pre-Congress discussion had to do with overcoming an array of organizational problems: not enough recruitment, problems of functioning, problems of inadequate cadre and full time workers, how to activate the grassroots level of the organization, insufficient number of and attention to shop clubs, need for greater horizontal circulation of information (democracy), better development of democratic centralism, creative and scientific use of Marxism to analyze new developments and facts, need to be as close to reality as possible, how to be better organized, more visible, more active, etc., need for better educational work, retaining young people and women, and promoting women into leadership. Not all of these were controversial, of course, but it did seem that they were all the subject of very intense discussion and attention.

I think the PCP's discussion about the internal issues/problems is not the exception, but rather, is something that is happening in many Parties, and the way that the they handled it, without big losses, striving for unity and an atmosphere where debate and differences can be accommodated, is very important. They are talking about building the Party in new conditions, and about utilizing Marxism to provide explanation and analysis of a new world situation.

Carvalhas' report and summary, and the political resolution, are extremely interesting; the PCP is grappling very concretely with their reality. There, the struggle against globalization is up close and personal, and of course they have a representative in the European Parliament so there's that very important experience. And, of course, their work in the electoral and legislative arena is broad and complex. So, again, it was an extremely rich discussion, although limited in terms of time -- which, by the way, a number of delegates criticized.

My experience was that being at the Congress gave much food for thought, in terms of our own situation. In fact, I found myself listening to the description of the Portuguese comrades' work, problems, struggles, and almost automatically thinking about our work, problems, struggles, which is another benefit of attending these gatherings.

So, some lessons and conclusions about our international work:

Before I talk about the things I feel I didn't do well enough, the weaknesses, let me say that I think I did do a good job there. I talked to a lot of people about the U.S. elections, about our estimate of the new levels of struggle, militancy and unity in our country, about the new labor movement, the new coalitions, etc. I tried to make clear our Party's commitment to international solidarity, and to improving our work in that area. I think the interviews I gave were good, and the Portuguese comrades appreciated them. I think I represented our Party and our policies well, and of course I was very proud -- thrilled -- to be doing it.

The Congress was very inspiring; morale is not a small factor, and our Party's presence, and the presence of so many international guests at the Congress, was important.

But of course I also have a lot of self-criticism and criticisms, with 20-20 hindsight, about this experience, and although I realize that we can't do everything, and we can't be perfect, I think there is a lot of room to improve, and we should examine how to do that. I would also say that our international work, or, better put, our internationalist responsibility, is not the job of just one comrade or department, but of our leadership.

So, some concretes: Everyone who attends the Congress of another Party needs to know the history of the country and the Party. The International Department should figure out how to "farm out" the Parties so that comrades can become "experts," or at least collect materials, publications, etc., and keep us appraised of important developments. Now, obviously we can't be completely prepared, and there is value in thinking on your feet, improvising, but we can and should better prepare comrades.

I'm sure Evey and John had the same experience, but as I said, I spent a lot of time talking about the U.S. elections, our assessment of what was at stake, and our Party's policy. This was news to most people. So, obviously the PA and PWW that are going out internationally aren't enough, and anyway, we know what it's like to get the newspapers of other Parties; it's hard to find time to read them. We have a special responsibility to let the world movement know about developments in the U.S., which they won't get otherwise. We need to do more in that regard, to put together packets of articles, or Party documents, which discuss important and relevant developments, that comrades can take with them when they attend a Congress.

How can these delegations to Congresses help develop a deeper understanding in our Party of the basic requirement and task of Communists everywhere -- proletarian internationalism -- in ways that are concrete, real? What role does the International Department play in that regard?

Now obviously, organizing our solidarity work is the main thing, and we're taking some steps there. But I think that these trips should play more of a role as well. It shouldn't be that only a few comrades, Board members, know about them. We should look at what we can do to transmit these experiences to a bigger section of the Party. There should be articles in the PWW, in the Partybuilder; we should think about how to reflect this aspect of our work on the web page, etc.

We need to think about the participation of international guests in our own convention, who to invite, what to do with them. In Lisbon, the international delegates didn't "mingle" with the Portuguese delegates at all; it just wasn't in the schedule, and it was such a huge gathering. For our convention, though, I think we should make sure that the international guests are able to mingle with our delegates as much as possible, and we should make maximum effort to find translators. This is the minimum; I'm sure the committee will think of other things.

Before someone goes to a Congress, we should have a very specific discussion about what articles, interviews, etc., we will want from them when they return. We should provide some organizational tools to record the meetings with other Parties, to gather information, i.e., addresses, web sites, make sure they get our paper and PA, and that they can access it via the Internet. And we really need a promotional flyer about the Rednet.

The experience of attending this Congress made me think about how much better we need to do, to be, and not just in terms of our international work itself. For instance, the discussion at the Congress on the need for the thorough use and study of Marxism made me think about how much more educational work we need to do, how much higher we need to raise our standards for the theoretical work of our leadership. Being there as a representative of our Party made me feel even more the responsibility we have as Communists in the United States.

It made me feel even more strongly than I did before -- and I already felt pretty strongly about this -- that we have to elevate our Party's international work; that we have to have a much more consistent approach; that we have to be more creative and more productive; that we need to look at the meaning of our international relations in the new global context; that we should be more "proactive."

We have think about our international work in fresh ways. We are too routine in our approach to attending Congresses and international gatherings. Why do we attend them? To demonstrate our solidarity, yes, and I do not underestimate the importance of that. To participate in building world Communist unity, yes. But what exactly does this mean in today's world? We have a lot to learn from each other -- that's kind of a given, given globalization. The task of building international unity is not the same at every moment in history, and we should think a lot more concretely about it.

So, for instance, the question of privatization was a big issue and subject of discussion at the PCP Congress -- the fight against it, the ideological underpinnings of it, the relationship between the collapse of socialism and the attendant attack on the role of government. Or, the question of trade -- there's so much going on, there are questions which our labor movement is discussing, etc. Or, the question of the status of the U.S. economy -- subject of much discussion, of course, and we should contribute more than we do.

Our aim should be to find concrete ways to project our experience in struggle, and our thinking, so that it enriches and is enriched by the experience and thinking of the international movement.