FREEDOM FIGHTERS
CHAPTER ONE
THE BEGINNINGS
Scholarly anarchism began with the writings of Proudhon (1809-1865) despite precursory ideas voiced in England fifty years earlier by William Godwin (1773-1836). Proudhon wrote against property and wealth, and before long against Marx's communist vision. One is indebted to him, amidst a tumultuous flow of words and ideas, for the emergence of concepts like labour, freedom, contract and justice. Essentially, it was he who acclaimed the term "anarchist" a derogatory designation ascribed to the followers of these ideas. In spite of his criticism of the principles of law and of the government, Proudhon's anarchism rested more on a certain socioeconomic and philosophical vision of the world rather than on a political one. His influence on the rising labour movement cannot be ignored, especially in Latin countries. But this line of thought was mainly pursued by a series of North American libertarian thinkers with little practical success. Josiah Warren (1798-1874), Stephen Andrews (1812-1886), Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), William Green (1819-1878), Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) and other lesser known: they developed an individualistic anarchism based on economic factors. It did not originate from the proletarian revolt against the evils of industrial revolution, but more from the serious analyses of the concept of sovereignty of the people in a democratic State. This was to such an extent that it permitted Rudolf Rocker (1873-1958)--a militant and perceptive observer--to speak of the double ideological genesis of anarchism, which would really be an original synthesis of liberalism and socialism, where the former libertarian premise and the latter's egalitarian premise would be linked, developed and carried to its final outcome.
But the political history of anarchism starts primarily with the conflict between the followers of Marx and Bákunin (1814-1876) amidst the first International Workingmen's Association (IWA), between 1860 and 1870. The former had a more centralist concept of organizing the working class in their subordination of economic action to the political one; the latter advocated a federalist systematized solution based on the principles of liberty, criticizing their "authoritarianism," rejecting any type of dictatorship, be it a "people's" one or a "labor" one. Once the traditional State institutions were dismantled (government, taxes, police, judiciary, jails, army) for a post-revolutionary period, they proposed a management of society based on free organization of producers' association and in the self-management of local communities under the direct control of the respective population.
Although for several years, international labor conventions and certain commemorative events like the Paris Commune or May Day were opportunities for joint action which generally ended in open disagreement, it is in the '70-'80 decade that the final split among Marxist socialists and anarchists or libertarians, is decisive. From then on, two different ideological currents position themselves and dispute within labour and people's associations, trying to get position and institutional footholds in order to influence and direct the vast mass of the working class.
In general, there was a predominance of Marxists over anarchists. In more industrialized countries like England, Germany or the United States of America, the influence of anarchists had always been less. However, anarchism in France, in Italy, in Spain, and in Portugal, demonstrated a better capacity to adjust itself to the working class of those countries. According to the historian César Oliveira:
The anarchist claims are socially and psychologically closer to the working class of countries where industrialization did not create social and cultural changes, as was the case in Latin countries…On the other hand, anarchism in general, continued to be faithful to the Revolution, deciding radically against middle class institutions. Anarchism generates a language, which does not include a closed and complex 'discourse,' but a direct and participative one, although appealing to individual energy, exploiting workers wretchedness. This project, utopian in many aspects, is closer to reality, having its own dynamics relating closely to the period of organized production and of the average culture of Portuguese society of the 19th century. The turning point for the anarchist's vis à vis equipment, bureaucracy, also brought prestige, in countries where social democracy had less impact and prestige (Oliveira, 1973, p.195).
But even in more industrialized countries, where Marxists controlled labour and people's movement institutions--unions, co-operatives, mutual assistance associations, community halls--whatever their predominance, it was always somewhat deceptive, since they occupied key positions in mass associations. The agitation by members of these associations was mainly for elementary reasons--better salaries, employment and social protection, which substantially limited the leaders' capacity to maneuver more radical social reforms.
In this sense, the minoritarian scope of these labour organizations encouraged by anarchists, was in a way offset by a more staunch worker's belief in the probity of anarchism's ideological references: especially the belief in the idea of the coming revolutionary change and the direct participation of the workers in this process. In general, the dynamism of these organizations was far superior to that of its competitors. But this might have led them to scorn the opinion of the masses, the weight of the majority. If the majority was really responsible for leading the social democracy to a reformist strategy by elective and parliamentary methods then, at the right moment the libertarians and the Leninists, Bolsheviks too, evinced a certain revolutionary arrogance. The unsurpassable dividing line between both rested on the fact of the latter wanting to forcibly seize control of the mechanisms of government's coercion. The idea was to impose their project of socialist reform, whereas for the libertarians any idea of dictatorship, even if in the name of the proletariat, was abhorrent. But this is now an account of the labour movement at the beginning of the 20th century.
The 19th Century in Portugal
The 19th century dawned in Portugal with the Napoleonic invasions of 1807-1811 forcing the whole court into exile to Brazil, the main Portuguese colony then. The liberal revolution of 1820 came about as a consequence of these circumstances: the spread of French revolutionary ideas, the result of pillage and poverty, continued presence of allied British troops, the popular resistance to foreigners and the king's absence. And in 1822, in a maelstrom of successive events, Brazil attained its independence.But the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and the abolition of the Old Regime were only achieved after a civil war between "absolutists" and "liberals" (1828-1834). The mitigated liberalism established by the Constitutional Charter of 1926, which succeeded throughout the rest of the century, was not devoid of coups d'étâts (as that of minister Costa Cabral in 1842), farmers' uprising (Maria da Fonte's revolt in 1846-47, guerrillas) or politico-military mutinies (as that of Marshal Saldanha in 1851). It is only from mid-century and after the movement that came to be known as "regeneração," that the political situation stabilized, allowing a boom in economic development.
Portugal--despite the glories of the distant past rooted in struggles against the moors and neighboring Castilians, in the discoveries and overseas possessions in particular, carried out in the 15th and 16th centuries--was then a small stagnant and backward country on the edge of Europe. The truth is, whereas its national identity was not the issue apart from history, it rested on its own and common language, a traditional territory, a powerful religion, and an internal and external political unit. But in the 18th century, the country had missed the opportunity of having a pioneering industrialization, which its position in the world would have ensured. It was overwhelmed by the easy slave trade of Africa and by the sumptuary exploitation of Brazil's mineral wealth. After the first "Colbertist" attempt, the Marquês de Pombal's "enlightened tyranny" (prime minister between 1750 and 1777) was unable to change the fundamental Portuguese economic structure, notwithstanding the reorganization of the system of production and commercial monopoly of essential commodities and direct investment in setting up manufacturing units (textiles, glass, iron). Although possessing agro-produce for self and for home consumption, that set-up relied more and more on the export of wine and some olive oil, fruit, leather goods and salt, import of manufactured goods (mainly textiles and metal artifacts), Britain being the leading partner. The external trade deficit was made up, to a large extent, by gold from Brazil. A well-known historiographical assumption is the one supporting the coalition of the benefits of large landowners and prosperous foreign traders who might have blocked Portugal's participation in the first industrial revolution, which left the country in economic and political dependence on a rising world power: Great Britain.
During the 19th century, Portugal's population increased as it did in the rest of Europe. It was due mainly to progress made in the field of hygiene and health. From about 3 million in 1820, the population in continental Portugal rose to 5 million in 1900. During the same period in Lisbon, the capital, population increased from 210,000 to 360,000; in Oporto from 50,000 to 170,000: this despite emigration, essentially to Brazil from mid-century.
After fifty years of wars and poverty, the economy grew, taking advantage of the new political scenario--the loss of power by the Catholic clergy and of the nobility, in particular. It meant direct benefit to a new rising middle class stimulated by wealth and progress.
Agriculture was extricated from feudal bonds, influenced by physiocratic principles. Land became negotiable property and markets were developed for farm-cum-cattle products for self-sufficiency as well as for export. Land under cultivation rose from 30% in 1820 to 60% in 1900. Besides vineyards and olive groves, intensive cultivation of potato, paddy and cork began.
In 1834, liberalism abolished business corporations opening the doors to capitalist production relations and to development of the wage earner and industry. In 1840, the country owned 4 steam engines totaling 79HP; in 1881 the total rose to 9,087HP; by 1900 it had reached 111,000HP. Belgium, around the same time, had already installed 72,000HP, which shows Portugal's backwardness in relation to other European countries of the same size. They, on the contrary, had availed of industrial changes, at the propitious time.
Apart from tanning, the textile industry was the one which prospered in the course of the century, occupying pride of place above all others. There was also development in milling, tobacco, ceramics, glass, dairy products and fish canning. All round growth was achieved: from 1,031 manufacturing units and 15,000 labour force in 1822, they grew to 1,350 manufacturing units and a labour force of 180,000 in 1881, and to 5,000 factories and 200,000 factory hands just before World War I.
This slow and tardy process of industrialization was certainly accompanied by certain economic policies. Primarily, protection to local products was guaranteed by taxing imports. The legislative framework (civil and commercial code, corporations, co-operatives, syndicates etc.,) was not omitted. There was development in elementary public education, scientific institutions were established, and the press expanded. The creation of an infrastructure of modern transport and communication was another decisive policy introduced in 1851 by the minister Fontes Pereira de Melo: railways (3,000 km in 1912), roads, long steel bridges, ports and light houses (till 1870, Portugal was notorious among seamen, it was known as the "dark coast"), telegraph (line to Spain around 1860), underwater cable (around the seventies there were lines to England and Brazil), etc.
But this boom in development also brought greater external liabilities: the lack of any income from the African or eastern possessions. The deficit of foreign exchange started being covered by emigrant savings from Brazil. Emigration and emigrants' hard work was the replacement for gold and diamonds of the previous century, also considered as the structural phenomenon of the Portuguese economy and Portuguese society.
As for international relations and in spite of historical and increasingly critical links with England, the most widely known fact was the clash of colonial interests with the "old ally." It happened at the Berlin conference (1885) leading to the episode of the British Ultimatum (1890) and to the first popular uprising, which took place in Oporto in 1891 for the proclamation of a republican regime. The permanent occupation of what remained of the erstwhile Portuguese Empire specially the African colonies, became a national obligation. And Monarchy fell partly as a result of being accused of inadequate patriotism, while the republicans extolled it constantly.
When it came to ideas and erudite culture, the Portuguese elite followed closely the great polemics and prevailing European line of thought in literature, philosophy and politics. Without any achievements in scientific research, technical inventions or industrial appliances, the Portuguese were aware of and awed by this progress, but preferred to buy it abroad and then flaunt it before the provincial Portuguese population. Political life settled to a routine of periodical alternation between two principal parties without any ideological or strategic differences between them, yet almost lying aside from institutions, the most dynamic expressions crossing the Portuguese political space: socialism and republicanism.
Socialist Ideas in Portugal
It is under the influence of the Revolution of 1848 in France that the first journal of socialist tendencies is published: Eco dos Operários (The Workmen's Echo). Two years later a Relief Center for Improvement of Working Classes was founded in Lisbon. For two decades this center functioned as reference and discussion point and for forming motivators of labour associations. These manifestations are undoubtedly the result of the efforts of intellectuals --Sousa Brandão, Lopes Mendonça, Henriques Nogueira, João Bonança and others--who were conversant with what was happening and what was printed abroad, specially in France. They tried to conscientise the workers of their specific class rights.Portuguese intellectuals were conversant with socialism's theoretical debates, including the so-called "utopian," and the controversy between Proudhon and Marx. This has been proved by Amorim Viena in his book entitled Análises das Contradições Económicas de Proudhon in 1852 at Coimbra University and also by Martens Ferrão who presented his thesis Proudhon e a Economia Política two years later.
However, it is as a consequence of Commune de Paris (1871) that the dissemination and organization of a socialist worker's movement accelerated. Not only did the heroic and blood-stained happenings of the French capital move the Portuguese socialist followers, but also, for the first time Lisbon witnessed a wave of severe labour strikes, which continued till 1873.
In these circumstances and led by men like José Fontana, Antero de Quental or Nobre França, labour unions' permanent membership increased and their discourses became more political and radical.
In 1871 the "International" Spaniards Mora, Morago and Lorenzo came to Lisbon urged by Bákunin and Fanelli, to decide about the formation of a Portuguese section of the International Labour Association. This is followed by a period of confused maneuvering and incitement of rising organizations of one mind with factional wars that raged in the International Association between "centralists" and "anti-authoritarian." Thus the Labour Fraternity built on the pattern of the English trade-unions which in a few months brought together more than 30,000 workers, is paralyzed in a short time in view of these political conflicts. This is followed by the Associação dos Trabalhadores de Região Portuguesa (Portuguese Regional Worker's Association), more under the control of the Marxist view point: that ushers in the Partido Socialista Operário Português (PSOP) (Portuguese Socialist Labour Party) in 1875.
However, around the same time, reinstating some personalities of the movement of socialist sympathizers forms the Partido Republicano Português (PRP) (Portuguese Republican Party). For more than a decade it would continue to be a party of notables devoid of any popular roots. Nevertheless a private competition among Portuguese political and social life lasting for almost a century was beginning. Traced to the existence of two contending families, liberal republicans and social democrats, each seeing itself as the carrier of national modernization and development; both opposed to the conservativeness of the "old classes," to the cultural, spiritual and symbolic power of the Catholic Church and to the government political authoritarianism.
As for practical action, the main issue dividing the Portuguese socialists was electoral "maneuvering." The militants were closer to the Marxist or to the anti- authoritarian line of thought, defending or opposing as the case might be participation in elections whether municipal or parliamentary without otherwise attaining any success during these years. They counted on the effect of strikes on the economy and the prospects of victory in case of a people's uprising. It is thus, that around 1880, splits are observed in the socialist party, both in Oporto, leading both their supporters, Pinto Barbosa and Ermelindo Martins, to anarchism.
Still, it is Elisée Reclus (1830-1905), the French anarchist geographer's visits to Oporto and Lisbon in 1886 and in the following year, that pave the way for an understanding of these critics and pave the way to the public emergence of anarchism in Portugal: An organized movement with its own press and regular participation in social, political and economic matters, which bothered the nation and the working class.
The First Phase of Portuguese Anarchism
In Lisbon in the beginning of 1887 the Communist Anarchist Group is formed introducing itself publicly through a manifesto in the following terms:Declaration of Principles
Fundamental ConsiderationsIn the present social set-up, private property, raw material and tools of the trade, are the causes of the workers' misery;
The State, as an indispensable entity for the management of private property is the cause of despotism, privileges, class segregation, social decay and corruption;
In view of this, the working class, to achieve a better future through emancipation, needs to eliminate the State and private property;
This aim cannot be achieved through legal evolution or through parliament, nor a proletarian state;
The emancipation of the working class does not consist in usurping plutocracy, but in firmly destroying it, whichever it may be;
It is easier to obstruct a government under formation than to overthrow a well organized one;
The Lisbon Communist anarchist group considers itself independent from all political parties, declaring Social Liquidation and Social Revolution as vital to the emancipation of the working class. Therefore rejects:
Legality of action, whether through electoral agitation or parliamentary mystifications;
The legality imposed by the State or by religion to marriage;
Submission to authority, be it personal, parliamentary, absolute, through attorney or paternal;
Feelings of patriotism or nationalism, racial, religious and linguistic egotism.
As means to an end accepts those which the revindication of individual personality and vicious social conditions demand:
Solidarity with all the groups, which like us, opt to eliminate the contemporary social system, as well as with all anti-establishment;
Hasten the political and economic dissolution of the State commending abstention from voting, desertion from army, violent strikes and the illegal distortion of facts;
Take advantage of the chaos faced by the authorities, caused by these measures, to proceed with social annihilation.
And as a corollary for future organization, the following words are inscribed on its banner: Communism and Anarchy.
From its meaning, this manifesto may be considered the charter of Portuguese anarchism. The program conformed faithfully to the guidelines being inculcated by the Russian Kropótkin (1842-1921), the Frenchman Jean Grave (1854-1939), the Italian Malatesta (1853-1932) and the aforementioned Reclus, with some success to the fragmented forces of militant anarchism after the defeat of the Commune de Paris and the destruction of the International Labour Association. Distancing itself from labour collectivism, and Bákunin's conspiratorial practices, this new course relied more on the spontaneity of the individual and of the masses to organize themselves and fight for their rights to overcome the inevitable violent confrontation with the State at the moment of revolutionary transformation, and followed by reorganization of social life on the basis of liberty and equality. Because it specifically emphasized the role of small communities and their capacity of self-rule and co-operation, and because, it proposed the immediate establishment of the principle "from each according to his means; to each according to his needs." This line of thinking was classified as anarchist-communism having its best known and longest means of expression in the French paper Le Revolté (La Revolte, Les Temps Nouveaux), as well as in other associated periodicals.
This new course must have elated the anti-authoritarian Portuguese of the time, since propaganda and organization developed rather fast. Reclus, in a letter to Jacques Gross dated 16th May 1887 writes in a conversational tone: "Anarchy progresses on every side…Last year there was only one (anarchist) in Lisbon. Today the numbers are sufficiently large to bring out thousands of brochures and publish a newspaper."
In fact in Oporto the communist-anarchist group increases in the same year, and it is there that one of the most important newspapers is born, A Revolução Social (Social Revolution). Together with A Revolta (The Revolt) and A Propaganda (The Propaganda) they were the longest lasting libertarian periodicals, until the turn of the century. In the meantime eighteen other papers were published, great followers of the anarchist-communist ideals. The titles sent out semantic symbolic signals of the message they meant to convey: O Emancipador (The Emancipator), A Conquista do Bem (The Conquest of Goodness), O Grito da Revolta (The Cry of Revolt), A Liberdade (Liberty) and others. Between 1886 and 1899, there must have been at least 42 anarchist groups, some more persistent than others, not only in Lisbon and Oporto, but also in Coimbra, Aveiro, Gaia, Lamego, Barreiro, Setúbal and Faro. Their names were rather suggestive "Os Vingadores" (The Avengers), "Os Rebeldes" (The Rebels), "Sempre Avante" (Always ahead), "Os Agitadores" (The Agitators), "Os Bárbaros" (The Barbarians), "Universal," "Solidariedade" (Solidarity), "Mundo Novo" (New World), "Boa Nova" (Good Tidings), etc.
One of the main activities of these groups was editing propaganda manifestos and brochures. Between 1887 and 1895 in Lisbon and Oporto at least fourteen anarchist pamphlets were distributed. As for brochures a minimum of thirty-three by foreign authors like Kropótkin, Bákunin, Grave, Malatesta or Mella were published along with some by Portuguese authors.
On a more speculative and scholarly level, the translation and publication (between 1895 and 1896) of works like A Psicologia do Militar Professional (The Psychology of the Professional Militia Man) by Augustin Hamon, a Frenchman, upholding anti-militarism, and A Conquista do Pão (The Conquest of Bread) by Kropótkin is a veritable "Bible" of the belief in the goodness and spontaneity of societies, to be organized without oppression or exploitation, as soon as all the obstacles built by the dominant classes to perpetuate their dominance, were dismantled.
The fist edition of Silva Mendes' book, Socialismo Libertário ou Anarchismo (Libertarian Socialism or Anarchism) published in 1886, was of great importance. Silva Mendes was an intellectual with excellent knowledge of economics and politics of the time. Very well conversant with the most recent evolution of anarchism, he followed Kropótkin and his companions closely, looking to them for scientific support and came to the conclusion that: "Society should be free through mankind's spontaneous federative affiliation to life, based on the community of land and tools of the trade; meaning: Anarchy will be equality by abolition of private property and liberty by abolition of all authority." Besides, the author advises, "no one is tarnished by being an anarchist: they are some of the greatest luminaries of today: H. Spencer, Kropótkin, Elisée Reclus, Tolstoi, Ibsen, the greatest sociologist, the greatest apostle of liberty, the greatest geographer, the greatest Christian, the greatest playwright! Therefore: anarchism is either a formidable utopia or social fatality."
Further it should be recorded that Bernardo Lucas, a lawyer, who with his "A Questão Anarquista" (The Anarchist Question) totally filled up the only issue of the magazine A Idea "Periódico Científico" (The Idea, Science Periodical) published in Oporto in September 1898. Covering 40 long pages, it was the speech made in court in defense of various anarchists. He proved how well informed he was about anarchist theories and is indicative of his affinity to them. The text was also used as propaganda of new ideas.
The most outstanding personalities of this flowering of organized anarchism in Portugal were José António Cardoso, a commercial employee, Gonçalves Viana, a metallurgist, Eduardo Maia, a physician, Cristiano de Carvalho, a draftsman, Guedes Quinhones, a carpenter, professor Manuel Joaquim Pinto, Martins Vagueiro, Severino de Carvalho, Amoedo the Spaniard, Serafim Lucena, a shoe maker, and Antonio José Ávila, painter.
The support given to certain labour strikes, the appeals to abstain from voting and the protests against political persecution in Portugal and abroad, is what activated the libertarian propaganda, the most. Particularly, the cases of "The Chicago Martyrs" (the five anarchists killed in November 11th 1887 considered responsible for the violence in the previous month of May), those strangled at Jerez de la Frontera (the so called conscription of La Manno Negra, February 1892) and Palla's execution in Barcelona (on account of the attempted assassination of general Martinez Campos, October 1893) covered many pages of their newspapers and pamphlets.
Echoes of Terrorism
The Kropotkian spontaneity was favourable to the individualism of action and the radicalism of many anarchist demonstrations of the time, even if unintentional. After many unsuccessful attempts of popular peasant uprising both in Italy and in Spain, impatience seized many militants; they blamed the non-emergence of revolutionary storm on the half hearted manner in which certain comrades managed labour associations and labour strikes, or allowed themselves to be tempted with co-operative and communitarian experiments, doomed to failure. And that, despite workers' living conditions considered constantly degrading. Therefore, the temptation to illegality and violence was just a step forward.One must add that the mobilization of labour and rustics to clamor for food, salary and jobs, scared almost all governments and faced opposition from middle and upper classes, as well as from most churches. Certain explosions of violence unleashed repression by the authorities, often resulting in bloodshed. And the pretext for a retort to repression by the State was one of the most motivating factors of attracting new followers and demanding more radical means of action. This was the time of "factual propaganda" and "direct action," considered by some--and by public opinion in general--as being equivalent to theft, issue of counterfeit currency or criminal assault. In reality these assumptions only meant belief in the superiority of example and practical demonstrations (of a colony or co-operative living in a "free political system") of the article and speech and the virtuality of action on the socioeconomic field (strikes, trade-unions, school and library) also on the passive attitude of trusting politicians, the reformative government action, and the betterment of substandard living conditions of the majority of workers. However, the truth is that despite the great labour conflicts in the United States about eight working hours a day that led to the short lived May Day of 1886 in Chicago and the repercussions on industrialization the world over, it was to usher very shortly into a period which came to be known as "terrorist" in the history of anarchism.
The first case of public scandal provoked in Portugal by the novel anarchist movement occurred in February 1888 when the a novice Manuel Joaquim Pinto, caned Manuel Pinheiro Chagas, member of parliament, with a walking stick. The reason for the caning was the latter's vilifying the name of Louise Michel, the French revolutionary. The anarchist paid for this with 18 months of imprisonment. This incident was also responsible for a spirited debate in the press involving among others anarchists from Oporto's Revolução Social (Social Revolution), Pinheiro Chagas himself, Julia Pinto (detainee's companion), the French literary journal Le Cri du Peuple and the writer Séverine, journalists Magalhães Lima (future grand-master of Portuguese freemasonry) and Homem Cristo, Louise Michel herself (requesting her colleagues not to react to such insults) and Eduardo Maia, who published a long piece entitled Autoridade e Anarquia (Authority and Anarchy).
But soon after, there were some violent cases involving bloodshed, difficult to be differentiated between individual political action (or that of a small group) and social banditry. According to Carlos da Fonseca, the historian, in the same year 1888 Cipriano de Oliveira e Silva, the industrialist, was murdered; in September 1889 the throwing of an explosive device against the building housing Oporto's Civil Government was recorded; in February 1890 criminal assault against the district administrator of Setúbal; 1892 in Lisbon, bombs in the Spanish Consulate and in the house of Count of Folgosa; in 1893 attempted assault against the King. It should be recalled that it was between 1892 and 1894 that a wave of anarchist assaults and subsequent executions occurred in Paris, thus tarnishing the anarchist uprising: Ravachol explosions; Vaillant's bomb in Parliament; bomb thrown in a café in Gare Saint Lazare by Emile Henry; president Sadi Carnot's assassination by the Italian anarchist Caserio.
Therefore, it is impossible to de-link the psychological impact of this atmosphere of violence from action, repression, reprisal from the behavior of Portuguese anarchists during this period, considering that they followed these happenings week by week, through the press. For example, it is elucidating to note that the names of certain newspapers and certain groups had therefore clearly assumed such an identity: "A Sombra de Ravachol" (Shadow of Ravachol), "O Petardo Anarchista" (The Anarchist Petard), "Pallas," "Vaillant," "Casério," etc.
On the other hand, the call for self-enterprise, the aggressive and enthusiastic spirit and the confidence that the world of reason, of science and art would be with them, is patent. For example in the manifesto published by the Communist Anarchist Group "Sempre Avante" (Always Ahead) a certain passage declares:
We admire private enterprise very much, be it in the field of ideas or facts. With all our heart we call upon it to stand up against the timid middle class sheltering itself behind codes, altars and bayonets. Sages, philosophers, artists, women, labourers, the disinherited none of them wait for the word of command. Go forward according to your wish, your aptitude, your temperament, and your passions!
However, this does not mean repudiation of organized force. Private enterprise does not mean isolation. Association is indispensable to human life. Whoever is energetic, active and believes in the cause, should try to organize and multiply the groups; where each group's freedom has been guaranteed, where all can work in united harmony, trying to create around them a life prolific, (prolific in thoughts and actions).
That the workers, our companions should follow our example and free groups like this, without restraint to their private work, might learn and fight for their total emancipation.
One should think, in fact, that this type of propaganda would further the practice of violence in Portugal, which seems to have increased in intensity between 1885 and 1896: bid to assassinate Judge Joyce, seen as responsible for persecuting the anarchists. Some of this violence is evident in such instances as disregard towards traditional religious procession of saint Anthony, patron saint of Lisbon, and the "popular matchmaking saint"; a new bid of aggression against the King, government's repression would inevitably fall on the anarchists.
The Suppression
Although the government had already enacted a law threatening the anarchists with deportation to the colonies in 1892, it was the one passed on 13th February 1896 by the Hintze Ribeiro's government (but suggested by João Franco, who would play a decisive role at the end of the monarchy) that put a curb on the freedom of the press (which was undoubtedly great) with retrospective effect. This law labeled as criminal offence the very anarchist propaganda by permitting severe police repression and other curbs on these types of violent activities, for a few years. Among other clauses, the law determined that:Whosoever by speeches or words uttered in public, by writings published in any manner or means, defends, applauds, advises or provokes, even though the provocation is ineffective, action leading to subversion of social order; security of persons or of property, and in so doing professes doctrines of anarchism conducive to such practices, shall be convicted to 6 months corrective imprisonment; at the end of which he or she will be handed over to the government who will proceed according to article 10 of the law of 21st April 1892, subject to the vigilance and control of competent authorities and his/her return to the Realm shall depend on government decision after the justification indicated in Article 13 of the same law (Art 1);
The press shall not report facts or anarchist assaults, nor news of activities, police investigations and court proceedings in cases against anarchists. Infringement of the law by newspapers is punishable by a police summons to the editor, and suspension of publication and sale of the respective periodical (Art 4). The clauses of this law are applicable to the culprits, even for offences committed before. (Art 5).
Subsequent to these decisions "hundreds of workers," convicts or suspects, were deported to Guiné-Bissau, Angola, Mozambique and mainly to the remote colony of East-Timor. According to the same historian Carlos da Fonseca, "in this manner the following were deported to Timor: Joaquim Raimundo dos Santos, implicated in the assault on Dr. Joyce, who would be returning to Portugal in 1911; José Miranda who died of malaria in December 1896; Bernardo Caldas died in 1897 of the same disease: José Dias Lourenço succumbed to a bilious fever in August 1899; Rodrigo da Silva died on 25th May 1900; Carlos Augusto da Fonseca died of bilious fever in October 1903; Sebastião dos Santos was to die in Lisbon in 1913 after eleven years of deportation; José Carvalho and Manuel Coelho Traficante exiled first to Macau, were then transferred, in January 1908 to the Timor hell for having tried to establish an anarchist group "The dawn of liberty," in that city; Manuel Rodrigues destined to Timor, absconded in Cape Town, and the authorities lost track of him; Gilberto dos Santos tried the same stunt, but not as successfully, and died of bilious fever after capture; Joaquim Marques, one of the rare survivors from the "cursed island," was to die shortly after his return.
In Mozambique, Cruz and Justo both belonging to the 1896 batch served their full prison term; one so called Vieira, deportation date unknown; Francisco Antunes Soares killed in 1905 when returning home; and finally José Estevam the printer, set free by the republican authorities but imprisoned soon after for having established a Revolutionary League in Lourenço-Marques. In Guiné we traced Manuel de Oliveira, who had returned in 1905; Francisco José Frias, who inspite of being pardoned, continued in the dungeons in July 1911; António Caldeira, who made a spectacular escape from his penal servitude in Angola was to enter Lisbon clandestinely (captured in July 1905, was exiled to Guiné). About José Ricardo Osório, Loureiro, Antero and António Diniz, the weaver, we only know that they were deported "to Africa."
Some libertarians were sent to São Miguel (Azores), where dreadful jail conditions awaited them; amongst them was Francisco dos Santos, labourer. Once in the clutches of the police, the militant libertarians were taken before Judge Francisco Maria da Veiga as mere formality; the government was however, least interested in the means employed if the results were positive (Fonseca, 1988, pg.16).
But if terrorist bomb attacks had subsided, it did not mean that the anarchists had given up their objective of violent and revolutionary transformation of society.
Republicanism and Secret Societies
It is true that the objective of the republican insurrection of 1891 in Oporto was to overthrow the Monarchy--an institution which had survived seven and a half centuries of history in Portugal--and the restoration of a republican regime; as an immediate cause, the feeling of national humiliation before "the perfidious Albion's" ultimatum. The anarchists were actually indifferent to such subjects since they derived neither special advantages in a republican government compared to a monarchical one, nor were they moved by patriotic feelings.However, the very fact that the movement had been primarily organized by lower rank militia, sergeants, who immediately suffered the brutality of repression, and the rebellious way in which the sedition was launched, found echoes of solidarity in anarchist circles. As a matter of social identity--even if they belonged to the army--the corporals and sergeants, in no way stopped being "sons of the people." Therefore, compatible with the boldness of the means, the aftermath of the revolt of 1891 was the affinity that developed between anarchists and republicans on one side and on the other, the emergence of revolutionary secret societies--the Carbonaros. The objective was to prepare some revolutionary operation that would overthrow the Monarchy and the causes of oppression. According to a report, for example, there was a new republican revolt in the offing in 1897 in Oporto, incorporating 200 anarchists, armed and on active duty (Sousa 1989).
The affinity and co-operation between libertarians and more radical republicans is a specific characteristic of modern Portuguese history. Beyond the hate they shared for the institution of royalty, a personal and private domination of the State seemed to be the height of despotic perversion of the political organization. The forces opposed the influence of the Church on the country and the protection extended to it by the Court. The Church was held responsible not only for its general pernicious influence, which functioned in the hands of the landowners and powerful, but also accused the priests of "fanaticizing" the weaker sections of society: the rural population, the elderly, the sick, women and children. The Catholic education was specially censured and the Jesuits were the main targets, the contention being that only a free and lay education could extricate the Portuguese from atavisms and historical superstitions and recover from the evident retrogression in relation to more progressive countries.
In reality, the influence of the Church in Portugal towards the end of the 19th century was very strong. And for those "apostles of liberty and progress" it was unacceptable that Catholicism should benefit from being the official religion of the State, and that civil matters like births, marriages and deaths, should be performed under its jurisdiction. It was imperative to secularize public life, they claimed.
Finally there existed a third ground of affinity and common interests between both movements, although more ambiguous and contradictory--the armed forces: army and navy. For the anarchists, military discipline was an unbearable system, as good as a prison regime. But although they appealed to disobedience, to desertion and mutiny because they originated either from constrained or misled people--some of them started thinking about the advantages of availing the opportunity of organizing secret cells inside the barracks, to defy orders at the propitious moment, open the doors of the gun powder magazine and arm the people, to help them in the revolutionary task. For example in 1895, the existence of the anarchist military group 'A Luz Militar' (Military Enlightenment) surfaced; in the next there were many libertarians in the Navy, and their contacts with Navy arsenal employees were easy. Their anti-militarism and anti-war philosophy was moderated with these prosaic reasons, asserting nevertheless that by establishing a free and emancipated society, the armed forces should cease to exist.
The republicans, although not in accordance with the same ideology, did not stop censuring the aristocratic set up of the military high command and some of the higher officer cadre. And some of them were clearly of the opinion that a republican Portugal should play a pacifist role in international relations, advocating the solution of conflicts between powers, by arbitration. In this context they supported the abolition of a permanent army. They favoured just a National Guard, as in Switzerland, which would change into a "people's army" in the event of external threat. It was a trend of thought based on federalist concepts of political organization. A trend of thought that did not reject the idea of a future "Iberian federation," linking Portugal to other Spanish "autonomous provinces," and an ideal also found favour with anarchist proselytes.
Anyway, this affinity of the idea that Monarchy would not be overthrown easily by "the ballot" with a common attraction for romanticism on the part of secret societies--from Buonarroti to Blanqui, Garibaldi, Mazzini and Bákunin--was certainly responsible for creating a Carbonaria in 1896. By increasing the number of permanent workers, the middle class as well as soldiers and sailors, the Carbonaria had the task of planning the revolution and its "civil artillery." The professional knowledge of moulders and gun founders, and other metallurgists was particularly valuable. Chemistry became a science subject full of unsuspecting apprentices.
Heliodoro Salgado (one of the most virulent anti-clerical writers), Benjamin Rebelo, José do Vale, António Alcochetano, Carlos Antunes, José Jesus Gabriel, José Maria Nunes, Brito Bettencourt, are some of the best known activists who encouraged initiatory clandestine groups, often quite numerous with multiple ramifications such as the 'Grémio Liberdade' (Liberty Guild) or the 'Loja Obreiros do Futuro' (Shop of Workers of the Future), which were merged into the Portuguese Carbonaria.
According to some, the perpetrators of the double regicide of February 1908 (the deaths of King Carlos and crown prince Luis Filipe), were more "anarco-carbonarios" rather than free masons, who acted on their own. And after many aborted attempts the Carbonaria was undoubtedly the organizer and principal executor of the insurrection of October 1910, which resulted in the proclamation of the Republic.
The issue of the anarchist participation in the efforts to overthrow the Monarchy gave rise to arguments and controversy among them, for several years. In 1903, Emílio Costa, one of the most brilliant intellectuals of the Portuguese libertarian movement, published a book entitled precisely É Precisa a Républica? (Is the Republic Necessary?). In this book he weighs the advantages and inconveniences of such a participation and reaches the conclusion that the proclamation of a Republic would mean progress for the Portuguese people and that the anarchist contribution would in no way curb subsequent freedom of action. The aforementioned Heliodoro Salgado had a rather different outlook reaching the same practical conclusion naturally, when he writes in the important proletarian paper A Obra of 18th July of the same year:
Let us react against the nefarious work of centuries. Let us begin a new culture. Let us progressively improve the generations. Let us begin our own apprenticeship of liberty in new political regimes, successively freer and more rational. It is only then that we will be capable of entering Future Society. But what is this, if not veering towards reformist anarchism, which wants and wishes and defends the Republic? Not a Republic modeled on France and the United States. But a Republic of our own making, secular, liberal, decentralized, communalist, federalist, socialist as far as possible, so as to use it to finish the work after conquering this instrument of progress? That is the reason why I am and want to continue to be an anarchist in theory, practically republican, or if you prefer, a reformist anarchist.
This libertarian tendency favouring the collaboration with the republicans came to be known as "intervencionista" (interventionist). Those of a contrary opinion, or the "puritans," almost all veered towards the new trend that was gaining momentum beginning with France, concentrating on the labour unions.
Labour Associativism and Strategic Reorientation of Anarchism Despite Proudhon's and Bakúnin's "labourism," Kropótkin's communism and the individualistic, illegalistic and violent drift of the nineties, many militant anarchists were prejudiced against the unions.
In Portugal, the socialists--notwithstanding an internal rift between "Marxists" and "possibilitists"--maintained general control over these confederations, known otherwise as "class associations," which were neither efficient nor revolutionary. They celebrated May Day, played a mutualist role, but the leaders basically visualized an electoral competition, and some of them even entered into a pact with the monarchists. Above all they seemed to abide by the laws in force. In this connection, the government by then had something in mind. In 1863 legislation concerning hygiene and health conditions in factories and workshops had been passed; in 1879 the first attempt to start relief agencies for victims of industrial accidents was made. In 1889 arbitration-mediation courts, a labour court of employers and employees akin to the French Prud'hommes which tried labour disputes dealing with breach of contract, were created. Legislation was passed in 1890 regulating women and child-labour, fixing the minimum recruitment age, hours of duty and off-duty, night-duty, underground duty, hygiene and safety at work. And in 1891 a charter of mutual aid societies is published, concerning mainly the one legalizing class associations. For the socialists this legislation was already a legacy to be safeguarded. For the anarchists, it was considered humiliating to submit the by-laws of their associations to the approval of the government or the necessity to register the union leaders. For example in the mid-nineties, the libertarian cork-makers of Lisbon preferred to form their own anarchist group rather than clash within the respective union. However, the debate carried out in France and the success of what came to be known as revolutionary unionism, managed to overcome the main resistance. And it came about by capturing the Labour Exchange and by progressively making its weight felt at the novel General Labour Confederation.
Between 1885 and 1902 six labour conferences were held, the socialists stealing the show although organized outside their party's scope. But even as the strikes were consolidating their position as an autonomous demonstration of the labour class, those labour conclaves evinced a moderate and reformist spirit. For instance in 1902 in the Aveiro Congress it was deliberated that: "There should be no strike call without consulting the association; on the other hand no strike could be called if one is in progress in a different part of the country."
Therefore it is not surprising that in view of protracted strikes besotted with difficulties, often involving clashes with the municipal guard, and seeking solidarity moves from other labour sectors, (collections, "cozinhas comunistas" [soup kitchens], proclamations etc.), those anarchists turned to direct action unionism. It meant that by abandoning claims of vanguardists and anti-organizers, anarchists would be systematically absorbed in unions and carry their ideological propaganda; challenging moderate socialist leaders or those without a party, and seize the leadership of the movement. And such was their success, that soon after that, terms like "anarchist" and "syndicalist," became almost equivalent and in current usage in Portugal.
This strategic reorientation was neither planned nor the result of collective decision; it controlled the libertarians at the turn of the century, holding out hopes for ever increasing momentum from 1906-1908.
Although conflicting ideologically with "interventionism," in reality the unionist revolutionary direction neither damaged the former or the latter. Some helped to overthrow the Monarchy--the immediate obstacle; others arranged the great labour offensive. From 1910 it would be developing, thanks to the best conditions of liberty provided by the Republic; the fragility of the new institutional set up and self-confidence attained by the people in this capacity to fight and their social assertion.
This thrust of the Portuguese libertarian unionism was perfectly attuned to the contemporary scene abroad. Let us recall that the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was established in the United States in 1905; in 1906 the famous "charter of revolutionary unionism" is proclaimed at the French CGT Convention in Amiens; in 1907 at the Amsterdam International Anarchist Conference, a vigorous discussion on "anarchism and unionism" takes place, mainly between Malatesta and Monatte; in 1908 the unionist daily A Greve (The Strike) is launched in Lisbon and in 1909 the 1st Unionist Convention already dominated by the anarchist trend, takes place; in Barcelona in 1910 the Confederación Nacional del Trabalho (CNT) is formed and in Sweden the Swerige Arbetaren Centralorganization (SAC); and in 1913 the Unione Sindicale Italiana (USI)--all these unions were revolutionary and libertarian.
The setting up of the Portuguese Confederação Geral do Trabalho (CGT) would be delayed for some years yet, and that was only due to the militants' conscience. In their opinion the emergence of the new union movement had to be taken up with discernment and patience, starting from basic unions, to local unions, Industrial Federations, until a truly confederate organization was achieved; all according to the precepts established by the Amiens Charter. But the principles of direct action (strikes, boycott, sabotage if necessary, but also agreement and the collective labour contract, refusing government's or court's interference in labour disputes); of solidarity (in mutual assistance between various professions and industries); of federalism (in the labour organization, in the future, in society); of anti-militarism and internationalism (rejection of wars and patriotism) from the very beginning indicated the new paths of the labour movement in Portugal.
At the time of proclamation of the Republic in 1910, this movement would immediately be in the forefront of the political and social scene. Firstly, because an impressive movement of revindicative strikes demanding better salaries and work conditions had been evolving for some months. Secondly, since December 1910, the provisional republican government promulgated a legislation about strikes of eminently liberal contents (the right to strike, but also the right to employers' lockout), that the syndicalists immediately classified as "fraud decree." And thirdly, because in March 1911 the first two workers were struck down by "republican" bullets, in Setúbal, during a canners' strike. The hopes of the working people during the Republic did not last six months. The adversaries comprised also the authorities and the Republican government besides the erstwhile employers.