We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Elisabeth Jelin, in an important recent work, has criticized the overconcern in studies of the Latin American working class with the structural determinants of class relations and class activity. As she pointed out, this has tended to lead to a deterministic approach on the part of the social sciences, emphasizing the lack of autonomy of the working class in terms of its failure to construct a comprehensive, radical challenge to the dominant system on the political level and its domination by, and acceptance of, demobilizing, bureaucratic leaderships on the trade union level.
In the 1940s Bolivia's mineworkers achieved a major impact in national elections. The electoral system was favourable to them (far more so than after the 1952 National Revolution); they acquired a unified and effective national leadership, with extensive back-up organization in all the main mining camps; they, therefore, began casting their votes as a single block, an expression of mineworkers' exceptional degree of solidarity in various parts of the world; and the political parties that courted their votes were constrained by the demands of their electorate, not only to adopt intransigent language but actually to become more radical in their programmes, recruitment and commitments.
The crisis of 1889 has long been seen as a turning point in Brazilian history. Because historians have often examined the Second Empire to defend or attack its successor, they have neglected certain aspects of the crisis. Their explanations have stressed that leaders of the minuscule and divided Republican Party took advantage of long standing grievances between senior officers and civilian politicians when they urged an ailing general to depose the monarchy on the 15th of November. They have, therefore, emphasized the role of the army in creating the conditions for a coup d'etat, and its preeminence in the Republic until 1889. In doing so, they have underestimated the powerful economic forces which underpinned the Imperial government. They have also overestimated those which supported the republican leaders of São Paulo, the self-confessed beneficiaries of the coup. Since they have also understated the fluidity of political allegiances in this period, its history has become too narrow and too deterministic, with the army depicted as the engine of ‘a change from Ancien Régime to a bourgeois society’.
Founded in 1922, the Partido Comunista de Chile (PCCh) had a somewhat chequered career before the mid-1930s.1 Although the prestige of its founder, Luis Emilio Recabarren, and its close ties with organized labour gave the party an early significance, its progress towards becoming an important force in Chilean politics halted abruptly when General Carlos Ibáñez came to power in 1927. Forced into clandestinity by Ibáñez, the party emerged on his downfall in 1931 with its membership vastly reduced, its trade union arm, the Federación Obrera de Chile (FOCH), moribund, and its remaining activists deeply divided by ideological, tactical and personal differences.