Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:44:17.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State and Labour in Argentina: The Portworkers of Buenos Aires, 1910–21

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Jeremy Adelman
Jeremy Adelman
Affiliation:
Jeremy Adelman is Assistant Professor in the Department of Histoy, Princeton University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Latin America's workers perplex historians. Despite chronic political turmoil, revolt and undiluted class conflict, Latin America's mobilised workers have not been the vanguards of social revolution. Rather, variations of authoritarianism, populism and clientilism are said to characterise labour politics more accurately. The absence of independent working-class politics has prompted the search for aetiologies of class-formation in Latin America – the search for the missing ingredient to revolutionary working-class action.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 73 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For recent efforts to tackle this problem, see Collier, Ruth Berins and Collier, David, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America (Princeton, 1991)Google Scholar; Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Stephens, Evelyn Huber & Stephens, John D., Capitalist Development and Democracy (Oxford, 1992)Google Scholar; Bergquist, Charles, Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia (Stanford, 1986)Google Scholar; Bergquist, , ‘Latin American Labour History in Comparative Perspective: Notes on the Insidiousness of Cultural Imperialism’, Labour/Le Travail, 25 (1990), pp. 189–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adelman, Jeremy, ‘Against Essentialism: Latin American Labour History in Comparative Perspective. A Critique of Bergquist’, Labour/Le Travail 27 (1991), pp. 175–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roxborough, Ian, ‘An Analysis of Labour Movements in Latin America: Typologies and Theories’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, I: I (1981), pp. 81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique & Faletto, Enzo, Dependency and Development in Latin America (Berkeley, 1979), esp. pp. xviii–xxiv; 16–28Google Scholar; Touraine, Alain, Les socieétés dépendantes: Essaies sur I'Amérique Latine (Paris, 1976), pp. 58–112Google Scholar.

3 Balbus, Isaac D., ‘Commodity Form and Legal Form: An Essay on “The Relative Autonomy” of the Law’, Law and Society Review, II (1977), pp. 571–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trubek, David M., ‘Complexity and Contradiction in the Legal Order: Balbus and the Challenge of Critical Social Thought about Law’, Law and Society Review, II (1977), pp. 529–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon, Robert W., ‘Critical Legal Histories’, Stanford Law Review, 36 (1984), pp. 57–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunt, Alan, ‘Rights and Social Movements: Counter-Hegemonic Strategies’, Journal of Law and Society 17 (1990), pp. 309–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a general critique of legal objectivism, see Unger, Robert Mangabeira, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar and Social Theory: Its Situation and its Task (Cambridge, 1987), esp. pp. 109–13.

4 The term is from Bergquist, Labor in Latin America, p. 134.

5 Marks, Gary, Unions in Politics: Britain, Germany, and the United States in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (Princeton, 1989), pp. 20–73Google Scholar; Anderson, Perry, ‘The Limits and Possibilities of Trade Union Action’, in Blackburn, Robin & Cockburn, Alexander (eds.), The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus (Middlesex, 1967), pp. 263–77Google Scholar; Nun, José, ‘Workers' Control and the Problem of Organisation’, Latin American Research Unit Studies (1973), pp. 43–64Google Scholar.

6 On the origins of syndicalism in Argentina, see Julio Arraga, Reflexiones y observaciones sobre la cuestión social (Buenos Aires, n.d.); Marotta, Sebastián, El movimitnto sindical argentino: su genesisy desarrollo, 1857–1914 (Buenos Aires, 1975). pp. 239–45Google Scholar; Oddone, Jacinto, Gremialismo proletario argentino (Buenos Aires, 1975) pp. 267–72Google Scholar; Departamento Nacional del Trabajo (hereafter DNT), Boletín del DNT, 41 (abril 1919), pp. 9–129Google Scholar; Godio, El movimiento obrero argentino, 1870–1910, pp. 195–211; Korzeniewicz, Roberto P., ‘The Labour Movement and the State in Argentina, 1887–1907’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, 8:I (1989), pp. 25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Munck, Ronaldo, Argentina: From Anarchism to Peronism (London, 1987), pp. 53–9Google Scholar.

7 For data on the FORA membership, see ‘Informacion Social’, Revista de Ciencias Econdmicas, XV (1927), pp. 972–6; DNT, Boletin del DNT, 41 (abril 1919), pp. 31–37Google Scholar; Godio, El movimiento obrero argentino, 1910–1930, pp. 77–8; Munck, Argentina, pp. 66–7.

8 Suriano, Juan, Trabajadores, anarquismo y estado represor: de la ley de Residencia a la hey de Defensa Social (1902–1910) (Buenos Aires, 1988)Google Scholar; Adelman, Jeremy, ‘The Political Economy of Labour in Argentina, 1870–1930’, in Adelman, (ed.), Essays in Argentine Labour History, 1870–1930 (London, 1992), pp. 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Korzeniewicz, ‘The Labour Movement and the State’, pp. 33–5. For details on the 1911–12 railway strike, see Suriano, Juan, ‘Estado y trabajadores: el caso de la huelga de maquinistas ferroviarios de 1912’, Boletin de Historia Argentina y Americana, 4: 2 (1991), pp.91–115Google Scholar.

9 Rock, David, Politics in Argentina, 1890–1930: The Rise and Fall of Radicalism (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 125–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walter, Richard J., ‘Elections in the City of Buenos Aires during the First Yrigoyen Administration: Social Class and Political Preferences’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 58: 4 (1978), pp. 596–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Municipal Politics and Government in Buenos Aires, 1918–1930’, Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, 16:2 (1974), pp. 173–97; Adelman, ‘Socialism and Democracy in Argentina during the Age of the Second International’, Hispanic American Historical Review (forthcoming).

10 DNT, Anuario estadistico del trabajo (1913), pp. 8–12Google Scholar; Munck, Ronaldo, ‘Cycles of Class Struggle and the Making of the Working Class in Argentina, 1890–1920’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 19: 1 (1987), pp. 29–32 and Argentina, pp. 57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Godio, , El movimiento obrero argentino, 1910–1930 (Buenos Aires, 1987), pp. 22–5Google Scholar.

11 On the origins of the railway workers' union, see Thompson, Ruth, ‘Organised Labour in Argentina: The Railway Unions to 1922’, unpubl. DPhil diss., Oxford University, 1978Google Scholar; ‘The Limitations of Ideology in the Early Argentine Labour Movement: Anarchism in Trade Unions, 1890–1920’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 16:1 (1984), pp. 92–9; ‘Argentine Syndicalism: Reformism before Revolution’, in van der Linden, Marcel & Thorpe, Wayne (eds.), Revolutionary Syndicalism: An International Approach (Aldershot, 1990), pp. 167–83Google Scholar; Goldberg, Heidi, ‘Railroad Unionization in Argentina, 1912–1929: The Limitations of Working Class Alliance’, unpubl. PhD diss., Yale University, 1979Google Scholar.

12 ‘Información Social’, p. 973. For the membership figures prior to the advent of Perón, see Tamarin, David, The Argentine Labor Movement, 1930–45: A Study in the Origins of Peronism (Albuquerque, N.M., 1985), p. 150Google Scholar; Horowitz, Joel, Argentine Unions, the State and the Rise of Perón, 1930–1945 (Berkeley, 1990), pp. 98–119Google Scholar; Adelman, ‘Reflections on Argentine Labour and the Rise of Perón’, Bulletin of Latin American Research (forthcoming).

13 Boletín de la Unión del Marino, 12 abril 1919; Bilsky, Edgardo J., La FORA y el movimiento obrero (1900–1910), t. 2 (Buenos Aires, 1985), pp. 109–59Google Scholar. For parallels with the United States, see Montgomery, David, Workers' Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles (Cambridge, 1979), esp. pp. 91–112Google Scholar; Nelson, Bruce, Workers on the Waterfront: Seamen, Longshoremen, and Unionism in the 1930s (Urbana, III., 1988), esp. pp. 1–10Google Scholar. See also Marcel van der Linden & Wayne Thorpe, ‘The Rise and Fall of Revolutionary Syndicalism’, in van der Linden & Thorpe (eds.), Revolutionary Syndicalism, pp. 1–24.

14 Pellegrini, Augusto, ‘Aspectos políticos de la actividad sindical’, La Organización Obrera, 13 09 1919Google Scholar. Consequently, this vision of class politics, while legal, should not be confused with ‘moderation,’ as Thompson and Goldberg do.

15 República Argentina, Ministerio de Agricultura, El comertio international argentine (Buenos Aires, 1911)Google Scholar; Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Dirección General de Navegación y Puertos, Puerto de Buenos Aires: Elementos de explotación (Buenos Aires, 1931), p. 5Google Scholar.

18 The inhabitants of the neighbourhoods reflected Argentina's demographic transformation. Largely men, they lived in the packed rooming houses of Monserrat or San Telmo to the southeast of the Plaza de Mayo, occupying the vestiges of large buildings where once the Buenos Aires elite lived until the 1870s. Alternatively, in La Boca and Barracas they lived in ramshackle raised houses made out of corrugated iron and the debris of wood and cement found from construction sites. Wherever they lived, the ethnic mosaic bespoke their heterogeneity. For instance, in 1914, of La Boca's 76,000 inhabitants, nearly half were born outside Argentina – 22,170 in Italy; 8,001 in Spain; 1,143 in Uruguay; and 971 in Russia. Argentine Republic, Tercer Censo National, t. III (Buenos Aires, 1916), pp. 131–2Google Scholar.

17 DNT, Boletín del DNT, 40 (abril 1919), pp. 19–28Google Scholar; Santillán, Diego Abad De, La F.O.R.A. Ideología y trayectoria del movimknto obrero revolucionario en la Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1971), pp. 104–6, 126Google Scholar; Dickmann, Enrique, Recuerdos de un militante socialista (Buenos Aires, 1949), pp. 146–50Google Scholar.

18 DNT, Boletín del DNT, 40 (abril 1919), pp. 28–9Google Scholar; Marotta, , El movimiento sindical argentino: su génesis y desarrollo, t. II (Buenos Aires, 1960), pp. 154–94Google Scholar; Troncoso, Oscar, Fundadores de gremialismo obrero, t. I (Buenos Aires, 1983), pp. 77–96Google Scholar.

19 ‘Documento 3’, Boletín del DNT (1912); La Vanguardia, 9 dic. 1911. In one of the few cases of investigative reporting at the time, La Nación dispatched a reporter to the scene, who published explanations by the strikers of their demands. See esp. 21–22 dic. 1911.

20 La Nación, 17–19 dic. 1911; La Vanguardia, 18–19 dic. 1911.

21 ‘Documento 8’, Boletín del DNT (1912), pp. 877–9; La Vanguardia, 23 dic. 1911.

22 Zeitlin, Jonathan, ‘The Triumph of Adversarial Bargaining: Industrial Relations in British Engineering, 1880–1939’ Politics and Society, 18: 3 (1990), p. 406CrossRefGoogle Scholar; La Vanguardia, 26 dic. 1911.

23 La Vanguardia, 8–9 enero 1912.

24 La Nación, 28–29 dic. 1991; ‘Documentos 12–13’, Boletín del DNT (1912), pp. 888–9; La Vanguardia, 30–31 dic. 1911.

25 ‘Documento 10’, Boletín del DNT (1912), pp. 881–7; La Vanguardia, 14 enero 1912; La Nación, 13 enero 1912.

26 ‘Documento 23’, Boletín del DNT (1912), pp. 908–11; La Vanguardia, 26 enero 1912; La Nación, 27 enero 1912.

27 For a copy of the note sent by the FOM to Villafañe, see La Vanguardia, 28 enero 1912.

28 La Vanguardia, 28 enero 1912; La Nación, 28 enero 1912. The episode sparked calls for early corporatist controls over labour, and a bill inspired by the lawyer Julio Costa. For details of the bill, see Reginald Tower to Sir Edward Grey, 23 July 1912. Public Record Office, Foreign Office (hereafter FO), 368/649/34956. For other details on the fall-out from the labour disputes involving port and railworkers, see Suriano, ‘Estado y trabajadores’.

29 Albert, Bill, South America and the First World War: The Impact of the War on Brazil Argentina, Peru and Chile (Cambridge, 1988), p. 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aldeman, ‘The Political Economy of Labour in Argentina’.

30 ‘La Federación Obrera Marítima’, Boletín del DNT, 40 (Feb. 1919) pp. 34–7. On the origins of collective bargaining in Argentina, see Ricardo Gaudio & Jorge Pilone, ‘El desarrollo de la negociación colectiva durante la etapa de modernización industrial en la Argentina, 1935–1943’ and ‘Estado y relaciones laborales en el período previo al surgimiento del peronismo, 1935–43’, in Torre, Juan Carlos (comp.), La formación del sindicalismo peronista (Buenos Aires, 1988)Google Scholar.

31 La Nación, 29 Nov. 1916; La Prensa, 29 Nov. 1916.

32 Details on Mihanovich can be found in Great Britain, Consular and Diplomatic Reports, ‘Annual Report 1915 (Argentine Republic)’, Parliamentary Papers No. 10740 (1916), p. 15.

33 La Prensa, 2–5 dic. 1916; La Nación, 5 dic. 1916; La Vanguardia, 2 dic. 1916.

34 The most detailed proceedings of the meeting can be found in La Prensa and La Vanguardia of 7 dic. 1916. Rock has argued that government intervention was limited to moral support. See Rock, Politics in Argentina, p. 128.

35 Walter, ‘Elections in the City of Buenos Aires’, pp. 610–14 and ‘Municipal Politics and Government in Buenos Aires’, pp. 173–97; Rock, Politics in Argentina, p. 125; Adelman, ‘Socialism and Democracy in Argentina’. The British ambassador to Buenos Aires constantly moaned that Yrigoyen's soft spot for port and railway workers was electoral. See Tower to Balfour, 10 Feb. 1918, FO 371/3130/25932.

36 La Prensa, 13 dic. 1916. In the canals, oceanic steamers accumulated, and international shippers threatened to suspend all traffic to Buenos Aires. Meatpackers warned that their cold storage space was about to fill, and workers in the plants faced mass dismissals. La Prensa, 14 dic. 1916.

37 Boletín del DNT, 40 (feb. 1919), p. 41; La Prensa, 19–20 dic. 1916; La Nación, 19–20 dic. 1916.

38 La Prensa, 21 dic. 1916.

39 The choice surprised many, but in part reflected changes in the role of the police since 1912. See Ruibal, Beatríz C., ‘El control social y la política de Buenos Aires, 1880–1920’, Boletín del Institute de Historia Argentinay Americana, 2 (1990), pp. 75–90Google Scholar.

40 La Prensa, 25 dic. 1916. See also La Vanguardia, 26 dic. 1916; Boletín del DNT, 40 (feb.1919), pp. 42–4.

41 The tonic of victory in 1916 helped the FOM enlist new sections beyond the core of sailors and stokers and chapters were set up in the ports of Rosario, Bahía Blanca, Zárate, Concordia and Santa Fé. The strike also bolstered the FOM's financial state: in November, the strike fund had only 1,000 pesos; a year later the Caja de Resistencia had 15,000 pesos, and the FOM's donations to the FORA and the railway confederation ensured their upkeep. The number of FORA affiliates jumped from 51,000 to 200,000 between December 1915 and December 1917, reaching 535,000 by May 1920. For Socialist concern that syndicalism would challenge their ‘political’ support, see Palacios, Alfredo, La F.O.K.A. (Buenos Aires, 1920)Google Scholar.

42 La Organización Obrera, 1 mayo 1917.

43 Boletín del DNT, 40 (feb. 1919), pp. 49–50.

44 For a sharp rebuke to the standard appropriation of the 1919 events, see Rock, , ‘La semana trágica y los usos de la historia’, Desarrollo Económico, 12:45 (1972), pp. 185–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The epitome of the popular chronology is Godio, El movimiento obrero argentino (1910–1930), pp. 80–102. For a recent attempt to put the events in a broader context, see Ofelia Pianetto, ‘The Labour Movement and the Historical Conjecture: Córdoba, 1917–1921’ in Adelman (ed.), Essays in Argentine Labour History.

45 Boletin del DNT, 40 (feb. 1919), p. 106.

46 Tower to Balfour, 28 Feb. 1918, FO 368/1876/61874; Frederick Stimson to State Department, 30 Sept. 1917, U.S. National Archives, Department of State, 835.5045/11–15 & 31–33 (hereafter, USNA/DS). It is, of course, difficult to say whether these diplomats could distinguish between Marxism and the demands of portworkers, or whether they inflected reports with inflammatory language to alert foreign ministries.

47 Tower to Balfour, 14 Dec. 1918, FO 371/3503/11329; Stimson cable, 16 Dec. 1918, USNA/DS, 835.5045/50–51; La Organización Obrera, 20 enero 1919.

48 The passage is taken from La Prensa, 9 enero 1919. For more details on the early phase of the strike, see Review of the River Plate, 3 and 10 Jan. 1919; Stimson cable, USNA/DS, 835.5045/53.

49 Review of the River Plate, 17 Jan. 1919; Dellepiane to McClynant, 11 Mar. 1919, FO371/3503/63270; La Organización Obrera, 20 enero 1919. Fearing revolution, the British embassy considered sending a warship to the port, but hoped the United States would dispatch their three cruisers off Montevideo. Tower to Balfour 10 Jan. 1910, FO 371/3503/5947 and 18 Jan. 1919, 3503/10522. I have found no evidence that US Ambassador Stimson considered calling in ships.

50 The government considered compulsory arbitration. Tower's warning to the CNT suggests he was aware of a potential order. On 28 January he claimed ‘though disliking procedures of being accomplices with Argentine Government in maintaning secrecy as to actual terms of agreement I felt it my duty to warn representatives of British shipping companies of still further danger at the hands of the Argentine Government if they declined to meet the Government in conciliatory spirit (sic).’ Tower to Balfour, 28 Jan. 1919, FO 371/3503/18950. La Organización Obrera, 8 marzo 1919; Review ojthe River Plate, 24 and 31 Jan. 1919; La Prensa, 23–28 enero 1919; Tower to Balfour, 28 Jan. 1919, FO 371/3503/16267; Stimson cable, USNA/DS, 28 Jan. 1919.

51 Until this point, seamen and stevedores acted entirely independently. La Prensa, 23 enero 1919.

52 La Prensa, 8 feb. 1919; Naval Attache to Admiralty, 6 Feb. 1919 FO 371/3503/22391.

53 La Prensa, 23 feb. 1919; Asociacion del Trabajo, La oficialización de los trabajos portuarios (Buenos Aires, 1921), pp. 74–7Google Scholar. Stimson claimed that Yrigoyen was furious with shippers, holding them responsible for the ‘rivers of blood’ which were bound to flow in the port. Stimson cable, USNA/DS, 835.5045/78.

54 Review of the River Plate, 28 Feb. 1919; Boletín de la Unión del Marino, 5 marzo 1919.

55 Boletín de la Union del Marino, 24–25 feb. 1919; La Prensa, 2; feb. 1919.

56 La Prensa, 5 Mar. 1919; Review of the River Plate, 14 Mar. 1919; Boletín de la Union del Marino, 28 feb. 1919.

57 Asociacion Nacional del Trabajo, La oficialización de los trabajosportuarios, pp. 77–80; La Prensa, 16 marzo 1919; Tower to Balfout, 29 Mar. 1919, F O 371/3503/49490.

58 It is worth noting that as longshoremen began loading cargo onto steamers, the wedge between national and international shippers enhanced the bargaining power of labour, giving the seamen and longshoremen a brief, ephemeral coherence. Boletin de la Unión del Marino, 17 marzo 1919.

59 Lan Prensa, 19 marzo 1919; Tower to Balfour, 7 April 1919, FO 371/3503/54591.

60 The bloody repression meted out to agricultural workers in the Chaco and Patagonia shortly thereafter should be understood in the light of increasing pressure by business interests to hold the line on labour's advance. Tower to Balfour, 10 May 1919, FO 571/3504/90519. On the ANT, see J. W. Riddle to State Department, USNA/DS, 835.5044/2, 27 Nov. 1922; Stimson to State Department, USNA/DS, 835.5045/48, 28 May 1918.

61 FO 371/3505/90498, Tower to Balfour, 13 May 1919; McGeeDeutsch, Counterrevolution in Argentina, pp. 81–6 and ‘The Visible and Invisible Liga Patriotica Argentina, 1919–1928: Gender Roles and the Right-Wing’, Hispanic-American Historical Review, 64:2 (1984), pp. 233–58; Rock, ‘Intellectual Precursors of Conservative Nationalism in Argentina, 1900–1927’, Hispanic-American Historical Review, 67:2 (1987), pp. 271–300; Ibarguren, Carlos, La historia que he vivido (Buenos Aires, 1954), pp. 341–4Google Scholar.

62 From the inception of port-labour decrees, shippers tested the resolve of labour and government. But it was the portworkers' traditional pariah, the Argentine Navigation Company (the ex-Mihanovich line), which led the way. Through most of 1920, the company disrupted inshore shipping. Only in February and August 1920 did it launch a full-scale, and futile lock-outs against the seamen's union. By the end of 1920, largely broke, the Argentine Navigation Company was forced to sell parts of its fleet to stay afloat. FO 371/4480/A7212, Macleay to Earl Curzon, 18 Sept. 1920; A8534, Macleay to Curzon, 6 Dec. 1920; Marotta, El movimiento obrero argentino, t. II, pp. 260–5.

63 Boletín de la Unión del Marino, 22 enero; 2 feb.; 5 feb. 1921; La Organisation Obrera, 12 feb.; 20 feb. 1921. For a general treatment of this crucial congress, see Marotta, El movimiento obrero argentino, t. III, pp. 17–43.

64 La Concordia, 5 mayo; 10 mayo 1921; FO 371/5 516/A3240, Ronald Macleay to Curzon, 9 May 1921; Shipley, Robert Edward, ‘On the Outside Looking In: A Social History of the Porteño Worker during the “Golden Age” of Argentine Development, 1914–1930’, unpubl. PhD diss., Rutgers University, 1977, pp. 296–8Google Scholar.

65 La Vanguardia, 26 abril 1921.

66 La Prensa, 27 abril–10 mayo 1921; La Concordia, 10 mayo 1921; Review of the River Plate, 6 May 1921.

67 La Prensa, 12–14 rnayo 1921; La Nación, 14 mayo 1921.

68 La Prensa, 22 mayo 1921; La Nación, 21–22 mayo 1921; Review of the River Plate, 27 May 1921; Asociacion Nacional del Trabajo, Boletín de Servicios, 20 mayo 1921Google Scholar.

69 La Concordia, 26 mayo 1921; Asociación Nacional de Trabajo, Boletín de Servicios, 5 junio 1921Google Scholar; La Prensa (24 mayo 1921) estimated that 5,000 me t in the Stock Exchange, while the Review of the River Plate (27 May 1921) said 3–4,000.

70 La Vanguardia, 2; mayo 1921; La Prensa, 2; mayo 1921; La Nación, 25 mayo 1921; La Condordia, 26–28 mayo 1921.

71 The FORA's executive endorsed the portworkers, and began circulating rumours of an imminent general strike, the first since early 1919. La Vanguardia, 1 junio 1921.

72 La Vanguardia, 30–31 mayo 1921; La Prensa, 31 mayo 1921; Asociación Nacional de Trabajo, Boletín de Servicios, 5 junio 1921Google Scholar; FO 371/5516/A396, Macleay to Curzon, 2 June 1921.

73 Review of the River Plate, 3 June 1921; La Concordia, 2 junio 1921; McGee, Counterrevolution in Argentina, pp. 119–21.

74 The numbers are no doubt exaggerated, and do not reflect the number of inducted strikebreakers at any one time. ANT, Memoria j> Balance de la Asociación del Trabajo correspondiente al ejercicio de 1920–1921 (Buenos Aires, 1921), p. 29.

75 ha Prensa, 4 junio 1921.

76 La Prensa, 6 junio 1921.

77 Portions of the FOM debate can be found in La Vanguardia, 6 junio 1921. On the strike's end, see W. Henry Robertson to State Department, USNA/DS, 835.5045/197, 11 June 1921.

78 On the broader implications of the 1921 defeat, see Horowitz, Joel, ‘The Failed General Strike of 1921: A Turning Point in Argentine Labor History’ (paper prepared for the Southern Labor Studies Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 10 1991)Google Scholar.

79 Tilly, Charles, From Mobilisation to Revolution (London, 1978), pp. 6–7Google Scholar; Anderson, ‘The Limits and Possibilities of Trade Union Action’, pp. 263–77; Nun, ‘Workers’ Control and the Problem of Organisation', pp. 43–64.