“Mirada de la prensa masiva y de la prensa partidaria sobre la huelga de estibadores de mayo de 1928 en Rosario
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
Authors
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Facultad de Ciencia Política y Relaciones Internacionales. Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios Sociales Argentinos y Latinoamericanos
Resumen
Descripción
En mayo de 1928 se inició en la ciudad Rosario un importante conflicto de estibadores
portuarios que, por una serie de muertes, conmovió a la clase trabajadora rosarina que
realizó dos huelgas generales donde se registraron fuertes hechos de violencia. El conflicto,
que terminó en victoria para los obreros estibadores, caracterizó a dicho año y dio origen
a una importante secuela de disputas laborales similares. El agitado, violento y sangriento
mes de mayo en Rosario fue cubierto de manera particular por la prensa. Según el diario
La Capital, la violencia surgió de elementos “extraños” a los trabajadores, “los huelguistas”.
Como contraparte, la prensa obrera representada por los diarios La Internacional, La Protesta,
y La Vanguardia afirmaron que la violencia había sido engendrada por la parte empresaria.
El trasfondo del debate fue que los primeros defendieron la “libertad de trabajo”, mientras
los segundos pidieron por el “derecho a huelga”. La disputa que se expresó a las tribunas
periodísticas no pudo ocultar las intenciones de la denominada “prensa seria” que al calor
del conflicto desnudó sus intenciones afines al sector empresario. Su sutil estrategia terminó
cargando presión a las autoridades locales, provinciales y nacionales que, a la larga, dieron
un paso al costado o inclinaron la balanza a favor de la burguesía
On May 1928, in the city of Rosario, there was an important conflict involving dockworkers which, due to a series of deaths, shook Rosario’s working class, leading to two general strikes where some shockingly violent events took place. The conflict, which ended in a victory for the dockworkers, characterized the year and gave rise to a major aftermath of similar labor disputes. The turbulent, violent and bloody month of May in Rosario was covered by the press in a particular way. According to the newspaper La Capital, the violence aroused from elements “foreign” to the workers, “the strikers”. In contrast, the labor press, represented by the newspapers La Internacional, La Protesta and La Vanguardia, claimed that the violence had issued on the employers’ side. The debate’s background was that the former defended the “work freedom”, while the latter asked for the “right to strike”. The conflict that expressed itself through the press was not able to hide the intentions of the so called “serious press” which, in the heat of the dispute, bared its close interests to the employers’ group. Its subtle strategy ended up adding pressure to the local, provincial and national authorities which, in the long run, took a step aside or tilted the scale in favor of the bourgeoisie.
On May 1928, in the city of Rosario, there was an important conflict involving dockworkers which, due to a series of deaths, shook Rosario’s working class, leading to two general strikes where some shockingly violent events took place. The conflict, which ended in a victory for the dockworkers, characterized the year and gave rise to a major aftermath of similar labor disputes. The turbulent, violent and bloody month of May in Rosario was covered by the press in a particular way. According to the newspaper La Capital, the violence aroused from elements “foreign” to the workers, “the strikers”. In contrast, the labor press, represented by the newspapers La Internacional, La Protesta and La Vanguardia, claimed that the violence had issued on the employers’ side. The debate’s background was that the former defended the “work freedom”, while the latter asked for the “right to strike”. The conflict that expressed itself through the press was not able to hide the intentions of the so called “serious press” which, in the heat of the dispute, bared its close interests to the employers’ group. Its subtle strategy ended up adding pressure to the local, provincial and national authorities which, in the long run, took a step aside or tilted the scale in favor of the bourgeoisie.