Interpreting the taking vs. creating power dichotomy : A case study of the Argentinean labour movement CTA and the Constituyente Social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a case study of the alternative labour union organization Central de Trabajadores de la Argentina (CTA) in Argentina and the most recent project under process striving for system change, named the Constituyente Social. The case under study is used to illustrate the perception of power in relation to aspirations for societal change among the left in Latin America. The overall struggle of the CTA and the Constituyente Social is to create a more just society based on a deepening of democracy, more participatory in character. Two understandings of power are presented, on the one hand is the taking power concept, inherited from the political struggles where the belief is that power needs to be taken from the elite in order to succeed with structural change in society. On the other hand is the creating power perception, best exemplified with the Zapatista movement in Mexico. There is no conquering of power in this view, but a creation and strengthening of power among the masses. The theoretical chapter presents a view that unites these two perceptions, arguing for the need to intersect the vertical (power taking) and the horizontal (power creating) struggles. The Constituyente Social is analyzed in relation to this intersection, providing concrete examples of where the two power perceptions are utilized, sometimes simultaneously. The overall conclusion is that the dichotomization usually done between the two understandings of power is incomplete and may even damage the struggle for societal change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".