This dissertation presents an unusual comparison: ‘old' social movements Vs new social movements (NSMs). Two case studies are introduced: the Zapatistas rebellions in Chiapas and the Montoneros in Argentina.
This distinction is made possible by a tendency in the literature on NSMs to generalise about two substantially different waves of protest movements. On the one hand, the traditional old labour movements commonly engaged in class-based politics; on the other hand, there are new social movements frantically entrenched in politics of identity. Authors on NSMs introduce various elements that constitute the celebrated watershed between ‘how it is used to be' and ‘how it is now'. These issues are identity, political style, motivation to participate, communication strategies, ideology. Furthermore, NSMs are believed to carry out a struggle on a global scale. Authors tend to define them "Transnational social movements" united in the fight against a new enemy. It is what Castells calls "the New Global Order" perpetrated by unregulated market exchanges and processes of modernisation, which repeatedly marginalise large sectors of society.
This paper gives support to the distinction between old and new forms of rebellions but at the same time, "warns" that such generalisations should be handled with care. The theory on NSMs gives an insight on the peculiarities of these new protest groups, shedding light on complex issues with regard to the internal nature of movements such as the Zapatistas. The reader is also reminded that such theoretical positions might engender claims about the revolutionary figures of today of mythical proportions. NSMs are no better or worse than other traditional social movements; what should be generally accepted is that conceptualisations about the concept of ‘revolution' have changed.
Revolution must be understood as a question, no longer as an answer. Consequently, the means by which a revolution is carried out have been deeply revised.