That is why we cannot speak, strictly speaking, only of economic crisis. In the Decade of the 1960s, the wave of worker militancy was just an expression, important, decisive, but a more of a deep wave born in the basement of the societies that jostled by the transformation. Women, children, young people, landless peasants, workers not qualified, Indian, black, and a long etcetera, literally put in check modes of domination established in the family, school, local rural and urban, factory, the hacienda, the University. Critique of patriarchy was manifested also in the rejection of the power of the Professor, the foreman of the white male middle class, in the end, an anti-authoritarian democratisation process that undermined the modes of domination and, therefore, of accumulation of surplus wealth. Secondly, that wave was born and manifested outside the established channels and institutions, among them the parties Communists and trade unions. Andre Gorz 13 spoke, in the manufacturing field, of the existence of a true working guerrilla outside Union control, which caused enormous losses to employers. Thirdly, the cycles of protest and mobilisation not only change the socio-political stage but also to the movements themselves. Why movements who star in a cycle tend to be an obstacle in the next cycle because they have institutionalized, became part of the culture of power and have embedded their best pictures in the system who fought a day.

A true rebel cycle creates new organizations, but also new ways of fighting but above all, new paradigms for conceiving social change or revolution, or as each one you want to call it. Deep and real processes are born and in the peripheries, never in the center of the system, to planetary scale, at the microbial level and also to social ladder. The zapatistas have a sample of this. They coined the concept of more down to refer to this sector social where the revolt is born.