In December 1938 an alliance of the Radical, Communist and Socialist parties took office in Chile, the first Popular Front to come to power in Latin America. A few months later, in Spain, the Nationalist forces under Generalísimo Franco occupied Madrid, bringing an end to the civil war. Shortly after, a serious diplomatic conflict developed between Spain and Chile, in which most of Latin America gradually became embroiled. It concerned the fate of 17 Spanish republicans who had sought asylum in the Chilean embassy in the last days of the seige of Madrid, and culminated in July 1940 when the Nationalist government broke off relations with Chile. Initially, the issue at the heart of the episode was the right to political asylum and the established practice of Latin American diplomatic legations of offering protection to individuals seeking asylum (asilados). The causes of the conflict, however, became increasingly obscured as time went on. The principles at stake became confused by mutual Spanish– Chilean distrust, the Nationalists' ideological crusade both within Spain and outside and the Chilean government's deep hostility to the Franco regime, which it saw as a manifestation of fascism. The ideological gulf widened with the onset of the Second World War. This article concentrates primarily, although not exclusively, on the first part of the dispute, April 1939–January 1940. In this period asylum, which is our main interest, was uppermost in Spanish–Chilean diplomatic correspondence.

General overviews of Latin American labour (Erickson, Peppe, Spalding, 1974; Roxborough, 1986) have contributed to a synthesis of the major findings on the subject resulting from the work of labour historians and political scientists. Yet the authors have focused on recent contributions without trying to establish the sequence according to which the field has developed. This article discusses the evolution of Latin American labour studies from what was once the privileged domain of ideologues and militants (Mariátegui, 1928; Jobet, 1955; Ramírez Necochea, 1956; Lora, 1967) to a more sociological approach in recent years. Our purpose is to show how the analysis of labour has undergone a profound transformation as a result of this change in focus. While the ideological focus gave importance to the historical reconstruction of the different phases of the process of working-class formation and to the narration of the ‘heroic moments’ when labour forged its identity struggling against the State, what we can call the sociological focus has emphasised such factors as the geographical and sectoral distribution of the working population, the process of unionisation, the attitudes of workers in relation to industrial labour, democracy and relations of authority on the shop floor, worker consciousness and the collective bargaining process.1