ABSTRACT
All analyses of the national liberation movement and its historical evolution agree that the role of the petty bourgeoisie is fundamental. The petty bourgeoisie, as a social body surreptitiously able to upset all political prognosis, adapts to the most varied circumstances in order to remain in power. Cabral's theory of the petty bourgeoisie was born out of the specific reality and contradictions of Guinea-Bissau. The meshing is often involuntary as the dynamic surpasses narrow logical calculations. The national liberation movement is trapped in its traditional dilemma: national liberation does not necessarily mean social revolution. Although the latter implies the former, they do not necessarily form a chain reaction. In Guine, class struggle remained stifled. The leadership of the struggle is shared with other sectors, although the latter were being towed behind. But the dilemma of the petty bourgeoisie is posed most acutely when it takes power.
