CHAPTER XVI

SABOTAGE

Definitions-Not new idea-Not confined to strikes or labor union action-In stage of advocacy-Lefense of revolutionists-Destruction stupid.

IN the introduction to a little book by Emile Pouget on "Sabotage" Arturo Giovannitti, a leading spokesman of the Industrial Workers, defines sabotage as: (1) "Any conscious and willful act on the part of one or more workers intended to slacken and reduce the output of production in the industrial field, or to restrict trade and reduce the profits in the commercial field, in order to secure from their employers better conditions or to enforce those promised or maintain those already prevailing, when no other way of redress is open; (2) Any skillful operation on the machinery of production intended not to destroy it or permanently render it defective but only to temporarily disable it and to put it out of running condition in order to make impossible the work of scabs and thus to secure the complete and real stoppage of work during a strike." 1

The qualifying statements in regard to destruction are not essential parts of the definition of the word, but they are essential to an understanding of the

policy of the organization which advocates the use of sabotage as a method. Those qualifying statements are insisted upon in every case and by all the leaders. Doctor James Warbasse, who is empowered to speak for the Industrial Workers, in his definition recognizes that the qualifications have to do with the practice rather than the definition. In a pamphlet reprinted from the New York Call his definition includes a statement of the theoretical basis for its use:

Sabotage in its broad sense as understood and applied in the modern industrial movement is the coöperative application by workers of measures for the retardation of the profit-making business of employers, having as its objects the securing of concessions from the latter in the interests of the former as a class; the demonstration of the power and the indispensability of the workers and the bringing about ultimately of a better society. There exists in the public mind an erroneous notion that sabotage means the destruction of property by violence practised by striking workers with no further object than that of coercing employers into granting workers certain immediate demands. While the violent destruction of property is sometimes a feature of sabotage, it is exceptional but by no means characteristic. The term is applied also to any form of curtailment of output or destruction of property in the interest of business, provided it is practised by one class at the expense of a second class. The workers thus speak of the depredations of capital as sabotage. Literally the term means to move slowly with heavy feet. Destruction of property or reduction of output practised by an individual for his personal ends is not to be dignified by being called sabotage. It is possible that industrial

terminology will not long sanction the use of the word when applied to the petty interests of craft unions. Sabotage is a war measure. In so far as war is unethical sabotage is unethical. It presupposes the existence of a conflict between the capitalist class and the working class.

Sabotage itself is no new thing. What is new is the proposition to develop the spontaneous acts of individual workers in time of labor disputes into a policy of action, under the direction of labor organizations. A striking white-goods worker won the applause of her sister strikers when she announced that she had spent the day in a struck factory sewing the left legs of underdrawers to left legs and right legs to right. She had not been directed to do this by her union and she would have been surprised to hear that her action had a name and back of its name was a philosophy. She did spontaneously what many strikers before her had done and on their own impulse. Her act was in its nature a prank which "served the boss right." As he had said he liked the work of unskilled girls she declared it was well to give him a little more of it. The very nature of strikes invites such action. If such unofficial acts had been recorded there would doubtless be ample opportunity for judgment as to their value as a labor measure.

The spirit of sabotage is not confined to the present, or to times of strike, nor to labor union action, as has been pointed out. When an individual worker is aggrieved over the lack of relation between the

remuneration for a job and the amount or kind of labor it requires of him, it is not uncommon for him to skimp his service as far as possible. This is the spirit of sabotage disconnected with the labor union and without revolutionary intent. Giovannitti says: "A certain simple thing which is more or less generally practised and thought very plain and natural, as, for instance, a negro picking less cotton when receiving less grub, becomes a monstrous thing, a crime and a blasphemy when it is openly advocated and advised." When workers came to generalize about conditions of employment and decided or rather realized that speeding up resulted in wage reductions and when they tacitly agreed among themselves without organization to "go slow" they were practising sabotage even if it did not deserve the name of a revolutionary measure.

Pouget points out that "ca cannie" was preached to workers through a pamphlet issued in 1895 which Ideclared that if labor was to be treated like a commodity in the market, labor like other commodities would give poor service for poor prices.

Sabotage is no new thing. It is probably as old as labor performed for others. Why is it considered a menace? Giovannitti answers: "It is simply because there is no danger in any act in itself when it is determined by natural instinctive impulse and is quite unconscious and unpremeditated, it only becomes dangerous when it becomes the translated practical ex

pression of an idea even through or rather because this idea has originated from the act itself."

Sabotage as an organized method in the United States is in an early stage of advocacy. Its actual use according to those preaching it is negligible. A speaker for the Industrial Workers "told the striking silk workers in Paterson that if starvation forced them back to the slavery and growing degradation from which they had revolted, if their strike were lost, if the hunger of their children broke their power of resistance, they should use sabotage in the mills and in the dye shops.' No workers were arrested for committing sabotage nor was it known that any sabotage was committed in Paterson, but the advocate was arrested, sentenced to hard labor in prison and fined under what is known as the "Anarchy Statutes." No act resulted from his speech but he was sentenced for advocating destruction. He did not advocate destruction but injury. The court made no distinction. The sabotage issue before the law is at present an issue of free speech.

But should sabotage extend to destruction as a revolutionary measure it has its defence: "If the instruments of production rightfully belong to the workers, it means that they have been pilfered from them and that the capitalist class detains them in an immoral way. It is legal for the bourgeois to keep them in accordance to its own laws, but surely it is not