Strikeology

Industrial Unionist, Volume 1, Issue 2, 1 March 1913, Page 3

Strikeology

The term “ Sabotage” is used to describe “ all those tactics, save the boycott and the strike proper, which are used by workers to wring concessions from their employers by inflicting losses upon them through the stopping or slowing down of industry, turning out poor product, etc.” It means nothing more than the adoption, on a large scale, of dodges already invariably practised by the disgruntled individual worker. Poor wages are, naturally, reflected in a poor product. One does not, willingly, give a long day’s work for a short day’s pay. What endangers human life cannot, in the nature of things, be held sacred. Sabotage is the expression of these natural consequences on a large scale.

The history of strikes si lows that the employing class have depended upon starvation driving the strikers back to work. It was nothing to the employers that men desired an easier existence, and were willing to make painful sacrifices therefor. It was nothing to them that women and children were starving, and willing to starve, that their menfolk might be less of burdened slaves. Only a short time ago a cry went up from the rebellious miners of Great Britain and echoed round the world. The New Zealander, it is said, responded nobly. But does not the New Zealander realise that in our midst is that same calibre of employer that will calmly watch the worker starve rather than suffer the least depreciation of his bank balance ?

That form of Sabotage known as “ going slowly on the job” takes the starvation weapon out of the bosses’ hands. It has the effect of a strike, and it is well known how the boss loves a strike. Instead of leaving work, the rebels stay on, but work slowly, reduce the output, and thus hit the boss where he feels it worst —in the pocket-book. If the worker is justified in desiring better conditions and getting them, surely he is justified in not starving—he, the wife and the kiddies. He is justified in “ going slowly on the job,” and organising towards that end if the “ going slowly” form of Sabotage will enable him to get and hold what he considers his due.

Sabotage absolutely does not imply personal violence. We emphasise that statement, for the archlie levelled against the I.W.W. is that we have no respect for life and limb. We have every respect, which is more than we can truthfully say for tnany members of the employing class. Again, Sabotage does not aim at the destruction of a thing, but at the profits of an industry, through the hampering of production. Simply, it is a form of strike which precludes starvation and the blackleg—weapons of the boss. The workers stay on the job; the blackleg is reft of his nefarious calling. Wages are still forthcoming; starvation is no longer a demoralising factor. If the boss raises a lock-out, well, competitors endanger his market. Should he invite blacklegs, he may get, along with them, a few rebels deeply versed in strikeology.

Personal violence is not an economic factor. The bosses’ pocketbook is. And the fight is an economic one.

Environment moulds a man’s thoughts and guides his actions. Who are the firmest advocates of Sabotage ? Why, they who are the slaves of the machines, the slaves of the fields and the forests —the workers. And who are the firmest opponents of Sabotage ? Who but the owners of the machines, the fields and the forests ? It is the natural outcome of that incessant war which must inevitably be waged between master and slave, for what benefits the one damns the other.

Sabotage is the herald of Revolt against the tyranny of Capital ! A. 11.