Sabotage

E. G. Flynn

SABOTAGE

THE CONSCIOUS WITHDRAWAL OF THEWORKERS' INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY

by

ELIZABETH GURLEY FLYNN

OCTOBER,

19161. W. W.PUBLISHING

BUREAU CLEVELAND,

0.,

U.

S.

A.

[since withdrawn as official union literature]

L...-

___

~

______________

~

The interest in sabotage in the United States has developed lately

on

account

of

thecase

of

Frederick Sumner Boyd in thestate

of

New Jersey

as

an

aftermath

of

the Patersonstrike.Before his arrest and conviction for advocatingsabotage,little

or

nothing wasknown

of

this particular form oflabortactic in the United States. Now there has developeda two-fold necessity to advocate it: not only toexplainwhat it means to the worker in hisfight for betterconditions,but also to justify

our

fellow-worker Boydin everythingthathesaid.So I am desirous primarily

to

explain sabotage,toexplainit in this two-fold significance, first as to its utility andsecondas to its legality.

Its

Necessity

In

The

Class

War

Iamnotgoingto attempt to justifysabotage onany moralground.

If

theworkersconsiderthatsabotageis necessary,that in itself makessabotagemoral. Its necessity

is

itsexcuseforexistence.And for us to discuss the morality

of

sabotage wouldbe asabsurd asto discuss the morality

of

thestrike

or

the morality

of

theclass struggleitself. Inorderto understandsabotage

or

to accept itatall it

is

necessaryto accept theconcept

of

classstruggle.

If

youbelieve that between theworkers ontheone sideand theiremployers

on

the other thereispeace, there

is

harmonysuch as existsbetween brothers,andthat consequently whatever strikesand lockoutsoccuraresimply familysquabbles;

if

youbelievethat apoint

can

bereached wherebytheemployer can get enough andtheworker cangetenough, apoint

of

amicable adjustment

of

industrial warfare andeconomicdistribution, then there is nojustification andnoexplanation

of

sabotageintelligible toyou.Sabotage is one weapon in the arsenal

oflabor

to fight itsside

of

theclass struggle.Laborrealizes,as it becomes more intelligent, that it must have power inordertoaccomplish anything; that neither appeals forsympathynorabstract rights willmakeforbetter conditions. For instance,take

an

industrial establishment such as a silkmill,wheremen and women and littlechildrenwork ten hours a day for

an

averagewage

of

betweensixandseven dollars a week.Could

anyone

of

them,

or

acommittee representingthewhole,hope to induce theemployertogivebetterconditions byappealing to hissympathy, bytelling him

of

the misery, the hardship and the poverty

of

their lives;

or

could theydo it byappealing to hissense

of

ustice?Suppose that anindividualworkingman

or

woman wentto

an

employer and said,"I make,in

my

capacity

as

wage worker in this factory,somanydollars' worth

of

wealth every day and justice demands that you give

me

at least half." Theemployer would probably have himremovedto the nearest lunatic asylum. Hewould consider him too dangerous a criminal

to

let looseon thecommunity!

It

is

neithersympathynor justice that makes

an

appeal to theemployer.But it

is

power. I f acommittee

can

go totheemployerwith this ultimatum:"Werepresentallthe men and women in thisshop.They are organized in a union as you are organizedina manufacturers' association. They havemet and formulated in that union a demand for better hours and wagesandthey are notgoing to work one day longer unless they get it. In other words, they have withdrawn their

power

as wealth producers from your plant and they are going tocoerce youby thiswithdrawal

of

their power; into granting their demands," that sort

of

ultimatumserved

I,lpon

an employer usually meets with

an

entirely different response; and if the union isstrongly enough organized and they are able to make good their threat they usuallyaccomplishwhattears and pleadings nevercouldhave accomplished.

2