Skip to main content

View Diary: Just shut up about violent revolution (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah, but Major Danby says he Considers it Violence (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, viscerality, lgmcp

    that includes sabotage, by the way

    Passive resistance is a subset of sabotage.

    Ben Williams writes:

    [Sabotage] does not include the destruction of machinery in every instance. In the case of "passive resistance" for example, for example, as shown on the government-owned railways of Austria, the workers simply obeyed the laws of the nation governing traffic to the letter. They took no risks, they observed signals, they did exactly what the law told them to. As a consequence, the railways were congested with rolling stock and traffic was practically impossible outside of 24 hours. No destruction of property occured.

    Frank Bohn writes:

    Sabotage means "strike and stay in the shop." ... Sabotage does not necessarily mean destruction of machinery or other property, although that method has always been indulged in and will continue to be used as long as there is a class struggle. More often it us used to advantage in a quieter way. Excessive limitation of output is sabotage. So is any obstruction of the regular conduct of the industry. Ancient Hebrews in Egypt practiced sabotage when they spoiled the bricks. Slaves in the south practiced it regularly by putting stones and dirt in their bags of cotton to make them weigh heavier.

    No returns for privilege; full returns for labor! Labor has a right to all that it creates.

    by Mike Erwin on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:56:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't consider a work slowdown to be violence (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe you can fit it into the category of sabotage, but I'm using what I think is a pretty conventional definition that was bandied about earlier today in another diary.  I mean blowing things up, disabling machinery/infrastructure, etc.

      My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

      by Major Danby on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:06:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Words Get Loose (0+ / 0-)

        And run away from us.

        To dismiss (or to endorse) 'sabotage' without defining 'sabotage' is asking for trouble of this kind. It's better to argue for or against narrower ranges of actions.

        i.e. What kinds of action would you support, what kinds would you conditionally support or oppose, and what kinds would you oppose? And do you prefer the C.D. model or the D.A. model? And why?

        AFAIK, that 'pretty conventional definition' was invented to vilify union organizers who used the original definition, so I do tend to take offense at the 'conventional definition.'

        No returns for privilege; full returns for labor! Labor has a right to all that it creates.

        by Mike Erwin on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 11:44:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (149)
  • Community (71)
  • Baltimore (68)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Elections (27)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Riots (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site