Tit for tat to the big ape, and with their actions, neutralize his screwing



Sabotage is the conscious kicking of the boss in the ass, it’s the screwing up of a job, it’s a grain of sand snuck into the gears so the machine breaks down, it’s the systematic sinking of the boss’ system...All of this carried out secretly, letting know one know what’s going on when it’s being done.

Sabotage is the baby cousin of the boycott. And fuck it, in a bunch of cases when a strike is impossible it can render some damn good service to the working stiffs.

When an exploiter feels like his workers can’t pull off a strike he doesn’t hesitate to screw them over. Stuck in the gears of exploitation the poor buggers don’t dare speak up for fear of being sacked. They’re eaten up with rage and bend their necks. Eaten up with rage, they still put up with the boss’ prickeries.

But they put up with them. And angry or not, the boss doesn’t give a damn, as long as things go the way he wants.

Why are things like this?

Because the working stiffs haven’t found the right way to respond tit for tat to the big ape and, with their actions, neutralize his screwing.

But the way exists:

It’s sabotage!

The English have been doing this for a long time – and they find it a terrific fucking thing.

2 comments:

morsch said...

maybe he should have added: sabotage is the individualist militant brother of the strike, causing (possibly huge)damage to the maschinery to enforce the crisis of the capitalist mode of production.in that way its an attack and an expression of impotence of an organized workforce necessarily being caught in the class relation(reproducing the class means reproducing capital). like the strike is an act of violence against capital(and if its not bureaucraticly tranquilized- like wildcat strikes- its clearly taken as an violent act by capital)its the moment proletarian force appears(i think georges sorel pointed that out).
what makes sabotage a useful tactic is that its a way of avoiding a clear frontline that is easily attacked by capital and the authority of the state. on the other hand sabotage tends to be an individualized act of anger reproducing the divisons we have to overcome in order to acting as a class abolishing all calsses.
but sabotage definitely could be an improtant form to attack several sectors definitely useless for a revolutionary attempt seizing the productive means -the historical act- and to slow down "the enemy's" abilities.

socialism and/or barbarism said...

Hey,

too brief response, as I'm leaving country today:

first, many thanks for the English translation of the theses a while back, wanted to post up here with a response, and that response got sidetracked.

second, as a placeholder before I write you back more about sabotage, take a look at this:

http://www.archive.org/details/SabotageTheConsciousWithdrawalOfTheWorkersIndustrialEfficiency

There's some utterly remarkable stuff in here (the sabotage addition to silk of the same chemicals used by capitalists to "sabotage" their own product), in line with what you're speaking of (especially in terms of the "non-frontline" aspect). I'm going to be talking about this in London next week, and I'll send the piece your way.

Hoping to get back to Berlin much sooner rather than later