The sense that I take it is "proportionate" disruption, which may include disabling machinery but not permanently destroying it. I would be wary of the "common sense" of the word, which, like "popular culture" refers not to some inherent common sense or popular culture but to manufactured and commercially-promoted ones.
Furthermore, my original point (and Veblen's and Giovannitti's) was precisely about CONTESTING the received meanings of such strategically vital terms, as dictated by the partisans of capital. On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > If I remember correctly (and I’ve forgotten my source), the IWW did not > permit individuals to engage in sabotage on their own; it had to be a > collective decision and carried out in the proper way. Such a principle > would _*seem*_, off hand, to indicate that the IWW also used the word in > the current popular sense. > > > > Sabotage _*in any sense*_, would of course fit in with non-violent civil > disobedience – at least by _*my*_ definition of violence: physical harm > to other people. > > > > Carrol > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker > *Sent:* Sunday, June 03, 2012 7:10 PM > *To:* Progressive Economics > *Subject:* Re: [Pen-l] Sabotage and Solidarity: "the only thing that can > oppose the spreading of a truth is the spreading of a lie." > > > > Which is to say that Veblen applies multiple layers of irony. In the first > chapter of The Engineers and the Price System, his irony is directed at the > hypocrisy of business and the press in their exaggerated denunciations of > the I.W.W. sabotage even as their respectable sabotage is much more > widespread and vicious. > > Veblen no doubt understood that overtly "supporting" I.W.W. tactics would > be no advantage to the I.W.W. but would undermine the force of his critique > of pecuniary culture. In a sense, the syndicalist tactic of sabotage could > be seen as a bid to participate more fully in pecuniary culture, unless it > too is consumed with an ironic grain of salt. > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Perelman, Michael <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Be careful with Veblen. Yes, he criticizes business practices and calls > them sabotage but he uses that expression to shock and to undercut the > respectability of the business class. He was also sympathetic to the IWW, > but I have seen nothing to indicate that he is in favor of sabotage in the > common sense of the word. > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
