<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8230; was underlying the IWW&#8217;s activities in the pre-World War One period?</title>
	<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/21/was-underlying-the-iwws-activities-in-the-pre-world-war-one-period/</link>
	<description>A working notebook</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:29:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Nate</title>
		<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/21/was-underlying-the-iwws-activities-in-the-pre-world-war-one-period/#comment-932</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:34:07 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/21/was-underlying-the-iwws-activities-in-the-pre-world-war-one-period/#comment-932</guid>
					<description>Yup. Salerno's big on the interplay of European and American sources. I've only just started his book. I'm interested, but also ambivalent. On the one hand, the emphasis on intellectual sources and so on is great, shows that the wobs were thinking and reading. On the other hand, one can think - and theorize - without using accepted sources, based on one's experiences. In other words, I've got a reservation about the language of sources and deriving, rather than producing, as it can imply a sort of active component (received theoretical works as the volatile substance used in the combustion process) as a precondition for thought. I'm reading too much in I know, but these are concerns I try to keep in mind generally to use as a sort of litmus test on  stuff I read, to try to see how adequate it is to what I think about working class (capacity for) self-activity.
cheers,
Nate</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Yup. Salerno&#8217;s big on the interplay of European and American sources. I&#8217;ve only just started his book. I&#8217;m interested, but also ambivalent. On the one hand, the emphasis on intellectual sources and so on is great, shows that the wobs were thinking and reading. On the other hand, one can think - and theorize - without using accepted sources, based on one&#8217;s experiences. In other words, I&#8217;ve got a reservation about the language of sources and deriving, rather than producing, as it can imply a sort of active component (received theoretical works as the volatile substance used in the combustion process) as a precondition for thought. I&#8217;m reading too much in I know, but these are concerns I try to keep in mind generally to use as a sort of litmus test on  stuff I read, to try to see how adequate it is to what I think about working class (capacity for) self-activity.<br />
cheers,<br />
Nate
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Nate</title>
		<link>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/21/was-underlying-the-iwws-activities-in-the-pre-world-war-one-period/#comment-927</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:34:43 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/09/21/was-underlying-the-iwws-activities-in-the-pre-world-war-one-period/#comment-927</guid>
					<description>So basically the early Wobblies were trying to develop theory based on their experiences in struggle?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>So basically the early Wobblies were trying to develop theory based on their experiences in struggle?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
