Talk:Luddite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Luddite, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Textile Arts WikiProject
Textile arts Portal
This article is within the scope of the Textile Arts WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within textile arts.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Modern Perspective

To get one modern perspective, try to find a book called Sabotage in the American Workplace, I think from AK Press. It's just about a hundred stories summarized from interviews with real people about why they had (and in only one case, had not) done things at workk that they weren't "supposed" to do, everything from breaking equipment to get a break, to stealing supplies, to spitting in the soup. --JohnAbbe

Kirkpatrick Sales' 1996 book "Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and their War on the Industrial Revolution" London: Quartet Books is worth a read. It concentrates on Luddites and touches on Neo-Luddites. For the insights of scientist looking at his work and the potential harm it may hold (esp. nanotechnology) take a look at: Joy, Bill (2001): "Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us" URL www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ch3.pdf (as printed in 'Wired' magazine). To examine other views on nanotechnology see ch4,5, and 6 within same site address. --RichardSeabury

[edit] Plea for Historical Perspective in _this_ article

This article used to say it was about the historical perspective (and so would principally be a UK Topic). I think this is an important enough area to keep it with that tack and to discuss the other broader, softer issues elsewhere. Comments? Linuxlad 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The phrase "Luddite" is pretty international, as is the concept. The root of the concept may have originated in the UK, but so did postage stamps, and nobody suggests that the article on those should be written with sole reference to the UK. Legis 10:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, with respect I think you are disagreeing!!. The historical term is too important to be internationalised into a vague techno-ramble. Postage stamps are clearly a rather diferent sort of animal!

Bob aka Linuxlad 16:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luddites might have been on the right track.

In at least one sense Luddites might have been on the right track. Perhaps we can think about why they destroyed the weaving frames. They saw the destructive power of the new technology. In that vision they were compelled to try to stop these changes. Are we not in the same danger? (No signature)

Here's another perspective: Would England have been better off if the industrial revolution hadn't happened? (No ambulances, no modern fire brigade, no inexpensive international travel, no WikiPedia) Or if the industrial revolution had accelerated some other nation (and other language) to the international forefront?
While it is easy to empathise with workers in fear of loosing their livelihood, consider the implications on the wider society:
In essence, the Luddites wanted to preserve their traditional pricing scheme, forcing others to pay inflated prices for their wares - thus keeping quality clothing out of reach of the working classes.
--Spazzm 00:39, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
Except that quality clothing remained out of reach for the working classes, as it was the working classes who lost their jobs! No matter that quality clothes were cheaper, the working classes were now earning less because of this and so still couldn't afford them. But it was probably necessary in the long run, although in the short term it wrought (sp) terrible, terrible changes for the majority of people. The industrial revolution favoured the rich and those with an investment in industry. The average worker was worse off. 14:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)
Umm, really? Would you say that a smaller or a greater proportion of the working population of England can afford quality clothing today than in pre-Luddite times? I think the answer's fairly obvious: the Luddites certainly saw the destructive power of automation, but they did not see (or did not care about) the creative power of automation that by far transcends it. --Stancollins 03:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
As I said "it was probably necessary in the long run, although in the short term it wrought (sp) terrible, terrible changes for the majority of people." In the short term, a smaller proportion of the population could afford quality clothing. This is because the weavers, and other working class people, were those put out of work during the industrial revolution. Thus, since the working class could no longer work, or worked for factory wages, they couldn't afford the goods they were making. You speak as if the weavers were one group of wealthy people, and the workers were another. The weavers were workers. In the long term, as I said, it was probably necessary and made things better for people. In the short term, it made things worse for the majority.
I don't understand what you mean by "the creative power of automation". Could you be more specific?

11:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

[edit] NPOV edit

Removed some POV in the account of Thompson's view, e.g. "The best explanation..." -> "Thompson's explanation...". The plight of the worker in post-industrial England, compared to pre-industrial, needs better sourcing if it is to stay. Please discuss here if putting it back.

Er have you actually read the Thompson book? It is extremely well referenced and its point of view has stood the test of time as a _valid_ one. Moreover, it is a view by a recognised authority and so has validity in WP in its own right. You're entitled to state your own POV (though not to represent it as 'conventional') I give notice of a substantial reversion being needed.Linuxlad

Added a 'Criticism of Luddism' section to balance Thompson's view.

This is an English-origin topic - can we at least agree on 'Defence' please

That's fine with me. I think we should include it, however spelled, because pronouncing one scholar 'the winner' of any debate is the very soul of NPOV. Stancollins 16:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pitched battles

Should pitched battles be linked? I think so, since many (including me) may not know what a pithced battle is. --Spazzm 15:20, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It's simply a figure of speech, and defining those is not an encyclopedia's place.

I think you miss the part of the point of the wikipedia if you hold this position. The genius of this service as compared to traditional encyclopediae is the instantaneous ability to gain further background information on any concept a reader might legitimately be unaware of. Of course, 'pitched battle' happens to have no page in either the Wikipedia or the Wiktionary (even though it is quite common in dictionaries), so the question may be a bit moot as of now.
Further, it may not be accurate as, looking it up, a 'pitched battle' is one where the forces on each side are arrayed in a predetermined pattern (like regular armies). This may or may not have been true of these battles.
-- stancollins 08 June, 2005
I am always in favour of linking phrases. If someone clicks a link then de facto they either wondered what it means, or want to know more about it. If there is an article to it, then a link does no harm (you don't force anyone to click it! Although I confess, I do draw the link at people who insist on turning every date and every country in their article into a link). On the other hand, I agree that not every turn of phrase deserves a Wikipedia article to explain it, but that relates more to whether a subject deserves an article, rather than whether an article needs a link. Legis 10:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturalism

What's with the link to Naturalism? Is this supposed to link to Naturism? - RealGrouchy 02:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critics of Luddism

I felt the need to bulk up this section a good bit, as the overall page was still quite favorable. Frankly, most of mainstream thought still considers the goals of Luddism to be dubious and the means with which the Luddites pursued them egregious--and not entirely without reason. One can arguably study the actual historical Luddism and still use the word 'Luddite' as an insult.

--stancollins 08 June, 2005

The section was removed without comment by ViolentGreen, making it atrocious from an NPOV perspective, as in this form it includes an elaborate refutation of a charge not even made in the article. I will endeavor to fix. -- Stancollins 19:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


I accept the term 'conservative' as applied to critics of Luddism, though I would imagine, in this case, that 90% of all those who are familiar with Luddism would qualify as being that 'conservative.' (I would imagine basically anyone who isn't a Communist, syndecalist, anarchist, or something similar wouldn't approve of just breaking things as the way to express yourself.) However, the 'neo' had to go. This view has most definitely been around longer than there has been such a thing as a 'neocon.'

Also, I'm curious why it must be Forster's 'view', and not 'defense.' What is a point-by-point refutation of charges made against a person or group, if not a defense? Defense is a better word, as a 'view' can be expressed casually or for no purpose. Thorough comments made for the purpose of exhoneration is a defense, and I hardly consider the word 'defense' NPOV. Stancollins 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thompson (NOT Forster) wrote a very substantial book on working-class history of this period (and it wasn't his last :-) - he had a world-view, spread over several thousand pages of scholarship, not a 'point-by-point' defence statement. The use of the word conservative used in an article like this has to have its English not US meaning (unless you wish to explicitly qualify it as (US)), and is too mild for your views. Most English 'conservatives' (well, most of my generation!) would see your view of Luddism as 'terrorism' as caricature. Please offer or accept alternatives.Bob At the last we have to accept in the best WP tradition that we're both 'right' within our own spheres of reference, and need to make these areas clear)

No, upon further review, I think the word 'terrorism' is too hot-button, and more than necessary in describing solely economic sabotage. I got rid of that term. With your pardon, I am about to revert, though, to 'Defence', because I don't believe the word 'defence' necessarily has a negative connotation, other than one that would derive from being charged with a crime, which they clearly were.
One hears phrases like 'heroic defence' etc etc, all the time. And I don't mean to characterize the entire work as a 'defence,' but just a section within it, in which it seems Thompson defends the Luddites against charges like like technophobic thuggery.
I hope that makes for an adequate defense of my use of the word defence. :-) Stancollins 19:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a defence! Have you actually read Making of the English Working Class!? Let's agree an arbitrator, preferably an English historian, before we drive each other potty. Bob

I have not, and that's precisely the point. What's presented here is clearly a defence, a point-by-point refutation of 'myth's about Luddism and the Luddites. If that mischaracterizes the work, that needs to be explained in the text. I strongly suspect, however, that it does not; the reviews of the work indicate that, important as it is, it is written essentially through the lens of a sympathizer.
However, if you wish to change it back (whether through an abritrator or not), I will not revert again. If at first you don't suceed, try, try again. If you still fail, give up. Stancollins 17:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A few comments by way of closeout. The point-by-point style of the Thompson section here is not of course Thompson's - what's presented in WP is an adequate 3rd party precis of material scattered over the book(s). (So it's ANOther's defence based on EPT's historical-view). If you consider it a partial statement and so to be characterised as biased advocacy then I'm sure you'll conceded that your own addition appears similarly biased to many of us, and so needs to be characterised as as 'attack' on the Luddites rather than just a critique :-).

I apologise.  ;-). I am used to the word 'criticism' (as distinguished from 'critique') being synonymous with 'negative view' (unless used in the literary sense, but Luddism itself is not literature), so I thought that was understood already. I was deliberately including only the main disfavourable views to balance off an obviously favourable one. I also think I did a more than fair job of attributing these views to a certain type of critic, so I think in context the meaning was clear. --Stancollins 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We will never fully appreciate the stresses and strains of life of the North Midland stockingers and other workers during the turmoil and hardship of the early 18th century, even those of us who were born near the area - but EPT did at least try to unpick the historical record and lay some of the myths. His views deserve respect, and part of that respect is to present the views as valid (I use the word carefully), and not to impute partiality to them by using the word 'defence' on first presentation. Thank you for conceding on this point. Bob Linuxlad

OK, I can see that. However, I think this article incomplete unless it includes at least one more direct treatment of the topic by a serious author. --Stancollins 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Amplification from James Burke, a famous English writier, scientist, and actor (see 'Connections' series): Luddite incident in England reputed to have begun 11 Mar 1811. A crowd of weavers in Nottingham were protesting the widespread use of the automated weaving frame, representing not a fight agaisnt technology and industrialists, but a response to the threat to their livelihood and means of income. Unable to attend a formal training or school structure (like modern peopel are today), the protesters had no otehr trade for which they were qualified as workers. The demonstration wa broken up forcefully by dragoons resulting in injuries to crowd members; the demonstration then became a protest against the governments lack of consideration for their position. A leader soon arose who called himself 'General Ned Ludd', which was term inspiration for the term Luddites. the members took to wearing masks and smashing the weaving frames tht poased a threat to their livihood which was interpretted b y teh governemtn as a reaction to the change in technology. nwilliams111 22 Jan 2006

Amplification from N. Williams, international political and behavioural anlayst: The term Luddite is often confused with two distinctly different attitudes towards technology: first, the complete opposition to any form of technological change, and second the perception of technological change that poses either benevolent or malevolent effects on the cultural beliefs of a person, group, or nation. While many of the first type do exist (i.e. Unibomber), most are of the second type, with various examples throughout history.

- American Civil War: Southern states were exhibiting Luddite ideology by opposing automation efforts of the northern states that they viewed as threatening their way of life. at the same time they had no problem with other forms of technology that provided them with a better class of life (i.e. medicine, refrigerators, rifles, iron-clad ships, etc.). The south decided to settle the issue by force of arms; the south lost. - British coal miners who opposed the decision by the UK goedrnment to no longer use coal as a viable fuel source; faced with no other employment capabilities (many of them knew no other work than coal mining), they went on a lengthy wildcat strike, built up popular support, and eventually forced the government to delay the decision to abandon coal fuel for 20 years, and alsop negotiated a governmetn commitment to retrain every coal miner for another occupation. - American unions, faced radical changes proposed by management to combat foreign 'lean management' tactics and widespread globalization, are rather like the Luddites in that they are completely opposed to technological change that currently threatens their job status and tenure, and will use force during strikes. - Palestinian terrorist are in a similiar position of Luddite ideology; faced with the withdrawl of Israeli forces and settlements from the Gaza strip, many paramilitary/terrorist group members are now completely unskilled for any kind of work that does not involve using weapns to kill non-Palestinians. Some have responded by kidnapping (other palestinians) and demanding jobs as police officers or state militia. The chance of being hired remains slim.

- As an end note, opposition to technology perceived as maleveolent to the affected culture is one of the three basic causes of the creation of terrorist organizations or motivating persons towards joining/supporting terrorist organizations. nwilliams111 22 Jan 2006.

I find this whole debate astonishingly ill-informed. Thompson was actually an upholder of fairly traditional views on the Luddites. Granted, he does tend to write sympathetically of working class movements - something you would rather expect of a Marxist historian. The problem is that he tends to take the traditional view that their prime motivation was to attack technology. If that were so, they would surely have attacked the most innovative employers. In reality, they smashed the machines and physically assaulted simply those who had the worst local reputation as exploiters and oppressors, irrespective of the technical refinements they had installed. This is the pattern we find also with the Captain Swing rioters of c.1830. The rioters did occasionally express themselves in anonymous letters, but seldom if ever to demand the removal of machines: they mostly cursed and threatened unpopular employers and law enforcers. The general tenor of coverage in both the article and much of the discussion seems almost ahistorical. There are even people commenting here who can write about Luddism as a bad form of self-expression, as if workers in 1812 had some other way to express themselves. They had no vote and were not deported if they formed unions. Emergency laws had practically suppressed public assembly and there was heavy censorship of the press. These were hard times, with bread prices reaching record levels. The Hobsbawm tag about "collective bargaining by riot" surely makes most sense here. Deprived of other outlets to work for a fairer deal, it is not surprising that workers used force. In reality, most of the brutality and destruction of the Luddites occurred in revenge attacks, as local employers and magistrates resorted to ever more brutal measures on their own part to suppress the rebellion. I'm an English Midlander (born about a hundred yards for the scene of a Luddite outrage), and I'm proud to own my Luddite heritage, but I don't have any prejudice against technology. Luddism was a perfectly rational response to an impossible situation. Sjwells53 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleonic Wars

I've added a first note on this; it's an important piece of the historical context Bob aka Linuxlad 17:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC) PS Incidentally, googling on 'luddism' and 'napoleonic' produces quite a perceptive essay by Kevin Binfield (Murray State Univ) - recommended antidote to a simple techno-luddite interpretation. :-)

Link to Prof Binfield's book-site:- [1]


[edit] The Real Reason Luddites Revolted

My understanding of the Luddites is that they revolted not because of new technology, but because they lost control of the technology. Remember that these were crafts people who made their living by making fabric/garments. They owned their looms and so owned the means of production. The new technology was owned by the megacorporations of the day and concentrated the ownership of the means of production into literally a few hands. Thus the "Luddites" lost control of the means of productions and so lost their means or making a living. While they could (and probably did end up) working in the factories, they still lost their independance and control. This was the real reason they took to smashing the looms of the factories - they correctly saw them as the competition that would end their businesses. I am quite sure the Luddites would have been happy to continue making fabric on the new industrial looms IF they could have ownership, or at least part-ownership, of the means of production.

So, in my view the use of the term "luddite" to brand someone who seems to be resisting advances in technology is usually far off the mark of the real meaning of the term.

T Morken, California, USA

[edit] Mentioning popular usage of luddite

I realize this isn't wiktionary, but I think that many readers want to understand how being a luddite relates to popular usage of the term (which implies that someone is not IT-savvy or opposes technological change). Perhaps just a reference to wiktionary's entry is good enough?

I agree. The term Luddite is often used to refer to people who are opposed to new technology, particularly industry related technology. The term has also drifted somewhat in that the opposition can be for any number of reasons with the two most common being against alienation or unemployment and a worry of the adverse effects on nature. (I have no sources, this is from personal experience.) MrHen. 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1 above (Plea for Historical Perspective in _this_ article), I wrote 'This article used to say it was about the historical perspective.... I think this is an important enough area to keep it with that tack and to discuss the other broader, softer issues elsewhere. ' This is still my view - but if others disagree, it looks like we need to split the article. The REAL Luddites are too important historically to be swamped by modern-usage, talk about the Unabomber etc Linuxlad 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] achievements

What did the Luddites achieve by machine breaking and sending threatening letters? Did they reach theur goals? Did they get their pay rise? Why aren't any of these questions answered in this website?

[edit] Why?

People want to know not only what Luddites did, but why they did it and what they managed to achieve from it. This does not explain very clearly, if at all, why they did it and what they got form it. If anyone has answers please let us know. These facts are important for us in our essays we have to write. Please, someone, help us out! (Anonymous).

I am not an expert on this, but would suggest that this was a response to economic conditions at a time of depression due to the closure of export markets in America. This is likely to have led to men being laid off (or not given work). I note that one of Richard Arkwright's mills suffered in a similar way during the American War of Independence. Peterkingiron 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous comment

I removed "Today it is often used as a expression to label someone that argues against technology for example the spread of computers, mobile phones or the introduction of robots on the assembly line. (Note that this usage is historically incorrect)." That information is covered in paragraph two. JonathanPenton 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By putting it there you broken up the section about the historical movement. BernardZ 13:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put it there; I just removed the redundancy. I like your new structuring. JonathanPenton 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sources"?

Without attempting to make a pun here, can someone tell me what the source is for the documents listed under the heading "sources"? These have to have come from somewhere, and we need some information as to their provenance. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the relevant sections for citations. I expect they are in one or other of the works cited already. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter. It also seems to me that the complete texts should be moved to Wikisource, and then quoted in the article, rather than having the full text here. What do you think? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We really do need to determine the veracity of the "sources", and clean up (per above) Rotovia (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the content from the article, pending editing to get it correct. Rich257 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content

  • An official announcement, 12th February 1811;

"Any person who breaks or destroys machinery in any mill used in the preparing or spinning of wool or cotton or other material for the use of the stocking or lace manufacture, on being lawfully convicted ....shall suffer death."

  • A letter sent to a Huddersfield millowner in 1812

"Information has just been given that you are the owner of those detestable shearing frames, and I have been asked by my men to give you a warning to pull them down. If they are not taken down by the end of next week, i shall send at least 200 men to destroy them. If you fire at my men, they have orders to murder you and burn all your houses. Go to your neighbours and inform them that the same fate awaits them if their frames are not taken down.

Signed by the general of the army,
Ned Ludd"[citation needed]
  • An extract from the public record office, Yorkshire

"The disturbances in the west riding of this country caused by a set of people calling themselves Luddites had become so serious that it was no longer possible to protect people and their property, within which mills improved machinery or finishing frames had been introduced. Such was the case at William Cartwright's water mill which was defended by Mr Cartwright and a guard of soldiers. It is said ten important places where this kind of machinery had been used had been unlawfully destroyed by the Luddites"[citation needed]

  • This paper was pasted up in Nottingham on Saturday morning, 9th May 1812
Welcome Ned Ludd, your case is good,
Make perceval* your aim;
For by this bill, 'tis understood
It's death to break a frame -
With dexterous skill, the hosiers kill
For they are quite as bad;
And die you must, by the late bill -
Go on my Bonny lad.
You might as well be hung to death
As breaking a machine
So now my lad, your sword unsheath
And make it sharp and keen.
We are now ready your cause to join
Whenever you may call;
So make foul blood run clear and fine
Of tyrants great and small!

ps:Deface this who dare they shall have Tyrants fare for Ned is everywhere and can see and hear.[citation needed]

*Perceval = The Prime Minister

  • "The Croppers song", from The rising of the Luddites by Frank Peel
"Come cropper lads of high renown
Who love to drink good ale thats brown
And strike each haughty tyrant down
With Hatchet, pike and gun!

Chorus:

Oh, the Cropper lads for me
Who with lusty stroke
The shear frames broke
The cropper lads for me"[citation needed]