What is Luddism?

The term Luddism refers to an intense moment of artisan revolts at the beginning of the 19th century in England, in the regions of Yorkshire, Midlands, Lancashire. Quite little known in France, he left a living memory across the Channel. This historical episode is mainly known for the mode of action used: the destruction of production tools in factories. The Luddites, these “machine breakers”, have since constituted a repulsive figure of industrial modernity, particularly stigmatized by proponents of the technocapitalist flight forward. However, they have also seen renewed interest from critical historians such as Edward P. Thompson, Eric Hobsbawn, and more recently François Jarrige. In their light, the episode of the Luddites appears to be a particularly interesting moment, taken up by other “technocritical” struggles as a source of founding inspiration.

Luddite revolt

What is called “the Luddite revolt” actually refers to a set of “machine-breaking” actions, mainly carried out in 1811 and 1812, and up to 1816. In March 1811, workers in the Midlands broke their trades, before being imitated by cotton weavers around Manchester and shearers in Yorkshire. In this region, a mechanical machine was set on fire, soon followed by the destruction of lawnmower machines near Huddersfeld, then by simultaneous attacks on factories near Leeds. These actions are accompanied by threats by letters against dignitaries, major riots and clashes in factories. The movement gradually became radicalized, especially after the death of a Luddite craftsman. Violent actions of this type (fires, attacks and factory sacking...) are multiplying, to the point that panic-stricken owners prefer to dismantle their machines than to see them destroyed. Things eventually settled down, but in 1816, there was an upsurge in acts of destruction. Following a sudden drop in wages, a group of masked men destroy the trades of a tulle textile factory.

This destruction of machines is not a new practice, but it is on this occasion on a national scale that has never been seen before. The novelty is also that the protesters will refer to the same rallying figure: General Ned Ludd. This is the name that threatening letters are signed with in particular. This mythical character (his name is said to be inspired by an apprentice who destroyed his master's machine at the end of the 18th century) allows these scattered actions to find a certain general unity, which greatly frightens owners and authorities. The movement appears, as a whole, to be a force for massive contestation. As François Jarrige summarizes, it is a “movement without a structured organization or doctrine, whose mythical leader is a phantom difficult to grasp”^[1]. Historians now agree that this episode was a period of great social unrest, close to the generalized insurrection in the country.

Origin of the dispute

Today, the memory of Luddism is often mobilized in a pejorative way, as an illustration of the supposed primary hostility of the working classes to technological modernization processes. Historians who have been interested in the question, however, insist on the complex and diverse motives of the rioters, putting these actions into context.

The beginning of the 19th century^E The century in England was marked by a major economic crisis that caused wages to fall, prices to rise, and jobs to fall, which plunged many people into poverty. At the same time, the public authorities are pursuing a deregulatory policy, necessary for the establishment of industrial capitalism: ancient texts, which protected artisans from competition — machines in particular — are repealed. In 1809, for example, Parliament abolished a law that prohibited the industrial use of mechanical woolers. This deregulation, in a more than difficult economic context, is accompanied by increased repression of trade unions, which are prohibited from meeting or taking secret oaths by the adoption of repressive laws. It is this triple context of economic crisis, the disappearance of old legal protections and social repression that will see this Luddite challenge appear. This is primarily opposed to the acquisition of machines by manufacturers, which degrades know-how and pushes wages down. The great historian Edward P. Thompson will be the first to show that “the violence of Luddism is part of a moment of the imposition of liberalism and the repeal of the old patronizing laws that were supposed to protect the workforce.” It is therefore not so much the machines as such that are being targeted (as a superficial reading of their mode of action might suggest) but rather the social and economic consequences of major legislative and technical changes that upset the entire structure of society at the time. The uprising can only be understood as a reaction to these upheavals, with the Luddites themselves seeing themselves as a “vigilante army.” François Jarrige, a historian of technocritical struggles, reiterates that these disputes are not “technophobic” (an absurd term, the use of tools being inherent in the interaction of man with his environment), but very often the mark of the refusal of the socio-economic implications of the insertion of specific techniques at a given moment. In the case of the Luddites, it is thus the refusal of the specific organization of work and of the competitive tendering induced by these machines. The demands also differ from place to place: while Luddites from Midlands and Lancashire are mainly opposed to lower wages and worse working conditions, those in Yorkshire are more interested in the effects of new production processes on know-how. The workforce includes a wide variety of craft trades. Likewise, Luddism cannot be reduced to the breaking of machines: they are also wage and corporate demands. The term Luddism homogenizes struggles that are ultimately very different and makes all its thickness invisible, beyond its spectacular and violent mode of action.

The repression

Faced with these multiple uprisings, the repression was bloody. Parliament took exceptional measures to provide the country with an unprecedented repressive arsenal. For example, “machine breakdowns” were made punishable by death in 1812, which put an important stop to the deterioration. These measures resulted in several months of lawsuits. As the local militias were unable to contain the Luddites, numerous London police officers and thousands of soldiers were sent to the countryside, which was completely unprecedented. In the spring of 1812, there were 12,000, half more than the number mobilized for the war against Portugal (!!) in 1808. All this device is generally ineffective in stopping the actions: the Luddites travel at night and use side roads, thus thwarting military surveillance, which knows little about the territory invested. However, the convictions are numerous. During spectacular trials, hundreds of workers were sent to death, imprisoned or deported. This period was one of real terror, which participated greatly in the “process of criminalization of social struggles” and in the protection of private property as a sacred right, procedures that are still used today. The fear of widespread insurrection was so great that, to prevent the funeral of the condemned from turning into a celebration of martyrs, their bodies were transferred to York Hospital for dissecting.

Such precautions suggest the fear of the widespread outbreak of these Luddite uprisings. These did not go unnoticed: Edward P. Thompson would later see them as a seminal moment for the consciousness of the English working class. However, the term Luddism remains anathema disqualifying those who question technical progress as “technophobic obscurantists”. Recently, the term has been taken up by individuals and groups concerned about ongoing ecological and social upheavals: this is particularly the case of Kirkpatrick Sale, who declared himself a “neo-Luddite” at a conference in 1995, before breaking a computer. The Luddites thus constitute a “technocritical” historical landmark, which allows today's activists to grasp the criticism of technology in all its socio-economic dimensions. This is the task that groups like Pieces and Main d'Oeuvre or Anti-Tech Resistance strive to do.

For more information:

Kevin Binfield “Luddites and Luddism”, Tumultes, vol. 27, no. 2, 2006, pp. 159-171.

Vincent Bourdeau, François Jarrige and Julien Vincent, The Luddites. Machine breakage, political economy and history, è® e® editions, 2006, 160 p.

Nicolas Chevassus-Au-Louis, The Machine Breakers: from Ned Ludd to José Bové, Paris, Seuil, 2006, 269 pp.

Francois Jarrige, Technocriticisms. From the refusal of machines to the contestation of technosciences, Paris, La Découverte, 2014, 420 p.

François Jarrige, “In the time of the 'arm killers'. Machine breakdowns and the genesis of industrial society (France, England, Belgium, 1780-1860)”, Nineteenth-century history review, 2007.

François Jarrige, An “army of vigilantes”? Justice and the repression of Luddism in England (1811-1816). 2010. Available online: https://sniadecki.wordpress.com/2020/05/30/jarrige-repression-ludd/

Edward P. Thompson, The formation of the English working class, Paris, Gallimard/Le Seuil, Coll. “Hautes Études”, 1988, 798 p.

Kirkpatrick Sale, The Luddite revolt: machine breakers in the age of industrialization, L'Échappée, vol. “In the heat of the moment”, 2006, 341 p.

Eric J Hobsbawm,. “The Machine Breakers,” Journal of modern and contemporary history, vol. 53-4, no. 5, 2006, pp. 13-28.

Philippe Minard, “The Return of Ned Ludd. Luddism and its interpretations”, Journal of Modern and Contemporary History, 2007/1 no. 54-1.

Julius Van Daal, The Wrath of Ludd: The Class Struggle in England at the Dawn of the Industrial Revolution The Insomniac, vol. “In the heat of the moment”, 2012, 288 p.

A recent podcast on France Inter, with François Jarrige as a guest: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/en-quete-de-politique/en-quete-de-politique-du-samedi-10-septembre-2022-4818512