Talk:Luddite

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

Plurality of opinions in Modern Perspctives?

I feel that if we're going to be making the tie between Luddism and modern discussions about AI technologies, we need to be showcasing both sides of that discussion, not just the "pro-AI" viewpoint (for lack of a better term). In truth, I'm sure there's *several* viewpoints, but at least getting one opposing view would be good to show some range in that section. ShadowLancer (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. The current Modern Perspectives section is entirely "pro-AI" with a single sentence at the end to say "some people disagree." t3 (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Cite 15

Cite 15 is used to support "Marxist Historian Eric Hobsbawm called their machine wrecking "collective bargaining by riot", which had been a tactic used in Britain since the Restoration because manufactories were scattered throughout the country, and that made it impractical to hold large-scale strikes."

As far as I can find, https://web.archive.org/web/20100315142837/http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/569 does not mention Ludd at all. Please clarify how the cite is being used or remove it.~2026-38685-94 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2026

Luddite → LudditesLuddites – This article specifically talks about Luddites, not specific workers described as 'a Luddite'. The bold text at the start of the article literally states "The Luddites..." not "A Luddite is a...". Most links to this page are also written as 'Luddites' or 'Luddite movement', not the singular 'Luddite'. 'Luddites' is also the more common name for the historical group, whereas 'Luddite' is more often used as a descriptor of a person (usually meant to insult, see modern AI drama) and should honestly have it's own article on the descriptor itself, but I digress; that is a matter for another time. For now, this should be moved. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The lede should be rewritten to be in the same format as the title (since the title is in the singular like in Apparatchik and Banderite). — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed -> as a 'movement' consist of from a few to many individuals pursuing a shared objective - vision - philosophy etc.

Unless citing a particular individual which history would recorded his writings or actions, the whole should have primary sense. Cgwx (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning support: As far as I know, e.g., per WP:NCPLURAL, articles about groups of people typically use plural titles. This is written as an article about a group of people – i.e., the members of a movement – like Bolsheviks or Scientologists. Apparatchik seems different, as that is a type of person rather than a group of people. But I cannot explain Banderite. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Textile arts, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject History, and WikiProject Politics have been notified of this discussion. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak support per above comment. Luddites seems preferable to Luddite, although 'Luddite movement' seems both more unambiguous and accurate than either. It was a collective, social and political phenomenon rather than a characteristic of individuals, and this movement is the subject of the article. Theorolyst (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The more I think about it, Luddite movement may be a bit better? It would need some reworking of the lede, though. The whole '(x) movement' naming convention is used in other articles, such as one I have been working on, Rajneesh movement and a few others so I don't know. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support move to Luddite movement as this is what the article appears to be about overall. Reworking the lead to match a new title shouldn't require many changes. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely oppose "movement". It wasn't an organization, there was no "membership", or manifesto, or any such thing. It's just a press description of any sporadic attack to break factory machinery by frustrated workers anywhere. They were not connected, machine-breaking waves happened at different times in different places, by different kinds of workers, targeting different machines. You can talk of a "Luddite attack" or "Luddite wave", or a period of "Luddite troubles", etc. But not really a movement. Walrasiad (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  The lack of a clear, formal organisational structure with membership does not mean it was not a movement, though. Luddism was definitely a sort of social protest movement involving local forms of collective action, while lacking a centralised organisation. It sounds like you a describing a modern political party or interest group, rather than a movement.

  Can we speak of a defining organisation with membership and a manifesto for the early labour movement, the civil rights movement or the environmental movement? No, but all involve a range of individuals and groups in different places at different times engaging in various forms of collective action with a set of shared goals in mind.

  The article already uses the term 'movement' throughout, correctly I think. Individuals may have taken particular actions, but these were taken in the context of a broader wave of action and political activity, such as meetings, flyering and letter campaigns. They were definitely not just sporadic attacks against machines by frustrated workers, but rather a collective response to a set of political and economic conditions with shared symbols, methods and goals, which is exactly what this article should be clearing up. Theorolyst (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  A movement does not require membership. See Temperance movement. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly what it was not. It was not about "political and economic conditions", it had no larger goals. There are no shared symbols or methods or slogans. No petitions or pamphlets or letters to the press. It is was a very simple direct local response against a local factory in times of particular harshness to safeguard their livelihoods. Little more than a riot if you will. There are gazillions of those. Sporadic attacks on grain merchants, millers & bakers happen periodically in times of food scarcity, are they considered a "movement"? Or how about attacks on foreign craftsmen or merchants? Lots of those too. Is that a "movement"? These are just reactive spasms of violence when people feel their livelihoods are threatened. In this case, it happens to be machinery. At other cases, it is against engrossers, forestallers, regraters, strangers, etc. Riots happen suddenly and are over just as suddenly. A movement has to be a little more sustained than that. Walrasiad (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The legendary figurehead of Ned Ludd is pretty symbolic if you ask me...

There is also an entire book* dedicated to Luddite writings which analyses various "proclamations, poems, songs, and other statements [...] [to be] petitioning, seeking the support from the respectable classes and local and national authorities for the regulatory model that Luddites demanded; economic analysis, expounding a Luddite moral economy that asserted the rights of labor within a framework of custom [; ...] and political analysis, propounding the views of radical and even revolutionary politics. The Luddite ‘‘text’’ was rich and complex, varying from region to region and from context to context." (p.xvi)

The editor of this volume also claims that threatening letters addressed to employers and published in the press were "the hallmark of Luddism"! (p.xv)

I am sure there are diverse scholarly opinions on the origins, nature and extent of the Luddite movement, but your minimalist view of this phenomenon as in no sense a movement, without symbols, demands or any broader political and economic motivation, seems a very particular one.

• Binfield, Kevin, ed. Writings of the Luddites. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.

Theorolyst (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

'no petitions or pamphlets or letters to the press' the article mentions multiple letters with goals outlined in them and violence to local industrialists outlined as well. 'no shared symbols or methods or slogans' Ned Ludd is obviously a symbol here. The article also states they were highly organized, and I would view machine-breaking as a method. They also coordinated public demonstrations (per article). Sounds pretty organized (although fractured) to me. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Direct action is definitely a unifying methodology in this case, which rises above any minimizing characterizations of the Luddite movement as being merely a set of random disorganized riots. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is unfortunately very poorly written. No, there were no pamphlets, no political program. There were notes and warnings left behind, but this is common practice in rural violence.

Agrarian secret societies and rural violence and intimidation has been a mainstay in the countryside since time immemorial. (fun fact: the concept of the "grand jury", now a bedrock in English legal system, was introduced in 12th C. precisely to try to break them). They activate overnight to form violent mobs to target unfair landlords, merchants, etc. and normally leave intimidating notes as "warning" to others. These notes usually present themselves as a mysterious "shadow army" led by some made-up figure (often a woman) who will return. "Ned Ludd" is just one of many fanciful figures in the long history of rural violence. He was invented by one mob, which once it was repeated in the press or rumors, some other mobs began using the same name to increase the intimidation factor. There's no action here that is different from rural riots that have taken place for centuries. It is not political action, it is addressing a local grievance -- evictions, enclosures, engrossers, forestallers, etc. It starts overnight, and it is usually resolved locally on the spot: the frightened landlord or merchant makes a "deal" with the mob, and everyone goes home. This method of rural intimidation has existed forever. The action - and the mob - only lasts for a few days. Althought it might be imitated by other mobs with similar grievances, it is a huge stretch to call it a "movement".

The only novelty is that this time they're targeting manufacturers. Factories had just started, being set up in the English countryside, and hurt the usual earnings of rural artisans. 1811 was a rather bad year for the economy, with steeply rising prices of food and falling earnings, people felt tight, and the factories were blamed. As is common, violent rural mobs are activated and target the culprit - in this case the local manufacturer, give him the option to take down the machine, stop employing unskilled labor, or get the machine busted by them. Most frightened manufacturers made deals and mobs went away. Those who did not got their machines smashed (usually in nighttime raids). Again, this is a common formula in rural violence.

The Luddite rising broke out spontaneously, around the same time, in very distant localities, driven and led by different local grievances (stockingers in Nottinghamshire, croppers in Yorkshire, spinners and weavers in Lancashire, etc.) Although funny enough, the actual identities of most smashers were not themselves workers -- just the usual local rural thugs, agrarian secret society muscle, always ready for a "little spot of fun", who took up the cause of their aggrieved neighbors.

The Luddite risings were very brief. Lasted no more than four-to-six months. The Tory government credited its policing crackdown, but in truth, by the end of it (Spring 1812), the mobs had succeeded and there were few machines left to break or deals to be made. There were no targets left.

The harvests and economy improved in 1813, food prices dropped dramatically, no more grievances, no more violence. This didn't come up again until the anno horribilis of 1816 when the entire economy went to the crapper again in a post-war depression. There was again sporadic attacks on machines (mainly in and around the Fenlands), although these actions were fewer, and diluted in the din of the more general and serious disturbances that year (Spa Field riots, Blanketeer marches, etc.) Nothing more is seem or heard of Luddite-style actions until the 1830 Swing Riots (now "Captain Swing" is the reputed leader of these rural mobs).

Rural riots come and go with fluctuations in earnings and prices. This is not a "movement", it is the sudden activation of rural mobs in times of hardship, and application of usual intimidation tactics on a select target, and disappear after a few days. The concept of a "movement" should be sustained with wider goals. The Luddite risings don't meet that criteria. They are orders of magnitude different from land reform movements, trade union movements or temperance movements, or whatever other movement you're trying to compare them too -- which were sustained, and had actual goals.

I assume the so-called "writings of the Luddites" is just reprinting the threatening notes mobs left behind. Perhaps with a couple of petitions and speeches by sympathetic MPs about the disturbances (Lord Byron made his name here). This is very weak sauce. Walrasiad (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

A monograph published by a prestigious university press is not a very weak source, without compelling evidence to the contrary. You clearly did not read what I wrote, let alone that source itself, nor have you provided any other sources to back up your outlandish claims about the Luddite movement.

You are entitled to your particular opinion. I and other users have already set out a different perspective above, which I will not restate. I do not think it will be productive to engage with you any further on this. Theorolyst (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You made some very selective citations and came to misleading conclusions. Here's my selective quotations that very same source:

"The hallmark of Luddism, as with the Swing riots later, was the threatening letter. We might note that such letters were in no way a Luddite innovation. The pages of the eighteenth-century London Gazette demonstrate that the threatening letter had long been not only the recourse of the disgruntled but also a typical tool of effective negotiation in all sorts of labor disputes......The purpose of threatening letters was, of course, intimidation." (p.15)

"there was no monolithic Luddite ‘‘movement’’ but a series of overlapping protests" (p.17)

And the important bit, i.e. the more fancier writings Binmore reproduces (which you are elevating as evidence) were mostly authored by non-participants, simply piggy-backing on the Luddite disturbances and using the Ludd name to make claims of their own, for their pet causes, unrelated to the actual risings. He is very ambivalent about their worth: "The reader, like the authorities in 1811–12, is left to determine whether "Ludd" was in any respect a voice of commonality or merely a series of voices appropriating a common name." (p.18)

Yes, that is very weak sauce. Nowhere enough to make the claims you are asserting. Walrasiad (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

To add a worthwhile note from Binmore:

"The various historians of Luddism have their own preferred terms, including risings, riots, campaign, disturbances, agitations, movement, revolt, or rebellion. Each term reflects a bias and structures the ways in which readers are led to think of the Luddites." (p.4)

i.e. "movement" is WP:POV. Best to avoid it. Walrasiad (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)