E. P. Thompson on Luddites

In his classic book on English history, [The Making of the English Working Class]?, E. P. Thompson presented us with an refreshing view on Luddite history. Its provides a fascinating story for a variety of reasons, not least because it reminds us that often in history it is the victor who writes the lines.

The Luddites are largely characterised, and indeed their name has become synonymous with, people opposed to all change--in particular technological change such as that that was sweeping through the weaving shops in the industrial heart land of England. They are characterised as violent, thuggish, and disorganised.

E. P. Thompson counters this view with many careful arguments which it would be impossible to cover in full detail here. He shows however that the Luddites were not in fact opposed to new technology but to the abolition of price defined by custom and practice, and instead the introduction of what we would today call the free market.

The usage of free market rhetoric has become so pervasive and commonplace nowadays that it is easy to forget that the notions of the free market were invented relatively recently, in fact at about the time of Luddities. Before this time an artisan would peform work for a given price. The notion of working out how much the materials cost them, how much work they did, and how much profit they made would have been alien to them, and indeed to most people of that time.

There are many examples that show it was the forcible introduction of a new economic system that was being introduced that the Luddites were protesting against. Take for example the Luddite song, "General Ludd's Triumph":.

"The guilty may fear, but no vengeance he aims
At the honest man's life or Estate
His wrath is entirely confined to wide frames
And to those that old prices abate "

"Wide frames" were the weaving frames, and the old prices were those prices agreed by custom and practice. There are many historical accounts of Luddite raids on workshops where some frames were smashed whilst others (whose owners were obeying the old economic practice) were left untouched.

The second argument that Thompson counters is that the Luddites were thuggish. There were remarkably few Luddite arrests and executions, and yet the operated highly effectively against the forces of the state. The best explanation for this is that they were working with the consent of the local communities (or indeed were part of those communities).

And finally the "disorganised" argument. Thompson counters this using his trademark whimsical humour. He notes that some of the largest Luddite activities involved a hundred men. Thompson suggests that anyone who has ever tried to arrange a darts? match down the local pub? would realise how much organisation this feat alone took.

In short, Thompson feels that in caricaturing the Luddities as thugs who just wanted to smash up new technology we are simply continuing the propaganda of time. The reality was that the Luddites were normal people who were protesting against for forced introduction of changes into their lives which they thought would be highly damaging. Looking 50 years into the Ludditie's future, the diseased, poorly fed, and desperate operators in the weaving factories, and the swathe of destruction launched upon on the traditional weaving communities--some with 500 years of history--suggests that they may have been right.

/Talk