luddities

[Organic Revolution]

what is your opinion on the luddities?

The original Luddites claimed to be led by one Ned Ludd (also known as "King Ludd", "General Ludd" or "Captain Ludd") who is believed to have destroyed two large stocking-frames that produced inexpensive stockings undercutting those produced by skilled knitters, and whose signature appears on a "workers' manifesto" of the time. The character seems to be based on a local folk tale about someone whose motives were probably quite different (frustration, and not anti-technology).

The movement began in Nottingham in 1811 and spread rapidly throughout England in 1811 and 1812, with many wool and cotton mills being destroyed, until the British government harshly suppressed them. The Luddites met at night on the moors surrounding the industrial towns, practising drilling and manoeuvres and often enjoyed local support. The main areas of the disturbances were Nottinghamshire in November 1811, followed by the West Riding of Yorkshire in early 1812 and Lancashire from March 1812. Battles between Luddites and the military occurred at Burtons' Mill in Middleton, and at Westhoughton Mill, both in Lancashire. It was rumoured at the time that agent provocateurs employed by the magistrates were involved in stirring up the attacks. Magistrates and food merchants were also objects of death threats and attacks by the anonymous General Ludd and his supporters.

"Machine breaking" (industrial sabotage) was made a capital crime, and seventeen men were executed after an 1813 trial in York. Many others were transported as prisoners to Australia. At one time, there were more British troops fighting the Luddites than against Napoleon Bonaparte on the Iberian Peninsula. Three Luddites ambushed a mill-owner, the luddites responsible were hanged and shortly after old style 'Luddism' died away.

However, the movement can be seen as part of a rising tide of English working-class discontent in the early 19th century (see, for example, the Pentrich Rising of 1817, which was a general uprising, but led by an unemployed Nottingham stockinger, and probable ex-luddite, Jeremiah Brandreth).

In recent years, the terms Luddism and Luddite or Neo-Luddism and Neo-Luddite have become synonymous with anyone who opposes the advance of technology due to the cultural changes that are associated with it.

[Scars]

I think that some of their ideas have merit, I share many of their ideas regarding industrialisation (machines are fine unless they destroy jobs and livelyhoods), however they were essentially a bourgeois movement that were attempting to protect small scale capitalist industry.

Their resistance was most impressive though. At one point there were more British soldiers fighting the Luddite rebellion than were fighting Napoleon in Spain.

[BuyOurEverything]

Well I can certainly understand their sentiments, but as in ideology, it's trash. You can't have a socialist society without industrialization. And, more simply, creating more work and less goods isn't good for society. What needs to be done is change the method of distribution of goods, then we can have machines and have everyone work less for more goods.

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:38 AM
Well I can certainly understand their sentiments, but as in ideology, it's trash. You can't have a socialist society without industrialization. And, more simply, creating more work and less goods isn't good for society. What needs to be done is change the method of distribution of goods, then we can have machines and have everyone work less for more goods.
That is essentially their sentiments. The Luddites were not anti-technology, they were all for machinery that helped humans. They were opposed to machinery that replaced humans.

[BuyOurEverything]

Ah, yes they were anti-technology. And technology that replaces humans does help humans, its allows for greater production with less labour. It's the orginization of labour and the distribution of goods that needs to be changed. If you go around destroying any technology that replaces humans, we'd still be in the dark ages. Replacing humans with machines in medial jobs allows humans to take on more meaningful jobs. If we didn't have computers and still relied on people working out equations by hand (all of whom lost their jobs with the invention of the computer), we wouldn't be able to do most of the stuff we do today.

[ComradeOm]

The Luddites were a throwback to an earlier age. Call it the last gasp of feudalism in Britain. You cannot stop the increasing forces of production and nor should you try.

[BuyOurEverything]

The Luddites were a throwback to an earlier age. Call it the last gasp of feudalism in Britain. You cannot stop the increasing forces of production and nor should you try.


At the risk of making a pointless post, precisely.

[Scars]

<<Ah, yes they were anti-technology. And technology that replaces humans does help humans, its allows for greater production with less labour.>>

Technology that replaces humans does not help humans as it puts people out of jobs. In addition to this most of the greater production only helps to fuel the disgusting western decadence. If anything production needs to be DECREASED in the West.

The exception is machines that do dangerous jobs that humans shouldn&#39;t be forced to do. Replacing humans with machines in a lead factory isn&#39;t a bad thing, as lead poisoning is not cool.

<<It&#39;s the orginization of labour and the distribution of goods that needs to be changed.>>

Yes, however the increasing automisation of production is harmful to labour as it puts people out of jobs, destroys peoples livelyhoods as well as pushing forward teh Capitalists goal of full automisation, meaning that they will no longer have to deal with irritating humans in their pursute of pointless production increases.

And as you&#39;ve said, the distribution of goods needs to be changed. If things were spread evenly production is already at levels that allow everyone in the world to have a good standard of living. The problem is that the West consumes far, far, far, far more than it needs. It produces vast amounts of shit with capital that could be put to better use.

<< If you go around destroying any technology that replaces humans, we&#39;d still be in the dark ages.>>

Not really. I&#39;m not saying we should go destroy any machine that replaces a single person, I&#39;m against the automisation of labour. Machines should exist to serve and assist labour based production. It should not eliminate labour as a factor of production.

<Replacing humans with machines in medial jobs allows humans to take on more meaningful jobs.>>

Every job is meaningful. Besides, you can do that by building machines that allow people to do things more efficently without firing loads of people meaning that people have to work less, the job still gets done and eveyrone is still employed. This is far superior to automisation, in my eyes.

<<If we didn&#39;t have computers and still relied on people working out equations by hand (all of whom lost their jobs with the invention of the computer), we wouldn&#39;t be able to do most of the stuff we do today.>>

Actually the peopel that did calculations by hand have now had their jobs transformed into (as opposed to destroyed) other jobs. Computers did not replace these people, computers allowed them to work more efficently.

And a lot of teh great inventions of the last 100 or so years have done nothing for the vast majority of people in the world. I think that it is offensive to spend billions of dollars sending some git on a pointless trip to mars, that will achive little, benefit no one and so on. Those billions of dollars could be far better spent on other things.

[Jimmie Higgins]

<<Ah, yes they were anti-technology. And technology that replaces humans does help humans, its allows for greater production with less labour.>>

Technology that replaces humans does not help humans as it puts people out of jobs.Is it the technology that does this or the way the capitalist system is set up?


In addition to this most of the greater production only helps to fuel the disgusting western decadence. If anything production needs to be DECREASED in the West.I think people living in the third-world would rather have the "decadent" surpluss sent to them rather than to see the west decrease production so that it isn&#39;t so "decadent".


<<It&#39;s the orginization of labour and the distribution of goods that needs to be changed.>>

Yes, however the increasing automisation of production is harmful to labour as it puts people out of jobs, destroys peoples livelyhoods as well as pushing forward teh Capitalists goal of full automisation, meaning that they will no longer have to deal with irritating humans in their pursute of pointless production increases.Again, it is capitalism which makes it impossible to survive for workers without selling their labor and it is the capitalist which finds it more economical to fire 1/2 of the workers and keep the rest working full-time because of a technology which allows 2x as much stuff to be produced. If workers ran society and production was for needs and wants rather than profit, then producing 2x as much would be great because then everyone would have to work 1/2 as much to be able to keep the same level of production.

Technology allows the capitalist to fire people, it isn&#39;t inherently out to get workers.


And as you&#39;ve said, the distribution of goods needs to be changed. If things were spread evenly production is already at levels that allow everyone in the world to have a good standard of living. The problem is that the West consumes far, far, far, far more than it needs. It produces vast amounts of shit with capital that could be put to better use. Yes, so if workers controlled production then we could produce things that were more important to us and if we had better technology to do this, then it would be an easier task to accomplish.


<Replacing humans with machines in medial jobs allows humans to take on more meaningful jobs.>>

Every job is meaningful. Besides, you can do that by building machines that allow people to do things more efficently without firing loads of people meaning that people have to work less, the job still gets done and eveyrone is still employed. This is far superior to automisation, in my eyes. If everyone had a house and food and didn&#39;t have to rely on a wage in order to survive, why have more people working if you didn&#39;t need to. I think one of the goals of socialism/communism would be to get rid of as many jobs as possible so people would have more free-time to persue the things that they enjoy. If you can do the same job that takes you 8 hours to do manually in 2 hours with technology, that would be much better. It&#39;s capitalism that pushes employers to lower labor costs as much as possible and this means trying to get people to work harder for less money or have fewer people do the work of many.


And a lot of teh great inventions of the last 100 or so years have done nothing for the vast majority of people in the world. I think that it is offensive to spend billions of dollars sending some git on a pointless trip to mars, that will achive little, benefit no one and so on. Those billions of dollars could be far better spent on other things.I totally agree times 10&#33; So I think the best thing would be to have the vast majorety in controll of all this technology so that we use it for things with willl benifit rather than harm us.

[Scars]

<< Is it the technology that does this or the way the capitalist system is set up?>>

A good question, I&#39;d say a combination of the two. In a communist society I think that technology would be put to more productive use and things that were previously harmful to the workers could be used for things that are benefical to the workers.

However I also think that many of the excesses the west, particularly in the area of technology, breed things like jealousy, contempt etc and serve only to divide people and much technology now are symbols of the divide between the &#39;haves&#39; and the &#39;have nots&#39;.

I&#39;d also like to say, that I&#39;m not a primitivist, I just I&#39;m not a technophile. I also agree with a lot of Rousseau&#39;s works (while many communist denounce him as a &#39;bourgeois philosopher&#39;, he was one of teh founding fathers of early socialism/communism and without him and a host of other early French Revolutionaries there&#39;s the possibility that socialism/communism would not exist in its present form)

<< I think people living in the third-world would rather have the "decadent" surpluss sent to them rather than to see the west decrease production so that it isn&#39;t so "decadent".>>

Quite, but within the capitalist context when this is not going to happen I think a decrease in production thatw ould only have an impact on westerners would be good. I also think that what is more important is to develop the &#39;developing&#39; world so that they are able to stand on their own two feet and provide for themselves without having to rely on foreign sources for sustinance.

<< Again, it is capitalism which makes it impossible to survive for workers without selling their labor and it is the capitalist which finds it more economical to fire 1/2 of the workers and keep the rest working full-time because of a technology which allows 2x as much stuff to be produced. If workers ran society and production was for needs and wants rather than profit, then producing 2x as much would be great because then everyone would have to work 1/2 as much to be able to keep the same level of production.>>

That&#39;s exactly what I&#39;m saying. Machinery should aid people, it should not replace them. Under capitalism the big flash machine replaces 15 people as it only needs 5 to operate it, under communism those 20 people would only have to work small hours and as you say, production wouldn&#39;t decrease.

<<Technology allows the capitalist to fire people, it isn&#39;t inherently out to get workers.>>

However there comes a point where even under communism a level of tecnology will put people out of work. I don&#39;t think a sci-fi, fully automated society would be good.

<<Yes, so if workers controlled production then we could produce things that were more important to us and if we had better technology to do this, then it would be an easier task to accomplish.>>

I am more opposed to what technology is used for than technology itself. Technology can be used for good or for evil, it depends on who controls it.

<< If everyone had a house and food and didn&#39;t have to rely on a wage in order to survive, why have more people working if you didn&#39;t need to.>>

Because having some people working and some people not working would breed inequality, recentment etc etc etc. In addition to this it would create a section of society that would be a paracite, living off the work of those who did work.

<<I think one of the goals of socialism/communism would be to get rid of as many jobs as possible so people would have more free-time to persue the things that they enjoy.>>

No. There should be no unemployment under communism. Instead of having 1 person operate the machine for 12 hours, have 6 people doing 2 hour shifts. The production stays the same, everyone has a job and people aren&#39;t worked to death like they are now. In addition to this many non-manual jobs don&#39;t get made any easier with technology. For instance, teaching still is a very tiem consuming process because of the very nature of it and a massive division of labour would not be beneficial to the students.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, so I don&#39;t understand your point. We seem to be on the same page as far as the root of many of these problems is capitalism. But, if I&#39;m understanding correctly, you think that these problems (inequality between nations and poverty caused by unemployment) would be less of a problem if we took a luddite approach? Why go for the surface problem when we can attack the overall cause? Ludditism seems to be a way to dodge confronting capitalism.


<<Technology allows the capitalist to fire people, it isn&#39;t inherently out to get workers.>>

However there comes a point where even under communism a level of tecnology will put people out of work. I don&#39;t think a sci-fi, fully automated society would be good.

Now here we don&#39;t agree. Why have people cleaning toilets if we can do it with automation. If we&#39;re in power, lets get rid of as many of the jobs none of us want to do as we can&#33;

There will always be things ("jobs") to do: we can always use teachers and doctors and care-givers and artists and entertainers and philosophers and so on and so on. We would want to intergreate "work" with personal intrests wherever possible and where we can&#39;t, the goal should be to reduce these tasks to mere annoyences and interruptions rather than being the main thing other than sleep that we do with our lives. I think it would be a great goal under socialism to try and have work hours reduced from 40 hours a week to 40 hours a month within a generation after the revolution.

[BuyOurEverything]

I think the key thing you&#39;re failing to understand is that in a socialist society, if we put in machines that would take the place of half the workforce, it wouldn&#39;t put anybody out of work because we could just cut the other half of the workforce&#39;s work in half and have the diplaced workers take over those jobs and have everybody working half as much. Causing people to be unemployed and starve because a machine can do their jobs better is purely a capitalist concept.