Everything Everywhere Daily: History, Science, Geography & More - The Luddites
Episode Date: December 9, 2025At some point, you might have been called, or might have called someone else a Luddite, due to a refusal to adopt a new technology. Nowadays, it’s usually done in jest, but the Luddites were real.�...� While the term is often used to describe any anti-technology attitude, the actual Luddite worldview was more subtle than simply opposing anything new and innovative. In some respects, the Luddite worldview has never gone away. Learn more about the Luddites, what they did, and why on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors Quince Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order! Mint Mobile Get your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/eed Chubbies Get 20% off your purchase at Chubbies with the promo code DAILY at checkout! Aura Frames Exclusive $35 off Carver Mat at https://on.auraframes.com/DAILY. Promo Code DAILY DripDrop Go to dripdrop.com and use promo code EVERYTHING for 20% off your first order. Uncommon Goods Go to uncommongoods.com/DAILY for 15% off! Subscribe to the podcast! https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/ -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Austin Oetken & Cameron Kieffer Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/ Disce aliquid novi cotidie Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
At some point, you may have been called, or might have called someone else, a Luddite,
due to a refusal to adopt a new technology.
Nowadays, it's usually done in jest, but the Luddites were real.
While the term is often used to describe an anti-technology attitude,
the actual Luddite worldview was more subtle than simply opposing anything new and innovative.
And in some respects, the Luddite worldview has never gone away.
Learn more about the Luddites, what they did, and why, on this episode,
of everything everywhere daily.
Fear is the virus is trending on TikTok.
Vaccines are poison.
Then your yoga teacher says that sex traffic children
are being sacrificed by satanic liberals,
but it's all okay.
The great awakening is coming.
What is happening?
Every week on Conspirality Podcast,
we explore the fever dreams that suck friends,
family, and wellness gurus
down the right-wing cult spiral
in a search for salvation.
Today, being accused of being a Luddite is considered to be a pejorative.
We live in a world of technological wonders that prior generations would have considered magic.
To reject many of our technological advancements is considered alien to our modern civilization.
The Luddites were not a fictitious group.
They were real, and they had genuine grievances, but they weren't as one-dimensional as they're usually made out to be.
To understand why the Luddite movement arose in the first place, we need to understand what
life was like for artisans before the Industrial Revolution. A craftsperson who found themselves
drawn into the Luddite movement typically lived a life defined by skill and autonomy. They likely
began their trade young through a formal apprenticeship, learned a complex craft such as
framework knitting, weaving, or cropping under the supervision of a master. This training took years
and produced a sense of identity inseparable from the tools they used and the quality of the goods
they produced. Their livelihood depended upon precision and experience, and in earlier decades,
that skill guaranteed stable wages and a respected place in the community. They worked at home
or in small workshops, often alongside family members, setting their own pace and maintaining control
over the details of their labor. This system of artisanal production was fulfilling for those
who were employed in it, but it was highly inefficient. By the early 19th century, this world had
changed dramatically, and it was in this environment that the Luddite movement emerged between
1811 and 1816, primarily in the textile-producing regions of Northern England.
The movement took its name from the legendary figure Ned Ludd, also known as King Ludd or
Captain Ludd, who most probably wasn't a real person.
According to popular legend, Ned Ludd was a young apprentice to smash two stocking frames
in a fit of rage in the village of Anstey, near Lester, sometime around 17.
A stocking frame was a hand-operated mechanical knitting machine.
Whether this story was true or apocryphal, Ned Ludd became a symbolic figure,
with machine breakers claiming to act under his orders and signing their threatening letters in his name.
The specific cause of Luddism were many, and deeply rooted in the economic and social problems of the Industrial Revolution.
The introduction of new machinery, particularly wide stocking frames in the hosiery trade,
power looms in the cotton trade, and shearing frames in the wool trade,
threatened the livelihood of skilled artisans who had traditionally enjoyed relative autonomy,
decent wages, and respected social status.
However, the new machines allowed manufacturers to employ less skilled workers,
including women and children, at significantly lower wages.
This deskilling of labor fundamentally altered the relationship between workers and employers.
The traditional bonds and customary practices that had governed labor relations were
breaking down, replaced by what the Luddite saw as the ruthless pursuit of profit at the
expensive workers' welfare. Manufacturers increasingly produced cheap, inferior goods that flooded the market
and undermined both quality standards and the position of skilled craftsmen.
The greater economic situation in England made these transformations particularly devastating.
The period of Luddite activity coincided with severe economic hardship.
Britain was engaged in the Napoleonic Wars, which disrupted trade and caused food prices
to soar. The continental system, Napoleon's economic blockade of Britain, severely restricted
export markets for British textiles. Simultaneously, poor harvest in 1809 and 1810 led to food shortages
and inflation. Workers found themselves facing unemployment or drastically reduced wages
at precisely the moment when the cost of bread and other necessities was climbing to unprecedented
levels. The legal and political environment also contributed to workers' sense of desperation,
Traditional forms of worker organization and negotiation had been criminalized under the Combination
Acts of 1799 and 1800, which prohibited workers from forming unions or collectively bargaining for
better conditions. The medieval system of craft guilds had been dismantled, and attempts to appeal
to Parliament for protective legislation had largely failed. Workers felt that they had no
legitimate means to voice their grievances or to protect their interests within the existing system.
The Luddai movement can trace its origins to Nottinghamshire in March of 1811, when framework
knitters began systematically destroying stocking frames.
The attacks were typically well-organized, disciplined operations rather than spontaneous riots.
Groups of mass men, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, would gather at night and march to
specific workshops or factories.
They would break down doors, smash the offending machinery with sledgehammers and hatchets,
and then disperse quickly into the darkness.
Significantly, the Luddites were often selective in their targets,
destroying only those machines that produced inferior goods,
or belonged to particularly exploitive employers,
while leaving others untouched.
The framework knitters of Nottinghamshire were protesting against wide frames,
which were used to produce cheap stockings,
and the practice of colting,
employing unapprenticed workers who undercut skilled craftsmen.
Their actions sent threatening letters to stocking manufacturers,
demanding better prices for their work and warning against the use of certain machines.
These letters signed by Ned Ludd or General Ludd combined threats with appeals to traditional
notions of fair dealing and moral economy.
The movement spread to Yorkshire in early 1812, where it took on a somewhat different character.
The Yorkshire Luddites were primarily croppers, highly skilled workers who finished wool cloth.
They faced displacement by shearing frames and gig mills that could perform their work more quickly
and cheaply. The croppers had been amongst the most prosperous and independent artisans,
and they had the organizational capacity to mount sustained resistance. The attacks in New Yorkshire
were often larger in scale and more violent than those in Nottinghamshire, sometimes involving
exchanges of gunfire between Luddites and guards protecting mills. One of the most dramatic
episodes occurred in April 1812 when a large group of Luddites attacked William Cartwright's mill
at Raffles near Hutter's Field. Carwright had fortified his mill and armed his workers in
anticipation of attack. When approximately 150 Luddites assaulted the building, they were met with
gunfire. Two Luddites, Samuel Hartley and John Booth, were both mortally wounded, and the attack was repelled.
This marked a turning point, demonstrating that mill owners were prepared to use lethal force
to defend their property. The violence escalated further when a few weeks later, William Horsfall,
a mill owner who had publicly boasted about his willingness to ride up to his saddle in Luddite blood,
was ambushed and shot while riding home from Huddersfield.
He died from his wounds, and his murder shocked the property classes
and intensified the government's determination to suppress the movement.
In Lancashire, Ledism emerged in the spring of 1812 among cotton weavers
facing unemployment and wage reductions due to the introduction of power looms.
The Lancashire movement was characterized by larger crowds and more open confrontation,
sometimes blending machine-breaking with food riots and attacks on factories.
The British government responded to Luddism with overwhelming force,
treating it as a serious threat to public order and property rights.
Parliament passed the Framebreaking Act in February 1812,
making machine breaking a capital offense punishable by death.
This was a remarkably harsh response,
putting the destruction of machinery on the same legal footing as murder.
The legislation reflected the ruling class's determination to protect industrial property
and suppress working-class resistance to economic change.
The government deployed thousands of regular army troops to the affected regions,
more soldiers than had been sent with Wellington to fight the French in the peninsular war at certain points.
The military presence transformed the industrial districts into occupied territories,
with troops stationed in mills and billeted in towns and villages.
Spies and informers were recruited to infiltrate Luddite networks,
and substantial rewards were offered for information leading to arrests.
The legal repression culminated in a series of mass trials in 1813.
In York, 64 men were tried for various Luddite-related offenses.
17 men were executed, including George Mellar, William Thorpe, and Thomas Smith,
who were all hanged for the murder of William Horsfall.
Others were transported to Australia.
Similar trials and executions took place in Lancashire and Chester.
The severity of these punishments was intended to send a clear message
that destruction of industrial property would not be tolerated.
By 1813, the combination of military suppression, mass prosecutions, and improving economic conditions
had largely broken the Luddite movement.
The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 reopened export markets and eased some of the economic
pressures that had fueled the unrest.
The executed and banished Luddite served as a grim warning of the consequences of machine breaking
and the massive military presence made organized resistance extremely.
difficult. However, the Luddites did not simply disappear from history. Many former Luddites and their
communities continued to resist the new industrial order through other means. Some participated in the
reform movements of the 1820s and 30s, agitating for political representation in workers' rights.
The Chartist movement of the 1830s and 40s, which demanded universal male suffrage and other democratic
reforms, drew on some of the same grievances in communities that had fueled Luddism.
The historical legacy of the Luddites has been complex and hotly debated.
For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, Luddite became a term of derision, used to describe
anyone opposed to technological progress or modernization.
This narrative presented the Luddites as backward-looking reactionaries who foolishly tried
to stop the inevitable march of progress.
However, more recent historical scholarship has offered a more nuanced and sympathetic interpretation
of the Luddites.
Historians like E.P. Thompson, in his seminal work, the making of the English working class in 1963,
arguing that the Luddites were not anti-technology per se, but were defending their communities,
livelihoods, and values against a new economic system that treated labor as merely another commodity
to be exploited. Thompson and others demonstrated that the Luddites operated within a moral economy
framework, appealing to traditional notions of fair prices, quality workmanship, and mutual obligations
between employers and workers. The relevance of the Luddite experience has been repeatedly invoked
in the 200 years since they were active. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, as automation,
computerization, and globalization have disrupted traditional industries and employment patterns,
many have looked back to the Luddites as precursors who grappled with similar problems.
The term Neo-Ludite has been applied.
to those who question whether technical innovation always serves human welfare or whether there can be
significant downsides to much of the technology we use today. Neoludites aren't so much about destroying
technology as just not using it. In the end, the Luddites lost their battle. The machines they destroyed
were replaced, often with more advanced technology, and the factory system became the dominant mode
of industrial production throughout Britain and eventually the world. The artisans whose livelihoods the Luddites
sought to protect were mainly displaced, and their crafts were reduced to nostalgia or niche production.
The social and economic transformations against which they fought continued and even accelerated.
So despite the modern use of the word, Luddites weren't so much against technology per se.
They were more concerned about preserving their traditional way of life and protecting their
livelihoods.
The executive producer of Everything Everywhere Daily is Charles Daniel.
The associate producers are Austin Otkin and Cameron Kiefer.
My big thanks go to everyone who supports the show over on Patreon.
Your support helps make this podcast possible.
And I also want to remind everyone about the community groups on Facebook and Discord.
That's where everything happens that's outside the podcast.
And links to those are available in the show notes.
As always, if you leave a review on any major podcast app or in the above community groups,
you too can have it read in the show.
