Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Luddites and Neo-Luddites.

forgot this one which was probably the most directly relevant to what you're looking at

chapter 15 said:
James Mill, MacCulloch, Torrens, Senior, John Stuart Mill, and a whole series besides, of bourgeois political economists, insist that all machinery that displaces workmen, simultaneously and necessarily sets free an amount of capital adequate to employ the same identical workmen......

....The real facts, which are travestied by the optimism of economists, are as follows: The labourers, when driven out of the workshop by the machinery, are thrown upon the labour market, and there add to the number of workmen at the disposal of the capitalists. In Part VII of this book it will be seen that this effect of machinery, which, as we have seen, is represented to be a compensation to the working class, is on the contrary a most frightful scourge. For the present I will only say this: The labourers that are thrown out of work in any branch of industry, can no doubt seek for employment in some other branch. If they find it, and thus renew the bond between them and the means of subsistence, this takes place only by the intermediary of a new and additional capital that is seeking investment; not at all by the intermediary of the capital that formerly employed them and was afterwards converted into machinery. And even should they find employment, what a poor look-out is theirs! Crippled as they are by division of labour, these poor devils are worth so little outside their old trade, that they cannot find admission into any industries, except a few of inferior kind, that are over-supplied with underpaid workmen. Further, every branch of industry attracts each year a new stream of men, who furnish a contingent from which to fill up vacancies, and to draw a supply for expansion. So soon as machinery sets free a part of the workmen employed in a given branch of industry, the reserve men are also diverted into new channels of employment, and become absorbed in other branches; meanwhile the original victims, during the period of transition, for the most part starve and perish.
Click to expand...
 
ska invita said:
In some cases technological development is driven by the desire of capital to increase the tempo/productivity of work, but are you saying that is a rule? I'd guess that technological development has been driven by many other factors, including (off the top of my head) workers' own desires to make their tasks simpler, scientific curiosity, utopianism, and without doubt competition. Not just market competition - you could see the cold war as fueling technological advances on both sides for example.

Competition in the market is not just about increasing the productivity of work (not in-itself a bad thing when you're doing laborious work and new technology makes that easier - the JCB digger for example), but also novelty - new products, which often means solving problems, which can be broadly benefical. From what I know about computer technology, like a lot of US innovations there are spin offs from the military-industrial complex, but there was a lot of utopianism in the Californian tech industry, particularly at the start. I don't think Tim Berners-Lee's motivation was exploiting workers to extract surplus value or whatnot.

Wasn't Marx quite pro-technology? Technology + Communism was going to let us all go fishing in the afternoons I thought...
Click to expand...

The thing is the word Luddite is now basically an epithet to describe someone who's scared of technology, just another word for technophobic, but the actual Luddites were concerned with de-skilling and the disruption to their way of life rather than technology in itself. There were much wider social and political grievances at stake in that conflict than just a simple-minded resistance to technology. So it's important when people write about the Luddites to make this clear from the start, cos there's a longstanding historical prejudice that would happily write them off as reactionary conservatives scared of progress.

The textiles workers in the Luddite area's of the north were amongst the most priviliged and well-paid workers of their times, which is understandable I mean Britain's principal export for a long time prior to the Luddite uprising was textiles. I have a mental image of the Luddite, pre 1790's, being of the "I'm alright jack" billy-big-bollocks show off variety, the ones with the most money to throw around down the pub etc. That might sound harsh, and it could be inaccurate, but prior to the uprising it's got to be stressed that these were highly skilled, priviliged and well-off workers. It was only when they suffered a sudden degredation of their living conditions that they went in this radical direction. The wool trade in particular was of huge importance to Britain's economy, after all the Lord Chamberlain in the House of Lords sits on a Woolsack. And furthermore the people working in that trade had strong unions, going right back into the workers guild system of medievel times, and there was statutory regulation that offered them some basic protections from market forces going back hundreds of years. Of course the laws regulating these trades were often punitive as well at various times, but nontheless there were still regulations that covered the role of apprenticeships and wages and implementation of technology and so on. These regulations were the basis of a social contract, which the onset of industrial capitalism ripped up, in this case it was 1809 when all the regulations that governerd their industry were repealed, laid waste at the altar of the new classical economics and the need for a new type of workforce. These workers felt the state had withdrawn from their side of the bargain. And this change, the change in the social relationships that underpinned the economy during the development of early capitalism is what I'm most interested in.

The luddites considered themselves free men, and they could tell that classical economics required a new and particularly intensive type of domination over the workforce that was very different to way they had lived previously. Although they weren't technically artisans, that had a certain degree of autonomy over where they could work and what hours they did and son on, and those were things that capitalist mode of production put an end too.

And I don't know Marx's views on technology in any great depth, hence me asking for help on this thread, but there's definitely a school of thought in the Marxist/Socialist movement that was really into technology, and was well into the idea of basically replacing the working class with machines to the fullest extent possible. On that topic there's some really interesting stuff George Orwell wrote in the Tribune critiquing some of this technological utopianism that was around during his time, if I can find it in the next few hours I'll edit the post and bang a link up here.

I will get round to trying to reply to everyone but I'm getting distracted by a dodgy internet connection and Bradford City beating Arsenal in the league cup.
 
Im just enjoying reading the posts here, but before posting back want to use up a separate post to say: this is exactly the kind of thread that belongs in the theory/history forum, and this is why i think that forum should be up the top in P&P. I only saw it as it was posed in the UK section. One day the robots will take over from the mods, and using their logic circuits move it up the top where plebs like me who cant be arsed to scroll down will find it.

Or we could just try and move it up there now. Ive consulted, listened very carefully to the result of the consultation, noted the disquiet about it, and so have even taken a pause, and feel it should be moved up to the top as part of a pilot scheme forthwith.
 
ymu said:
Technology is not in and of itself a problem - it's often a very good thing, not least for those workers who no longer have to do back-breaking/dangerous/life-shortening work. The problem is that productivity gains are not shared. If new machinery is introduced that allows the same production with half the workers, it doesn't mean everyone's hours get cut in half whilst their wages stay the same, or that the remaining workers earn twice as much as before. It means that half the workers are chucked on the dole and the rest accept shittier and shittier T&Cs because there are unemployed people desperate for their jobs.
Click to expand...
I get that for sure. The question is what are the implications of that.

Seems to me that if you follow the logic through the conclusion is either: Would we rather see a roll back of technology so there could be full employment under capitalism (ignoring the case that capitalists dont want full employment os as to be able to surpres unemplyment)? Or is moving on with technology taking over all work bringing us nearer the end of the system - putting people out of work along the way and straining the capitalist social contract? I guess thats what the likes of Krugman are fearing.

I just can't see any way back tbh. We cant put the genie of science and technological development back in the bottle. And fighting for work that doesnt need doing because a machine can do it makes sense from the self interest of the worker to keep a wage, but thats about it.

Would a factory under workers control refuse new technology so it could keep its full work force employed? It probably would if each worker had a vote - but that just keeps workers working for the sake of working for a wage, not because the work needs doing. Pointless/harmful work is a huge part of the problem inherent in capitalism. In any system in fact.

Delroy Booth said:
The luddites considered themselves free men, and they could tell that classical economics required a new and particularly intensive type of domination over the workforce that was very different to way they had lived previously. Although they weren't technically artisans, that had a certain degree of autonomy over where they could work and what hours they did and son on, and those were things that capitalist mode of production put an end too.
Click to expand...
Do you see a Neo-Luddite parallel possible? I can't imagine one. I doubt in any of the modern cases it involves anyone who could be considered a "freeman" - that point has been crossed, or am i misunderstanding the concept?

Delroy Booth said:
And I don't know Marx's views on technology in any great depth, hence me asking for help on this thread, but there's definitely a school of thought in the Marxist/Socialist movement that was really into technology, and was well into the idea of basically replacing the working class with machines to the fullest extent possible. On that topic there's some really interesting stuff George Orwell wrote in the Tribune critiquing some of this technological utopianism that was around during his time, if I can find it in the next few hours I'll edit the post and bang a link up here.
Click to expand...
I thought that was the case too, and count me in on that. Ive no protestant work ethic myself, though i work hard when my job requires it. The worst job i ever had was a desk job that i could do a weeks work in a day. I quit from boredom.

I love to keep busy, but the majority of work is unnecessary (beyond the pay). The sooner we can get rid of work the better. Under Bolshevik-era Communism full employment was partially achieved by creating unnecessary jobs - endless cloakrooms and toilet attendants in particular. I remember visiting Eastern European countries in the 80s and being told you HAD to check your coat in in all kinds of bars and cafes etc so that someone had a job to do. I see the logic, but its not ideal.

Curious to see the Orwell/ Tribune thing. Although i linked to a couple of books you wont be surprised to hear i haven't read them (or had the authors making me cups of tea!), so look forward to learning more on this from this thread.
 
peterkro said:
Bit off topic but some anecdotes from myself.In the sixties I was a Seagull (casual wharfie ),sounds bad I know but we worked with and under union members and had the same rates etc.It was at the beginning of containerisation and bonus payments were in the agreements based on loose cargo so we were getting twice or more of basic pay in bonus's,we had them by the balls.It took them a decade or more to crush the union,it's still going on but the union have been on the back foot with privatisation,neo liberal economics et al and have been whittled away for forty odd years.Was once the strongest union in NZ.
Later at the end of the seventies I worked as a spark at Dagenham ( I left EEPTU and joined the TGWU ) again we had them by the balls,nobody except the sparks could start or stop the lines (except emergency stops), there were so many emergency stops the line workers would hit one and stick a match in it and given many had been added ad hoc without being on the plans they would lose millions before the problem was found.I guess most people know about the resistance in the car industry especially Fords.I left when they brought in computerisation of the controls whereby they wanted to have line workers look at a screen find a faulty trip switch,contactor whatever and swap out the faulty one with a new one.Complete deskilling,we tried to fight it but by that stage home ownership was on the cards for a lot of reasonably paid workers,so with a mortgage,discounted Cortina on credit etcetera most of the older workers wouldn't join in.The trim womens strike was before my time and the riots in the body plant just after.Industrial sabotage was pretty common .But as everyone knows they still forced all that crap through.
Click to expand...

This is an absolutely brilliant example thanks so much for posting it.
 
ska invita said:
I get that for sure. The question is what are the implications of that.

Seems to me that if you follow the logic through the conclusion is either: Would we rather see a roll back of technology so there could be full employment under capitalism (ignoring the case that capitalists dont want full employment os as to be able to surpres unemplyment)? Or is moving on with technology taking over all work bringing us nearer the end of the system - putting people out of work along the way and straining the capitalist social contract? I guess thats what the likes of Krugman are fearing.

I just can't see any way back tbh. We cant put the genie of science and technological development back in the bottle. And fighting for work that doesnt need doing because a machine can do it makes sense from the self interest of the worker to keep a wage, but thats about it.

Would a factory under workers control refuse new technology so it could keep its full work force employed? It probably would if each worker had a vote - but that just keeps workers working for the sake of working for a wage, not because the work needs doing. Pointless/harmful work is a huge part of the problem inherent in capitalism. In any system in fact.
Click to expand...
You just need a minimum wage that reflects productivity, and a working week that reflects the number of workers available to do the work that is required. The share of wages going to labour has fallen from 60%+ to 53% now. Restoring it to 1960s levels would allow a 10% pay rise for everyone and a 30 hour working week (to eliminate employment).
 
You just need a minimum wage that reflects productivity, and a working week that reflects the number of workers available to do the work that is required
That's all you need - get it right people!!!!
 
ymu said:
You just need a minimum wage that reflects productivity, and a working week that reflects the number of workers available to do the work that is required. The share of wages going to labour has fallen from 60%+ to 53% now. Restoring it to 1960s levels would allow a 10% pay rise for everyone and a 30 hour working week (to eliminate employment).
Click to expand...
this kind of practical reformism appeals to me - a step in the right direction and relatively simple and bloodless to implement (in theory). It was before my time, but can anyone give some background on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week when that was introduced? DId private businesses have to adhere to a 3 day week? What happened to wages in that period? Would you get paid 5 days wage for 3 days work?

IIRC at this years anarchist bookfair the biggest round of applause at the Anarchist Economics talk was just for what ymu proposes. A vote winner amongst anarchists it seems :D
 
If you don't believe that Capitalism in general is the root cause of the problem, in other words you either explicitly or implicitly are supportive of the premises of the capitalist mode of production, then yes, this kind of underconsumptionist based social democratic stuff should appeal, and logically your outlook is logically consistent (whether it's correct is a different question)

If however you believe that the very essence of capitalist social relations is the problem, yet also contend that a tweaking/modification of the distribution of things/value produced under that mode of production will substantially reduce or eliminate the majority of problems that stem from a society organised by capitalist production, then that's when things start to look odd and provokes the kind of response from butchers above. It implies that despite agreeing that capitalism in essence is the root cause of the problem, a kind of 'sustainable capitalism' is possible, which is not only logically contradictory but empirically untrue

And for all those who say well it's just a 'step in the right direction' they should consider that change doesn't come from people having ideas in the abstract about how things should be. Change comes through class struggle from a starting point of how things are, and is determined by the relative balance of material class forces at any point in time. If the balance of class forces was at such a point where labour could make such demands of capital (a 3 day week for 5 days pay for example ), then by definition to settle for this kind of underconsumptionist/social democratic tweaking of the distribution/fruits of capitalist production in those circumstances would actually be a reactionary/conservative/pro capitalist position to take, given the much wider social transformatory possibilities that would be opened up by the substantial change in class forces implied
 
love detective said:
And for all those who say well it's just a 'step in the right direction' they should consider that change doesn't come from people having ideas in the abstract about how things should be. Change comes through class struggle from a starting point of how things are, and is determined by the relative balance of material class forces at any point in time. If the balance of class forces was at such a point where labour could make such demands of capital (a 3 day week for 5 days pay for example ), then by definition to settle for this kind of underconsumptionist/social democratic tweaking of the distribution/fruits of capitalist production in those circumstances would actually be a reactionary/conservative/pro capitalist position to take, given the much wider social transformatory possibilities that would be opened up by the substantial change in class forces implied
Click to expand...
i follow that, but it seems to me that one problem is that there aren't popular reformist demands on which to build a class struggle. The call out to overthrow the system has a very limited appeal. a call out that says, would you like to work less and get paid more would be something to rally around and build on. If it can be achieved then it is a big step in the right direction, and the very process of aiming for it is worth it in itself. See what happens next when you get there.

It isnt clear cut that to win that demand would allow greater changes immediately. it may do, it may not.
 
ska invita said:
i follow that, but it seems to me that one problem is that there aren't popular reformist demands on which to build a class struggle. The call out to overthrow the system has a very limited appeal. a call out that says, would you like to work less and get paid more would be something to rally around and build on. If it can be achieved then it is a big step in the right direction, and the very process of aiming for it is worth it in itself. See what happens next when you get there.
Click to expand...

The phrase 'popular reformist demands on which to build a class struggle' doesn't seem to connect with that little motor of history 'the anarchist bookfair'
 
butchersapron said:
It doesn't really matter what the intentions of people developing technology are - under capitalist social relations they can pretty much only be inserted into society, into production, on the basis of those pre-existing social relations and so be subject to the laws of competition and concentration etc - whilst still being open to more directly open harmful uses.
Click to expand...

This is how Ellen Meiksins Wood puts it:

Once market imperatives set the terms of social reproduction, all economic actors—both appropriators and producers, even if they retain possession, or indeed outright ownership, of the means of production—are subject to the demands of competition, increasing productivity, capital accumulation, and the intense exploitation of labor.

For that matter, even the absence of a division between appropriators and producers is no guarantee of immunity (and this, by the way, is why “market socialism” is a contradiction in terms): once the market is established as an economic “discipline” or “regulator,” once economic actors become market dependent for the conditions of their own reproduction, even workers who own the means of production, individually or collectively, will be obliged to respond to the market’s imperatives—to compete and accumulate, to let “uncompetitive” enterprises and their workers go to the wall, and to exploit themselves.
Click to expand...
 
ska invita said:
i follow that, but it seems to me that one problem is that there aren't popular reformist demands on which to build a class struggle. The call out to overthrow the system has a very limited appeal. a call out that says, would you like to work less and get paid more would be something to rally around and build on. If it can be achieved then it is a big step in the right direction, and the very process of aiming for it is worth it in itself. See what happens next when you get there.

It isnt clear cut that to win that demand would allow greater changes immediately. it may do, it may not.
Click to expand...
Popular reformist demands don't "build a class struggle" - class struggles build popular reformist demands (or at least can do).
 
butchersapron said:
This is how Ellen Meiksins Wood puts it:

Once market imperatives set the terms of social reproduction, all economic actors—both appropriators and producers, even if they retain possession, or indeed outright ownership, of the means of production—are subject to the demands of competition, increasing productivity, capital accumulation, and the intense exploitation of labor.

For that matter, even the absence of a division between appropriators and producers is no guarantee of immunity (and this, by the way, is why “market socialism” is a contradiction in terms): once the market is established as an economic “discipline” or “regulator,” once economic actors become market dependent for the conditions of their own reproduction, even workers who own the means of production, individually or collectively, will be obliged to respond to the market’s imperatives—to compete and accumulate, to let “uncompetitive” enterprises and their workers go to the wall, and to exploit themselves.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but this is also an apt response to those on here who think that, all other things being equal, having more John Lewis's and less Tesco's is some kind of solution
 
Indeed, i was only gone to post the first bit but decided to keep the second to make precisely that point - i do think it's relevant to the growth of self-employment and the things you mention that are both happening and being pointed to as 'best practice' or a demand that we could make.
 
Seriously, thanks again for all the stuff you're putting up on here. Really interesting and helpful.

I want to approach the issue of de-skilling via the division of labour. Basically I remember reading in Gorz that there was a study done into Adam Smith's "division of labour in pin manufacturing" that he did, where he proved that dividing tasks into small constituent parts improved productivity, that showed it wasn't just a matter of making the manufacturing process more efficient, but because by de-skilling the process it enabled employers to bring in women and children at a very low rate of pay to replace the skilled labour used beforehand. It also led to a new type of domination over the workforce by the employer. That it was this process, as much as the increase in efficiency, that led to the vast increases in profits in the pin industry.

Gorz references a study done by Stephen Marglin that proved this, and I've had a look through his wiki at some of the links there, but I can't find the exact study itself, or whether or not it's part of a larger book he published. You wouldn't happen to know where i could find it? It's been driving me nuts. If you know any other studies that can confirm the same thing that'd be really helpful too.

I think it's really important to look at this aspect of the Luddites, how they were fighting to escape the rigours of capitalist labour discipline rather than just a resistance to technological unemployment. EP Thompson does mention how they were not just fighting for their jobs, but to prevent themselves from becoming proletarianised, to being reduced to an expendable state, subjectivity without substance etc and I think this gets overlooked sometimes..
 
The Marglin thing is called What do Bosses do - crap pdf here. Down this route you're going to come labour segmentation theory as well which is another key thing in the technical organisation of capitalist production. See Segmented Work, Divided Workers: The historical transformation of labor in the United States for the classical statement of this approach.

Btw, Graebers book on debt says that the pin model was literally stolen from an old indian (? or persian?) text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
Book on the Luddites on Radio 4
Replies
6
Views
437
cesare
cesare
Bingoman
Sue Gray and therese Coffey nominated for a peerage
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
2K
stavros
S
NoXion
Porridge and crumpets included on extensive list of foods banned from TV ads before 9pm
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
Happy Tree
Happy Tree
ElizabethofYork
Men’s violence against women and girls is a national emergency
36 37 38 39 40
Replies
1K
Views
48K
two sheds
two sheds
bimble
Teenage neo nazi gets 11 years for ‘plotting terror’.
Replies
22
Views
843
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom