What history teaches us about disruptive automation
In a Nutshell
The 1811–1812 Luddite revolts were organized protests by skilled weavers against employers who replaced traditional hand looms with cheaper “cut-piece” machinery that slashed wages and bypassed craft norms. Parliament responded by making machine-breaking a capital crime, deploying thousands of troops, and executing or deporting the movement’s leaders. The episode shows that decisions about who benefits from automation are political choices—choices the Luddites tried, and failed, to contest.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
In Nottinghamshire in 1811, the first major conflict over automation unfolded. On a cold November night, men moved through the villages north of Nottingham, some with faces smeared in soot and carrying hammers. These were skilled weavers who made stockings and lace on hand machines called hosiery looms, often working in their homes and paid by the piece. They were starving that winter as Britain waged war with Napoleon, trade routes to Europe and America were closed, bread prices soared, orders became rare, and wages declined.
Under economic pressure, hosiery merchants began using wide looms to weave large pieces of fabric that were cut and sewn into cheap hosiery known as "cut pieces." These socks were poorly made with unraveling threads, but they were inexpensive and could be produced by untrained workers at lower wages. For the weavers, this represented a breach of professional norms rather than progress.
The weavers responded by smashing the looms in organized, disciplined raids. They targeted specific machines in specific workshops, particularly those belonging to employers paying lower wages than usual, while sometimes leaving neighboring looms untouched. Following the raids, letters appeared signed by a mysterious leader named Ned Ludd, or General Ludd, or King Ludd. No such person existed—the name derived from a legend about an apprentice boy who smashed a loom years earlier, making the leader impossible to arrest.
By early 1812, the movement had spread northward. In Yorkshire, shearers—highly paid craftsmen who finished woolen fabrics with huge hand shears—faced cutting looms that could perform their work with a fraction of the effort. In Lancashire, handloom weavers watched mechanized looms arrive at cotton mills. The grievances varied in details but shared the same essence: the way of life and wages supporting it were being dismantled from above.
In Yorkshire, the shearers' preferred weapon was a heavy hammer called an "Enoch" after Enoch Taylor, a blacksmith in Marsden whose business with his brother James built the shearing looms the shearers hated. The hammers and machines came from the same foundry, leading to the slogan: "Enoch made it, and Enoch will destroy it."
The government's response was force. Thousands of soldiers were sent to the troubled provinces, and spies and informants were paid to infiltrate the groups. In February 1812, Parliament made the destruction of machinery a capital offense punishable by death. George Gordon, Lord Byron, aged 24, delivered his first speech in the House of Lords on February 27, opposing the bill:
"I have crossed the battlefield of the peninsula. I have visited some of the most oppressed regions of Türkiye, but I have never seen, even under the most tyrannical and heretical governments, such abject misery as I have seen since my return to the heart of a Christian country."
The bill passed regardless.
In April 1812, Luddites attacked Rawfolds Mill in West Yorkshire, where owner William Cartwright had fortified the building and waited with armed soldiers. The attack failed, with two attackers fatally wounded. Weeks later, mill owner William Horsfall was shot dead on his way home from the market. In January 1813, a special court in York concluded with 17 men sentenced to hanging and others deported to penal colonies in Australia. The public hangings delivered an unambiguous message.
The movement faded, though it reappeared faintly in later years. Trade recovered after the war, but wages did not fully recover. Within a single generation, the handloom weavers of Lancashire, once among England's best-paid workers, became among the poorest.
The term "Luddite" today means someone afraid of technology who wants to stop progress. However, the original Luddites understood their machines intimately, having worked on looms for decades. They were not opposed to machines themselves, but to a particular use of machinery that reduced wages, lowered quality, and ignored established professional norms.
One of their songs demanded "meticulous work at the old price, established by custom and law." This was not the language of people who hate technology, but of people negotiating over who receives the benefits. They lost that negotiation, facing an army and parliament that had already determined which interests took priority.
Every decision to deploy a new machine involves human choices: which skills lose value, whose profits increase, and whose voice is heard. In 1812, employers made these choices backed by military force. The usual historical narrative ignores this dimension. Two centuries later, the debate continues with different machines that write, deduce, draw, and lead, but the fundamental questions remain unchanged: Who owns the new tools? Who decides how to use them? When productivity increases, who receives the pay raise? The Luddites were the first to raise these questions and deserve remembrance for doing so, not ridicule for losing.
Keep David Shapiro in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
