>I think we could have increased agricultural production in a more worker
>friendly manner than was done, so in that respect, no I am not "grateful"
>for the unfair violence done to others just because I am a beneficiary of
>those policies. (John T.)
>
>JG: Yes, revolution would have been good. But we're not comparing
>Luddism to primitive capitalism. We're comparing it to the other
>radical campaigns of that era - the corresponding societies,
>combinations etc. At the same time that General Ludd and his army were
>smashing up the machinery that would increase the productivity of
>labour (a good thing), these other organisations were raising directly
>political demands for something better. I have no gratitude to the
>authorities of the day, but I also refuse to romanticise stupid ideas
>of the day.
The machines the Luddites were smashing had existed for quite some time. They were at least 150 years old in their design. What they objected to was the reorganization of society through those particular machines. They destroyed frames owned by capitalists but not frames owned by producers. Portraying the Luddites as anti-machine is as inaccurate as portraying protestors of the Enclosure movement as being anti-fence. It wasn't the fence that was objected to just as it wasn't the frames themselves the Luddites objected to. Since the victor wrote the official history Luddites were portrayed as anti-machine. The above writing shows you still either do not understand or choose to disbelieve this.
>I could just as easily say that slavery helped build the US into the
>country it is today so I am grateful that it happened. Ethnic cleansing of
>the indigenous population of North America also helped bring about our
>current condition but I am not grateful for that either. Gratitude for
>these crimes presupposes no alternate path was available at that time for
>enriching peoples lives. (John T.)
>
>JG: I am grateful only for the development of the machines that the
>Luddites were smashing. I abhor the social relations of the day. But
>there were, as I say above, other radical agendas that challenged those
>social relations.
>Making emotive comparisons does not help your case. A better
>comparison might be with working class racism - often motivated by the
>same things that drove others into left politics, but profoundly wrong.
>
>--James
What I wrote above was in response to a comment you made considering your gratitude for the enclosure movement and it is valid. I am not anti-fence. I also have no issue with the frames smashed by the Luddites and neither did they. They were protesting the social conditions you claim to abhor and were selective in which machines they smashed because of it. It is valid to question their ability to bring about the desired changes through their chosen tactics but you are not doing that. You are misstating their motives and perpetuating a falsehood about them. You said you were grateful for the results of the enclosures that displaced a significant portion of the population and caused untold suffering, poverty, and misery. I am not and the comparison to the forced migration and slaughter of North American Indigenous people is quite valid. Your preferred comparison with working class racism is not better or more clear to the point being made in any way. I am not grateful for the fruits of forced displacement of people in the past whether through enclosure, capture and being sold into slavery, or slaughtered with their remainder interned in reservations.
John Thornton