Yoshie explains Luddism: "under the conditions of early industrial capitalism, manufactories were small and scattered through different regions, making large-scale strikes impractical." But why should large scale strikes or machine breaking be the only options? The Luddites expressed a basic rage at the changes that were taking place. But there were plenty of other contemporary radical movements that had a more articulate and focused political agenda. Romanticising the Luddites today serves to elevate incohate rage over thoughtful politics. --- John Thornton wrote: "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. [...] Since the victor wrote the official history Luddites were portrayed as anti-machine. [...] you still either do not understand or choose to disbelieve this." What is your evidence for this? I've just re-read E.P. Thompson on the Luddites, and what he emphasises again and again is that we don't know much about their motivations. The official reaction against the Luddites was so overwhelming that people didn't even talk or write about their involvement for a generation, by which time memories had faded. Probably, it was mixed. Many people were just reacting against their immediate situation (un- or under-employment), others were inspired by wider social and political questions. But these questions were being raised more articulately and more effectively by other movements at the time. It's true that the victor wrote the history, but given that all the movement did was smash machines, calling them anti-machine doesn't seem controversial to me. So will you join me in saying that the Luddites were the backward part of nineteenth century radicalism, and that we have nothing to learn from them today?