Swing Riots

The Luddites were a protest movement against the social consequences of mechanization in the Industrial Revolution. Often the destruction of machinery or newly built factories was a means to prevent the intended manufacturer of replacement of skilled workers by unskilled or to protest against the deterioration of wages and working conditions. Focus of the so-called Machine storm was England, but also in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, came to similar protests.

Participating occupations

The actions of the Luddites took place primarily in the textile sector, and stood up there with new machines of textile production and processing. The machine storm in England, named after its legendary leader Ned Ludd as Luddism was limited by EP Thompson on the period from 1811 to 1817 and on three regions and occupational groups: Tuchscherer (West Riding of Yorkshire ), Cotton Weaver ( South Lancashire ) and hosier ( Nottingham ). Tuchscherer were trained and privileged workers, while the weavers and knitters home workers with a long artisan tradition were. All three professional groups suffered a deterioration in their status due to the elimination of protective legislation ( gigs ban and loom limitation) and by the concentration of looms in the newly established factories with unskilled and juvenile workers. In Germany too, the actions focused on the textile sector with the support groups of cloth shearers, hand weavers and Kattundruckern. At the so-called Weber uprisings small entrepreneurs and craftsmen were involved in the fighting, the resulting competition. In addition to the textile workers fought most metal craftsmen ( grinder, forge) against machinery and new production processes.

Goals and motives

Said Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Luddites still narrow-minded hostility to technology by, so historical research showed that the destruction of machinery sprang no irrational technophobia. The real motive was, rather, the defense previously relatively secure professional groups against a worsening of their social status and the loss of traditional privileges which they sought partly to secure with petitions to the ruling powers. Although only selectively workers were laid off by the introduction of machines, reduced the fear of loss of jobs, the acceptance of technical progress, delayed industrialization and was ultimately responsible for with the prevailing misery. According to EP Thompson, they fought against "the ' freedom ' of the capitalists to destroy the usages of the trade, from new equipment, through the factory system or by unrestricted competition (...) and erosion of craftsmanship standards ". Eric Hobsbawm has argued in his essay " The Machine Breakers " that the destruction of the machine was used by the Luddites as a pressure medium. The destruction and the threat of destruction of products or productive capital was for Hobsbawm in the 18th century a means of wage bargaining. Since the workers at that time, he concluded, to enforce their collective interests no legal means, such as unionization, labor disputes and collective bargaining, were available, they would have made ​​an appeal. The destruction of the means of production would also have the virulent solidarity problem solved in labor disputes, since any scabs could not continue to work. The resistance against the machines was according to Hobsbawm, "quite Consciously resistance to the machine in the hands of the capitalist " ( was deliberately resisting the machine in the hands of the capitalists ). He sees in Maschinensturm a form of " collective bargaining by riot " ( " collective bargaining by riot" ). The fact that it mostly did not come to more violent forms of action, Hobsbawm explained by the fact that machines were often bought in growth phases in which there was enough work for the workers, so that they wage developments presented no worries. Even the German social historian Rolf Peter Sieferle documented numerous cases of machines storm in the 18th century, which was common, " in connection with labor disputes took place that they are" and - in the absence of trade unions - as " important means for the enforcement of ( wage ) claims " served.

England

Among the technology-related riots in England, the riots of the Luddites 1811-1816 and the so-called Swing Riots belong 1830-1833 the best known.

The revolt of the English Luddites is named after the legendary Ned Ludd ( Ludlam ), who opposed his father (or master ) and broke the needles in the stocking factory in protest. Other sources dub "Captain " or " General Ludd " - more folklore than as real - Leader of the first protests.

1811/1812, there was a veritable riot in Nottingham, which the English state was reflected by 12,000 soldiers. Only a law (frame -breaking Act ) of 1812, which placed the destruction of looms under penalty of death and met the demands of the Luddites, brought an end in Nottingham. The Luddites continued organized violence and disciplined one. In the middle and lower layer of the Luddites learned a lot of sympathy for their protest. Mainly weavers and spinners got together, destroyed mechanical looms and factories. They killed even the inventor of which they believed themselves deprived of wages and bread. Later, however, the facilities were withdrawn. Ludd and the other leaders were sentenced to death. The other rebels were deported to the penal colony in Australia.

1816 was followed by other " Luddite riots" following a new deterioration of the working situation.

The Swing Riots (Swing riots ) were 1830-1833 an English farm workers movement against the use of agricultural machinery, especially the threshing machine and for the payment of higher wages. Your name received the uprisings by the fictitious name Captain Swing, in the name of threatening letters to farmers and landowners have been sent. In addition to these threatening letters the farm workers were trying to reach their goals through the burning of corn ricks and threshing. In part, the riots directed against Irish immigrant workers.

Germany

In Germany there were 1815-1849 also to machines storms. Michael Spehr has collected 186 cases of machines protest in the period 1815-1849 in its historical dissertation. Protest, violence and riots went mainly of highly skilled and well-paid artisan workers whose actions " the image of a rabid crowd, which struck instinctively " disagreed.

There were many places to the so-called Weber uprisings, which were due to various causes. Small entrepreneurs and artisans who could no longer survive in the face of incipient industrialization in free competition, tried to suppress the new competition by force. This led both to direct attacks on productive capital and workers, as well as to lobbying and revolts to discriminate against foreign suppliers by state violence. Some of the insurgents were so impoverished that it was food riots. The loss of foreign markets in connection with the Continental System and the British naval blockade, the intrusion of English manufactured goods after the end of the continental blockade, the failure of Midland demand in the wake of agricultural crises, the progressive industrialization with their cheap products aggravate the situation.

In Germany attacked the legal consequences that usually only directed against the ringleaders, compared to England overall lenient. We analyzed the unrest and grievances presented in the working conditions fixed. In some cases, efforts were made to draw up a factory order to eliminate the abuses, but this " factory Aachen order" failed at the Prussian State Ministry.

Switzerland

The most famous case of a machine tower was in 1832 Oberuster, the so-called type- fire instead.

Reception in the national economy

The actions of the Luddites were also reflected in contemporary economics. David Ricardo held on December 16, 1819 speech on the application of William De Crespigny to set up a commission to employ Robert Owens plan for the liquidation of unemployment and to improve the situation of the lower classes. Here, Ricardo said that one should not deny that the introduction of machinery, the demand for labor does not reduce in production. The controversy between Ricardo and Jean -Charles- Léonard de Sismondi Simonde ended, however, with the fact that Ricardo has revised its previously positive assessment of the consequences of the introduction of machinery to the situation of the workers shortly before his death. He saw now in replacement of labor by machines a possible cause technological unemployment, and evaluated them so as "very harmful to the interests of the working class."