Economists rubbish the notion that technology leads to unemployment as 'the Luddite fallacy' but this interpretation is itself fallacious
A certain Ned Ludd, who smashed a weaving machine in a fit of rage, was immortalised when the term "Luddite" was coined by and for those who, fearing redundancy, also wrecked textile machinery some 200 years ago. In 1812, with prices climbing and the economy slumped, the disturbances reached a peak. Opponents smeared the Luddites as a "cult" of desperate illiterates with an apocalyptic fear of progress. Ever since, the term Luddite has been used to similar abusive effect. Economists rubbish the notion that technology leads to unemployment as "the Luddite fallacy". However, this interpretation is itself fallacious. So how about a smashing anniversary – and a reappraisal? Most Luddites did not oppose innovations as such, but the circumstances of their use – and that only after years of peaceful petitioning for protective legislation. Though machines were certainly attacked, there was no specific targeting of new devices. Some known Luddites came from trades unaffected by new technologies; their participation was less industrial than political, though it was certainly revolutionary. Thus it was that a Huddersfield Luddite, George Mellor, directed men to "leave the machines, but shoot the masters". Yet, before being hanged in 1813, Mellor asked for his name, and those of 34 fellow prisoners, to be added to a petition for parliamentary reform, and also donated his body to medical science. A murderer indeed, but, like many Luddites, hardly a man implacably opposed to all progress.