CONTENTS - ouroboros ponderosa

IIJ.I INIHISII' Ir\I.lSM ANI ) 1)(IMI-Sllt 'Al lt 'N
and powcr Ilow el . . . . I ' k
.
.
st:, 1C as 's, could a flcLorv . t'J I f
Engels explain worker resistan . , " . ," t ' . .. .J CIS . n act, Marx alld
Lletlhc
socIalism" largely in terms
c who arc the more hcaten aJIII
of the survival of artisantypc eb t
subordinated resist it the leas It' 'is h
the category artisan ("underd 1
t oneal lact that those closest to
eve ope , ') actually have fclt the most
capacity to abolish the wage system, precisely because they still exerci;c '
some control of wo r k processcs.
Throughout nearly all his writin h
to the idea that, in socialist society gS'd' o evr, Marx managed to return
through their work. But by the thO ' IV ;
ua s would deveop fully in and
changed and the emphasis was upr tO me of CapJlal hIS attitude had
l
begins, in fact, where that labor n wh ;ea of frcedom" which "only
external purpose ceases " . c IS etermincd by need and
I i '"
tion proper." Th'us Mar a7 outsIde the sphere of material produc·
.
degradation of labor bc undon ts t ( not e (
en under socialism will the
notion of revolutionary pre e. IS I . S c osely related to the Marxist
serva f Ion, In whIch the acquisitions and
productivity of the capitalist e
proletarian revolution.) The e
system are, not to be disturbed by
alton ?f Itfe IS hence banished,
reduced to the marginalia of existence much lIke hobbles III class society.
Despite his analysis of alienated I b
philosophy is virtually a conseerato or, f mueh of the explicit core of his
k
D . . I n 0 war as tyranny ' . ur khelm, ' wntmg m the late 19th ce
.
'
problem the need for a cohesl've . ntury, saw as the maIn social
socIa I Integration , M ch J'k M
. a Iso
deSIred the consolidatio d ' u I e arx, who
different reasons, Durkheim n th an ;;, auratIOn of capitalism, albeit for
aug t e found the key Il1 division of
labor. In the need for coord'
discerned the essential sonatlon / ng
ndered by division of labor, he
inversion of human valus i ;ce so Idanty. Today this grotesque
0 re specialization and its always theogmed rather fully; the hostility to
au ontanan expertise I 's S t rong I y present.
A I oak at the recent 0 in'
"The Senseless War o se :I (r cades of rtielcs like Fortune's The perennial struggle against inte rati9 71) wIll suffIce.
by the dommant system now
contmues as a struggle for d' .' t .
nihilist effort. The progress / r o: a ore and more consciously
P g SS
Its enemies with fe . IS left WIth few partIsans and
w I '11USlons ' as to what IS worth preserving. '
WHO KILLED NED LUDD?
1/1 papier.mache likeness of Ned Ludd is one of the 1 symbols of the days
,""I have gone, a reminder of what the workers' attitude to the new ideas
might be if the unions had not grown strong and efficient.
Trade Union Congress magazine Labour, at the time of the Produe·
I it 111 Exhibition, 1956.
I n England, the first industrial nation, and beginning in textiles,
capital'S first and foremost enterprise there, arose the widespread
(evolutionary movement (between 1810 and 1820) known as Luddism,
'I'he challenge of the Luddite risings-and their defeat-was of very great
importance to the subsequent course of modern society. Machine­
wrecking, a principal weapon, pre·dates this period, to be sure; Darvall
limes and bad, And it was certainly not confined to either textile workers
accurately termed it "perennial" throughout the 18th century, in good
or England. Farm workers, miners, millers, and many others joined in
destroying machinery, often against what would generally be termed their
own "economic interests." Similarly, as FUlop·Miller reminds us, there
were the workers of Eurpen and Aix·la·Chapclle who destroyed the
important Cockerill Works, the spinners of Schmoll en and Crimmitschau
who razed the mills of those towns, and countless others at the dawn of
the Industrial Revolution.
Nevertheless, it was the English cloth workers-knitters, weavers
spinners, croppers, shcarmen, and the like-who initiated a movement
which "in sheer insurrectionary fury has rarely been more widespread i
English history," as Thompson wrote, in what is probably an understate·
ment. Though generally characterized as a blind, unorganized, reaction·
ary, limited, and ineffective upheaval, this "instinctive" revolt against the
new economic order was very successful for a time and had revolutionary
aims. It was strongest in the more developed areas, the central and
northern parts of the country especially. The 11mes of Fehruary 11, 1812
described "the appearance of open warfare" in England. Vice· Lieutenant
Wood wrote to Fitzwilliam in the government on June 17, 1812 that
"except for the very spots which were occupied by Soldiers, the Country
was virtually in the possession of the lawless."
,