History Misreads the Luddites — and It Is About to Misread Their Successors

The original Luddites were not anti-technology. They were anti-exploitation. The workers pushing back against AI automation today are making the same argument, and they are just as likely to be dismissed and just as likely to be right.

Sign up for my Substack daily AI newsletter here.

See my AI Training course portfolio for corporate Business Leaders here.

Article link: https://open.substack.com/pub/johanosteyn/p/history-misreads-the-luddites-and?r=73gqa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Follow me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanosteyn/

In the spring of 1811, bands of English textile workers began moving through the factories of Nottinghamshire under cover of darkness, destroying the stocking frames and power looms that were replacing their labour. They were not, as history has subsequently recorded them, ignorant opponents of progress. They were skilled craftspeople making a precise and rational argument: that the owners of the new machines were using technology not to improve work but to restructure it at the workers’ expense, driving down wages, eliminating skilled labour, and concentrating the gains of mechanisation in the hands of capital while the costs fell on those who had nothing left but their labour to offer. History dismissed them as technophobes. History was wrong.

Two centuries later, a new global survey of 2,400 knowledge workers across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe has found that 29 per cent of employees admit to actively sabotaging their company’s AI strategy — ignoring guidelines, refusing training, or deliberately skewing performance data. Among Generation Z workers, the figure rises to 44 per cent. The instinct, in boardrooms and technology press alike, is to treat this as a discipline problem, a communications failure, or a generational quirk. That instinct is the same one that dismissed the Luddites. It deserves the same reassessment.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

The historical record on the Luddites has been deliberately obscured, and the obscuring was not accidental. As historian David Noble observed, the Luddites “understood technology in the present tense” — they analysed its immediate material impacts and acted accordingly. They were not opposed to the machines themselves. Kevin Binfield, editor of the definitive collection of Luddite writings, notes that they confined their resistance to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to circumvent standard labour practices. The anti-technology caricature was constructed after the fact, largely by the manufacturers and the state that suppressed them, because it served their interests to frame rational working-class resistance as ignorance rather than argument.

The argument the Luddites were actually making was not that machines are bad. It was that the question of who controls the conditions under which technology is deployed, and who decides how its benefits are distributed, is a political question, not a technical one. That argument was never answered. It was suppressed, first by the British Army, then by the march of industrial progress, and eventually by a historical consensus that treated the outcome of the Industrial Revolution as its vindication. The workers who were displaced, impoverished, and criminalised in its early decades did not share in that vindication. They simply disappeared from the story.

The story being written now has the same shape. A survey by Writer and Workplace Intelligence found that 75% of executives admit their company’s AI strategy is “more for show” than a meaningful guide to outcomes, even as 69% plan AI-related headcount reductions. Companies are buying more AI while simultaneously cutting AI training investment: only 26% of organisations now offer formal AI upskilling programmes, down from 35% in 2025, while AI tool spending increased by 23% over the same period. The technology is being deployed. The workers bearing its costs are not being prepared for what follows. That is not a technical problem. It is a choice.

INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS

The workers sabotaging AI in 2026 are not making a unified political argument in the way the Luddites did. Their resistance is more diffuse, more individual, more shaped by the specific conditions of knowledge work than by a coherent movement. But the underlying logic is identical. 30% of those who admitted to sabotage in the Writer survey cited fear that AI would take their job as their primary motivation. A further 26% cited poor AI strategy — not fear of technology, but a rational judgment that the organisation’s implementation was inadequate and that engagement with it would produce bad outcomes. These are not irrational responses. They are accurate assessments of conditions that the data supports.

Royal Military College of Canada political scientist Yannick Veilleux-Lepage has argued in a recent paper that AI generates the structural conditions historically associated with the onset of political violence: mass displacement, concentrated wealth, and consequential decisions made without democratic consent. That is a serious claim from a serious scholar, and it deserves serious attention rather than the dismissal that the Luddites received. The preconditions he identifies are not hypothetical. Challenger, Gray and Christmas recorded more than 165,000 technology layoffs in the past year, with AI cited as the leading cause of cuts in March 2026 — the first time that has occurred since tracking began. Sam Altman said in 2023 that “jobs are definitely going away, full stop.” He has since walked that back, describing jobs doomerism as likely wrong. The revision coincides precisely with the firebombing of his San Francisco home by an angry 20-year-old and the growth of organised anti-AI sentiment that no public relations strategy has yet managed to contain.

I have previously written about the specific cost of automating entry-level and junior work — that what is being lost is not merely output but the developmental process through which the next generation of leaders is built. The Luddite argument extends that observation into its political dimension. When the gains of automation flow to shareholders and senior leadership while the developmental costs fall on the workers whose roles are eliminated, the aggregate economic numbers can look healthy while the social fabric tears. That gap between what the numbers show and what people experience is precisely where political anger is born, and it is where it has always been born.

IMPLICATIONS

The lesson business leaders should draw from the Luddite history is not that resistance is futile or that progress is inevitable. It is that the question of distribution — who captures the gains, who bears the costs, and who has a say in how the transition is managed — is the political question that technology has never been able to answer by itself, and that suppressing it rather than engaging with it has never produced a stable outcome.

The 2026 AI Adoption in the Enterprise report is not primarily a story about sabotage. It is a story about trust. Two-thirds of executives surveyed said AI adoption was creating internal tension, and more than four in ten believed it was already damaging organisational cohesion (Workplace Insight. Trust, once lost at scale, is not recovered by a policy update or a town hall. It is recovered, if at all, through genuine engagement with the concerns that produced its loss, through transparency about what the technology is being used for, through honest acknowledgement of who will be affected, and through a credible commitment to ensuring that the people bearing the costs of transition are not simply left to absorb them alone.

The Luddites campaigned not only against the machines but for unemployment compensation and retraining for workers displaced by new machinery. In doing so, and without knowing it, they were among the most forward-thinking voices in the early Industrial Revolution. Their demands were not met. The social cost of that failure was borne by generations of workers who had no part in the decision. The question for every board and executive deploying AI today is whether they intend to answer the question the Luddites asked and that has never been satisfactorily resolved, or whether they intend to repeat the history that followed from leaving it unanswered.

CLOSING TAKEAWAY

The workers who are quietly refusing to use AI, who are skipping training sessions, who are reverting to manual processes, or who are organising with colleagues to maintain human workflows are not ignorant. They are not nostalgic. They are not afraid of progress. They are making a judgment — about the quality of what their organisations are offering them, about the sincerity of the commitments being made, and about what engagement with AI signals to the people making decisions about their futures. That judgment deserves a response more serious than a disciplinary policy and more honest than an all-hands presentation about the exciting opportunities ahead.

History misread the Luddites by framing their argument as fear. The more accurate reading is that they were right about almost everything except one thing: they believed the argument could be won. It could not, not then, and not in the way they pursued it. The question for this generation of workers, and for the leaders responsible for navigating this transition, is whether the argument can be engaged with before the conditions that make it unanswerable arrive.

Johan Steyn is a prominent AI thought leader, speaker, and author with a deep understanding of artificial intelligence’s impact on business and society. He is passionate about ethical AI development and its role in shaping a better future. Find out more about Johan’s work at https://www.aiforbusiness.net