103·
1 year ago/* they took sledgehammers to the mechanized looms used to exploit them whenever those looms were owned by employers who were felt to be exploitative of their employees.
The interesting thing is how one defines exploitative. I’ve seen ex-mining communities where the population moved in and grew with the industry but, since the mines closed, many had stayed in place eking by on very meager state benefits, and not traveled to find work as their forebears had. To be abundantly clear: I’m not making any judgement of right or wrong, I’m just suggesting that (at least for populations who have a right to freedom of movement) there are opportunities for a little more colour to be put on OP’s canvas.
Understood.
I think we’re talking about two very different things. Apologies, language is a crude instrument. I should have made it more clear. I was referring to the right to freedom of movement. This concept is defined different ways in different countries/bodies of law. There’s a great wikipedia article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
From OP’s text, I inferred that they clearly understood the luddites only smashed the technical kit of employers who the luddites felt exploited their workforce. I’m not certain that that concept of their operation would be grasped by a reader that had not heard about the luddites prior to reading OP’s words.