This period has seen a renewed interest in the Luddites as emblems of resistance to technology. The historical Luddites were textile workers in the Midlands of England who, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, engaged in collective militant opposition to capitalists’ use of new machines to restructure their industry at their expense. Operating anonymously, they engaged in a variety of militant tactics under the aegis of a mythical “King Ludd”: petitioning politicians, threatening uncooperative factory owners, and, most infamously, smashing the machines that were automating skilled labor processes. These actions were not taken out of a blind hostility toward machines, but as a calculated tactic in a political struggle over workplace control, wages, craft values, and the restructuring of the labor process.

In public discourse, "Luddite" has long been a pejorative: a label for reactionary technophobia, irrational fear of innovation and change, or resistance to progress. More recently, however, the term has been rehabilitated as scholars, journalists, and activists turn a critical eye towards social, economic, and political transformations wrought by the dominance of social media, the rapid onslaught of generative artificial intelligence, and the dominance of a “tech oligarchy” (Hughes 2025). Intellectuals proudly proclaim their Luddite identity (Sadowski 2021), teenagers abstain from smart phones in “Luddite Clubs” (Vadukul 2022), and a raucous countercultural movement has proclaimed a “Summer of Ludd” as a richer social alternative to the mediated distractions offered by “Big Tech” (Elliot 2026). Whether given a positive or negative valence, the renewed attention to the Luddites comes with a risk that the term simply refers to a critique or rejection of technology. Yet this is also an opportunity to clarify the meaning of Luddism in terms of its historical significance and specify its politics and its vision for an alternative future.

This special issue seeks to reposition Luddism as an analytical framework for critical labor studies and working-class history. Moving beyond popular narratives that conflate critique of technology with broad anti-technology sentiment, this issue conceptualizes Luddism as a theory and practice of worker resistance that views technologies and machines as an antagonist in class struggle. The core of Luddite politics is that technology under capitalism is not neutral; rather, it is often an instrument for sedimenting managerial authority, expropriating skill, and disciplining labor. With this in mind, it is possible to sketch the contours of what a “Luddite future” of work and technology might be.

As much of the existing work on Luddism comes from perspectives in advanced economies, we welcome contributions that examine Luddism from a global, comparative, and transnational perspective. We aim to understand how workers across the Global South and North – from historical plantation regimes and colonial factories to contemporary gig platforms and automated logistics hubs – contest control over the tools, mechanisms, and systems of production.

Suggested Topics

We invite empirical, theoretical, and speculative contributions on topics including, but not limited to:

1. Luddism through Historical and Global Perspectives

• Global Luddisms: Machine breaking, sabotage, and technological resistance in colonial and non-Western contexts.
• Comparative and Transnational Luddism: Case studies comparing tactical responses and outcomes to the introduction of new machines; the circulation of struggles across borders. 
• Race, Gender, and Machines: How the introduction of new production technologies has intersected with racialized and gendered divisions of labor.

2. Contemporary Struggles in the Digital Economy

• Digital Luddism and Algorithmic Resistance: Worker opposition to algorithmic management, automated surveillance, and data harvesting and emerging tactics centered on refusal, obfuscation, and gaming systems.
• Resistance to Generative AI: Resistance to the incorporation of artificial intelligence and large-language models into knowledge work and creative professions, including prompt injection, data poisoning, consumer activism, and collective negotiation. 
• Collective Action: The organizational forms that technological resistance, from sabotage to bargaining, take today.

3. Luddite Future

• Luddite Imaginaries: Speculative essays and theoretical frameworks exploring post-capitalist design, worker-governed technology, and alternative forms of innovation. 
• Luddism and Degrowth: The intersection of Luddite labor politics with environmental concerns, the energy transition, and democratic technology planning.

Submission Guidelines

• Abstracts: Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words accompanied by a brief author bio (max 150 words) by December 31, 2026, on ScholarOne. 
• Full Manuscripts: Authors of accepted abstracts will be invited to submit full papers of 8,000 words by June 1, 2027.

Works Cited

Elliot, V. (2026). Inside the Luddite Festival Harnessing Gen Z’s Rage Against Big Tech. Wired Magazine.

https://www.wired.com/story/in...

Hughes, S. (2025). What does a tech oligarchy look like? Harvard Kennedy School.

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fa...

Sadowski, J. (2021). I’m a Luddite. You should be one too. The Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/im...

Vadukul, A. (2022). Luddite Teens Don’t Want Your Likes. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/1...