4 ms·

The author's Luddism doesn't bother me as much as his communism. Luddism has a history of being wrong, but not as 100-millions-dead wrong as communism. How can

The author's Luddism doesn't bother me as much as his communism. Luddism has a history of being wrong, but not as 100-millions-dead wrong as communism. How can this professor call himself a historian with a straight face? I'm sick of tax dollars funding this postmodern bilge -- opining from ivory towers, appealing to emotions, and fomenting divisions between class and race. According to a recent report by the ITIF: "Contrary to popular perceptions, the labor market is not experiencing unprecedented technological disruption. In fact, occupational churn in the United States is at a historic low." There is an enormous opportunity for increased productivity and wealth, and if history is any indicator there will be plenty of work to be done. [1] https://itif.org/publications/2017/05/08/false-alarmism-technological-disruption-and-us-labor-market-1850-2015 https://itif.org/publications/2017/05/08/false-alarmism-tech...

labster 9y ago
I didn't see any Luddism in this article. Marxism, for sure, but no Luddism. Saying that a future society must have different values from the present due to the nature of progress is futurism if anything.
ebola1717 9y ago
Dictatorships have that history - to place the blame on communism while ignoring oppressive regimes like Pinochet and Trujillo is disingenuous. Not to mention the article says nothing about communism. Plenty of countries have pro-labor, socialist-leaning economic policies without devolving into genocidal dictatorships.
throwaway31234 9y ago
Luddites weren't wrong about the consequences; they were wrong about who it'd affect the most. The Brits pulled out all stops to create a market for British products and destroy industries in India/China. This was done by imposing high duties on local products in India, and by making China addicted to opium. India, China were reasonably rich with vast reserves of Gold/Silver. Who are the rich in today's world ? Yeah that's right.

labster 9y ago

I didn't see any Luddism in this article. Marxism, for sure, but no Luddism. Saying that a future society must have different values from the present due to the nature of progress is futurism if anything.

ebola1717 9y ago

Dictatorships have that history - to place the blame on communism while ignoring oppressive regimes like Pinochet and Trujillo is disingenuous. Not to mention the article says nothing about communism. Plenty of countries have pro-labor, socialist-leaning economic policies without devolving into genocidal dictatorships.

throwaway31234 9y ago

Luddites weren't wrong about the consequences; they were wrong about who it'd affect the most. The Brits pulled out all stops to create a market for British products and destroy industries in India/China. This was done by imposing high duties on local products in India, and by making China addicted to opium. India, China were reasonably rich with vast reserves of Gold/Silver. Who are the rich in today's world ? Yeah that's right.