3 ms·

Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that Luddites were against technology. That's incorrect: they were skilled textile workers that used technology s

by pdkl95 8y ago

Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that Luddites were against technology. That's incorrect: they were skilled textile workers that used technology similar to any other skilled profession. From the first paragraph of the wiki page: > The group was protesting the use of machinery in a "fraudulent and deceitful manner" to get around standard labour practices. There is a lot of similarity with modern tech companies (Uber is the canonical example) working around labor in a way that concentrates wealth. As an early form of labor fighting back against capital abusing the amplifying effect of technology, I agree with the Luddites. Learn from them, or - as described in this article - we will see their violent methods again.

diminoten 8y ago
It's beyond "misconception", as "luddite" now means someone who dislikes new technology. The word has been redefined.
- memonkey 8y ago
  Like many words, it can be important to know its history.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    Sure, but it's not a misconception to call someone who doesn't like new technology a luddite. The word has been simplified, even if it used to be more complex.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      Applying labels is a poor way to understand someone's position.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        Pretending like words don't mean what they actually mean is an even worse way, though.
c3534l 8y ago
It's not a misconception. I know a lot of authors have argued, correctly, that there was some nuance to the Luddites arguments, but the fact remains that they did in fact behave exactly as was described: there was a technology that they comitted acts of terrorism against because they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress. People are now throwing in these corrections every time someone mentions luddites even though nothing they said was wrong, simply non-sympathetic. Those aren't the same things. Not agreeing that they should be as iconically maligned as they are isn't the same thing as a common misconception. None of the core fact are in dispute, you just want to defend them while ignoring the central point of it's futility.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  > they comitted acts of terrorism I never said they didn't. > they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress. Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Because they were against technology.
    - markdown 8y ago
      No, they were against this particular technology because its introduction meant they could no longer earn a living and feed their families. Technology that benefits the few at the expense of the many is going to destroy us. The only way around it is UBI in some form or another.
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        But we're in all cases talking about technology that benefits most people at the expense of a few.
      - ufmace 8y ago
        Macroeconomic forces are complex. Technology has wiped out entire types of work many times over the years, and the workers usually, though not always, make out all right. The problem is not any particular technological advance IMO, but overloading the economic mechanisms that allow people to find new careers. Too much technological advance too fast plus too many industries shipped overseas where labor is cheaper in an environment without enough new job development equals a permanent underclass, with all of the economic tensions that come along with it. Meanwhile, UBI has many serious problems and we don't have anywhere near the level of job disruption to make it a workable solution.
jpollock 8y ago
From the primary source referenced by Wikipedia: “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/#t08STRjSIOmGHoot.99 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea... They were against anyone using technology to replace them by removing the education required to produce textiles. Fundamentally, they were pissed off at how their years spent gaining education in an industry was made obsolete. You know, sort of like how the coal miners went on strike because the UK was shutting down the mines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%80%9385) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%8...
bko 8y ago
> working around labor in a way that concentrates wealth Labor used to wash our clothes. Then washing machines came along and now there are technicians of washing machines. The technicians are much fewer than the amount required to wash clothes by hand and they likely get paid a lot more. So washing machines usurp labor and concentrate wealth. Are you against washing machines as well?

by pdkl95 8y ago

diminoten 8y ago

It's beyond "misconception", as "luddite" now means someone who dislikes new technology. The word has been redefined.

memonkey 8y ago
Like many words, it can be important to know its history.
- diminoten 8y ago
  Sure, but it's not a misconception to call someone who doesn't like new technology a luddite. The word has been simplified, even if it used to be more complex.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Applying labels is a poor way to understand someone's position.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      Pretending like words don't mean what they actually mean is an even worse way, though.

c3534l 8y ago

It's not a misconception. I know a lot of authors have argued, correctly, that there was some nuance to the Luddites arguments, but the fact remains that they did in fact behave exactly as was described: there was a technology that they comitted acts of terrorism against because they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress. People are now throwing in these corrections every time someone mentions luddites even though nothing they said was wrong, simply non-sympathetic. Those aren't the same things. Not agreeing that they should be as iconically maligned as they are isn't the same thing as a common misconception. None of the core fact are in dispute, you just want to defend them while ignoring the central point of it's futility.

pdkl95 8y ago
> they comitted acts of terrorism I never said they didn't. > they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress. Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"?
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Because they were against technology.
  - markdown 8y ago
    No, they were against this particular technology because its introduction meant they could no longer earn a living and feed their families. Technology that benefits the few at the expense of the many is going to destroy us. The only way around it is UBI in some form or another.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      But we're in all cases talking about technology that benefits most people at the expense of a few.
    - ufmace 8y ago
      Macroeconomic forces are complex. Technology has wiped out entire types of work many times over the years, and the workers usually, though not always, make out all right. The problem is not any particular technological advance IMO, but overloading the economic mechanisms that allow people to find new careers. Too much technological advance too fast plus too many industries shipped overseas where labor is cheaper in an environment without enough new job development equals a permanent underclass, with all of the economic tensions that come along with it. Meanwhile, UBI has many serious problems and we don't have anywhere near the level of job disruption to make it a workable solution.

jpollock 8y ago

From the primary source referenced by Wikipedia: “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/#t08STRjSIOmGHoot.99 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea... They were against anyone using technology to replace them by removing the education required to produce textiles. Fundamentally, they were pissed off at how their years spent gaining education in an industry was made obsolete. You know, sort of like how the coal miners went on strike because the UK was shutting down the mines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%80%9385) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%8...

bko 8y ago

> working around labor in a way that concentrates wealth Labor used to wash our clothes. Then washing machines came along and now there are technicians of washing machines. The technicians are much fewer than the amount required to wash clothes by hand and they likely get paid a lot more. So washing machines usurp labor and concentrate wealth. Are you against washing machines as well?