> They were absolutely willing to operate the machinery. Smashing the machines was perhaps a poor way to communicate that. And how far do you take that? There

> They were absolutely willing to operate the machinery. Smashing the machines was perhaps a poor way to communicate that. And how far do you take that? There have literally been union jobs where someone's shift consisted of doing nothing but pressing a button every now and then. That's a pointless waste of both human life and economic efficiency. Someone else in this thread wrote: > a Luddite opposes the automation of labor without a plan to support the displaced laborers ...which seems like a much more viable position, although perhaps not so popular in the US.