5 ms·
Cory Doctorow: Science Fiction Is a Luddite Literature
- pharmakom 5y agoA good piece. The author has clearly read The Difference Engine :)
- esarbe 5y agoSo, the Luddites were proto-socialists and not so much against machines as against capitalism?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- krageon 5y agoDemanding decency is not being against capitalism, just recognising that your wallet is less important than your neighbour.
- yetihehe 5y agoThey were against stealing wages by owners. It's separate from capitalism (but very often *isms lead to that anyway).
- esarbe 5y ago> stealing wages by owners Isn't that capitalism? Exploitation of labor by the owners of the means of production? To quote: > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
- yetihehe 5y agoIt's a non sequitur for me. Does it mean that because I have lots of tools in my garage (I own means of production) and I can create company which makes some furniture, that I do need to exploit workers?
- MWil 5y agoReading both your comments, the one way I'm interpreting is OP is saying "the true consequence of any capitalist system is..." and you're saying "capitalism doesn't necessarily include..." If it's not clear, I agree with OP. The complaint is valid because it's the "real world" consequence of applying the theory of capitalism. Not in 100% of cases but in the "it's inevitable to exist" fashion.
- yetihehe 5y agoI would like to see a real world social system which did not end with "owners exploiting workers" in some fashion. As I said, MOST "*isms" did end with some class of people being exploited, typically by those wealthier people. It looks like exploiting people to generate wealth for yourself is default state of social systems and capitalism is not a solution for that.
- MWil 5y agoA real world system of "all co-owners" would be my first guess but I will be honest I am not as educated on this overall topic as I would like
- esarbe 5y agoHave a look at what the Mondragon Corporation is doing.[0][1] This is an attempt at Syndicalism (sorry, another *ism). So you have (free) markets and you have exchange of labor for salary, but profit is reinvested and shared between the shareholders which are the workers of the cooperative. https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/[0] https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Cor...
- becquerel 5y agoMarxism argues that yes, if you aim to make a profit in that scenario, you can only do so by exploiting your workers.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Nasrudith 5y agoOnly if you accept the inherently emotionally manipulative absurd communist definition of "exploitation". To be frank its economic ideas can only be described as certifiably insane. If I buy a large log from you for $10 and burn it the deal is fair. If I pay someone $100 to carve it into a statue for display or burn it as an offering it is fair. If I sell that statue for $450 suddenly I am exploiting parasitic scum who harmed both lumberjack and sculptor.
- Nasrudith 5y agoEh more a relatively priveledged few selfishly demanding protection of the status quo at the expense of everybody else. What they fought for was the "right" to keep jobs from less skilled work and more expensive fabrics for everyone else. What precisely is the difference between the luddites and a price fixing cartel or an extortionist? Both make things more expensive for everyone else using the threat of violence against those who don't cooperate. The status of paupers also wasn't an issue until their own living was threatened by theirs improving slightly. Socialism would imply society as a whole (or at least whomever they consider "real people").