4 ms·

I'm also tired of how market fundamentalists always keep comparing their opponents to the Luddites, as if the Luddites were irrational fools with eternal egg on

I'm also tired of how market fundamentalists always keep comparing their opponents to the Luddites, as if the Luddites were irrational fools with eternal egg on their face for their inability to see the blessings that technological advancement would bestow upon society. No, the Luddites actually lost their livelihoods in the early Industrial Revolution, and they would reap none of the eventual benefits of technological advancement. Their quality of life decreased suddenly and dramatically because they were replaced by technology. If you'd be told that some technology will make you obsolete and you will become a homeless pauper by next year, but it's ok: decades from now the improved technology will lead humanity towards a post-scarcity paradise; would you be ok with that?

CuriouslyC 4y ago
The luddites were fundamentally selfish. Imagine if workers in a business burned down a competing business so they didn't get laid off during a downturn - zero sympathy right?
- llamaimperative 4y ago
  Ah yes here selfishness is wrong. Everywhere else in capitalism it’s a sacred virtue.
- ookdatnog 4y ago
  My sympathy depends on context. In the society I live in, my sympathy would be very limited, as there is a social security system so these people will not go homeless or starve (though the experience will still be painful to them). In a society where there's no such system, I don't blame them at all. If someone is coming for the roof over your head and the sandwich you eat, it doesn't matter if they're doing it legally or illegally. You can't begrudge someone defending their own existence.
jhbadger 4y ago
If I really believed that my suffering would lead to a post-scarcity paradise, yes, I would (but I don't believe it). And this rhetoric isn't just from free-marketeers. On the left, that's also what motivated people to endure the insanity of Stalin's and Mao's regimes -- that all the suffering they endured was temporary and was for a higher purpose -- to achieve a utopia that always seemed just out of reach.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

The luddites were fundamentally selfish. Imagine if workers in a business burned down a competing business so they didn't get laid off during a downturn - zero sympathy right?

llamaimperative 4y ago
Ah yes here selfishness is wrong. Everywhere else in capitalism it’s a sacred virtue.
ookdatnog 4y ago
My sympathy depends on context. In the society I live in, my sympathy would be very limited, as there is a social security system so these people will not go homeless or starve (though the experience will still be painful to them). In a society where there's no such system, I don't blame them at all. If someone is coming for the roof over your head and the sandwich you eat, it doesn't matter if they're doing it legally or illegally. You can't begrudge someone defending their own existence.

jhbadger 4y ago

If I really believed that my suffering would lead to a post-scarcity paradise, yes, I would (but I don't believe it). And this rhetoric isn't just from free-marketeers. On the left, that's also what motivated people to endure the insanity of Stalin's and Mao's regimes -- that all the suffering they endured was temporary and was for a higher purpose -- to achieve a utopia that always seemed just out of reach.