6 ms·
> Today, the word “Luddite” is used as an insult to anyone resistant to technological innovation Interesting, I never thought of the term as pejorative. I alwa
by sakex 3y ago
> Today, the word “Luddite” is used as an insult to anyone resistant to technological innovation
Interesting, I never thought of the term as pejorative. I always thought of the movement as a kind of working-class heroes trying to navigate an uncertain future where rich people made them obsolete.
- heavyset_go 3y agoAlong with being skilled laborers, Luddites were also proprietors and small business owners.
- hef19898 3y agoBasically a cross section of the, to cite Marxx, non-capital owning class os citizens. Aka, the vast majority of us. Only difference today, parts the groups thatbmade uo the Luddites back then are now actively cheering in those developments. Change isbinevitable, and in the long run society usually benefits as whole. The transition period is the problem, and on that front we are making no progress what so ever right now.
- davidgoudet 3y agoIt's not pejorative for you if you are a liberal, for me it is pejorative, I see Luddites as people who damage important parts of production systems and threaten people's lives. I understand your point of view if you're from a first-world country and you never experienced the terror of having people interfering with the means of production.
- 0dayz 3y agoThat is not what the prejorative mean, I don't see the point in making this political.
- davidgoudet 3y agoEverything is political my friend.
- 0dayz 3y agoYes, but not everything needs to analyzed politically. Nor making a political assumption about someone.
- __loam 3y ago[flagged]
- davidgoudet 3y agoNothing to add, __loam's comment is very right.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoCan you write down your analysis of the preceding comments for the benefit of the passing reader?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwuwu 3y agoThe alternative is to oppose the political class that has been manipulating popular opinion for a hundred years now in order to maintain their positions of power. Our current form of representation, although it’s a joke to call it that now, has been obsolete for decades. Examine the principals upon which it’s based, they make no sense with modern communication technology.
- __loam 3y agoYou realize that this is all a political choice right?
- guax 3y agoIndeed. Lets leave politics out of a political labour movement.
- 0dayz 3y agoLuddites was the precursor to the labor movement, I never dispute this. It's the attempt made to label someone as "liberal" because they didn't know that Luddites was/is used as a pejorative, to someone who clearly has not stated they identify as such. Which is just absurd, like labeling someone as a supporter of imperialism because they didn't know that royal means "of having the status of a king or queen or a member of their family". Not only that but to then also indirectly insinuating this is because they are essentially too sheltered/spoiled to understand the value of goods. Specifically: >I understand your point of view if you're from a first-world country and you never experienced the terror of having people interfering with the means of production. Despite the original poster never stated something that would highlight such a point of view, beyond admitting not knowing the definition/use of a word.
- bbor 3y agoI don’t think “only rich people are worried about automation” is a very reasonable take. And the scale is a bit different - the luddites weren’t throwing the economy into disarray, they were trying to stop it from changing.
- davidgoudet 3y agoWho said only rich people are worried about automation? And about the second point, yeah, of course, the Unabomber was not trying to throw the economy into disarray...
- supertimor 3y agoYou keep mentioning the Unabomber. OP and the original article are talking about the original luddites, a group in the early 1800’s that fought back against poor working conditions (by destroying machinery, etc after discussion got them no where with their employers). The luddites were actually fine with the implementation of machines, and many of them were actually factory machinists themselves, they just wanted better pay and improved and safer working conditions. Not exactly sure what your point is regarding the unabomber (who is considered a neo-Luddite, not a traditional Luddite). Is it that movements and labels change over time? Because what the unabomber wanted vs what the luddites wanted (almost a full two centuries before the Unabomber), were completely different things. But even if we’re comparing the Luddite movement within their respective times, you’re taking an extreme example of a mentally ill domestic terrorist and conflating him with the entire Luddite movement, a movement that barely even exists in the 20th/21st century. Luddite is now used pretty casually to describe a technophobe or someone bad with technology. It doesn’t really describe a member of the Luddite movement anymore.
- softg 3y ago> understand your point of view if you're from a first-world country and you never experienced the terror of having people interfering with the means of production. Do you mean a strike? A very common event in many first-world countries like the US or France ?
- davidgoudet 3y agoNot a strike, damaging machines and planting bombs.
- mongol 3y agoThe Luddites of today throw paint on art and glue themselves to it, or to roads stopping traffic, to make some kind of point about wetlands.
- hef19898 3y agoYou don't understand either group.
- carlosjobim 3y agoI like these kind of different takes that makes me think, but this one left me a bit confused. Isn't salvation through new technology a main doctrine of the climate doomsday believers?
- softg 3y agoI'm not aware of a violent non-state actor that exclusively or primarily attacks the means of production instead of military personnel and regular civilian targets. Is there any?
- ycombinete 3y agoInsurgencies often employ such tactics. One example is the ANC's miliatry wing uMkhonto we Sizwe. They only targeted such infrastructure (power plants, transportation lines etc.) for almost a decade before any civilian/military attacks occurred.
- Muromec 3y ago> important parts of production systems and threaten people's lives Which is fair and proportional if people doing it got their own livelihood threatened by introduction of said systems. Especially in 19th century when not having a work to do meant not having food.
- davidgoudet 3y ago[flagged]
- tibbydudeza 3y agoWe all have our perspectives - from the top or the bottom and even the middle.
- dsego 3y agoIt all depends on who prevails. The american revolution would be viewed through a different lens if the British had won. The french resistance blowing up trains could be considered terrorist acts if ww2 ended differently.
- tibbydudeza 3y agoWhen you are a top dog in a system it is easy to say cute things like this.
- hef19898 3y agoIt is sometimes scary how long propaganda continues to work. In the case of the Luddites, ot was factory owners propaganda about, rightfully, discruntled workers opossing abuse and exploitation. In a sense, this propaganda win in England gave us the current oppossition to unions we see in the US and among corporations.
- __loam 3y agoIt's funny this guy was worried about the luddites hurting people when several luddites were ultimately gunned down.
- davidgoudet 3y agoYou people need to understand that the Unabomber was also a Luddite. Propaganda works in both ways.
- hef19898 3y agoNot to speak of all the injuries and fatalities happening in those factories day in day out. On top of all the other negative health effects from dust and such. But somehow the rich dudes in their villas, and especially their money, need protection.
- klik99 3y agoLuddites were very careful not to hurt any people (I think in one case they were cornered by defensive action, but that was clearly in self-defense), and they even only targeted specific machines they had problems with, leaving all other machines intact. But just the same I don't agree with their methods since any violence is easily co-opted to paint them as bad and ultimately hurts the goals they were trying to achieve.
- __loam 3y agoViolence certainly wasn't the first thing they tried here
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoNo It is pejorative in First World also. I'd say the dominant view is that it is pejorative . Really, all through collage and career, in the US for last 30 years. Calling someone a Luddite was an insult, someone that is standing in the way, not smart, desiring to just go live on a farm without any technology because it is all just too complicated. I've never heard the term used in a positive way. Not saying this is true of the actual Luddites, just how the term is used in the US.
- greenhearth 3y agoThe sense of the word "luddite" (I guess until this recent rethought) has always been pejorative, and has zero dependency on political ideology. Why even bring it into the conversation, unless you're trying to stir some shit up.
- birdyrooster 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- davidgoudet 3y ago[dead]
- pipes 3y agoPresumably you work in technology, yet you see destroying technology as heroic?
- dudefeliciano 3y agoDid you read the article? The whole point of it is about "rethinking the luddites" to understand them as pro workers rights (which would be nice to have more of in our field), rather than anti technology.
- diogenes4 3y agoIt's certainly used to describe certain reactionaries even if it doesn't make sense squared historically.
- dcgudeman 3y agoSeriously? You consider people who resist technological advancement "heros"? Do you not work in tech? Why are you on hacker news? I honestly don't understand the motivation of anti-technology people who frequent hacker news. It makes no sense to me.