5 ms·

The Luddites were not anti-technology per se. Rather, they were against an unequal distribution of that technology because it was destroying their community and

The Luddites were not anti-technology per se. Rather, they were against an unequal distribution of that technology because it was destroying their community and livelihood, precisely because that technology concentrated power in the hands of the capital class [1]. Given the rest of your comment, it seems the Luddites are your natural allies. Related HN discussion on [1] from 3 weeks ago: [2] [1]: https://archive.ph/ZUiC7 https://archive.ph/ZUiC7 ("Rethinking the Luddites," The New Yorker) [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37664682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37664682

aa1234556 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Karrot_Kream 3y ago
> Rather, they were against an unequal distribution of that technology because it was destroying their community and livelihood, precisely because that technology concentrated power in the hands of the capital class [1] I find discussions about the Luddites online to be deeply illustrative not of the Luddites themselves but of a person's political beliefs. The Luddites did indeed fight for their community and livelihood, but theirs came by dismantling another one. For hundreds of years prior the textiles trade was dominated by the Mughal Empire. British colonization in South Asia, fed by a multitude of factors including industrialization, dismantled the subcontinent's dominant position in the market and eventually catapulted British textile production to the world stage. This created the skilled textile jobs that were eventually mechanized and displaced. The Luddites then did not want to turn back the textile market fully back to a world dominated by South Asia but into the middle where they owned the means of production. Accelerationists view Luddites as obstructionists. Labor sympanthizers view Luddites as a movement for labor protections. The wider view of history paints a more subtle picture.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  > dismantled the subcontinent's dominant position in the market That doesn't happen until after the luddite's first appearance in ~1816 [1] > This created the skilled textile jobs that were eventually mechanized and displaced. No, The displacement is what the Luddites were railing against. Weavers had been highly paid, profitable and skilled occupation from the "dark ages" onwards. Technological advances meant that they were ruined almost overnight. The concept of high minded observations on empire are anachronistic embellishments[2]. The weavers just weaved, the merchants sourced the raw materials. the concept that the average weaver knew the conditions, circumstance, much less people that produced it is on very shaky ground. I suspect that given that the producers were Christian, much less protestant, would have meant that sympathy would have been limited. Given how xenophobic people were back then. The wool trade supplied wealth to large parts of the cotswolds, east anglia, the lowlands and other places. The weaver's guilds had a hand in various wars, revolutions and many other social developments between 1100 and at least 1500. [1] https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/25347/0000794.pdf?sequence=1 https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/2534... page 39, turning point is 1830 [2] https://www.marxists.org/history/england/combination-laws/ned-ludd-1812.htm https://www.marxists.org/history/england/combination-laws/ne... They are literally talking about powered frames, and nothing else.
  - helboi4 3y ago
    Thank you for debunking this. Even with my basic knowledge of history I was pretty sure this guy was far off mark.
    - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
      You're being juvenile. If you're going to cheer for a historical faction that you feel reflects your values and jeer their opponents, it's probably best to not have a "basic knowledge of history". Historical groups aren't sports teams.
      - helboi4 3y ago

aa1234556 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Karrot_Kream 3y ago

> Rather, they were against an unequal distribution of that technology because it was destroying their community and livelihood, precisely because that technology concentrated power in the hands of the capital class [1] I find discussions about the Luddites online to be deeply illustrative not of the Luddites themselves but of a person's political beliefs. The Luddites did indeed fight for their community and livelihood, but theirs came by dismantling another one. For hundreds of years prior the textiles trade was dominated by the Mughal Empire. British colonization in South Asia, fed by a multitude of factors including industrialization, dismantled the subcontinent's dominant position in the market and eventually catapulted British textile production to the world stage. This created the skilled textile jobs that were eventually mechanized and displaced. The Luddites then did not want to turn back the textile market fully back to a world dominated by South Asia but into the middle where they owned the means of production. Accelerationists view Luddites as obstructionists. Labor sympanthizers view Luddites as a movement for labor protections. The wider view of history paints a more subtle picture.

KaiserPro 3y ago
> dismantled the subcontinent's dominant position in the market That doesn't happen until after the luddite's first appearance in ~1816 [1] > This created the skilled textile jobs that were eventually mechanized and displaced. No, The displacement is what the Luddites were railing against. Weavers had been highly paid, profitable and skilled occupation from the "dark ages" onwards. Technological advances meant that they were ruined almost overnight. The concept of high minded observations on empire are anachronistic embellishments[2]. The weavers just weaved, the merchants sourced the raw materials. the concept that the average weaver knew the conditions, circumstance, much less people that produced it is on very shaky ground. I suspect that given that the producers were Christian, much less protestant, would have meant that sympathy would have been limited. Given how xenophobic people were back then. The wool trade supplied wealth to large parts of the cotswolds, east anglia, the lowlands and other places. The weaver's guilds had a hand in various wars, revolutions and many other social developments between 1100 and at least 1500. [1] https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/25347/0000794.pdf?sequence=1 https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/2534... page 39, turning point is 1830 [2] https://www.marxists.org/history/england/combination-laws/ned-ludd-1812.htm https://www.marxists.org/history/england/combination-laws/ne... They are literally talking about powered frames, and nothing else.
- helboi4 3y ago
  Thank you for debunking this. Even with my basic knowledge of history I was pretty sure this guy was far off mark.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    You're being juvenile. If you're going to cheer for a historical faction that you feel reflects your values and jeer their opponents, it's probably best to not have a "basic knowledge of history". Historical groups aren't sports teams.
    - helboi4 3y ago