3 ms·

Sounds like someone didn't read the article. The actual story of the Luddites is super interesting, and they were fairly successful at staving off automation of

Sounds like someone didn't read the article. The actual story of the Luddites is super interesting, and they were fairly successful at staving off automation of their professions, until the state violently intervened - including executing some of the organizers.

Legend2440 3y ago
That was the right move from the state - especially since the luddites started the violence. Automation has made our lives so much easier and the common man so much wealthier. Imagine if we were still weaving our clothes by hand because master weavers in the 1800s were scared of losing their jobs.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  Smashing machines that threaten a large group of people's way of life isn't violence that I care about. Why do you care about it? Do you put yourself more in the position of the machine-owner than the machine operator? > Imagine if we were still weaving our clothes by hand because master weavers in the 1800s were scared of losing their jobs. Seems like that might have been a win-win-win. We would have high quality clothing. Weavers would have a high quality of life. Fast fashion, and it's unquantifiably massive environmental impact, wouldn't exist. Where's the downside?
rmah 3y ago
While I certainly don't condone the way the English state put down the Luddites, if it had not, it's quite possible that England would not have led the way in industrialization. And that spurred other nations to push too or be left behind. England changed radically during the 1800's as they pushed the industrial envelope.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  This is a bit of a misconception. The Luddites were not anti-technology, they were a workers rights movement. Many of them were machine operators who smashed machines to protest for better working conditions, pay, and apprenticeships. > Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. Moreover, the idea of smashing machines as a form of industrial protest did not begin or end with them. [edit] > One technology the Luddites commonly attacked was the stocking frame, a knitting machine first developed more than 200 years earlier by an Englishman named William Lee. I'm surprised this article continues to play into these misconceptions. [1] The government violently quashed a labor movement that chose to protest by breaking machines, not an anti-technology movement. Wasn't the first time, and certainly wasn't the last. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    From a parent post: they were fairly successful at staving off automation of their professions From your post: The Luddites were not anti-technology Both of these statements can't be true. Which one (if either) is correct?
    - namaria 3y ago
      You're conflating technology usage with automation in the service of the owning class, which are not the same thing.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        I'm in the US; we're not into the whole Marxist class-struggle thing. Technically, over half of us are in the "owner class" simply by contributing to a 401(k). One thing that people who log onto HN and advocate a class war never seem to understand is that they have far more to lose in such a "struggle" than they could ever gain. Our chains rest pretty lightly on our shoulders, all things considered.
        namaria 3y ago
        I have never read Marx and have no opinion about his works. Doesn't change the fact that owners of capital can use automation in detriment of workers and you are splitting hairs to avoid the point: Luddites were technology users who opposed automation being used at the expense of their jobs and your oversimplification doesn't hold water.
        CamperBob2 3y ago
        Their main mistake was thinking that anyone else gave a hoot about their jobs. What's actually best for society? Obviously allowing the Luddites to hold the industrial revolution at bay would not have been a long-term win. If you disagree, well, other sites beckon.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  Industrialization hasn't exactly been a clear win. The environmental toll is still something we're grappling with, it created a type of poverty that hadn't existed before, and it drove at least two world-scale wars. In other words: don't threaten me with a good time.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Industrialization hasn't exactly been a clear win. The sheer privilege you're flaunting... the sheer gall. Just wow. Do you put yourself more in the position of the machine-owner...? asks the person holding a teraflop-class computer in their hand, without a trace of irony.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      I didn’t ask for the world to be organized the way it is, I just live here. Does this device make my life better? Only in the sense that it helps me navigate the world that I live in better. In another world, this device would not be helpful nor desirable.
huytersd 3y ago
It sounds like you’re confirming the parents point.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kennywinker 3y ago
  That progress is inevitable? Idk, if progress was inevitable, why did organizers have to be executed to make progress happen?
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Progress is most certainly not "inevitable." It takes intelligence, creativity, and hard work to bring about. Sometimes people try to stop it for selfish reasons. Usually those people can be persuaded to back down peacefully, but sometimes they can't. In those cases, force is necessary. That's what government is for. The trick, of course, is to come up with a government that can be trusted to put down Luddite uprisings and the like without going full Soviet with progressive-sounding concepts like central planning, gulags, and collective farms. It all comes down to the problem of defining just what "progress" means. But in general, when a society can feed, clothe, and shelter more people with fewer resources, that's a good indication that things are moving in the right direction. And that's where technology comes in. Maybe there's a better way forward, but the Luddites were sure as fuck not going to find it.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      > But in general, when a society can feed, clothe, and shelter more people with fewer resources, that's a good indication that things are moving in the right direction. What does it mean when the a society CAN feed clothe and shelter everyone with ease, but chooses not to in favour of enriching a handful of people? Because that’s the world we live in, and it’s the one the luddites tried to prevent.
CamperBob2 3y ago
I don't need to read an article to tell me that it's stupid to stand in the way of human progress. Maybe you do. If so, other sites beckon. And as others have noted, it's well understood that the Luddites initiated the violence. That makes them the bad guys.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  Initiated the "violence" by smashing machines that threatened their way of life. That doesn't really fit my definition of violence, sorry.

Legend2440 3y ago

That was the right move from the state - especially since the luddites started the violence. Automation has made our lives so much easier and the common man so much wealthier. Imagine if we were still weaving our clothes by hand because master weavers in the 1800s were scared of losing their jobs.

kennywinker 3y ago
Smashing machines that threaten a large group of people's way of life isn't violence that I care about. Why do you care about it? Do you put yourself more in the position of the machine-owner than the machine operator? > Imagine if we were still weaving our clothes by hand because master weavers in the 1800s were scared of losing their jobs. Seems like that might have been a win-win-win. We would have high quality clothing. Weavers would have a high quality of life. Fast fashion, and it's unquantifiably massive environmental impact, wouldn't exist. Where's the downside?

rmah 3y ago

While I certainly don't condone the way the English state put down the Luddites, if it had not, it's quite possible that England would not have led the way in industrialization. And that spurred other nations to push too or be left behind. England changed radically during the 1800's as they pushed the industrial envelope.

arcticbull 3y ago
This is a bit of a misconception. The Luddites were not anti-technology, they were a workers rights movement. Many of them were machine operators who smashed machines to protest for better working conditions, pay, and apprenticeships. > Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. Moreover, the idea of smashing machines as a form of industrial protest did not begin or end with them. [edit] > One technology the Luddites commonly attacked was the stocking frame, a knitting machine first developed more than 200 years earlier by an Englishman named William Lee. I'm surprised this article continues to play into these misconceptions. [1] The government violently quashed a labor movement that chose to protest by breaking machines, not an anti-technology movement. Wasn't the first time, and certainly wasn't the last. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  From a parent post: they were fairly successful at staving off automation of their professions From your post: The Luddites were not anti-technology Both of these statements can't be true. Which one (if either) is correct?
  - namaria 3y ago
    You're conflating technology usage with automation in the service of the owning class, which are not the same thing.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      I'm in the US; we're not into the whole Marxist class-struggle thing. Technically, over half of us are in the "owner class" simply by contributing to a 401(k). One thing that people who log onto HN and advocate a class war never seem to understand is that they have far more to lose in such a "struggle" than they could ever gain. Our chains rest pretty lightly on our shoulders, all things considered.
      - namaria 3y ago
        I have never read Marx and have no opinion about his works. Doesn't change the fact that owners of capital can use automation in detriment of workers and you are splitting hairs to avoid the point: Luddites were technology users who opposed automation being used at the expense of their jobs and your oversimplification doesn't hold water.
        CamperBob2 3y ago
        Their main mistake was thinking that anyone else gave a hoot about their jobs. What's actually best for society? Obviously allowing the Luddites to hold the industrial revolution at bay would not have been a long-term win. If you disagree, well, other sites beckon.
kennywinker 3y ago
Industrialization hasn't exactly been a clear win. The environmental toll is still something we're grappling with, it created a type of poverty that hadn't existed before, and it drove at least two world-scale wars. In other words: don't threaten me with a good time.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Industrialization hasn't exactly been a clear win. The sheer privilege you're flaunting... the sheer gall. Just wow. Do you put yourself more in the position of the machine-owner...? asks the person holding a teraflop-class computer in their hand, without a trace of irony.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    I didn’t ask for the world to be organized the way it is, I just live here. Does this device make my life better? Only in the sense that it helps me navigate the world that I live in better. In another world, this device would not be helpful nor desirable.

huytersd 3y ago

It sounds like you’re confirming the parents point.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kennywinker 3y ago
That progress is inevitable? Idk, if progress was inevitable, why did organizers have to be executed to make progress happen?
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Progress is most certainly not "inevitable." It takes intelligence, creativity, and hard work to bring about. Sometimes people try to stop it for selfish reasons. Usually those people can be persuaded to back down peacefully, but sometimes they can't. In those cases, force is necessary. That's what government is for. The trick, of course, is to come up with a government that can be trusted to put down Luddite uprisings and the like without going full Soviet with progressive-sounding concepts like central planning, gulags, and collective farms. It all comes down to the problem of defining just what "progress" means. But in general, when a society can feed, clothe, and shelter more people with fewer resources, that's a good indication that things are moving in the right direction. And that's where technology comes in. Maybe there's a better way forward, but the Luddites were sure as fuck not going to find it.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    > But in general, when a society can feed, clothe, and shelter more people with fewer resources, that's a good indication that things are moving in the right direction. What does it mean when the a society CAN feed clothe and shelter everyone with ease, but chooses not to in favour of enriching a handful of people? Because that’s the world we live in, and it’s the one the luddites tried to prevent.

CamperBob2 3y ago

I don't need to read an article to tell me that it's stupid to stand in the way of human progress. Maybe you do. If so, other sites beckon. And as others have noted, it's well understood that the Luddites initiated the violence. That makes them the bad guys.

kennywinker 3y ago
Initiated the "violence" by smashing machines that threatened their way of life. That doesn't really fit my definition of violence, sorry.