3 ms·

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.
    - namaria 3y ago
      You seem to be a very technically smart person. But it's not uncommon for people of high technical knowledge to assume that historical, sociological problems are ultimately technical and thus by analogy easily understood from their skill set point of view. It is also not uncommon for such people to think Luddite is a dirty word nominating ignorant laborers who tried to arrest progress. These people are wrong. History and sociology have a lot of irreducible complexity and analogies and systematization are usually misleading. There is a lot of literature linking Luddite movements with organized and progressive labor movement. As is " What's actually best for society?" > Luddites to hold the industrial revolution at bay They never tried to do such a thing. Rather, they made an effort to steer it in a way that would be more socially equitable, such as advocating for better coordination and communication between management and laborers, not unlike the system Germany - a very successful and technically advanced industrial power - has in place currently. Machine destruction was a last resort sort of action with a high correlation with suppression of other outlets for industrial action, such as strict enforcement of the legislation outright banning of any workers associations. > If you disagree, well, other sites beckon. This is plain false dichotomy. Equating disagreeing with you with being wrong is not very conducive of an open discussion and I think this kind of posturing has not place in a forum such as this one.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      Their movement was very popular at the time, which is why it was a threat to the ruling class, which is why they executed the organizers with extreme prejudice.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Communism and National Socialism were also very popular at various times. Should they have been permitted to flourish? "Vox populi, vox Dei" works great, right up until it doesn't.
        kennywinker 3y ago
        Seems like you’re saying that fascism is the antidote when the people go astray. National socialism is the result of the rest of europe impoverishing germany post ww1 - not the desires of a people left to flourish As for communism, that’s far to big a topic to crack open this deep in the comments.
Legend2440 3y ago
Automation is not in service of the owning class, it's in service of the consumer class - which includes both you and me. The primary beneficiary of machine looms is the people who can now afford to own 20 shirts instead of just one.
- namaria 3y ago
  Automation can be used in service of different groups. I specified.
- foinker 3y ago
  >Automation is not in service of the owning class, it's in service of the consumer class The primary beneficiary is the guy that can sell 2000 shirts instead of just 100. Anything that makes it easier for you to buy shit is not for your benefit. They are hoping you buy it because they've made it so easy for you to buy it, so just buy it! And I promise you they are not forwarding any of the profits from the additional output to their remaining laborers.

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.
  - namaria 3y ago
    You seem to be a very technically smart person. But it's not uncommon for people of high technical knowledge to assume that historical, sociological problems are ultimately technical and thus by analogy easily understood from their skill set point of view. It is also not uncommon for such people to think Luddite is a dirty word nominating ignorant laborers who tried to arrest progress. These people are wrong. History and sociology have a lot of irreducible complexity and analogies and systematization are usually misleading. There is a lot of literature linking Luddite movements with organized and progressive labor movement. As is " What's actually best for society?" > Luddites to hold the industrial revolution at bay They never tried to do such a thing. Rather, they made an effort to steer it in a way that would be more socially equitable, such as advocating for better coordination and communication between management and laborers, not unlike the system Germany - a very successful and technically advanced industrial power - has in place currently. Machine destruction was a last resort sort of action with a high correlation with suppression of other outlets for industrial action, such as strict enforcement of the legislation outright banning of any workers associations. > If you disagree, well, other sites beckon. This is plain false dichotomy. Equating disagreeing with you with being wrong is not very conducive of an open discussion and I think this kind of posturing has not place in a forum such as this one.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    Their movement was very popular at the time, which is why it was a threat to the ruling class, which is why they executed the organizers with extreme prejudice.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Communism and National Socialism were also very popular at various times. Should they have been permitted to flourish? "Vox populi, vox Dei" works great, right up until it doesn't.
      - kennywinker 3y ago
        Seems like you’re saying that fascism is the antidote when the people go astray. National socialism is the result of the rest of europe impoverishing germany post ww1 - not the desires of a people left to flourish As for communism, that’s far to big a topic to crack open this deep in the comments.

Legend2440 3y ago

Automation is not in service of the owning class, it's in service of the consumer class - which includes both you and me. The primary beneficiary of machine looms is the people who can now afford to own 20 shirts instead of just one.

namaria 3y ago
Automation can be used in service of different groups. I specified.
foinker 3y ago
>Automation is not in service of the owning class, it's in service of the consumer class The primary beneficiary is the guy that can sell 2000 shirts instead of just 100. Anything that makes it easier for you to buy shit is not for your benefit. They are hoping you buy it because they've made it so easy for you to buy it, so just buy it! And I promise you they are not forwarding any of the profits from the additional output to their remaining laborers.