4 ms·

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 ar

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.

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.