6 ms·

I can't believe this is a full-throated, illustrated, pop-culture defense of luddism. Luddism is a caricature of an ideology, a thing you throw at opponents in

I can't believe this is a full-throated, illustrated, pop-culture defense of luddism. Luddism is a caricature of an ideology, a thing you throw at opponents in debate and they are forced to deny. You're not supposed to adopt it as your real, actual ideology lol. Is this a joke? Guess I'll need to find some clogs, sign me up General Ludd.

Legend2440 3y ago
It is frustrating and disappointing that neo-luddism is making a comeback. I had hoped people had gotten the message by now that automation improves our lives in uncountable ways.
testacpwoek 3y ago
> Luddism is a caricature of an ideology "Luddites [...] protested against manufacturers who used machines in "a fraudulent and deceitful manner" to replace the skilled labour of workers and drive down wages by producing inferior goods". 1 It's not an ideology and it's not anti-progress. Workers losing their jobs to automation was a problem then and is a problem now and we still haven't figured out a good way to deal with this problem. People are right to be concerned about the effects of automation, people are right to be upset when they lose their jobs, and masses of people losing their jobs is terrible and leads to other socio-economic issues. Dismissing those complaints and ignoring those issues because hey, who cares about people that aren't me, living where I don't, when number must go up, right? is the bad ideology here. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
- nickelpro 3y ago
  Replacing manual labor with automation is good, actually. Sewing machines put the weavers out of business yes, but more people get to wear shirts. I'm pro-shirts, anti-weavers. Preventing such replacement is definitionally anti-progress
  - testacpwoek 3y ago
    >Preventing such replacement is definitionally anti-progress You can have automation while also ensuring that people do not lose their livelihoods. It's not anti-progress to say that automation must not come at the expense of the lives of the people it is replacing. This wilful misrepresentation of Luddites was bad then, and it's bad now.
    - nickelpro 3y ago
      > It's not anti-progress to say that automation must not come at the expense of the lives of the people it is replacing. Yes it is, we shouldn't deny 10000 people shirts or cars or fresh bread to save 100 jobs, but that's almost besides the point. This piece is arguing a far more straightforward and hilarious version of Luddism than you are. The piece argues that military drones and homeless-harassing robotics are bad not because of their nature, but because they are taking human jobs. It advocates for "restriction of automation to only the most dangerous forms of work" (hope you like churning your own butter). It is such a ridiculous piece of work that it almost seems like a false flag, a piece intentionally made to portray "moderate" luddism like the degrowth people (already extremists) seem even more insane than they already are.
      - testacpwoek 3y ago
        >Yes it is, we shouldn't deny 10000 people shirts or cars or fresh bread to save 100 jobs That's not what I said. I said that if we want automation, we must also have a system to keep the people it's replacing able to earn a living. That could be many things. Excess profit from automation could be paid to the people that it's replacing, and that's just the first thing that popped into my head. > but that's almost besides the point. The point was Luddites are not a caricature of an ideology, and their concerns and the issues they faced still exist today. We can have progress and still not mass-unemploy entire groups of people, but that comes at a cost to people in power, which is why we don't do it, and why labor movements historically have been met with violence by the state. HN is very quick to dismiss automation concerns because we're the ones building the automation, but there's no reason it won't come for us eventually, too. We're not the ones that own the factories, after all, we're just assembling them. As for the rest, yeah it doesn't seem like the author has a good grasp on anything lol, it even says that Ned Ludd was their leader, and a real person. Way to lose credibility in a single panel. I just always have to point out that Luddites were a LABOR movement, primarily, and not an anti-progress or anti-technology movement. There is zero reason for workers to suffer as progress happens, other than greed.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> You're not supposed to adopt it as your real, actual ideology lol. Is this a joke? It's called "fatal strategies". See philosopher Rick Roderick [0,1] or read the less accessible original from Jean Baudrillard [2,3] Example (Roderick's): Coordinate to conspicuously not protest or vote on something that is objectively outrageous. The tyrants will be forced to stuff ballots with fake opposition so as not to make corruption obvious. For example 100% election victory by North Korean dictator etc. Another example: Gay, queer culture adopting those words with pride and wearing them as a "weaponised" badge of honour. Embracing being a Luddite is a way to defuse and neutralise the term. It's a bit of a "verbal judo" move. If you call me a "Luddite" (I'm a rationally sceptical computer scientist who thinks worship of technology is cultist) then I can either: - take the offence and get into a protracted argument about how the Luddites were really this or that... - say "Sure I am a Luddite". So what...? The latter does a lot more subtle work against the known disingenuous interlocutor. It reveals absurdity. It subtracts power from the term. It asks the opponent to show she actually _knows_ what a Luddite is. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c [1] http://rickroderick.org/308-baudrillard-fatal-strategies-1993/ http://rickroderick.org/308-baudrillard-fatal-strategies-199... [2] https://archive.org/details/baudrillard-fatal-strategies https://archive.org/details/baudrillard-fatal-strategies [3] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780936756509/fatal-strategies/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780936756509/fatal-strategies/
- nickelpro 3y ago
  Sure, as a debate strategy doing the "Yes" meme is interesting, but only if you mean to gain something by it. When the Republicans call Bernie a socialist, and Bernie says, "yes, and?" that's because Bernie is a socialist, and he's defusing the nature of the charge. Socialism is a valid, defensible position. Being gay is valid. Opposing a North Korean dictatorship is valid. If I call you a luddite, and you say "yes", then I say "great you're a crazy person, bring in the men with the white coats." You didn't win anything, luddism isn't defensible. Arguing that we should regress to a agrarian society with a "restriction of automation to only the most dangerous forms of work" isn't sane or defensible or interesting, it's just crazy person talk.
  - 3y ago

Legend2440 3y ago

It is frustrating and disappointing that neo-luddism is making a comeback. I had hoped people had gotten the message by now that automation improves our lives in uncountable ways.

testacpwoek 3y ago

> Luddism is a caricature of an ideology "Luddites [...] protested against manufacturers who used machines in "a fraudulent and deceitful manner" to replace the skilled labour of workers and drive down wages by producing inferior goods". 1 It's not an ideology and it's not anti-progress. Workers losing their jobs to automation was a problem then and is a problem now and we still haven't figured out a good way to deal with this problem. People are right to be concerned about the effects of automation, people are right to be upset when they lose their jobs, and masses of people losing their jobs is terrible and leads to other socio-economic issues. Dismissing those complaints and ignoring those issues because hey, who cares about people that aren't me, living where I don't, when number must go up, right? is the bad ideology here. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

nickelpro 3y ago
Replacing manual labor with automation is good, actually. Sewing machines put the weavers out of business yes, but more people get to wear shirts. I'm pro-shirts, anti-weavers. Preventing such replacement is definitionally anti-progress
- testacpwoek 3y ago
  >Preventing such replacement is definitionally anti-progress You can have automation while also ensuring that people do not lose their livelihoods. It's not anti-progress to say that automation must not come at the expense of the lives of the people it is replacing. This wilful misrepresentation of Luddites was bad then, and it's bad now.
  - nickelpro 3y ago
    > It's not anti-progress to say that automation must not come at the expense of the lives of the people it is replacing. Yes it is, we shouldn't deny 10000 people shirts or cars or fresh bread to save 100 jobs, but that's almost besides the point. This piece is arguing a far more straightforward and hilarious version of Luddism than you are. The piece argues that military drones and homeless-harassing robotics are bad not because of their nature, but because they are taking human jobs. It advocates for "restriction of automation to only the most dangerous forms of work" (hope you like churning your own butter). It is such a ridiculous piece of work that it almost seems like a false flag, a piece intentionally made to portray "moderate" luddism like the degrowth people (already extremists) seem even more insane than they already are.
    - testacpwoek 3y ago
      >Yes it is, we shouldn't deny 10000 people shirts or cars or fresh bread to save 100 jobs That's not what I said. I said that if we want automation, we must also have a system to keep the people it's replacing able to earn a living. That could be many things. Excess profit from automation could be paid to the people that it's replacing, and that's just the first thing that popped into my head. > but that's almost besides the point. The point was Luddites are not a caricature of an ideology, and their concerns and the issues they faced still exist today. We can have progress and still not mass-unemploy entire groups of people, but that comes at a cost to people in power, which is why we don't do it, and why labor movements historically have been met with violence by the state. HN is very quick to dismiss automation concerns because we're the ones building the automation, but there's no reason it won't come for us eventually, too. We're not the ones that own the factories, after all, we're just assembling them. As for the rest, yeah it doesn't seem like the author has a good grasp on anything lol, it even says that Ned Ludd was their leader, and a real person. Way to lose credibility in a single panel. I just always have to point out that Luddites were a LABOR movement, primarily, and not an anti-progress or anti-technology movement. There is zero reason for workers to suffer as progress happens, other than greed.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> You're not supposed to adopt it as your real, actual ideology lol. Is this a joke? It's called "fatal strategies". See philosopher Rick Roderick [0,1] or read the less accessible original from Jean Baudrillard [2,3] Example (Roderick's): Coordinate to conspicuously not protest or vote on something that is objectively outrageous. The tyrants will be forced to stuff ballots with fake opposition so as not to make corruption obvious. For example 100% election victory by North Korean dictator etc. Another example: Gay, queer culture adopting those words with pride and wearing them as a "weaponised" badge of honour. Embracing being a Luddite is a way to defuse and neutralise the term. It's a bit of a "verbal judo" move. If you call me a "Luddite" (I'm a rationally sceptical computer scientist who thinks worship of technology is cultist) then I can either: - take the offence and get into a protracted argument about how the Luddites were really this or that... - say "Sure I am a Luddite". So what...? The latter does a lot more subtle work against the known disingenuous interlocutor. It reveals absurdity. It subtracts power from the term. It asks the opponent to show she actually _knows_ what a Luddite is. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c [1] http://rickroderick.org/308-baudrillard-fatal-strategies-1993/ http://rickroderick.org/308-baudrillard-fatal-strategies-199... [2] https://archive.org/details/baudrillard-fatal-strategies https://archive.org/details/baudrillard-fatal-strategies [3] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780936756509/fatal-strategies/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780936756509/fatal-strategies/

nickelpro 3y ago
Sure, as a debate strategy doing the "Yes" meme is interesting, but only if you mean to gain something by it. When the Republicans call Bernie a socialist, and Bernie says, "yes, and?" that's because Bernie is a socialist, and he's defusing the nature of the charge. Socialism is a valid, defensible position. Being gay is valid. Opposing a North Korean dictatorship is valid. If I call you a luddite, and you say "yes", then I say "great you're a crazy person, bring in the men with the white coats." You didn't win anything, luddism isn't defensible. Arguing that we should regress to a agrarian society with a "restriction of automation to only the most dangerous forms of work" isn't sane or defensible or interesting, it's just crazy person talk.
- 3y ago