5 ms·

> The idea that we could just reject the technology feels kind of like a Luddite reaction to it. The luddites were a labor movement protesting how a new techno

> The idea that we could just reject the technology feels kind of like a Luddite reaction to it. The luddites were a labor movement protesting how a new technology was used by mill owners to attack collective worker power in exchange for producing a worse product. Their movement failed but they were right to fight it. The lesson we should take from them isn't to give up in the face of destabilizing technological change.

mouse_ 1y ago
Preach!
suthakamal 1y ago
They were wrong to believe that technological progress could be stopped. The viable path is policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed, not try to break the machines. That tactic has never and will never work.
- xg15 1y ago
  > The viable path is policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed, not try to break the machines. This was exactly what the historical Luddite movement was trying to archive. The industrialists responded with "lol no". Then came the breaking of machines.
- NegativeLatency 1y ago
  I don't want to start a snippy argument, so sorry if this sounds combative, but when you realize that there isn't a "policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed", then what would you suggest? Unionization and collective action does work, it's why we have things like the concept of the weekend. It's also generally useful when advocating change to have a more extreme faction.
  - suthakamal 1y ago
    ranked choice voting is a good start. The new york mayoral primary is a hopeful sign.
- zorked 1y ago
  But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jrflowers 1y ago
  This is a good point. When has breaking stuff and disrupting productivity as a form of protest ever worked? It’s not like battles are fought with violence. They are fought through people doing Policy in their heads, which sort of just naturally becomes Policy out in the world on its own.
  - suthakamal 1y ago
    I'm not saying protest doesn't work. I'm saying rejecting technology never has.
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      That isn’t what luddites did though. I wrote my earlier post quite a while after several other folks clearly and eloquently explained that in response to your post. I figured you would’ve been up to speed about tactics vs goals vis a vis the luddites by the time you got to that post
      - suthakamal 1y ago
        that their attempts to change policy didn't work doesn't mean that changing policy is the wrong objective, merely that their tactics failed.
- DrillShopper 1y ago
  > The viable path is policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed Okay, so where are those? Where are even the proposals for those? What would you propose? What do you think is fair distribution of these gains?
  - suthakamal 1y ago
    High taxes, and ranked choice voting. New York's mayoral primary is a hopeful sign to me.
shadowgovt 1y ago
> Their movement failed but they were right to fight it. The lesson we should take from them isn't to give up in the face of destabilizing technological change. Hard to say. They sort of represented the specialist class being undermined by technology de-specializing their skillset. This is in contrast to labor strikes and riots which were executed by unskilled labor finding solidarity to tell machine owners "your machine is neat but unless you meet our demands, you'll be running around trying to operate it alone." Luddites weren't unions; they were guilds. One was an attempt to maintain a status quo that was comfortable for some and kept products expensive, the other was a demand that given the convenience afforded by automation, the fruits of that convenience be diffused through everyone involved, not consolidated in the hands of the machine owners.

mouse_ 1y ago

Preach!

suthakamal 1y ago

They were wrong to believe that technological progress could be stopped. The viable path is policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed, not try to break the machines. That tactic has never and will never work.

xg15 1y ago
> The viable path is policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed, not try to break the machines. This was exactly what the historical Luddite movement was trying to archive. The industrialists responded with "lol no". Then came the breaking of machines.
NegativeLatency 1y ago
I don't want to start a snippy argument, so sorry if this sounds combative, but when you realize that there isn't a "policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed", then what would you suggest? Unionization and collective action does work, it's why we have things like the concept of the weekend. It's also generally useful when advocating change to have a more extreme faction.
- suthakamal 1y ago
  ranked choice voting is a good start. The new york mayoral primary is a hopeful sign.
zorked 1y ago
But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jrflowers 1y ago
This is a good point. When has breaking stuff and disrupting productivity as a form of protest ever worked? It’s not like battles are fought with violence. They are fought through people doing Policy in their heads, which sort of just naturally becomes Policy out in the world on its own.
- suthakamal 1y ago
  I'm not saying protest doesn't work. I'm saying rejecting technology never has.
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    That isn’t what luddites did though. I wrote my earlier post quite a while after several other folks clearly and eloquently explained that in response to your post. I figured you would’ve been up to speed about tactics vs goals vis a vis the luddites by the time you got to that post
    - suthakamal 1y ago
      that their attempts to change policy didn't work doesn't mean that changing policy is the wrong objective, merely that their tactics failed.
DrillShopper 1y ago
> The viable path is policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed Okay, so where are those? Where are even the proposals for those? What would you propose? What do you think is fair distribution of these gains?
- suthakamal 1y ago
  High taxes, and ranked choice voting. New York's mayoral primary is a hopeful sign to me.

shadowgovt 1y ago

> Their movement failed but they were right to fight it. The lesson we should take from them isn't to give up in the face of destabilizing technological change. Hard to say. They sort of represented the specialist class being undermined by technology de-specializing their skillset. This is in contrast to labor strikes and riots which were executed by unskilled labor finding solidarity to tell machine owners "your machine is neat but unless you meet our demands, you'll be running around trying to operate it alone." Luddites weren't unions; they were guilds. One was an attempt to maintain a status quo that was comfortable for some and kept products expensive, the other was a demand that given the convenience afforded by automation, the fruits of that convenience be diffused through everyone involved, not consolidated in the hands of the machine owners.