The Luddites weren’t anti-technology—they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods and benefited factory owners at workers’ expense. Their resistance was a critique of the social and economic chaos caused by the Industrial Revolution. Over time, “Luddite” became an insult due to capitalist propaganda, dismissing their valid concerns about inequality and exploitation. Seen in context, they were early critics of unchecked capitalism and harmful technological change—issues still relevant today.
No, not the same way at all. The Luddites fought against machines that exploited workers and destroyed communities, targeting the systems of inequality behind them.
‘Exploited workers’
By that, of course, you mean ‘undermined the system of cottage industry which had been monopolized by a relatively small group of semiskilled families which resented the influx of unskilled workers in the region’.
But hey, as long as it’s exploitation WITHIN the family, that’s better, right? And fuck those unskilled workers.
Horse breeders opposed motorized buses purely to protect their market share. One was a fight for justice; the other was just economic self-interest.
The Luddites were not some crusaders for justice. If you want to lionize them, at least get the fucking history right. They were acting in their economic self-interest.
By that, of course, you mean…
No, I mean exploited workers. The Industrial Revolution drove down wages for both skilled and unskilled laborers. Factory owners took advantage of this by pocketing the “savings” from lower wages (edit: known as profit) while workers saw little benefit. If you’re unclear about what I mean, feel free to ask rather than assuming—thanks!
The Luddites were not some crusaders for justice. […] They were acting in their economic self-interest.
These two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Yes, the Luddites were fighting to protect their livelihoods, but their resistance also came from a legitimate concern about systemic injustice. Economic self-interest can align with justice, especially when the system is exploiting workers across the board.
No, I mean exploited workers. The Industrial Revolution drove down wages for both skilled and unskilled laborers.
Christ, THIS old canard? This line hasn’t been in-vogue since the fucking 80s.
Factory owners took advantage of this by pocketing the “savings” from lower wages, while workers saw little benefit.
Oh, yes, that’s how economies work. There’s one actor, the owners, and everyone else just goes along with it.
If you’re unclear about what I mean, feel free to ask rather than assuming—thanks!
Don’t worry, it’s quite clear that you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.
These two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Yes, the Luddites were fighting to protect their livelihoods, but their resistance also came from a legitimate concern about systemic injustice. Economic self-interest can align with justice, especially when the system is exploiting workers across the board.
Wealthy and poor manufacturers joining up to destroy new technology that will drive them out of business? Clearly a case of justice spiriting these fine folk to conveniently destroy their competition!
Or are you under the impression that the Luddites were all poor too?
Christ, THIS old canard? This line hasn’t been in-vogue since the fucking 80s.
Cite something proving me wrong? I am open to correction but I am having a legitimate discussion working off 100% of my economic knowledge here so I can’t just take your insults and magically become corrected.
You get really mean about these things for no reason, PugJesus. Why are you so violent with your words?
