I don’t think it’s light, but when I counter misinformation, I try to stay calm and avoid getting personal. Why do you seem so upset when we disagree on an innocuous historical point? Who am I hurting by being wrong here?

Who are you hurting by spreading misinformation for ideological mythmaking?

Is that really where we’re at?

Fuck’s sake, there are easier ways to lionize labor, which is a noble cause, than distorting history.

I didn’t say that. The Luddites were fighting for justice, among other things, but not just that.

And what makes the Luddite struggle for justice, but the struggle of horse breeders not? Why are the horse breeders exempted from justice in their struggle, but the Luddites lionized?

I didn’t say they were nothing alike, I said they weren’t exactly the same. I explained how the Luddites’ resistance was different, mainly due to the exploitation involved.

“Horse breeders opposed motorized buses purely to protect their market share. One was a fight for justice; the other was just economic self-interest.”

This you?

I’ve never said that, and I fully recognize that the Luddites weren’t necessarily of low income.

Your entire OP, as well as subsequent comments, characterizes the Luddites as exploited workers fighting against oppression.

I said it drove down wages for both skilled and unskilled workers in fields affected by industrialization. I’m open to correction if that’s inaccurate.

From the source I quoted (if you have a free JSTOR account, you can access it yourself)

In table 5 and on figure 2 general labourers’ wages rates in north Staffordshire are shown, adjusted to take account of the movements in the local cost of living. The general impression is of a moderate long-term upward trend punctuated by considerable short-term fluctuations: between I75I-5 and I788-92 real wages rose by I8 per cent.

And in relation to the more intense period of the Industrial Revolution

real wages . . . nearly doubled between 1820 and 1850

I never said “income,” I said profit. There’s a key difference, and it’s in my original comment.

You literally didn’t say profit.

This is the comment I was responding to originally:

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. Horse breeders opposed motorized buses purely to protect their market share. One was a fight for justice; the other was just economic self-interest.

This is the next:

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, while workers saw little benefit. If you’re unclear about what I mean, feel free to ask rather than assuming—thanks!

This is the OP, just for good measure:

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.

Where did you say ‘profit’?

Please, point it out to me.

And, while you’re at it, point out to me the distinction you apparently meant to make here that would render my characterization of your position as untrue.

I never said workers saw no benefit. What I said was that workers faced lower wages and worse labor conditions.

" while workers saw little benefit."

This you?

So that’s… six straw men in a single comment. One misrepresentation happens, sure, but none of the words you put in my mouth are things I would ever say.

None of those are strawmen, given you responded to with affirmations of the positions I was critiquing.

Genuinely would love to hear more if you have the expertise/time? I’m not that great with economics and I don’t have a jstor account sadly but I have always understood that industrialization served to depress wages and so was surprised by PugJesus’ counterclaim.

How does it discredit my assertion when it clearly expresses an upward trend in real wages in both the early and middle Industrial Revolution in England?