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.
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.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2596251
You get really mean about these things for no reason, PigJesus. Why are you so violent with your words?
Why do you think it’s such a light thing to spread misinformation?
When people try to ply revisionist histories to suit their ideologies contrary to actual historical fact, but being easy to spread and create urban myths of, should I not be upset? Just piling on myth after myth - ‘Luddites were just working for justice! It’s nothing like horse breeders opposing motorized transport!’, ‘The Luddites were the poor workers against oppression!’, ‘The Industrial Revolution drove down wages for everyone!’, ‘Capitalists pocketed the income from the improvement of machinery while workers saw no benefit!’ My response is to give you a pat on the shoulder and a “Oh, shucks, you!”?
You can’t UNspread a rumor or an urban myth. Once it’s said, once it’s out there, people believe it. The damage is done. The response to this is not to treat such myths and rumors as a light thing, but as a serious thing.
Fuck’s sake. There are 150+ people, at minimum, now who’ve seen and probably taken the meme as fact, implying that the Luddites were fighting oppression. No more than a handful will read this far down into the comments. You’ve spread misinformation to 150+ people, some of whom will go on to spread this misinformation in their own lives. Only a few will ever be corrected.
It’s for this reason that there are constant historical myths that have to be fought in the public consciousness, and why they never fucking die. Because people don’t even think twice about parroting them, especially if it fits some piece of their worldview comfortably.
Sorry but fly on the wall. The link you posted I have read through and appears to actually discredit your assertion.
Thanks for sharing the link! I don’t have access to it through any institution, but if you have any quotes or key points, feel free to pass them along.
Why do you think it’s such a light thing to spread misinformation?
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?
Now, let’s address some of the points you’ve raised:
Luddites were just working for justice!
I didn’t say that. The Luddites were fighting for justice, among other things, but not just that.
It’s nothing like horse breeders opposing motorized transport!
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.
The Luddites were the poor workers against oppression!
I’ve never said that, and I fully recognize that the Luddites weren’t necessarily of low income.
The Industrial Revolution drove down wages for everyone!
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.
Capitalists pocketed the income
I never said “income,” I said profit. There’s a key difference, and it’s in my original comment.
While workers saw no benefit!
I never said workers saw no benefit. What I said was that workers faced lower wages and worse labor conditions.
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. It seems like you’re assuming what I’m saying before, during, and after I say it. This is why the conversation isn’t going productively. Some people call it “shadow boxing,” and it leads to misunderstandings.
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.
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?
Horse breeders were not being replaced by workers under brutal conditions. Massive difference there.
This you?
Yeah… thats me saying how they aren’t exactly the same. Do you think that me explaining one key difference means that I disagree with every other similarity? Like if I said “apples are red oranges are orange” you’re coming at me and saying “MISINFORMATION THEY ARE BOTH FRUITS”
Your entire OP, as well as subsequent comments, characterizes the Luddites as exploited workers fighting against oppression.
Agree to disagree. You are not reading right, and everyone else is understanding what I am saying. Again you have this loaded perception of what I am saying before during and after I actually say it.
From the source I quoted (if you have a free JSTOR account, you can access it yourself)
Thanks I will take this note. I still do think it’s worth noting the worsening labor conditions which cannot be denied, but I admit that I have an underexposed understanding of negative wage growth in this instance. My apologies.
You literally didn’t say profit.
Ugh another fault of mine. Here: “Factory owners took advantage of this by pocketing the “savings” from lower wages, while workers saw little benefit.” I misrecalled that I used the word profit but instead I used the colloquialism “savings.” The intent was the term profit and the rest of my position stands. My apologies.
And, while you’re at it, point out to me the distinction you apparently meant to make here “I never said workers saw no benefit. What I said was that workers faced lower wages and worse labor conditions.” VS “while workers saw little benefit." This you?
Like? Do I really need to explain that “no” and “little” are not synonymous? This is so silly!