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.
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!
Horse breeders were not being replaced by workers under brutal conditions. Massive difference there.
-
Cottage industry was not some sweet and pleasant labor out of someone’s arcadian fantasy; there is academic debate over whether working conditions were worse than in early factories.
-
What do you think horse breeders were replaced by? Where do you think motorized machines are made? Where is each piece in the production chain made?
-
If horse breeders were being replaced by workers under brutal conditions (see 2), then would you equate them with Luddites as well?
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”
When you highlight a difference relevant to the argument, then throw a fit over being called out on the implications of that difference by claiming that you didn’t deny (unmentioned and irrelevant to the argument) similarities, that’s nothing but an attempt to avoid addressing the actual refutation.
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.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Me: “Your entire OP, as well as subsequent comments, characterizes the Luddites as exploited workers fighting against oppression.”
You: “they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods and benefited factory owners at workers’ expense.”
Also you: "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. "
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 how does that contradict the characterization of your argument as ‘Capitalists pocketed the income from the improvement of machinery while workers saw no benefit!’, which you objected to as a ‘straw man’?
Like? Do I really need to explain that “no” and “little” are not synonymous? This is so silly!
Let me put it this way: there’s little point in continuing this conversation.
