Post

If I remember correctly, they were *way* more dangerous to use too. Like "oops there goes your fingers" dangerous and they weren't getting paid more. Or "we need to clean out the scraps to keep it from jamming, let's send children under to clean the orphan crusher. No we're not turning it off."

I wasn't aware of this until I started reading Blood in the Machine. Luddites aren't opposed to progress, it's an opposition to the benefits of that progress being held by the few.

Sadly, as the term "Luddites" is being seen today, the capitalist reading of "anti-progress"-people has won and that should be both saddening as well as enraging. The rich have always tried to pin it on the others. Always.

Extremely relevant talk a pal gave recently on this topic: youtu.be/HXdSGF0cB5U

Also because the machines were doing worse work in the process!

And the products were lower quality. Also their defeat lead to starving workers and children without limbs in the short term, and to all of us pretending everything is automated while all of our goods get produced for poverty wages under horrible conditions out of our sight.

Because none else has posted this, I think I should: youtu.be/C7tQSRR0Ank?...

Hank Green was talking about this last week. Luddite weavers were a generation that was banking bank off spinning machines (cheaper yarn) but were then upset when automation came for them. So its also more nuanced.