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, 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!
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.
Christ, THIS old canard? This line hasn’t been in-vogue since the fucking 80s.
Oh, yes, that’s how economies work. There’s one actor, the owners, and everyone else just goes along with it.
Don’t worry, it’s quite clear that you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.
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?
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?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2596251
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.
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?
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.
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:
I didn’t say that. The Luddites were fighting for justice, among other things, but not just that.
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.
I’ve never said that, and I fully recognize that the Luddites weren’t necessarily of low income.
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.
I never said “income,” I said profit. There’s a key difference, and it’s in my original comment.
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.
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.
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 opposed motorized buses purely to protect their market share. One was a fight for justice; the other was just economic self-interest.”
This you?
Your entire OP, as well as subsequent comments, characterizes the Luddites as exploited workers fighting against oppression.
From the source I quoted (if you have a free JSTOR account, you can access it yourself)
And in relation to the more intense period of the Industrial Revolution
You literally didn’t say profit.
This is the comment I was responding to originally:
This is the next:
This is the OP, just for good measure:
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.
" while workers saw little benefit."
This you?
None of those are strawmen, given you responded to with affirmations of the positions I was critiquing.
Horse breeders were not being replaced by workers under brutal conditions. Massive difference there.
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”
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.
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.
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.
Like? Do I really need to explain that “no” and “little” are not synonymous? This is so silly!
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?
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.
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. "
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’?
Let me put it this way: there’s little point in continuing this conversation.