Deciding what I said before during and after I said it once again. I’m sorry to say this man as I once had a lot of respect for you, but telling people what they mean to say even as they constantly correct you is the epitome of bad faith. Blocked.

It is quite literally what you said.

However, this all changed with the full force of the Industrial Revolution, where these and other innovations were used to separate the laborer from their work. With the increased scale of machinery, labor became commodified. Machines were no longer designed to work with laborers but to replace them entirely.

When most people say “Deciding what I said”, they would mean “making something up that I didn’t say” not “quoting me”.

I’m sorry that you think reality changes depending on what you want at any given moment.

You can be anti-capitalist and pro-labor without needing to see the Luddites as anything except what they were - middle-class workers trying to defend their own handful of specialized jobs and firms exploiting familial rather than wage labor against the intrusion of more efficient processes during an economic downturn. It’s not propaganda to fail to read some kind of proto-class consciousness into it.

Exactly, and that’s the point I was making. The Industrial Revolution didn’t create alienation, but it intensified and mechanized it.

That’s the literal opposite of what you said and what the entire argument of your comment implies.

Horse breeders were not being replaced by workers under brutal conditions. Massive difference there.

1. 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.

2. 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?

3. 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.

By this, I assume you’re referring to technologies like spinning wheels, looms, and similar machinery, correct?

These early mechanizations were not inherently exploitative because they did not separate the laborer from the product of their work. For example, a worker using a loom or spinning wheel could complete a day’s work and earn wages that were roughly equivalent to the difference between the revenue from selling the product and the cost of materials. I believe similar principles applied to some early Industrial Revolution technologies, such as the spinning jenny or flying shuttle.

This isn’t true, though. Cottage industries very often worked on contract, and in fact one of the main demands of hand-loom weavers of the period (unlike the Luddites, who were largely specialists) was for parliamentary regulation of the wage they received, not regulation of selling or buying price or like demands that would reflect ownership of the produced goods.

However, this all changed with the full force of the Industrial Revolution, where these and other innovations were used to separate the laborer from their work. With the increased scale of machinery, labor became commodified. Machines were no longer designed to work with laborers but to replace them entirely.

Alienation in the Marxist sense had already taken place long before this.

important to clarify that child labor wasn’t the primary source of the Luddites’ opposition, but was certainly a part of the system they were trying to smash!

Textile cottage industry used copious amounts of unpaid child labor, and what’s more, working families of the period and region regularly would send their children into the mines to exploit their labor for the sake of a small increase in the family’s finances, so I doubt that was particularly part of the system they wanted to smash.

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?

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.

How is it based if it’s just competing firms using violence to attempt to eliminate more efficient methods of work?

The early mechanization wasn’t focused on exploiting workers—it was about improving productivity alongside them.

On what grounds can you possibly claim this?

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.

Not many realize how new this tech and type of mechanical exploitation was to those people, and how it was concentrated on simply extracting value from them.

… you do realize that the entire textile industry which the Luddites’ cottage-style industry was based on was, itself, formed on ‘mechanical exploitation’ almost a century old at that point, right?

… right…?

No, I mean exploited workers. The Industrial Revolution drove down wages for both skilled and unskilled laborers.

Christ, THIS old canard? This line hasn’t been in-vogue since the fucking 80s.

Factory owners took advantage of this by pocketing the “savings” from lower wages, while workers saw little benefit.

Oh, yes, that’s how economies work. There’s one actor, the owners, and everyone else just goes along with it.

If you’re unclear about what I mean, feel free to ask rather than assuming—thanks!

Don’t worry, it’s quite clear that you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.

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.

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?

Part of the problem is that the Luddites were not the same people who were working at the machines, by and large. They were in competition with the mills.

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.

‘Exploited workers’

By that, of course, you mean ‘undermined the system of cottage industry which had been monopolized by a relatively small group of semiskilled families which resented the influx of unskilled workers in the region’.

But hey, as long as it’s exploitation WITHIN the family, that’s better, right? And fuck those unskilled workers.

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

The Luddites were not some crusaders for justice. If you want to lionize them, at least get the fucking history right. They were acting in their economic self-interest.

they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods

Yep, in the same way that horse breeders opposed motorized busses and trolleys.

Just Marlboro as a randomly chosen racecar sponsor, I think.

ROW! ROW! ROW!

Explanation: Roman legionaries often were enthusiastic about going on campaign - campaigns meant plunder and opportunity to prove one’s valor and advance in the ranks! Only… some campaign destinations are more desirable than others.

Hispania, for some 300 years, was a bloody ulcer in Rome’s side. Rome exercised control over it, but only loosely, with Hispanian guerillas subjecting Roman troops to constant attrition, little glory, and, perhaps worst of all, no clear enemy to loot and enslave. How terrible! Yet all the same, Roman armies were (begrudgingly) sent into Hispania again and again and again to subdue it, each time emerging with little progress to show for it.

Explanation: Roman legionaries often were enthusiastic about going on campaign - campaigns meant plunder and opportunity to prove one’s valor and advance in the ranks! Only… some campaign destinations are more desirable than others.

Hispania, for some 300 years, was a bloody ulcer in Rome’s side. Rome exercised control over it, but only loosely, with Hispanian guerillas subjecting Roman troops to constant attrition, little glory, and, perhaps worst of all, no clear enemy to loot and enslave. How terrible! Yet all the same, Roman armies were (begrudgingly) sent into Hispania again and again and again to subdue it, each time emerging with little progress to show for it.