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.
This one again? Luddites opposed technological progress from a very naive position, and their stance had nothing to do with subverting capitalist exploitation and was literally just braindead conservative “no change allowed” nonsense.
These memes don’t make sense. As if AES countries refused to build out automation tech so that every tradesman could keep their father’s job. It was the exact opposite - a movemt like the Luddites in the USSR would have been unceremoniously squashed as counter-revolutionary, just the same.
I said “based” not “perfect in every single motive and tactic.” Marx didn’t totally rock with the Luddites himself, but he does express an understanding that the Luddites actions were a primitive and instinctive form of class struggle. This user explains it well:
Marx was right about the luddites. The first phase of the development of working clas consciousness is destroying the machines that impoverish the workers. It is not the last phase.
I mean if you are taking a Marxist lens then not really. Opposing technological progress because it makes your current job obsolete would be seen as pretty much the same kind of brain dead effort it is through a capitalist lens. At best it would be seen as a huge missed opportunity to put that effort into actual syndicalism instead of the public relations nightmare they chose.
We literally referenced Marx right there, so yes really haha. (I just edited my comment so the quote is more accessible.)
To further break it down, while Marx did not romanticize the Luddites (nor do I), he saw their actions as an understandable and early form of class struggle (as do I).
I really got a bad taste in my soul about the luddites mostly because of Wendell Berry and his use of his wife as the replacement for a computer. I mean, sure if you are willing to exploit people, machines are less important. But he didn’t even type his own work. She typed, proofread, edited. Like a word processor but a human one.
Just learned of this guy now, but yeah. If the originalist Luddites were doing the right thing for the wrong reason, Berry here is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
Eh, their motivations were certainly understandable and their grievances valid, but their way of dealing with those grievances very flawed in my view. Producing more stuff with less labor, and allowing production to be done with less requisite training first, aren’t bad things in of themselves, they increase the potential wealth available to society at large in increasing the total output the labor pool can create (though this may not seem so apparent if that technology and associated wealth is hoarded by a few, as has and continues to be the case).
The issue was less the machines themselves and more that the wealth generated by them was not distributed equitably, trying to solve this by being rid of the automation tech is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though it is understandable how that stuff would become the target of people’s frustrations.
In short: the Luddites were wrong to oppose new technology, but right to oppose the surplus value created by that technology being captured entirely by the capitalist class.
They were also opposed to the machines being run by unskilled labor and children. The same children that died and maimed running the machines. The children died in such masses that they had them buried in mass graves away from the factory. There is a lot to this story and not just one thing.
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/blood-in-the-machine/ This is worth a listen if you would like to hear more about the Luddite movement.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!! huge and important facts, ty for sharing!
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.
yes 👍
It’s honestly a bit cringe how these memes always need to pull some kind of capitalist Boogeyman into the narrative where it doesn’t belong.
Marx’s entire theory of history is built in the inevitability of technological progress, and how it shapes economic and social systems. From a Marxist lens, opposing such progress is pissing into the wind. It’s worse than being an actual aristocrat in many ways, because it actively harms the progression towards the post scarcity utopia where surplus labor has no value to exploit.
There’s a reason why the USSR and China formed their entire revisionist theory around rapid industrialization to compete with more advanced capitalist societies.
Exactly.
This wouldn’t be a problem if average workers were compensated, in part, with shares of the business. When automation comes and takes your job, you lose the hourly portion of your pay. But the shares you own suddenly start paying more.
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.
Yep! I think this is totally a fair criticism /gen
Nowhere will you find me saying the Luddites were the perfect example of labor relations. :) As my post says, “pretty based” is about all I will allow.
How is it based if it’s just competing firms using violence to attempt to eliminate more efficient methods of work?
It’s probably based because it’s labor sabotaging the exploitation and maiming of cheap unskilled labor by the uncaring capital class.
One could argue that the unceasing quest for ever more efficient production methods is the direct cause of a lot of the ills of our modern society along with the benefits it brought.
Automation hasn’t shown a marked difference in employment, scaling up means more productivity.
a reasonable critique especially compared to the propaganda passed down to us. :) to me it really makes sense to want to destroy the exploitation machines the exploitation boss made to exploit. did it work? obviously not, lol, but the heart was in the right place and i am tired of these poor souls getting trashed ya know? it doesn’t sit well with me to have these folks’ legacy become an insult.
Yeah, and we still haven’t learned the lesson. We have people today attacking AI technology rather than the way it’s being used to funnel wealth inequitably.
It actually helps the wealthy capitalists, because they can use that sentiment to promote regulations that will entrench their positions.
What does AI technology do for society that is comparable to textile machines? Write your 3-paragraph essay for you?
i think we are certainly doing slightly better than the luddites. i see a ton of conversations about how artwork and texts are stolen, and the insane energy/water usage AI uses. those come with calls to ethically accquire training materials and to regulate eco efficiency. that’s certainly more specific than the worst possible public response of something like “ban neural networks” or something haha
Of course that’s what you see - those ideas have been planted. That’s exactly what they want, they want regulations to prevent just anyone from getting into it and making use of the technology.
OpenAI whining about not being able to make money if they can’t use the training data? That’s Brer
FoxRabbit crying “please don’t throw me into the briar patch, anything but that!” because if such regulations happen they’ll pay a fine or something and then…nobody new can compete with the established parties. They absolutely love to use regulations to pull the ladder up behind themselves so they can’t be competed with.If anything I wonder if all the weird shit they’re pushing is just to stoke anti AI sentiment so they can get these regulations passed.
This isn’t about fees; that’s an unhelpful subversion of the conversations. OpenAI should pay every artist and copyright holder in full for the information they stole. That’s billions of dollars. They should be made unprofitable, or to use your example, Brer Rabbit should be shot.
I do think you have good insight in your last paragraph, though, but that is certainly a separate discussion from ethical training material.
Hang on, I haven’t learned the lesson yet either. I don’t know that antibiotics, air conditioning, and Novocain (the three inventions I value most) are actually worth the destruction of our environment that came with advanced technology. For me, they’ve paid off, and for my parents’ generation, there were very few bad side effects. For the next five generations, I think it’s going to be a different calculus.
Isn’t that just a matter of opinion?
Non meme version: What the Luddites can teach us about resisting an automated future. - comic format.
sample:
Something people need to understand is that technology is not a linear progression. We decide not only how it is used and for what purpose, but the actual thing itself. The technology itself can be thought in terms of conviviality, ie how adaptive it is to human intent. Chomsky points to CNC machines; how when they were developed they were done so with top down control in mind. Contrast that with how 3D printers have a trend of supporting more autonomy on the shop floor (print from computer over wifi or plug in a USB stick). While CNC machines of old have practically no thought for such things beyond safety and accuracy.
Do you have the citation for the Chomsky reference? Would love to get a better handle on these concepts.
“Understanding Power”, p260 he talks of luddites specifically. And p258 “Automation” section is where he gets into “automated numerical control” and how it reflects a certain power structure.
Dankeschön 😎
One more link: where I discovered the term conviviality was a video from andrewism “we need to be more tech critical”: https://youtu.be/lV6JzroVr48
Interesting word. OED has Conviviality is a noun derived from the adjective convivial, meaning friendly and sociable. It means the quality of being convivial or the state of enjoying each other’s company.
Wikipedia has Conviviality is a term that refers to the ability of individuals to interact creatively and autonomously with others and their environment. It was introduced by Ivan Illich as a contrast to industrial productivity and alienation, and has been used in various contexts and disciplines to explore the politics and culture of living with difference.
andrewism has Conviviality is individual freedom realised in mutual interdependence. Which I find a succinct representation, fascinating how words, and with them thought patterns (or the other way around) evolve, I’ll be adding this to the quiver, thanks.
It’s like if “we” start producing androids for slave labour - if only factory owners benefit from it then what is the point?
It’s only worth it if all society benefits from it.
Technically correct but language and meaning change over time based on how we use it. Doing something “on accident” is grammatically incorrect, bimbo is a masculine term (bimbette is the feminine and himbo shouldn’t exist) and literally isn’t a synonym of figuratively, except when it is. Now luddite means techno-smuggle whether we like it or not.
totally valid perspective to take on the matter. i can do my little piece to combat that but in the end i am just a droplet among the waves.
Machines were the weapons employed by the capitalist to quell the revolt of specialized labor. – Karl Marx
Yep, before industrialisation you had powerful guilds that would hold monopolies over production of certain goods and we’re basically unions before the fact.
Damn, lots of propaganda-swallowers in the comments.
Can I suggest yall listen to some pods about the Luddites and make up your own mind?
You may come to the conclusion it’s time to bring Ludd’s hammer to a data center near you.
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.
the luddites then have basically the same argument as coal miners now - it’s entirely about loss of their livelihood, and ignores the bigger societal good that comes from the changes that result in the loss of their livelihood
from the luddites and the coal miners perspective, it’s entirely self-serving and everything else is just used to support that
There’s something of a myth of a “model demographic” that I think is being misapplied by those “falling for the propaganda.” Of course, it’s a meme, but when I refer to certain groups or individuals in a positive light, I don’t mean to imply they were ethically perfect or without flaws. What I mean is that they were actively challenging the systems that needed to be challenged. In that sense, the praise is about their resistance to a deeply exploitative system, not an endorsement of every action or belief they held.
For example, many view Malcolm X positively—not because he was without contradictions, but because he challenged oppressive systems and presented a radical alternative. Similarly, someone like Luigi Mangione might be admired for resisting corporate or state control in his own way, even though the context is different.
Marx was right about the luddites. The first phase of the development of working clas consciousness is destroying the machines that impoverish the workers. It is not the last phase.
Part of the broader struggle, but not the endpoint of the struggle.
Proto-based—not yet fully based—, yet necessary for absolute based-ness to come to fruition.
They were both actually: tech haters and system critics.
When huge majority of
technology at the timeindustrial technology was designed to drive wages down, yeah, people are going to become industrial “tech haters.”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.
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…?
Yeah, exactly! The early mechanization wasn’t focused on exploiting workers—it was about improving productivity alongside them. This contrasts sharply with the mechanized exploitation of the Industrial Revolution, where the focus shifted to reducing labor costs and extracting value from workers.
The early mechanization wasn’t focused on exploiting workers—it was about improving productivity alongside them.
On what grounds can you possibly claim this?
Formed on ‘mechanical exploitation’ almost a century old at that point, right?
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, (edit: ideally) 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. (edit: This doesn’t mean that the laborer wasn’t being exploited at all, only that the mechanical innovations were not leading the exploitation).
However, this all changed with the full force of the Industrial Revolution, where these and other innovations were used (in addition to already existing forces in the field) to separate the laborer from their work. (edit: Innovations did not begin this separation, only amplified the scale.) With the increased scale of machinery, labor became (further) commodified. Machines were no longer designed to work with laborers but to replace them entirely.
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.
This isn’t true, though.
I wasn’t saying the mechanizations weren’t part of an exploitative system. What I meant is that the machines themselves weren’t designed to exploit, but the exploitation came from the broader structure of cottage industries and the contract-based work. I wasn’t claiming labor alienation started with the Industrial Revolution—just that it became more mechanized with the rise of factories. (I will edit my above comment to clarify the confusion.)
Alienation in the Marxist sense had already taken place long before this.
Exactly, and that’s the point I was making. The Industrial Revolution didn’t create alienation, but it intensified and mechanized it.
Originalist luddite, not troglodyte.
What did I do to you?
Nothing when you don’t have internet access in the cave.
real
Thanks for this. More incite:
Marx’s point against the Luddites is well meant; but there’s a sense, too, in which he underestimated the Luddites’ anti-capitalist stance, giving short-shrift to their ties to nascent trade unionism and to the growing workers’ underground. Arguably, the Luddites offered a way into attacking not just the material instruments of production but also the form of society that utilised them. To that degree, their agitation and activism remains instructive, maybe even inspiring, in our own abrasively technocratic and technological age.
I wonder what the artist, script writers and a litterny of other skilled workers will be called after the anti ai revolution…
They’ll be called artists, script writers, and their other respected titles. The market value of any AI art is zero, as its supply is effectively infinite. If a piece can be churned out for a few pennies of electricity, then the market value of that piece is just a few pennies. Inevitably, the kind of art that can be produced by AI models will, and already is, regarded as cheap worthless schlock. Human artists will instead focus on those things that AI can’t mass produce, and those will retain value.
The market value of any product or service produced by an AI algorithm is zero.
This is completely missing the point that many artists have already lost their jobs because companies are increasingly using AI for their graphic designs.
Yeah. I upvoted WoodScientist because they are technically right. But in a real economy? There isn’t a significant enough of a demand for human creativity and so it plays out completely opposed to what they were saying.
Which makes me worried because our current type of AI can’t innovate, sure some future one could but it would be a completely different system and at present most companies seem content to simply throw ever more computing power into training our current fundementally flawed method. In the meantime Art may end up stagnating as human artists are driven out of commercial spaces and hobbyist artists are increasingly worried about getting scraped.
I’m curious about the data behind this statement. I can’t imagine that a company replacing artists with pure AI was ever actually hiring good artists in the first place. I’d think any company that’s ok with the quality coming straight from AI was paying for similar quality stuff from cheap “artists”. Any company that was willing to pay a premium for quality art won’t suddenly lower their standards because AI exists. Just my intuition and I’m genuinely curious to see if I’m wrong.
I’m not talking art gallery or famous writers and I am not speaking of current AI either, with the rapid speed AI has moved with in the last 10 years I can’t see commercial artists, game writers continuing as they are. They will become the etcy seller selling hand crafted niche as the profit margins of incorporating AI is too lucrative and is something we see currently.
Maybe with some far future AI we have no idea how to create. But what we have now is just the averaging and amalgam of the work of countless artists. This is why AI art is so bland and soulless; it’s like asking a work of art to be made by a committee of a hundred people. The end result is always bland. Yeah, you can tell it to do it in a certain style, or even the style of a specific artist, but that’s still just copying. It has no original creativity or idea of its own. And that’s before we get into corporate censorship which is the anathema to art. It’s hard to see AI art pushing out any biting criticisms of the rich and powerful.
Why can’t commercial artists like game writers continue? Again, the market value of any AI-produced game is zero. This stuff is a field of academics, the big AI companies can brute force their way to superior models right now, but the smaller models able to run on individual desktops isn’t far behind. And the hardware is only getting better. A few years after OpenAI can do something, the average person can do something similar on their own hardware.
The point is, you’re imagining this future where game companies are going to keep making games, and gamers keep buying them, but that the game writers are fired. But why would anyone pay money for that game? If an AI exists that can churn out entire games, the market value of those games becomes zero. I can generate my own AI schlock. I don’t need to pay someone to give me AI slop. So game studios will naturally focus only on those things that can’t be churned out on mass. There will inevitably be some areas that the AI algorithms fail at, and that is what “real gaming” will be.
AI art will be seen like clipart. Yes, you can use MSWord clipart in your publication. But it’s seen as cheap and tacky. The same will be the case for AI art. It’s market value is zero.
There are going to be two kinds of people: those who see value in AI and will pay market rate, and those who see AI for what it is and can create new value outside of what AI can produce. And you seem to think artists are inclined to do the first over the latter? Only the ones to be forgotten by history think that way.
they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods
Yep, in the same way that horse breeders opposed motorized busses and trolleys.
No, not the same way at all (edit: similar, yes but I take issue with calling them identical). 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.
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.
By that, of course, you mean…
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!
The Luddites were not some crusaders for justice. […] They were acting in their economic self-interest.
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.
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?
Christ, THIS old canard? This line hasn’t been in-vogue since the fucking 80s.
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?
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.
deleted by creator