Dr. Damien P. Williams, MagusFeb 4, 2024

The term "Luddite" has become synonymous with "technophobe" but that's not what the Luddites were about. They were a labour movement that fought to give workers control over the technology that was advancing without oversight and rapidly automating them out of their jobs. Sound familiar?

"Luddite" as a pejorative was a technocrat PR coup.

Show threadFionas_FatherFeb 4, 2024

@Wolven Well, yes, the mill workers who destroyed machinery that stomped on their livelihoods. They were stomped on in the end. But then, England would have been stomped on if they had failed to industrialize.

And there you have the tragic human condition. Propaganda aside, technological progress generally harms lives of masses of humans, but nations that try to resist get dominated.

Depressing. But the least we can do is have a little compassion for those who "progress" has harmed.

Show threadToni WidmoFeb 5, 2024
@Fionas_Father @Wolven England could have industrialised without stomping on workers. It is simply the authoritarian mindset to not care or listen to the issues faced by those deemed lesser. Authoritarians seek only 'yes men'. Had the issues of workers been taken seriously things could have progressed far more smoothly and quickly. And that is still the case today. And not just with workers, but all groups facing oppression that people refuse to listen to.
Show threadFionas_Father

@toni @Wolven I am always in favor equality and opposed to authoritarianism.

But that does not change the central tragedy of what happened then and now. Technology altered the playing field as to the most efficient way to accomplish a particular thing, and those that resisted (on the company level or the national level) were going to get out competed.

Been going on since pre-historic times.

I hate it, but hating it doesn't change it.

Feb 5, 2024 at 3:39pmWeb
Show threadDr. Damien P. Williams, MagusFeb 5, 2024
@Fionas_Father @toni that's some real laissez faire silliness right there. No thanks
Show threadFionas_FatherFeb 6, 2024

@Wolven @toni Not really sure what you're saying here. Agreeing? Disagreeing? Disagreeing with what?

Hopefully you are not suggesting we fight laissez faire capitalism by pretending it didn't and doesn't happen?

Show threadAaronFeb 6, 2024
@Fionas_Father @toni @Wolven If they had worked for a worker coop, replacing themselves with machines would have gone fine. Labor reduced, and pay increased. That's what technology is supposed to do to the workplace, but our economic system built around capitalist principles stops it from happening. Instead, the extra profit goes to an outsider, and the incomes of the workers vanishes.
Show threadFionas_FatherFeb 6, 2024

@hosford42 @toni @Wolven Yeah, it would be nice if that's how it had been.

Our problem is that, up to this point, capitalist systems have been the ones that out-competed the others.

I see this as a parallel to the ancient agrarian societies out-competing the hunter-gatherer societies. The latter were generally better for people, but the former almost always dominated and survived.

Near the end of my life, and I've never resolved myself to the tragedy of humanity.

Show threadAaronFeb 6, 2024
@Fionas_Father @toni @Wolven The main reason capitalism has "out-competed" cooperatives is cultural, not practical. People think of it as the default option, and don't consider the alternatives, when starting a business. Cooperatives are actually *more* robust to economic downturns, market changes, and other factors that often drive a "standard" corporation out of business. That's why so many credit unions were founded during the Great Depression, for example. In the long run, cooperative institutions will win out due to this stability, but without a cultural focus on them, it won't be soon enough for us to enjoy the benefits.