I can see how my comment implied that I think Luddites are idiots but that wasn’t my intention. “I don’t think you’re stupid luddites” as in I don’t think your qualms are stupid. Furthermore, I don’t think Luddites were either. That being said, I will critique them as Marx did. Early Luddism did explicitely destroy factory equipment. I will note that when I say that it is based merely on Marx’s comments in capital in reference to the movement. I’m not a historian and my knowledge of them ends there. If you have new information to contradict his account then please pass it along.
The enormous destruction of machinery that occurred in the English manufacturing districts during the first 15 years of this century, chiefly caused by the employment of the power-loom, and known as the Luddite movement, gave the anti-Jacobin governments of a Sidmouth, a Castlereagh, and the like, a pretext for the most reactionary and forcible measures. It took both time and experience before the work people learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the mode in which they are used. (pg 287 on marxists.org)
Getting your way of life destroyed and being pissed off at the means in which it is done is understandable. However, to my understanding of this part of Capital, the Luddites did make this mistake. That’s not stupid. It’s understandable if not misguided. So when I say “it literally is Luddism” I meant that it seemed like you’re saying the technology is necessarily evil. Technology on it’s own literally cannot be evil. It is inanimate and its application is brought about by people. When I read your comment it seemed to me as though you were overlooking this.
It’s amusing to get this kind of accusation
First off, don’t write like a redditor. Don’t be a pompous ass who writes for the audience and just talk with me.
I’m not accusing you of any thing. In fact, my language usage explicitly acknowledges my own fallibility. I specifically used a word like “seems” to show this. That is to show that there may be a breakdown in communication rather than disagreement.
I can see how my comment implied that I think Luddites are idiots but that wasn’t my intention. “I don’t think you’re stupid luddites” as in I don’t think your qualms are stupid. Furthermore, I don’t think Luddites were either. That being said, I will critique them as Marx did. Early Luddism did explicitely destroy factory equipment. I will note that when I say that it is based merely on Marx’s comments in capital in reference to the movement. I’m not a historian and my knowledge of them ends there. If you have new information to contradict his account then please pass it along.
Getting your way of life destroyed and being pissed off at the means in which it is done is understandable. However, to my understanding of this part of Capital, the Luddites did make this mistake. That’s not stupid. It’s understandable if not misguided. So when I say “it literally is Luddism” I meant that it seemed like you’re saying the technology is necessarily evil. Technology on it’s own literally cannot be evil. It is inanimate and its application is brought about by people. When I read your comment it seemed to me as though you were overlooking this.
First off, don’t write like a redditor. Don’t be a pompous ass who writes for the audience and just talk with me.
I’m not accusing you of any thing. In fact, my language usage explicitly acknowledges my own fallibility. I specifically used a word like “seems” to show this. That is to show that there may be a breakdown in communication rather than disagreement.