this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
417 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7682 readers
3578 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 91 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 53 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] facelessbs@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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!

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 months ago
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Automation hasn't shown a marked difference in employment, scaling up means more productivity.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 8 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 11 points 3 months ago

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).

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 22 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 7 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Sabin10@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 9 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago
[–] Juice@midwest.social 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Machines were the weapons employed by the capitalist to quell the revolt of specialized labor. -- Karl Marx

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago

Yep, before industrialisation you had powerful guilds that would hold monopolies over production of certain goods and we're basically unions before the fact.

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods

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

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] squid_slime@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Sorry but fly on the wall. The link you posted I have read through and appears to actually discredit your assertion.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2596251

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They were both actually: tech haters and system critics.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

When huge majority of ~~technology at the time~~ industrial 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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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...?

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 8 points 3 months ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments