[ChrisLomont]

Luddites destroyed machinery because the new technology was threatening to replace them. They were most certainly against this technology.

Fortunately, the explosion of affordable textiles resulted in many more jobs in textiles, which were unskilled. So the luddites were right - they were not worth the cost of their skilled labor. They did get replaced. But society as a whole gained a lot, as is usual for new technology.

And even more people than before were employed in textiles.

[Pfhreak]

> They were most certainly against this technology.

Absolutely not. They were absolutely willing to operate the machinery. They could have produced more cloth at the same price, or distributed more of the earnings back to the workers. It's not a boolean outcome where it's either "the machines or the Luddites". There are plenty of ways to solve the problems they raised without doing away with either.

[antonvs]

> They were absolutely willing to operate the machinery.

Smashing the machines was perhaps a poor way to communicate that.

And how far do you take that? There have literally been union jobs where someone's shift consisted of doing nothing but pressing a button every now and then. That's a pointless waste of both human life and economic efficiency.

Someone else in this thread wrote:

> a Luddite opposes the automation of labor without a plan to support the displaced laborers

...which seems like a much more viable position, although perhaps not so popular in the US.