[paxys]

It's a bullshit argument either way. Say it's 1800 and you need 100 workers to make a new suit, which costs as much as one's annual rent (yes, really). Suddenly machines show up and can make the same suit with 10 workers and at 1/10 the cost. The other 90 workers are outraged, break machines and cry about "enriching capitalists at the expense of laborers". What is the solution exactly? Should the average household continue to spend 20% of their income on clothing just because a small subset of workers needs to be subsidized indefinitely.

[arp242]

> a small subset of workers needs to be subsidized indefinitely.

In the context of 1800s industrial revolution, this means employing child labour, hugely unsafe machines that cause amputations and death, draconian death penalties against the Luddites, long working hours, and things like that. All for a small pitiful wage.

THAT is what this is about: outright exploitation that would be spectacularly illegal in well-organized countries today, and is called things like "de-facto slavery" in places where it still happens. If not having these things is "subsidizing" people then one of us doesn't know what that word means.

[GlobalFrog]

That is a misrepresentation of the argument. The point is not that 90 workers are outraged, the point is that the business owner will spend 90% less and keep the difference for him, accumlating wealth. The "wealth pie" is now more concentrated in only a few hands, and in the next technological evolution, the same process occurs, which leads to an always increasing concentration of the wealth available with less and less people. The Luddites did not say to keep the 90 people subsidized (that again is a rhetorical misrepresentation and very dismissive of the work force). They said that the wealth available had to be distributed more evenly between the people who created this wealth and who are impacted by the change. As the capitalists of the time refused, they smashed the machines and the other side said they were against progress. The fact is that we do not put the same meaning in the word progress: if a society becomes more and more a society of masters and servants with less and less possibilities for the lower class to better their condition, is that progress? There is a convergence at play here : real life communism and extreme capitalism are the same thing, the monopolization of wealth by a small class of people by every mean possible and then, making this admissible through communication to the masses.

[thesandlord]

I think a portion of people would say yes, it's better to keep the status quo. Imo progress always wins because eventually someone somewhere will break the taboo. Technology even gets lost and rediscovered, which means even if you supress the knowledge someone will still eventually do it. So it's pretty pointless to fight, I'd rather try to benefit from it.

[cupcakecommons]

Concise yet complete. Well done.