[dijit]

Every party in the dispute was acting out of economic self-interest: the manufacturers wanted cheaper labour and higher margins, Parliament wanted industrial growth.

Only the workers are getting framed as though self-interest invalidates their position. The Luddites’ arguments about quality standards and consumer fraud were correct on the merits regardless of their motivation for raising them.

[simianwords]

Everyone's interests should not be viewed as the same. More affordable clothes is more important for society than a few people's jobs.

[dijit]

“More affordable clothes” that fall apart in a month aren’t more affordable.

And the choice was never mechanisation versus no mechanisation… it was whether the transition would include basic labour and quality standards. With regulation, you’d still have got mechanisation and cheaper clothing in the end… just without the fraudulent goods and wage suppression. Framing it as “society versus a few jobs” is exactly the manufacturer’s argument from the 1810s, which is very effective propaganda reaching through centuries.

To drive the point home even clearer

[simianwords]

The clothes did get dramatically more affordable after adjusting for quality (after a few bumps).

[dijit]

“After a few bumps”, mate, people were transported to penal colonies and fucking hanged for asking for quality standards and fair wages.

Parliament made frame-breaking a capital offence to protect manufacturer profits. Saying it all worked out eventually doesn’t justify the process, any more than cheap cotton justified the conditions under which it was produced. And frankly, look at modern fast fashion: cheap clothing that falls apart in weeks, produced under appalling conditions overseas. We’re still living with the consequences of the principle that cheapness trumps everything else.

[simianwords]

I don't condone killing obviously.

But on quality: I found this an interesting read https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/05/ha...