
What the Luddites Really Fought Against (2011) - pera
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/?no-ist
======
c3534l
I have to say, despite the article trying to put the most favorable light on
the Luddites as the author could, the really do sound exactly like how the
phrase is normally used. You can put as much nuance as you can on it, they
destroyed technology because they were afraid of what it might bring. They
don't strike me as being any different than the people constantly writing
articles about how AI is going to leave everyone penniless and redundant.
Maybe the Luddites had a point, but they were certainly afraid of what
automation might do, and I see no problem after reading that entire article
calling Ted Kaczynski or the author of the next AI scare-mongering article a
Luddite, or calling the 1800s Luddites on the wrong side of history.

~~~
ska
I think the point was that they were completely right to be afraid of the
impact of technology (not the technology itself), and it is in fact exactly
what happened. These families saw multi generational economic damage. This is
an early chapter in the ongoing friction between capital and labor.

The thing is, it's possible for the equivalent-of-the-Luddites to be right
about the impact on their prospects and way of life, and for it still to be
the right thing to do in a global sense.

If an economic shift is going to significantly negatively impact the
opportunities your children will have, you are on pretty solid ground getting
pissed about it, particularly if it is being driven by people who stand to
benefit from your losses. It still might be the right thing to do as a matter
of, say, national policy. The real differentiation is what do we collectively
do for those impacted - as a culture/government do we try an ease the
transition, or take a "sucks to be you" stance. Just because something is/was
a net benefit doesn't mean it can't also be horrific cf much of the early
industrial revolution.

Overall I think the phrase "Luddite" is commonly used these days to
characterize someone who is afraid of technology because they don't understand
it. More fairly, it would be used to describe people who are afraid of the
impact of technology because they _do_ understand it, possible better than
most of their contemporaries.

~~~
Scea91
Technology might have had a negative impact on their families but I believe
that the alternative would be even worse for them. Without technology they
would probably be conquered in war and speaking German now.

~~~
larsiusprime
The issue is not that the technology existed, it is that it was deployed in a
way, sponsored by explicit government policy[1], that enriched one class at
deliberate expense of another. The technology could have been deployed in a
way that benefitted all.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure)

------
Theodores
Some rigour is expected when discussing history. This article does not apply
this rigour to recent events in its introduction to what we are supposed to
believe the Luddites were protesting against.

In the introduction we have it implied that 'Modern Luddites' invent malware
to 'disrupt the technologies that trouble them' with the nuclear power plant
in Iran being cited as an example. Wasn't Stuxnet one of the NSA's Tailored
Access Operations (TAO)? Are the NSA considered 'Modern Luddites', up there
with the Unabomber?

Furthermore, students of history know of the Magna Carta and the right to a
fair trial. So then we have 'the cave-dwelling terrorist sometimes derided as
Osama bin Luddite'. It may not be fashionable to dare to say it but the idea
that this cave-dwelling 'Luddite' was the one that 'hijacked aviation
technology to bring down skyscrapers' has not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt in a court of law. Asserting this to be the case to then write some
drivel about the original Luddites is extremely lazy for a historian. It might
be okay for journalists and politicians to do this however less controversial
examples could have been found to introduce this story.

Incidentally the Unabomber did get a fair trial with the FBI doing their job
properly. This was in the days before the 'post truth' world we live in now
where something repeated often enough becomes truthy enough to be passed off
as fact in lazy articles.

------
cokernel
Thomas Pynchon's essay does a good job, I think, of explaining what the
Luddites really fought against, and he does not, as this article seems to
suggest, say a Luddite is "someone who opposes technological progress".

[https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/r...](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-
luddite.html)

> But it's important to remember that the target even of the original assault
> of 1779, like many machines of the Industrial Revolution, was not a new
> piece of technology. The stocking-frame had been around since 1589 .... Now,
> given that kind of time span, it's just not easy to think of Ned Lud as a
> technophobic crazy.

------
ggm
The Luddites were pre-union organised labour and were feared precisely because
they represented the threat to the aristocracy, land-owning, and factory
owning classes. They were repressed not because they cross dressed, but
because they represented existential threat. The laws against 'combination'
were then subsequently applied to emerging Unions, the Chartists, and any
number of other working class initiatives over successive waves of reaction to
modernisation.

Australia in part is populated by the descendants of people who were shipped
overseas for having the temerity to think about their right to representation,
and organization.

------
ivanhoe
Isn't it a bit pointless to discuss Luddism in a context of popular,
mainstream technologies like computers? If people didn't won't some
technology, that technology never got popular. That's how things get regulated
in a democracy. Many techs got slowed down that way, like GMO for instance, or
fracking industries. People just didn't like it (with a reason or not, that's
the other story completely), so the laws were made to put it under the
control. But Luddites who fight the mainstream technology are completely
different kind, they're basically saying that they know better than others,
and it's no different than any other minor political option that believes that
everyone should think the way they do. And because obviously it will not work,
then they resolve to violence, trying to force others into it. And it almost
never worked in a long run.

------
textor
Relevant:

[https://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/why-
the-...](https://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/why-the-luddites-
matter/)

> There is a widespread belief in contemporary computer dominated societies,
> that regular people are not allowed any say in the discussions around the
> types of technologies that radically reshape their lives. And the way that
> the term Luddite is commonly used functions to reify this belief by making
> people believe that they cannot push back against technology. Of course, as
> the above history demonstrated, the irony is that what the Luddites prove is
> that you actually can push back, you can build up a mass movement around it,
> and you can in fact be so successful that the government is forced to deploy
> soldiers and pass harsh legislation in order to squash you.

> Need a more recent example? How about Google Glass. When Google unveiled
> that wearable high-tech headset it was framed as “inevitable,” those who
> raised worries were dismissed as “Luddites,” and Google seemed hellbent on
> pushing forward regardless. Google Glass was going to be the next thing, not
> because regular people wanted it to be, but because Google insisted that it
> would be. But a funny thing happened: people said no, and Google’s “world
> changing” product was shelved. There’s certainly a difference between the
> public rejecting a piece of consumer technology and workers pushing back
> against mechanization – but the common thread that connects them is that you
> do not have to let a tech company screaming “technological progress” in your
> face turn you into a paragon of passivity. And what’s more you don’t have to
> accept a false dichotomy wherein saying no to one kind of technology means
> that you are rejecting all technology.

~~~
LMYahooTFY
Google glass was shelved because of consumer resistance?

I was under the impression the project was still under development.

I think there are significantly less parallels between the two examples than
that article seems to imply. I think Google Glass is a rather isolated example
that is far from the biggest threat to current labor markets.

~~~
VSTN
>Google glass was shelved because of consumer resistance?

This might not be the only reason for shelving Google Glass as a consumer
product, but there was indeed a heavy consumer resistance the sort that could
absolutely destroy the potential of a technology to become a consumer product
: through multiple assaults, public insults and so on on whoever dared to walk
in public with those.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/i-was-assaulted-for-
wearing-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/i-was-assaulted-for-wearing-
google-glass-2014-4?IR=T)

"The aforementioned colleague and I were on our way to the 16th Street BART
station — I'll note that I wasn't using any device at the time — when a person
put their hand on my face and yelled, "Glass!" In an instant the person was
sprinting away, Google Glass in hand. I ran after, through traffic, to the
corner of the opposite block. The person pivoted, shifting their weight to put
all of their momentum into an overhand swing. The Google Glass smashed into
the ground, and they ran in another direction."

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/16/my-
week-i...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/16/my-week-in-
google-glass)

"fellow train passengers seem visibly distressed by what, to them at least,
seemed like something that could invade their privacy – a head-mounted camera
that could be recording them without their knowledge. A few even asked me to
take them off despite my insistence that their fears were unwarranted –
constantly recording video and snapping photos would destroy the battery in a
matter of minutes."

If the company has to issue social advice on how to not stick out like a sore
thumb in a crowd that wants nothing but to rip your glasses and smash them,
the product is obviously not going to be successful :

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/19/google-
gl...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/19/google-glass-advice-
smartglasses-glasshole)

"Google has given some official advice on what to do and perhaps more
importantly, what not to do, while wearing the company’s Google Glass
smartglasses to avoid being a “glasshole”. Early adopters of Glass,
derogatorily called “glassholes”, have come under fire for using it in
socially unacceptable conditions where mobile phones aren’t allowed, for being
creepy filming people without their permission and for being rude, staring off
into the distance for long periods of time."

[https://nypost.com/2014/07/14/is-google-glass-cool-or-
just-p...](https://nypost.com/2014/07/14/is-google-glass-cool-or-just-plain-
creepy/)

"In April, a techie war erupted when East Village restaurant Feast kicked out
Glass-user Katy Kasmai after she refused to remove her device. Kasmai vented
online, and hundreds of Glass groupies rallied against Feast on Google,
accusing the eatery of discriminating “against people who are into new
technology.” Feast co-owner Brian Ghaw is unapologetic. He says Feast’s no-
Glass policy is for guests’ peace of mind. “They just felt uncomfortable about
having somebody who could potentially videotape them,” explains Ghaw. “If
someone were sitting at a table with their smartphone constantly pointing in a
certain direction and you didn’t know what they were doing with it, you’d feel
pretty uncomfortable as well.”"

Similar events happened to someone who wore home made glasses that are similar
to Google Glasses :

[https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/19/3169889/steve-mann-
cyborg...](https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/19/3169889/steve-mann-cyborg-
assault-mcdonalds-eyetap-paris)

"Dr. Steve Mann, human cyborg, says he was assaulted by staff at a Paris
McDonald's who ripped off his attached device. McDonald's has denied the
claim, and Mann has released a new photo as further evidence."

Do you truly believe that consumer backlash had nothing to do with Google
Glasses essentially disappearing from media and refocusing on professional
use?

Google Glasses was originally marketed as something you'd wear all day like a
smart watch and occupying much of the same functions (check your
notifications, email, weather prediction, record voice memos.. the only major
difference being the ability to record video and photos), if you can't wear it
in public without being constantly bullied into removing them, what's the
point?

>I was under the impression the project was still under development.

It's still under development but focused on professional uses rather than a
potential future consumer product the way it was originally going to be.
[https://www.cnet.com/news/google-glass-2-goes-for-
enterprise...](https://www.cnet.com/news/google-glass-2-goes-for-enterprise/)

------
TaylorAlexander
Relevant essay I’ve written:

[http://www.tlalexander.com/wealth/](http://www.tlalexander.com/wealth/)

