Agreed. If there is a lesson from this (preachy) re-evaluation of the original Luddite movement, it's that neither smashing the works nor remaining purposefully disorganized will solve social impacts to technological advance. Even if the Luddites of yore had a point about lower quality, they weren't making a case that took away income from factory owners. This was so early in the industrialization process that would've been hard to organize an effective economic boycott. Then perhaps we need to rethink wage-slavery. John Henry beat the hammer then DIED. Let the hammer be and help John become something else.Nearly half the world's jobs are poised to fall to automation, remember, and only the rich currently stand to benefit.
Beautifully put. This is what intensive reading on the subject of capitalism, socialism, communism and economic theory has taught me: In a capitalist system, efficiency will always be used to increase productivity. Productivity never benefits the worker. If you want to benefit the worker, you need to curb your capitalism. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the best compromise between the economic extremes is a capitalist economy governed by socialists.Let the hammer be and help John become something else.
In the USA you might just get away with this, if you called it a "revitalized labor movement", combined with a "renewed war on poverty", or some such. Ix-nay on the ocialism-say ;-)capitalist economy governed by socialists
Count me in. Is it okay if I never want to be a manager and focus on teaching?