Maybe the luddites made it clear that destroying capital doesn't make for a winning endgame, the Amish might be a better model - they still participate in the broader economy but they've built their pockets of antiquity where they get by with more elbow grease than they otherwise would have to, and have a spiritual basis for meaning that most of secular society lacks. I probably won't be joining them but could see a new movement that accepts diesel engines, lithium batteries and computers, but draws the line at anything that starts to mention "hidden layers" or "nondeterministic behavoir" (outside that randomness needed for accurate simulations and cryptography)

Haven't come up with a name yet.

>I don't want to simply be forced to adapt to a life where my only option is to blindly consume what the machines feed me like I'm in a tube in the Matrix.

How is that any different from your life now, except it's humans feeding you slop instead of human-guided machines?

>Everyone who cares about anything but the bottom line should be mad. The wholesale commoditization and destruction of human intellectual skill and creative talent in service of the relentless pursuit of capitalism through automation is a bad thing and you should feel bad for cheering it on

Go join an Amish commune then. I love the irony of a programmer (I'm assuming) complaining about automation.

Hardly anyone ever asks where this progression is leading, and if they do, usually the answer is to "more progress." Which, to me, doesn't really sound like progression at all! It's just a way to justify not actually changing anything that matters, and to make sure there is always some faux-horizon of greener pastures to promise your customers.

You should be angry!