The luddites could not care less about technological progress, succeeding or not.
What they tried to do is keep their jobs to be able to feed their families. And, yes, they failed at that.
The message of the luddites is not to abolish technology: it's too think of the human costs behind progress, not just the benefits for the factory owner or "future generations".
The changes they fought against were demonstrably beneficial immediately, not to future generations, and to a very wide segment of society (particularly the poor, who are most sensitive to the cost of goods).
They were just a special interest group like any other, fighting a losing battle against the market preferences of their entire society. If they had better government connections, maybe they would have won and extracted a subsidy from everyone else in the form of higher-priced goods.
...
>They were just a special interest group like any other, fighting a losing battle against the market preferences of their entire society
For you or me, people employed creating or maintaining the technology that obsoletes the need for what was previously reasonably-paying jobs, yeah, sure, that is how it looks.
I still think it's important to see and acknowledge the other side of the argument, though; Especially now, a period when the market has not been creating new work roles to replace those obsoleted by automation.
The argument is, of course, that technology is advancing so quickly that it's unreasonable to expect an average human to be able to learn new skills fast enough to remain relevant. Some people project forward, saying that if automation continues as it has been, there will be no jobs left that humans can do better than machines, and we'll be frozen in a situation where those that own the means of production at that point will continue to own the means of production, without any opportunity for people who don't own means of production (other than their own labour) to earn capital, as their labour is now obsolete.
I personally disagree with the latter part of the argument, I personally think we can find new productive things for the unskilled to do, but I can understand where they are coming from. That is, certainly, the current trend.
But, I do think it's important to acknowledge that we do have an imbalance right now. We're making very good progress at automating what was previously done by human labour, and, as a whole, we (the entrepreneurs) are not doing very well at figuring out how to use the resulting idle (and now unskilled, as what they were previously skilled at has gone obsolete) workforce.
Personally, I think this (what business can be created to employ the masses) is the largest problem of the day, and as far as I can tell, nobody is seriously working on it. Plenty of people are working towards the basic income, welfare state model, but personally I think that's a sub-optimal answer to the problem (compared to full employment.)
This really is so true, on a broad scale. We (humanity) love to demonize people, make them out to be zealots hell-bent on destroying civilization. In reality, they are usually normal people with normal people problems.
But the changes in human societies that are commonly called "progress" are the result of purposeful decisions by individual human beings. So it's not unreasonable to perceive some cumulative teleological direction.
A useful way to think about progress is as a comparison relation between two states of the world. It's probably impossible to establish a total order (in the mathematical sense) between all states. This is the part of "progress" that's open to debate.
But it's very clearly possible to establish a partial order. Decreasing child mortality, decreasing starvation, decreasing violence -- all of these are things that are hard not to call progress.
Purposeful doesn't translate to "progress" any more that "natural determination by the laws of physics" does.
And if we gave in to that sort of extremely short-sighted and regressive view then we'd be no better off today than we were 200 years ago.
And then within a generation or so this was pretty much swept away and the average man went from being his own boss living by his own skill, to being an employee working long hours (12-14hrs a day), for low wages (operating the machines was unskilled work), in horrible conditions (no health and safety laws), with the constant threat of unemployment if the factory owner decided he wasn't making enough profit (leaving the very real threat of starvation for you and your family).
So progress was taking their jobs and making their lives worse, and while from the 21st century point of view we can see it as inevitable economic change, and the march of progress as predicted by economic theory (and hey on the grand scale you're right), they were more interested in feeding their children.
Or to put it another way "short-sighted" depends on your point of view...
They didn't just "thought it". The experienced it objectively. They were out of a job.
>And if we gave in to that sort of extremely short-sighted and regressive view then we'd be no better off today than we were 200 years ago.
It depends. The unemployed guy fired because of automation would be better off.
Change happens, so be adaptable. (Other strategies haven't fared so well.)