| ▲ | miltonlost 3 hours ago |
| Famously against looms, yes. That's how we got the term Luddite, that rapacious capitalists redefined to be a negative. |
|
| ▲ | ua709 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I was going to cite that too but it's not exactly industry pushback, it's labor pushback. EV on the other hand does have some obvious industrial adversaries. |
| |
| ▲ | miltonlost 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | At that time, the laborers WERE the industry? | | |
| ▲ | ua709 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't understand the question. (maybe the question mark is a mistake?) Assuming it's a statement, my guess is the rapacious capitalists would disagree with that claim. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | orangecat 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trying to prevent goods and services from being produced more efficiently is bad actually. |
| |
| ▲ | dijit 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Comment section isn’t nuanced enough to have this conversation and I am on a phone, but that is the way that the industry slandered the luddites as the parent claims. The truth was that the machines produced worse quality goods and were less safe, not that people couldn’t skill up to use them and not that there wasn’t enough demand to keep everyone employed. It was quality and safety. You should look into the issue further, because I had your opinion too until I soberly looked at what the luddites really were arguing for, it wasn’t the end of looms, it was quality standards and fair advertising to consumers. | | |
| ▲ | simianwords an hour ago | parent [-] | | The mainstream conclusion is that the luddites were speaking for their own economic safety mainly along with other things. | | |
| ▲ | dijit an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | “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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The clothes did get dramatically more affordable after adjusting for quality (after a few bumps). | | |
| ▲ | dijit an hour ago | parent [-] | | “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. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | miltonlost 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trying to keep all of labor's sweat as capitalist's own cash is bad actually. Making clothing more efficient by employing children in dangerous factories is bad actually (what happened in the original factories and now at fast fashion). | |
| ▲ | filleduchaos 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Given the absolute slop that passes as clothing nowadays, the Luddites had very good points actually. |
|
|
| ▲ | IncreasePosts 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Personally, I enjoy not spending 15% of my salary on clothing and textiles. |
| |
| ▲ | filleduchaos 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Of course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generations to accept piss-poor quality clothing as normal. Perhaps in a couple of centuries when a tube of nutrient slurry is the standard meal, people will be equally proud of not spending 15% of their salary on food...if salaries even exist by then. | | |
| ▲ | simianwords an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Of course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generations to accept piss-poor quality clothing as normal. Lots of countries attribute the clothing industry to increasing standard of living and economic prosperity. Like India, Pakistan. | |
| ▲ | autoexec 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not even just piss-poor quality, much of our clothing is actually poisoning us with PFAS and microplastics. | |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago. In fact, it will be even higher quality than people had access to since we have much more advanced materials and techniques than existed back then. But, almost no one does that. Maybe you consider it brainwashing, but I consider it people just making a rational economic choice. And yes, I can see a world where, if tasteless nutrient slurry was essentially free and perfect nutrition for the body, then people would gladly consume that for most meals, and maybe splurge every now and then on an "old school" meal. I don't really see a problem with that. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago You really can't. That price/quality point basically does not exist anymore What's worse is that we have "designer brands" that charge the higher price point but are the exact same low quality as the lower price point stuff. Actual midrange quality just plain does not exist | | |
| ▲ | simianwords an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The simple reason is that there isn't a market for it. If there were, we would see it. | |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure it does, you just need to get something custom/bespoke/made to measure. Take your yearly clothing expenditure and multiply it by 10. And then, just like people 200 years ago, be content with 2 to 4 compete outfits. And then stop buying clothes yearly and go more on 10+ year cycle, where you use your funds to mend clothes instead of replacing them. Even if you only spend $300 on clothes per year, doing it the old school way means you can spend about $15,000 on 2-4 outfits and save the other $15,000 for mending and cleaning over the next 10 years. I guarantee you you can find a high quality custom outfit for $5000. |
|
|
|
|
