To note, luddites' issues were not just losing their job. Let's remember that the earlier machines were very crude, safety was absolutely not in their design, and a worker life's also didn't have much weight. So, the early days of machine assisted production were in inhumane conditions, people losing limbs, kids getting killed in them (less skills needed also meant kid labour was a viable option) etc.
So yes, regulation on how the machines work, how much they get introduced, how the workers are impacted, trial periods to see the impacts etc. should help a lot in all respects. The difficult part being that those all mean putting breaks on profit making.
Yes to this chain. Noticing this absurd lack of machine safety and doing something about it would have helped everyone. And the government reaction to the whole thing was equally absurd.
> the government reaction to the whole thing was equally absurd.
It, however, would later give Marx a nice example of how the government is the tool that the ruling class uses to oppress the working classes and get their way: because when seen from this angle, the reaction was entirely reasonable.
While originating in Marxism, this thought is also exposed by Libertarians in their critique of government. Giving too much power to the government is basically the same as giving power to elites and thus it is a move against freedom.
Ironic how most egalitarians are themselves elites. They want less government, when it hinders them. For all other reasons, government is good. E.g. fighting wars to get oil...
The “Libertarianism” that you refer to here is a word stolen from the Anarchist tradition (e.g. Chomsky), a socialist tendency that has nothing to do with the radical right-wing ideology of entities like the Libertarian Party in the US.
Such “Libertarianism” can't even claim that their own name originates with themselves.
So it seems things can only originate from leftist thought, but only after Marx, nothing before matters. The world began in 1800. Marx gave light, and created the world.
To add to your note: iirc the Luddites were also concerned because the quality of the cloth produced by the machines was worse than the handmade stuff, beyond all of the labor abuses and job losses. Another parallel to the AI age.
> quality of the cloth produced by the machines was worse than the handmade stuff
Yes, it was, but it was far cheaper. You can still get extraordinarily good fabrics today, extremely well-made hand-sewn leather goods. But a standard size carry-on suitcase made of high-quality leather in the US will run you around $1000-1500. You can buy a crappy mass-produced plastic one of the same size for around $100, or a well-made nylon one from Asia for around $300.
Sometimes, you don't actually need good quality, and price is the only thing you care about. Without the machines, even the low-quality stuff is expensive.
Is it a surprise that producers of X claim people really want X and only their X? If true no government action is necessary. If false then government action forces consumers to buy something they don't want.
Note that sometimes government action forcing people to do things they don't want is necessary e.g. paying taxes and protecting the environment. That's hardly ever the case, though.
I didn't say anything about government, but it should be clear that the involvement of organization is inevitable. The industrialists ensured that by organizing the firm. To say that after that point we should just let the market decide is to say that only the industrialists are allowed to organize. This is folly.
To note, luddites' issues were not just losing their job. Let's remember that the earlier machines were very crude, safety was absolutely not in their design, and a worker life's also didn't have much weight. So, the early days of machine assisted production were in inhumane conditions, people losing limbs, kids getting killed in them (less skills needed also meant kid labour was a viable option) etc.
So yes, regulation on how the machines work, how much they get introduced, how the workers are impacted, trial periods to see the impacts etc. should help a lot in all respects. The difficult part being that those all mean putting breaks on profit making.