The Luddites defended their work against that of machines, what can we learn from them?

We are all a little Luddites, and not just because from time to time we want to throw our cell phone out the window. Although perhaps we have not realized it because we continue to have a caricatured view of this movement.

The Luddites were a group of English textile artisans who between 1811 and 1816 destroyed power looms and other machines that threatened their jobs. They took their name from the fictitious King Ludd, who signed their letters and pamphlets, and who was inspired by Ned Ludd, a worker (perhaps also fictitious) who 40 years earlier had already destroyed one of those looms.

The word Luddite continues to be used as an insult directed at those who criticize both the means and the objectives of technology companies, be it Amazon, Uber or the penultimate social network that a millionaire has opened. The intention is to disqualify him as someone afraid of the future and machines he does not understand.

But this image is far from reality: the Luddites were not against progress or machines, but rather the implementation without any debate of devices that threatened their jobs, their communities and their values. Two recent books want to make clear the objectives and methods of the Luddites, in addition to seeking (and finding) parallels between the Industrial Revolution and the techno-utopian promises of today. Is about Blood in the Machineby Brian Merchant (Blood on the Machine; no Spanish edition), and the recently translated Breaking Things at Work: Luddites Know Why You Hate Your Job, by Gavin Mueller (Melusina)

In his book, Brian Merchant, journalist for Los Angeles Timesexplains that the behavior of today's companies has many parallels with that of the 19th century textile industry: the founders of start-ups and the technological giants present their version of the future as inevitable, as the only possible route for progress. But their objective is to concentrate wealth and power, and they have no objection to violating our privacy or destroying jobs, businesses and ways of life, from small businesses to sectors that, according to the most pessimistic, could be replaced by intelligence. artificial.

Mueller, professor of New Media and Digital Culture at the University of Amsterdam, He reminds us in a telephone conversation that the danger is not only that a machine will replace us, but also that the labor market will become even more polarized: that is, that there will be very few good jobs and a large mass of precarious workers ( yes, more than now). Mueller reminds us that “even highly automated systems require a lot of maintenance work,” from training the systems to moderation and monitoring the results. These are “degraded, repetitive, unsatisfactory, highly controlled and – what a surprise – poorly paid” jobs. The philosopher Eurídice Cabañes, founder of the video game cultural association ArsGamesreminds us that “there are many jobs that can be automated,” but we are faced with a future in which we do the hardest and most boring things while “AI paints pictures.”

The Luddites also defended the value of their work and remembered that machines made inferior products. It keeps happening: it seems like magic to us that ChatGPT writes coherent texts or that Midjourney produces almost pleasant illustrations, but they are inferior versions of what we already have, very dependent on the examples from which they have learned (or that they have plagiarized, depending on who we ask) . Mueller recalls the example of the Hollywood screenwriters' strike: in addition to defending their jobs against AI, they made it clear that “we want to experience art and feel emotions. “We don't go to the movies to see the script generated in the most efficient way.”

21st century machines

So, let's take out the sledgehammers and teach OpenAI and Meta a lesson? It's not that simple: as Merchant recalls, it is difficult to break machines that we do not see and that are “a few lines of code.” Besides, it would be, in short, illegal. But the Luddites not only resorted to sabotage: they also called strikes, distributed letters and proclamations, pressured politicians and managed to negotiate with their employers, sometimes successfully, to improve their conditions and introduce machines gradually. Both Cabañes and Mueller insist on the importance of union organization and associations, in addition to the demand for greater regulation, as has occurred with recent initiatives in the EU. Many economists and politicians also demand a tax on machines that replace jobs, with the aim that this money will serve to compensate for job and salary losses, in a measure that the Luddites also demanded.

And, of course, there is room for (legal) forms of sabotage. Mueller recalls that some users dedicate themselves to looking for their weaknesses, with the aim of showing that they are far from being the technological miracle that they sometimes present to us and that they are not prepared for the terrible threat of a human with free time. A recent example is that of Chevrolet dealers in the US, which have enabled chats with ChatGPT technology. Some Luddites? They are sharing their achievements on networks: the program has promised them crazy 50% discounts and invented promotions (and without legal value, we fear), like a picnic with products gourmet Portuguese and the option to meet Magic Johnson.

We can get cynical and remember that the leaders of the Luddites were executed and that the Industrial Revolution occurred, despite their efforts. But, as we have seen, they achieved some victories. What's more, to defeat them, “the State had to use all its military force and modify the penal code,” and make it as “punitive and cruel” as possible, Merchant writes.

Nor can their resistance be disqualified with the idea that the Industrial Revolution ended up creating more jobs than it destroyed. Mueller recalls that some historical investigations show that living standards fell for decades: “For many, that process was a catastrophe.” That is to say, although the changes may be for the better, we can question the way in which innovations are introduced and whether workers have to assume the costs.

The movement inspired and influenced subsequent generations of reformers and dissidents, as explained by historians such as Eric Hobsbawm and, more recently, Steven E. Jones and Daniel F. Noble. Their trail can be followed in similar acts of rebellion in the rest of Europe, including Alcoy (Alicante) in 1821, and among black slaves in the United States. They reach, Mueller points out, the actions of the hacker, who, obviously, do not renounce technology, but are critical of its uses and economic models. As are also science fiction novels and films, a Luddite genre, as writer Cory Doctorow pointed out in a recent article.

The example of this movement helps us identify the technological, economic and social challenges we face, and
teaches us that, as Mueller says, we can ask more of technology. Cabañes recalls that the future that is sold to us as inevitable is not, and adds that one of the great problems with how technological progress has been presented to us is that “they have stolen our imagination.” The time has come to get it back.

Sign up here to the weekly Ideas newsletter.

_