> Malcolm L. Thomas argued in his 1970 history “The Luddites” that machine-breaking was one of the very few tactics that workers could use to increase pressure on employers, undermine lower-paid competing workers, and create solidarity among workers. "These attacks on machines did not imply any necessary hostility to machinery as such; machinery was just a conveniently exposed target against which an attack could be made."[10] Historian Eric Hobsbawm has called their machine wrecking "collective bargaining by riot", which had been a tactic used in Britain since the Restoration because manufactories were scattered throughout the country, and that made it impractical to hold large-scale strikes.
Of course, there would have been people who just saw it as striking back at the machines, and leaders who took advantage of that tendency, but the point is it probably wasn’t as simple as the popular accounts suggest.
Also, there’s a kind of corollary to the lump of labor fallacy, which is arguably a big reason the US is facing such a significant political upheaval today: when you disturb the labor status quo, it takes time - potentially even generations - for the economy to adjust and adapt, and many people can end up relatively worse off as a result. Most US factory workers and miners didn’t end up with good service industry jobs, for example.
Sure, at a macro level an economist viewing the situation from 30,000 feet sees no problem - meanwhile on the ground, you end up with millions of people ready to vote for a wannabe autocrat who promises to make things the way they were. Trying to treat economics as a discipline separate from politics, sociology, and psychology in these situations can be misleading.
