The Luddites weren’t anti-technology—they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods and benefited factory owners at workers’ expense. Their resistance was a critique of the social and economic chaos caused by the Industrial Revolution. Over time, “Luddite” became an insult due to capitalist propaganda, dismissing their valid concerns about inequality and exploitation. Seen in context, they were early critics of unchecked capitalism and harmful technological change—issues still relevant today.
Cottage industry was not some sweet and pleasant labor out of someone's arcadian fantasy; there is academic debate over whether working conditions were worse than in early factories.
What do you think horse breeders were replaced by? Where do you think motorized machines are made? Where is each piece in the production chain made?
If horse breeders were being replaced by workers under brutal conditions (see 2), then would you equate them with Luddites as well?
When you highlight a difference relevant to the argument, then throw a fit over being called out on the implications of that difference by claiming that you didn't deny (unmentioned and irrelevant to the argument) similarities, that's nothing but an attempt to avoid addressing the actual refutation.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Me: "Your entire OP, as well as subsequent comments, characterizes the Luddites as exploited workers fighting against oppression."
You: "they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods and benefited factory owners at workers’ expense."
Also you: "No, not the same way at all. The Luddites fought against machines that exploited workers and destroyed communities, targeting the systems of inequality behind them. "
And how does that contradict the characterization of your argument as ‘Capitalists pocketed the income from the improvement of machinery while workers saw no benefit!’, which you objected to as a 'straw man'?
Let me put it this way: there's little point in continuing this conversation.