Would the Luddites have been a useful source to understand how the machines of the time actually worked? Should I expect my local Green party representative to explain nuclear fission coherently? Is Ed Zitron the guy to explain how to implement and train a neural network?
Critique of things is irrelevant to understanding how they work.
The analysis is the critique. Marx whole work was basically just analyzing capitalism and the solutions come from this analysis. E.g., understanding how private ownership and competition lead to endless growth and the climate crisis.
Well, since the Luddites smashed the machines because they ended up impoverishing them while delivering shoddier quality goods and concentrating the profits in the hands of the few, I'd argue that's an argument worth considering these days.
But they were crushed and defeated, and their name became a shorthand ad hominem to disregard arguments that make one side of the debate uncomfortable.
Because understanding how things work is not the same thing as understanding who it works for and why.
Perhaps a literal socialist magazine should not be considered an impartial source for the topic in question.
Perhaps you should read a critique of capitalism by anticapitalists and not only The Economist
Why?
Would the Luddites have been a useful source to understand how the machines of the time actually worked? Should I expect my local Green party representative to explain nuclear fission coherently? Is Ed Zitron the guy to explain how to implement and train a neural network?
Critique of things is irrelevant to understanding how they work.
The analysis is the critique. Marx whole work was basically just analyzing capitalism and the solutions come from this analysis. E.g., understanding how private ownership and competition lead to endless growth and the climate crisis.
Well, since the Luddites smashed the machines because they ended up impoverishing them while delivering shoddier quality goods and concentrating the profits in the hands of the few, I'd argue that's an argument worth considering these days.
But they were crushed and defeated, and their name became a shorthand ad hominem to disregard arguments that make one side of the debate uncomfortable.
Because understanding how things work is not the same thing as understanding who it works for and why.
Parent said "impartial", which rules out both The Economist ("pro") and Jacobin ("anti").