You are definitely correct, but there is a popular perception that Luddites are just reactionarily opposing progress because it hurts their own personal interests.

Those are actually both the same thing. Luddites were being reactionary, they were opposing progress because it hurt their own personal interests, and it was 100% rational for them to do this (and thus should be expected).

And the advoctaes for this kind of change are only pushing it, against all resistence and withbany means, because it serves their personal interest. Difference being, the Ludditea had their livelihoods and health to loose. The other just a bunch of even more money earned on the backs of an exploited and abused workforce.

"Luddites were reacting to iniquitous working practices and market forces." is the same thing as "reactionarily opposing progress because it hurts their own personal interests."

I meant to stress the "opposing progress" part of my comment. The two things are only the same if there was a universal, objective definition of progress in the context of bettering humanity.

The hypocrisy in this popular perception is, that this would be anything but completely normal human behavior. Does anyone believe C level executives would replace themselves by (advanced) AIs, just because is would make sense economically?