Except the issue is material and not purely ideological. It's an issue of machines now being able to do physical and mental labour, getting better at both as time goes by. Pretty much everything under the sun people can do that doesn't involve simply being human can be done much more cheaply and efficiently than a machine.
Google the Swing Riots. During the early 19th century a lot of agricultural workers, a quarter of whom in Britain had originally made a living by hand-threshing grain, were out of work and suffering from worsening work conditions for those who still had jobs. They got really pissed off and, as you'd expect, the Swing Riots involved smashing up threshing machines. The government got involved quickly, recognising it as serious, and a lot of farmers who participated got hung or transported to Australia.
The peasants were being treated as disposable objects and they rose up against it. Let's say in some dumb alternate history they march into London and overthrow the UK's government, establishing a government which does not see all living beings as disposable objects. The government now supports the dignity and livelihoods of agricultural labourers, great. You still haven't solved the issue of threshing machines being far more efficient and cheaper to use than farmers are for threshing grain, so British agriculture is going to get outcompeted extremely hard by the rest of Western Europe. Let's say they try to stop urbanisation and industrialisation too, so the average labourer doesn't end up working 14 hours a day in a factory with machines that can cut his hand off if he makes a bad move. How are you supposed to do any of this when machines are cheaper to maintain and far more efficient than people are at doing work? They don't get hungry, they don't get sick, they don't need to pay their rent, they don't need to sleep, they just need maintenance in order to work.
Holding back mechanisation of anything will either make you fall flat on your face because everyone's outcompeting you, or it will force you to slowly phase in mechanisation reluctantly for the sake of efficiency. Give me ONE society on Earth where either of these two things hasn't happened, and one reason it won't be the same with technology that can automate mental labour. People are quite literally getting replaced by machines and it's going to get ten times worse in the future, changing the government's ideology won't stop that as long as you allow the industrial-technological system to continue existing.
Even if you destroy that system it still isn't looking great though. Let's say every major city on Earth gets nuked tomorrow and the only people who survive are those in remote areas (Appalachian hicks, Kurdish goat herders, Chechen villagers, et cetera). They have a huge advantage in industrialising once Earth's climate recovers from the nuclear war, they have a cosmopolitan crop package (potatoes, tomatoes, wheat, barley, rice, soybeans, turnips, whatever works with the climate) left over from the age of global travel and trade which promotes agricultural surplus, they will probably be able to find some relics of technical books even if we try to burn all of them like Ted Kaczynski proposes in ISAF, it will be more efficient to mechanise things and ideas such as moveable type printing which accelerate technological advancement in late pre-industrial societies will be in our cultural memory and easy enough to develop. There are a ton of unexplored oil deposits off the coast of East Africa and there is enough coal to last us a century and a half at the very least, that's with current consumption levels as well. Industrialisation seems inevitable to me, and when it comes eventually you'll get human obsolescence. No ideology will save us from material reality, that's a cope.
