These are state rights, from the state.
Prefer Freedom To access over the freedom to choose, being to choose to be a naughty publisher with a 95% contract of all labour.
Another victim claimed by the copyright industry complex.
These are state rights, from the state.
Prefer Freedom To access over the freedom to choose, being to choose to be a naughty publisher with a 95% contract of all labour.
If anybody DARES conceive out her propereity domain,
It shows that this could be an entertainer, not a lecturer of governance, education, journalism, religion . Focusing on televisual rather than typographic expression; showmanship.
Since fiction is the legalese used for state protection for specific expression, not natural law.
This may suspend proselytisation and ideological presumptions of the viewer. All being part of a campaign.
So no controversy, politics imply two states at tension'n conflict. Along with fictional drama being within the subject. That's a charitable view. Keeping one's head down from the pot-stirring provocateur.
However, it's like a butler saying "It's not my job to have an opinion" it does bring questions, since it is not natural law anyhow.
I cannot tell the intentions of such an entertainment-ese layer. Since Interpretation and scrutiny of the media is used to help provide meaning. All the ideological presumptions will be guessed and speculated on, along with whether it being direct like satire or propaganda.
Whatever we reach and whatever we think. (Such as the clock metaphor, clock is the measurements of matter, the sociology of goals to tell the time.)
Right reasons, wrong reasons, undefined! Wow. Interpretation can matter.
I think of this writer snippet alot.
"the artisans are behaving like politically destructive rent-seekers and trying to reduce automation instead of seeking meaningful political change concerning ownership of capital and allocation of resources" is also orthodox marxist
the entire idea of fixed capital is that workers individually do not necessarily own the means of production; like, whether or not they morally should own their output, they do not, that is not how the thing works, and the social arrangement for large factories makes it complex to even try to do
-
i do think however that marx is correct on the basic points of
1) automation is good
2) luddism is bad
3) the problem is who controls the automation, and the wealth created by it, and who gets left out
4) the solution ultimately has to be the power of the state"
@bitesu.kawaii.social(Oh and Ned Ludd ain't real, Brian Merchant is doing revisionist history.)
So Industrial mode of production =/= Artisinal Mode of production. That's the matter of the modernisation that we will do, moving forward. Reading with literature and the textbook
So the answer is.