• novibe@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t think Mao meant that communists should become capitalists… he meant it makes sense to align with nationalist bourgeoisie to fight off a common enemy, like international and imperialist capital.

    I wholeheartedly disagree that the best way to run anything under this system to be a private company. Unless “the best way” means the most profitable. Sure exploiting the labor of others is always gonna be more profitable. Even if you pay your workers well and give them nice benefits. But you’re still exploiting them, for profit.

    I don’t understand how you can’t see how antithetical to what being a communist is. Unless you accept JT is just selling the product of communism and anti-capitalism, that he is just the expression of capitalism commodifying everything including the fight and resistance against itself… and like it? I don’t understand how this is fine and acceptable.

    Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to higher standards…? It’s a thing being born into privilege and using that to help the communist cause. It’s another to climb the ladders of capitalist exploitation using the mantle of revolutionary thought.

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Gonna be completely honest, I don’t put this much thought into how a person runs a YouTube channel because it doesn’t seem that consequential to me. It’s entertainment and a product. If JT were also a landlord or running exploitative farm labor you’d have more of a point, but if he’s making internet videos in an office I just can’t really muster the emotional capacity to say he’s betraying the working class or whatever. He’s an internet content creator, not a revolutionary with an AK.

      Yes, you’re right. JT is selling a commodity. It just is what it is. You’re not going to find the fight against capitalism in YouTube videos and podcasts. They’re all commodities being sold to you. Maybe I’m cynical.

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You are right, I agree with your points. But then why would anyone praise and defend this? Sure it’s just slop, content, but then why put people like this on a pedestal as thought-leaders? A capitalist selling you the idea of liberation…

        • Haas [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I tend to agree with your conclusion, but I’m gonna run with the argument. If JT is a capitalist selling the idea of liberation, does this mean his videos were somehow more proletarian or revolutionary before he employed people? He still “sold” the idea of liberation, he just didn’t engage in labour exploitation to do it.

          Besides, I think you’re missing the point of the post. JT was explaining why it’s neccesary for Second Thought to generate revenue, and like another commenter said, that would still be neccessary even if the channel was a coop.

          Also, we don’t have any information on how the business is structured or what the workplace’s democracy looks like. After all, the only thing that really determines if it’s labour exploitation or not is what happens with the surplus value the company workers generate. If it goes to JT, sure, he’s a capitalist, but we don’t have that kind of information, so I’m not willing to make that judgement (yet).

        • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I wouldn’t put him on a pedestal, he’s just some person. His videos are neat and he’s seemed like a cool guy from the Q&A he did on Hexbear, but that’s about as much as I’d say. I don’t think his videos are disqualified because he employs people though.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      If he’s managing to provide a living for 4 people and those people are in a situation where they don’t feel exploited, I don’t really see how what he’s doing is why different than say Pravda pre-revolution, or any number of other communist newspapers/periodicals over the years that until the revolution had to support their workers through wages and sales of a product.

      I mean, Marx was only able to write Capital because Engles had money from profiting off the labor of others. How is this any worse than that?

      • he’s managing to provide a living for 4 people

        Quit being a lib. Those 5 people are providing the living. If he is extracting profits from them then they are exploited. Full stop.

        I support secondthought i can also understand why its not perfect. This is the critical support.

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Those people are providing a living for themselves, all I’m saying is that working with someone on a project where they’re very involved and you’re all passionate about it and you don’t have to balance that with another full time job is nice.

          Until the workers come out and say that they feel that JT is exploiting them or using them this whole relationship seems to be fine compared to the alternative of working for a company that directly seeks to exploit you to the maximum extent.

          I’m sure cooperative ownership isn’t out of the question for this project, but there isn’t really much money in communist propaganda so it’s amazing that they’re able to support 4 salaries doing it.