Ask Lemmygrad

771 readers

10 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Would Youtubers be considered petit bourgeoisie since they own the means of production (a camera and an editing software) yet they still needs to sell the product of his labor to YouTube ads? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

In that case, did JKR become a billionaire by being a worker?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

JK Rowling? Did she make that money from sales of the books she wrote, with no stake (e.g. a significant percentage of stocks) in the various organizations that sold HP merchandise, movies, games, etc.?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

She owns the media rights, so the answer would be both.

JKR is not a valid example of a worker as their money comes mainly not from the fruits of their labour, but the amalgamation of entire industries that help her reap billions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But why does that line of reasoning not apply to rich YouTubers and Twitch streamers?

If influencers stopped working, their revenue would go down drastically, which can't be said of Rowling. So in a sense they have to work for a living, but they're also so rich that they could stop working if they wanted to. It just seems like they're similar situations.

If you can call an athlete or a movie star labour aristocrats, it seems like that label would also apply to successful authors and influencers. They're all propped up by the industries built around them.

load more comments (2 replies)