The financers/producers openly dissuaded union work because of the “tight budgets.” As a result, the workers got fucked over while the financiers made out. I wonder how a film with such a tight budget, was able to afford the kind of marketing that allowed it to catapult to this kind of breakaway success story? I guess its just that good of a movie, word of mouth right? Marketplace of ideas, surely not a concerted effort by various sectors of the movie industry to promote a union-busting film, to lend legitimacy to a new business model that ensures even more technical trades get forced to take lower wages in order to return profits to those who took “financial risks.”
Indie films dont have the same level of engagement as larger blockbusters by unions, particularly the crew union IATSE. The unions just dont really keep track of indie movies. They also have a lot of pull with american production and distribution companies. So the movie was made for 750k, and sold for 15m (what a roi!) to a Canadian distributor, bypassing american union reach, and the distributor took on marketing. They used “guerrilla marketing” tactics to lend some bona fide to the low budget.
There have been a lot of films in recent years made for exceedingly low budgets, using this indie movie loophole and trying out various other tactics like filming in Las Vegas where union penetration is lower, though this often still leads to the crews seeking out and organizing union contracts. None so far has been this big of a success, so Obsession is being pushed in every which way. Its the realization of a long project by movie production companies to skirt union oversight. This always leads to more dangerous conditions and lower wages across the board.
I dont know about you all, but I’m never watching this shit ass movie, and I will never watch anything by this director/production company, if I can help it.
The writer/director having his own huge organic following via the comedy group definitely helped get the funding and get the movie to be more successful than if he was a first time writer/director making a real indie film. This makes it seem like they knew there would be a profit and they should have offered bonuses and extra pay to the crew based on profit.
So if the movie makes x amount over the budget (which means the risk takers got all their money back so their risk is covered) then all the crew get a certain percentage based on their role. Then everyone makes money, including the “risk takers,” and the more money the film makes, the better it is for everyone. Even if the distributors got 50% profit after getting their investment back and the other 50 was split between the crew, it would be incredible bonuses for the crew and the distributor would be making an absurd amount of profit.
No I think you’re right, I just can’t imagine what would ever compel a youtuber to do the right thing, except a verifiable threat to his flabby unwashed ass
Like I’m writing about needing a union and you’re replying with a hypothetical situation. I’m just not very good with hypotheticals
Mark Plier did a similar thing to what I described with his movie’s success. Your solution is more of a hypothetical, since it’s not possible for all workers to be a member of the unions you are describing per the union’s own structural mandates. They are actually quite difficult to join with many locals pretty much not accepting applicants unless they have friends with leverage in the local. So while it is very easy for every YouTuber who makes a movie using their capital, social or otherwise, to choose to split profits with crew, your solution to just get a union contract isn’t actually available to the majority of workers in the industry until a revolutionary party leads the defeat of capitalism and creates a society where all workers are inherently in a union in one way or another.
More union busting apologism, just advocating for conscientious capitalism. Instead of siding with the workers, side with the youtubers. What a confusing time for people.
You are a very confused person, lmao. I said the only way to secure worker’s rights is by defeating capitalism because unions themselves literally don’t accept all the workers who need them as members. Somehow I’m advocating for union busting by pointing out that unions won’t take in workers as members. Yes, the person pointing out the issue is the problem, not the issue itself.
Marx, Engels and Lenin tore apart economism over a century ago, showing clearly why reducing the worker’s movement to mere unionism is ultimately reactionary but here we are over a century later and the biggest losers on the Internet are still advocating for “unions” as a solution when the unions themselves are reactionary tools of capital that refuse to represent workers. You prefer to throw the majority of an industries workers under the bus and blame them for not joining a union they aren’t allowed to join.
I provided the mark plier example because you said my comment about what a better contract could look like was just a hypothetical and it is a recent example of the type of thing I’m talking about. It would be easier for people to pressure those youtubers into better contracts through boycotts and other tactics because they have an unusually high amount of control over the films they make than an average new filmmaker, especially since, again, you literally can’t join the industry unions most of the time. Which is why I added the caveat that the real solution is not relying on unions or YouTubers but on revolution. Reading comprehension has plummeted, I really hope you get a tutor or something
You’re seriously going to check my Marxism card? Which debate rabbit hole do you wanna take this down? How much more should we confuse this issue?
Lenin discusses the role of consciousness in the formation of the vanguard party in "What is to Be Done?:
Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers… would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness.
This line, influenced by Kautsky before he went “renegade,” is about the need for a worker’s party capable of organizing the working class. It’s a deeply important line to Marxist thought. However, as Lenin notes in the preface to “12 Years,” it has generated much confusion:
My second comment concerns the question of economic struggle and the trade. unions. My views on this subject have been frequently misrepresented in the literature, and I must, therefore, emphasise that many pages in What Is To Be Done? are devoted to explaining the immense importance of economic struggle and the trade unions. In particular, I advocated neutrality of the trade unions, and have not altered that view in the pamphlets or newspaper articles written since then, despite the numerous assertions by my opponents. Only the London R.S.D.L.P. Congress and the Stuttgart International Socialist Congress led me to conclude that trade-union neutrality is not defensible as a principle. The only correct principle is the closest possible alignment of the unions with the Party. Our policy must be to bring the unions closer to the Party and link them with it. That policy should be pursued perseveringly and persistently in all our propaganda, agitation, and organising activity, without trying to obtain mere “recognition” of our views and without expelling from the trade unions those of a different opinion.
So it’s clear to me that the socialist movement, having organized ourselves as a revolutionary party opposed to capitalism is, according to Lenin, to show solidarity with unions, to work with them in order to promote revolutionary consciousness beyond the “trade union consciousness” that develops out of organic worker struggle against their conditions. However, whether or not this later quote is a refutation of the first is another area of confusion. This view was promoted by Hal Draper, and ultimately led to even more confusion in subsequent years. Was Draper a socialist? Or was he actually the left wing of the bourgeoisie? I am familiar with analysis on both sides of this debate. However, the point is, its all very confusing.
Engels, in Anti Duhring, describes the Utopian communism of Robert Owen:
To them, therefore, the fruits of this new power belonged. The newly-created gigantic productive forces, hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction of society; they were destined, as the common property of all, to be worked for the common good of all.
Owen’s communism was based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this practical character. Thus, in 1823, Owen proposed the relief of the distress in Ireland by Communist colonies, and drew up complete estimates of costs of founding them, yearly expenditure, and probable revenue. And in his definite plan for the future, the technical working out of details is managed with such practical knowledge – ground plan, front and side and bird’s-eye views all included – that the Owen method of social reform once accepted, there is from the practical point of view little to be said against the actual arrangement of details.
This, in my opinion, is similar to the Markiplier example you described, although in extreme. Sounds great! A bourgeois who internalizes the materialism of Saint Simone and Fourier, uses his extensive knowledge and experience of industry to create communism for the workers. Unfortunately, when his project moved from a model of benevolent capitalism to Utopian communism, the situation changed drastically for Owen.
His advance in the direction of Communism was the turning-point in Owen’s life. As long as he was simply a philanthropist, he was rewarded with nothing but wealth, applause, honor, and glory. He was the most popular man in Europe. Not only men of his own class, but statesmen and princes listened to him approvingly. But when he came out with his Communist theories that was quite another thing.
Banished from official society, with a conspiracy of silence against him in the press, ruined by his unsuccessful Communist experiments in America, in which he sacrificed all his fortune
Engels holds Owen in high regard, and even says:
Every social movement, every real advance in England on behalf of the workers links itself on to the name of Robert Owen.
However, the point that Engels makes is that these concessions from individual individual capitalists, is not a form of worker organization, but a source of confusion:
from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion: a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.
To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.
Marx, in the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, describes what happens when the interests of lower classes and enterprising individuals create contradictions that resist the supremacy of the ruling class (emphasis by Marx):
Every common interest was immediately severed from the society, countered by a higher, general interest, snatched from the activities of society’s members themselves and made an object of government activity – from a bridge, a schoolhouse, and the communal property of a village community, to the railroads, the national wealth, and the national University of France. Finally the parliamentary republic, in its struggle against the revolution, found itself compelled to strengthen the means and the centralization of governmental power with repressive measures. All revolutions perfected this machine instead of breaking it.
So can we please prevent any further ridiculousness where one or the other of us starts proving who is more or less Marxist? I can defend my position, and argue against yours with sources and a deep familiarity of Marxism from about a decade of practical organizing experience, with an emphasis on building the worker’s party. I’m sure we could go back and forth disputing caricatures of each other’s politics until the wheels fall off. This does not interest me, and I find it impractical.
So here is my position: I believe that the promotion, if not the entire process of the creation of the movie Obsession has the effect, whether intentional or otherwise, of harming the unionization of workers in the entertainment industry. I am sorry if I described your argument as “apologism” if that characterization felt to you as a personal attack.
Yes I believe you have some confusion around this topic, however I think confusion is something that can be remedied. I was adhering to the pro-union message, despite my own criticisms of the union form, particularly the bureaucratic and collaborationist nature of craft unions, and institutional capture of many industrial unions by the capitalists who own the means of production within these industries. I believe that expanded participation in unions by workers is a systematic improvement over the current situation, evidenced by the difference between the pre and post neo-liberal turn of the late 70s, particularly where it concerns the break between increases in real economic productivity while wages stagnated, that occurred after that period, a trend that has only magnified since then.
I do not believe that participation in unions alone is a viable road to revolutionary socialism, without the creation and influence of a real mass workers party to represent the long term interests of the class over the immediate interests of individual unions. I believe that once In a union, workers need to struggle to reform their unions. A good example of this is UAW, as the reform movement that successfully elected Sean Fain (not Sean O’Brian of the Teamsters) has negotiated better contracts for workers, and recently totally divested from Israeli genocide bonds. The UAW reformers are also promoting more radical class demands, like renegotiating union contracts to expire on May 1 2028, in order to bridge the gap in consciousness between workers who dont want to break the law, since general solidarity strikes are illegal. But if everybody’s contract expires at the same time, across many major industries and unions, and the unions and workers movements prepare for radical solidarity actions, a sort of legal general strike can be carried out, to force changes in the system.
I dont appreciate my pro-union position being mis characterized as being anti-revolutionary party. I just think your one example of Markiplier doing the right thing this one time doesnt prove that greater involvement of the IATSE crew trades union would have been bad for the workers who were screwed over by Obsession. In fact it proves that while there is nothing that forces people to do the right thing, as Markiplier did, that the trend will be a further deterioration of wages and worker power within the entertainment industry.
Wow hexbear comments section goes so hard.
The financers/producers openly dissuaded union work because of the “tight budgets.” As a result, the workers got fucked over while the financiers made out. I wonder how a film with such a tight budget, was able to afford the kind of marketing that allowed it to catapult to this kind of breakaway success story? I guess its just that good of a movie, word of mouth right? Marketplace of ideas, surely not a concerted effort by various sectors of the movie industry to promote a union-busting film, to lend legitimacy to a new business model that ensures even more technical trades get forced to take lower wages in order to return profits to those who took “financial risks.”
Indie films dont have the same level of engagement as larger blockbusters by unions, particularly the crew union IATSE. The unions just dont really keep track of indie movies. They also have a lot of pull with american production and distribution companies. So the movie was made for 750k, and sold for 15m (what a roi!) to a Canadian distributor, bypassing american union reach, and the distributor took on marketing. They used “guerrilla marketing” tactics to lend some bona fide to the low budget.
There have been a lot of films in recent years made for exceedingly low budgets, using this indie movie loophole and trying out various other tactics like filming in Las Vegas where union penetration is lower, though this often still leads to the crews seeking out and organizing union contracts. None so far has been this big of a success, so Obsession is being pushed in every which way. Its the realization of a long project by movie production companies to skirt union oversight. This always leads to more dangerous conditions and lower wages across the board.
I dont know about you all, but I’m never watching this shit ass movie, and I will never watch anything by this director/production company, if I can help it.
The writer/director having his own huge organic following via the comedy group definitely helped get the funding and get the movie to be more successful than if he was a first time writer/director making a real indie film. This makes it seem like they knew there would be a profit and they should have offered bonuses and extra pay to the crew based on profit.
So if the movie makes x amount over the budget (which means the risk takers got all their money back so their risk is covered) then all the crew get a certain percentage based on their role. Then everyone makes money, including the “risk takers,” and the more money the film makes, the better it is for everyone. Even if the distributors got 50% profit after getting their investment back and the other 50 was split between the crew, it would be incredible bonuses for the crew and the distributor would be making an absurd amount of profit.
Not without a union contract.
Seems like you didn’t understand what I was saying
No I think you’re right, I just can’t imagine what would ever compel a youtuber to do the right thing, except a verifiable threat to his flabby unwashed ass
Like I’m writing about needing a union and you’re replying with a hypothetical situation. I’m just not very good with hypotheticals
Mark Plier did a similar thing to what I described with his movie’s success. Your solution is more of a hypothetical, since it’s not possible for all workers to be a member of the unions you are describing per the union’s own structural mandates. They are actually quite difficult to join with many locals pretty much not accepting applicants unless they have friends with leverage in the local. So while it is very easy for every YouTuber who makes a movie using their capital, social or otherwise, to choose to split profits with crew, your solution to just get a union contract isn’t actually available to the majority of workers in the industry until a revolutionary party leads the defeat of capitalism and creates a society where all workers are inherently in a union in one way or another.
Ah Marxism-Leninism-Markiplierism.
More union busting apologism, just advocating for conscientious capitalism. Instead of siding with the workers, side with the youtubers. What a confusing time for people.
You are a very confused person, lmao. I said the only way to secure worker’s rights is by defeating capitalism because unions themselves literally don’t accept all the workers who need them as members. Somehow I’m advocating for union busting by pointing out that unions won’t take in workers as members. Yes, the person pointing out the issue is the problem, not the issue itself.
Marx, Engels and Lenin tore apart economism over a century ago, showing clearly why reducing the worker’s movement to mere unionism is ultimately reactionary but here we are over a century later and the biggest losers on the Internet are still advocating for “unions” as a solution when the unions themselves are reactionary tools of capital that refuse to represent workers. You prefer to throw the majority of an industries workers under the bus and blame them for not joining a union they aren’t allowed to join.
I provided the mark plier example because you said my comment about what a better contract could look like was just a hypothetical and it is a recent example of the type of thing I’m talking about. It would be easier for people to pressure those youtubers into better contracts through boycotts and other tactics because they have an unusually high amount of control over the films they make than an average new filmmaker, especially since, again, you literally can’t join the industry unions most of the time. Which is why I added the caveat that the real solution is not relying on unions or YouTubers but on revolution. Reading comprehension has plummeted, I really hope you get a tutor or something
Come on, comrade
You’re seriously going to check my Marxism card? Which debate rabbit hole do you wanna take this down? How much more should we confuse this issue?
Lenin discusses the role of consciousness in the formation of the vanguard party in "What is to Be Done?:
This line, influenced by Kautsky before he went “renegade,” is about the need for a worker’s party capable of organizing the working class. It’s a deeply important line to Marxist thought. However, as Lenin notes in the preface to “12 Years,” it has generated much confusion:
So it’s clear to me that the socialist movement, having organized ourselves as a revolutionary party opposed to capitalism is, according to Lenin, to show solidarity with unions, to work with them in order to promote revolutionary consciousness beyond the “trade union consciousness” that develops out of organic worker struggle against their conditions. However, whether or not this later quote is a refutation of the first is another area of confusion. This view was promoted by Hal Draper, and ultimately led to even more confusion in subsequent years. Was Draper a socialist? Or was he actually the left wing of the bourgeoisie? I am familiar with analysis on both sides of this debate. However, the point is, its all very confusing.
Engels, in Anti Duhring, describes the Utopian communism of Robert Owen:
This, in my opinion, is similar to the Markiplier example you described, although in extreme. Sounds great! A bourgeois who internalizes the materialism of Saint Simone and Fourier, uses his extensive knowledge and experience of industry to create communism for the workers. Unfortunately, when his project moved from a model of benevolent capitalism to Utopian communism, the situation changed drastically for Owen.
Engels holds Owen in high regard, and even says:
However, the point that Engels makes is that these concessions from individual individual capitalists, is not a form of worker organization, but a source of confusion:
Marx, in the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, describes what happens when the interests of lower classes and enterprising individuals create contradictions that resist the supremacy of the ruling class (emphasis by Marx):
So can we please prevent any further ridiculousness where one or the other of us starts proving who is more or less Marxist? I can defend my position, and argue against yours with sources and a deep familiarity of Marxism from about a decade of practical organizing experience, with an emphasis on building the worker’s party. I’m sure we could go back and forth disputing caricatures of each other’s politics until the wheels fall off. This does not interest me, and I find it impractical.
So here is my position: I believe that the promotion, if not the entire process of the creation of the movie Obsession has the effect, whether intentional or otherwise, of harming the unionization of workers in the entertainment industry. I am sorry if I described your argument as “apologism” if that characterization felt to you as a personal attack.
Yes I believe you have some confusion around this topic, however I think confusion is something that can be remedied. I was adhering to the pro-union message, despite my own criticisms of the union form, particularly the bureaucratic and collaborationist nature of craft unions, and institutional capture of many industrial unions by the capitalists who own the means of production within these industries. I believe that expanded participation in unions by workers is a systematic improvement over the current situation, evidenced by the difference between the pre and post neo-liberal turn of the late 70s, particularly where it concerns the break between increases in real economic productivity while wages stagnated, that occurred after that period, a trend that has only magnified since then.
I do not believe that participation in unions alone is a viable road to revolutionary socialism, without the creation and influence of a real mass workers party to represent the long term interests of the class over the immediate interests of individual unions. I believe that once In a union, workers need to struggle to reform their unions. A good example of this is UAW, as the reform movement that successfully elected Sean Fain (not Sean O’Brian of the Teamsters) has negotiated better contracts for workers, and recently totally divested from Israeli genocide bonds. The UAW reformers are also promoting more radical class demands, like renegotiating union contracts to expire on May 1 2028, in order to bridge the gap in consciousness between workers who dont want to break the law, since general solidarity strikes are illegal. But if everybody’s contract expires at the same time, across many major industries and unions, and the unions and workers movements prepare for radical solidarity actions, a sort of legal general strike can be carried out, to force changes in the system.
I dont appreciate my pro-union position being mis characterized as being anti-revolutionary party. I just think your one example of Markiplier doing the right thing this one time doesnt prove that greater involvement of the IATSE crew trades union would have been bad for the workers who were screwed over by Obsession. In fact it proves that while there is nothing that forces people to do the right thing, as Markiplier did, that the trend will be a further deterioration of wages and worker power within the entertainment industry.
Continued