Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

Epic Games laid off over 800 people because management decided to gamble on Metaverse Magic Beans. Capcom's boss thinks game prices are too low. What do these two things have in common? They're examples of how industry leaders are irresponsible with their money and pass the consequences onto anybody but themselves.

Also, a special friend returns to The Jimquisition... 

Files

(No title)

Comments

Anonymous

Can anyone explain to me the visual gag of the shrimp/prawn whenever Steff says "however" or a similar transition word? I'm afraid I don't get it

Anonymous

Something I've been thinking about for years now is the notion of the greedy exec. and whether it is necessary. Coming from Germany, leftists here privilege Marx's position, who emphasizes that Capital, not the capitalist class, is the "vampire"/"werewolf" sucking life and labor out of humanity (across all of his major texts). Capitalism is the rule of things over humans, rather than one class over another. Under Capitalism, execs too are commodities, materially privileged yes, but just as estranged from their social surroundings as anyone else. The affect German leftists tend to focus on in place of greed is fear. I seriously feel like this is (of course within limits and with plenty of exceptions) sort of a national thing. German leftist discourse was molded in opposition to Nazi-rule and post-1945 continuities. We don't like to talk about greedy capitalists, because there are frightening "overlaps with" antisemitism to the trope (I'd actually go as far as calling them "connections to"). What's more, it is theoretically false: what the greed theory implies is that what we're dealing with is a number of morally corrupted individuals in positions of power. If this were correct, the problem could be solved by killing these individuals. It can't. Capitalism is set up in such a way that they would immediately be replaced. The problem isn't that the Koticks of the world are evil, it's that the positions they are in are ones which "demand" evil actions. Being CEO of a company listed on the stock-exchange has "raising profits by all means" as semi-literal part of its job-description. Now, I love Jimquisition and these videos and I understand how the personalization of Capitalism's evils in the form of some tuxedo-wearing villains helps railing people up. Perhaps it is part of what makes these videos so great. I also acknowledge that Steph always points to the structural background, maybe seeking to imply that the Koticks aren't naturally the way they are, but that the way our markets/society are structured encourages them to it. But there's also a somewhat uncomfortable populist touch to it. I can't shake the feeling that there is a connection between this kind of indivualistic analysis, which seems especially prevalent among UK commentators, and the virulent antisemitism across leftist UK organizers and parties. And, even in very pragmatic, political terms, I feel like insisting on the evilness of individuals always entails a certain redemption of the systems and structures they inhabit. Why focus on CEOs for doing what is obviously, under the given circumstances, the most rational thing for them to do (i.e. putting profits over people), when we could instead focus on the social conditions wherein doing so becomes rational in the first place. Under Capitalism, everyone is put into competition with one another, self-interest is rewarded, etc.. Happy to hear your takes on this. Also, let us not make it an Israel/Palestine debate, please. ps.: If it isn't clear, I'm a huge fan, none of the above lessens my appreciation of Steph's tremendous achievements. The writing, the wit, the research, the analysis (in all but that regard), everything is just beautiful, inspiring, educational (I've honestly learned so much thanks to them), and fun! So yea, this is coming from a place of admiration!