I support the writer’s guild strike because they are not part of the bourgeoisie. The same can’t be said of a lot of these rich actors who own a ton of capital themselves. So on the one hand, it kind of seems like the bourgeoisie is fighting the bourgeoisie on this one. On the other hand, not every actor in the guild is as successful as Tom Cruise, so some of those striking actors are working class.

  • Beat_da_Rich
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As far as the rich actors go, sure. But plenty of labor orgs have wealthier people at the top running them. Something like less than 5% of SAG-AFTRA members make a living acting. The studios are also trying to make it so that even the lowest paid actors (one-liners) are giving away rights to their “likeness” so they can be replaced by AI. That’s predatory af.

    The film industry is much more than A-list bourgeois actors. The acting industry is mostly composed of overworked wage earners who also are working at Starbucks, restaurants, temping, teaching, etc. just to get by. Under capitalism and in the Hollywood system it’s mostly a petite-bourgeois trade (hence being a guild, not a union), but the strike still has the ability to raise some class consciousness.

    Plus a major arm of the US propaganda machine being shut down for the foreseeable future is an objectively good thing.

    • jkure2
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Plenty of labor org’s have wealthier people running them

      This part merits plenty of discussion more broadly imo.

      This doesn’t change the fact that this labor action is good, striking now is a great move for sag aftra. Creating a class divide between union leadership and union rank and file is one of the most effective capitalist tools to undermine union solidarity. Cohesion is the only thing keeping any union standing; leftists should get and remain vigilant about this in the coming months and years as labor action becomes more and more prominent in America.

      Big ups to the UAW for unseating incumbent leadership earlier this year, for example

    • ImOnADiet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The rich actors aren’t bourgeoisie because they get paid millions, most of them are bourgeoisie because they take those millions and reinvest in capital. The rich actors aren’t the ones who make billions in profit like the companies, they’re just compensated much better than other actors because they more bargaining power individually

      Also, all the reporting I’ve heard has described SAG as union?

      • Beat_da_Rich
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep. It’s an issue within SAG too because some of the wealthier actors end up becoming producers as well. Like every org it’s got a ton of things about it that the working-class members take issue with, but it’s good that there’s unity here in this moment.

        SAG stands for Screen Actor’s Guild. It’s a trade guild. People and journalists calling it a labor union are incorrect and conflating the two terms. (Or maybe I’m incorrect? Guild is is the name but they call themselves a labor union? Idk what the government considers them.)

        Now “spiritually” they may aspire to operate as a union, but because of the nature of the career, a national org representing actors can’t really be considered a labor union. Not legally anyway.

        • ImOnADiet
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is the difference? SAG-AFTRA themselves on their website says they’re a union, I’m not finding anything in the first page that calls them a guild, do you have any reading?

          • Beat_da_Rich
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            My mistake. Sorry about that. They call themselves a union on their website. But… it’s confusing because of their name and the nature of the career. I’m having trouble finding any official federal classification other than just taking their word for it.

            In America, the legal difference is that labor unions are founded under one employer (e.g. Starbucks employees). Trade unions represent a trade of laborers (e.g. Boilermakers). Guilds are similar to trade unions but they represent independent contractors.

            Because actors don’t just work for one employer but work by the gig, if SAG is classified as a union and not a guild, I would speculate they’d be classified as a trade union not a labor union. But I don’t know.

            I’ve been trying to parse through these definitions lately since I’ve been trying to organize my workplace. One huge barrier to laborers organizing is this new trend of blatantly misclassifying employees as independent contractors like where I work. Because of that, the government doesn’t recognize us as a labor union even if we had the minimum votes for forming one. We’d have to become a guild.

            These official categories really just feel like arbitrary barriers that are intended to nerf collective bargaining.

            • ImOnADiet
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              All good, just wasn’t sure if I was searching right or needed to switch search engines