The piece seems to touch on what are probably the most important aspects of the channel, the movement (if that's what it is, indeed) and the socio-economic reality behind the current story of that channel, and I tend to agree with most of it, apart from a key detail which would have likely made this article a truly insightful one.
There is a whole lot to say about labour in general (it's actually a fully fledged discipline of study) and the social and economic mechanics that underpin it, let alone the rich philosophical details regarding why and how it takes place in the modern society; these were almost entirely ignored in the article, failing thus to provide a genuinely useful explanation of the context that shaped this situation and its implications, as well as the larger phenomenon that ignited the recent events.
For example, branding the discussions and ideas that birthed the channel in the first place as "extreme, often insane" indicates that the was indeed some degree of research that helped shape the author's conclusions and their understanding of the above, but far from sufficient in my view. I am, of course, not ruling out the fact that maybe it is I who has failed to understand their conclusions.
> For example, branding the discussions and ideas that birthed the channel in the first place as "extreme, often insane" indicates that the was indeed some degree of research that helped shape the author's conclusions and their understanding of the above, but far from sufficient in my view.
They literally wanted to abolish work. It would not really be valuable to go and dig up an old reddit post to confirm this sentiment was present in the community, there are thousands of them.
I am aware of that that channel stands for, or used to stand for. None of that is insane. Perhaps controversial in relation to the current status quo, or maybe not entirely realistic, depending on how deep you wish to delve into this subject, but we must keep in mind that democracy, voting rights for everyone, flying and real time communication across the globe were all deemed utterly unrealistic or outright utopian before we had them.
There is a whole lot to say about labour in general (it's actually a fully fledged discipline of study) and the social and economic mechanics that underpin it, let alone the rich philosophical details regarding why and how it takes place in the modern society; these were almost entirely ignored in the article, failing thus to provide a genuinely useful explanation of the context that shaped this situation and its implications, as well as the larger phenomenon that ignited the recent events.
For example, branding the discussions and ideas that birthed the channel in the first place as "extreme, often insane" indicates that the was indeed some degree of research that helped shape the author's conclusions and their understanding of the above, but far from sufficient in my view. I am, of course, not ruling out the fact that maybe it is I who has failed to understand their conclusions.