Reading this story about a 'progressive-ish' bookshop collapsing and the sub-Life of Brian chortling column about it, strikes me that so much of the stuff attached to that "splitters" cliche is less about leftist people and more about the relationship between capital and effective propagandizing
If you read the Londoner article, it's clear that the owner was essentially running it as a personal hobby and not actually managing the place properly. www.the-londoner.co.uk/scarlett-let...
This quote in particular is so familiar it stings: “The workers are queer, trans, racialised, disabled, sex workers and students,” it argued. “Their identities have been used to advertise and fundraise for the bookshop as a radical space whilst their voices are not listened to.”
Been there, done that. www.academia.edu/22590852/Pos...
If you run a right-wing think tank, blog, newspaper, TV channel, podcast, whatever, you will have access to a pretty much infinite money hose until you give up. You can pay whatever salaries you want, pay writers whatever you want. No one will ever expect you to make a profit.
If The Times or The Spectator or Times Radio or GB News haemorrhage money, no one cares at all. You can just keep cracking on indefinitely, no issue. If one podcast flops, well there's always a bunch of others to fund.
Run something that capital doesn't really want to exist? Need to hope that bourgeois sympathiser isn't a flake or a control freak. Need to hope you've got a bottomless pit of volunteers willing to keep it going and never have life crises, are never flawed individuals, never fall out irreparably.
Need to hope you're good enough to grab a significant audience for it without any marketing budget and that everyone resists the temptation to compromise the content in pursuit of commercial viability.
I wish I could remember who said this on the old site: "The right spends money. The left spends people"