Millionaire youtubers can already afford high-priced lawyers if they want to, I'm not worried about that.
Who I am worried about are regular people who create content but don't have large followers and don't make to it to the frontpage of HN, but still get hit by copyright trolls.
The rich still benefit from organization.
Also, an organization may have legal standing where an individual does not, and can then deploy their lawyer-army. Where an individual has to wait for an issue to personally affect them, the organization will almost always have at least one affected member and can therefore keep up the pressure constantly, and eventually perhaps make the internet a better place.
They're saying that individual, successful/rich/"powerful" YouTubers can defend themselves against these spurious claims already, but that by organizing they would be even more well equipped, at less personal cost, and also make it possible for smaller creators to also defend themselves (with even less cost).
None of that has anything to do with any Vietcong analogy I can think of.
Edit: Maybe I've misinterpreted your comment, but I stand to the importance of publicity that may be lent by such cases.
(Though in practice, it probably wouldn't be everyone - see the differences in how well-protected major- vs minor-league baseball players are.)