Live data from Hacker News

Why must a socialist also be woke?

ft.com

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#31
post #2

A question I won't be able to read about because the FTs boundary defeats my usual archive.is wall jumping. The tl;dr here would be "it's blindingly obvious they don't have to be", and many aren't especially older ones like me who have different ties to an older world feminism, and anti racism world view which clashes with the current ones. Hitchens (Chris, not Peter) said things in a very unwoke manner, which despit…

He saw identity politics/woke coming for decades.

In his 2001 book, “Letters to a Young Contrarian”, Christopher Hitchens wrote the following as a warning:

PS: Since this often seems to come up in discussions of the radical style, I’ll mention one other gleaning from my voyages. Beware of identity politics. I’ll rephrease that: have nothing to do with identity politics. I remember very well the first time I heard the saying “The Personal is Political.” It began as a sort of reaction to the defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they felt, not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of the narcissism of small difference, because each identity group begat its subgroups and “specificities.” This tendency has often been satirised – the overweight caucuse of the Cherokee transgender disabled lesbian faction demands a hearing on its needs – but never satirised enough. You have to have seen it really happen. From a way of being radical it very swiftly became a way of being radical it very swiftly became a way of being reactionary; the Clarence Thomas hearings demonstrated this to all but the most dense and boring and selfish, but then, it was the dense and boring and selfish who had always seen identity politics as their big chance.

Anyway what you swiftly realize if you peek over the wall of your own immediate neighborhood or environment, and travel beyond it, is, first, that we have a huge surplus of people who wouldn’t change anything about the way they were born, or the group they were born into, but second that “humanity” (and the idea of change) is best represented by those who have the wit not to think, or should I say feel, this way.”

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#32
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Woke 1.0 lumped both of those buckets together Having watched the past years unfold from outside the US and reading papers across the media spectrum I would assert that most of the work of smearing the meaning of Woke to include supposedly advocating for litter boxes in classrooms for furries, etc was work gleefully carried out by the US conservative right wing media. > and faced an appropriate backlash which was t…

> was work gleefully carried out by the US conservative right wing media. they own all media, mate. the goal of the right since Bismarck is to get the left to combine the pursuit of economic change with social change as a way of muddling the discussion and splitting the effort.

Why does left have to fall for that every time?

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#33
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the right wing co-opted the term, as they tend to do with all leftist terms, and it became simply another pejorative Even AOC is now running away from woke 1.0 and admitted that there was a lot of craziness. That says a lot.

Democrats betraying their principles because they want to be in the cool kids club is nothing new. They basically threw the election to Trump because appealing to right-wingers was more important to them than having the stink of "leftism" on them. Meanwhile the other side is bathing in the muck and couldn't care less. If "woke 2.0" (although actually it would be 4.0) means embracing some kind of milquetoast neolibera…

Point is that if wokism was so great and so popular, one of its most famous proponent who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run would not be running away from it. Woke 1.0 was a miserable failure and a lot of people have grasped that by now.

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#34
If by woke you mean sufficiently aware the women exist that you might want to support them in defending their bodily autonomy, then yeah.

Questions like this are a dead giveaway that the person asking is a male who has more conservative male friends. That's not the way to measure effective politics. People in tech are especially susceptible to this pernicious idea. That's reflected in the current crop of effective altruism weirdos who can't see the future elite is dominated by educated women.

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#35

Can't read the article, but I hate the title framing. Like, what do you mean by woke? If I'm against misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc, is that woke? Or does it require something special I don't know about? I know it wasn't originally so, but nowadays it seems to be just thrown around as a generic insult.

> what do you mean by woke? There are two parts - one which most of us would support (being against misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc) and one which most of us would oppose (defund the police, abolish ICE, trans women in sports, DEI quotas and promoting people because of their race or gender, etc). Woke 1.0 lumped both of those buckets together and faced an appropriate backlash which resulted in Trump's reelection.

Your second part is a list of fantasies that never existed in real life. So why bother listing them except to give right wing culture warriors something to hang their hat on?

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#36
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats betraying their principles because they want to be in the cool kids club is nothing new. They basically threw the election to Trump because appealing to right-wingers was more important to them than having the stink of "leftism" on them. Meanwhile the other side is bathing in the muck and couldn't care less. If "woke 2.0" (although actually it would be 4.0) means embracing some kind of milquetoast neolibera…

Point is that if wokism was so great and so popular, one of its most famous proponent who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run would not be running away from it. Woke 1.0 was a miserable failure and a lot of people have grasped that by now.

The point is that politicians are rarely if ever sincere in their espoused beliefs, and the Democrats are a center right neoliberal party which has never been comfortable with "leftist" politics because political power in the US has always been biased towards the right. They aren't "running away" from "wokism" because it's a "miserable failure" (whatever that even means, these are just Trumpisms) but because they're seeking power over principle.

People forget that Trump used to be a Democrat and a liberal and he was pals with the Clintons and congratulated Hillary Clinton when she became Secretary of State. None of these people are sincere.

And the Democrats fail not because "Woke 1.0 was a miserable failure" but because they alienate their base (which is actual leftists who do support trans people and defunding the police and the like) while the other side is willing to embrace even the most activist fringe of their base because that's never a risk for the right.

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was work gleefully carried out by the US conservative right wing media. they own all media, mate. the goal of the right since Bismarck is to get the left to combine the pursuit of economic change with social change as a way of muddling the discussion and splitting the effort.

Why does left have to fall for that every time?

propaganda works, on the left and on the right.

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#38
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like AOC has said (and Mamdani apparently supported), "Woke 1.0 was crazy". https://www.axios.com/2026/08/12/aoc-democratic-socialists-2...

But that is literally not what she said.

What do you mean? That is reported to be literally what she said.

Re: Why must a socialist also be woke?

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an odd view of your fellow citizen. To simplify their aspirations as simple fear rather than a complex, human, genuine need. My only question if this: is this tactic working for your side? Given your historic loses to horrible people (Trump) and the general public rejecting your policies (open borders, identity politics, etc), do you think it's the right approach?

>open borders I see you're not a serious person.

Please look at the border crossings by year, and the asylum nonsense and get back to me champ.
Post reply on HN