Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

However, I think you’ve misunderstood BLM at its core. BLM is not a specific group like the GOP or the NRA. Maybe it was originally, and maybe it nominally still is, but BLM is a slogan. It’s a label. It’s more like calling yourself left-wing, or right-wing.

If I say I’m left-wing, do you assume I have the same views as the people who sat in the left wing of the French parliament all those years ago?

So if I say “Black Lives Matter”, should you assume that I believe the same as some nameless, faceless founder that I don’t know?

Just to add a bit of real life evidence to that, I don’t know if you’ve met the kind of people that associate themselves with black lives matter, but being a student, I have, a lot. They have no interest in Marxism, let me tell you

And in regards to your comment that Marxism isn’t economic: I don’t like to directly call people wrong, because it’s abrasive and rarely changes anything, but no, you’re completely wrong.

Marxism is primarily about the distribution of wealth in society. The name of the book is ‘Das Kapital’. It’s not ‘Das Identity’, or ‘Das Oppressors’. It’s ‘The Capital’. It’s a book analysing who holds the money and means of production in society and how that capital is distributed amongst the classes. Marx was an economist.

and I take your point that if you extrapolate some of Marx’s views outwards, they could be applied to what blm people stand for. However, that is not marxism. That is one aspect of Marxism, extrapolated outwards and applied to something different.

Look at it this way: Plenty of right-wing anti-semites believe that the world is secretly oppressed by a small minority of jews. Would you call them Marxists, or neo-marxists?

Now finally, onto your parallels between the silicon valley ideology that’s risen up and Marxism. First of all, there’s an inherent extremely obvious contradiction. Silicon valley is full of massive capital holding corporations, who aggressively crush any attempts to unionise, who are the antithesis of marx’s primary goals. Even if the ideology shares some vague themes with communism, in my opinion, that is easily enough to scratch off a Marxist label. Easily.

Onto your actual parallels: 1. this is just a repeat of above. Sure it’s true, and sure it’s a parallel, but it’s nowhere near enough to start throwing round the word marxist

2. that may have been an aspect of communist societies, but it’s also an aspect of fascist societies, and basically any society who had something to hide. Besides, we’re talking about Marxism, not in-practice communism

3. First, Marx’s feud wasn’t with imperialism, it was with the class system. I’m sure he didn’t like imperialism either, but that wasn’t his primary enemy. Anyway, that’s beside the point. I’ve never heard anything like that from a BLM or new left/silicon valley type. They’re very interested in short term aesthetic wins (pulling down statues, apologies from politicians etc etc) and I really don’t think many of them have considered their long-term goals. This is a conversation I’ve had a few times. I posit that surely the end-goal should be to, outside of practicalities, forget race/gender/sexuality even exists in the first place, and they aren’t really sure and don’t seem to have thought about it

Additionally, achieving your goals and converting the world to your mindset is not an invention of Marx, and not even remotely exclusive to marxists

4. this also is hardly unique to the ideology, or to Marxism, or any group. the Nazis were the same. So are the Westboro baptist church. Are they Marxists?

To take the WBC point further, look at those parallels again. How many of them apply to the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Nazis, or most cults?

You may think that’s against my argument, but it’s not. I’m not here to defend the new left or BLM. They do share some themes with cults and bad groups from history, and I think their ideology is borderline madness. (read up on critical race theory). That doesn’t make them Marxists though. It just doesn’t

I agree it's reasonable to view BLM as a leaderless social movement, and that the existence of people who claim to speak for it is a bit suspicious. But the original point I was responding to was that neo-Marxism is some sort of wacky label that isn't justified by anything, and that labelling BLM as neo-Marxist is a sort of unjustified smear that's designed to bait conservatives. To address this point, it's not necessary to actually win the argument that BLM is a Marxist movement, only to point out why people might genuinely believe it without having been baited into it. And I think the fact that the people who own the websites and claim to speak for the movement say they're Marxists is sufficient to make that a justifiable claim, even if it may be debatable and certainly not the full story.

You're right that Marx didn't explicitly identify his work as being about identity politics. However, Marx wasn't really a student of economics in the way modern economists would recognize. He showed very little interest in the mechanics of how business worked, to the extent that when his friend Engels invited him to visit one of his factories Marx declined. In fact, I believe there's no evidence Marx ever actually spent time in places where the working classes utilized the means of production, even though his entire philosophy revolved around them. Marx viewed capital almost exclusively through the lens of class struggle. Capital was something that some people had lots of because they oppressed other people, and it really wasn't much more complicated than that. In particular his world view had nothing in it that justified the existence of capitalists - he assigned zero value to their role as coordinators and planners.

A part of your argument is that some of these attributes could apply to "right wing anti-semites" and you mention Nazis in a few places. I actually believe the Nazis were not right wing at all, for example if you read their propaganda magazine (Signal) it is basically a standard socialist critique of western culture, which they called imperialism, naturally, and obviously the party called itself the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. However last time I made that argument on HN I got slapped by dang so let's put that to one side here, as it's apparently taboo.

W.R.T. short term vs long term goals. Yes, it's true, Marx was a much longer term thinker than the current crop of neo-Marxists. He had a sweeping view of human history and was happy to make long-range predictions about the inevitability of revolution. There's nothing like that anywhere in the (supposedly) neo-Marxist philosophy. However, I think a critic of Marx would observe that his long term plans were extremely vague. Marx was big on criticism of capitalism and short on detail about communism which is one reason for the enduring popularity of "regime X wasn't really communism" as an argument. The Communist Manifesto was about as close as it got, and that boiled down to a bunch of bullet points that could be enumerated in 60 seconds flat. It was a long way from a real plan. It's more than the new Left have (right now), but not much more.

At any rate, to say it again, the point here is not really to thrash out what Marxism is or isn't. The point is, there are sufficient parallels that even if you disagree with the argument it's obvious why plenty of people make it. It's not like this idea was just invented out of nothing for nefarious reasons. People who conspicuously subscribe to BLM/feminist/new left thinking describe the world in very similar ways to how Marx did, are invariably voting for policies closer to his policies, and some of them literally say "we are Marxists". That's sufficient for the arguments to be made in good faith even if they're wrong.

The question in this case is "should it be illegal to discipline an employee for deliberately misgendering a student?" At least one federal circuit court found that it is illegal for the university to discipline a professor for deliberately misgendering a student multiple times.

This is all to say, being deliberately misgendered by a coworker is a real problem. A private employer would not be required by law to fire or discipline an employee who was doing the same thing as this professor. So for the employer, deciding whether or not to discipline an employee who deliberately misgenders a coworker is "a political issue"

No, it does not. It means that the colour of their skin is ignored. If a white family has the same socio-economic status as a family of colour, should we treat them differently simply based on colour?

I think you mean we should assume the family of colour is actively discriminated against so they can't be in the same socio-economic group, but at the same time you claim that "systemic racism isn't necessarily about personal intent"...?

> Similarly, richer people lack an understanding of what poverty implies about the lack of choices.

This is probs what you actually want to control for, but it's easier to go for the low-hanging fruit that's also culturally fashionable right now, I get it.

My view is certainly coloured by being a white Eastern European living in Western Europe. Not all white people have the same background, certainly not in Europe. I'm sure there are shades of white in America as well. Point being: colour is only an easy proxy for the real issues that need solving.

Here's my "race-blind" take: give help to the people who need it, in the way that they need it. The implementation can then have a race-driven approach, but the policy is race-free. Or is that not good enough?