padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
what is? me? woke capitalism? both? I'd agree in all casesits very cynical
what is? me? woke capitalism? both? I'd agree in all casesits very cynical
definitelycapital is using wokeism to legitimise itself. if some other ideology served the same purpose it might use that instead
that's interesting - what I would question is the fervency of that belief. the only thing I think business truly fervently believes in is good business.bc it's the ideological justification for its activities, it fervently believes in it, to the point of alienating potential markets by loudly proclaiming its commitment to apparently decisive positions
I think companies with a meaningful commitment to social justice don't need suicide nets under the windows of the factories where their products are made, or deliberately design their products to have built-in obsolescence.I am saying that at any hard decision point, the bottom line will win out over a commitment to social justice
What im getting at isn't that there are markets in everything but that markets are becoming the thing. All the woke gestures done by google and sachs look like basic marketing practice, and most overtly woke ad campaigns are clearly counting on the anti woke outrage to be just as useful as the woke support. Capital has always aligned itself with the moral good as defined by whatever political circumstance dictates, so what appears to be different about woke capitalism is the increased influence it has on the parameters for ideological discourse. Thats what will remain after we move past wokeness and onto the next thing (unless your just using 'woke capitalism' to mean this new position, then we agree. Im just not entirely convinced that the primary legitimizing effect of woke capital is that it makes capital look like a necessary moral agent)right, there are "markets in everything" - being woke, being anti-woke and all points between. but the woke capital discussion is about capital's ideology. why is it that eg google or goldman sachs support nominally radical causes like black lives matter despite being integral participants in surveillance and finance capitalism?
Spoken like a true veteran of the horrors of Ypres.Nobody's woke in a foxhole.
Spoken like a true veteran of the horrors of Ypres.
I DON'T BLOODY KNOW, MISTER WAR EXPERTFoxholes weren't Ypres, were they? Pillock.
because they can, because they're both good business decisions and in business terms there is no contradiction. no great mystery.why is it that eg google or goldman sachs support nominally radical causes like black lives matter despite being integral participants in surveillance and finance capitalism?
what is unique about woke capitalism in this regard tho?what appears to be different about woke capitalism is the increased influence it has on the parameters for ideological discourse
true neither about atheists nor in this contextNobody's woke in a foxhole
maybe in "business terms" no contradiction exists, but in ethical, or socio-historical, or even simple logical terms such things plainly appear contradictory - how is it that emancipatory politics becomes marshalled in support of its functional opposite? perhaps it's not functionally opposite, or perhaps it's the old problem of "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". in either case there definitely seems to be something worth explaining herebecause they can, because they're both good business decisions and in business terms there is no contradiction. no great mystery.
res ipsa loquitur