Yes, I was thinking on those lines myself and suspect that we’ve already left the optimal conditions for democracy.
Consider how people say, for example, that it’s impossible to revolt against the government using just personal firearms, given that the government has nukes, fighter jets etc. Well, if that’s true, democracy depends on the ideological commitment of members of the relevant institutions. And I don’t think that’s necessarily an especially stable situation—if the incentive is there, the ideology will shift eventually.
Moreover, I think alyssavance (OP) is perhaps a bit too dismissive of wokeism, in part precisely for the above reasons—woke ideology has disproportionate institutional influence compared with its popular support.
But another, perhaps more important reason to be concerned about woke ideology is that its institutional influence is leading de facto policy as actually implemented to—as I see it—be considerably more woke-oriented than is popularly supported. This naturally could lead to support among anti-woke people for political crackdowns on woke-influenced institutions to prevent this. But of course, such crackdowns are exactly the sort of thing that would enable a takeover.
And that sort of support could also lead to increased fervor among the woke: “see, we have to stop those terrible people”, etc (which is also what the anti-woke are saying, of course). Classic toxoplasma, potentially.
Edit: to be clear, I do think it’s a bad thing that democracy may be unstable now.
Consider how people say, for example, that it’s impossible to revolt against the government using just personal firearms, given that the government has nukes, fighter jets etc.
People do say that kind of thing. Counterarguments:
Successful revolts don’t need to be capable of defeating the army in a fair fight. All you need to do is make it sufficiently painful for them to keep fighting that they give up. I think the Middle East has modern examples of this.
A revolt may have some portion of the army on its side, and another portion might refuse to fight their own people. Nukes in particular—I would be extremely astonished if any government used a large nuke, killing a bunch of civilians, when putting down a rebellion. (Maybe they’d use very small tactical nukes—equivalent to large conventional bombs—in situations where there’d be no civilian casualties, but I suspect (and hope) that there’d still be strong resistance to breaking the nuclear taboo. And would there even be an advantage to doing so? Are the tactical nukes cheaper than the equivalents? Heh, someone has looked into it: probably not.)
can you rephrase without “woke” to establish what you mean by it, in order to separate it from other things others might refer to as woke that you wouldn’t? I’m not familiar enough with the term to know what people actually mean by it in this context, given the differences in how different subcultures talk.
I guess I probably meant it a lot broader than others do—it’s more of a spectrum than a binary classification and I’m including support for open immigration, affirmative action, etc. in what I’m thinking of. The more the support for a policy is based on some firmly held moral conviction that is at odds with most of the population, the more I’m thinking of it as woke I guess.
I see. For what it’s worth I don’t think that’s the only important split here. I think a lot more people accept the firm moral convictions than there are people who endorse pressuring others about them in the particular flavor that defines what I hope I can simply refer to as corporate wokism and be understood, which is what I see in the halls of power. Merely “staying woke” in self defense as a different thing than “woke ideology” as a different thing than “woke authority”. I personally define my moral convictions by anti-authoritarianism and pro-flourishing-autonomy, and with that as the guiding reference I find a lot of common ground with centrists I meet online (discord, games, etc) on morality, the disagreements are over how that morality should be implemented, usually, though of course there are plenty who don’t agree morally. It seems to me that the sense in which Sam Altman is woke is the one to be afraid of, given that my my standards the thing to stay woke about is the threat from him! If authoritarian regime change occurs, I think it will at this point be heavily entangled with the way his interaction with government changed the system.
Hmm yes the “pressuring others about them” aspect is a major part of what I’m thinking of as woke too. But, regarding:
Merely “staying woke” in self defense as a different thing than “woke ideology” as a different thing than “woke authority”
If people in an institution have to “stay woke” in self defense, that is a major degree of influence, even if few actually endorse pressuring others as you say.
Not sure what you’re saying after that point, perhaps you could elaborate.
agh I should probably do more useful things than reply to this in detail. basically I think sam altman is a great example of what this video describes. (ai summary with human edits.) this is an unabashedly left channel—not even liberal, which this channel would describe as centrist. It’s not a full citation, but it’s a solid overview.
Some folks have been increasingly concerned about a “woke corporate agenda” where corporations pretend to care about social issues like racism and sexism to defend their wealth and power.
The video claims the real problem is not that corporations care too much about social justice, but the amount of power and control they have over working people.
Identity politics was originally coined by Black feminists to fully participate in political movements and engage in politics, but got coopted and the name means something else to most people now
Identity politics was proposed to focus on undoing inequality and building solidarity, not just solutions based on identities. Perhaps nominative determinism screwed it up. (What if we designed by nominative determinism?)
Corporations have captured identity politics because they see how valuable it is, but they don’t actually change the unequal structures.
Corporations use progressive and identity politics language to defend their interests and union bust (thereby changing what the zeitgeist uses those words to refer to.)
Corporations engage in “deference politics” where they recognize marginalized voices within power structures but don’t change the unequal structures.
We need “constructive politics” focusing on positive outcomes for working people, starting with identity but arriving at solidarity.
True solidarity unites working people against corporate elites and fights for a more equitable distribution of wealth and power.
Once we realize who is trying to divide us (the elite), we can work towards solidarity and economic justice for all.
Perhaps related: Is democracy a fad?
Yes, I was thinking on those lines myself and suspect that we’ve already left the optimal conditions for democracy.
Consider how people say, for example, that it’s impossible to revolt against the government using just personal firearms, given that the government has nukes, fighter jets etc. Well, if that’s true, democracy depends on the ideological commitment of members of the relevant institutions. And I don’t think that’s necessarily an especially stable situation—if the incentive is there, the ideology will shift eventually.
Moreover, I think alyssavance (OP) is perhaps a bit too dismissive of wokeism, in part precisely for the above reasons—woke ideology has disproportionate institutional influence compared with its popular support.
But another, perhaps more important reason to be concerned about woke ideology is that its institutional influence is leading de facto policy as actually implemented to—as I see it—be considerably more woke-oriented than is popularly supported. This naturally could lead to support among anti-woke people for political crackdowns on woke-influenced institutions to prevent this. But of course, such crackdowns are exactly the sort of thing that would enable a takeover.
And that sort of support could also lead to increased fervor among the woke: “see, we have to stop those terrible people”, etc (which is also what the anti-woke are saying, of course). Classic toxoplasma, potentially.
Edit: to be clear, I do think it’s a bad thing that democracy may be unstable now.
People do say that kind of thing. Counterarguments:
Successful revolts don’t need to be capable of defeating the army in a fair fight. All you need to do is make it sufficiently painful for them to keep fighting that they give up. I think the Middle East has modern examples of this.
A revolt may have some portion of the army on its side, and another portion might refuse to fight their own people. Nukes in particular—I would be extremely astonished if any government used a large nuke, killing a bunch of civilians, when putting down a rebellion. (Maybe they’d use very small tactical nukes—equivalent to large conventional bombs—in situations where there’d be no civilian casualties, but I suspect (and hope) that there’d still be strong resistance to breaking the nuclear taboo. And would there even be an advantage to doing so? Are the tactical nukes cheaper than the equivalents? Heh, someone has looked into it: probably not.)
can you rephrase without “woke” to establish what you mean by it, in order to separate it from other things others might refer to as woke that you wouldn’t? I’m not familiar enough with the term to know what people actually mean by it in this context, given the differences in how different subcultures talk.
I guess I probably meant it a lot broader than others do—it’s more of a spectrum than a binary classification and I’m including support for open immigration, affirmative action, etc. in what I’m thinking of. The more the support for a policy is based on some firmly held moral conviction that is at odds with most of the population, the more I’m thinking of it as woke I guess.
I see. For what it’s worth I don’t think that’s the only important split here. I think a lot more people accept the firm moral convictions than there are people who endorse pressuring others about them in the particular flavor that defines what I hope I can simply refer to as corporate wokism and be understood, which is what I see in the halls of power. Merely “staying woke” in self defense as a different thing than “woke ideology” as a different thing than “woke authority”. I personally define my moral convictions by anti-authoritarianism and pro-flourishing-autonomy, and with that as the guiding reference I find a lot of common ground with centrists I meet online (discord, games, etc) on morality, the disagreements are over how that morality should be implemented, usually, though of course there are plenty who don’t agree morally. It seems to me that the sense in which Sam Altman is woke is the one to be afraid of, given that my my standards the thing to stay woke about is the threat from him! If authoritarian regime change occurs, I think it will at this point be heavily entangled with the way his interaction with government changed the system.
Hmm yes the “pressuring others about them” aspect is a major part of what I’m thinking of as woke too. But, regarding:
If people in an institution have to “stay woke” in self defense, that is a major degree of influence, even if few actually endorse pressuring others as you say.
Not sure what you’re saying after that point, perhaps you could elaborate.
agh I should probably do more useful things than reply to this in detail. basically I think sam altman is a great example of what this video describes. (ai summary with human edits.) this is an unabashedly left channel—not even liberal, which this channel would describe as centrist. It’s not a full citation, but it’s a solid overview.
Some folks have been increasingly concerned about a “woke corporate agenda” where corporations pretend to care about social issues like racism and sexism to defend their wealth and power.
The video claims the real problem is not that corporations care too much about social justice, but the amount of power and control they have over working people.
Identity politics was originally coined by Black feminists to fully participate in political movements and engage in politics, but got coopted and the name means something else to most people now
Identity politics was proposed to focus on undoing inequality and building solidarity, not just solutions based on identities. Perhaps nominative determinism screwed it up. (What if we designed by nominative determinism?)
Corporations have captured identity politics because they see how valuable it is, but they don’t actually change the unequal structures.
Corporations use progressive and identity politics language to defend their interests and union bust (thereby changing what the zeitgeist uses those words to refer to.)
Corporations engage in “deference politics” where they recognize marginalized voices within power structures but don’t change the unequal structures.
We need “constructive politics” focusing on positive outcomes for working people, starting with identity but arriving at solidarity.
True solidarity unites working people against corporate elites and fights for a more equitable distribution of wealth and power.
Once we realize who is trying to divide us (the elite), we can work towards solidarity and economic justice for all.
Thanks, that was very clarifying. I’m definitely talking about the post-elite-capture version, and not the original grassroots version.