As has become quite clear over the past decade or so, for some reason most giant megacorporations headquarted in the United States, quite strongly and openly support the modern far-leftist ideology, not only promoting it, campaigning for it, and even funding it, but also going their way to try to shut down the opposition and the criticism.
At face value this is highly strange. After all, the modern far-leftist SJW ideology, which they are supporting and promoting, is staunchly anti-capitalist and socialist. The ideology strongly and even violently opposes the "top 1%", the extremely rich, corporations owned and run by a small group of rich people rather than the workers, and pretty much everything that they deem inherently capitalist.
In other words, at face value it seems that these giant megacorporations are supporting a political ideology that seeks the very destruction of these megacorporations. An ideology that seeks to take away all the wealth that the people at the top positions of these corporations have. An ideology that would see these megacorporations burn down and the rich people at the top taken down with it, and would watch it burn down with glee and joy.
So why would these corporations support a political ideology that seems to go completely opposite to their own interests? No matter what we would like to think, the people at the top of these corporations, the people making the decisions, are not stupid. Such giant megacorporations cannot be built and run by stupid people. They are quite smart and experienced people. They know how to run a company and make it succeed. They are not drooling babboons who cannot understand what's going on. They know perfectly well what's going on. They know perfectly well what's best for their own interest, and what the SJW ideology is all about.
So why?
Are they actually playing some kind of what's commonly referred to as "4D chess"? Is it all a contrived ploy to actually make the companies more powerful?
Amazon Inc. is one of the biggest and richest companies in the world, and some leaked material about the company's internal policies give an indication that yes, there may well be some kind of "playing 4D chess" strategy behind all this, at least in one form of another.
You see, Amazon is infamously and amazingly opposed to labor unions, against their workers unionizing. For example, they have an internal training video which is eerily reminiscent of McCarthy-era propaganda of the type "how to spot a Communist", although in this case it's about "recognizing the warning signs of organizing". Managers are instructed to look for any early signs of the workers trying to form a labor union, and immediately report it to the higher-ups.
What does this have to do with supporting far-leftist ideology? One would think that it would go opposite to this anti-unionizing principle, since labor unions are most definitely a leftist policy. Why would a company that so strongly opposes its workers unionizing, also support the political ideology which has labor unions as one of its major goals?
A report from Business Insider, recounted by The Verge here (the Business Insider article is behind a paywall) may give a glimpse of the reason. It's talking about internal policies of Whole Foods Market Inc, which is owned by Amazon. Notice this quote from the Business Insider article (emphasis mine):
"Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a “diversity index” that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers’ compensation claims, according to the documents."
Notice the part I bolded. Whole Foods Market / Amazon considers that one of the "risk" factors of workers starting to unionize is, among other things, lower diversity. Also, curiously, another factor listed that increases the "risk" of workers unionizing is "higher total store sales".
Notice how, when they use the word "diversity", they are indeed referring to the "racial and ethnic diversity" of the workers. In other words, what they are saying is that the more "diverse" the workforce is, the less homogeneous it is, the lower the risk of it trying to organize and unionize.
I believe the part about "higher total store sales" also plays a role in this same idea: It may well be that the more homogeneous and less diverse the work force is, the more efficient it becomes, probably because people agree and cooperate with each other more easily, understand each other more easily, and are more willing to work together for the same goal, and this can be seen in increased total sales.
Conversely, the more "diverse" the workforce is, the more infighting and mistrust there will be, the more disagreement there will be, the less organization and "working together" there will be, and this hurts sales. (I have myself written about this very thing before, about how diversity is not strength, unity is.)
These things may well be directly related to each other: The more homogeneous and less "diverse" the workforce is, the more they will cooperate and agree with each other, and thus the more efficiently will they sell, and likewise the more likely they will start organizing and unionizing to protect their rights as workers.
Thus, it may well be that Amazon is "playing 4D chess" here: Amazon wants its workforce to be "diverse" because that makes it less likely for it to unionize, thus giving Amazon more power over its employees. This is a divide-and-conquer tactic: A "diverse" workforce causes division, disagreement and infighting, and thus they are less likely to organize and unionize, and thus are more easily manipulated and taken advantage of. If the workforce becomes too homogeneous, the risk of them unionizing and fighting back increases.
So, ironically, supporting the far-leftist SJW politics may actually be beneficial to these giant megacorporations, because it keeps the workforce in check. Divided, bickering and infighting, and thus disorganized and at the mercy of the corporation.
Comments
Post a Comment