Only here can discourse about a workplace responsibility to protect employees from conflict, use ‘communication’ as a segue into a rant about capitalism, the man, and socialists riding in to save the day from oppressive employers.
I get some people have immense faith in capitalist rule, that you genuinely believe that the reason it’s normalized to not discuss salaries or politics is for your own good. Some people don’t believe in class antagonisms. This used to be a purely fascist position, but liberals adopted it in the mid 20th century because of how effective it is at driving complacency.
Politics used to be common in the workplace. Not necessarily electoral politics, but organizational politics, which is far more important and impactful, and also much more regulated by capitalists and the petite bourgeoise. I’ve talked to my boss about electoral politics before, and it didn’t cause issues. If I brought up unions with him I’d be fired within a month (based on how other union organizers were let go).
I think you’re mixing two different things here. Discussions about unions, working conditions, workplace policies, fairness, etc. have a direct bearing on the workplace and the people in it. Yes, these things are political but they also directly impact the workplace and the people in the organization. I think these topics are all fine.
That’s different from Pam in HR reminding you that she Stands With Israel when you work in a company that has no connection at all to Israel, weapons manufacturing, etc. Or maybe they want to harass you for your own views or trade in conspiracy theories. Their co-workers are a captive audience for these rants because they have to deal with these people to do their jobs.
To me it’s not about loving capitalism, it’s about not wanting yet one more sphere of life to be a stage for performative displays of tribal affiliation.
I like your comment, but there’s an important note that needs to be made, I’m not the one who invented the conflation of organizational and electoral politics. Putting all that under the sphere of “politics; not to be discussed at work” was a convenient tactic by capitalists to delegitimize important political discussions under the guise of the important considerations you bring up.
Conflation is a powerful rhetorical strategy. Capitalists do it with other things too (legitimizing private property by putting personal property under that umbrella, somehow making you owning your own home the same “kind” of ownership as Elon Musk/Tesla owning a factory on the other side of the planet that he’s never stepped foot into).
The dual to conflation here is intersectionalism, which is important to consider too. It’s not always relevant (e.g foreign trade policy often won’t intersect with organizational politics), but it sometimes is. “right to work” ideals in electoral politics directly impacts organizational politics, so if we legitimize and normalize the latter, it’d be hard to unilaterally ban the former as well. The line gets muddy, and it’s better to stray too far on the side of allowing too much discussion so organizing can actually take place, than too much restriction.
Only here can discourse about a workplace responsibility to protect employees from conflict, use ‘communication’ as a segue into a rant about capitalism, the man, and socialists riding in to save the day from oppressive employers.
I get some people have immense faith in capitalist rule, that you genuinely believe that the reason it’s normalized to not discuss salaries or politics is for your own good. Some people don’t believe in class antagonisms. This used to be a purely fascist position, but liberals adopted it in the mid 20th century because of how effective it is at driving complacency.
Politics used to be common in the workplace. Not necessarily electoral politics, but organizational politics, which is far more important and impactful, and also much more regulated by capitalists and the petite bourgeoise. I’ve talked to my boss about electoral politics before, and it didn’t cause issues. If I brought up unions with him I’d be fired within a month (based on how other union organizers were let go).
I think you’re mixing two different things here. Discussions about unions, working conditions, workplace policies, fairness, etc. have a direct bearing on the workplace and the people in it. Yes, these things are political but they also directly impact the workplace and the people in the organization. I think these topics are all fine.
That’s different from Pam in HR reminding you that she Stands With Israel when you work in a company that has no connection at all to Israel, weapons manufacturing, etc. Or maybe they want to harass you for your own views or trade in conspiracy theories. Their co-workers are a captive audience for these rants because they have to deal with these people to do their jobs.
To me it’s not about loving capitalism, it’s about not wanting yet one more sphere of life to be a stage for performative displays of tribal affiliation.
I like your comment, but there’s an important note that needs to be made, I’m not the one who invented the conflation of organizational and electoral politics. Putting all that under the sphere of “politics; not to be discussed at work” was a convenient tactic by capitalists to delegitimize important political discussions under the guise of the important considerations you bring up.
Conflation is a powerful rhetorical strategy. Capitalists do it with other things too (legitimizing private property by putting personal property under that umbrella, somehow making you owning your own home the same “kind” of ownership as Elon Musk/Tesla owning a factory on the other side of the planet that he’s never stepped foot into).
The dual to conflation here is intersectionalism, which is important to consider too. It’s not always relevant (e.g foreign trade policy often won’t intersect with organizational politics), but it sometimes is. “right to work” ideals in electoral politics directly impacts organizational politics, so if we legitimize and normalize the latter, it’d be hard to unilaterally ban the former as well. The line gets muddy, and it’s better to stray too far on the side of allowing too much discussion so organizing can actually take place, than too much restriction.