Makes you wonder if THIS is what's behind all the pushes for diversity

The push for diversity is not that sinister, they just want the widest customer base they can get. Neoliberal diversity and identity politics lets them be moral without threatening their power base.

What we've seen from Amazon's anti-union efforts this round is that they are not sophisticated enough to be pulling some kind of machiavellian plot.

If unions are going to work in America, they have be able to navigate a diverse group of people. The American working class is incredibly diverse, more than the country itself. It's a challenge but it's not insurmountable. But the left/union approach to diversity and the corporate approach are completely different from each other and have different material motivations.

Have you ever in your life seen someone look at a company's diversity stats before buying something?

Are you saying advertising, marketing and PR have no effect? Because if so, I'll notify those billion dollar industries they've been made redundant.

The marketing isn’t the stats, it’s the public claims they can make about tracking them.

No but I do remember media headlines about a company.

Why do people think the promotion of diversity is part of some nefarious global plot?

Because of the well funded propaganda networks in the US that push that notion.

That people should be given equal opportunity and not just the opportunity they were born with because their parents where lynched for voting?

Poster meant propaganda networks that push the idea it is a plot.

They don't think it's an explicit plot, obviously. They think it's global because it mostly is (within the Anglosphere at least), and nefarious because its stated objectives do not align with the actions people in that 'movement' take.

For instance, diversity programs are invariably justified by reference to needing a diversity of perspectives or ideas. But the resulting personnel policies are never about ideas, they're always about gender and skin colour. In fact the typical diversity program often results in hiring lots of ideologically homogenous people.

That disparity between claimed goals and actual goals invariably makes it appear like there's some sort of hidden agenda at work.

That's misinformed and presumptuous.

Study the working class movements from the mid 19th century to the 1970s. Look at their coalitions and demands.

Study the woke movement of the 2015-2021. One was pushing for collective unity and demanding concrete rights, including healthcare, working hour limits and unionization rights. The other wants to fire racists and change language. Which would you prefer if you were a corporate board member with the interests of your company at heart?

Which is more of a threat, a movement that demands corporate tax pay for a single payer healthcare model, or a movement which demands we make it easier to fire people accused of racism?

This is an extremely reductive and uncharitable take on the conversations being had right now and calling it the "woke movement" shows you know what you're doing.

"Concrete" things like healthcare reform, voting reform, policing reform, tax reform, immigration reform, and women's rights have been front and center. You'd have to be looking through a very distorted lens to not see it.

The topic at hand - the subject at the top - is unionization and Amazon. Your reply seems to forget this with a focus on me. And we're talking about how wokism (I know what I'm doing, what is that supposed to mean?) is embraced by corporations. Several commenters said that the woke stuff is compatible with capitalism, and I supported that view by contrasting the historical (anti-corporate) worker's movement with the current, very recent pro-corporate woke movement. The point is this - companies like Amazon want us to worry about race and gender quotas because that's an easier way to appear to be ethical than the other criticisms we can throw at them.

I don't know why I am responding, but I'll continue with another one, Nike. Nike has for decades been the subject of human rights criticisms of their factories abroad. That's bad PR. So they went woke by taking public stands on racial stuff within the U.S. That's good PR.

You can say I know what I'm doing (which is arguably a personal attack implying nefarious motives). But you don't seem to understand the point, not at all!

Please, please do a little reading on the labor movement and don't put woke in scare quotes like it is not a thing. A local politician here has a pin, Stay Woke. It's a real term.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that it is “part of some nefarious global plot” in the discrete, conspiratorial sense you are suggesting.

When modern Americans and Europeans rail against "diversity" as being the cause of their woes, it's almost certainly based on what boils down to some flavor of the "white genocide" conspiracy theory.

When corporations push diversity as a terminal value it's almost always to suppress labor costs. It's very easy to win arguments if you just assume everyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

Give an example? You yourself are putting forth what amounts to a conspiracy theory.

Because its most visible effect has been the suppression of the working class? Because its most prominent advocates are nefarious global plotters?

[citation needed]

r/stupidpol is worth a serious read.

Dīvide et īmpera has been a strategy since the Roman Empire.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

Well no, it's not. More diverse stores may have tensions that lower the cohesiveness of the group, and some of their members may be economically more vulnerable and thus more weary of the risk of retaliation, but once (if) diversity is normalized and racial inequality subsides, then this disparity will almost certainly disappear.

And once it does, one of the most major lines exploited against economic and social progress becomes much more difficult to exploit.

Why would big Capital let racial inequality subside when they profit of it? And even if it were to subside, history teaches us that's it's very easy to divide and rile up people along ethnic and cultural lines.

As cynical as this take is, you aren't alone in thinking it. This has been a repeating theme among some Bernie Sanders/economic left folks. For example, the concept that the center uses racial politics against the economic left to defuse their efforts has been discussed a number of times on the Chapo Trap House podcast. I'm personally not sure whether I subscribe to this belief, but I can see how people might feel this way.

I like to remind people that "Identity Politics" as envisioned by Barbara Smith and the Combahee River Collective in the 1970's as an approach to left-wing organizing is virtually unrecognizable when compared to today's neoliberal "woke" corporate identity politics. The former is about recognizing individual and group needs while organizing towards a universal, collective goal. The latter is about internecine conflict based on differences and the rejection of a collective goal entirely in favor of means-tested and targeted "reforms".

It's rare in the economic left to reject identity politics entirely (outside of some wretched nazbol twitter types), because people like CTH, Adolph Reed, Mark Fisher, Barbara Smith, Bernie Sanders, etc. all recognize the need for navigating identity in left movements. Where they reject neoliberal identity politics is in accepting a need for a greater collective goal.