Here [0] is an interview with the African-American Marxist Adolph L Reed Jr (professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pennsylvania). He starts out saying he can't define "woke" because it is too diffuse, but if you read on he effectively does define it – despite his initial insistence that he can't – in these terms: faced with a society of immense inequality in wealth and power, in which the 1% lord it over the 99%, the traditional left (to which Reed as an old-school Marxist belongs) is primarily concerned with reducing that disparity, and less over the makeup of that 1% in terms of race/gender/sexuality/gender identity; by contrast, the new "woke" left is more concerned about making sure that the 1% is 50% female, and contains racial/ethnic/sexual/gender minorities in the same proportion to which they exist in the 99%, than about the disparity between the 1% and the 99% in itself.
As the on-and-off richest man in the world, Musk is as 1% as it gets, so I'm not sure he'd like professor Reed's definition – but I do. And I think it is a good response to that tired talking point that "nobody can define woke"
I like Musk because he doesn't appear to be a woke tool. Is he a tool of a different kind? Probably. But I don't like woke, so I stick up for the non-woke. Is he perfect? No. None of us are.