There's really nothing in this that you can latch on to. It's rambling and at times paranoid. (He approvingly cites the bonkers claim that "...some of these kids are joining the company not with the intent of doing things for us but destroying us.")
The one thing that struck me is that Andressen doesn't see himself as an 'activist'. This is a pejorative that he applies to the little people who have the effrontery to express political views when they ought to be sucking up to him, like in the good old days ("When do I get promoted, and how much do I get paid, and when do I end up running the company?").
Looking at institutions across the West I can't say he's wrong.
I forget who's law it is but "Any institution that isn't explicitly right wing will become left wing".
I don't think it's a real drive to destroy, but the outcome of people identifying that the left cannot succeed democratically, so the form of leftism that ends up prevalent is one that is very enticing to progressives inside powerful extrapolitical organisations.
You could argue that tech was just caught in the tsunami but it was an enormous social revolution — Google are still running Pixel ads of men/amab in dresses iirc
I don’t understand the claim that the left can’t succeed democratically. If the ‘left’ is the Democrats then the country is split roughly 50/50. The Democrats sometimes win and sometimes lose, just like the Republicans. If the ‘left’ are people who broadly support LGBTQ rights then they’re a fairly clear majority in the US, and absolutely have the potential to succeed democratically (as indeed they have many times). There is currently somewhat of a moral panic around trans people specifically, which is not so very different to the resurgence of homophobia in the 1980s.
As for the Google ad: society is (slowly) making progress on trans rights and that’s reflected in advertising. You’re of course right that that has nothing specifically to do with tech, or with anything that Andressen is preoccupied with. You may not like it that trans people are gaining increased acceptance, but it’s not threatening Andressen’s bottom line or forcing him to vote for Trump.
By the left I don't mean democrats (they aren't left wing other than when convenient socially), I mean the theory-reading new leftists of a few decades ago i.e. a relatively tiny group of post-marxists that came up with new terminology and became quite dominant in most academic departments of that nature.
No one will openly vote for this stuff, so they gave up and ended up in institutions (amongst other things).
I'm writing from a British perspective, so the joke that comes to mind is "I'm old enough to remember when judges were right-wing".
I had to attend lectures about decolonizing the physics curriculum for example, in a university founded almost in the 70s (i.e. after the revolution). This is late Soviet or antiquity levels of bizarre rituals and practices.
The ad I'm thinking of I don't think featured any trans people, or at least if it was they don't pass. I don't really want to dwell on this other than it stuck out like a sore thumb as something from 2021 or '22. The point is just that it's clearly evidence of some massive cultural shift inside Google.
Anyway, back to Andreesen, the east Coast declared war on the west, and lost. Tough shit IMO.
I’m also British. I can’t say that your perspective makes any sense to me.
Andressen is talking about why he voted Republican instead of Democrat. If the Democrats aren’t particularly left wing then the ‘left’ in your sense isn’t relevant here. I certainly don’t think lectures in British universities have any connection to his voting choices.
>The point is just that it's clearly evidence of some massive cultural shift inside Google.
I haven’t seen the ads, so sorry if I got the wrong idea about them featuring trans people. But if they just show men wearing dresses, who could really take issue with this? Are there really people who believe that men should not be permitted to wear dresses and that tech companies need to take a strong stance on what men should or shouldn’t wear? And if you’re British, would you not have seen a man in a dress every time you went to see the Christmas panto? It’s hardly a brand new cultural phenomenon, nor a harbinger of the end of days.
Look at the election of William McKinley Vs William Jennings Bryan and what happened in the following 2 two elections. Very useful to understand what happens to Gilded Age Oligarchs.
What they say and think has nothing to do with how the universe works
> The most privileged people in society, the most successful, send their kids to the most politically radical institutions, which teach them how to be America-hating communists.
It's funny to compare this with the Powell memo from the seventies.
> A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:
> “Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young men who are practitioners of ‘the politics of despair.’ These young men despise the American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans.”A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that: “Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries.”
>A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of lectures entitled “The Ideological War Against Western Society,” in which he documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned: “It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack — not by Communist or any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote.”
This bit is particularly interesting when you realise the guy writing it is later installed in the supreme court by Nixon:
> The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business’ expense, has not been inconsequential.
> This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.
>By 2013, the median newly arrived Harvard kid was like: “[expletive] it. We’re burning the system down. You are all evil. White people are evil. All men are evil. Capitalism is evil. Tech is evil.”
Interesting that he points to perceived attacks upon his whiteness and maleness as the turning point that caused his move towards Trump. A billionaire with an ego so fragile he was incapable of intellectualizing the historical struggles of women and people of color.
As a white male 20 years his senior, I am saddened by the existence of forces that create people like Marc Andressen.
There's really nothing in this that you can latch on to. It's rambling and at times paranoid. (He approvingly cites the bonkers claim that "...some of these kids are joining the company not with the intent of doing things for us but destroying us.")
The one thing that struck me is that Andressen doesn't see himself as an 'activist'. This is a pejorative that he applies to the little people who have the effrontery to express political views when they ought to be sucking up to him, like in the good old days ("When do I get promoted, and how much do I get paid, and when do I end up running the company?").
Looking at institutions across the West I can't say he's wrong.
I forget who's law it is but "Any institution that isn't explicitly right wing will become left wing".
I don't think it's a real drive to destroy, but the outcome of people identifying that the left cannot succeed democratically, so the form of leftism that ends up prevalent is one that is very enticing to progressives inside powerful extrapolitical organisations.
You could argue that tech was just caught in the tsunami but it was an enormous social revolution — Google are still running Pixel ads of men/amab in dresses iirc
I don’t understand the claim that the left can’t succeed democratically. If the ‘left’ is the Democrats then the country is split roughly 50/50. The Democrats sometimes win and sometimes lose, just like the Republicans. If the ‘left’ are people who broadly support LGBTQ rights then they’re a fairly clear majority in the US, and absolutely have the potential to succeed democratically (as indeed they have many times). There is currently somewhat of a moral panic around trans people specifically, which is not so very different to the resurgence of homophobia in the 1980s.
As for the Google ad: society is (slowly) making progress on trans rights and that’s reflected in advertising. You’re of course right that that has nothing specifically to do with tech, or with anything that Andressen is preoccupied with. You may not like it that trans people are gaining increased acceptance, but it’s not threatening Andressen’s bottom line or forcing him to vote for Trump.
By the left I don't mean democrats (they aren't left wing other than when convenient socially), I mean the theory-reading new leftists of a few decades ago i.e. a relatively tiny group of post-marxists that came up with new terminology and became quite dominant in most academic departments of that nature.
No one will openly vote for this stuff, so they gave up and ended up in institutions (amongst other things).
I'm writing from a British perspective, so the joke that comes to mind is "I'm old enough to remember when judges were right-wing".
I had to attend lectures about decolonizing the physics curriculum for example, in a university founded almost in the 70s (i.e. after the revolution). This is late Soviet or antiquity levels of bizarre rituals and practices.
The ad I'm thinking of I don't think featured any trans people, or at least if it was they don't pass. I don't really want to dwell on this other than it stuck out like a sore thumb as something from 2021 or '22. The point is just that it's clearly evidence of some massive cultural shift inside Google.
Anyway, back to Andreesen, the east Coast declared war on the west, and lost. Tough shit IMO.
I’m also British. I can’t say that your perspective makes any sense to me.
Andressen is talking about why he voted Republican instead of Democrat. If the Democrats aren’t particularly left wing then the ‘left’ in your sense isn’t relevant here. I certainly don’t think lectures in British universities have any connection to his voting choices.
>The point is just that it's clearly evidence of some massive cultural shift inside Google.
I haven’t seen the ads, so sorry if I got the wrong idea about them featuring trans people. But if they just show men wearing dresses, who could really take issue with this? Are there really people who believe that men should not be permitted to wear dresses and that tech companies need to take a strong stance on what men should or shouldn’t wear? And if you’re British, would you not have seen a man in a dress every time you went to see the Christmas panto? It’s hardly a brand new cultural phenomenon, nor a harbinger of the end of days.
Look at the election of William McKinley Vs William Jennings Bryan and what happened in the following 2 two elections. Very useful to understand what happens to Gilded Age Oligarchs.
What they say and think has nothing to do with how the universe works
> The most privileged people in society, the most successful, send their kids to the most politically radical institutions, which teach them how to be America-hating communists.
It's funny to compare this with the Powell memo from the seventies.
> A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:
> “Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young men who are practitioners of ‘the politics of despair.’ These young men despise the American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans.”A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that: “Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries.”
>A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of lectures entitled “The Ideological War Against Western Society,” in which he documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned: “It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack — not by Communist or any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote.”
This bit is particularly interesting when you realise the guy writing it is later installed in the supreme court by Nixon:
> The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business’ expense, has not been inconsequential.
> This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-me...
>By 2013, the median newly arrived Harvard kid was like: “[expletive] it. We’re burning the system down. You are all evil. White people are evil. All men are evil. Capitalism is evil. Tech is evil.”
Interesting that he points to perceived attacks upon his whiteness and maleness as the turning point that caused his move towards Trump. A billionaire with an ego so fragile he was incapable of intellectualizing the historical struggles of women and people of color.
As a white male 20 years his senior, I am saddened by the existence of forces that create people like Marc Andressen.