[heinrichhartman]

>> Joining together for a common purpose > ... is political.

I think the author is referring to the mission statement of companies. While some missions statements have political elements, I can see plenty of mission statements that give a common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla, "Build the best CPU" -- Intel (?).

It is well known that a strong mission statement is an important motivation for people to join and continue to work at companies (e.g. Pink's Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose Framework). So to describe a company as a group of people who are joining together for a common purpose is not wrong.

(Of course, there are of course many more factors that influence work-place selection and motivation.)

Can you elaborate where you see this all rooted in politics?

[ali0sha]

There's a genre of opinion that sounds like "I don't want politics in my videogames/workplace/church/facebook group", which stems from an idea that politics is exclusively a thing that politicians do in government, coupled with a (mistaken) sense that 'being political' is a bad attribute.

In fact, 'being political' is non-normative - per wikipedia:

Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.

So, the first answer to your question is a pedantic one: "joining together for a common purpose" is by definition a political act.

The second, more nuanced argument, is that your even if it's not obvious, these mission statements are political:

- "Accelerate the advent of sustainable transport" - says that 1. sustainable transport is good; 2. sustainable transport isn't coming fast enough; 3. it's appropriate for a private company to influence the transport market

- "Build the best CPU" - 1. CPUs are a good thing to spend energy and finite resources on; 2. something about the validity of calling a cpu 'best'

and so on. I agree that having a clear mission which your employees are aligned to is crucial for morale and effectiveness; but the way that mission is chosen, who influences it, the way that it displays beliefs about what is desirable; and how it evolves over time all are all political.

[heinrichhartman]

OK. I get your point, now.

You are using a broad definition of politics. And yes, a job is clearly also a vote for a purpose/values that is inherent to the business model.

[dagw]

common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla

Tesla is extremely political if you want it to be. Exactly what you choose to mean by the word 'sustainable' has all kinds of political implications. The core argument for going electric and solar over internal combustion and coal power is rooted in the environmental movement and based on a belief in global warming and climate change. That is 'political'

Equally pushing for autonomous driving can be seen as taking stance against all the people that will lose their jobs if self driving cars and trucks become a reality. Clearly taking a stance for Capital and against The Workers. That is 'political'.

[heinrichhartman]

Yes, I see this political dimension for Tesla -- on a different topic than racism -- but I give you that point.

However, there _are_ plenty of Mission Statements that are a political, just look at your local craftsman or industrial suppliers: "making plumbing work at your home", "creating the best concrete foundations", "selling the best shoes", etc. those are not "fundamentally" or primarily political missions.