A diversity of approaches, tempered by capitalism, can be beneficial. But that's not the same thing as entryism, which unfortunately we have in tech. Entryism

A diversity of approaches, tempered by capitalism, can be beneficial. But that's not the same thing as entryism, which unfortunately we have in tech. Entryism is when diverse approaches don't attempt to win in the field of capitalism - instead, they attempt to parasitically take over the capitalistic winners. Capitalistic diversity would consist of MBAs, SJWs, and all the other entrants building their own companies. Then customers could pick the winner. In contrast, entryism consists of some company (e.g. Google) "winning", and then the MBAs, SJWs, etc joining google and changing it from the inside. In fact, entryism is very difficult to combat capitalistically. The problem is simply that creative destruction can't necessarily kill the entrants. For example, suppose the MBAs destroy MS. Then what happens - do they vanish forever, never to kill again, with MBA-ism as a disgraced ideology? Or do they simply shift jobs to Google and Apple and try to do it again? See these two articles for more on entryism and boundaries: http://www.moreright.net/notes-on-boundaries/ http://www.moreright.net/notes-on-boundaries/ http://www.moreright.net/entryism-as-containment-failure/ http://www.moreright.net/entryism-as-containment-failure/ (Moreright has other articles on the topic, mostly focused on how neoreaction has avoided entryism. To a certain extent tech does the same thing by being a bunch of low status nerds, repelling people who don't really like tech.)