'Worker as the perfect type of future humanity'? Who ever said that? Marx bloody didn't! Aren't we supposed to dissolve all class relations on our trip towards perfection? Doesn't that mean we most explicitly won't be what we now are?
And, anyway, I'm not so sure Marx had perfection in mind - not as a destination anyway.
And why does the proposition that some socialist humanists might evince resurgent racism mean anything? It doesn't mean a socialist humanist is on a necessary road to racism, does it? A socialist humanist (if his name is Rob, anyway) is, among other things, someone who wants to make sense of freedom and ethics. He is not yet sophisticated enough in the ways of current philosophy to know how to promote ideas of freedom and ethics without positing a something for which freedom means anything and, concomitantly, a something agentic enough to act well or otherwise.
And as for bloody Derrida, 'rhetorical democracy' happens to be what liberal capitalism must deploy to legitimate itself. Late capitalism is gradually eating its own rhetorical ground as we speak, and that ground's 'apparent presence' must now be taken either as an 'unapparent presence' (eg. 'the hidden hand' that's been slapping us about for a couple of centuries) or as an 'apparent absence' (what we should be on about, in my view).
You can do anything you like with Derrida's prose, can't you? When I read him, I some times think he's right about himself at least: if his neologisms and tortured syntax be signifiers at all, they signify everything, and that which can mean anything, means nothing.
So there.
Yours left-conservatively, Rob.