> Surely it is because they see basic differences in it. Radicals think that
> there are all sorts of oppression of workers, women, gays, aboriginals etc.
> Do neo-liberals share this world view.
At their furthest, most radical point, yes they do -- otherwise they and their agencies of repression wouldn't react so violently to progressive movements; otherwise the Swiss Army wouldn't cordon off Davos and the Swedish police wouldn't have beat the hell out of the Gothenburg protestors. Pace Zizek, they know very well what they claim they don't wish to know. What they react against is the notion of solidarity, which they recode into baroque, Horowitzian fantasies of persecution by tiny groups which are somehow powerless, yet ever-present (best described as, "Marxist-Leninist-vegetarian freaks are chewing on my brain") or denunciations of Big Government. Ideologically, the Right has won major victories by passing itself off as *anti-market*. Hence all the sanctinomious claptrap about the family, entrepreneurial spirit, innovation, etc. The Right *has* to rage on about Clinton's moral turpitude, and if Clinton didn't exist, they'd have to invent something like him all over again; it's a basic antinomy in their thinking. Radicals see the same phenomenon, and for a bunch of reasons -- class identity, experience of exploitation, theory, etc. -- carry the cognition further, to the point of actually rebelling against the total system.
> What is the significance of Adorno saying that truth is the mediation of
> extremes
That society is antagonistic, and characterized by its extremes, i.e. proletarianization and capitalization, as opposed to the static or moralizing cognition that the rich are really rich and the poor are poor, which makes individuals responsible for systemic tendencies.
-- Dennis