Somebody: Sure, but race and gender-neutral capitalism *is* a progressive advance over it's more traditional variant. This reminds me of those who defend regimes like that in Iran because the secular alternative would probably be neo-liberal. Or those who seem to view the end of apartheid in South Africa as being almost equivalent to a defeat. And, in the U.S., white male chauvinism doesn't even have the fig leaf of anti-imperialism or Third World developmentalism. Is it really the case that incorporating more minorities into positions of power would constitute an obstacle to more radical change? If not, then it's not clear that anti-racists are even worth targeting.