> Man, I just don't get this. Michaels' point that I think is worth
> making over & over is that the enlightened wing of the bourgeoisie is
> totally on board with diversity, and uses it as a prop to legitimate
> economically. A race- and gender-neutral capitalism, with little else
> changed, is the reigning ideal of the Ford Foundation and much of the
> Dem Party. A lot of "left" discourse still refuses to take this on
> board.
I still don't get why you are arguing against (1) something that doesn't exist, and (2) the fevered fantasies of the bourgeoisie and its intellectual shoeshine boys (to quote Killdozer). (1) of course is a "race- and gender-neutral capitalism," which, as far as I can tell, is as close to fruition as worldwide communism. (2) is something I might be interested in, but right now, as I said before, I can only wonder what the political relevance of relieving the elites of their delusions has for a left political movement. That's an honest question. Maybe there is something I'm not getting, because all I see is the correcting of misperception. Pointing out the Ford Foundation's errors does not rank high in my list of hoped-for political accomplishments.