On Oct 3, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Chuck Grimes wrote:
> It comes down to the idea that social movements for ending racism,
> sexism, and homophobia have essentially benefited the neoliberal
> economic system by asserting we all have a right to be equally
> exploited.
Man, this is further proof that Frank Luntz was really onto something with his aphorism: "It's not what you say, it's what they hear."
Michaels doesn't say this. He's explicitly says that progress against racism, sexism, and homophobia are good things. His argument is that these victories shouldn't confuse us into thinking that the U.S. is a more just and egalitarian society as a result. Over the last 40 or so years, this has become a far more unequal and exploitative society. Neoliberalism has been able to use "diversity" as a defense against charges of inequality and exploitation - most recently with the guy in the Oval Office. Corporate America is now 100% behind diversity. Compare support for affirmative action (nearly universal among big capital) vs. increases in the minimum wage or positive changes to labor law (universally opposed). There is no way in which capital cannot live with the elimination of all discrimination based on sex, race, or preference - in fact, large sectors of capital are more than fine with it. Which, of course, doesn't make it a bad thing. But which does require us to think more carefully about it.
It's sorta like liberalism. Michael Lind says that a left without a labor movement is one based on philanthropy and charity. He could have added that it's one that's proud of diversity - but not all that uncomfortable with exploitation.
Chuck: "The white power elite..." Yes, it's mostly white, but not entirely, and less and less so. Do you have any idea of what the national and ethnic makeup of the IMF is these days? Not to mention the U.S. executive branch?
Doug