> An obvious question, then, is how we are to understand the fact that
> we’ve made so much progress in some areas while going backwards in
> others. And an almost equally obvious answer is that the areas in
> which we’ve made progress have been those which are in fundamental
> accord with the deepest values of neoliberalism, and the one where
> we haven’t isn’t. We can put the point more directly by observing
> that increasing tolerance of economic inequality and increasing
> intolerance of racism, sexism and homophobia – of discrimination as
> such – are fundamental characteristics of neoliberalism. Hence the
> extraordinary advances in the battle against discrimination, and
> hence also its limits as a contribution to any left-wing politics.
> The increased inequalities of neoliberalism were not caused by
> racism and sexism and won’t be cured by – they aren’t even addressed
> by – anti-racism or anti-sexism.
>
> My point is not that anti-racism and anti-sexism are not good
> things. It is rather that they currently have nothing to do with
> left-wing politics, and that, insofar as they function as a
> substitute for it, can be a bad thing. American universities are
> exemplary here: they are less racist and sexist than they were 40
> years ago and at the same time more elitist. The one serves as an
> alibi for the other: when you ask them for more equality, what they
> give you is more diversity. The neoliberal heart leaps up at the
> sound of glass ceilings shattering and at the sight of doctors,
> lawyers and professors of colour taking their place in the upper
> middle class. Whence the many corporations which pursue diversity
> almost as enthusiastically as they pursue profits, and proclaim over
> and over again not only that the two are compatible but that they
> have a causal connection – that diversity is good for business. But
> a diversified elite is not made any the less elite by its diversity
> and, as a response to the demand for equality, far from being left-
> wing politics, it is right-wing politics.
I haven't followed this thread. I'm also reading these two paragraphs out of their context. So apologies in advance if I'm saying something utterly ridiculous.
Yes, these statements are strategically insightful. But, as they come, my fundamental objection to them is that, they might hold if one thinks the U.S. or Western Europe is (or, more precisely, certain social settings in the U.S. and Western Europe are) the whole world, but they are otherwise flawed. See his examples: U.S. universities, professionals, and the upper corporate staff!
Otherwise, anti-racism and anti-sexism are top in the political agenda of the global left. If you ask me, they are left-wing politics on the cutting edge. In effect, anti-racism and anti-imperialism overlap almost entirely. So, for any meaningful definition of the term "neoliberal," anti-racism and (tactically to a lesser extent but strategically to a greater extent) anti-sexism are effectively anti-neoliberalism.
Consider an example that is key to the unity of the U.S. working people: labor immigration. Some neoliberals in the WSJ are in favor. And looking at things from the bottom up, the struggle of undocumented workers appears largely as a battle against racial and national prejudice. So?
We are not facing a chemically pure type of capitalism.