>but his point was that types who embrace neoliberal economic
>policy tend to ignore race in place of class (IF they
>acknowledge it) often. which is true.
:
That's the opposite of true tho...like green to purple opposite. Laissez-fair pro-capitalism etc types are generally the polar opposite of those who concern themselves with things like class injustice and the negative effect of capitalism on society. Pretty much by definition. And laissez-fair neoliberal types who associate with the left anyway, do so for reasons *other* than class issues, typically it has more to do with identity politics, be it gender or racial issues, abortion choice, etc. And those Democrats and Democrat-voters who generally embrace the economic status quo, aka proponents of neoliberalism, tend to be the ones who will view these identity-based issues as the primary issue, if not the entire sum, mostly ignoring class and economic drivers. Like HRC running mostly on becoming our first woman commander, breaking the glass ceiling for drone droppers,framing any dissent as an attack on women, while mocking Bernie for his "ridiculous" ideas on single-payer etc, sucking up to AIPAC, selling weapons and dragging her feet on $15.

Her side argued against "socialism", deflecting on her militarism, while striving for new (mostly symbolic imo) milestones on identity issues.

Of course I'm bias on the HRC/Bernie thing, but the general divide holds up.

This is just like basic logic...if you're a neoliberal on the left, your leftist focus is solely on identity etc outside of the context of economic injustice...but I think a lot of these writers and pundits today actually think "neoliberal" means something totally different than what it means.