Rancière's Hatred of Democracy

A quick one from Brisbane (where we're still not properly settled, though over the last day or so we have acquired a fridge, a car and broadband in that order of importance).
The last chapter of Jacques Ranciere's Hatred of Democracy is interesting because it connects neo-liberalism to the old term oligarchy, and because it seeks persistantly to defend democracy.
If I understand the argument correctly (and it's hard to pay it sufficient attention among this moving chaos), for Ranciere democracy is to be thought of the persistant demand for participation and agency by those who have 'no place' in any particular socio-political structure. We don't currently have democracy, though there is enormous pressure to imagine that we do: we have 'States of oligarchic law.' (This is not to say that democracy is attainable: it is not. There will always be those who have 'no place' and their demands will always maintain the deficit which defines democracy.)
Contemporary oligarchies direct peoples' attention "towards private pleasures" and away from the public sphere. Governing becomes adminstration by experts. (Here a certain Trotskyism/Maoism becomes apparent). And that form of government, though formally divided into opposing poltical parties, is based on a consensus: that the most important function of government is to take care of the "economy" and, more specifically, the expansion of capital. Wealth has acquired 'unlimited power'. But this does not avoid 'democratic supplementation', i.e. a division of those who who manage or own capital and those who do not (the people for Rancière). The politics of the latter, which take both left and right forms, are denounced by the former as 'populism'.
Some of the old 'new left', of May 1968, blame the whole new system of neo-liberalism on the popular consumer. This is a new form of anti-democraticism: 'democratic man' takes the guise of the 'idiotic consumer', even consumers of 'alterglobalist' illusions and who may be linked to identity politics. From this point of view it is this figure (the consumer into the politics of difference) who signals the end of the Enlightenment. This 'antidemocratic discourse of today's intellectuals adds the finishing touches to the consensual forgetting of democracy that both state and economic oligarchies strive toward." But democracy can never be forgotten, not because it exists as a potential equal society to be born out of this unequal one, but because egalitarian relations can be traced through singular and precarious acts within all unequal societies, including this current form of neo-liberal oligarchy.