And the money does exist but need political power to which, leftists are at ground zero at the moment as far as I can tell.
People are barely holding onto ideological clarity from past generations if they even know of past figures all that well.
My view is that capitalism has been effective in creating a mass of individuals, who are naive to the whole in which they exist. They know it exists but the way they think can't adequately conceptualize their place within it.Subject, Ego, Person | Philosophical Explorations
People need the illusion of individualism, of unique subjectivity, in order to function as isolated individuals who are not aware of the degree to which they are integrated into the capitalistic totality of the market.
The most favorable moment to seize a man and influence him is when he is alone in the mass. It is at this point that propaganda can be most effective.
And this is what I think is the case when it comes to feminism, they lack the social coherence and unity of a feminist movement.The Dynamics of Gender Hegemony: Femininities, Masculinities and Social Change
That new femininities are able to assimilate masculine attributes without upsetting hegemonic masculinity can be explained by the ideological function these femininities serve. As symbols of cultural development, social progress and the triumph of main-streamed equality strategies they are viewed as ‘progressive but also consummately and reassuringly feminine’ (McRobbie, 2009: 57, emphasis added). Modernization is not about women becoming masculine but about becoming individuals as constituted by discourses associated with modern individualism in which masculine attributes are conflated with individuality
(Budgeon, 2003, 2011). The contemporary social value accruing to these new femininities is partly due to the possibility that young women may pursue the idealized subject of late modernity; that is, they may reasonably assume the position of an individual and not primarily as a member of a disadvantaged group. This construction of new femininity performs a significant role in promoting and naturalizing a liberal ‘de-gendered’ social realm in which the dynamics that maintain gender relationality and hegemony are obscured.
The impact of this dynamic is evident in empirical studies which focus on the identity work undertaken by young women as they juggle contradictory subject positions associ-ated with this version of modernized femininity. Despite recounting experiences of gen-der inequality, young women often reject gendered social relations as a valid framework for understanding their access to life choices or to account for the outcomes of choices made. For example, in one Australian study, a gender neutral discourse that privileged ‘unique’ personal qualities was deployed by young women to aid in the interpretation of their lives (Baker, 2008). This facilitated the description of gendered power differentials as a problem largely associated with past generations and residual inequalities as part of a temporary stage in ongoing social progress. Similarly, Rich (2005: 496) argues that the narrative relied on by young British women in her study ‘was heavily informed by a position of individualism which ostensibly opened up “new choices” in their life paths, but simultaneously influenced the ways in which they could recognize and resist gen-dered inequalities in their lives’. The successful performance of femininity increasingly takes place against a backdrop of meritocratic systems promising to reward worthy indi-viduals, but in a stratified social system such promises produce contradictions. These must be navigated in the absence of readily available socially legitimate discourses apart from the principles associated with liberal individualism (Budgeon, 2011). Denying the relevance of gender in favour of complying with the values associated with the rights of the ‘free individual’ does not fundamentally undermine or interrogate the social con-struction of masculinity, offer critical tools for reconstructing gender difference, or challenge a hierarchical gender complementarity.
The authors argue that identity work performed in this context is significantly gen-dered as a result of the influence of discourses of gender emancipation in the 1990s which focused on the constraining values traditionally associated with femininity. For the most part, new identities are considered desirable for girls who are more actively encouraged to emulate and embrace the ‘choices’ now viewed as synonymous with newly empowered and individualized femininities. Young men, on the other hand, are not similarly incited to remake their masculine identities, to become more ‘feminine’ or incorporate more ‘womanly’ attributes such as empathy and vulnerability because masculinity per se is not being made visible or problematized.
Falling short of demands for men to proactively reconstruct their own relationship to hegemonic masculinity, gender neutrality simply implies they should not actively discriminate against women. It may be concluded that new femininities are associated with a heightened emphasis on individual responsibility, the ideological de-gendering of social relations and a position within the gender binary consistent with the workings of a hegemonic form of femininity.
What has not yet been examined, however, is the relationship of neoliberalism to gender relations. But it appears from this attempt to map the elements of a postfeminist sensibility that there is a powerful resonance between postfeminism and neoliberalism. This operates at at least three levels. First, and most broadly, both appear to be structured by a current of individualism that has almost entirely replaced notions of the social or political, or any idea of the individual as subject to pressures, constraints or influence from outside themselves.
They're free liberal subjects, unconstrained by formal discrimination, you really were liberated from sexism Eryngo, just the rather crude formal legal sort, for the most part anyway.
It's the freedom of the lbieral subject to be emancipated from obligation to the old institutions, family, church and to be constitued as a free individual, which makes one so terrible vulnerble and naive to their own vulnerbility.
This is why I emphasize that people have a view of abstract individualism, themselves conceived in isolation form the real world influences. People who assert that oppression doesn't exist because they simply don't feel
it. Slavoj Zizek-Bibliography/Can Lenin Tell Us About Freedom/Lacan Dot Com
The three ways of legitimizing the exercise of authority ("authoritarian," "totalitarian," "liberal") are nothing but the three ways to cover up, to blind us for the seductive power of, the abyss of this empty call. In a way, liberalism is here even the worst of the three, since it NATURALIZES the reasons for obedience into the subject's internal psychological structure. So the paradox is that "liberal" subjects are in a way those least free: they change the very opinion/perception of themselves, accepting what was IMPOSED on them as originating in their "nature" - they are even no longer AWARE of their subordination.
People are ideologically trapped before they can even contemplate effectively orgnaizing.108 Philosophy and Post-Modern Culture (1990) - Rick Roderick
Under conditions where many of the people in other parts of the world that receive our culture will do so with extreme naivete. In Eastern Europe they’ll believe we have got a democracy. They will love to have a VCR, and with each step forward they will become more entrapped in the same totalitarian system that is much more subtle than the crude and simple ones that many of them have overthrown. What a joy to overthrow a crude and simple totalitarian system, I mean all of us enjoyed that, right? Dancing on the wall was fun, because that system was so crude, and not postmodern enough… they didn’t understand that there are walls that cannot be seen between people. Those are harder walls to overthrow, the walls they build between different races and classes and sexes, those walls are much more difficult to overthrow than stupid walls like The Great Wall of China, which doesn’t wall anybody out, it just walls you in. But the stupid forms of totalitarianism build these walls in a way that people can storm them. The global system that I am talking about, not is already here perhaps but is on its way, perhaps. About the present and future you can just guess. I mean, that’s what scientists do too, make their best guess… you can just guess. But about this system, the walls will be much harder to storm, because they won’t be the kind that will be available for storming. Hard to storm the walls on TV, in fact you’ll already – like in Total Recall – have the feeling you have already stormed them. You’ve already… I mean, you know, the guy in Total Recall, well, he has already won the revolution, it’s cool. He did it in ten minutes sitting in a chair injected with the same emotions.
This is the difficulty, there can be no radical change when people themselves are so trapped within their own heads that they can't properly conceive of such problems in the first place.
But you mentioning it should certainly help as an improved point beyond bland statements of 'equality' and other words that have all but lost their content. Equality was a big deal when there was a law that forbade a woman from entering a line of work, from owning property and so on, now with such laws gone, everyone champions an equality that was already struggled and won for at such a level and they think they're free relative to what they could be.
Women today don't identify as a feminist in large part because they swallow the very warped rewriting of history as summarized in the earlier post about having it all. They're sold a narrative that it is all to easy yo swallow if one doesn't give it much thought and investigate. To which if there are failures to learn from, it's from the movements that failed to achieve even half of their stated aims.