Of course they will use anti communism itself because that fits into the capitalist scheme of promoting the idea that the consumption of corporate products is the source of happiness and symbolic of success in life. As I pointed out to someone earlier in this thread, this is the real source of capitalist power in the world. Because as long as people believe this false notion, capitalists will be able to control them. They will bow down in all humility and do any disgusting thing, even to the point of sucking someone's d***, to get money so that they can obtain such objects. People will kill one another for money. They will back stab their friends for money. They will sell their mother down the river for money. And feminists, in order to get money, have allowed corporations to take the ideals of feminism itself, such as female liberation, associate those ideals with corporate goods, and exploit other women with the lie that using those products is somehow liberating.
I disagree that to putting a picture of Che Guevara on a T shirt and selling it is necessarily embracing and embodying Che. In that case, the consumer has to make the association, without further corporate assistance, between the ideals that Che promoted and the T shirt. For example, I had seen T shirts of Che, without even knowing who he was, and just thought it was a nice looking T shirt. The corporation does not embrace and embody Che in this instance because it depends on the consumer having already done that. That is very different from a corporation devising propaganda that makes the direct association between the ideals and the product. In that case, the corporation must directly embrace and embody the ideal because it has to directly make the association itself. And it cannot make the association if it does not embrace those ideals. Again this example
In this ad the corporation is making a direct link between the ideals of feminism and the consumption of the product. They did this without any feminist protest. And that is what is interesting in the case of feminism. Corporations have directly taken feminist ideals, without protest from feminist leaders, and associated those ideals with the consumption of corporate products to exploit women. I don't think large corporations have done that with communism, because that would directly counter the source of their power. Communism is about taking control of the means of production from those very same corporations. They are not going to directly promote communism in that way. That would be suicide. In the case of feminism, they have quite correctly calculated that the feminist narrative suits the capitalist narrative well, in that it gives them more people to exploit as a source of labor. For example, the denigration of the role of women taking care of the home. It removes the dependency of the woman on her husband and replaces it with dependency on the capitalist. The capitalist welcomes that notion because now he has more people to exploit for labor, which will drive his labor costs down. Therefore we see this type of association in this ad
