From Wikipedia - Neoliberalism, or neo-liberalism, "is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism."

How about liberalism? and individual freedom of thought in relation to the group, from a review of Group Psychology and Political Theory:

[Alford calls] for a much closer and sympathetic look not only at leadership but at the group foundations of political life. The group, in his view, precedes the individual; and it makes no sense to speak of social or political experience unless it is understood in the context of groups. The greatest efforts in establishing individuality lie in the often tragic process of freeing oneself from group domination and control; his political argument here clearly comes down on the side of liberal individualism and against the constraining, often authoritarian, demands of "community."

We literally, Alford argues, are at war with our own "groupishness"; and this is what gets us into personal and political trouble. He calls this process the "schizoid compromise ... the fundamental psychological event in the groups . . . the member tries to have his cake and eat it too: to give himself over to the group, while being separate and independent of it" (p. 52).

Chulhan's suggestion "that we are projects to be worked" would seems quite enlightened, except for then saying this "is really just a more efficient form of subjugation". I don't think individuation can be passed off as a synthetic trend.

From Wikipedia - Neoliberalism, or neo-liberalism, "is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism."

In contrast, how about liberalism? and individual freedom of thought in relation to the group, from a review of Group Psychology and Political Theory:

[Alford calls] for a much closer and sympathetic look not only at leadership but at the group foundations of political life. The group, in his view, precedes the individual; and it makes no sense to speak of social or political experience unless it is understood in the context of groups. The greatest efforts in establishing individuality lie in the often tragic process of freeing oneself from group domination and control; his political argument here clearly comes down on the side of liberal individualism and against the constraining, often authoritarian, demands of "community."

We literally, Alford argues, are at war with our own "groupishness"; and this is what gets us into personal and political trouble. He calls this process the "schizoid compromise ... the fundamental psychological event in the groups . . . the member tries to have his cake and eat it too: to give himself over to the group, while being separate and independent of it" (p. 52).

Chulhan's suggestion "that we are projects to be worked on” would seems quite enlightened, except for then saying this "is really just a more efficient form of subjugation". I don't think individuation can be passed off as a synthetic trend.