In this environment capital can blackmail national governments with taking its toys away (and causing unemployment) unless favourable conditions are set. National governments surrender without a fight. I don't understand why they can't say "if you take your factory away we'll fund the construction of another one". Very often trade unions complain that plants are closed not because they operate at a loss, but because it is simply more profitable to operate them elsewhere. You juts need a factory owner with a lower required return on investment (sometimes te return on capital cannot be lowered below a certain level because of debt, but as long as the facility is cash-flowing the debt can be restructured). All of this is a political problem. Apart from deregulating capital flows we have regulated government out of owning or funding productive assets because it "distorts competition" or something like that.

Meantime, people remain the least mobile of the means of production, not only because people are not inclined to uproot themselves, but also because of all kinds of migration barriers designed to protect (each country's) domestic populations against competition by foreign workers. Within the EU this is no longer the case. So the result of deregulation of capital flows, regulation of governmental industrial policy, and regulation of migratory flows is to royally screw the people who have no other asset than renting out their labour.

Now, I don't know how to articulate that into "an ideology capable of motivating a mass movement to change the fundamental realities of power".

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes