Below in the blockquote is my comment to someone who was using the “the whole problem is the international bankers” argument. That’s rightwing populism or even fascism and as usual, it doesn’t fix the problem. It just diverts class struggle away from its proper targets onto something rather innocuous. There’s no way to get rid of the “international bankers.” What on Earth are you going to do about them?
They’re not the problem anyway. The problem is that the rich and corporations screw the working people. Rightwing populists love the rich and the corporations and they will never go after them so they throw out scapegoats like international bankers (i.e. Jews I guess). They also target Jews and other minorities as scapegoats. It’s like a guy is robbing a bank and people try to stop him and he points to some Jews a 50 yards away and says,
Look at those Jews over there. Those are your enemies. Go get them!
And then the crowd takes off after the Jews and beats them up or whatever and the bank robber carries on robbing the bank and gets away with it.
Rightwing populism is a diversion and it never solves anything.
Sure the Jewish bankers are lousy. So throw them out. Now you have a group of Gentile bankers. And they’re going to be nicer? A banker’s a banker! They’re all the same. The Gentile bankers don’t act different from the Jewish ones.
Even if you say Jewish businessmen are the problem and you get rid of them, you just end up replacing them with Gentile businessmen. They won’t be any nicer and they will screw the working people just the same.
The “international banks” are just the forces of corporate capitalism and the rich everywhere on Earth. They’re just one wing of the capitalist apparatus. There’s nothing special about them. Also “international bankers” is a well-known rightwing populist and even fascist dog whistle.
A commenter responded, disagreeing with me. Do you think he was onto something? He was claiming there are different factions among the corporate business class and they have different agendas as far as what they want to the state to do. Problem is I’ve never seen any wing of our corporate class ever opposing any US imperialism or warmongering anywhere on Earth. Show me one US corporation that was anti-war.
All the US corporations always support all US foreign policy because US foreign policy is simply the foreign policy of the rich and the corporations of America. The US state, the Deep State, the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon all work for the rich and the corporations because they are the people who run the country. The rich and the corporations are above the state. They are the true rulers. The state is at their mercy and they are completely controlled by the rich and the business class and simply exist to do their bidding.
Anyway, here is his rejoinder:
I may be misunderstanding you, but my impression is that “the forces of corporate capitalism” are not as homogeneous as you might think.
The finance wing of capitalism has interests that conflict with manufacturing, research, or technology companies. International capitalist enterprises – those with important investments in other countries – have interests that differ from those of, say, a large dairy that does not export its products.
Obviously, all capitalists have certain interests in common – the sanctity of private property and contract, for example. But there is also a lot of struggle and contention between various types of capitalist enterprises to control policy.
For example, America’s big banks and multinational corporations like GM, Standard Oil, Freeport McMoran, Boeing, and Eli Lilly had major investments in Europe. After WWII they had an interest in keeping Europe from being taken over by Communism.
They wanted rapid economic recovery so they could make money in Europe. So they applauded measures to make investments abroad safer. Measures like the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods Institutions.
Small town and regional bankers, car dealers. ranchers, and construction companies were virulently opposed to the Marshall Plan, IMF, UN and World Bank. All were capitalists but they only shared some, not all, interests. The struggle between these two broad currents of American capitalism, and the compromises that used to be made, are what shaped the broad contours of American foreign policy. There’s less room for compromise these days.
Thing is I don’t think that US foreign policy is ever run by these smaller US (not international) businesses such as “small town and regional bankers, car dealers. ranchers, and construction companies.” US domestic and foreign policy always favors the super-rich and the corporations and a lot of times, the US state favors corporations on policies that help corporations but are very bad for small businesses.
The corporations would gladly wipe out every small business in America. 83