mbs: connected, yes; inextricable, not if reforms are feasible.
CB: "2). That there is some constructive rhetorical way to pull finance capitalism away from industrial capitalism as a tactical argument for organizing for reform.
mbs: yes, but I fail to see any mountain of evidence;
CB: "3). That a "populist" critique of financial capitalism has not repeately (repeately, repeately, repeately, repeately) been used to scapegoat Jews.
mbs: often, yes. but the most serious populist movement in the U.S. had little trace of anti-semitism. There has been no serious movement in opposition to finance other than that, plus the labor movement; to the contrary, anti-semitic/racist movements have babbled critiques of finance, but the critique was the tail, the chauvinism the dog.
CB: Having just co-written a 500-page book showing how "anti-elite" populism can turn towards ethinc scapegoating, especially antisemitism, I am going to want to see more persuasive arguments that those you have provided here. Postone's arguments are reinforced by many other analysts and historians.
mbs: certainly populism can turn towards scapegoating. so can socialism. In fact, socialism can turn towards populism, etc.
What matters most is whether there are practical reforms pertaining to finance that are available. All I get in the face of suggestions along those lines is that finance and industry are inextricably linked, you can't attack a part without attacking the whole, i.e., reform is impossible, and a critique of finance lends itself to anti-semitism.
You can catalogue all you like the resort to financial critique by 20th century rightists and fascists. You can profile the psychological equation of the other with the jew and money. NONE OF THAT HAS ANY BEARING ON THE EFFICACY OF FINANCIAL REFORM.
CB: "Populism's half-baked critique of financial elites have often spoiled into rank antisemitism, so we are not serving you a canard, nor can you duck it, no matter how saucy the polemic on your platter. -Chip Berlet
MBS: Right now, populist critiques, as distinct from the left or liberals, are focused on trade, monetary policy, and fair credit; these originate from labor and minority constituencies. There is no meaningful anti-semitism in these movements or critiques. The Buchanan thingy was the only hint of such chauvinism, and that has fizzled to nothing.
The hand-wringing about anti-semitism is really a displaced left critique of real movements and practical political slogans for not being radical enough, and for having the potential to be too successful.
Populism can always grow into socialism, if need be, but socialism can only justify itself by asserting the insufficiency of populism.
mbs