On the Defense of Parasitic Finance

[Brad Mayer]

So, what's wrong with attacking the whole by means of attacking a part, 
i.e., pushing for a particular reform?  Nobody is counterposing one to the 
other, except mbs.   That's the whole practical point of theorizing capital 
- determine the reforms that "also" attack the whole.

This phrase below is simply a non sequitur.
>  you can't attack
>a part without attacking the whole, i.e., reform is
>impossible,

Actually, the concern about antisemitism and populism is misplaced.  It's 
like "fighting the last war" against bigotry.  A neo-populist movement 
aimed at "finance capital" would much more likely be anti-Asian.  We got a 
whiff of that in the Clinton/Gore Buddhist moneybags scandal, and more 
significantly, in the racist Asian-bashing, emanating from US investor 
circles, which attended the financial crisis in 1997.  In fact American 
Jews, being a fairly middling well to do privileged community, might well 
be on that particular bandwagon along with the rest of the "white" 
folks.  And Wall Street might have no problem backing that kind of 
neopopulist movement.  All the better to deflect attention from itself.

Following mbs' logic, such a Wall Street-backed anti-Asian moneybags 
movement would be, precisely, the most "feasible" outcome that would "stand 
a chance in hell" of success.

-Brad Mayer
Oakland, CA


>and a critique of finance lends itself
>to anti-semitism.