wrobert :
Charles, the problem with the monomaniacal focus on interest is that it naturalizes the structures of domination that exist in surplus value itself. Financial institutions may play a role in organizing that domination, but it's role is imeshed in the system of domination.
^^^ CB: At our level of discussion, "imeshed in the system of domination" is not specific enough. What specifically do you mean by "imeshed in the system of domination" ? You speak as if the "system of domination" is objective for the ruling class itself, like Marx. But, the idea is with monopoly , after a certain point, the rulers are subjects in relation to the system, i.e. they are able to make the system do what they want , rather than be dictated to by some processes that are objective to them, like the old capitalist in real competition. They attain masters of the universe status. The finance capitalists have socalled agency relative to the system. But " agency" is in the non-legal sense here. It is the postmodern sense. In legalese, the finance capitalists are the "principals"
Anyway, how about an elaboration of enmeshed in the system.
^^^^^^^^
There isn't a one to one correspondence to these theories, but they are analogous in their mystifying function. It is also important to note that anti-semitic argumentation tends to draw on the unnatural nature of interest and anti-interest advocates frequently fall into anti-semitism. Let me turn to Horkheimer and Adorno for the anti-semiticism side.
"Bourgeois anti-Semitism has a specific economic reason: the concealment of domination in production. In earlier ages the rulers were directly repressive and not only left all work to the lower classes but declared work to be a disgrace, as it always was under domination; and in a mercantile age, the industrial boss is absolute monarch. Production attracts its own courtiers. The new rulers simply took off the bright garb of the nobility and donned civilian clothing. They declared that work was not degrading, so as to control the others more rationally. They claimed to be creative workers, but in reality they were still the overlords of former times. The manufacturer calculated, arranged, bought and sold. On the market he competed for the profit corresponding to his own capital. He seized all he could, not only on the market but at the very source: as a representative of his class he made sure that his workers did not sell him short with their labor. The workers had to supply the maximum amount of goods. Like Shylock, the bosses demand their pound of flesh. They owned the machines and materials, and therefore compelled others to produce for them. They called themselves producers, but secretly everyone knew the truth. The productive work of the capitalist, whether he justifies his profit by means of gross returns as under liberalism, or by his director's salary as today, is an ideology cloaking the real nature of the labor contract and the grasping character of the economic system.
And so the people shout: Stop thief!--but point at the Jews. They are scapegoats not only for individual maneuvers and machinations but in a broader sense, inasmuch as the economic injustice of the whole class is attributed to them.... The merchant presents them with the bill which they have signed away to the manufacturer. The merchant is the bailiff of the whole system and takes the hatred of others upon himself. The responsibility of the circulation sector for exploitation is a socially necessary pretense." (Horkheimer and Adorno 174)
robert wood
^^^^^^^^^ CB: Nice discussion. Note reference to the "creative workers" like whatshisnames "creative class" today.
Profit is natural. Interest is super-natural ( smile)
High finance doesn't seem like the "circulation" sector today. It's the bubble sector, floating way above it all.