I used to think exactly that.
Until I found out that Wall Street financed totalitarianism throughout the 20th century.
How could capitalists be communists, I wondered ?
These financiers are monopolists, that’s the key to understanding it. You have to think about it from the point of view of a multi-billionaire who has engineered a monopoly for himself. He hates competition. He is increasingly drawn to the easier large investment instead of many small ones. He is invariably drawn to become the backer of politicians and have government working for him instead of bothering his monopoly. He finds a convenient enormous investment and fee earnings potential by becoming the banker to the government itself, the mechanism that creates and manages a market for government bonds. The government receives spendable cash for the bonds. He soon figures out that he can do this with many governments around the world. The politicians in all the debtor nations can then be backed by him financially - and media influence if he sits on the boards of media companies - to remain in power. He can spend his money to trash candidates that won’t go along with his loan-shark grip on the country. He can move capital from country to country, financing the building of manufacturing plants, infrastructure projects, etc.
I think this is mind-boggling. But I take everything away and look at a few simple statements that are simple historical fact that have no rational explanation.
J P Morgan founded the Council on Foreign Relations.
Why would a bank want to found a foreign policy think tank ?
Ok, I investigate actual real history.
I look at the influence of the Council on Foreign Relations on the U.S. State Department and U.S. Presidents. I look at specific names in both and the length of time and significance of their influence.
It is still mind-boggling to me, but it’s simple historical fact.
He hates competition. He is increasingly drawn to the easier large investment instead of many small ones.
He is invariably drawn to become the backer of politicians and have government working for him instead of bothering his monopoly."
You made a point here that is in essence the argument that I'm making.
The banksters see themselves as sovereign individuals and have every intention of retaining their individual property rights (their money, their power). Capitalism maintains rules of law that allow individuals their personal sovereignty and property rights. Communism does not recognize personal sovereignty or personal property rights. The rule of law is what they state it is. And that rule of law only supports collectivism. The banksters would necessarily have to merge their interests with the collective interests of the communists, or be eliminated, once the true communist ideologues take over. That would entail the bankster either loosing his wealth/grip on power, or loosing his life.
Same goes for the Islamic ideologues. Once the unfettered muslim supremacists took over, the banksters would necessarily have to merge their interests with the Islamists, or be eliminated. It's either bow down to the pedophile prophet, or be subjugated or put to death. Neither instance includes the bankster retaining individual wealth or power outside the interests of the Islamist ideologues. Everything is for the glory of the false moon god "allah" at that point.
Banksters are fools if they think they would actually retain their personal sovereignty or grip on power with a communist or islamist dominated globe. Capitalism, with it's accompanying rules of law, truly is a banksters best friend. Power mad banksters could only exist under the thumb of a communist regime at the regimes behest. And if they became part of the regime itself, then they would no longer be monopolists. Which, like you said, is what a bankster loves the most. Banksters try to influence and manipualte governments for their own personal agrandisement.