Part of the problem with the narrative that every US or Anglo or European or NATO war or CIA (or whatever intelligence agency in the US or elsewhere)/NatSec or state bullying plot is in the interests of capital short term or long term or ochestrated by them is that (cont.)

(cont.) This just isn’t true. While the arms, oil & finance industry in the US especially, & big corporations, oil or otherwise—especially when their property is nationalized—have played the role in provoking conflict,disorder, war & specific regime changes this isn’t always true

Notably we can think of counterfactuals, and, indeed, actually existing history, where the less aggressive more open approach would actually work against our aims as radicals—for example, flow of capital & openness radically altered China

Take the USSR—Hammer made billions of dollars off cooperating with them, and capitalists wanted access to trade with them & to FDI, but the states themselves obstructed this.

Cuba & Indonesia both had no issue with the US, would have been open to an alliance, & capitalists—save those specifically affected—would’ve rather had normalized relations, trade & investment.

Financiers, oil industry people, & many other business interests (shipping, trade, basic commodities, etc) would love more open access to Syria, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, & the Sudan, & its not those countries themselves that are restricting access, suffice it to say

To say the state is mediating & supporting the long run rather than short run interests of capital isn’t viable either—aside from neither the state nor capital thinking they’re doing that, it is not anywhere exclusively like the outcome of their policies.

The restrictions on trade, finance, investment & migration hurt the capitalists interests in the short term & long term. They often don’t even make sense by their stated geopolitical goals—they entrench & strengthen the states in question whereas openness breeds convergence.

It was detente with China that led to its opening up to foreign capital, and the fall of the Soviet states came from an alternating pattern of isolation/aggression, and openness/detente, and escalating proxy wars.

There’s a reason a faction of the CIA post WWII wanted the US to be aggressively in favor of colonial independence—it would foster goodwill, prevent conflicts & instability, prevent Soviet alliances & would allow free movement of capital & ideas.

A substantial portion of the CIA thought normal & peaceful relations with the USSR would enhance their NatSec aims, but also foster liberalization, & stable capitalization, & they were probably right.

The US agencies—DEA, FBI, CIA, USM, State Department, US & Foreign agencies, and US vs. multinational agencies (IMF, WB, UN, WTO, NATO, etc) are not only each often in direct conflict with each other, but factions *within* them are often in direct conflict too.

In Afghanistan, the DEA, CIA, FBI. and USM each purses strategies & policies that directly conflicted with each other, and factions within each did the same (just consider the Liberal Imperialist Obama, Clinton & Petraeus wings vs: the Neocon & Bush wings)

If the US, right now, lifted all major & discriminatory sanctions, & trade, migration,Visa, information, investment & cooperation restrictions,much but not all of the rest the GN would do so too, & the benefits to capital *and* US long term geopolitical interests would be immense

Specific capitalist interests would lose out, though not all equally powerful ones, and not all in the same ways—indeed, on net, the benefits & costs to them would cancel, across different countries.

This is not to say, by the way, that mediating capitalist & class conflict, looking out for capitalists long term state interests & baldly enforcing a specific type of capitalist interest are not things the state does or are part of its structure & function— they are

They are, however. just a subset, and an often self & other contradictory one, within the capitalist (or any—with its specific political economic equivalents) state

First of all, *even just* for mediation & long term interest the fact is that states would also have to mediate/look out for the long interests of:
1. Themselves
2. bureaucracies
3. Professionals
4. White supremacy/racism/nationalism
5. Imperial
6. Settler colonial
7. Ecological

Some of these fall—with petty bourgeois, & subsidiary classes—under the purview of managing class conflict & long term Internest, but less concretely So, and others just don’t fall under that purview

That’s even just taking the conflict, mediation & long term interest claim seriously—and it already spirals into complexity that can make exactly opposite predictions & contradictions in different circumstances