Barclays, Santander, JP Morgan, HSBC, Bank of America, UBS. These global banks are not just household names but the bedrock of capitalism, protected by states and woven into the fabric of the global economy. When they wobble, or as in the 2008 crash, states jump and politicians bend over backwards to protect them, sacrificing one (Lehman Brothers in 2008, Credit Suisse in 2023) to protect the system as a whole. Their dominance is unmistakable, yet they represent only half the story. While traditional banks control half of global assets, the other half is managed by Non-Banking Financial Institutions (NBFIs); a shadowy constellation of asset managers (eg. BlackRock), hedge funds (Bridgewater Associates, Elliot Management), pension funds, venture capital firms (eg. Accel, Sequoia Capital), and insurance giants. These entities, largely unregulated and concentrated in the Global North, are the unseen architects of modern finance, shaping both the material economy (housing, food, minerals) and the financial economy (stocks, crypto, derivatives). Their rise is not just a shift in ownership but a systemic vulnerability: overleveraged, interconnected, and prone to cascading failures.
In this article I call for a strategic intervention at the global movement level to exploit the instability of the financial system. It continues in four parts; a short overview of the state of finance, weaknesses of the system, considerations for a movement level intervention and how a movement level intervention could proceed. My core premise is that if there is proper international coordination across the whole movement then a next financial crisis can be exploited to mobilise people against capitalism and – if proper structures are in place – build counter hegemonic power.
I am writing this article from Switzerland – itself an important node of global finance capitalism – and so many of the insights and arguments reflect a European position and might be most suitable for countries in the capitalist core.
Overview of the state of finance
To begin with, here is an overview of the contemporary state of finance capitalism for the purposes of this article’s argument.
Let’s be clear, globalisation is not dead from a global finance perspective.
The world’s financial system functions through a geographic spread of key nodes each serving distinct functions: major stock markets (New York, London, Tokyo) for speculative trading; offshore tax havens (Cayman Islands, UAE) where capital is routed to evade taxation; and wealth management hubs (Switzerland, Singapore) offering geopolitical stability, minimal capital gains taxes, and secure investment environments. Capital is global and mobile, circulating these nodes to generate and secure profits for its owners. Whilst the majority of capital is owned by the Global North – particularly the USA and Europe – the assets that are owned and invested are all around the world. One example Swiss mining companies alone control 200 mines around the world concentrated in Africa and Latin America. The global financial system remains deeply interconnected, not only through the flow of capital but also through the movement of goods – from raw materials to finished products – across diverse markets. While trade wars and geopolitical instability have not dismantled this globalised network, they have lengthened and complicated supply chains. This increased complexity, combined with the hyper-mobility of capital, means that regional shocks can destabilise the entire system. However, the decentralised nature of modern finance also offers a degree of resilience: major financial actors can offset downturns in one sector or region by shifting resources to others, mitigating systemic risks.
NBFI’s are increasingly dominant players in global finance, concentrated in the USA and Europe. Compared to the better known commercial banks, NBFI’s are basically unregulated – which especially since the 2008 crash are required to hold deeper capital reserves to guard against shocks. This lack of regulation allows them to take on significantly more risk, often through aggressive leverage, speculative investments, and complex financial instruments. What makes NBFIs particularly dangerous is their deep interconnection. Many are heavily invested in one another, creating a web of financial dependencies that can turn localised shocks into systemic crises. This interdependence is further complicated by their opaque operations since their lack of transparency makes it difficult for regulators (and the public) to assess their true risk exposure. Importantly, NBFIs are not just financial players; they are owners of critical infrastructure, from housing and food supply chains to energy and digital platforms. By controlling these assets, they influence not only market stability but also the material conditions of daily life for millions.
Another financial crisis is coming, the only question is when. Historically since the second world war there has been a financial crisis roughly every decade, and a ‘big one’ once a generation that shapes the collective memory. The scale of the crisis is highly relative. The big financial crisis of 2008 which set the tone for so much of the economy in the last decade was a blip on the scale compared to the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Generally since the 2008 crisis the world economy has been in a state of extended financial prosperity with assets consistently gaining value and stock markets reaching new heights benefiting the major owners of capital. There is consensus amongst scholars that another financial crisis is due, however it must be stated that predicting when it will come is nothing more than educated guessing. There are certain indicators for a crisis (rapid increases in capital in an asset class, unregulated financial innovations, surging asset prices and overleverage from financial actors in risky assets) but this does not mean confident predictions. The current AI boom (See the recent All in articles on AI for more information) has the potential to precipitate a crisis if massive investments are placed in the emerging technology which is itself being used to make faster investment decisions (Where in this case time is literally money). There is an expectation that this will crash but debate on whether this will be a more limited stock crisis (where asset prices simply re-adjust to their real rather than inflated value) or a more general economic crisis that would affect the material economy.
Taking on the premise that a financial crisis could be an opportunity for a global mass mobilisation against capitalism – bearing in mind the real pain this will cause hundreds of millions of people – the above summary shows that whilst global finance is continuing to build on its dominant positions within the world economy, there are vulnerabilities within the system, vulnerabilities that could be exploited.
Weaknesses in the system
Geopolitical shocks remain a persistent – as they historically always have – threat to the financial system. While rare, such disruptions have reshaped global capitalism in the past – most notably the 1973 oil crisis, which triggered stagflation, economic turmoil, and the eventual rise of neoliberalism as the hegemonic global ideology. Today, geopolitical tensions are once again straining the system. Trade wars, initiated during the Trump era and persisting under new forms of economic nationalism, have already distorted supply chains, making them longer, more fragile, and less predictable. Meanwhile, military conflicts – such the current Israel/US attack on Iran – are adding another layer of instability. A critical contemporary example is the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow chokepoint through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, with disruption sending immediate shockwaves through global markets. While such disruptions are usually manageable, they expose the system’s vulnerability to sudden, large-scale disruptions. The globalised nature of finance means that supply chain shocks rarely directly threaten the system’s core stability, however, they erode economic resilience, making the system more susceptible to cascading effects.
As NBFI’s have grown in size and the percentage of total assets under management they have integrated themselves further and further into the international capitalist system, taking ownership of critical infrastructure like food supply chains, housing, energy, and logistics, sectors that underpin daily life for millions. This makes them prone to shocks that have been described above, the majority are easily withstandable due to the sheer size and diversity of their assets but a series of shocks or a sudden downturn in investment conditions could create a house of cards effect. This potential issue is compounded by the degree to which these financial actors are invested in one another. Their ultimate issue and source of risk for the global economy lies in their unregulated nature. To be clear, regulators and central banks are aware of the risk NBFI’s pose and would like to propose proper regulation, however the broad global nature of their activities and the increasingly important role they play in stimulating the global economy – not to mention driving shareholder value – makes the task difficult. So regulators uncertain in how to act are taking a wait and see approach. Hoping nothing too bad happens but when a crisis does emerge gaining an indication of where the most risk lies and where regulations are needed.
The next curveball in the complicated picture of financial stability is the current topic of the day; AI. AI presents both opportunities and risks for financial stability. On one hand, AI can enhance risk management, deepen market liquidity, and improve monitoring for both market participants and regulators. However, it also introduces new challenges like increased market volatility. The lack of standardised oversight means that the interactions between different AI systems, especially during periods of market stress, remain poorly understood. If multiple AI-driven strategies react similarly to a shock (such as a sudden liquidity crunch or geopolitical event), the result could be amplified volatility or even cascading failures across interconnected markets. The fact that NBFI’s, themselves opaque in their actions, are driving the adoption of AI in financial services complicates oversight even further and heightens risk.
The shift of market-making and investment activities toward NBFIs – such as hedge funds and proprietary trading firms – adds opacity and complicates oversight, as regulators struggle to anticipate how different AI models might interact. Beyond market dynamics, AI’s role in generating disinformation and enabling cyber threats poses a growing issue for financial actors. Sophisticated AI tools can now create highly convincing fake news, deepfake audio or video, and manipulated data sets, all of which can be weaponised to influence market sentiment or trigger panic selling. Social media platforms, including Reddit and X, have become fertile ground for such manipulation, particularly in volatile asset classes like cryptocurrencies. The viral nature of these platforms accelerates the spread of both legitimate and misleading information, making it harder for investors to distinguish between genuine market signals and coordinated disinformation campaigns.
I am not trying to send a message of doom and gloom. Nor is the pointing out of weakness in the international finance system an argument against capitalism per se. Instability and crisis are features of the capitalist system. To win profit, capitalists must indulge risk, it is a tricky balancing act knowing what is too much risk. My argument is that we need a movement level strategic intervention on the topic. A crisis is coming. We do not know when, we do not know how large. We know that a crisis in the financial markets will spill over to the real economy. It will impact the social reproduction of millions. This is bad; but also if handled right an opportunity.
Considerations for a movement level intervention
Before concluding with some practical next steps, I want outline three considerations I consider important if strategic intervention is to occur on the movement level.
The first should be clear for anyone who has made it this far in the article. Predicting when a crash will be and how severe it will be is difficult if impossible. There are reports of prominent investors who predicted the 2008 crash again betting against the markets and predicting a crash but like academics and institutions they are at best placing an educated guess and literally betting. As organisers we will not know when a crash means though we can prepare structures and organisation but we will always be reacting. Speed will be crucial when reacting since there is only a brief window of opportunity to take control of the narrative.
Speed is especially crucial since as many of us who came of age during or following the 2008 crash will remember, a crash causes real pain for millions as social reproduction is impacted if not completely destroyed. A crash is a crash not because the markets collapse but because society is deeply impacted. It causes wide instability and frustration. This is fertile ground for the far right to capitalise. The far right has been gaining significant ground already over the preceding two decades with an ethno-nationalist message feeding on the dissatisfaction of people who are the ‘losers’ in global capitalism. A crash would literally add fuel to the fire. There might be a brief window of opportunity to act and gain control of the narrative against capitalism after a crash. As organisers we need to know what the narrative that can mobilise the most people should be and be disciplined in rolling this out as quickly as possible after a crash. The best counter to the far right is ensuring social reproduction can continue for most people as smoothly as possible without the wage labour demands of capitalism and through mutual aid and community organising to ensure needs are met. These are structures that can be built and institutionalised in the time before a crash. However building structures and waiting is not enough, we must be on the offensive and confront capitalism directly particularly in the crucial nodes that drive the system.
The final consideration is that capital is global and it is highly mobile. Which means we as organisers must be global as well. Destabilising one node of the international capitalist system is not enough, capital will simply move to the next node of the system. To confront global capitalism effectively we must destabilise the central nodes where capital gains most of its value and is extracted from the system by its owners everywhere all at once. This requires a sophisticated degree of international cooperation and must include expanding our periphery to include Latin America, Africa and Asia. Movement mapping activities we make in Europe and North America must include groups in Latin America, Africa and Asia (and prioritise identifying gaps in our knowledge) as peripheral dynamics will be crucial for the capitalist core. It is of utmost strategic importance to understand the positionality of our comrades in the Global South and gain inspirations from successes that have been achieved as well as the sharing of resources internationally.
How a movement level intervention could proceed.
Thinking, planning and preparing for how to utilise a financial crisis and force a rupture with capitalism should be guided by one overarching question: How to be ‘faster’ than the far right during an economic crisis. Our opponents are almost certainly thinking ahead to these scenarios, we must ensure that we are not caught off guard and are properly prepared for the eventuality..
To support this there are three concrete things that we as organisers in a variety of countries can do.
One; Build power against a ‘good’ financial enemy. The NBFI terminology covers a broad swathe of financial institutions. Some like pension funds have high public trust, others like hedge funds are so deeply in the shadows only insiders know of their activities and how they operate. There are many possible targets to choose from but we cannot build a narrative against all of them at once. We must choose the ‘right’ target and from there the front line (for example housing or food) from which to build a narrative and challenge their power. The identification of a good enemy should start early so that a narrative can be built and the ground work laid. This is not something that needs to start from scratch, there are many groups who have already started this work and can be tapped into.
Two; Prepare for a financial crisis. Again work that is already being done by a variety of movements. This step would seek to consolidate this work spreading learnings and best practices on mutual aid (particularly for food and housing) to ensure that in a crash people can be effectively and quickly supported outside the structures of institutional capitalism.
Three; Foster financial crisis hysteria. Whilst having pointed out predicting a financial crisis is near impossible there is nothing to say that it cannot be triggered. A practical first step towards this would be mapping out the supply chain chokepoints (such as major ports or trade chokepoints) and the local struggles that are active there. These can be effective tools in destabilisation and driving progressive movements. An example is the protest in Italy at the ports of Genoa the previous summer in support of Palestine. Another source of chokepoints that would be worth doing further research into are ‘digital’ chokepoints where capital is concentrated as it moves from one node to another. At this point it is important to bear in mind that to effectively drive hysteria the other two steps must be done and in place first otherwise the move will be likely counter productive.
The financial system’s vulnerabilities – from the unchecked power of NBFIs to the fragility of globalised supply chains and the destabilising potential of AI – are not just risks to be feared but opportunities to be exploited. Capitalism’s crises are inevitable, but they are also moments of rupture, where the system’s contradictions become impossible to ignore. The question is not if the next crisis will come, but whether movements will be ready to turn its chaos into a catalyst for systemic change. This requires more than just preparation – it demands a strategic offensive. By targeting the financial system’s critical nodes, building resilient structures of mutual aid, preparing a clear narrative and fostering international solidarity, movements can position themselves to act faster than the far right when the moment arrives. The goal is not merely to weather the storm but to reshape the landscape in its aftermath, ensuring that the pain of the crisis does not reinforce capitalism’s grip but instead fuels its undoing. The time to organise is now – because when the system falters, the window to act will be brief, and the stakes could not be higher.
Max Voegtli is a Switzerland based eco-socialist activist. With an international background and almost a decade experience working within the capitalist system, he was mobilised through the civil disobedience group Renovate Switzerland and in 2022 quit his job to work full time on civil resistance. He has since worked with, for and through a variety of climate campaigns in Switzerland as well as supporting greater inter-national coordination.
