In the sense that this critique of capitalist is too narrow and does not in fact include some of the other prominent figures (such as Bezos and Zuckenberg, at least to my knowledge), it is indeed insufficient in criticizing capital as a whole. Moralistic critiques are great supplements to systematic ones, but can never take their place. They can certainly be introductions, but you’re not going to get anywhere if they cannot accept the central thesis of capitalist exploitation. Especially with a guy such as Chomsky being in them, who sure as shit is not much of a capitalist (although most certainly a radlib). You’re not exactly discrediting anarchism if you point that out. You’re also not going to find someone such as Dick Cheney on the files, even though we know he’s an evil piece of shit. Sure they have all the power to be the most morally depraved evil bastards, but that is inherently not a characteristic of capitalist production. This certainly isn’t the “mother of all radicalizing catalysts”, rapid economic deterioration is, which is why economism was so widespread in the Russian worker’s movement, particularly with the Mensheviks.
Also the whole compromising thing with Mossad is a bit unconvincing considering that Trump is constantly in the files yet nothing has actually happened to him. Nobody cares about compromising material in the form of someone’s dick pic or moral depravity, except for Starmer and his weird spy camera obsession I guess.
No, of course they’re not monolithic in the sense that they all realize surplus value in the same form. However, the profit of the bankers, rentiers, merchants, industrialists etc. all rests on commodity production and the realization of surplus value. This attribute of capital generally, standing in contradiction with that of labour in general, is why we’re opposed to capital. Yes, all the people caught in this scandal all wield some sort of power, but that power in and of itself does not automatically assume that someone will stoop to that depravity, which is why I mentioned Bezos and Zuckenberg.
And since I’m going to assume we’re talking about the radicalization of the american working class (since this is affecting the american political scene the most), that is not going to be realized by pointing out the exploitation of Easter Europe. It can only be realized by directly pointing to the contradictions inherent between capital and labour in America (although considering imperialism, who knows if a true radicalization of the working class in America is even good, let alone possible). The Russian, French and Chinese peasants certainly didn’t rise up in arms because they were appalled by the treatment of Native or African Americans.
And that’s exactly why it is not the “mother of all radicalizing catalysts”! It is not an all systematic, all-encompassing critique of capital as such, but rather a moral failing of a certain group of capitalist (and even non-capitalists). Sure you could say it leads to moral failure in the way you described, but it is not definitively and absolutely so. The capitalists aren’t practicing their evil laugh, they all equally think they’re saving the world whilst lowering wages. It also doesn’t take a capitalist to be a piece of shit, thus the concept of “good billionaires” for the liberals. And again, at the end of the day, morality is completely subjective based on the country, as well as the time in human history and the advancement of human development.
The mistake is assuming Trump’s policies are the result of blackmail, rather than the presupposition of him coming to power in America. Kamala and Biden too, enacted Israeli interests despite not being apparently compromised.