Maybe you should try to meet some socialists. But the authoritarian ones (like Marx) and the anti-authoritarian ones (like Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman and Murray Bookchin) have written many books on the topic of class-struggle.
I'd venture to say between corporations and governments 99% of 'bad things' that have happened in the last century were at the hands of governments. A few world wars is a good starting place.
The idea that governments are benevolent overseers of the common good is what is bullshit. Those in government are as self-interested (if not more) as any other group (lawyers, plumbers, etc).
The last thing the rich want to do is kow-tow to a bunch of politicians, but the reality is they have to because one poorly conceived law or regulation can do real harm to a business. You have to pay to be at the table to do the best you can to prevent this. Politicians demand $$$$ to be at that table. I've seen this first hand.
That's so cute. If only this super-powerful threat to humanity could be directed toward the good rather than the banal, all would be well! Bullshit. The threat itself is the problem, not who is temporarily at the reins. In fact this whole myth of "if we vote hard enough it will work this time!" was created by those who want to perpetuate the monster, so that they may profit by it.
Thankfully we have enlightened people among us to guide the sheep, right?
>that it's not EU versus US versus China but rather corporations versus the people
Corporations have zero ability to act by themselves. So where do you propose to draw the between the "corporation team" and the "people team"?
Please don't do this here. If another comment takes a wrong turn, going further that way doesn't help. Instead, please help the thread self-correct by posting more substantively.
Anyway, the solution to the particular problem of the rich owning Congress isn't breaking multinationals but rather limits on campaign donations - this whole "money is speech" argument is just bullshit.