Do you see a pattern here?
(Evidence No. 1:)
1980s: Reagan/Bush I-Thatcher-Kohl-Mitterand-Mulroney-Bilt (Sv 1988-1992)
1992-2000: Clinton-Blair-Schroeder-Jospin-Chretien-Persson (Sv)
2007: Bush-(Blair/Brown)-Merkel-Sarkozy-Harper-Reinfeldt (Sv). Right wing dominance in Belgium and Ireland.
Answer me this: When a Right-wing shock therapist is installed in the U.S., why do the big OECD economies’ citizens swiftly follow by voting in their own Right-wing hawks? How is zeitgeist achieved? Are elections completely fixed? Are the ruling parties of nations simply installed by the preferences of leading capital (eg neocon finance)? If so, how do they secure the vote? By any means necessary? Funding campaigns, coordinating news coverage and publicity, and in the last resort, simply having the Supreme Court install their man (Evidence No. 2)?
I’d like to see such an analysis. One big problem with Monthly Review is that they won’t get their hands dirty really analyzing politics. They stick to macro economics. Even when they try a little, their political analysis is shaky and sketchy. And they’re proud of it. For example, there was an article a couple of months ago asking: “Why is the Left so weak when so many look for political alternatives?” Good question. I’m interested in that question. After 5 pages, the author, Ingo Schmidt hadn’t answered it. He/she had said nothing. Then in the final paragraph, the author lets loose with an exhortation for, we presume, the Left to start focusing on issues of production rather than income. OK. Now we’re getting somewhere…But. Oh. That’s the end of the article. In the same issue, an advertisement/”review” of Michael Lebowitz’s “Build it Now” quotes Margaret Thatcher declaring “there is no alternative”, and then hails Lebowitz for agreeing that there is no alternative within the capitalist system. True, but we are still confronted with the conundrum: Social democratic gradualism did not work. It only produced a generation of affluent pro-capitalist opportunists with anti-sexist, pro-union sympathies rooted in nothing more substantial than women and unionists are currently in their network. We watch while those anti-elite networks are steadily or swiftly dismembered by a capitalist class thats not afraid of class warfare. Soon, those same Social Democratic wonks that rally for this or that female politician, will be polishing the shoes of their all-male capitalist masters. As well, it’s difficult for a revolution-based socialism to survive cold and hot capitalist war. There’s too much warfare pressure toward corruption.
The Left Business Observer is better for political-economic analysis (Although Ian claims that Doug Henwood supports imperial war. I haven’t noticed that.)