The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Petras Archive
Latin America: the Pendulum Swings to the Right
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_495113257

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Introduction

Clearly the pendulum has swung to the right in the past few years. Numerous questions arise. What kind of right? How far right? How did they gain power? What is their appeal? How sustainable are the right wing regimes? Who are their international allies and adversaries? Having taken power, how have the rightist regimes performed and by what criteria is success or failure measured?

While the left has been in retreat, they still retain power in some states. Numerous questions arise. What is the nature of the left today? Why have some regimes continued while others have declined or been vanquished? Can the left recover its influence and under what conditions and with what programmatic appeal.

We will proceed by discussing the character and policies of the right and left and their direction. We will conclude by analyzing the dynamics of right and left policies, alignments and future perspectives.

Right-Radicalism: The Face of Power

The right wing regimes are driven by intent to implement structural changes: they look to reordering the nature of the state, economic and social relations and international political and economic alignments.

Radical right regimes rule in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras and Chile.

In several countries extreme right regimes have made abrupt changes, while in others they build on incremental changes constituted over time.

The changes in Argentina and Brazil represent examples of extreme regressive transformations directed at reversing income distribution, property relations, international alignments and military strategies. The goal is to redistribute income upwardly, to re-concentrate wealth, property-ownership upward and externally and to subscribe to imperial doctrine. These pluto-populist regimes are run by rulers, who openly speak to and for very powerful domestic and overseas investors and are generous in their distribution of subsidies and state resources – a kind of ‘populism for the plutocrats’.

The rise and consolidation of extremist right regimes in Argentina and Brazil are based on several decisive interventions, combining elections and violence, purges and co-optation, mass media propaganda and deep corruption.

Mauricio Macri was backed by the major media, led by the Clarin conglomerate, as well as by the international financial press (Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.). Wall Street speculators and Washington’s overseas political apparatus subsidized his electoral campaign.

Macri, his family, cronies and financial accomplices, transferred public resources to private accounts. Provincial political bosses and their patronage operations joined forces with the wealthy financial sectors of Buenos Aires to secure votes in the Capital.

Upon his election, the Mauricio Macri regime transferred five billion dollars to the notorious Wall Street speculator, Paul Singer, signed off on multi-billion dollar, high interest loans, increased utility fees six fold, privatized oil, gas and public lands and fired tens of thousands of public sector employees.

Macri organized a political purge and arrest of opposition political leaders, including former President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner. Several provincial activists were jailed or even assassinated.

Macri is a success story from the perspective of Wall Street, Washington and the Porteño business elite. Wages and salaries have declined for Argentine workers. Utility companies secured their highest profits ever. Bankers doubled interest rate returns. Importers became millionaires. Agro-business incomes skyrocketed as their taxes were reduced.

From the perspective of Argentina’s small and medium business enterprises President Macri’s regime has been a disaster: Many thousands have gone bankrupt because of high utility costs and harsh competition from cheap Chinese imports. In addition to the drop in wages and salaries, unemployment and under employment doubled and the rate of extreme poverty tripled

The economy, as a whole, floundered. Debt financing failed to promote growth, productivity, innovation and exports. Foreign investment experienced easy entry, big profits and fast departure. The promise of prosperity was narrowly based around a quarter of the population. To weaken the expected public discontent – the regime shut down independent media voices, unleashed thugs against critics and co-opted pliable gangster trade union bosses to break strikes.

Public protests and strikes multiplied but were ignored and repressed. Popular leaders and activists are stigmatized by the Macri-financed media hacks.

Barring a major social upheaval or economic collapse, Macri will exploit the fragmentation of the opposition to secure re-election as a model gangster for Wall Street. Macri is prepared to sign off on US military bases, EU free trade agreements, and greater police liaison with Israel’s sinister secret police, Mossad.

Brazil has followed Macri’s far right policies.

Seizing power through a phony impeachment operation, the mega-swindler Michel Temer immediately proceeded to dismantle the entire public sector, freeze salaries for twenty years, and extend retirement age for pensioners by five to ten years. Temer led over a thousand bribe-taking elected officials in the multi-billion dollar pillage of the state oil company and every major public infrastructure project.

Coup, corruption and contempt were hidden by a system granting Congressional impunity until independent prosecutors investigated, charged and jailed several dozen politicians, but not Temer. Despite 95% public disapproval, President Temer remains in power with the total backing of Wall Street, the Pentagon and Sao Paolo bankers.

Mexico, the long-standing narco-assassin state, continues elect one thieving PRI-PAN political regime after another. Billions in illicit profits flows to the overseas tax havens of money laundering bankers, US and Canadian mine owners. Mexican and international manufacturers extracted double digit profits sent, to overseas accounts and tax havens. Mexico broke its own miserable record in elite tax avoidance, while extending low wage-tax ‘free trade zones’. Millions of Mexicans have fled across the border to escape predatory gangster capitalism. The flow of hundreds of millions of dollars of profits by US and Canadian multi-nationals were a result of the ‘unequal exchange’ between US capital and Mexican labor, held in place by Mexico’s fraudulent electoral system.

In at least two well-known presidential elections in 1988 and 2006, left of center candidates, Cuahtemoc Cardenas and Manuel Lopez Obrador, won with healthy margins of victory, only to have their victories stolen by fraudulent vote counts.

ORDER IT NOW

Peru’s rightist mining regimes, alternated between the overtly bloody Fujimori dictatorship and corrupt electoral regimes. What is consistent in Peruvian politics is the handover of mineral resources to foreign capital, pervasive corruption and the brutal exploitation of natural resources by US and Canadian mining and drilling corporations in regions inhabited by Indian communities.

The extreme right ousted elected left-of-center governments, including President Fernando Lugo in Paraguay (2008-2012) and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras (2006-2009), with the active support and approval of the US State Department. Narco-presidents now wield power by means of repression, including violence against popular movements and the killing of scores of peasant and urban activists. This year, a grossly rigged election in Honduras ensured the continuity of narco-regimes and US military bases.

The spread of the extreme right from Central America and Mexico to the Southern Cone provides the groundwork for the re-assertion of US centered military alliances and regional trade pacts.

The rise of the extreme right ensures the most lucrative privatizations and the highest rates of return on overseas bank loans. The far right is quick to crack down on popular dissent and electoral challenges with violence. At most the far right allows a few rotating elites with nationalist pretensions to provide a façade of electoral democracy.

The Shift from the Center-Left to the Center-Right

The political swings to the far right have had profound ripple effects – as nominal center-left regimes have swung to the center-right.

Two regimes have moved decisively from the center-left to the center-right: Uruguay under Tabare Vazquez of the ‘Broad Front’ and Ecuador with the recent election of Lenin Moreno of PAIS Alliance. In both cases the groundwork was established via accommodations with oligarchs of the traditional right parties. The previous center-left regimes of Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa and Uruguayan President Jose Mujica succeeded in pushing for public investments and social reforms. They combined their leftist rhetoric while capitalizing on the global high prices and high demand for agro-mineral exports to finance their reforms. With the decline in world prices and the public exposure of corruption, the newly elected center-left parties nominated and elected center –right candidates who turned anti-corruption campaigns into vehicles for embracing neoliberal economic policies. The center-right presidents rejected economic nationalism, encouraged large scale foreign investment and implemented fiscal austerity programs appealing to the upper middle class and ruling class.

The center-right regimes marginalized the leftist sectors of their parties. In the case of Ecuador, they split the party, with the newly elected president realigning international policies away from the left (Bolivia, Venezuela) and toward the US and the far right– while shedding the legacy of their predecessor in terms of popular social programs.

With the decline in export prices the center-right regimes offered generous subsidies to foreign investors in agriculture and forestry in Uruguay, and mine owners and exporters in Ecuador.

The newly converted center-right regimes joined with their established counterparts in Chile and joined the Trans Pacific Partnership with Asian nations, the EU and the US.

The center-right sought to manipulate the social rhetoric of the previous center-left regimes in order to retain popular voters while securing support from the business elite.

The Left Moves to the Center Left

Bolivia, under Evo Morales, has demonstrated an exceptional capacity for sustaining growth, securing re-election and neutralizing the opposition by combining a radical left foreign policy with a moderate, mixed public-private export economy. While Bolivia condemns US imperialism, major oil, gas, metals and lithium multi-nationals have invested heavily in Bolivia. Evo Morales has moderated his ideological posture shifting from revolutionary socialism to a local version of liberal democratic cultural politics.

Evo Morales’ embrace of a mixed economy has neutralized any overt hostility from the US and the new far-right regimes in the region

Though remaining politically independent, Bolivia has integrated its exports with the far right neoliberal regimes in the region. President Evo Morales’s moderate economic policies, diversity of mineral exports, fiscal responsibility, incremental social reforms, and support from well-organized social movements has led to political stability and social continuity despite the volatility of commodity prices.

Venezuela’s left regimes under President Hugo Chavez and Maduro have followed a divergent course with harsh consequences. Totally dependent on extraordinary global oil prices, Venezuela proceeded to finance generous welfare programs at home and abroad. Under President Chavez leadership, Venezuela adopted a consequential anti-imperialist policy successfully opposing a US centered free trade agreement (LAFTA) and launching an anti-imperialist alternative, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA).

Advancing social welfare and financing overseas allies without diversifying the economy and markets and increasing production was predicated on continuous high returns on a single volatile export – oil.

Unlike Bolivia under President Evo Morales, who built his power with the support of an organized, class conscious and disciplined mass base, Venezuela counted on an amorphous electoral alliance, which included slum dwellers, defectors from the corrupt traditional parties (across the spectrum) and opportunists intent on grabbing office and perks. Political education was reduced to mouthing slogans, cheering the President and distributing consumer goods.

Venezuelan technocrats and political loyalists occupied highly lucrative positions, especially in the petroleum sector and were not held to account by workers’ councils or competent state auditors. Corruption was rampant and billions of dollars of oil wealth was stolen. This pillage was tolerated because of the huge influx of petro-dollars due to historic high prices and high demand. This led to a bizarre situation where the regime spoke of socialism and funded massive social programs, while the major banks, food distributers, importers and transportation operators were controlled by hostile private oligarchs who pocketed enormous profits while manufacturing shortages and promoting inflation. Despite the problems, the Venezuelan voters gave the regime a series of electoral victories over the US proxies and oligarch politicians. This tended to create overconfidence in the regime that the Bolivarian socialist model was irrevocable.

ORDER IT NOW

The precipitous drop of oil prices, global demand, and export earnings led to the decline of imports and consumption. Unlike Bolivia, foreign reserves declined, the rampant theft of billions was belatedly uncovered and the US-backed rightwing opposition returned to violent ‘direct action’ and sabotage while hoarding essential food, consumer goods and medicine. Shortages led to widespread black marketeering. Public sector corruption and hostile opposition control of the private banking, retail and industrial sectors, backed by the US, paralyzed the economy. The economy has been in a free-fall and electoral support has eroded. Despite the regime’s severe problems, the majority of low income voters correctly understood that their chances of surviving under the US-backed oligarchic opposition would be worse and the embattled left continued to win gubernatorial and municipal elections up through 2017.

Venezuela’s economic vulnerability and negative growth rate led to increased indebtedness. The opposition of the extreme right regimes in Latin America and Washington’s economic sanctions has intensified food shortages and increased unemployment.

In contrast, Bolivia effectively defeated US-elite coup plots between 2008-10. The Santa Cruz-based oligarchs faced the clear choice of either sharing profits and social stability by signing off on social pacts (workers/peasants, capital and state) with the Morales government or facing an alliance of the government and the militant labor movement prepared to expropriate their holdings. The elites chose economic collaboration while pursuing low intensity electoral opposition.

Conclusion

Left opposition is in retreat from state power. Opposition to the extreme right is likely to grow, given the harsh, uncompromising assault on income, pensions, the rise in the cost of living, severe reductions in social programs and attacks on private and public sector employment. The extreme right has several options, none of which offer any concessions to the left. They have chosen to heighten police state measures (the Macri solution); they attempt to fragment the opposition by negotiating with the opportunist trade union and political party bosses; and they reshuffle degraded rulers with new faces to continue policies (the Brazilian solution).

The formerly revolutionary left parties, movements and leaders have evolved toward electoral politics, protests and job action. So far they do not represent an effective political option at the national level

The center-left, especially in Brazil and Ecuador, is in a strong position with dynamic political leaders (Lula DaSilva and Correa) but face trumped up charges by right-wing prosecutors who intend to exclude them from running for office. Unless the center-left reformers engage in prolonged large-scale mass activity, the far right will effectively undermine their political recovery.

The US imperial state has temporarily regained proxy regimes, military allies and economic resources and markets. China and the European Union profit from optimal economic conditions offered by the far right regimes. The US military program has effectively neutralized the radical opposition in Colombia, and the Trump regime has intensified and imposed new sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba.

The Trump regimes ‘triumphalist’ celebration is premature – no decisive strategic victory has taken place, despite important short term advances in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. However large outflows of profits, major transfers of ownership to foreign investors, favorable tax rates, low tariff and trade policies have yet to generate new productive facilities, sustainable growth and to ensure economic fundamentals. Maximizing profits and ignoring investments in productivity and innovation to promote domestic markets and demand has bankrupted tens of thousands of medium and small local commercial and manufacturing firms. This has led to rising chronic unemployment and underemployment. Marginalization and social polarization without political leadership is growing. Such conditions led to ‘spontaneous’ uprisings in Argentina 2001, Ecuador 2000 and Bolivia 2005.

The far right in power may not evoke a rebellion of the far left but its policies can certainly undermine the stability and continuity of the current regimes. At a minimum, it can lead to some version of the center left and restoration of the welfare and employment regimes now in tatters.

In the meantime the far right will press ahead with their perverse agenda combining deep reversals of social welfare, the degradation of national sovereignty and economic stagnation with a formidable profit maximizing performance.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Latin America, Neoliberalism 
Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Jason Liu says:

    I think this author is on the wrong site. None of those countries have “radical right” governments. Right wing radicals believe in social hierarchy regardless of wealth distribution.

  2. @Jason Liu

    Its good to get different perspective, Unz review should host a specturm of political views, that is what makes it special. Worst thing that it becomes a right wing echo chamber.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Wally
  3. Miro23 says:

    In contrast, Bolivia effectively defeated US-elite coup plots between 2008-10. The Santa Cruz-based oligarchs faced the clear choice of either sharing profits and social stability by signing off on social pacts (workers/peasants, capital and state) with the Morales government or facing an alliance of the government and the militant labor movement prepared to expropriate their holdings. The elites chose economic collaboration while pursuing low intensity electoral opposition.

    This is an intelligent form of Bolivia First, looking for good relations with International Capital, but putting the wellbeing of all Bolivians first.

    And interestingly it works.

    According to a report by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, “Bolivia has grown much faster over the last eight years than in any period over the past three and a half decades.” The benefits of such growth have been felt by the Bolivian people: under Morales, poverty has declined by 25% and extreme poverty has declined by 43%; social spending has increased by more than 45%; the real minimum wage has increased by 87.7%; and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean has praised Bolivia for being “one of the few countries that has reduced inequality”. In this respect, the re-election of Morales is really very simple: people like to be economically secure – so if you reduce poverty, they’ll probably vote for you.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/evo-morales-reelected-socialism-doesnt-damage-economies-bolivia

    Turns out the difference between Bolivia and Venezuela has nothing to do with abstract ideological labels, and everything to do with fiscal prudence.
    I know, I know, fiscal prudence sounds deadly dull, but it makes an enormous difference in real people’s lives. While Venezuela’s reckless socialists were impoverishing the country’s once thriving middle class, Bolivia’s socialists were creating an entirely new indigenous middle class, even spawning a whole new style of architecture along with it. Why? Because newly affluent Bolivians can afford it: Per capita GDP more than tripled from just $1,000 a year to over $3,200 over a decade. At the same time, new government social programs designed to help older people, mothers and other at-risk groups saw to major improvements in social indicators. To take just one, consider this: Thirty-two percent of Bolivians were chronically malnourished in 2003. By 2012, just 18 percent were.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/01/05/as-socialist-venezuela-collapses-socialist-bolivia-thrives-heres-why/?utm_term=.9f988144dca4

    The “CONSERVATIVE SOCIALISM” of Bolivia’s Evo Morales

    https://panampost.com/editor/2017/05/10/conservative-bolivia-evo-morales/

    • Replies: @Miro23
  4. Oligarchic regimes pursuing the factional, plutocratic, trans-national good are merely an older form of the liberal left.

    They’re a cargo cult of the true hierarchical expressions of a right wing order in the realm of gross materialism.

    The post-liberal right is interested in securing the COMMON GOOD.

    • Replies: @phil
    , @jilles dykstra
  5. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The evil influence emanating from the Great Satan is too strong for any of these loser nations to resist (it will be interesting to see how they vote at the UN today).

    As always, people get the leaders they deserve… which is especially true for “democratic” nations.

  6. phil says:
    @Lemurmaniac

    The author does not provide clear definitions of “right” and left”. He seems to identify the “right” with policies that increase inequalities in income and wealth. “Left” seems to refer to policies that decrease inequalities. How an economic system is characterized is said to depend on the pursuit (or lack thereof) of a hoped-for result (“equality”). Assuming that greater equality is “good,” a leftist regime is then inherently good, and a rightist regime is inherently bad.

    Alternatively, “socialism” can be defined as government ownership and/or control of economic decision-making, whether or not a particular result is achieved. “Capitalism” can be defined as private ownership and control. On a scale from 0 to 10, where ’0′ is complete government control, and ’10′ is no government control, the Fraser Institute puts Argentina at less than ’5′, and Brazil at less than ’6′. In contrast, Switzerland and Hong Kong are well above ’8.’ Chile is at 7.77, and has been the most successful country in Latin America. But according to Petras, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile are all “far right” regimes. If a country practiced laissez-faire, but owing to a very homogeneous population, the distribution of income was rather equal, would that be a “left wing” regime?

    Extensive government control tends not to produce prosperity, and as the above examples indicate, it does not even reliably produce “equality”. Given a population of reasonably intelligent people, why not abide by a constitution providing for markets that are generally free and open, supplemented by financial support for those who are truly in need through no fault of their own?

  7. Miro23 says:
    @Miro23

    Bolivia’s socialists were creating an entirely new indigenous middle class, even spawning a whole new style of architecture along with it.

    Here are the “Cholets” (Cholo + Chalet) built by the new native Indian middle class in El Alto (next to capital La Paz – combined population 1,8 million) at 4000 meters altitude in the Andes.

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTU-65MFCEIRvrlLiqrIfpnEVHAyalCajkj1Ro1OUuvHYLHsOAq

  8. Is not globalisation the world wide swing to the right ?
    Removing any protection of ordinary workers, converting anyone into an entrepreneur, who competes with anyone on the whole planet.
    The nation states of Europe provided protection, ‘thanks’ to the EU this protection is removed step by step.
    A nation state that wants to remain a nation state, Poland, Hungary, is denounced by Brussels as undemocratic, fiddling with the separation of powers, etc.
    The E European countries resemble the USA South, that wanted to leave the USA.
    The pretext to attack them was liberating the slaves.
    These liberated slaves soon found out that as industrial workers they were in worse conditions than being a slave.
    The EU now is an interesting sight, on the one hand those who think now or never, creating a USA clone in Europe, on the other hand those who at last begin to understand what monster has been created.
    If the USA clone in Europe will be created also by civil war ?
    At the moment Brussels does not have an army.

    • Agree: bluedog
  9. @Lemurmaniac

    Common good.
    What we see is that labour’s part in national incomes steadily goes down, and, accordingly, capital’s part is rising.
    Cannot see much common.

  10. The author seems to be, on a political scale, a little to the left of Leon Trotsky. I guess he would consider Che Guevara to be Center Right.

    • Replies: @white noise
  11. Tulip says:

    Nice fashion column!

    “What color hats will this year’s crop of robbers and thieves wear? . . . Looks like blue is the new Red.”

    Sort of true of our “progressives” too, now that you mention it.

  12. Mauricio Macri was backed by the major media, led by the Clarin conglomerate, as well as by the international financial press (Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.). Wall Street speculators and Washington’s overseas political apparatus subsidized his electoral campaign.

    Macri, his family, cronies and financial accomplices, transferred public resources to private accounts. Provincial political bosses and their patronage operations joined forces with the wealthy financial sectors of Buenos Aires to secure votes in the Capital.

    Upon his election, the Mauricio Macri regime transferred five billion dollars to the notorious Wall Street speculator, Paul Singer, signed off on multi-billion dollar, high interest loans, increased utility fees six fold, privatized oil, gas and public lands and fired tens of thousands of public sector employees.

    when he was elected and I watched an interview of him, I knew argentina was gonna be looted. and it did.

  13. gwynedd1 says:

    I weary of the right/left dichotomy. There is collectivism, centralized power and centralized planning and then there is independent decision making. This is not an absolutism either. Its a continuum. In centrally planned societies there is still independent decision making and in decentralize societies there is some common plan.

    The idea that nationalists are right wing or that privatization is right wing is really nauseating. A central state enforcing an ethno state is the prototypical NAZI. Its a collectivist centrally planned ideology. A libertarian that notices that blacks might end up underrepresented in engineering compared to Japanese due to biological differences and or cultural differences is hardly right wing. Hierarchies simply manifest themselves. Local areas tend to become racially homogeneous as a reflection of family creation. Thus local culture and autonomy tend to simply manifest themselves, not are made manifest by “NAZI” with collective force.

    Privatization plans are still government run enterprises that assign tasks to contractors. It still disperses the resources to to whom it pleases. There is nothing right wing about it. Its simply a choice of left wing polices. And yes even I, a libertarian ,do support some left wing concepts like usufruct and compensating the society for rights of way and land and resource use. How ever a privatization deal from my point of view quite leftist. And being one who believes in classical economic concepts , capital should be outside the purview of the government. However rents are the purview of the sovereign.

  14. Unlike the US, China seems to ignore the various political stews she encounters and has a deal for all.
    It’s working splendidly thoughout Eurasia and East Africa and now Central and South America have come under the influence of doing business without agenda.
    Perhaps if Belt & Road comes to our hemisphere we too can learn to compete without violence. Been awhile.

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-art-of-the-deal/

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/hark-what-voice-is-that-its-silence/

  15. Hu Mi Yu says:

    The terms “left” and “right” in a political sense come from the French revolution where deputies were arranged in according to their support for their king. Without a common king or some agreed-upon pole the they lack meaning.

    There are many more political dimensions than just left vs right, for example: monarchist vs republican, egalitarian vs hierarchical, liberal vs conservative, libertarian vs necessitarian, socialist vs capitalist, centralized vs devolved, globalist vs protectionist, traditionalist vs bohemian. Each of us has our own perspective and projects these into our own experiences. The left vs right axis is convenient for manipulation, because each person in the audience interprets it differently. It reduces politics to bipolar hostility that exalts demagogues and suppresses constructive debate.

    • Replies: @polskijoe
  16. Wally says: • Website

    From the ‘to be expected department’:

    Communist Petras conveniently fails to mention the mass murdering, terror bombing Shining Path.

  17. @Jason Liu

    “Radical” is a term that needs to be redefined. Like “racist”.
    For news outlets to return to honest, documentable fact reporting would be “radical”, but welcome.

  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Third world nationalist

    Follow Liu’s lead and lay out some of the right wing ideology couched in striking distance of leftism to “correct the author’s mistakes”. Some one has to do it on social media, and that someone is you.

  19. Wally says: • Website
    @Third world nationalist

    Clearly you don’t come here often, or you’re just trolling.

    Unz is constantly presenting and allowing different views.

  20. polskijoe says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Thanks. You saved me typing time. Aka ask 100 people what left and right is and you get dozens of answers.

  21. joe webb says:

    it is impossible to write or think about Latin America without taking into consideration the Indian factor. This Petras refuses, leftnik that he is.

    The fundamental dynamic is racial. The more Indians and the more mestizos…or mulattos in Brazil for example, the more chaotic.

    Mexico in only 9 per cent white but the mestizo 60% or so is well co-opted by the whites. The Indians are of little account politically…I think.

    Mestizos must be included in the spoils and they are, at least in Mexico. That is how it has survived.
    With the cartels, etc. I don’t know if it will survive.

    We need some informed work in this regard.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @white noise
  22. Hopefully, it doesn’t turn out like Western Europe in the 70s-80s with the “stay behind” CIA/NATO proxy armies who waged all sorts of terror acts to prevent the rise of the Left.

  23. Doodah says:

    This prattle of left or right wing dictatorship is nonsense. The true polar opposites are overbearing government and freedom. No matter the utopian claims of fascism, socialism or communism the result is human misery. Do not be deceived by this. Big government types will always, at some point, reveal their totalitarian hearts.

  24. Eventually someone has to clean up the mess the left leaves behind. Macri is doing just that.

  25. @joe webb

    @ Joe Webb

    Mexico in only 9 per cent white but the mestizo 60% or so is well co-opted by the whites.

    And what’s your source for this? According to the last census by the Mexican government, Mexicans of European origin (Whites, mostly Spanish-blooded) amount to 47 %. Aboriginals are about 21 %, so mestizos are around 32 %.

    Same as in USA, the aboriginal population has been steadily declining, for decades. Forgotten in the little towns. Mestizos population grow as they go to big cities and mix with whites.

    You see a lot of browns because that’s what comes to the USA, but back in Mexico, the majority has been white since the 1960′s or so, probably 1950′s.

    The White Mexicans only cross the border as tourists, and they are indistinguishable from Spaniards, physically. By the way, Mexico has the largest population of White Americans in the world, outside USA.

    Have you ever been to Mexico? Probably not. Their white women can be very attractive, especially in the west and north, thanks to French and American settlers, there are lots of blue-eyed and green-eyed natural blondes.

    I’m sure this goes against the brown stereotype in your head ;)

  26. @Hannah Katz

    @ Hannah Katz

    The author seems to be, on a political scale, a little to the left of Leon Trotsky. I guess he would consider Che Guevara to be Center Right.

    All these labels only obfuscate the discourse, and were another Jewish trick meant to provoke endless arguments and endless inconsequential thoughts.

    As someone else pointed out, ask 100 people and you’ll get 100 different definitions. Hate to admit that they’re diabolically clever, as people fall for it all the time…

    They manage to entertain/distract you with the political labels nonsense, while they take care of the very real business of controlling what really matters: society… Including political discourse.

    How about ‘South-Center Alt-Vectorial Right’? Well, I can come up with more if you don’t like this one… At least, it sounds elegant.

    They control even speech.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Petras Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.