In return to the thread in the economics section done by our dutch comrade (asking about oil, if oil will change the currency reserve in the world etc.) Kliman just gave an interesting response to that very same question of US dominance in the Weekly worker here.
Cheer up, comrade. If it makes you feel better, I've worn the "pragmatist's hat" for more public stuff more comfortably for a number of years. I just put a cynic's spin on it.
Comrade, a rather reliable toll of casualties(of the Syrian Civil War) can be found on wikipedia. The majority of civilians killed are Alawites, and Sunnis that are accused of being pro-Assad "collaborators"(i.e collaborators with the Alawite "infidels" - the rebels don't consider Alawites to be a Shiia sect, they consider them to be an entirely new religion based on Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism).
(Since im restricted I can't post in that thread, so I posted on your visitor messages)
"Why is the ELR 'right wing' compared to a JG or a BIG?"
I didn't say that at all. There are various incarnations of ELR/JG. The more left-wing ones have it, but perhaps part of a broader attempt to socialize the labour market. The more right-wing ones tend to tackle the unemployment benefits issue. I'm against the BIG because of its downward pressure on wages, among numerous other things.
MMR is problematic precisely because it isn't "prescriptive." Even Minsky's lender of last resort is prescriptive, and I'm sure he had a number of non-ELR suggestions, too.
That honestly reeks more of the same old Chicago School's monetarism emphasis, or, to put it another way, yet another attempt at maintaining the neoclassical "synthesis" re. the General Theory.
However, within MMT there is a right-wing tendency as well. It's typically the ones calling for ELR to replace as much unemployment benefits as possible.