I would like to hear what some of our news mega comrade's opinions are on this. Like @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net's, or @Awoo@hexbear.net's and other Marxism-educated regulars there, because of the geopolitical focus of the news mega and how often things like the Western World, Global North, and Imperial Core are heavily discussed.
The way I've always thought of it is that "Western" is just an informal way of saying Imperial Core. That it's all a matter of who is doing imperialism to whom, who is benefiting from imperialism and who is being exploited by it. That it's not a matter of culture, language, etc., and is only a matter of race and racism because it's racist reasoning and racist justification at the heart of imperialism.
I see "west" as a less valuable term than "imperial core" or "international community". They sit outside of these things, as an exploited periphery. The euro-christian connections are significantly less important than their position in global capitalism. If any existing imperial core country were to suddenly find itself becoming an exploited periphery we would see similar movements of the left succeed in that country like we see succeed in south america.
We had an interesting thread the other day about social democrats of latin america vs social democrats, and it struck me that there is a fundamental difference between the socdems of latam and the socdems of the imperial core. The socdems of latam call themselves communists, promote communism, call themselves marxist-leninist, and so on. Lula celebrates putting a communist on the supreme court. Evo calls himself a marxist-leninist completely. These people are not ideological social-democrats. Their goal is not social-democracy. They are using it simply as a means, not as an end. Unlike the Bernies and euro social democrats, who are ideological social democrats who view social democracy as an end rather than a means towards transformational change. The exception here being Corbyn and the diem group, but their success has not occurred because they do not hold the same material conditions as the exploited periphery.
In terms of racism, I genuinely don't know how important it truly is anymore. The imperial core doesn't give a fuuuuuck about race when it benefits them. Venezuela is the subject of intense unbridled levels of hate for successfully being opposed to the imperial core. Argentina on the other hand is not. Racism is a tool, a means to an end for the bourgeoisie, the end they want is exploitation as a periphery country and they weaponise it or de-weaponise it as required. This holds true for the middle east and asia as well but does not hold true for africa making me think that they have a unique racial battle - no amount of being an exploited periphery country reduces the racism directed at them from the "west". Where are the "good" african countries in the eyes of bourgeoise western society?
I would like to hear what some of our news mega comrade's opinions are on this. Like @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net's, or @Awoo@hexbear.net's and other Marxism-educated regulars there, because of the geopolitical focus of the news mega and how often things like the Western World, Global North, and Imperial Core are heavily discussed.
The way I've always thought of it is that "Western" is just an informal way of saying Imperial Core. That it's all a matter of who is doing imperialism to whom, who is benefiting from imperialism and who is being exploited by it. That it's not a matter of culture, language, etc., and is only a matter of race and racism because it's racist reasoning and racist justification at the heart of imperialism.
"Western" and "imperial core" are synonymous to me, too, and thus Honduras is not in the imperial core and I assume is in the periphery
I see "west" as a less valuable term than "imperial core" or "international community". They sit outside of these things, as an exploited periphery. The euro-christian connections are significantly less important than their position in global capitalism. If any existing imperial core country were to suddenly find itself becoming an exploited periphery we would see similar movements of the left succeed in that country like we see succeed in south america.
We had an interesting thread the other day about social democrats of latin america vs social democrats, and it struck me that there is a fundamental difference between the socdems of latam and the socdems of the imperial core. The socdems of latam call themselves communists, promote communism, call themselves marxist-leninist, and so on. Lula celebrates putting a communist on the supreme court. Evo calls himself a marxist-leninist completely. These people are not ideological social-democrats. Their goal is not social-democracy. They are using it simply as a means, not as an end. Unlike the Bernies and euro social democrats, who are ideological social democrats who view social democracy as an end rather than a means towards transformational change. The exception here being Corbyn and the diem group, but their success has not occurred because they do not hold the same material conditions as the exploited periphery.
In terms of racism, I genuinely don't know how important it truly is anymore. The imperial core doesn't give a fuuuuuck about race when it benefits them. Venezuela is the subject of intense unbridled levels of hate for successfully being opposed to the imperial core. Argentina on the other hand is not. Racism is a tool, a means to an end for the bourgeoisie, the end they want is exploitation as a periphery country and they weaponise it or de-weaponise it as required. This holds true for the middle east and asia as well but does not hold true for africa making me think that they have a unique racial battle - no amount of being an exploited periphery country reduces the racism directed at them from the "west". Where are the "good" african countries in the eyes of bourgeoise western society?