Communists are against consumerism and luxury production as a general rule, on this site alone there’s a lot of mocking of treats, society needs bread but does it need circuses? At what point is asceticism good and when is it reactionary?
Communists are against consumerism and luxury production as a general rule, on this site alone there’s a lot of mocking of treats, society needs bread but does it need circuses? At what point is asceticism good and when is it reactionary?
I swear the term global south is like the leftist equivalent of hitting yourself over the head repeatedly with the guns germs and steel book. It’s an appeal to environmental determinalism.
...or it's a shorthand for the exploited peoples that were forced into extractive relationships by colonial powers to supply cheap treats to the imperial core.
is this a bit?
Counterpoint, it’s the leftist equivalent of saying western civilization and including Japan and Australia in what you are saying. It’s just such a broad and ambiguous term that means nothing and I hate it with a passion. Also yes my account was made on September 8 because the queen died and I find that very funny.
No it pretty unambiguously means “countries outside the imperial core that are exploited by imperialism” and is useful for addressing the implications of that fact like @ultraviolet did. Bc other terms for it are either loaded as others have pointed out (3rd world) or carry an implication of chauvinism like “developing countries” so people try not to use them. If you want to reduce all meaningful context down to “this is a term for a general region” then I guess you can say that but it’d be useless to do so.
Its not perfect bc obviously a lot of imperialized countries aren’t in the literal global south but a lot are that’s how it got it’s start and most people who aren’t being obtuse know what it means in a political discussion and it doesn’t have to match the literal definition to be useful. Real life language is like that some time as terms evolve
The global south does not include Australia and Japan in the same way the west does not include South America, even though it's in the western hemisphere. So you're right in a sense, most of the global south is in the northern hemisphere.
The global south generally includes counties outside of the imperialist triad of the USA, Europe and American vassal states in the Oceanic region. And excludes Russia.
You can use periphery if you prefer that word
Japan is a client state of the US which is a country made of European conquerors' descendants, and Australia is a country made up of European conquerors' descendants. They are part of 'western' (european) civilization.
deleted by creator
you could also just say 3rd world
I don't because it originally meant non-aligned countries and that's not usually what I mean
What about the second world though?
That's usually used to refer to countries that were aligned with the Soviet Union during the cold war
counterpoint: Australia/NZ are some of the most southern nations in existence
3rd world has a charged valence, not everyone hears Mao when they hear it
damn, it be atomic
Ionic actually
Or you can just not.
How long until someone says Russia is the global south? HOW FUCKING LONG???
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
long as this dick boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Russia is in a weird position between Global South and Global North, being exploited by the West and at the same time trying to become exploiter itself with varying results. Kind of a Global Center, lmao.
:downbear:
It's useful shorthand for the countries outside the imperial core i.e. those exploited by it. You are literally the first person I've ever seen complain about the term.
It’s not useful, it’s an overgeneralization that furthers the reactionary arguments that geographic location determines economic success. And imperial core, what use is that word in an era of globalization?