I thought this was self explanatory since you guys mainline a lot of starving African kids in your mainstream media atleast, but apparently contrarianism has meant Chapos going the full circle and denying that it is actually even worse there.
Sincerely, someone in the global south. If you disagree, post below, I have a lot of time to explain.
Adding an edit to copy paste a comment where I replied in terms of what I mean
The amount of precariousness someone poor in the first world might face is not really comparable to what poverty in the south looks like. Rule of law is absent, the government is also absent, so while the social security net may be failing or too small in the first world– it’s entirely absent in the third. There aren’t enough teachers or doctors even for the people who can afford them. Children are born into indentured labour, by which I mean they are born to work off their parents debt, usually working from the age of 4 onwards. While we are all comrades, under the same boot of the bourgeoisie, remember that the workers of the third world may view the way that first world workers live in poverty as basically the good life.
Participation in the economy allows you to dictate your own material conditions. It is the same if you're poor in a rich country or poor in a poor country - if you are unable to dictate the way the economy facilitates your needs through your relationship with it then ultimately you'll be deprived of necessary fulfillment.
This is clearly quite a romantic way of looking at capitalism and is an analysis made at face value. It is apparently the only standard that puts the allocation of resources under capitalism above the allocation of resources under any other system.
The conditions of poverty will be different dependent on the environment from which the needs of the individual have been derived, but there are needs that are universal like food. Somebody starving in one country is no worse than somebody starving in another country. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that statement... but other aspects of poverty are more complex because of these different environmental factors.
Poverty as a function of economic conflict between the individual and their physical environment will lead to a variety of negative outcomes that can't be compared. I personally don't believe in comparing negatives because it's' an attempt to create a hierarchy of human suffering. That might be philosophically productive to some people somewhere given the right frame of reference and the right intent, but for most people it's just negative-oneupmanship in order to position your self as more worthy of intervention.
Are workers who are worse off not deserving of more intervention (?) Actually mostly the south would like to be left alone, free from western capital destroying it, interfering in it's elections and starting wars.
You've answered your own question. Why would you want intervention when it just sets the stage for somebody else to take ownership of your land and your people?
What? I never said I wanted capitalist intervention. I meant to say the global south needs solidarity and support. Are you against Socialist States helping the South? Cuban doctors in Africa? Chinese funds for railway?
I'm not against that as I don't know enough about it to make a judgement either way.