90%, of labor driving the world economy are carried out by workers in the global South. Any political theory that neglects to center these workers as key agents of revolutionary change is misguided.
90%, of labor driving the world economy are carried out by workers in the global South. Any political theory that neglects to center these workers as key agents of revolutionary change is misguided.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19526537
I wonder how much of the global north productivity is the result of immigrants from the global south. Every level I've worked at, from being paid cash for physical labor to salaried bullshit office work, other immigrants were always better workers than Americans.
that's a really good point actually
I feel like when it comes to white collar work the difference between immigrants and non immigrants is actually slim.
If you're working a desk job in America, how is it different from a desk job in any other country?
Also, what about immigrants from the global north?
Share this on reddit for amazing insights like how labour in global south is less productive so they need more labour input per unit output.
lol, it was posted a few weeks ago and there was a bunch of redditors debunking the study with what they learned in econ 101
When people were saying 'what about Australia/NZ' because they thought global south=southern hemisphere...
😆
imperialism.jpgNot key agents, the only agents. There is no revolutionary potential in the Global North until the system of global parasitism ends.
[Levar Burton voice] But don't take my word for it!
fair, any meaningful change will inevitably have to start in the Global South
Why did unskilled global south production increase dramatically in 2006? Did something happen then or did the way the measuring works change?
typically when there's a dramatic jump like that, it's a measuring change
Maybe it's about measurement, but also look closer, the change is not 2006, it's 2007. It's when the financial crisis related to the US real estate bubble hit. Also the x-axis is in percent. So it might just be, that the crash hit the regions harder, whose banks had invested most in the bubble: US and Europe. The apparent rise we see might just be production in the global south staying constant, while falling elsewhere.
Also China started huge investments, but I think most of that was at the end of 2008.
Edit: No, I was wrong. Looks like production shifted from medium skilled south to low skilled south. I have no explanation.
Just started reading Cope's (moar like Kkkope's) Divided World, Divided Class there's definitely worms in it so now I'm not surprised by the mask off moment, but there is some material analysis there about this that's applicable and keeps me reading, reminds me of when Hudson has his Trotist little fits in his works.
Jason Hickel also has a similar book called The Divide if you have understandably soured on Cope.
World systems theorists being methodologically nationalist, quelle surprise.
To be clear I'm sure their findings are close to the truth anyway but it just shows the limitations of the data/approach, like in what world is Singapore in the 'global south'. But that's on the data collectors.
But even disregarding that, including China in the 'global south' post 2008 is patently ridiculous. I really want to see what these percentages would say if China was included in the 'global north'.
China in the 'global south' post 2008 is patently ridiculous. I really want to see what these percentages would say if China was included in the 'global north'.
China did not industrialize on the basis of a colonial empire so putting it in the global south makes sense. You could define the global north/south as a rich/poor division but it isn't super useful in terms of recent historical material dynamics since the south will eventually get richer despite colonialism while the north will struggle because it doesn't know how to develop without colonialism
China did not industrialize on the basis of a colonial empire
It didn't industrialize directly from a colonial empire, yes. However the capital that flowed into it certainly was, if China had not opened itself up to foreign capital it would not have industrialized anywhere near as fast as it did.
since the south will eventually get richer despite colonialism
Until they saturate their markets and start to look outside their borders for new markets.
while the north will struggle because it doesn't know how to develop without colonialism
Colonialism is a product of capitalism, if you got rid of the entire global north but let the global south continue capital accumulation they would recreate colonialism, by necessity. No one knows how to develop without colonialism because no one knows how to develop without capitalism.
How is including china in the global south ridiculous? Like, sure, there's an argument to be had, but it exports tons of goods on the "wrong" side of unequal exchange with the west. Does china post-2008 gain more from unequal exchange than it loses?
Their North/South distinction was based on the IMF advanced economies list, which they used to sort countries/regions from the other datasets they combined
I don't agree with them being in with the global North but I can see the utility of taking them out and looking at how everything compares with a North/South/China comparison. I'd expect the global south numbers to get wosre and for China to be sort of a midpoint. To me its like how the results for global poverty numbers change drastically when you take China out of them because China lifted almost a billion people out of poverty at this point. I think separating out China can show how successful they have been as a communist country and without being an imperial power.