As the US "Summit for Democracy" continues today, it's worth remembering how the US has actively destroyed democracies across much of the global South over the past several decades, while propping up authoritarian regimes. Here are a few prominent examples:
In 1953, the US worked with Britain to orchestrate a coup that deposed Mohammed Mosaddegh, the elected Prime Minister of Iran, and in his place propped up the authoritarian regime of Reza Shah. Remember Mosaddegh:
In 1954, the US orchestrated a coup to depose Jacobo Árbenz, the democratically elected leader of Guatemala, and installed the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas in his place. Remember Árbenz:
In 1961, the US conspired with the UK and Belgiam to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected leader of the Republic of Congo. They installed the Mobutu dictatorship in his place. Remember Lumumba:
In 1964, the US orchestrated a coup against João Goulart, the democratically elected leader of Brazil, and replaced him with a right-wing military junta. Remember Goulart:
In 1966, the US and Britain backed a coup against Kwame Nkrumah, the democratically elected president of Ghana, and installed a military junta to rule in his place. Remember Nkrumah:
In 1973, the US orchestrated a coup that deposed Salvadore Allende, the democratically elected leader of Chile, and installed the right-wing dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in his place. Remember Allende:
The US supported the Batista dictatorship in Cuba; Suharto's blood-soaked regime in Indonesia; the apartheid state in South Africa; the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. They have propped up the regime in Saudi Arabia for several decades. It's a long and devastating list.
The US has destroyed many of the South's most promising democratic movements, whenever they have shown even the slightest inkling of supporting socialist or anti-imperialist policies. Because for the US, what ultimately matters is US economic interests and US hegemony. That's it.
*Belgium
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People often assume that capitalist globalization is closing the wage gap between workers in the global North and global South.
But it's not happening. In fact, the North-South wage gap is *increasing*.
And this is not due to sectoral differences. It is occurring across all sectors, even as the global South's share of industrial manufacturing and high-skilled labour in the world economy has increased dramatically over this very period.
This Bloomberg report is a stark reminder: we cannot rely on capital to achieve green transition. Capital is not investing enough in green energy because it's not as profitable as fossil fuels. The solution? We need a public finance strategy and fast.
Public finance, together with a credit guidance framework. Central banks have the power to force capital to stop making climate-destroying investments and direct investment instead in necessary activities: foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/16/cli…
People assumed that renewable energy development would increase once it became cheaper than fossil fuels. But capital doesn't care about cheapness. It cares about *profits*. Capital won't invest when the outlook is like this. You need to make the necessary investments directly.
I strongly disagree with these remarks. They are empirically incorrect, but also illustrate a terrible reactionary tendency among some environmentalists that must be rejected.
The claim is that ecological collapse will undermine industrial production, so we should not pursue development to meet needs in the South.
For instance, we should not ensure refrigerators for people b/c this would inhibit their ability to migrate away from uninhabitable zones!
Going further, the OP says instead of pursuing human development, we should be preparing for a world where we have no capacity to produce things like refrigerators and phones.
In this new paper we calculate the unequal exchange of labour between the global North and global South. The results are quite staggering. You'll want to look at this... 🧵
First, a crucial point. Workers in the global South contribute 90% of the labour that powers the world economy, and 91% of labour for international trade.
The South provides the majority of the world's labour in all sectors (including 93% of global manufacturing labour).
And a lot of this is high-skill labour.
The South now contributes more high-skilled labour to the world economy than all the high-, medium- and low-skilled labour contributions of the global North combined.
New paper: "How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all?"
Is it possible to realise this vision without exacerbating ecological breakdown? Yes! But it requires a totally different approach to the question of growth and development. 🧵 sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Some narratives hold that ending poverty and achieving good lives for all will require every country to reach the GDP/cap of high-income countries. But this would have severe ecological consequences. It forces a brutal dilemma between poverty reduction and ecological stability.
Convergence along these lines is also not possible given the imperialist structure of the world economy. High consumption in the core of the world-system depends on massive net-appropriation from the periphery. This model cannot be universalized.
As usual, middle-income countries that have strong public provisioning systems tend to perform best. This model allows countries to deliver relatively high levels of human welfare with relatively low levels of resource use.
Latin America boasts eight of the ten best-performing countries.
Most high-income countries continue to decline. Norway and Iceland— often mistakenly regarded as sustainability leaders — have declined nearly to the level of the United States. aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/…