Modern day global capitalism towards the global south is predatory and unjust — and why a new form of Communism is needed to overcome this egregious system once and for all
Given the constellation of catastrophes occurring today — ecological, political, social, mental, and so on — that affects billions, global capitalism has run its course beyond what it should have been afforded, and its capitulation is imminent with today’s orientations. One of the worst instances of these catastrophes are the relations between advanced and wealthy capitalist states and the global south (poor and developing states), forcibly subjected to the capitalist mode with all its procedures. The global south experiences this terrible state of affairs incessantly through the establishment of oppressive foreign policies or imposed state reforms with no other channel of alternative, resulting in the continuous exacerbation of the state’s social, economic, and political conditions overtime. Clearly, if the ongoing ecological crisis isn’t the biggest indicator of the calamities caused by the market, then how the global south is subordinated surely is. The only answer, or in more dire terms the only means of escape, is a new form of global communism which will end these oppressive relations and institute the necessary conditions for universal emancipation. Before delving into the necessity for the new mode of Communism, it is important to examine the historical circumstances surrounding the global south’s oppression by the global north, and the current effects of capitalist practices imposed unto them — with focus on the current global pandemic.
Let us first begin with the historical developments surrounding the current policies of the global north towards the global south. Starting in the 1940s and lasting until the 1970s, capitalism experienced its Pax Romana — golden age- as the US-led development project instituted a global industrial base by way of rebuilding the economies in Europe, as well as decolonizing and developing sophisticated industry in the global south. However, during the 1970’s everything fell apart as many external/internal factors harmed capitalist and US interests. The most significant factors that led to current day neoliberal foreign policy towards the global south were: the 1970s global stagflation crisis; strong working-class power within the U.S. which was at an all-time high due to the success of mass strikes/protests that led to higher wages, greater bargaining power (contracts), and strong unions, the outcome being lower profit margins for corporations which impacted the ruling class (wealthy elite); and the New International Economic Order, founded by the Non-Aligned Movement in the mid ‘70s.
That last factor was crucial in shaping current day capitalist application since the NIEO was demanded by NAM in order to replace the existing international economic order at the time which marginalized the global south, along with eliminating GATT/UNCTAD due to their inability to fulfill their goals. The global south had the ability to demand such actions because of their growing assertiveness and bargaining power (one cause being their commodity export boom). In addition, the NIEO would develop the global economy under the widespread integration of Keynesian economics by completely replacing the Bretton Woods system: this economic worldview included a restructuring of existing relationships, apparatuses, and processes that were dominant in the global social order at that period, and contributed to growing global economic/social inequalities between rich and poor states. To add on, the set of plans proposed by the NIEO would regulate the rate of economic growth and the proportion of market share between states, which would help subvert the worldwide predicaments of poverty, warfare and hunger. These concerns were secondary to the main goal of the NIEO: greater treatment from the global north as well as greater authority in global affairs for the global south. This would primarily concern the decisions that would impact the global south, such as trade relations, which would promote the interests of those states. However, to replace Bretton Woods and the existing international state of affairs would mean to harm the interests and power the global north had, which they invariably would never let happen. As a result, the United States implemented a global debt and trade regime via the Volcker shock.
Since embedded liberalism-Keynesianism-was the predominant form of capitalism during that time, neoliberal founders Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek condemned its inability and ultimate failure to answer the big concerns facing the United States, mostly the stagflation crisis, NIEO, and the aforementioned general rate of profit for corporations decreasing to an all-time record low (profit squeeze) due to effects of strong working-class power. Because of this, it was time for Capital to take its vengeance. This was done by reaffirming capitalism’s power worldwide which was executed by the United States, reinstating its global economic, political, and ideological authority in the process. The result was the Volcker shock (cold bath recession) beginning in 1980 which properly introduced Neoliberalism (its first actual practice occurred in Chile with Pinochet and Chicago Boys) into US politics, and remains the predominant economic order in the western world today. The Volcker shock was essentially a monetarist backlash that not only negatively affected people domestically but also globally, since it devastated the economies of the global south. Paul Volcker’s statement to Congress best encapsulated this event: “The standard of living of the average American has to decline”, you can’t escape that” (implicitly and more radically applied to the global south population). Volcker was enamored by Friedman’s economic theories, one of which was the change in perspective regarding the idea of full employment — that it must be reduced in order to slay inflation. His argument for this? Going below the new unemployment rate would cause inflation, the very thing he set out to destroy. Therein explains one of the main motives as to why Volcker introduced such high interest rates: there needed to be a constant rate of unemployment that would be occupied by a mass reserve army of unemployed people, which was deemed necessary for the continued functioning of the capitalist economy.
The reason why the global south was directly affected by the Volcker shock was because during the explosion of capitalism post-WW2, the global south (as part of the decolonization effort) was encouraged to take out financial loans as a means of growing their own economies as well as establishing financial integrity to the global north. Unfortunately, the loans they were receiving came from global institutions that were run by and meant to serve capitalist interests; the World Bank, IMF, banks and investment funds, governments, and so on. Now because the Volcker shock raised interest rates to unbelievable highs (20% at one point) and the United States stopped buying exports from the global south which was their primary source of revenue, the indebted nations could no longer pay back their debts to their creditors. The shock subsequently caused a global recession. Latin America was especially vulnerable to the shock since they borrowed IMF loans entirely in US currency which was now impossible to pay, coupled with the fact their export sector was disintegrated since aggregate demand was practically erased from the exorbitant interest rates- one can look at Brazil or Mexico to observe the impact. The consequence of this insolvency-besides the widespread debt crisis- was mass unemployment and stagnant wages which remained across the global south for decades, with only marginal improvements in both facets over the past forty years. The culmination of these events was the injunction to adopt neoliberal policies applied by international entities like the IMF in the following years across the global south. This meant instead of implementing debt forgiveness the global financial institutions implemented debt regimes via structural adjustment practices. Southern nations no longer had the right to self-determinism since their economic policies became governed by an external force, completely eliminating any sense of autonomy.
What these neoliberal policies enable is the business and economic restructuring of a state by way of its public policies, completely altering the state of affairs present. Laws (being undemocratic or untransparent) and government spending change all together to benefit neoliberal interests. Economic and political relations within the indebted nation become co-opted by foreign interference which undermine their sovereignty and economic development since unjust economic policies are imposed. In addition, these neoliberal reforms proselytize: free trade, greater privatization of the commons (Marxist notion of shared human resources), limited government intervention in business (radical free market deregulation), austerity measures (for greater dependence on private sector for needs), and so on. This is why Reagan, acting as the first US neoliberal leader loosened foreign capital controls in 1980, thereby making it easier for rich capitalist nations to engage in foreign investment inside the financial markets across the global south. The benefactors of this deregulation were banks and other financial firms. To add on, all of these investments were done with US currency, which the Volcker shock reaffirmed as the predominant global currency. Ergo, from the beginning of Neoliberalism’s proper introduction in 1980 to today’s time, we see that neoliberal foreign policy towards the global south is systematically oppressive and predatory.
Now let us analyze these unfair social, political, and economic relations further by examining the practices of the IMF today- one of the chief arms used by advanced capitalist powers to exert their dominion. Given that the IMF becomes the lender of last resort for many 3rd world nations in financial trouble, aforementioned structural adjustments that reshape economic policies (business structure) are imposed in order for the state to receive the loan. There are a multitude of ways these adjustments are implemented: austerity measures that harm the general well-being of the citizenry; increasing taxes for the non-wealthy; privatizing state-owned businesses; cuts/depression in wages for offshoring; reduction of import controls; expanding the influence and power of the financial sector by opening up financial markets through the removal of restrictions on foreign investments which allows unlimited movement of capital (investment/inflows), etc. The biggest consequence that arises from these adjustments are the negative impacts they have on that populace, such as greater poverty and health deterioration. If for instance a recession occurs, the state decreases government spending as mandated, which directly worsens the recession and disproportionately affects the socio-economic conditions of middle and working class (here I will invoke Zizek’s universalization of the proletariat figure by extending its scope to encompass all subjected social classes: the working class, the poor, and most importantly, the underclass who remain invisible to general society which includes refugees, migrants, and the inner-city homeless) people. The false claim is that structural adjustments can help reduce general inflation and raise GDP levels (aggregate value of all commodities produced) by way of increased exports, and reinforce the financial integrity of a state’s fiscal operations. The upshot of these strategies is that they will ostensibly allow the indebted nation to pay off their IMF loans (or other foreign debt). The fact of the matter is they do quite the opposite: they boost profit rates for private firms, boost the level of exploitation of laborers, and boost greater dependence on the foreign entities. These actions indicate that the ones who benefit are the advanced wealthy capitalist states, not the indebted nations.
It is important to be aware that the IMF was co-opted by neoliberalism to fundamentally benefit advanced states. The result is IMF policies favor those in power who have significant authority over the organization, such as the United States. This stems from the fact that control is linked to voting rights, with those who provide greater quotas receiving higher levels of voter control, to which rich states can easily manipulate for personal gain. These economies like the United States or EU thereby have the greatest control over the IMF and can impose their interests onto IMF operations (which are in coordination to serve neoliberal policies). Given this, the IMF is not configured to serve all clients or promote developing economies, but rather satisfy a select elite group, purposefully carried out because of neoliberalism’s takeover.
Let’s specifically look at austerity measures since its popular use in recent years by the IMF is attributed to how effective it is at destabilizing the economy of the indebted state. Austerity measures slash public spending, notably healthcare and education, leading to circumstances like: increased poverty and unemployment, a less educated population, the general decline in the tax base, and so on. All the while this is happening, the indebted nation still has to pay back the borrowed loans alongside its interest rates, which redirects more of the government revenue towards servicing the loan and further decreases public spending on desperately needed resources for the population. Correlatively, much of the labor relations within these nations are subordinated to the capitalist apparatuses of globalization (neoliberal economic integration on a global scale), inducing awful labor circumstances for most of the working-class population. This labor subjection stems from the continued deindustrialization of the global north which erodes labor conditions worldwide, transfers government-owned businesses to private owners (or is shut down), along with transporting many labor jobs from the rich nations overseas to cheaper industries with terrible working conditions. This globalization process of labor and production is enacted by the free trade policies of the WTO (along with unilateral treaties like NAFTA) which reduce trade barriers like capital controls or tariffs. The potential benefits that the agreements supposedly enact is fairer competition, more market possibilities, and the elimination of trade barriers. What is really meant under this façade is that globalization eliminates the full authority of a state over its own relations and sovereignty, particularly democratic ones, practically becoming either a client or suzerainty state. The takeover and hegemony of capitalist interests is in full effect under globalization. It therefore remains evident that regardless of any supposed impotent benefits or temporary bandages that proponents of structural adjustments and globalization like to provide, indebted nations are forced by the IMF and other repressive powers (World bank, etc.) to engage in these welfare destroying tactics.
Empirical studies have been done to highlight the disastrous consequences of accepting IMF loans for poor and developing nations. Predatory IMF lending occurs globally even in regions that may not geographically correlate with the Southern Hemisphere, as the term global south refers to any poor or developing state. On that note, the universities of Cambridge and Yale conducted a series of studies over the course of several decades on the prevalence of tuberculosis rates across Eastern Europe as outbreaks occurred when those countries (after the dissolution of the USSR) adopted financial loans out of financial desperation, and found a direct correlation between the loans provided by the IMF and heightened rates of lung disease. When the financial loans were no longer provided, lung disease rates declined. The cause is the same for any state that adopts IMF loans: credit was given to these states under a specific set of arrangements which benefited the IMF (and corporate financial interests) at the detriment of the recipients. The Eastern European states specifically enacted austerity measures at the behest of the IMF as a means of conveying financial discipline to receive the loan, with one of the first casualties of these reductions in public spending being health itself (cut to essential public health services and infrastructure). The consequences of cutting state subsidies invariably leads to declined living standards and welfare for the majority people, such as increased mortality’s said morbidity rates. This is the great payoff of IMF (and WB) policy adoption.
Let’s transition and direct attention unto the agricultural industry in the global south. Agricultural structural adjustment policies place immense pressure on developing states to get rid of government subsidies in favor of productive farm inputs such as fertilizers as a way to install the best methods of crop exportation, thereby precluding the state from being self-sufficient in their own food production. As a result of these practices across the global south, the integration of productive local agriculture into the globalized economy occurs- internal agricultural production becomes usurped by foreign investors. Moreover, the more that crops are exported, the more that these indebted states become dependent on food imports, with many poor farmers having their public funding and import protections being taken away, ending with the expropriation of their own land (the same process of the enclosures of the land being done during the industrial revolution). This forces them to migrate to favelas or slums for work, most of which is the outsourced and offshored sweatshop kind where conditions are unsafe and unhealthy. The aftermath of these predatory practices is it keeps most of the indebted nations in a state of post-colonial dependency, who then become exposed to unstable market changes (like inflation of grain value) which causes additional food shortages in these nations- one needs to look no further then Haiti or Ethiopia, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths per year in these two nations alone.
These practices by advanced nations and global corporations will only continue to expand in purview and become more systematic; they will constantly look to exploit any and all suitable (productive) land in developing and poor nations for industrial farming, since such land in their own territory is either completely used up or near so. Oil-rich Arab states for instance have to import the majority of their food due to their ecology, to which they purchase vast quantities of fertile lands across southern nations to guarantee their food supplies. Qatar itself imports over 90% of their food from over 2.5 million acres of arable farmland across Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia) and other Middle Eastern states like Oman. This constant food supply is vital for Qatar since it relies on it to feed the population. One may ask if there are any productive agricultural activities in Qatar, there is, however the majority of it is used by Qatarian farmers to feed their camels. These practices are not unique to Qatar, many rich states and global corporations have been engaging in these acts for years: Indian and Chinese firms, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to name a few. One of the worst instances of these foreign appropriations belongs to South Korean global corporation Daewoo, who back in 2009 purchased a ninety-nine-year land lease in Madagascar which covered 50% of its productive land area. The purpose was to engage in intense monoculture of corn and palm oil commodities for its own population and fossil fuel markets. That wasn’t enough either, as that same year South Korea bought 1.7 million acres of land in Sudan. And the major leader of land acquisitions in Africa to ensure their food supply? The United States, which owns lands (publicly known) the size of Moldova — about 4 million hectares.
In a Marxist sense, former productive land that once belonged to the commons is now privatized and taken away from the impoverished peoples who could have used the arable land for local, self-sufficient farming. The poor farmers throughout the global south are then left in a lose-lose situation since they themselves face starvation and lack the vital farm inputs needed to efficiently produce operable crops that can be sold in markets. Global corporations and wealthy states invariably provide the same defense for their measures, claiming that when industrial farming occurs, even though most of the crops are exported from the arable land, the corporations or states involved will build all the needed infrastructure in the region which amounts to tens of thousands of new jobs being created. They will also claim that shortages in food is actually indicative of economic growth in the state since the poor laborers are earning higher incomes that enable them to afford buying their own food, even ones imported back to them. What is ignored is the available amount of food that can even be purchased since the perpetual demand for food from the rich countries forces millions into starvation in these poor and developing states who lack equal levels of economic development. In addition, the neoliberal advocates of these policies fail to realize the state of destitution these farmers find themselves in, since providing subsistence compensation does not change their state of affairs — including human dignity disgusting living conditions — and will only worsen overtime as suitable land in the global south continues to be used for exporting commodities. Two economists who worked for the IFPRI said it best: “These land acquisitions have the potential to inject much-needed investment into agriculture and rural areas in poor developing countries, but they also raise concerns about the impacts on poor local people, who risk losing access to and control over land on which they depend”.
With this in mind, it becomes apparent how adverse post-colonial dependency has become; a vicious cycle with food dependency on part of the global south being amplified. Given the imposed food scarcity, wars or other internal conflicts inevitably arise since desperation will turn to violence as people have to feed themselves and others to avoid starvation. In addition, advanced states like China and India who share the two largest populations in the world will perpetually seek and exploit any and all productive farmland in southern states for their ever-growing consumptionist needs. Their own agricultural industries have been increasingly damaged by climate change in recent years which can be exemplified by their poor harvest results, further relying on global southern arable lands for the exportation of crops they demand. And, as aforementioned, international capitalist markets for grain worsens the food crises since the resource becomes progressively employed for non-eating functions, primarily biofuels. Of course, it can go without mentioning that this global food crisis applies to water and oil as well, since the former is heavily utilized in agriculture, and the latter is needed for energy to run society (both interconnect and rely on one another for a multitude of human activities). Scarcities or shortages in water supplies, food, or energy use will create crises that will end up causing new forms of apartheid. certain areas of the world enjoying the over-consumption of all three salient resources, separated from the sporadic outside world characterized by perpetual wars/conflicts, starvation, poverty, and overall chaos. Such global disasters cannot be approached with the standard responses of state intervention, local mobilization of self-organization, and so on. What is left for those who face extreme destitution everyday of their life then violence? All this does is confirms the need for a new social order that supplants the market economy.
What is fascinating are the rationales made by proponents of these practices who blame the food crisis in the global south on those 3rd world nations themselves: state/business corruption, mismanagement/inefficiency of resources, or failed state intervention to name a few. The real cause is the previously mentioned effects of globalization on agriculture itself. One does not need to take my word for it, as even one of the great Neoliberal champions himself, Bill Clinton, admitted in a United Nations conference that treating food crops as commodities rather than as salient resources for the poor was a grave mistake on his part. A failure of imposed capitalist foreign policies that have been instituted and enforced predominantly by the United States and the European Union for decades through the administration of powerful global institutions like the IMF and World Bank (among others), as opposed to being a failure on part of each of the indebted southern nations.
Before explaining current ramifications of capitalist foreign policy under the coronavirus, it is important to expose one of the biggest lies constantly purported by the IMF and the World Bank, as well as advanced nations like the United States: that neoliberal policies (free market capitalism) and financial aid will soon eradicate global poverty since it has been on the decline each and every year. In reality, it only continues to get worse. The difficulty with capitalism is that it bases all its success and legitimacy on economic growth (GDP), which translates to income earnings for individuals as the foundation of validity, so any growth in this extent proves the system’s efficacy.
The way the UN and World Bank measures and perceives poverty is highly misleading. Extreme poverty is measured by the International Poverty Line which is set at $1.90 US dollars a day based on 2011 PPP, I.e., the amount $1.90 USD can buy you a day in the United States during 2011 (beyond unachievable to live on). Subsequently, the way these organizations finalize the outcomes based on the IPL number ostensibly gives the appearance of greater success from the actual results. In the beginning of the 21st century, the United Nations launched the Millennium Development Goals campaign which pledged to reduce worldwide extreme poverty (at the time, it was $1 USD dollar a day) by 50% by 2015. The UN used the IPL in their long-term program, a line that is fixed in value and meant to universally measure the cost of basic needs in every country independent of all other factors (such as financial success or expensive living needs). How does this translate into praxis? It neither directly evaluates living expenses relative to an individual nation nor adheres to the national poverty lines set by the governments of nations themselves, culminating in scenarios where Thailand has a 0% poverty rate according to the IPL even though its above 10% (pre-covid) — appearing much less pervasive than in reality.
The UN initiatives claimed to have reduced extreme poverty by over 50% even before 2015, and it was celebrated by advanced capitalist states like the US as an amazing achievement, that could only be done due to capitalist foreign policy. However, the way they achieved it was deceptive since out of the supposed near 850 million people that were alleviated from extreme poverty, only 345 million were actually “lifted” out (this is not including the millions of migrant laborers, refugees and homeless who are not recorded in the official poverty statistics). This was done through statistical manipulation: all attention was narrowly focused onto income levels as the only measure of poverty, along with calculating the number of those who live in poverty not in absolute, but proportional terms. This allowed the U.N. to reduce their elimination goal by over 165 million. To add on, the target was again decreased by only recording the number of those extremely impoverished (in proportional terms) in poor and developing nations. In addition, they further decreased the target goal by moving the standard of evaluation to the beginning of the previous decade of 1990, even though the campaign was started in the new millennium (2000). Why change the decade? Because of one country: China.
China has had the greatest economic miracle story in history by alleviating over 800 million people out of poverty due to the triumph of authoritarian capitalism (much more dynamic than neoliberalism) beginning in the late 1970s. Naturally, given the timeline, millions were eliminated during the 1990s decade which the U.N. surreptitiously included, and none of which was contributed at all by U.N. efforts. It is with this that the target goal was decreased further by over 300 million. Therefore, by reducing the rate of extreme poverty through proportional means of measuring, to then only count those who lived in poor and developing economies as well as incorporating the 1990s decade, they were finally able to change the original goal of 836 million (50% of those living in extreme poverty at the time according to their official statistics), to that of 345 million.
What is even more deceptive however is that advanced states (primarily the US) are the ones who define and set the contours for how poverty is hermeneutically understood, i.e., how the general public perceives and understands it based on how it’s meant to be interpreted. The point is to create a false narrative that poverty is being eradicated along with not being as catastrophic as one may have thought it to be. The term poverty becomes non-fixed to suit the objectives of the capitalist states, which is to make believe that free-market capitalism has had the greatest net effect in combating poverty; the ideological implication being that neoliberalism (free market capitalism) is the greatest economic system and savior of the impoverished. Those who dictate how poverty is measured and defined is the World Bank. In the 1990s they determined that extreme poverty should be calculated by those who live on $1 US dollar a day or less. Ironically, they contradicted themselves since their yearly reports on global poverty showed an increase in extreme poverty rates by the new millennium. Did the World Bank accidentally admit that neoliberal policies administered by them and their brother in-arms at the IMF for the past two decades (1980s & 1990s) only worsen the conditions of those who live in the global south? Yes, they did, which is why they claimed soon thereafter that their foreign policies actually decreased poverty across the globe (during those two prior decades by nearly half a billion). They simply did this by adding additional cents to the original $1 dollar mark measurement through the use of Purchasing Power Parity, which conveniently “raised ‘’ hundreds of millions over that extreme poverty threshold because of inflation, making it seem as if neoliberal policies were triumphant. And who made full use of this deception? The global United Nations Millennium Campaign initiative to reduce poverty. These IPL manipulations by the World Bank seemingly achieved extreme poverty reductions by about 437 million in just 15 years’ time, from 1990–2005, and which the UN adopted for its first campaign.
This narrative by the global north so far has only accounted for extreme poverty, with the entire absence of the other degrees of poverty that are quantified. Nowhere on earth can anyone achieve subsistence levels or even low standards of living- such as meager life expectancy- on $1.90 US dollars a day, especially in the richest country on earth — the US — where the cost of living only continues to rise. With such awful living conditions, human dignity is completely erased. Let’s go further though: those who live in extreme poverty would experience the exact same destitution even if their earnings were increased to $3, $4, or even $10 dollars a day. If one looks at the federal minimum wage in the United States which has been stuck at $7.25 for eleven years, more than half of that amount is needed daily just to be able to sustain the most minimal level of food nourishment for the human body to operate. One who then receives minimum wage must necessarily eat unhealthy fast food because it’s cheap, as opposed to a healthy diet they cannot afford. As the clinical literature has shown, poverty is directly responsible for health diseases that arise from consistent poor eating, such as heart disease, the leading cause of the death in the United States. Correlatively, around ⅓ of poor households’ experience obesity which exposes them to significantly worse health outcomes if they were to contract the coronavirus, since their health is already compromised. Those who have body mass indexes of over 40% are in even greater danger since it leads to a 90% chance of dying (43% of people in the US are obese).
If one were to then examine and measure global poverty lines by anyone who earns less than $10 US dollars a day (which is being highly conservative), over 5 billion people currently live in poverty- amounting to about 80% of the global population. Of course, these numbers are continually rising since capitalist foreign policy remains the same and the Covid-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the global south the worst. But alas, the World Bank and other global institutions would never admit to this since it goes against all the anti-poverty achievements they have celebrated. Moreover, the UN’s new post-2015 anti-poverty initiative, Sustainable Development Goals, has only continued the use of the $1 (now $1.90 2011 PPP) US dollar a day measurement since it is the only benchmark that has shown any substantive progress in anti-poverty efforts (with most of the contribution coming from China as aforementioned), and which vindicates the continued use of neoliberal policy.
Now we are left with the coronavirus. This virus is inequitable in its harmful effects for the global south in comparison to rich states. For example, the pandemic has not only exacerbated debt payments owed to global organizations and advanced states, but destitution as well. Back in mid-2020, Argentina for the 9th time had to default on its foreign loans from international banks and hedge funds, since the pandemic forcibly allocated all its resources away from servicing the loan, thereby leading to insolvency. This is not an outlier either as World Bank data has shown pre-pandemic that global south states aggregately owed over $2 trillion in debt financing, illustrating the harsh levels of financial dependency that is present worldwide between advanced capitalist states and the global south which continues to intensify. Now, why does this all sound familiar? But of course, these widespread loan defaults across the global south occurred back in the 1980s because of the Volcker Shock. Here, one should institute Herbert Marcuse’s famous adaption of Marx’s belief of history: First as Tragedy, then as a Farce! Additionally, when examining the financial “partnerships” between global investors and the global south, the usual suspects of the World Bank and IMF are actively present in the unceasing debt regimes, however there is a single entity who outshines both institutions in their financial dependency initiatives — China. As a result of their long-term global economic agenda, one of their main programmes is the Belt and Road Initiative which prior to the pandemic had lent over half a trillion in credit across various states for high-yield investment returns. Of course, just like with other debt financiers, China had the option of debt forgiveness/restructuring or debt regimes.
Now it is known that the group of G20 (including China) along with the IMF and World Bank suspended debt remittances for the rest of 2020 to most indebted states, which of course was the correct measure. However, there are two big predicaments still existent: what happens now in 2021 when the global financial lenders will surely not freeze debt payments owed to them for another year in order to sever profit losses? Will they reinstate another debt regime? It may not be the case given the special circumstances surrounding the ongoing global pandemic which is affecting all countries (justice in this context, is really blind here). The second issue is precisely financial loans themselves which global south nations desperately rely on for economic and social stability during this pandemic, yet increased borrowing that is vital to avoid an entire sovereign crisis only deepens the indebtedness on behalf of the borrower states, creating a vicious cycle. Only time will tell in terms of what’s to come on the horizon, but what is certain is that during this pandemic the global financial debt crises will only escalate since the IMF claimed back in March of 2020 that nearly $3 trillion dollars would be needed to adequately support the global south — a figure that has since risen given the extent of the consequences of the virus.
Now comes the ultimate challenge for advanced and wealthy capitalist states today, which so far, they have proven to fail — global egalitarian distribution of vaccines. This challenge is precisely an ethical one since it concerns the universality of mankind’s survival and resistance to the coronavirus. While most people are in favor of vaccines for all, those who support it in the advanced capitalist states are privileged since they are the first to receive the vaccines while the poorest states are the last to acquire them, but these facts go unstated per usual. Not a single 3rd world state should be sacrificed as some kind of tribute-in the Hunger Games sense-for the preservation of other states, or severely lack sufficient amounts needed to inoculate the entire population because of foreign opportunism. The most powerful capitalist states have their international forum to discuss the pandemic, that of G20, where they must come to the consensus that anyone — despite socio-economic position or geographic location — should universally and equally receive the vaccines in an efficient and timely manner; expressing Kant’s notion of ethical responsibility. So far, this ethical necessity is not occurring, therein enveloping the world in an ethical crisis. Interestingly, when it comes to rich nations, there is widespread support for mass vaccine distribution by the ruling class since they believe once everyone receives the vaccine, there will be a nice return to the prior normality of the capitalist state of affairs. Yes, vaccines will obviously ameliorate some issues in the short-term, but returning back to capitalist normality will not occur nor will the virus cease to exist as even new strains of the virus are being witnessed in Chile and the United Kingdom. Those who plead for a return to normality under the guise of reinstating basic “civil freedoms” are wrongly equating lockdowns and masks to limiting liberties, apparent in the US as most Americans have a self-reflexive adherence towards civil freedoms without realizing why.
As aforementioned, this ethical test so far has been disappointing as advanced capitalist states have globally hoarded the majority of approved successful vaccines. The two most prominent vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, have had the majority of their doses bought out by advanced capitalist states such as the US and EU; 82% for the former and 78% for the latter which includes all preorders for 2021. This is the most overt example of one of several new forms of apartheid between the global south and rich capitalist states, even while the majority population resides in the global south. If we look at the US in this case, considering a population of 330 million which is around 4% of the total earth ‘s, it is egregious that they have secured over 600 million doses with the ability to buy over half a billion extras if desired. The US can also buy an additional 1 billion doses from four other Big Pharma firms once their versions are approved by the FDA. As for the EU, their commission board has already secured over 2.3 billion vaccines, yet are further leveraging their power for additional doses too. These advanced capitalist states are purposefully leaving out 3rd world countries from being properly vaccinated since they are using their authority within the WTO to uphold intellectual property rights, colloquially referred to as TRIPS. Global south nations like India have urged top members of the WTO to exempt all states from Intellectual property rights under these special circumstances, which would allow all members to mass produce cheap generic versions of the vaccines, but protecting capitalist ideals of private poverty and the profit margins of Big Pharma is more important than saving lives. The majority of WTO members are nations in the global south, but universal agreement is needed to pass measures within the organization — ultimately preventing access for desperate countries in need of them.
As a result of these decisions, studies are showing that 9 out of 10 people in over 70 poor states will most likely not be vaccinated by end of 2021, while rich capitalist states like Canada have enough doses to cover their entire population 5 times over. This equates to billions in the global south not being vaccinated for years, let alone essential workers in those countries. As the People’s Vaccine Alliance has illustrated, only 10% of people living in nearly 70 poor nations may potentially be vaccinated against the coronavirus by the end of 2021 — conservative estimates say that the bulk global south population will not receive any vaccine treatments until the end of 2023 or 2024, effectively instilling a worldwide vaccine apartheid at the detriment of the global south. Up until this very moment (May 2021), as millions of Americans and Europeans are enjoying their double dose of vaccinations, only 0.2% of global vaccine administration have been dispensed in the global south. Further, UNICEF data provided by the NY Times in late March illustrated how 86% of all effective or promising vaccine doses have been secured by wealthy capitalist states who represent just 14% of the world population. Even if the WHO’s COVAX initiative successfully delivers its goal of 2 billion vaccine doses by the end of 2021, that still leaves billions in the global south to suffer from the pandemic.
Given this, it is official that advanced capitalist states who are collectively violating their ethical duties and basic human rights are rogue states, with the US at the helm. Just like with Clinton who admitted in retrospect the failures on behalf of his administration to treat food crops as commodities, the same issue arises as vaccines are being relegated as commodities rather than a vital entity for preserving human life. The only method of obtaining them is through financial loans from the IMF and World Bank since it can’t afford otherwise, causing greater indebtedness and ruin across the global south.
With all this in mind, what should one do? How does the global south overcome their oppression? Does one rely on neoliberal critics that condemn the public health measures and state of affairs in those nations, offering charity as a solution via their billionaires or public foreign aid? Most certainly not, as these capitalist measures, although noble in theory, are designed to reproduce the conditions which exacerbate the effects on the global south. Charity and aid are just temporary solutions to systemic issues that in the long-term perpetuate the calamites caused by capitalism — as Oscar Wilde eloquently put it: “If you just operate on a child they will live on, but in the same conditions that produce them”. People cannot rely on billionaire humanitarians like Bill Gates or George Soros who are hailed as modern heroes, benefactors who truly care about the welfare of society and attempt to heal issues they help cause. Moreover, this ideology of attempting to resolve issues by simply throwing money at it is an indication that proponents have fallen for Francis Fukuyama’s ideology that liberal capitalism is the final good economic system that remains, and all that is needed is a few reforms here and there to fix global issues like poverty or deep exploitation. The failure of these measures is that they still leave in place the original economic structure that produced all the problems in the first place. Do we then go the Bernie Sanders route of revitalizing the FDR welfare state that was obliterated by Reagan? Democratic socialist practices do sound appealing, but again this occurs under a capitalist framework which innately produces destitute, unfair power/wealth distribution, and so on (therefore, Sanders himself is a Fukuyamist). Important to note: widespread social democracy across Europe during the 20th century was deployed as a method to precisely hinder the communist threat to capitalism itself. Therefore, what society needs, especially as a way to eliminate the terrible political relations between advanced capitalist states and the global south, is a new form of communism.
This new form of communism would achieve true political measures such as establishing egalitarian collectivism by offering an authentic sense of community, as well as the effort to institute a global political organization that has the power to heavily regulate and control market functions or apparatuses through a communist lens; for example, nationalizing all private industries in order to quickly and efficiently provide provisions to self-sufficient local communities whenever in need, such as food or oil, along with a welfare state in order to guarantee a safety net among other universal needs — the biggest today being universal global healthcare and enforcing mass production of life-saving medical resources to protect entire populations. This undertaking would eventually lead to global coordination and cooperation of the distribution and production process-instilling solidarity-without the market framework, which is vital today given the pandemic and the failures of global capitalism to subvert it. By heavily controlling the entire economy-greater social control-and limiting the power and influence of nation-states as well as corporations in the global economy, a true political economy could be implemented.
It is also not enough to just institute a new social order; one must assess and properly handle existing antagonisms along with the current circumstances that force society to undertake this new direction. This new global social order of communism would then be adequately prepared to handle new internal antagonisms that arise and preclude any contradictions or unforeseen negative effects through its strong global cooperation. The point of these precautionary measures is to allow for retry or overcoming said issues for greater stability within the new social order.
This type of communism that is needed virtually functions as a disaster type of communism that must replace the current disaster capitalism, and we see tendencies towards this new social order in the form of measures being enforced across many nations as a result of the ongoing pandemic. These procedures are done out of pure necessity as opposed to some natural development in order to avoid mass hunger, homelessness, and trying to protect the health of the citizenry. For instance, when Trump enacted the DPA for the mass production of medical supplies which involved the partial nationalization of the manufacturing industry; or the UBI checks he and Biden have implemented — all of which are actions that are anti-market in nature. There is now even overwhelming public support for free, universal healthcare in many western states such as the US, something that could not have been conceptually envisaged for the majority public prior to the coronavirus. These developments exemplify the global tendencies towards this new form of communism.
Once global political solidarity and collaboration is accomplished, the first step must be the initiative towards implementing a universal healthcare network in which all states are included and actively engage in, which would be the most effective way to not only protect people from the current virus, but future calamities as well. Additionally, along with strong and vigorous global cooperation, mass mobilization is vital especially at the lower levels of society. Popular local mobilization efforts are crucial for many endeavors since the pandemic displayed how many states failed in their preventative interventionist measures, such as the US. The success in local community organizations can be seen when states such as Italy or France solicited the mass mobilization of hundreds of thousands of people across multiple communities/regions to take care of the sick, needy, alone, old, isolated, and so on. These local mobilizations have proven to be efficient in limiting the impact of the virus, which otherwise would have had greater damage on a nation’s population: one can look at the success of Cuba.
Without this worldwide mass mobilization (such as the one carried out in the wake of the coronavirus) that resembles Fitche’s ‘Total Mobilization’, there will be viral or other ecological disasters that devastate humanity much worse than the current one, of which the global south will experience the greatest impact. This type of full social control affirmed by Fitche can be implemented today given the ongoing digitization of capitalist societies wherein many integral functions become facilitated over electronic devices, allowing for easier integration. To Fitche, under a commercial anarchy (pure free market) situation, the main role of the state is to assist the market economy and guarantee its continual maintenance, one that decimates the supremacy of human beings over material things, politics over the economy, etcetera, resulting in the depoliticization of society. This degradation of the political sphere minimizes it to mere servitude, becoming reconstructed to function as an instrument that serves the capitalist economy. As observed later by one of his contemporaries during the 19th century, this condition fell unto Europe as it was rendered a free-market zone, an area that coerced people into suffering and eliminated almost all ties of communitarian (essential, symbiotic relationship between community and individuals) solidarity. What is needed then today is the inverse: the prescription is a re-politicization (to realize a Political Economy) of the economy in which economic affairs must be controlled and supervised by the independent decisions of the community (all decided together), not the volatile market forces that are accepted as objective necessity and appears as a natural process to society.
The new strong central state as a result would organize and provide the basic necessities (transportation/supply chains, electricity allocation) and social needs (education, housing, healthcare, financial aid, food) for local communities to sufficiently function, because state apparatuses of power will effectively enforce and establish all these changes. Correspondingly, in many of today’s advanced economies that are increasingly digitized, it is crucial that there is free universal access to the internet and that the digital operations which sustain the functioning economy are state-run in order to administer telecommunication cables for digital access and communication. These municipalities — local self-governments — as a result will thrive since the local populations no longer have to worry about vital undertakings and decision-making processes, and can freely enjoy their own relative alienation, hobbies/interests, and smalltime initiatives. The central state therein becomes buttressed by bottom-up local political entities through their collaborative efforts which in effect establishes greater social solidarity and efficiency — positive mutual interdependence is achieved.
It is through this that states can have long-term global cooperation and solidarity, which is essential to avoid future catastrophic threats and subvert existing ones like climate change. This does not imply a naïve future utopian world of unity among states, since the pandemic illustrates such maneuvers of working closely together to be in the interest of all, or else situations like vaccine apartheids could cost the global economy over $9 trillion dollars. Hence, this new form of communism (as promoted by Zizek) is the only logical self-interested strategy left not only for the global south to overcome capitalist subjection, but to ensure mankind has a future worth saving, and we do not end up fully actualizing Hegel‘s notion that history necessarily repeats itself.
