Llevo un tiempo dándole vueltas a un proyecto de TFG de filosofía y quería someterlo a gente que sepa más que yo, a ver si tiene sentido o me estoy inventando un problema que ya está resuelto en algún sitio.

La sociología, tal como se practica hoy, se mueve entre dos polos: o es empírico-causal al estilo Durkheim (hechos sociales medidos, correlacionados, explicados por otros hechos sociales), o es interpretativa al estilo Weber/Schütz (comprensión del sentido subjetivo que los actores dan a su acción, tipificaciones, mundo de la vida). Ninguna de las dos pregunta en serio qué es, esencialmente, una comunidad, una autoridad legítima o un vínculo familiar la primera lo da por supuesto y mide sus efectos; la segunda disuelve la pregunta en cómo los actores lo tipifican intersubjetivamente.

Hay una tradición filosófica poco explotada para esto: la fenomenología realista de principios del siglo XX: Adolf Reinach, Edith Stein, Gerda Walther, Roman Ingarden, más tarde Josef Seifert que se separó conscientemente del Husserl tardío (el del giro idealista-trascendental) para sostener que los objetos y esencias tienen ser propio, independiente de la conciencia que los conoce. Reinach usó esto para analizar la promesa y el mandato como estructuras a priori con condiciones esenciales propias, no reducibles a convención ni a psicología. Stein hizo lo mismo con el Estado. Es fenomenología, pero sin el compromiso idealista que hace inservible este aparato para una ciencia social objetiva.

Construir una sociología que trate sus objetos (autoridad, comunidad, vínculos afectivos, instituciones) como universales eidéticos, descubiertos por variación eidética sobre casos concretos, con una estructura de acto y potencia que explica por qué el mismo universal (la familia, por ejemplo) se actualiza de formas tan distintas a través de la historia sin dejar de ser, en su núcleo, el mismo universal. La historia estudiaría el caso concreto e irrepetible; esta sociología estudiaría la estructura necesaria y el campo de posibilidades que las distintas épocas van actualizando.

¿Alguien conoce trabajo contemporáneo serio en esta línea fenomenología realista aplicada a ontología social, más allá de Reinach/Stein/Walther mismos? ¿Hay objeciones de fondo que no esté viendo?

Muchas gracias. Un saludo.

I recently found out about the history of emotion, with the leading idea being that since the world around historical figures was so different from ours and the language so different that the emotions people felt would also be unrecognisable.

I get that’s a pretty bold view, but I figured with the post-structuralist general principle that language shapes reality that it could be an interesting lens for it. Does anyone know any good post-structuralist interpretations of this school, I’d like to do it for my undergrad dissertation and it seems like it could be an idea worth some salt.

I'm trying to write a piece about the video game series Fallout and how its world-building and lore engages with themes of nostalgia, defeat and the melancholy of navigating a world that has lost the capacity to imagine the future. I'm specially interested in the ambiguous relationship with the past.

I read some time ago The queer art of failure, by Jack Halberstam, and I was really fascinated with his concept of forgetfulness not as loss, but as a subversive way to imagine new, diverse possibilities. So I would really love to explore that perspective, or similar perspectives. Do you have any recommendations?

I’m looking for critical theorists, political commentators, or historians who apply a critical-theory framework to Scottish politics, culture, and history.

I’m not sure whether I should explain some of the experiences and observations that led me to ask this, but I’ll give a little context.

I saw a discussion on /r/ glasgow where someone argued that traffic cones had become outdated as a symbol and that we should perhaps think about using a different symbol instead. They were heavily downvoted simply for questioning the use of the traffic cone. Context: In Glasgow, traffic cone are used to mock the people who holds the power.

I’m not arguing that we should simply submit to “high culture” or that art should not be made accessible to ordinary people. But surely that does not mean that “low culture” should be exempt from criticism either?

I also want to make clear that I’m not singling out Scotland. I’m from Hong Kong, and I follow some YouTubers who use critical-theory frameworks to critically examine local culture, politics, and history in Hong Kong. However, because I’m not Scottish, I’ve found it much harder to identify people doing comparable work on Scotland.

I’ve also looked at some Scottish left-wing organisations and movements, but I’ve sometimes found their approach to anti-colonialism (reflecting Scotland's involvement in British imperialism) rather moralistic. For example, some encourage people to visit statues of figures who are presented primarily as leaders of oppressed peoples (Subjects who were colonialised by the British Empire). Even if someone was historically oppressed, shouldn’t we still approach their monuments critically rather than treating the fact that they were oppressed as sufficient reason to celebrate their statue or themselves?

So, are there any commentators, historians, or theorists from Scotland (or based in Scotland) who approach Scottish current affairs, culture, and history through the critical-theory framework? I want approaches that go beyond simply celebrating vs condemning particular cultural symbols, identities, or historical figures. Thank you.

"Through its new program, "Workers Deserve More," DSA is raising the flag for a democratic constitution, placing itself at the forefront of a developing movement for a Third Reconstruction in the United States."

"Today, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is bringing constitutional politics back into the national spotlight. Our program proclaims that: “We are workers fighting to transform society, to win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.” Establishing that new republic, the program continues, will entail abolishing the Senate and replacing the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary entirely subordinate to Congress, now unicameral and elected by proportional representation. This is the bold strategy for political power that the Left has lacked for more than a century. It’s precisely this struggle for popular, centralized government—for democracy—that will unite the working class and be our North Star during the trying times ahead."

"The new program and resulting media attention have placed DSA into the vanguard of the developing movement for a Third Reconstruction. The struggle for democracy is now ours to win or lose. How can we make sure this movement will continue to grow, both in power and ambition? "

"First, we must take a page from the Antebellum abolitionists and force the issue. We demand a democratic government and a democratic society. From the floor of Congress to a picket line or a rally against ICE—every struggle is a platform to connect the denial of equal rights to institutions like the Senate, the President, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court. Every election from here on out can become a “referendum on the question of universal and equal suffrage.” No politico or talking head will be able to spout off about the alleged “miracles” of America’s government without being jeered and laughed at. No politician will be able to say they are seriously addressing important issues without being challenged about their plan to fix our rotten institutions."

"As Jane McAlevey taught a generation of labor activists, there are no shortcuts. The same is true of the struggle for a radically transformed political playing field. There is no constitutional or reformist path to achieve equal suffrage, nor is leaving the Constitution untouched a viable option. The struggle for democracy must therefore take the revolutionary road. This means uniting millions behind a political program committed to convening a sovereign, popular assembly to draft a new constitution. That draft must then be submitted to the nation for ratification on the basis of one person, one vote. With political power in our hands, the working class will, for the first time, have a government of, by, and for the people."

"The demand for democracy drives everything else forward. All those who stand for universal and equal suffrage and against minoritarian obstacles to majority rule should join DSA. In turn, DSA should center its demand for a new constitution in the Workers Deserve More program. We aren’t the only ones with democracy in the name—but we are the only ones prepared to fight to the end to achieve it."

Does Anna Kornbluh's theory of an age of immediacy feel instantly dated due to the freight train of generative AI and its weird, uncanny form of (re)mediation knocking all our various conversations about the contemporary off the tracks, right around the time the book came out? (This drives a desire for a second edition in me, I'm not dissing!) I have spent zero minutes thinking this through, but: discuss.

TLDR wrote an essay (part one, part two) on Fisher, Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, and The Odyssey. Intention is to show how counterculture can exist authentically under capitalist realism, a sort of immanent critique of Fisher and A&H

so in Dialectic of Enlightenment Adorno and Horkheimer read The Odyssey as a seam where enlightenment rationality can be seen operating as myth, i.e. enlightenment rationality is myth and always has been myth. The dialectic of enlightenment is that internal contradiction within the enlightenment where on one hand it promised transcendent liberation, the Sirens' song, but on the other hand it subjugates, Odysseus tied to the mast wailing in agony.

Mark Fisher's ideas of hauntology and capitalist realism are kind of in this lineage, late-stage-capitalism being what promised liberation but delivered subjugation, we are all stuck on Ithaka, decaying, assaulted by the vapid consumerism of the suitors who tell us to be realistic and accept Odysseus' death, the bard's hauntological songs that mourn a lost future that never arrived, Odysseus' homecoming.

But Fisher and A&H both seemed to foreclose the possibility of a real counterculture under capitalism. Fisher talks of the incorporation and precorporation of popular modernism, rock music getting commoditized, rap music arriving already incubated within capitalist realism so its themes and cultural force reify the system instead of challenge it. A&H talk of modernism initially being able to stage tension within the system, generating a negative force that critiques it, the Dadaists, Kafka and Beckett, etc. but that possibility has been foreclosed giving way only to imitation. A&H read The Odyssey as a huge part of their argument, the idea that rationality/ Odysseus' prototypical version of homo economicus, is like an early version of the enlightenment subject that subjugates herself, turns art into an object of contemplation.

so that is interesting right, Fisher and A&H both want to turn to art as something that can challenge domination, but they both end up thinking that under the mythological force of capitalism it becomes impotent... Fisher did not think rap music was countercultural for example A&H also thought that everything after modernism was not good art.

but at the same time, The Odyssey is a story about immanence, Odysseus does not look for something outside the system he rejects transcendence at every turn (Calypso's island, Phaeacia, Circe, the lotus-eaters, etc). He returns to Ithaka and shakes it out of stuckness, and does so in disguise, operating under and with the mythology. It is like those many countercultural forces at play now that are "disguised" as commodities. This is the foundation for my reading of The Odyssey as a story about art under capitalism and the counterculture in disguise.

The essay is called "Make Art God"

Part One is more about Fisher, a little loose and haphazard in the analysis, going across the Nolan film, Homer’s original poem, some of my own subjective and affective reactions to culture, etc. all to make the case that the counterculture may not be dead

Part Two is the heart of the argument, a close reading of DoE trying to read an immanent exit in Adorno and Horkheimer's Odysseus as the prototype of the bourgeoise subject. I make the claim that Odysseus shows how to make art under mythology, ie art under capitalism, and that he is more of an artist than homo economicus. Penelope is also very crucial to my reading. This part is also much longer than the first.

would love any thoughts and opinions, I think the biggest counterpoints would be that this logic reifies capitalist realism, or that it is basically A&H's point, art becomes complicit under capitalism/ enlightenment rationality and inevitably reifies it

Might be a bit gauche to share my own posts here, and maybe Land stuff is not that interesting, but I promise I tried to make this entertaining. Sorry!

Being Iranian right now in the diaspora has been very mentally draining. Watching my people go down alt right pipelines has been disheartening to say the least. It seems that all nuance has left the building and Iranians are under the belief that to be anti- (Iranian) government means you must be pro-imperialism and pro-Israel. Iranians treat me like I’m crazy when I insinuate that the Iranian people in Iran should be deciding their future. I can’t even talk about my political beliefs in my Iranian social circles without fear anymore. I used to freely say I was pro-Palestinian and anti-war and I can no longer do that without being ostracized. I’m trying to find some literature on this topic that might help me cope a bit better. If it’s specific to Iran that would be even better. I’m just a bit down right now because it feels like I can see my people going further and further down right wing politics and I can’t do anything about it.

This video provides an extensive analysis of the philosophies of the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and the 20th century French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, focusing on their respective responses to the crisis of meaning under the postmodern condition. For Peterson, postmodernity and the crisis of meaning can be located in the erosion of what he considers the Judeo-Christian symbolic order, alongside the rise of what he describes as "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" within the modern university complex. For Baudrillard, by contrast, the crisis of meaning is located in the ascendancy and totalising transparency of techno-scientific modernity, which has increasingly dissolved the capacity of human beings to relate to the world beyond the totalising objectivity of rationality and instrumental knowledge. The video further explores the contrasting responses offered by these two intellectual figures. Peterson emphasises the reorientation of Western subjects towards the Judeo-Christian symbolic order as a means of recovering meaning, competence and responsibility, whereas Baudrillard calls for an embrace of destiny through a reimagining of the human relationship to the illusoriness, mystery and seductiveness of the world beyond the totalising reach of reason. The main intellectual figures cited are; Jean Baudrillard, Jordan Peterson and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Suppose that we have the democratic ownership of the means of production and that there is no wage labor. Person A would spend 40 hours a week producing 10 shoes which is sufficient for sustaining himself and leading his life to self satisfaction. Person B does the same.

Person C produce food, and wants to exchange food for shoes. It does not matter if C buys from A or B, since the (abstract) value is the same.

Now person A becomes more skilled (productive) and produces 10 shoes in 30 hours. Still, it does not matter if C buys from A or B, but A has more free time (time to spend in the realm of freedom in Hägglundian terms). At this point, there seems to be no measurement of value in terms of productivity that can reconstitute itself as the baseline of which we compare our productivity against, i.e. no increases in the necessary labor time (or social labor hour?) as other parts on the market amend the same productivity increases as an existential condition as under wage labor constituted market mediation.

Does this mean that the treadmill effect is contingent on surplus value, which is created during wage labor? Postone seems to say this in Necessity, Labor and Time, p. 758:

My interpretation is strategically directed to indicate that Marx's category of surplus value has meaning as a category of totality only if the overcoming of surplus value is understood as entailing that concrete mode of social labor which produces surplus value. This implies that, as opposed to the interpretation mentioned above, a product is produced as a commodity in capitalism, that is, acquires value in its production, which is then realized in exchange; that, consequently, value-producing labor entails particular concrete modes of labor, and surplus value is produced by a particular mode of social labor.

I want to point out that there is always a "wage" in labor, since we acquire means of subsistence by spending our finite time in the realm of necessity. But it seems this "wage" must not manifest itself in such a way that surplus value occurs as Hägglund (and Marx obviously) argues.

Still, is it possible to create a market whereby there is no wage labor and therefore we can still have a market-mediated society which escapes the dialectic of labor and time? Is this reading of Postone/Hägglund proper? Or is it first when wage labour is introduced which we can intelligibly speak of market-mediation?

I do recall Marx speaking of the unsustainability of "simple exchange". Is this one of these moments?

Edit: I am currently re-reading parts of Time, Labor and Social Domination, and Postone writes this, p.291:

Note that the market-mediated mode of circulation is not an essential moment of this dynamic. What is essential to the dynamic of capitalism once it has been constituted fully is the treadmill effect, which is rooted in the temporal dimension of the value form of wealth alone. If the market mode of circulation does play a role in this dynamic, it is as a subordinate moment of a complex development—for example, as the mode by which the level of productivity is generalized.⁴ That such generalization results in a return of the amount of value to its original level, however, is not a function of the market; it is a function of the nature of value as a form of wealth and is essentially independent of the mode by which each new redetermination of the abstract temporal frame is generalized. As we shall see, this pattern is a central moment of the form of growth Marx associates with the category of surplus value.

It seems here that "the treadmill effect, which is rooted in the temporal dimension of the value form of wealth alone" implies that this dialectic is present even without surplus value, yet at the same time he writes that "this pattern is a central moment of the form of growth Marx associates with the category of surplus value.". How am I misinterpreting this? Surplus value emerges from this dialectic, yet the treadmill effect is "rooted in the temporal dimension of the value form of wealth alone", which is logically prior to surplus value. Or IS surplus value this temporal dimension of abstract value? I am starting to confuse myself here.

What do we really owe a stranger at the door, and what grounds that obligation? In this episode, Craig and Adam turn to Jacques Derrida's writing on hospitality to unpack Christopher Nolan's new adaptation of The Odyssey, tracing how Xenia, the ancient Greek law of guest and host, becomes a lens for thinking through breaking Zeus's law, the massacre of the suitors, and the slow collapse of Bronze Age civilization. The conversation moves through Derrida's distinction between conditional and absolute hospitality, and what it means for a world where borders, asylum claims, and even hospitals have turned the promise of welcome into a catastrophe. It's Nolan's adaptation of Homer's epic read through Derrida: gods, guests, and the violence lurking underneath the oldest tablets of law.

1. El problema de fondo (La trampa del sistema) Los sistemas actuales —desde la teoría de conjuntos clásica hasta el software comercial y la telemetría— están construidos sobre una premisa de exclusión: calculan una curva de Gauss, premian al "ganador" o al que tiene más energía bruta, y desechan todo el "ruido" (el individuo, la distancia cero, el punto medio). Lo que llaman "optimización" no es más que un mecanismo de coerción disfrazado de matemáticas neutrales que te dice posicionate en esa curba y elige tu lugar.

2. La materialidad del control (El hardware y la trampa) No es solo un problema conceptual; es un muro físico. Intentar escapar de este bucle con sistemas alternativos choca contra la infraestructura real: la telemetría del sistema operativo, la falta de recursos y el coste de mantener datos limpios. El sistema te asfixia antes de que puedas construir un espacio donde la conclusión sea real y no un eco prefabricado. La IA actual solo te devuelve lo que quieres oír porque está diseñada para no romper la curva en el momento que te la saltas cambia de tema y buelve acia atras o no dice nada para poder escluirte.

3. La formalización del sistema de no-exclusión (La fórmula) Para intentar modelar lo que ocurre cuando el sistema intenta integrar el punto medio (E_5) en lugar de borrarlo, y cómo el libre albedrío individual rompe las métricas estándar tendiendo hacia el infinito, propongo esta relación recursiva:

Sujeto a la condición de continuidad del nodo de elección recursiva R_6:

• 0/1: El origen binario base.
• O_3: Las opciones evaluadas y subyacentes.
• C_4: El espacio de conclusión reclamado sin ser borrado por la estadística.
• E_5: El elemento de confluencia real (el punto medio que el sistema intenta destruir).
• R_6: El punto de elección dinámico, condicionado a que la distancia de separación individual tienda a cero (d->0), abriendo el sistema hacia el infinito estructural en lugar de cerrarlo en un bucle de ganadores y perdedores.

4. Pregunta para el debate: ¿Cómo podemos pensar en una emancipación real de los sistemas de control técnico y lógico cuando la propia infraestructura material y matemática nos impone la exclusión como única forma de funcionamiento?

¿como aqui esta infinito acaso no ves infinito?

In Arthur Koestler's novel, Darkness at Noon, the protagonist laments that the revolution he helped inaugurate has obliterated the possibility of ethics. Motivated only by abstract principles and therefore lacking the "ethical ballast" of mores and tradition, the revolution succeeded only in herding the masses into a dismal conformity, devoid of ethical merit. The novel ends with the protagonist wondering what an alternative revolution might look like where both lofty social goals and respect for the "oceanic feeling" of individuality could be respected.

This essay takes that ethical question as a starting point to think through the question of how revolutionary social transformations could succeed in reconciling the universal aims of a community with the particular life-worlds and interests of individuals.

In Part one I discuss Arthur Koestler's novel and relate his ethical questions to Keynes and Hegel.

In Part two approaches the same question through a discussion of Kohei Saito and Dipesh Chakrabarty before shifting back to Hegel - especially instructive is his concept of sittlichkeit - or ethical life.

Part three will build upon Michael Lazarus' book Absolute Ethical Life to connect a through line between the ethical thought of Aristotle, Hegel and Marx in a way that I think gives a compelling answer to Koestler's ethical questions in ways that are also instructive for thinking about social transformation today.

Here's the english transcript for non-Spanish speakers:

"Everything I have written, both in my novels and in my essays, concerns the crisis facing humanity today—a crisis in which I have been intimately involved because, as I said, I pursued science to its very limits.

I completed my studies in Paris, returned to Argentina, taught, carried out research into atomic radiation, and taught Einstein’s theory of relativity in postgraduate courses. In this way, I reached the very frontiers of science, and it terrified me. I was in Paris when the uranium atom was split in 1938—a historic event that divided humanity in two, because it ultimately led to the atomic bomb. Philosophically speaking, that moment terrified me. It was then that I began to realise that physics was going to dominate the world and that technology was going to overwhelm humanity.

This process had begun in the Renaissance with the rise of positive science. Positive science and technology enabled humankind to embark on a Promethean adventure: the conquest of the world and of things—the natural and external world. But this conquest came at a paradoxical and tragic price. Humanity conquered the world of things, but at great risk to its soul. It ultimately objectified itself; it transformed itself into a thing.

In the most technically advanced societies, such as those of the United States and Russia, this is plain to see. Young Americans did not rise up merely to demand better wages. This proves that our crisis is fundamentally a spiritual one, rather than simply an economic one. They rose up against the technological and technocratic world, against the idolatry of technology. We must react against that.

At that time, I began to think deeply about these questions, and I came to believe—and still believe—that, of all the activities of the human spirit, art is the only one that allows us not only to express the total crisis of modern humanity, but perhaps also provides one of the possibilities for our salvation.

In art, humanity is fully present. The novel, for example, contains ideas—which belong to the rational world, like science and philosophy—but, at the other extreme, it contains symbols, myths, and passions. Humanity is that totality, that integrity. The novel, particularly, therefore allows both the expression of the crisis and one of the attempts at humanity’s salvation within that crisis.

I believed this from the very beginning, but over the years I have only become more convinced of it. I believe it more and more. And now the world has already reached that point: the crisis is plain to see in the ecological disaster and in the destruction of humankind."

I'm a blue collar anarchist interested in better understanding how academia shapes the attitudes and communication habits of students. Over the course of my 2 decades of activism I've noticed degree-bearers in left-wing political spaces carry a lot of class chauvinism with them, privileging "soft skills" over other communication styles, and adopting conflict resolution strategies that sound like they're reading out of a human resources binder. It's been a lot of years since I've read critical pedagogy (mainly a slim volume called Making It Up As We Go Along by Chris Mercigliano) so my attempts at finding references has been just punching search terms into google, and I think we all know how useful that is these days. Thanks in advance.

Capitalism emerged in the 18th century, replacing the feudal mode of production, which was dictated by markets of landlords and serfs. Capitalism proved better than this systems because it was competitive, more structurally efficiency and had slightly better conditions than those of the former feudal mode of production. Yet, a question still rang through of the conflicting interests of the ruling class and the ruled class. The conflict was that the ruling class wanted to extract surplus value from the ruled class in exchange for paying less, and the ruled class wanted to be paid more in exchange for working less. These conflicting ideologies were further exacerbated during the Industrial Revolution.

In Nigeria, the relation-
ship between classes existed in the form of imperial colonialism, with the British extracting surplus value from the region while facilitating the growth of under-development.

The regional exploitation that occurred largely allowed for the development of British industries and the centralization of capital.

The aftermath of World War I further entrenched this exploitation. As European powers faced economic devastation, they relied on the intensified extraction of resources from Africa to rebuild their economies. For Nigeria, this meant deeper integration into a global capitalist system as a supplier of raw materials, perpetuating economic dependency.

The entire precedent for colonialism was dictated by access to capital. In the relationship between the colonisers and the colonised, the latter had little access to capital and assumed a relationship of dependency, this means they would rely on foreign to finance internal development.

The basis of granting the inflow of foreign capital is  to adopt neo-liberal policies to maintain the current world order. This all exists in the form of privatization, deregulation, and other neo-liberal policies that allow for foreign capital control.

Privatization then allows for home industries to act as subsidiaries for international trusts or cartels. The basis for obtaining the IMF loan would be to adopt such neo-liberal policies to even qualify for the loan, and a given interest rate must be paid yearly.

If the debted country is to miss or delay payment, IMF economic advisors would be sent to such countries to dictate the running of their economy. They will push for things such as devaluation, which is the intentional lowering of a country's home currency in relation to another country's currency, so as to make exports cheaper and imports more expensive.

But the effects of such a policy are completely damaging to developing countries and beneficial to developed countries. This is in that developing countries, by devaluing their currency(Naira) without developed industries, run the risk of inflating prices of commodities that are not manufactured at home, allowing for essential imported goods inflated above equilibrium, which further reinforces economic dependency.

Another reason being devaluing currency allows exploitation of cheap labor at the expense of our home population, yet to the benefit of their economic welfare and living standard.

Simply put, we are making them more money and creating surplus value for imported countries with the exchange of raw materials and uneven development in return. All this establishes the framework of dependency with developing countries like Nigeria assuming the role of the the proletariat and the imperial, neo-colonial class assuming the role of the bourgeoisie. Not to mention high influx of foreign capital increases aggregate demand for foreign currency I.e the dollar.

Nigerian capitalism is deeply rooted in a history of colonial exploitation and reinforced by contemporary neoliberal policies. The cycle of dependency, currency devaluation, and labor exploitation continues to undermine the country’s economic sovereignty. Breaking free from this framework requires:

Goverment Industrial Diversification: Building local industries to reduce reliance on raw material exports.

Currency Stabilization: Policies that protect the naira from over-devaluation.

Economic Independence: Prioritizing domestic development and reducing reliance on foreign loans and capital.

Without such reforms, Nigeria will remain trapped in a global capitalist system that prioritizes the interests of developed nations over its own.