Marxism Research Network
Unofficial English Translation

Zhou Miao: An Analysis of the "Global South" and Its Modernization Issues from the Perspective of Foreign Left-wing Scholars

Marxism Abroad

Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Western countries led by the United States have exerted every effort to win over the Global South to condemn and sanction Russia, yet to little avail. This reflects the further pursuit of diplomatic independence by Global South countries and a significant rise in their status and influence within the global landscape. Compared to the concept of the "Third World," which carries heavy political connotations, or that of "developing countries," which implies a linear metaphorical path of development, the term "Global South" has become more widely accepted by all parties in the international community. Subsequently, the heat surrounding the "Global South" concept has continued to rise, becoming a major global issue of increasing concern to the international community. Foreign leftist scholars have also paid close attention to the Global South and its modernization, conducting early research that has yielded rich theoretical results. Researching and systematizing the theoretical perspectives of foreign leftist scholars on the Global South and its modernization carries very important significance as a theoretical reference. It helps us to comprehensively and accurately understand the formation and origins of the Global South and its modernization, profoundly reveals the root causes and essence of the backwardness of Global South countries, and further clarifies China's positioning as a member of the Global South. This, in turn, strengthens the firm defense of the common interests of Global South countries, promotes the resolution of the North-South gap, and advances the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity.

I. The Emergence of the "Global South" and the Manifestation of its Modernization Issues

Global South countries emerged during the period when the capitalist world system was gradually forming. These countries have faced different historical tasks at different stages of capitalist development. In different periods, they have also been referred to as "Third World" countries or "developing countries." These terms carry different political metaphors and meanings, which foreign leftist scholars have analyzed and differentiated.

1. The "Global South" emerged alongside the formation of the capitalist world system

Capitalism originated in the West, and from that point, it initiated the developmental process of humanity moving from a "narrowly local existence" to a "world-historical existence." As capitalism continued to develop in Western countries, other countries around the world were also passively integrated into the capitalist world system. However, the status and role of the vast array of Asian, African, and Latin American countries within this system were those of colonies or semi-colonies, remains politically and economically subordinate to Western nations. Compared to feudal society, capitalism created immense productive forces and demonstrated great historical progressiveness. As Marx and Engels pointed out: "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together." [1] Yet, this was also a history of "blood and fire." With the opening of new maritime routes, from the early 16th century to the mid-to-late 19th century, European capitalism began its journey of early colonial aggression and expansion, carrying out a series of plunderings, massacres, conquests, and enslavements of the peoples of the Americas, Asia, and Africa.

"The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production." [2] "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation... It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production... Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West." [3] This directly points out that Western capitalist countries, through imperialist activities, reduced the vast regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America to colonized, exploited, and oppressed Global South countries, thereby forming the North-South gap and the issues of the "Global South" and its modernization. Many foreign leftist scholars have inherited and developed this thought of Marx and Engels. The American historian Stavrianos pointed out that the Third World emerged in the early modern period due to the massive social mutation [N] that occurred in Northwest Europe. This great social change was the rise of a vibrant capitalist society. It expanded overseas in stages, gradually controlling ever-wider regions of the globe until it established its world-wide rule in the 19th century. [4]

2. Analysis of several concepts related to Global South countries

"South" and "North" are, first and foremost, geographic concepts. Because most developed capitalist countries are in the Northern Hemisphere and most underdeveloped countries are in the Southern Hemisphere, the terms "Southern countries" and "Northern countries" emerged internationally. Corresponding to the North-South concept, there are also international concepts such as East and West, the concept of the "Three Worlds," and the concepts of developing, underdeveloped, and developed countries. These require definition and clarification. "Eastern countries" refers to the socialist camp after World War II, while "Western countries" refers to the capitalist camp led by Britain and the United States. In international political and economic research, Southern countries are also called the Third World or developing countries. The concept of the "Third World" is related to the bipolar landscape, the two major camps, and the division into the First, Second, and Third Worlds during the Cold War. In 1952, the term "Third World" was first proposed by the French demographer Alfred Sauvy. In February 1974, Mao Zedong proposed the strategic thinking of the "Three Worlds" theory. He pointed out: "In my view, the United States and the Soviet Union belong to the First World. The in-between forces, such as Japan, Europe, Australia, and Canada, belong to the second world. We are the Third World." [5]

During the Cold War, Western academia believed that Western countries like the U.S., Europe, and Japan belonged to the First World; socialist countries like the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe belonged to the Second World; and Asian, African, and Latin American countries belonged to the Third World. This differs from Mao Zedong’s classification, but both are consistent in their demarcation of the Third World. After the Cold War ended, the scope of the three worlds changed somewhat, with academia classifying them as follows: the United States as the First World; developed countries like the EU, Japan, Russia, Eastern Europe, Canada, and Australia as the Second World; and other countries still belonging to the Third World. [6] After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was talk among developed capitalist countries that the term "Third World" could be struck from the political lexicon, and they began using the concept of "developing countries" everywhere. Many foreign leftist and Marxist scholars, however, insist on using the "Third World" concept. The term "developing countries" is also a commonly used concept in modern international politics and economics. After World War II, although most Southern countries gained national independence in political form, they did not completely escape the economic control and exploitation of imperialist countries and remained very backward. The North-South gap remained extremely serious after the general independence of Southern countries. Therefore, Southern countries have always faced the common task of developing their national economies, hence the appellation "developing countries." In short, whether "Global South countries," "developing countries," or the "Third World," these terms collectively refer to those countries that historically suffered colonial aggression by imperialist nations, became independent from the old colonial system, have a large gap in development compared to Western developed capitalist countries, and are striving to achieve modernization.

3. The emergence of the "Global South" and its modernization issues, and an analysis of related concepts

The emergence of Global South countries brought with it the "Global South" problem. To foreign leftist scholars, the very definition of the "North-South" concept inherently includes the inequality of status between the two sides, implying that the independence and development of the "Global South" are limited and constrained by the "Global North." The "Global South" problem refers to the historical tasks that Global South countries urgently need to solve at different historical stages. Western developed capitalist countries pursued colonial policies, carrying out colonial aggression and exploitation of Southern countries through conquest and plunder; this is the historical root of the poverty and backwardness of Southern countries. Therefore, the primary historical task facing Southern countries before World War II was national independence, which is the political prerequisite for economic and social development. The Indian scholar Vijay Prashad pointed out that before World War II and the period of decolonization, the idea of global social development was not taken seriously. Imperialist powers denied the human potential of colonized peoples, which meant that the imperialist core countries at that time had no theory regarding development. The only emerging theory of development came from anti-colonial movements, which argued that without decolonization, development was impossible because imperialism drained the economies of the colonies. [7] After World War II, the "Global South" problem manifested centrally as a problem of development and modernization. Consequently, the concept of "developing countries" became the popular designation for Southern countries.

Compared to the concept of "Third World" countries, many foreign leftist scholars have doubts about the concept of "developing countries." The American scholar Stavrianos pointed out: "Before World War II, most of the regions today called the Third World were classified as colonies of European powers. At that time, the adjective used to describe these colonies was usually 'backward,' rather than the diplomatic terminology used today like 'underdeveloped,' or the even more euphemistic 'developing' increasingly used in the United Nations—even though this usage is easily misleading." [8] The concept of "developing" carries an implication and expectation of moving toward being "developed." Foreign leftist scholars believe this concept fails to reveal—or makes it easy to overlook—the root causes of the backwardness of Southern countries and the unequal relationship between the North and South. The famous German leftist scholar Andre Gunder Frank pointed out: "It is also widely believed that the current state of underdevelopment of a country can be understood entirely as the product and reflection of that country's own economic, political, social, and cultural characteristics or structures. However, historical research shows that contemporary underdevelopment is largely the historical product of past and present economic and other relations between the underdeveloped satellite countries and the now-developed metropolitan countries. Moreover, these relations are precisely a major component of the entire structure and development of the world capitalist system." [9] Many foreign leftist scholars believe that "underdevelopment" refers to a distorted and lagging state of economic and social development in a country or region, akin to biological stuntedness, rather than just a state of being "un-developed." "Developed" and "underdeveloped" are like two sides of the same coin; it is precisely the capitalist world system that created the "underdevelopment" of backward countries. Under the capitalist world system, the "underdevelopment" of backward countries is a product of "development"; "development," in its appearance, simultaneously manufactures "underdevelopment." Therefore, when using the concept of "developing countries," one must constantly attend to the historical roots and current status of the underdevelopment of Global South countries and strive for a thorough reform of the international unequal political and economic system. Only in this way can a true path of development for Southern countries be found. Regarding the concept of the "Third World," foreign leftist scholars similarly believe it reflects an unequal relationship. Stavrianos pointed out: "The so-called Third World is neither a group of countries nor a set of statistical criteria, but a set of relationships—an unequal relationship between a dominant metropolitan center and a dependent periphery, which were colonies in the past and are neo-colonial 'independent' states today." [10] In view of this, many foreign leftist and Marxist scholars insist on using the "Third World" concept. The famous Slovenian leftist scholar and philosopher Slavoj Žižek still used the "Third World" concept in a recent interview. [11] The Indian economist Paramjit Singh argues that contemporary imperialism shifts capital from new imperialist countries to Third World countries to strengthen control over these nations. [12]

II. Reflections and Interpretations of the Modernization of the "Global South" by Foreign Leftist Scholars

Foreign leftist scholars believe that the development and modernization of Global South countries are constrained by the systemic hegemony of Western nations, with financial hegemony at its core. The modernization of Global South countries always faces the major challenge of breaking free from a dependent status and achieving autonomous, self-centered development.

1. The modernization of the "Global South" is constrained by the monetary and financial hegemony of Western countries

After capitalism entered the stage of imperialism, financial monopoly capital took a dominant position in capitalist economic and political life. Following World War II, with the continuous development of financial monopoly capital, global financial monopoly capital or international financial monopoly capital gradually formed. Paramjit Singh argues that modern imperialism is ruled by global monopoly capital in the form of transnational corporations and international finance [14]. International financial monopoly capital established an international monetary and financial system dominated by dollar hegemony. The American leftist scholar Michael Hudson believes that the current world economic and financial system is built on a foundation of a dollar-debt cycle. He points out that in the 1960s and 70s, the United States changed its strategy for controlling the world economy, shifting from a creditor-nation strategy to a debtor-nation strategy; since the 1960s, it has been the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit that has hijacked the world economy [15]. The United States exploits the world through the international monetary and financial system, deeply constraining the modernization of Global South countries. As the U.S. dollar is the world's most important international reserve currency, the United States can use its special status to issue excess currency to pay for its balance-of-payments deficit, thereby reining in seigniorage profits. Consequently, Hudson believes the new characteristic of the American financial empire is its unique monetary hegemony. On the one hand, the United States uses its balance-of-payments deficit to export massive amounts of dollars to the world, absorbing the material exports of foreign countries and seizing the economic resources of other nations almost for free; on the other hand, other countries—especially Global South countries—obtain large amounts of dollars by exporting goods and services to the U.S., but these dollars simultaneously flow back into the United States. To this end, the U.S. exercises control over these reflowing dollars; otherwise, they would enter the American commercial sphere and cause severe inflation, dealing a blow to the U.S. economy. Therefore, U.S. Treasury bonds became the most important tool for absorbing these reflowing dollars, yet this also created another unbearable consequence: Treasury bonds require interest payments. As massive amounts of returned dollars purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, the interest the U.S. must pay is also enormous.

Consequently, the United States exploits and exacerbates cyclical economic and financial fluctuations to create economic and financial turmoil in relevant countries and regions. This facilitates financial "harvesting" and plunder while promoting the return of dollars, effectively reducing the value of dollars and Treasury bonds held abroad so that this debt cycle can continue indefinitely to maintain the dollar's hegemonic status. This is also the deep-seated reason why the U.S. frequently triggers economic and financial crises in Global South countries. To complement this predatory mechanism of the dollar-debt cycle and facilitate the export of dollar capital, international exploitation, and financial attacks, international monopoly capital also promotes neoliberalism globally. It induces or forces Global South countries to implement financial liberalization reforms, loosening the management, supervision, and restriction of finance. After a financial crisis occurs, international monopoly capital further demands that Global South countries maintain high interest rates and exchange rate stability—even at the cost of exhausting their foreign exchange reserves—to maintain so-called currency stability, further exacerbating the economic and financial crises in these countries. The American economist Joseph Stiglitz once pointed out that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) required Global South countries experiencing financial crises to raise interest rates to 30%, 50%, or even 80%. The results were predictable: such high interest rates distorted the value of capital, hammered industrial production, and depleted national wealth [16]. Due to the loss of financial sovereignty during financial liberalization reforms, the ability of Global South countries to safeguard their economic and financial security has been greatly weakened. During the economic and financial crises manufactured by Western countries, the fruits of domestic economic development and national wealth have been looted and plundered on a large scale, while many high-quality national assets have been "bottom-fished" and hunted by international monopoly capital. This has led to the further control of the economies and finances of Global South countries.

  1. The Modernization of the "Global South" is Constrained by the New-Colonialist System of Western Countries

Before World War II, Northern countries primarily relied on the old colonial system to exercise direct occupation and rule over Global South countries, forcing them to serve as markets for goods, sources of raw materials, and sites for investment. After World War II, national liberation movements flourished, and the old capitalist world colonial system collapsed. In their colonial retreat, Northern countries exhausted every means to transform old colonialism into neo-colonialism, forming a neo-colonialist system. The continuous struggle of the masses in colonial and semi-colonial lands prompted the end of old colonialism. However, the Global South and the world's progressive forces were not yet particularly strong. The former colonial and semi-colonial countries that gained independence after World War II remained in a relatively backward position, providing the conditions for the former Great Powers to pursue neo-colonialism.

Neo-colonialism does not involve direct military conquest and colonial rule; instead, it recognizes political independence while using various—especially concealed—methods to exercise indirect dominance, achieving the goals of controlling, interfering with, and plundering backward countries and regions. L.S. Stavrianos argued that monopoly capitalism has persisted to the present day, but it must now deal with the nationalistic and social revolutionary movements shaking the periphery. Direct colonial rule became both militarily impractical and financially untenable. Thus, there was a large-scale decolonization movement and a transition from colonialism to neo-colonialism. If old colonialism was a system of direct rule based on coercive power, then neo-colonialism is a system of indirect rule that grants political independence in exchange for economic plunder and exploitation [17]. The neo-colonialist system is a structural hegemonic system centered on financial hegemony, supplemented by military, political, economic, and cultural hegemony, used to carry out political, economic, and cultural penetration (and military means when necessary) and control over Global South countries. The famous Egyptian leftist scholar Samir Amin pointed out that the "collectivity" of imperialism is reflected in several aspects: in the economic field, the Triad has common tools for managing the world system, namely the WTO (the colonial department of the Triad world), the IMF (the collective colonial monetary organization), the World Bank (the propaganda department of the Triad world), the OECD, and the EU; in the political field, there are the G7 or G8, the U.S. armed forces, and tributary tools led by NATO [18].

Therefore, although capitalist powers abandoned direct political rule over their former colonies, the neo-colonialism they promote exists in a "line of direct descent" from old colonialism. By dominating and controlling international political and economic organizations and rules, through unfair and unequal systems of international division of labor and the international political and economic order, and through the penetration of values and the induction of public opinion, neo-colonialism renders the sovereignty of Global South countries "illusory." It continues to control, interfere with, and plunder countries that have gained political independence, maintaining the dependence of newborn states on their former suzerains to preserve the international inequality of the old capitalist world system. The development of Global South countries is constrained by the neo-colonialist hegemonic system, and their wealth continues to be plundered to the maximum extent.

  1. The Modernization of the "Global South" is Constrained by the System of Unequal International Division of Labor

Foreign leftist scholars generally believe that the system of unequal international division of labor is an important reason for the backward economic and social development of Global South countries. Historically, because Western countries were the first to achieve industrialization, an unequal international division of labor between industrial and agricultural countries was created—a pattern of unequal division of labor that has not fundamentally changed to this day. After World War II, with the development of economic globalization and the export of capital and industrial transfer from Western countries, some Global South countries acquired low-end manufacturing and primary product processing capabilities. The traditional vertical division of labor system gradually transformed into a vertical-mixed division of labor system. However, this remains an unequal system of division of labor; Global South countries remain at the disadvantageous low end of the system, and the dependency relationship between the North and South remains very firm. This is a new type of dependency relationship formed by the high-tech monopolies of Western countries, which the Brazilian economist Theotônio dos Santos called "industrial-technological dependency": "We can see the third structural constraint that dependency relationships impose on development: namely, industrial development is decisively constrained by the technological monopoly exercised by the imperialist centers." "Foreign capital seeks to incorporate countries into a new division of labor, which leaves the current centers of dominance responsible for producing products related to the most sophisticated technology and scientific knowledge development. This development of scientific and technological knowledge allows the centers of dominance to control technology through monopoly ownership, enabling them to maintain their world dominance and their control over the service sector and parasitic activity sectors" [19].

In this new vertical-mixed division of labor system, Western countries control the high-value-added segments of the global industrial chain. Due to a lack of core technology, Global South countries mainly engage in processing and manufacturing segments. In their modernization processes, many Global South countries face not only the task of upgrading from labor-intensive industries to capital- and technology-intensive industries but also the need to upgrade from labor-intensive segments to capital- and technology-intensive segments within the industrial chain. Transnational corporations (TNCs) are the important carriers of current production globalization; the global vertical-mixed division of labor system is primarily built upon the intra-product division of labor within the global production networks of TNCs. The headquarters of TNCs are mostly located in Western countries, with parent companies mastering the high-value-added segments, while general processing and production processes are completed by subsidiaries located in Global South countries or outsourced to companies in Global South countries. The Mexican scholar Clemente Ruiz Durán pointed out: "The companies coordinating global value chains are generally located in developed countries, while their suppliers are built in developing countries. The international division of labor of economic activities or tasks between these two groups of countries reflects the asymmetry of technological levels between them. Those production stages with relatively high added value (such as product conception, design, R&D, marketing, and after-sales service) are reserved in the central economies, while other segments (the production process) are outsourced to developing countries" [20]. Through this new type of division of labor system, developed countries, by virtue of their monopoly advantages in technology and capital, obtain surplus monopoly profits.

  1. The Modernization of the "Global South" is Constrained by its Dependent and Unequal Status within the Accumulation Mechanism of World Capitalism

Continuous capital accumulation is the fundamental driving force of capitalist production and development. Foreign leftist scholars believe the problem of the global North-South gap arises from the fundamental difference in the modes of capital accumulation between developed and underdeveloped countries: one is "autocentric accumulation," while the other is "dependent accumulation." Theotônio dos Santos pointed out that dependency is a situation in which the economies of certain countries are conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which they are subjected. A relationship of interdependence exists between the economies of two or more countries and between these economies and world trade, but the result is that certain countries (the dominant ones) can expand and strengthen themselves, while the expansion and self-strengthening of others (the dependent ones) is merely a reflection of the former's expansion—which can have positive or negative effects on the latter's immediate development. This relationship of interdependence assumes the form of dependency. In any case, the state of dependency leads the dependent countries to a situation of backwardness and exploitation by the dominant countries [21].

Due to the development of economic globalization, some Global South countries—by leveraging a favorable international environment, accepting investment and industrial transfers from Western countries, or utilizing their own resource endowments to export natural resources and primary products—have achieved certain modernization results, approaching or even reaching the level of developed countries in indicators such as per capita GDP. However, foreign leftist scholars believe that their economic growth and development are not autocentric, independent developments. In terms of science and technology, politics, and international rules, they remain constrained by Western countries and continue to occupy a dependent and unequal position of accumulation internationally. Their growth or development is frequently interfered with, obstructed, and undermined by developed countries, and they always face challenges to sustained independent development. Moreover, this "development" of Global South countries is an "underdeveloped development"—a dependent development. The limited economic growth of Global South countries creates conditions for the development of developed countries, or rather, it serves and consolidates the development of developed countries; the temporary improvement of certain development indicators actually weakens their long-term capacity for independent development. Thus, Amin pointed out that Global South countries are in an unequal position within the "worldwide mechanism of capitalist accumulation," and their phenomenon of "underdevelopment" is entirely the result of the deepening of the "primitive accumulation in favor of the center" phenomenon [22]. American economist Mariko Frame believes that traditional colonialism has evolved into neoliberalism, which forces the Global South to adjust its economic, political, and social systems to accommodate the needs of capital accumulation in the Global North [23].

III. Solutions to the Modernization Dilemma of the "Global South" and the Major Significance of Socialism

Regarding solutions to the modernization problems of the "Global South," foreign left-wing scholars believe that the primary task for Global South countries is to break free from their dependent and unequal developmental status. They have also explored the significant role of socialism in promoting the development of Global South countries, as well as the positive significance of the path of Chinese-path modernization.

  1. Global South countries must break free from dependent, unequal status to achieve self-centered development.

Foreign left-wing scholars argue that the fundamental root and cause of underdevelopment in the Global South is not traditional modes of production, but rather the unequal capitalist world system. Facing the constraints imposed by this system on the development of the Global South, these scholars have conducted in-depth research into capital accumulation and imperialism, the operational mechanisms and contradictions of the unequal capitalist world system, global relations of exploitation, the transfer of surplus value, the impact of dollar hegemony on the economic and financial security of the Global South, and global-scale class relations and conflicts. They have profoundly revealed the roots and essence of backwardness in the Global South, arguing that to achieve true modernization, these countries must oppose the Euro-American-centric modernization model and realize sustained, self-centered development. Some radical foreign left-wing scholars even advocate that Global South countries should "decouple" from the developed North to escape their dependent status.

Since the 1970s, along with the deepening of economic globalization, two parallel trends have emerged: on one hand, many Global South countries have become increasingly dependent on core capitalist nations; on the other hand, some Global South countries—particularly the newly industrialized economies of East Asia—have absorbed industrial capital transfers and investment from developed countries, resulting in rapid economic development and the "East Asian Miracle." Consequently, some theoretical views of foreign left-wing "dependency theorists" have invited considerable criticism. In reflecting on certain dependency theory perspectives, some scholars, represented by the Brazilian economist Fernando Cardoso, revised their views to propose "associated-dependent development." They argued that while it may be temporarily impossible for peripheral countries to escape dependency, it is possible to achieve a degree of development under specific circumstances. Under Cardoso's influence, many dependency theorists revised their theoretical stances in the late 1980s. Samir Amin also explained the reasons behind the industrialization achievements of East Asian countries and the true meaning of "decoupling." He pointed out that East Asian countries succeeded precisely because they subordinated their external relations to internal development—in other words, they refused to "adjust" to the dominant global trends. In fact, this is the definition of decoupling, which some impatient readers confuse with autarky [10] (23). Thus, the "decoupling" advocated by foreign left-wing scholars is not equivalent to isolation or severance, but rather emphasizes a relatively thorough reform of unequal international political and economic relations, or the utilization of specific international conditions to serve one's own development.

  1. Socialism promoted national independence movements and the modernization process in the Global South, winning international developmental space.

The October Revolution broke the monopoly of capitalism and realized the leap of socialism from theory to reality. The emergence and growth of socialist countries boosted the confidence of people in colonies and semi-colonies to resist colonial oppression, acting as a catalyst for world national liberation struggles and driving anti-imperialist and anti-feudal national democratic revolutions in countries like China. The strong support from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries for revolutions and the progressive cause of humanity against capitalist hegemony effectively curbed imperialist colonial expansion and accelerated the collapse of the colonial system, allowing the Global South to gain independence and development. Foreign left-wing scholars have noted the major inspiring role of the establishment of the Soviet socialist system. Tamás Krausz, a Hungarian professor of history, pointed out that the Russian Revolution brought hope across the world, especially for the lower social classes, turning many near-utopian ideals into reality. It was as if, overnight, thousands of people had the courage to believe they could build a more humane society, free from oppression and the shackles of wage labor. In terms of global impact, the October Revolution provided decisive inspiration to national liberation movements and the struggle against colonialism (24).

During the World Anti-Fascist War, the Soviet Union became the main force opposing the world war launched by imperialism and fascism. The victory of this war greatly promoted the development of the world socialist movement and national liberation movements, leading to the establishment of a large number of socialist and independent national states. Aside from the newly established socialist countries, most of these nations embarked on some form of capitalist path. From an objective historical perspective, it was a massive step forward for these backward former colonies to take the capitalist road and gradually develop their national economies. This transition from colonies and semi-colonies to independent and sovereign nation-states was a historical leap. Therefore, without the existence of socialism, imperialist colonial policies would have persisted much longer, and the North-South gap would be even wider. After World War II, the emergence of the socialist camp and the formation of the bipolar structure ended the history of Western powers dominating global affairs alone. Socialist countries supported and joined the Global South in sustained struggles against capitalist power politics and hegemony, which helped counter the systemic hegemonic constraints of Western nations and created relatively favorable international conditions for the development of the Global South. American scholar Thomas E. Weisskopf argued that a major difference between the post-war period and previous history was the existence of a large group of socialist countries competing with capitalist powers for influence in the Third World. Some socialist countries were also able to provide direct material aid, as well as political and ideological support, to revolutionary movements against capitalist rule in peripheral areas (25). Out of capitalist international strategic considerations and to foster developmental models in competition with socialism, the United States and Western countries also provided massive aid and support to countries like South Korea, showing relative tolerance toward the nationalist economic behaviors of these nations, which led to significant successes in their modernization and industrialization. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, China became the world’s largest socialist country. The successful exploration, promotion, and expansion of the path of Chinese-path modernization has achieved immense developmental success, making important contributions to maintaining world peace and promoting common development. For example, regarding loans to the Global South, Western loans often come with harsh political and economic strings attached to control the borrowing nation's development, resulting in heavy debt burdens that severely restrict growth. In contrast, Chinese loans to the Global South do not attach any unequal political or economic conditions, facilitating mutual benefit and win-win outcomes. Furthermore, in recent years, China has promoted the joint construction of the "Belt and Road," leveraging the roles of institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS New Development Bank, and the Silk Road Fund to promote economic and social development in the Global South. This helps break through Western systemic hegemonic constraints and establish a just and reasonable new international political and economic order. In short, due to the support and impetus of socialism, the Global South emerged on the international stage as a new political and economic force. Their opposition to hegemony, power politics, and the unequal old international order has strengthened the forces for world peace, gradually changing the international political and economic landscape, promoting multipolarity, and winning a more favorable developmental environment for the Global South.

  1. Socialism provided institutional tools and developmental paths for the Global South to reference.

The socialist system and modernization model first explored and established by the Soviet Union demonstrated unique superiority during the crisis years of Western capitalist countries, creating a demonstration effect for the Global South and the world. It provided these countries with institutional tools, development models, and paths for reference, thereby influencing their modernization processes. Stavrianos pointed out that until 1917, the only social model available for the Third World to emulate was Western capitalism; after the Bolshevik Revolution and several Five-Year Plans, Soviet society provided a second choice, which became a particularly striking model during the Great Depression and World War II (26). Thomas E. Weisskopf also noted that the existence of socialist countries was important because it broke the conservative myth that there was no way to improve economic conditions other than capitalism (27). In the 1930s, while developed Western capitalist countries suffered the Great Depression, Soviet socialist industrialization forged ahead, fully displaying the superiority of the socialist system. Western countries began to draw lessons from socialist practices for economic development and social stability. Upon taking office, U.S. President Roosevelt immediately announced the "New Deal," adopting measures such as increasing government spending, implementing public works programs, and enacting anti-inflation laws. After these New Deal measures proved effective in the United States, Western European countries followed suit. After World War II, capitalist countries further adopted socialist practices to adjust and reform capitalism. These measures included strengthening economic regulation and intervention, redistributing national income to varying degrees, and establishing social welfare systems to protect the interests of the middle and lower classes. If developed Western nations did this, Global South countries were even more active in adopting and referencing socialist methods for economic development. After the war, aside from those that became socialist, many Global South nations declared they were taking the socialist road. Even those that took the capitalist road accepted, to varying degrees, certain economic practices and institutional choices from socialist countries. For example, the "developmental states" of East Asia, represented by South Korea and Singapore, featured economic models characterized by comprehensive state intervention in political, economic, and social life. The government did not only perform general public management functions but also led social and economic development as its primary mission, effectively promoting growth.

Therefore, although the Soviet model had numerous flaws, it played a vital role and exerted significant influence under the historical conditions of the time. Practice has shown that socialist modernization, as an alternative to capitalist modernization, is not only feasible but possesses superiorities incomparable to the capitalist model. In particular, the successful exploration and practice of Chinese-path modernization has further enriched and perfected the path of socialist modernization, presenting a new vision distinct from Western models and expanding the path choices for developing countries to achieve modernization. Ronny Lins, director of the China Brazil Center for Research and Business, stated that under the leadership of the CPC, China successfully blazed a path of Chinese-path modernization suited to its national conditions, bringing many new inspirations to humanity’s exploration of modernization (28). China advocates for building a community with a shared future for humanity and promotes the construction of a new type of international relations. We adhere to a global governance outlook based on extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, actively promoting the reform of the global governance system. This contributes Chinese wisdom, Chinese solutions, and Chinese strength to helping Global South countries achieve independent development and escape the constraints of an unequal international system.

Conclusion

The world is currently undergoing changes unseen in a century; the overall strength of the Global South is rising, and it plays an increasingly vital role in promoting world peace and development. Faced with the rising international influence of the Global South, the U.S.-led West has calculatedly manipulated interpretations of the "Global South" concept, intending to exclude countries like China and attempting to achieve control over the Global South. As the world's largest developing country and a natural member of the "Global South," China always shares the same breath and destiny as other developing countries. Absorbing and referencing foreign left-wing research on the Global South and its modernization is of great theoretical value and practical significance for profoundly revealing the roots and essence of backwardness in the Global South, enriching and perfecting Chinese solutions for global governance, uniting South countries to establish a more just and reasonable new international order, solving the North-South gap, and promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

Under the conditions of modern capitalism, the crisis of global development has become increasingly prominent. Therefore, resolving the various predicaments currently faced by the "Global South" requires a thorough rejection of the neoliberal path to development. In light of this, the international left-wing academic community generally posits that the significance of Chinese-path modernization [11] for the "Global South" lies not only in its provision of a successful model of accelerated development for developing countries but also, and more importantly, in its expansion of the horizons of human civilization through the rejection of the internal logic of capitalist modernization.

Foreign scholars, represented by writers at the Monthly Review [12], argue that Chinese-path modernization is profoundly rooted in the specific national conditions of the Chinese people and represents the Sinicization of Marxism. By adhering to the developmental philosophy of "putting people at the center," China has successfully transcended the traditional modernization path characterized by the "logic of capital." Within the practice of Chinese-path modernization, the socialist state system effectively integrates the goal of "common prosperity" into the process of the development of productive forces, thereby avoiding the polarization between the rich and the poor and the social fragmentation inherent in Western modernization. At the same time, Chinese-path modernization advances the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan," emphasizing the coordinated development of material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations. This provides a "Chinese solution" for Global South countries to achieve comprehensive social progress.

Furthermore, left-wing scholars emphasize that the global significance of Chinese-path modernization lies in its active promotion of the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity. Unlike the "zero-sum game" and "hegemonic logic" of Western powers, China advocates for a new type of international relations based on mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation. This provides a stable external environment and a new framework for cooperation for the development of the "Global South." The "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI) [13] and the "Global Development Initiative" (GDI) [14] are regarded by left-wing scholars as concrete manifestations of China's commitment to southern-southern cooperation, helping developing countries break free from the "dependency" constraints of the global capitalist system and achieve independent and sustainable development.

In summary, the international left-wing perspective on the "Global South" and its modernization issues reflects a profound reflection on and critique of the current global capitalist order. Although scholars of different schools vary in their emphasis, they share a common goal: to seek a modernization path that truly aligns with the interests of the people of the "Global South." In this historical process, the theory and practice of Chinese-path modernization undoubtedly provide an important reference and inspiration for the vast number of developing countries, contributing Chinese wisdom to the diverse development of human civilization.