I reject the Manichaeic division of the world on these grounds: the entire North of the world is not united in it's interests and goals; indeed, the true North, (I consider all areas with a sub-arctic climate as Northern) is just as subjugated by the "Global North" as the "Global South" is. How simplistic the left has truly become! Still fighting over who belongs where, over which side this or that person is on. Perhaps it is because there is a lack of Canadian lefterners writing alternative media, or that there is no concept of Canada by lefterners in the USA. Read some of their articles, they are almost always Usian-centric, with Canada only being mentioned in passing. And even then, it is only of, what I like to call, the Great Cities, or cities living beyond their means, such as Vancouver or Toronto. The only time there is made any mention of areas farther to the north of the Great Cities, is when there is a full-fledged crisis going on, such as the Kashechewan water-crisis, and even then, it is done only in comparison to southern crises - from my perspective - such as what occured during and after Hurricane Katrina. There is no independant thought coming out of the True North, only pieces written by those of the "Global North".

The simple dichotomy between the "Global North" and the "Global South" needs to be smashed forthwith. We, as the left, cannot continue to erect planetary boundaries between ourselves: before it was East and West; now, North and South. If I may, I wish to complexify the current running thesis on global conflict, and, instead of having but two sides of the globe, I would pander that there is three, or more sides. To start with, the "Global North" was never truly situated in the True North, but in, what Tolkien described as being, the "Middle-Earth". When Tolkien conceived his rendering of the Earth, he considered Europe to be in the middle: the Shire would have been situated near Britain (rightly), and Minas Tirith would have been near to Northern Italy. From this vantage point, it becomes clear the me that what is popularly called the "Global North", would more rightly be termed the "Middle North", or the areas of Europe and North America that are situated between the sub-arctic climate zones, and the mediterraean climate zones. Then, by virtue of there being a "Middle North", there would also be a "Middle South": areas such as Venezuela, Egypt, Persia, and the like. Beyond these middle regions, there would be the true directional zones, or the "True North" and the "True South". Perhaps calling these areas "True" is a bit of a bias on my part: if so, I am open to being called on it. I suffer from pride as well

If you want to revolutionize a term to better explain the origins of capitalist exploitation, that might be helpful, but I wouldn't over analyse the term literally as most people who use it already do not define it literally.

Just as the Global South incorporates parts of the world (central asia for example) that are not 'south'. But the vast majority of exploitation is the Northern Countries (and their companies) over countries to the south of them (Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, Africa). And in that sense the terms are useful. Yes exploitation occurs within the North (growing inequalities in the US and Canada, Native populations, regional disparities, etc.) but in comparative significance the levels of exploitation along the N-S axis is overwhelming [apologies if you don't think this is true].