'Let's be clear, the west has lost and is clearly in the doldrums as we speak' - possibly, or it's in the process of losing. There's still the debt mechanism held over the 3rd world countries, the presence of US military bases all over the place and the dominance of currency via the petrodollar, but yes all that stuff is being eroded away. Which is good news! However, if you look at it from the perspective of 'development' as an ongoing process, then arguably the west has won, and is still winning. The goal of colonialism was always to kick the natives off their land, turn them into slaves or wage labourers, get them working in the mines, plantations or in the cities and set up an export economy so wealth could be channelled towards the imperial centres. This trend has continued under decolonisation, in part because the colonial powers sabotaged the countries on their way out and used debt as a weapon to control them and keep the resources flowing to the same places. Maybe a true reversal of this process could emerge as a long term strategy for BRICS countries, but for the moment it seems to be full steam ahead doing everything the colonial powers taught them to do. The only difference (not inconsequential) might be that the nodes where resources get funnelled to are somewhat closer to home.

re: industrialisation and carbon emissions, well yes the global south has largely taken over in those sectors, albeit mainly through the process of outsourcing and still producing goods for shipping to the affluent west. I generally agree with the 'climate justice' type arguments that say the countries that industrialised first and have the highest historic emissions should be the ones who cut back the hardest, and that it's unjust for the burden to fall on countries that haven't gone so far down that pathway. But in terms of carbon there's no case to make - because of CO2's persistence in the atmosphere, ghg emissions are basically cumulative, so it doesn't matter where they come from, every additional molecule adds further to the heating effect. Same with the effects of 'development' - doesn't matter whether the cities, factories and combine harvesters get built by capitalists, socialists or anarcho-syndicalists, the effects on humans and non-humans alike are the same.

'Same old. The new boss is same as the the old boss. I don't buy it. Take into account the Bandung declaration, consider the new circumstances. I doubt you can say with your hand to heart that 1% western uber neocon genocidal capitalist is equal to BRICS.'

Had a wiki refresher on Bandung and the Non Aligned Movement, didn't realise it had been around since the 50s. I don't think it invalidates what I've been saying. No, they're not the same as the top gangsters on the world stage, and the crimes they've committed are limited accordingly (though Suharto was party to it, and there were disagreements over Yugoslavia and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan). But all the same elements of the dominant civilisational paradigm are there - rural depopulation/enclosure, industrialisation, growth of cities, increased reliance on complex tech, dependence on international supply chains and the business interests that control them etc, so I don't see any reason that they would behave differently as the 'new boss' once they cement their position in the control seat of global affairs.

Though I'm happy to be proved wrong of course!
I