Developed vs. developing world

[Toppler]

I personally find this distinction bullshit.

How can be nations like Costa Rica, Thailand or Chile lumped in with DPRK, Central African Republic, Burundi, India or Afghanistan? What does "developed" mean? It implies that there is some "final" stage of development, which the richest capitalist countries have.

The problem is, the richest countries are developing too, and the middle to upper tier "developing world" countries have relatively high standards of living, like, say, the UK/US in the 1980s/1970s/1960s/1950s etc. and the poorest "developing countries" are not in fact, developing, and have most of their people living in unimaginable poverty.

The term coming from arrogant Englishman/Americans etc. is nowadays pretty much "any country that looks worse than my home upper-middle class suburb".

That means the term is meaningless. It divided the world into 2 imaginary parts, and "developing countries" have far less in common with each other than the better "developing countries" have with the "developed world". Costa Rica or Russia have far more in common with say Great Britain that with say Burundi.

It also brings stigma. Here in Slovakia, when somebody says "developing countries" he means "the countries where people don't have food", for example.

[Theory&Action]

Not to mention that the 'developing world' often happens to be located in the heart of the 'developed world'. I'm sure that someone scraping by in downtown Detroit feels very thankful to have been born in the richest country in the world.

[dez]

Not to mention that the 'developing world' often happens to be located in the heart of the 'developed world'. I'm sure that someone scraping by in downtown Detroit feels very thankful to have been born in the richest country in the world.


Quite a few middle class people from the developing world submit to subpar conditions in the developed world (i'm talking semi slavery) on the hopes of getting an equal chance as people who have indeed been born in the richest country in the world. And if they do get an equal chance, or at least get something similar, they often don't come back.




I personally find this distinction bullshit.

How can be nations like Costa Rica, Thailand or Chile lumped in with DPRK, Central African Republic, Burundi, India or Afghanistan? What does "developed" mean? It implies that there is some "final" stage of development, which the richest capitalist countries have.

The problem is, the richest countries are developing too, and the middle to upper tier "developing world" countries have relatively high standards of living, like, say, the UK/US in the 1980s/1970s/1960s/1950s etc. and the poorest "developing countries" are not in fact, developing, and have most of their people living in unimaginable poverty.

The term coming from arrogant Englishman/Americans etc. is nowadays pretty much "any country that looks worse than my home upper-middle class suburb".

That means the term is meaningless. It divided the world into 2 imaginary parts, and "developing countries" have far less in common with each other than the better "developing countries" have with the "developed world". Costa Rica or Russia have far more in common with say Great Britain that with say Burundi.

It also brings stigma. Here in Slovakia, when somebody says "developing countries" he means "the countries where people don't have food", for example.

Usually theres varying theories concerning development, and this specific one usually has 3 cathegories, developed, developing and underdeveloped. 3 Tiers.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the "developing" world is more accurately labeled as "underdeveloped" by Walter Rodney. these nations have all been the target of imperialist plunder and even now, the relationships between most of these nations and the "developed" world is one of neo-colonialism where resources are still taken out and none are put back in. underdeveloping a country keeps it from being economically independent, thus making it a dependent market with a subjugated political system.

[Ligeia]

There are different classifications with all its limitations. E.g. north,south,west, first,second,third world and developed world.
One thing that's also important is regionality. You can have inner-development between cities, within towns..suburbs,inner city, rural....etc:


The term coming from arrogant Englishman/Americans etc. is nowadays pretty much "any country that looks worse than my home upper-middle class suburb".
Another concept would be that of periphery, semi-periphery and core regions which can be applied to all kinds of local,regional,national,global levels. Here core regions are not even totally positive, they are dominant and exploitative.

For a distinction of developing and developed world you also need to define the final development stage. It almost suggests an end to history. It also suggests that developing nations are meant to be developed, on the way and a kind of individualism. You don't think of interdependence with these definitions.

[Toppler]

This is a fairy tale. Why are then many "developing countries" on the imperialist side of the conflict then = have imperialist ambitions? Russia, China etc...
Some "developing countries" have almost zero poverty and a good standard of living, even better than in the glorious brainwashed "West", other are hellholes.

And middle class people are better off than poor people in the "West". What"Westerners" will never understand is that you can have a better quality of live in say Costa Rica for 500 dollars/month income than in the US for 2000 dollars/month.

What the "its all because of imperialism" tend to forget is that there is nothing natural about a very high standard of living. The default state of mankind after the agricultural revolution was abject poverty and from a scientific and historical viewpoint, many "developing countries" are actually extremely developed. The fact is, places like Latin America have less poverty than any "developed" nation in the first half of the 20th century. And Victorian Britain, the imperialist of all imperialists, had poverty levels more akin to India, if not even worse.

This is not to deny poverty. Millions starve each year. However, percentually, the number of hungry people is relatively small http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_suff ering_from_undernourishment .
The number of countries in which the average person starves is actually very small. And "malnutrition" can be many things, from mild vitamin B deficiency (frequent in poorer Asian countries) to full on starvation, so the percentage is probably even smaller.

Was Slovakia before 2009 a horribly poor imperialized nation before it was started to be classified as developed in 2009 and a horrible evil imperialist nation after? It was actually developed back in the 1960s, with all the features on an industrialized nations. This classification does not mean fucking anything. I would never exchange my 1993-2009 life here for Detroit. The "the poor in the US are rich/middle class elsewhere" is a bullshit canard. The ghetto people in the US would not be "middle class" by any standard, not even in very poor nations, as the income gap there tends to be sharper, meaning the rich people there have even more than the rich people in the US.

The whole bullshit about divided world and so is just designed to keep "Westerners" in their "safe and good" countries and to prevent revolt by hammering how "priviledged you are" to keep them from revolting. There is no gap on a global level, I disagree with Roslings whitwash and capitalist apologism, but he is right in that there are no "2 groups" in the world. There is a continuum http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11 ;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.592 90322580644;ti=2009$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid =phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS ;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue =8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uni Value=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMi n=295;dataMax=79210$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=19;dat aMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

We are leftists who base our views on science and genuine desire to help, not retarded liberal guilt jerks.

[Tim Finnegan]

Another concept would be that of periphery, semi-periphery and core regions which can be applied to all kinds of local,regional,national,global levels. Here core regions are not even totally positive, they are dominant and exploitative.

For a distinction of developing and developed world you also need to define the final development stage. It almost suggests an end to history. It also suggests that developing nations are meant to be developed, on the way and a kind of individualism. You don't think of interdependence with these definitions.
Additionally, the passive construction of "developed", "developing" and "underdeveloped" writes imperialism out of the picture, posing it as some sort of historical aberrance, rather than the capitalist norm. It suggests developmental state as the product of some uncontrollable forces of nature, rather than something determined by human action- and, in doing so, allows only a warped internationalism of the "white man's burden" variety, rather than one based in class conciousness.

[bailey_187]

OP seems to have constructed a strawman in his head tbh

[el_chavista]

These old terms date back to Kennedy's Alliance for Progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Progress) address on March 13th 1961 and they refer to the same economic phenomenon: you need to dominate countries to accumulate capital by dispossession in order to have economically advanced countries.
Developed and underdeveloped countries are the sides of the same capitalist coin.

[Dunk]

This reminds me of the same regurgitated western narratives concerning Islamic countries. Liberals are especially guilty of regarding these countries as "backward", or "medieval". The distinction between "developed" and "developing" also implies that "these people are behind" and evokes a more contemporary iteration of "The White Man's Burden". Which, of course, these ideas don't stand up to scrutiny - the people of "developing" or "backward" countries do not live in some kind of time bubble separate from a glorious developed utopia. They live in the now.

[Rafiq]

To be honest, I don't see what is 'developing' about these nations. It is pretty much another capitalist trick, much like "free Market" basically saying: "Yeah, the countries that are shitholes and capitalists are developing, so soon they will not be shitholes, but the countries that are shitholes and are socialist, well, they're failures."

[28350]

the "developing" world is more accurately labeled as "underdeveloped" by Walter Rodney.

I believe Parenti said something along the lines of these countries being "artificially mal-developed," in that at one point they had thriving economies, until colonialism or imperialism came in.

[bailey_187]

This reminds me of the same regurgitated western narratives concerning Islamic countries. Liberals are especially guilty of regarding these countries as "backward", or "medieval". The distinction between "developed" and "developing" also implies that "these people are behind" and evokes a more contemporary iteration of "The White Man's Burden". Which, of course, these ideas don't stand up to scrutiny - the people of "developing" or "backward" countries do not live in some kind of time bubble separate from a glorious developed utopia. They live in the now.

no one is talking about "cultural development". This is about countries state of economic development. Aan economy that is largley argicultural and has a large informal economy is less developed (economicaly) than one with a large industrial and service sector. This is not racism or "chauvanism" to say this. Infact to say that there is no such thing as economic development and that people of different nationalities are simply in their natural state when they live in economicaly poor argicultural socities is.

"The White Mans Burden" was also never about developing countries economies so they could enjoy a high standard of living, it was simply justification for large capitalist states to invade countries for their own economic plunder, because the "savages couldnt rule themselves".

[Dunk]

no one is talking about "cultural development". This is about countries state of economic development. Aan economy that is largley argicultural and has a large informal economy is less developed (economicaly) than one with a large industrial and service sector. This is not racism or "chauvanism" to say this. Infact to say that there is no such thing as economic development and that people of different nationalities are simply in their natural state when they live in economicaly poor argicultural socities is.

"The White Mans Burden" was also never about developing countries economies so they could enjoy a high standard of living, it was simply justification for large capitalist states to invade countries for their own economic plunder, because the "savages couldnt rule themselves".

These two concurrent ideas are contemporary, paternalist, imperialist rationalizations. The idea that countries are "developing" implies that there is something wrong or lacking in the developing world - that they are lazy, have no work ethic, are "backward" or whatever right wing myths are used to explain why the poor are poor - or in this case, why the foreign poor aren't part of our glorious "developed world". The idea that countries are culturally "backward", or "medieval" also implies the same - that something is wrong with these people, and that something must be done to rectify it. Rectifying implies the imposition of liberal democracy and ruthless capitalist "investment", to "develop" these "backward" countries. In my opinion, these ideas are the inheritor of "The White Man's Burden" because these "savages can't develop without us".

[bailey_187]

There is something wrong and lacking in the Global South, and its not cultural or caused by anything cultural. No one here has mentioned that, so why do you?

Are u seriously denying that a country in which the majority of people subsist on agriculture, live to 40 and have little or no access to healthcare are not lacking something? Is this an acceptable state of affairs for the underdeveloped world? Do they not deserve better?

This does not imply that the people of these countries are to blame, that they have no work ethic etc. Sure, a racist could make such arguments. But surely as leftists we understand the impact colonialism/imperialism had on the world course of economic development?

So do you class Walter Rodney as a racist for labeling Africa as underdeveloped?

Stop fucking talking about culture and "medieval backwardness" aswell, NO ONE has mentioned that, its irelevent to this topic.

[Tim Finnegan]

I believe his point is that, given the dominance of both colonial apologism and a Whiggish historical narrative in mainstream discussion of economic development, the liberal concept of "underdevelopment" necessarily carries connotations of cultural criticism- "We developed, why couldn't you?" In my experience, this seems to hold true.

[RedSonRising]

From a traditionally racist historical narrative, Western intellectuals may often associate relative national poverty to cultural backwardness, but the economically exploitative relationship between industrialized core countries and resource-rich agriculturally based countries made subservient & dependent can be identified and talked about my by leftists without the condescending overtones. In fact it should be- it's a distinctive feature of global capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism.

[Agent Ducky]

Honestly "Countries that aren't as rich as us" is the definition of developing. What's funny is the term "developing"... implying that one day they could be 'developed' rich capitalist countries. Which is actually against the interests of America. If China gets to America's level... where do we send the jobs? =/

[bailey_187]

I believe his point is that, given the dominance of both colonial apologism and a Whiggish historical narrative in mainstream discussion of economic development, the liberal concept of "underdevelopment" necessarily carries connotations of cultural criticism- "We developed, why couldn't you?" In my experience, this seems to hold true.

maybe on other forums, but this forum u would think u could discuss development without getting someone trying to accuse people of having a "white mans burden" etc

[Tim Finnegan]

maybe on other forums, but this forum u would think u could discuss development without getting someone trying to accuse people of having a "white mans burden" etc
Of course, but to do so you have to step away from the imperial narratives which terms such as "developed" and "underdeveloped" carry with them. "Underdevelopment" without a corresponding "overdevelopment" denies the historical role of imperialism in creating the economic situation described, and so is contrary to a leftist understanding of economic development in the global South.

[bailey_187]

I dont see at all how, when talking about economies, these terms carry an imperial narative. Infact the term underdevelopment was AFAIK popularised by Marxists such as Samir Amin, Paul Baran, Walter Rodney, Andre Gunder Frank etc.

What does "overdeveloped" mean?

[Imposter Marxist]

Not to mention that the 'developing world' often happens to be located in the heart of the 'developed world'. I'm sure that someone scraping by in downtown Detroit feels very thankful to have been born in the richest country in the world.

Downtown actually can be kinda nice.
:laugh:

[Tim Finnegan]

I dont see at all how, when talking about economies, these terms carry an imperial narative. Infact the term underdevelopment was AFAIK popularised by Marxists such as Samir Amin, Paul Baran, Walter Rodney, Andre Gunder Frank etc.
Quite possibly, but it's an item of terminology that insufficiently addresses the historical and contemporary role of imperialism in retarding the economic development nation of certain nations, and, as a consequence, now lies within the bounds of imperialist apologism.


What does "overdeveloped" mean?
Presumably, it would refer to the imperialist/core nations, which have achieved a high level of economic development through the exploitation of colonised/peripheral nations.

[bailey_187]

this is long and pretencious, fuck this

saying developed, underdeveloped etc of course doesnt give the "historical and contemporary role of imperialism in retarding the economic development nation of certain nations", because they are quick terms to be used in discussion. u could say this for bare different words. All these terms are words to describe the current state of a country. When we discuss the reasons for this, then u talk of the "historical and contemporary role of imperialism in retarding the economic development of certain nations". Im not going to fucking start refering to Ghana as a "historicaly and contemporarily underdeveloped nation as a result of the imperialist capitalist world strucutre", ill just call it underdeveloped, and then we can discuss why it is that why

[bailey_187]

also, dont forgot to tell all the dependency theorists of the 70s that their language is part of the imperial narative and must be changed

[Tim Finnegan]

this is long and pretencious, fuck this

saying developed, underdeveloped etc of course doesnt give the "historical and contemporary role of imperialism in retarding the economic development nation of certain nations", because they are quick terms to be used in discussion. u could say this for bare different words. All these terms are words to describe the current state of a country. When we discuss the reasons for this, then u talk of the "historical and contemporary role of imperialism in retarding the economic development of certain nations". Im not going to fucking start refering to Ghana as a "historicaly and contemporarily underdeveloped nation as a result of the imperialist capitalist world strucutre", ill just call it underdeveloped, and then we can discuss why it is that why
So you're ok if I start referring to the Soviet Union as "red fascism"? Cool, cool. :rolleyes:

[bailey_187]

erm no, because it wasnt. but many states in africa, asia etc are underdeveloped.

[Tim Finnegan]

erm no, because it wasnt. but many states in africa, asia etc are underdeveloped.
They're less developed than, say, Western Europe, certainly, but I wouldn't say that they're "underdeveloped". That suggests some objective norm to the developmental state of Western Europe, which doesn't sit particularly neatly alongside the fact that those countries and their populations are very much in the minority.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't necessarily know that Rodney is setting a standard of development rather than simply stating that imperialism and its post-colonial vestigial manifestation cripples the infrastructure of formerly colonized states.

All to the benefit of current neoliberal policies etc.

That said, the focus on "development" might be a little wrongheaded.

[turquino]

Overdeveloped refers to imperialist nations pushed beyond the historical limits of the capitalist mode of production through their domination of the terms of trade. It is the result of a hidden theft of surplus value from the oppressed nations. Underdevelopment in the oppressed nations is the corollary of overdevelopment in the imperialist. While may be possible for once underdeveloped countries like south Korea to close the gap with the imperialist economies, it is only possible because there is deepening exploitation elsewhere.

[Ligeia]

I don't necessarily know that Rodney is setting a standard of development rather than simply stating that imperialism and its post-colonial vestigial manifestation cripples the infrastructure of formerly colonized states.

True.
Then again, most people won't tell you this but tell you that development requires a desirable aim, a search for causes and means to get there.
The ways this can be tackled can either be like that Rodney approach or different without going to deep into real causes e.g. like talking about traditions,religions, geographical physical conditions, or just looking at the current state of affairs by saying there isn't enough investment in x...and so on.

So...there are very different approaches in terms of concepts and in terms of how to use those concepts.

[Dunk]

There is something wrong and lacking in the Global South, and its not cultural or caused by anything cultural. No one here has mentioned that, so why do you?

Are u seriously denying that a country in which the majority of people subsist on agriculture, live to 40 and have little or no access to healthcare are not lacking something? Is this an acceptable state of affairs for the underdeveloped world? Do they not deserve better?

This does not imply that the people of these countries are to blame, that they have no work ethic etc. Sure, a racist could make such arguments. But surely as leftists we understand the impact colonialism/imperialism had on the world course of economic development?

So do you class Walter Rodney as a racist for labeling Africa as underdeveloped?

Stop fucking talking about culture and "medieval backwardness" aswell, NO ONE has mentioned that, its irelevent to this topic.

I'm not accusing you of having an imperialist mindset - I'm just trying to point out that these ideas of the "developing" or "underdeveloped" world are used to rationalize imperialism. In this global capitalist economy, huge sections of the world are going to be impoverished, and a portion of the world which contains the most historically exploitative and powerful bourgeoisie will not be. I'm not trying to suggest that the working poor of the world shouldn't have access to whatever commodities or infrastructure that currently separate the "developed" from "developing". I just don't buy into the idea that in time, they will become like the "developed" world. No, they will always be behind the richest countries, because the bourgeoisie of these countries ruthlessly exploit the "developing" world.