Most oppressive developed nations?

[Bala Perdida]

I started thinking about this and, while it is obvious to others, I realized that almost all dictatorships and very authoritarian governments are born out of developing countries. Although the rise of fascism brought authoritarianism to the developed Europe, and almost the USA, most authoritarian governments come out of crisis and disorder.
So I'm not exactly sure how to describe a developed country, although participation in imperialism is probably a safe give away. What is the most oppressive developed country?

From what I hear about Singapore it sounds pretty developed. Graffiti over there gets you lashed, spitting gum on the ground is a 200 dollar fine, drug trafficking is death. So for now I hold Singapore as the most oppressive developed country.

[Comrade #138672]

How do you define development and oppression?

[Bala Perdida]

How do you define development and oppression?
Developed is something to the extent of USA, UK, South Korea. Oppression is strict laws against the nations citizens on home ground.
Developed is hard to define, but developing is usually something like Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia and China according to the media and other resources.
To me all nations have an equal potential to be great in diverse forms, but are usually kept down by oppressive regimes or exploiters.
Also I give a brief idea above the bold.

[Blake's Baby]

China? 'Developing'? It's either 1st or 2nd most developed country on earth.

As for 'oppressive', the US imprisons more of it citizens than any other country by a long way - for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate . Perhaps that's your answer. Singapore has a lower rate of incarceration than Colombia. But it's really difficult to get a handle on an 'index of oppression'.

[Devrim]

China? 'Developing'? It's either 1st or 2nd most developed country on earth.

What are you basing this on?

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As Blake says, it's impossible to come up with an actual index of oppression, because definitions and interpretations of oppression will vary according to level of development, type of country, that country's social structure, its culture and its cultural/social history etc.

I'm also not sure that it would be a hugely helpful index to construct. We all have a vague idea that there are some capitalist entities (the USA, for example) that play a more prevalent role in policing the world on behalf of capital than other, smaller and less-endowed countries may do. That seems to be a good starting point for analysing oppressive actions and structures in capitalist society, rather than nationalising class struggle into an atomised country-by-country analysis.

[Blake's Baby]

What are you basing this on?

Devrim

Size of the economy. Not sure what else you measure on.

I think most people would think that 'developed' would mean the capitalist metropoles. Germany, the US, Britain, Japan, France, Italy. They're all big economies. But China is bigger than all of them except the US (or maybe it's now bigger than the US, I don't know). Obviously China has a much larger population. But then, the US has a much larger population than Germany or Japan, and we're still comparing them.

Measures that take population into account, like proportion of GDP per head, produce results like Qatar, Luxembourg, Norway and Singapore being the most developed countries, which I don't think is what most people mean by 'developed'.

Any statistic for development that doesn't have the US first or second and Germany and Japan in the top ten can't really be measuring what people mean by 'developed' I'd argue.

So just taking 'countries', which means that you're comparing things of different sizes, and looking at the dollar-wealth of their economies, then China ranks above Japan, Germany, Britain, France or Italy (and India and Brazil which are also huge). So how are China (and Brazil and India) not 'developed'?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This might be helpful:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator

Least of all in showing that, like 'oppression', there is no single reliable indicator of 'development'.

[Devrim]

Size of the economy. Not sure what else you measure on.

...

Any statistic for development that doesn't have the US first or second and Germany and Japan in the top ten can't really be measuring what people mean by 'developed' I'd argue.

Any statistic that puts China in the top two can't really be measuring what people mean by 'developed' either.

Devrim

[Bostana]

We shouldn't debate on 'Who is most oppressed?" Rather we just need to recognize that the state and bourgeois are oppressive and work to overthrow them

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

We shouldn't debate on 'Who is most oppressed?" Rather we just need to recognize that the state and bourgeois are oppressive and work to overthrow them

Amen.

Capitalism, patriarchy and the liberal 'democracy' of the bourgeoisie are inherently oppressive. We don't want to liberate those who are oppressed the most, we want to liberate everyone.

[Blake's Baby]

Any statistic that puts China in the top two can't really be measuring what people mean by 'developed' either.

Devrim

It has an enormous industrial base. Sure, it's developed it recently, but it's still there.

How would you measure development?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah I don't know how China or India today would not fit a "developed" category. Both have created proletarian labor pools; both are important parts (engines of growth and locations of massive investment) of the world economy. China may not have hit a sort of "maturity" in the sense that they still lag behind in terms of imperial influence, but they are working on that.

[Queen Mab]

China is really two countries in one: a developed industrial coast and a rural interior.

As for oppression...well as a communist all work under capitalism is oppressive and exploitative. So I'm not sure there is really that great a difference between any country.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Human Development Index:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/2013_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg/800px-2013_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg.png

Democracy Index:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Democracy_Index_2012_green_and_red.svg/800px-Democracy_Index_2012_green_and_red.svg.png

The GCC countries would, instinctively to me, be the most oppressive and developed countries, and this corresponds to a large extent to these two indexes.



China? 'Developing'? It's either 1st or 2nd most developed country on earth.

Hardly.


Amen.

Capitalism, patriarchy and the liberal 'democracy' of the bourgeoisie are inherently oppressive. We don't want to liberate those who are oppressed the most, we want to liberate everyone.

There's a qualitative different between oppression in Eritrea or Iran and the Netherlands.


Size of the economy. Not sure what else you measure on.

Its size is a result of its large number of people, but divided per capita it's not really high.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Democracy index is bullshit but HDI is quite a good development indicator.

Read the human development report here for an understanding of how development is actually quite fluid. It's interesting to see that, whilst it might be premature to put China in the top 2 or 3 developed nations in the world, and certainly India isn't anywhere near that right now, it might be more on the money to speculate as such by say, 2050.

[adipocere]

The democracy index map might as well be white European colonization & entrenchment diagram. I like how Colombia is more democratic than Venezuela. Australia is apparently a bastion of democracy as long as you don't ask the Aborigines and don't worry, nobody does. :rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

The democracy index map might as well be white European colonization & entrenchment diagram. I like how Colombia is more democratic than Venezuela. Australia is apparently a bastion of democracy as long as you don't ask the Aborigines and don't worry, nobody does. :rolleyes:

Which liberal democratic rights have been denied to Australian aboriginals?

These indexes may well be flawed and/or biased but I'm bothered by the cognitive rigidity and anecdotal evidence constantly used by members of revleft. Y'all need to look into what the scientific method is, what methodology is, etc.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Any statistic that puts China in the top two can't really be measuring what people mean by 'developed' either.

Devrim

If GDP can act as a barometer, America still ranks number one, with China being second, Japan at number three and Germany at number 4. Sooo.

[Tim Cornelis]

If GDP can act as a barometer, America still ranks number one, with China being second, Japan at number three and Germany at number 4. Sooo.

If GDP can act as a barometer, but it can't because it is skewed in favour of economies with a large population. In terms of GDP per capita (PPP) China is ranked at the unimpressive 92nd or so place. India would be the third most developed country even though it scores lower on the HDI than Ghana, widely considered a third world or developing country (and they score comparably in terms of GDP PPP per capita).

[boiler]

I think the Untied States of America is possibly the most oppressive country

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Which liberal democratic rights have been denied to Australian aboriginals?

These indexes may well be flawed and/or biased but I'm bothered by the cognitive rigidity and anecdotal evidence constantly used by members of revleft. Y'all need to look into what the scientific method is, what methodology is, etc.

^^^

A lot of development economics is bound by the rigidity of capitalist (read Keynesian) growth models like Rostow's stages of growth, but you're right that they do at least provide a framework for methodologically analysing development of countries and regions using a variety of more-or-less well researched indicators, and considering various factors.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

If GDP can act as a barometer, but it can't because it is skewed in favour of economies with a large population.

How? The methodology used, is specific in taking this into account.


In terms of GDP per capita (PPP) China is ranked at the unimpressive 92nd or so place. India would be the third most developed country even though it scores lower on the HDI than Ghana, widely considered a third world or developing country (and they score comparably in terms of GDP PPP per capita).

What list are you looking at? Current GDP (PPP), the countries are still listed in the order I placed them. I think you're talking about the GNI (PPP). Even if so, regions the PRC owns, basically, like Macau and Hong Kong are rated pretty high on the list. Further, while being different in order, all 4 countries still remain in the top 20 (more or less).

[Sabot Cat]

Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States come to my mind foremost.

[RedHal]

I think the Untied States of America is possibly the most oppressive country

how can there be any other competitor when you also consider its global impact.

[Bala Perdida]

I asked the question after realizing that the most oppressive (or authoritarian might be a better word) regimes are poor developing countries. Before almost all of the considered "third world" countries seemed to have authoritarian regimes. Until the cold war played itself out and paved the way for bourgeois democracy in the developing countries. So after seeing this trend I wondered if there was any authoritarianism at that level in the "developed" world, on homeland. Singapore is the best example I found, although I have heard about the USA but living here I'm constantly blasted with propaganda telling me how "free" I am.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I asked the question after realizing that the most oppressive (or authoritarian might be a better word) regimes are poor developing countries. Before almost all of the considered "third world" countries seemed to have authoritarian regimes. Until the cold war played itself out and paved the way for bourgeois democracy in the developing countries. So after seeing this trend I wondered if there was any authoritarianism at that level in the "developed" world, on homeland. Singapore is the best example I found, although I have heard about the USA but living here I'm constantly blasted with propaganda telling me how "free" I am.

America is a musical chairs dictatorship.

[boiler]

how can there be any other competitor when you also consider its global impact.

Your a 100% right man. There is no competitor. It is the the most oppressive country now and in history.

[Bala Perdida]

Your a 100% right man. There is no competitor. It is the the most oppressive country now and in history.
When you consider that yes, but to the people in their country I'm not sure.

[Rafiq]

As for 'oppressive', the US imprisons more of it citizens than any other country by a long way - for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate . Perhaps that's your answer. Singapore has a lower rate of incarceration than Colombia. But it's really difficult to get a handle on an 'index of oppression'.

Actually, not only is the rate of imprisonment barbarically high, but one only need a glance at the quality of prison life to be horrified - even by developing standards. If a third world country were to make institutionalized rape, violence, beatings, humiliation and so on a legitimate, legal punishment, they would face international ridicule. But that is precisely what happens in American prisons, not only with the indifference of the prison establishment, it is said that a great number of those prison rapes are committed by guards themselves!

The U.S.'s legal apparatus is so backward and vile, so incompetent and broken, it is no wonder conservatives are keen in comparing it countries like Mexico in order to quell criticism - If the U.S. really is on par with Mexico (or North Korea, or whatever you like) as far as it's standards go, what the fuck is the point of labeling it as a developed nation in the first place?

[Rafiq]

The United States does not have a formally "oppressive" state, like any other bourgeois-liberal democracies, we are all granted equal rights before the law. It is those places of which the grasp of the American state (or the federal government) is lessened that are more "oppressive", the South, small towns and so forth. That's not to say they are not a component of the American state, but that America's centralized government is hardly a bastion of "oppression and authoritarianism". Naturally, I am skeptical of the usage of such words in the first place. While the U.S. lags behind Europe and Canada in several respects (as far as a competent bourgeois dictatorship goes), it is a Bourgeois state. It is as though American users are disappointed by the impotence of liberalism. We should never look upon the bourgeois state as this static, civilizing force. We must remind ourselves that capital would do as it pleases with us, if not for the power of proletarian struggle. Our 'rights' were not benevolently handed down to us by the class enemy, they were won through decades of long and bloody warfare. They were concessions. Liberalism is the preferred rule of capital in the west, however it's enactment was through struggle, women could not vote originally, and suffrage was reserved exclusively for landowning white males, in some countries. Universal suffrage was a concession made by the bourgeoisie, though obviously within our modern context, all of the machinations of the state, whether won by class struggle or not, have been integrated to serve capital (including voting).

[Short&Direct]

I would say all capitalist countries developed or not oppress the poor, if we take oppression to mean unjust treatment. The wealthy usually the people in control rarely if ever give a hoot about the common people.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

It's tough to measure things like oppression, but you didn't ask for some clear-cut answer. So I'll give you my subjective opinion.

Domestically, Saudi Arabia is the most oppressive.

Internationally, the U.S., Russia, and China are the most oppressive.

[Blake's Baby]

If GDP can act as a barometer, but it can't because it is skewed in favour of economies with a large population. In terms of GDP per capita (PPP) China is ranked at the unimpressive 92nd or so place. India would be the third most developed country even though it scores lower on the HDI than Ghana, widely considered a third world or developing country (and they score comparably in terms of GDP PPP per capita).

Right, but Singapore, Qatar, Norway and Luxemburg come out as the most developed countries by per-capita GDP. USA is around 6-8th on the lists. So, per capita GDP is not an adequate measure, unless someone wants to defend the notion of Qatar being the most developed country on earth.

The HDI still rates Norway above the US, Ireland above Japan, Singapore above France and Luxemburg above the UK. I'm not sure that a measure that produces a result like 'Ireland is more developed than Japan' is really useful.

But I'm happy that the notion of 'development' has been problematised - I think it's an ill-defined concept that needs clarification.

Life expectancy? Literacy? Percentage of population living in poverty? Urbanisation? Are any of these useful measures (though none in themselves provide an adequate measure of 'development')?

[boiler]

When you consider that yes, but to the people in their country I'm not sure.

I think it is oppressive. Look at its prison system and courts. People in the US tend to get very long prison sentences. There are millions locked up. In some states they have the 3 strike policy, commit three crimes and get a life sentence, regardless of the crime whether its murder or robbery. I think its very harsh.The police kill lots of people to.

Poverty is massive in the US. A lot of the people that fall foul of the "criminal justice system" are from poverty areas.

In the 60's, 70's and 80's political opponents to the system were systematically murdered and imprisoned. I'm not to sure about political opponents to the system after the 80's, I don't know a lot about politics in the US after then.

There are cases like the Angola 3, Leonard Peltier, Trayvon Martin, Chelsea Manning, there is a long list of oppression in the US.

[Blake's Baby]

This list refers to death penalties carried out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_execution_rate#Global_distrib ution

However, I'm not certain if this list should then be divided by population. If it's thought that GDP/population gives a better measure of 'development', perhaps execution/population gives a better measure of 'oppression'. I don't know. In this case however, Yemen and the US have very similar levels of executions, but the US has a population of 317million+ and Yeman has a population of 25million+, in other words, the US is 12.5 times bigger than Yemen's. This then would suggest that Yemen is 12.5 times more oppressive than the US.

But, the US still has the biggest per capita prison population.

So, without coming to any decisions about what is going to be measured on the 'oppression scale' and the 'development scale' the whole question is pretty much fraught with uncertainty.

[Devrim]

Size of the economy. Not sure what else you measure on.

I think most people would think that 'developed' would mean the capitalist metropoles. Germany, the US, Britain, Japan, France, Italy. They're all big economies. But China is bigger than all of them except the US (or maybe it's now bigger than the US, I don't know). Obviously China has a much larger population. But then, the US has a much larger population than Germany or Japan, and we're still comparing them.

Measures that take population into account, like proportion of GDP per head, produce results like Qatar, Luxembourg, Norway and Singapore being the most developed countries, which I don't think is what most people mean by 'developed'.

I think that most people would imagine those countries to be pretty developed, certainly more so than China.

As somebody else on the thread said:


China is really two countries in one: a developed industrial coast and a rural interior.

Parts of China are probably really developed, but I don't think anybody would classify it as a 'developed' country.

I don't think that it is even a useful concept though.

Devrim

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Which liberal democratic rights have been denied to Australian aboriginals?

These indexes may well be flawed and/or biased but I'm bothered by the cognitive rigidity and anecdotal evidence constantly used by members of revleft. Y'all need to look into what the scientific method is, what methodology is, etc.

Well I think for decades they were put in the "wildlife" section instead of the human one.But If you are talking about today I dont know.

[Illegalitarian]

GDP isn't a real good indicator of development.

It's just a typical mainstream economic indicator completely cold and void of anything human or real, disregarding environmental and human costs of said growth, and even whether or not said growth is even of quality.


It's just growth measuring for the sake of growth measuring, placing quantity over quality.


Didn't Ceausescu build a giant palace for his entire family? hrrrnnng dat GDP growth they must have done well :rolleyes:

[--Navarro--]

I like how Colombia is more democratic than Venezuela.

Because it is.

[Remus Bleys]

Because it is.
Howso? Come on, give a little bit more meat to that post then that.
However, we really shouldn't care how "democratic" a bourgeois state is. Its still the class enemy, and by supporting it more than another state because of "democracy" all you really do is increase the enemies class power.

[Tim Cornelis]

How? The methodology used, is specific in taking this into account.

What list are you looking at? Current GDP (PPP), the countries are still listed in the order I placed them. I think you're talking about the GNI (PPP). Even if so, regions the PRC owns, basically, like Macau and Hong Kong are rated pretty high on the list. Further, while being different in order, all 4 countries still remain in the top 20 (more or less).

GDP PPP per capita.* China is ranked 92nd, if I remember correctly.


Right, but Singapore, Qatar, Norway and Luxemburg come out as the most developed countries by per-capita GDP. USA is around 6-8th on the lists. So, per capita GDP is not an adequate measure, unless someone wants to defend the notion of Qatar being the most developed country on earth.

GDP PPP per capita is not adequate, but it's better than 'just GDP'.


The HDI still rates Norway above the US, Ireland above Japan, Singapore above France and Luxemburg above the UK. I'm not sure that a measure that produces a result like 'Ireland is more developed than Japan' is really useful.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Your reason for rejecting this is intuitive or instinctive, but not backed by any objective and systematically used data.


But I'm happy that the notion of 'development' has been problematised - I think it's an ill-defined concept that needs clarification.

Life expectancy? Literacy? Percentage of population living in poverty? Urbanisation? Are any of these useful measures (though none in themselves provide an adequate measure of 'development')?

All but urbanisation (which is an indication but not a measure of development) are.


Howso? Come on, give a little bit more meat to that post then that.
However, we really shouldn't care how "democratic" a bourgeois state is. Its still the class enemy, and by supporting it more than another state because of "democracy" all you really do is increase the enemies class power.

than*

[--Navarro--]

Howso? Come on, give a little bit more meat to that post then that.


It is way more democratic. Especially since Uribe abided Court's rule rendering him incapable for re-election.

There's a lot more press freedom, separation of powers, political guarantees for opposition, etc.

[Dodo]

For the debate on development-

It is not based on GDP and never was based on GDP. Its not even based on GDP per capita but that is better than GDP.

Developed countries are generally measured by their "productivity" rather than total output. The more productive an economy is the more developed it is considered. Productivity comes with high levels of income, good education,basic needs and health established OR the other way around ,provides surplus for the establishment of those things. Most development economists are in a debate over this(hence social spending, Keynesian thought, demand-driven equal growth vs trickle-down suplply led growth...etc).

Though some people like Amartya Sen added it "happiness" or democratic/social inclusion which are a lot more subjective stuff to measure.