> I'm somewhat okay with "developing" because the term is easier to understand: some countries are less developed than others. Plus the terms are fluid. If a country becomes developed enough then they switch labels.

"Developing" what, and to what end? The term itself sounds absolute, where in fact it implies a relative order, but doesn't give away what (arbitrary) properties you include in the comparison.

Take Gross National Happiness or the Happy Planet Index, for example. You could very well call countries with a low but slowly rising GNH "developing countries". USA is 122/152 in the HPI, which sounds about right, and probably not "developing" but declining.

The point is that the imperial West defines what is "good" and "bad", and from that point of reference uses terminology that implies an absoluteness; as another example, as if "long life" is a universal goal of humanity, when in fact other cultures prioritize community over individuals. (There's no point in valuing a "long life" when you believe in reincarnation.)

To discriminate between developed and developing countries also means you assume some countries are somewhat "finished" where others can play "catch up", which is not how global economies actually work: Capitalism requires winners and losers.

I come, rob your house, take away most of what you have, and call you "savage". I then give you "development aid", telling you how to spend it and make you dependent on my services and "assistance", calling you "developing". How does that feel? Are we interacting on eye level, or am I looking down on you?

▲

mc32 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think migration patterns by people are a good indication of what people on the ground see as superior and inferior choices.

Slow and steady with a plan like Singapore or Taiwan wins the race. Shortcuts, seeking aid from China or the IMF only benefits the local caudilloes.

▲

rendx 4 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, you turn my home into a warzone and I have to flee, plus I may buy into your propaganda of a better life, so surely that's a good indication of... what? Developed vs. developing?

I'd perhaps call that cynicism.

▲

mc32 4 days ago | parent [-]

Good governance helps a lot even if you had previously suffered invasion, we’re occupied or were a colony: see Taiwan (invaded, occupied), Panama (invaded), USA (colony and invaded subsequently).

It’s doable but people will have to want it. It doesn’t come free and it doesn’t come by listening to charlatans like Marx and his peddlers who promise utopia at no cost but the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. From then on it should be all roses in a land of milk and honey. No, sorry, it takes lots of work, delayed gratification and multi-generational effort to get to a good place like Singapore did or even Chile relatively speaking. You need someone with strong singular vision a a populace willing to follow it through. Why even Salvador after decades of civil war is able to overcome its difficulties and now enjoy great personal safety -the best in the western hemisphere. A country doesn’t have to stay stuck in a bad place.

	▲	rendx 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		This perspective ignores the relationships and influence of other players inside and (even more) outside of the country. It is not "someone with strong singular vision". Specifically, historically, if the USA does not want you to prosper (because your independence threatens their objectives), you will not.