You're absolutely right, this dependence is most definitely deliberate, and I'd go as far as saying it extends to almost all undeveloped countries. It's international collusion of the bourgeois class, the same way each country has its own local collusion scheme. The name for this particularly odious sort of ruling class is comprador elites.
Have you noticed how few non-communist countries developed since the first half of the 20th century? As far as I can tell, only 7: Iceland, Ireland, Finland, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong (not really a country but still). Save for the first 2, all had a serious communist threat, and barring Singapore, the remaining were right at the Red Menace's borders. The West had a very clear interest in aiding these countries' development. Past those 7, there isn't even the smell of development outside of China. The undeveloped countries of the late Cold War are still no closer to full development now. All of it, including us, are stuck in that eternal crawl, which is tantamount to standing still as far as capitalism goes. It requires a little bit of growth just to stay the same size, so to speak, and almost the entire world is in that stage now, which is perfectly fine for the rich nations but sucks shit for everyone else.
Yet that's exactly how the non-developed world has spent the last several decades. To develop, a country must grow quicker than that "upkeep" growth, and, to the best of my knowledge, China is the only undeveloped country doing so as of now and, for that matter, the only one which has been doing so ever since South Korea reached first world status. None of the other ~160 are actually improving, and I mean improving in a real sense, as opposed to finally reaching the blissful utopia of the fucking Iron Age, to the loud cheer of bougies everywhere touting it as another proof of capitalist superiority, by finally erradicating smallpox or some other shit which should and could
have been achieved a century ago.
This can't possibly be ascribed purely to incapacity. Among the nations outside of the developed world and China totalling 5 billion souls, not a single one is capable of so much as starting
to develop? This is bullshit. We in Brazil now know for a fact that our ruling classes not only aren't leading the country to development, but aren't even trying, and indeed, it's not an exaggeration to say they're opposed
to it. This isn't simple dependence, because that would imply the dependent party can actually stop being dependent. This international capitalist pyramid is almost perfectly still, as if a finished monument, one which can be said to have started been built at the early 1800s or so. At some point, those on top became aware of this and have since then been doing their best to keep it that way. And they have done so with impressive success, really. The amount of changes they made to it are minimal. Since the 1800s, they allowed a few Eastern countries in, and that's pretty much it. This is one aspect of the first wave of leftist rebellion which isn't appreciated enough: socialism was the only
chance of development any country outside of that core had. Had
. China's lonely journey to development is a legacy of their participation in that, because if they were to try to start their path to development today and open up to the world to kickstart that endeavor, they wouldn't get a Nixon shaking hands with a Mao, they would get bombs and a puppet government, and that would be it. (Yeah, I know, no direct war because of nukes, this is an allegory in that they would have the entire rest of the world undermining it.)
This international capitalist pyramid is one of those things we know to be true, yet don't really acknowledge, do we? The international capitalist pyramid is as real as the national one, but it seems to be ignored as an entity. This arrangement doesn't even have a name that I know of. I half-jokingly call it New World Order, because, despite the name, that agreement was only the quasi-formalization of what had been in place since the 1800s, with the aforementioned few changes. And it's absolutely vital to note that the ruling elites of all "non-rogue" countries have roles in it, including those of the undeveloped countries. They're absolutely crucial, being the local enforcers of an unjust scheme, a role they agree to pay in return for limited participation in the global halls of power, which, admittedly, is a tempting offer, because the alternative, to try to have your country join the leading ranks, will meet the opposition of all ranks. Again, notice how, outside of the 7 exceptions, the path to development necessarily was the one on the left, and, it should be said, the path on the left was opened at all solely because the world powers were too exhausted by WW1 to completely block it by killing the revolution in its crib. Does anyone have the slightest doubt that, had it happened during a time of peace in Europe, the Russian Revolution would have been smothered to death instantly? Fuck, Porky never abandoned that dream, see the infamous Operation Unthinkable, another brainchild of history's greatest expert on failing upwards, Churchill. (If I'm to be frank, I kind of wish Porky had thrown the dice, because communism was at its peak of popularity all accross Europe and the USSR was the only non-neutral country there with any war capacity left, and wouldn't have stopped until the Red Army reached the Bay of Biscay.)
Nowadays, people mock you if you say the rich nations work against us and our shots at development, as if they had nothing to win from that. This is a direct reflection on an international level of the tired old propaganda about rich people wanting
everyone else to be rich, and both of them place the blame for poverty squarely on the victim's shoulder. The fallacy there is that this is not an either-or scenario; the state of poverty can persist both by lack of capacity and by external action, and that's exactly the case when it comes to national development. Among the nations of 5 billion souls, there are certainly plenty which couldn't start developing anytime soon even if they had the NWO's greenlight for any number of reasons. I won't venture into hypotheticals to estimate the proportion of those unfortunate countries, but it's undeniable that there are some which have the material factors necessary, and it's just as undeniable that every single one of them, regardless of capacity, does not have the permission to do so. Brazil possibly has been the world's prime candidate for development for well past a century now. It may very well be that we lack the non-material capacity for it, and our elites' performance on everything else does hint at them being too inept to put the country on the path of development. But capacity isn't even a factor, because they lack the will
and the international consent
for it. To be perfectly frank, I think the consent of international porkies is something which can be arranged. They certainly don't want another power player in the global arena, but if there's something in it for them, they could accept a deal -- cue the quote about them selling us rope. What simply cannot be solved with reason, nor with anything but violence, is the Brazilian porkies' opposition to it, and I present the past 5 years as ironclad evidence that any hope for peaceful development is vain. The only way our ruling classes could make this more clear would be by buying out the entire ad interval of the biggest primetime soap opera to state so in language even a retard could understand, then use the next five minutes to show the most porcine-looking bastards ever ostentating their obscene wealth while laughing at the camera. If there is one single concept I could drill into the head of every Brazilian, it is this: there may be a million reasons for our chronic undevelopment, but the most important one of them all is as simple as it is undeniable: our elites don't want the country to improve, and our prosperity necessitates their end.