If there is a "third world," what are the first two?
Asked by
anartist (
14813
)
June 20th, 2010
At one time, the “first world” meant the US and its allies [particularly in Europe], the “second world” meant the USSR and its allies, and the “third world” meant the non-aligned nations the first two worlds wanted to align with themselves. Since the fall of the USSR, “first world” has come to mean “highly industrialized nations” and “third world” means “under-developed countries.” What is “under-developed”? Does that mean they don’t have nuclear power? Or that they are not highly industrialized? And what of the vanished “second world”? Where does China fit in? Ir India? Or Thailand? Can the “second world” still be classified as non-democratic? As non-allied to the “West”? Aren’t Japan and Australia allied with the “West”? And maybe India? Inquiring minds want to know.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
19 Answers
It was terminology from the cold war. The first world was countires in NATO ie the “West”. The Second world was countries in the Societ block ie the USSR. China was a second world country but the whole thing is a bit out of date now.
Now we use the term “BRIC” to mean the economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China. That might be close.
@worriedguy We still use “third world”—whi’s in it?
And would BRIC be the “second world” then? What does BRIC stand for?
@Lightlyseared I know [reread the Q]. But we still use the term “third world.” So what does that mean if there is no first or second world?
As it’s been explained to me, the countries between 1st world and 3rd world – such as China and India – are called “developing nations”. As I’ve always understood the phrase, it has to do more with industrialization and a stable infrastructure. I don’t know of any hard-and-fast rules or definitions, but that definition has always done well enough for me to understand what they’re talking about on NPR.
@anartist OK so the terms originated in the cold war, with the “third world” meaning countries that weren’t on one side or the other. In the 1980’s the term “third world” was used in a different context to point out the extreme difference between the richest “first world” and poorest “third world” nations. Going by the original meaning countries such as Dubai and the UAE are “third world” countries despited being considerably better off than most “first world” countries. The new terminology doesn’t have a “second world”.
There’s now a term: “Fourth World” to describe counties that are economically dead and going nowhere. Places like Haiti, Zimbabwe and Turkmenistan. The “Third World” description given to countries that are underdeveloped but developing. In soldier-speak, “turd world” was any place without modern sanitary facilities.
@anartist what makes you think that logic has anything to do with this?
I like this question in that it could be a precursor to what econonists and scholars have been saying for quite some time now, that there will be no middle-class. Only the very rich and the very poor in the world and nothing in between.
Most journalists have now switched to using ‘developing countries’ or simply the section of the world they are located in. The term third world is old fashioned.
I should document on the threat what @anartist discussed by PM. The most likely “second world” today are countries that have industrialization, yet lag behind in standard of living: eastern Europe, some South American nations, China and India. Some of these countries are quite advanced, but are held back by a large, poor population and high birth rates. Some nations, like the oil states, may have a high GDP but it’s not distributed throughout the population.
Some of these “second world” states will always be held back as long as their governments discourage individual initiative at all levels (China and Russia prime examples), or where an elite skims off most of the wealth, leaving ordinary people with little (South America, Asia and increasingly the US).
“Who’s got the nukes” is not a major determinant factor in world power; as these things are now viewed as terror weapons. Power has now shifted back to the 19th century model of control of shipping lanes and ability to project military force anywhere in the world. Any two-bit dictatorship can have nuclear weapons now, if the leaders are willing to bankrupt the economy and risk embargo (North Korea and Iran examples). We’re back to physical protection of trade as the determinant factor of power. The US is the only nation in the world with a navy big enough to do this, for now. Of course the US is in the position the UK was 100 years ago, king of the hill but can’t afford to maintain that power.
I should clarify that nuclear weapons are only terrorist devices as long as some power (like the US) maintains a large stockpile of them, the ability to deliver them anywhere and the determination to use them against any rogue nation that dares use them. If the “big stick” is abandoned, all bets are off.
In terms of economic power, the world is divided into three: those that have a high standard of living, those that are headed there and those going nowhere. The old terminology of “First, second and third worlds” in their original meanings, died with the breakup of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.
Under developed means they do not use 120,000+ million barrels of oil a day !
We can still use 1st, 2nd, 3rd world countries if we use stranger_in_a_strange_land’s answer:
“In terms of economic power, the world is divided into three: those that have a high standard of living, those that are headed there and those going nowhere. The old terminology of “First, second and third worlds” in their original meanings, died with the breakup of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.”
Sorry that my last answer wandered all over the place. Late night and too much Labatts Blue. @MaryW managed to say all that I did in one paragraph, uberGA and Welcome to Fluther!
Developed, emerging, developing. 1, 2, 3.
‘emerging’ is better than ‘developing’? I would have thought the other way around.
Well, terminology can be a tricky thing. Banks talk about emerging markets. The BRIC countries for example are no longer seen as developing countries. Niger, Zimbabwe and Somalia still are.
well semantics—i guess if the banks say it it has to be true —but ‘emerging markets’ and ‘emerging countries’ seem different things. “Emerging” to me suggests stepping out of the stone age or the jungle or something and beginning to adopt modern ways, while “developing ” suggests progress along that route.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
