3 ms·
Yes it's true that "Third World" originally was a political term that meant non-aligned. However it was non-aligned nations that started using the term themsel
by nl 4y ago
Yes it's true that "Third World" originally was a political term that meant non-aligned.
However it was non-aligned nations that started using the term themselves in conjunction with poverty to highlight the issues they were facing. Although slightly different, Mao's "Three Worlds Theory" included China in the "Third World" as an "exploited nation" (whereas under purely political terms it was a "Second World" nation because of its communist government)
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoAfter the Sino-Soviet split, China would have been considered third world, like communist Albania was canonically considered. Any country not in the USA or USSRs orbit was technically third world even if communist.
- nl 4y agoI don't think it was as cut and dried as that. To quote Wikipedia: By the end of the 1960s, the idea of the Third World came to represent countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that were considered underdeveloped by the West based on a variety of characteristics (low economic development, low life expectancy, high rates of poverty and disease, etc.). For example, I agree China was usually considered Third World but so was Cuba (despite being Soviet aligned). And as far as I know Yugoslavia was never considered Third World despite it not being Soviet or US aligned. I guess my argument is that whilst Third World initially was a political label is turned into an economic one so quickly that the political aspects were mostly ignored. Instead terms like "non-aligned block" were mostly used in the political sphere to designate what "Third World" originally meant.