4 ms·

« what you want to read into it » I wanted to provide a counter point, or rather, a more balanced and self-conscious vision. As to your definition of what "thi

by Lumich 2mo ago

« what you want to read into it » I wanted to provide a counter point, or rather, a more balanced and self-conscious vision. As to your definition of what "third world" meant, that's not how I remember it (but I grew up in West Germany, and the GDR may have defined terms differently). The "third world", according to the Western definition, definitely were those countries that were poor (and also perceived as primitive and culturally backwards, so the term eventually came to be seen as stigmatizing, at least with left-leaning people). What you're referring to, the unaligned countries/states, were called "blockfreie Staaten", and they were not "promoted" in Western propaganda as featuring "despots", but still could end up being bombed (democratically), like founder state Yugoslaviya. But it is also true that many "third world" countries joined the block-free group, so there is considerable overlap.

flohofwoe 2mo ago
It's quite literally the "western definition" of Third World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World Do you think the Soviets would have called the US aligned countries "First World"? ;) The more 'correct' term for that modern/popular meaning of 3rd world is 'developing countries' (or in German "Entwicklungslaender"). But tbh, I have no idea when, how and why the transition from 'politically unaligned country' to 'underdeveloped country' happened in the modern popular opinion - the Wikipedia article has some ideas though - but tbh I would never have considered Cold Ware era Cuba or Vietnam to be "3rd world countries", and after 1990 the whole idea behind those "three worlds" has lost all meaning anyway, and especially after China had entered the chat. Yugoslavia and Albania are more interesting cases though indeed, at least Yugoslavia tried to play both sides during the cold war, while Albania started as a very close Soviet ally but then moved towards China and then eventually ending up as completely isolationist. Also as a clear example for a '2nd world despot' look at Romania's Ceausescu, and for examples of '1st world despots' look at Spain under Franco (easy to forget that Spain was a fascist dictatorship until the 1970s), or Chile under Pinochet.
- WhereIsTheTruth 2mo ago
  The definition has shifted towards socioeconomic descriptor, nobody uses the old definition because it's no longer WW2
  - flohofwoe 2mo ago
    > nobody uses the old definition because it's no longer WW2 These are Cold War terms (post WW2). And for the Cold War era it makes sense to use the original meaning. IMHO the term "3rd world country" shouldn't be used in the first place when talking about the time after the early 1990s though. It's misleading and the "modern" meaning comes with a hefty whiff of implied racism/colonialism.
    - WhereIsTheTruth 2mo ago
      I agree
- Lumich 2mo ago
  « quite literally » – Not what I remember, but okay, that may have been the original meaning before I "entered the chat". Then, it was associated with hunger, poverty, misery. I remember distinctly. « Do you think the Soviets » – Right, that was silly. They had their own propaganda. « Spain was a fascist dictatorship until the 1970s » – It seems the worst thing they ever did was aiding and abetting the U.S. Air Force. Certainly shameful, but then again "not a unique selling proposition" in Europe.
- elzbardico 2mo ago
  The Soviet didn't use this numerical terminology usually, but rather a categorical/ideological distinct classifications: - Socialist Countries (only the developed ones) - Developed Capitalist Countries - Developing Countries(Развивающиеся страны). (with a secondary subdivision for countries in a "non-capitalist path of development", a.k.a. non developed socialist countries) In more ideologically charged contexts, the Developed Capitalist Countries could be called the Imperialist Camp.
mdp2021 2mo ago
> As to your definition of what "third world" meant, that's not how I remember it And the reading you adopted is a simplified superstition. The expression 'Tiers Monde' was coined by academician Alfred Sauvy in an article on l'Observateur (14 August 1952), to express that the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class that will demand a better position. > Nous parlons volontiers des deux mondes en présence, de leur guerre possible, de leur coexistence, etc., oubliant trop souvent qu’il en existe un troisième, le plus important, et en somme, le premier dans la chronologie. C’est l’ensemble de ceux que l’on appelle, en style Nations Unies, les pays sous-développés. [...] Ce qui importe à chacun des deux mondes, c’est de conquérir le troisième ou du moins de l’avoir de son côté. Et de là viennent tous les troubles de la coexistence. [...] Car enfin ce Tiers Monde ignoré, exploité, méprisé comme le Tiers Etat, veut, lui aussi, être quelque chose. http://www.homme-moderne.org/societe/demo/sauvy/3mondes.html http://www.homme-moderne.org/societe/demo/sauvy/3mondes.html The expression 'Tiers Monde', which works as "the part to remember in the opposition of the two blocks at war", is coined mirroring the 1789 pamphlet of Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès "Qu'est-ce que le Tiers-État ?": «Que demande-t-il [le Tiers-État] ? À devenir quelque chose». And Sauvy stresses that the same rise is coming in the global context.
- Lumich 2mo ago
  « the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class » — That's the economic (rather than political) definition right there in 1952. Les pays sous-développés … et aussi exploités … le Tiers État.
  - iririririr 2mo ago
    it's nice that you trying to get to the bottom of your understanding on this. But let me join mdp2021 and flohofwoe. The mistake is that the quote you pulled was already showing the historical revisionism that you inherited, but maybe not as explicitly. it say "the under developed countries, to say it using the style of the UN". So it is already pointed out as a forced and politically loaded term. See how those things start?
  - 2mo ago

by Lumich 2mo ago

flohofwoe 2mo ago

It's quite literally the "western definition" of Third World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World Do you think the Soviets would have called the US aligned countries "First World"? ;) The more 'correct' term for that modern/popular meaning of 3rd world is 'developing countries' (or in German "Entwicklungslaender"). But tbh, I have no idea when, how and why the transition from 'politically unaligned country' to 'underdeveloped country' happened in the modern popular opinion - the Wikipedia article has some ideas though - but tbh I would never have considered Cold Ware era Cuba or Vietnam to be "3rd world countries", and after 1990 the whole idea behind those "three worlds" has lost all meaning anyway, and especially after China had entered the chat. Yugoslavia and Albania are more interesting cases though indeed, at least Yugoslavia tried to play both sides during the cold war, while Albania started as a very close Soviet ally but then moved towards China and then eventually ending up as completely isolationist. Also as a clear example for a '2nd world despot' look at Romania's Ceausescu, and for examples of '1st world despots' look at Spain under Franco (easy to forget that Spain was a fascist dictatorship until the 1970s), or Chile under Pinochet.

WhereIsTheTruth 2mo ago
The definition has shifted towards socioeconomic descriptor, nobody uses the old definition because it's no longer WW2
- flohofwoe 2mo ago
  > nobody uses the old definition because it's no longer WW2 These are Cold War terms (post WW2). And for the Cold War era it makes sense to use the original meaning. IMHO the term "3rd world country" shouldn't be used in the first place when talking about the time after the early 1990s though. It's misleading and the "modern" meaning comes with a hefty whiff of implied racism/colonialism.
  - WhereIsTheTruth 2mo ago
    I agree
Lumich 2mo ago
« quite literally » – Not what I remember, but okay, that may have been the original meaning before I "entered the chat". Then, it was associated with hunger, poverty, misery. I remember distinctly. « Do you think the Soviets » – Right, that was silly. They had their own propaganda. « Spain was a fascist dictatorship until the 1970s » – It seems the worst thing they ever did was aiding and abetting the U.S. Air Force. Certainly shameful, but then again "not a unique selling proposition" in Europe.
elzbardico 2mo ago
The Soviet didn't use this numerical terminology usually, but rather a categorical/ideological distinct classifications: - Socialist Countries (only the developed ones) - Developed Capitalist Countries - Developing Countries(Развивающиеся страны). (with a secondary subdivision for countries in a "non-capitalist path of development", a.k.a. non developed socialist countries) In more ideologically charged contexts, the Developed Capitalist Countries could be called the Imperialist Camp.

mdp2021 2mo ago

> As to your definition of what "third world" meant, that's not how I remember it And the reading you adopted is a simplified superstition. The expression 'Tiers Monde' was coined by academician Alfred Sauvy in an article on l'Observateur (14 August 1952), to express that the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class that will demand a better position. > Nous parlons volontiers des deux mondes en présence, de leur guerre possible, de leur coexistence, etc., oubliant trop souvent qu’il en existe un troisième, le plus important, et en somme, le premier dans la chronologie. C’est l’ensemble de ceux que l’on appelle, en style Nations Unies, les pays sous-développés. [...] Ce qui importe à chacun des deux mondes, c’est de conquérir le troisième ou du moins de l’avoir de son côté. Et de là viennent tous les troubles de la coexistence. [...] Car enfin ce Tiers Monde ignoré, exploité, méprisé comme le Tiers Etat, veut, lui aussi, être quelque chose. http://www.homme-moderne.org/societe/demo/sauvy/3mondes.html http://www.homme-moderne.org/societe/demo/sauvy/3mondes.html The expression 'Tiers Monde', which works as "the part to remember in the opposition of the two blocks at war", is coined mirroring the 1789 pamphlet of Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès "Qu'est-ce que le Tiers-État ?": «Que demande-t-il [le Tiers-État] ? À devenir quelque chose». And Sauvy stresses that the same rise is coming in the global context.

Lumich 2mo ago
« the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class » — That's the economic (rather than political) definition right there in 1952. Les pays sous-développés … et aussi exploités … le Tiers État.
- iririririr 2mo ago
  it's nice that you trying to get to the bottom of your understanding on this. But let me join mdp2021 and flohofwoe. The mistake is that the quote you pulled was already showing the historical revisionism that you inherited, but maybe not as explicitly. it say "the under developed countries, to say it using the style of the UN". So it is already pointed out as a forced and politically loaded term. See how those things start?
- 2mo ago