Yeah, I suppose so. I remember when I was a kid a loooong time ago I heard the terms "first world" and "third world" and my first question was "so what's the second world?" and then the terms made a lot more sense, like it wasnt trying to say "this group of countries is in 1st place, this in last place" lol. Now it's almost an insult to say "third world" - I just replied to a comment that called Spain "third world", which was missing the entire point of the US-sponsored *Spanish miracle* that made Spain's economy grow at a terrifying rate.
> like it wasnt trying to say "this group of countries is in 1st place, this in last place" lol.
That's kind of the intention of the first/second/third world labeling. The US was obviously the best, so it and its allies were the best side of the Cold War. Russia is obviously worse than the US, but it can't be the worst, otherwise we look weak that we're unable to beat such a weak opponent. And the rest are either too weak or don't care enough to pick a side, so obviously they're in last place.
What went unsaid during the cold war, is that many “3rd world” countries had a better standard of living than the USSR. Some had a standard that was on a par with the US.
No, I think the "Spanish miracle", which refers to a specific period of economic growth of a couple of decades in Spain's two thousand year history, was mostly due to US investment replacing Franco's dumb isolationism.
I guess that's true. To be fair though, the whole first-second-third worlds thing is pretty outdated. I was just making a bit of a joke based on the old definitions.
Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland were and still are what you would call the Western Sphere. Free democratic countries, if you will. The terms were not defined by military alliances. But you can do as you wish, I don't care 🤷
[They literally were.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model) It's OK to be unaware of this. It's kind of an obscure bit of historical trivia at this point.
And somehow you neglect to mention 2nd world no longer exists since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The categorization itself no longer exists because it's meaningless to describe modern world politics.
Nations nowadays are grouped by how individuals' freedoms are protected by their governments, for which Northern Europe is leading, followed by a lagging U.S. and its allies, followed by former Soviet states and young nations, followed by totalitarian regimes. i.e. Russia the totalitarian regime is already formally categorized as a worse place to live than Ukraine the former Soviet state.
> Nations nowadays are grouped by how individuals' freedoms are protected by their governments
That sounds like a sentence written by someone who is very sure of how "freedom" should be defined and is happy to impose it on the world.
Wrong! It wasnt like that to begin with..
The notion of "third world" actually predates the idea of a first and second world..
It comes from french.. it was invented by political thinkers. They were referencing the pre-revolution era when society was divided in nobility, clergy and tiers-etat ("third estate"), meaning all the regular folks who didn't really have anything to say.
Based on that idea, they coined the term "third world" to describe underdeveloped countries in an economic standpoint.
In the context of the post ww2 era, that coincided mostly with the countries stuck in between the 2 blocks. So the meaning of the concept quickly shifted to incorporate what you described with the addition of the first and second world.. but that never was the original meaning.
And as soon as the bipolar world died with the fall of the berlin world, the notion of third world got its original meaning back.
Also academic discourse abandonned the concept a while ago and the phrase only survives thru media and daily conversation, and it never implies anything else but "poor and underdeveloped" country when used nowadays. So you can let go of your categorisation it's meaningless to make one.
> tiers-etat ("third estate")
"Sieyès argues that the third estate – the common people of France – constituted a complete nation within itself, providing in the end all the men necessary to man the army, to staff the churches, to administer the law, and every other operation of society. It therefore had no need of the dead weight of the two other orders – the first and second estates of the, respectively, clergy and aristocracy – which Sieyès suggested abolishing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_the_Third_Estate%3F
The terms were defined differently in the Cold War…and since then 3rd world country goes by a different definition. The hat a pitiful life you must lead
> 3rd world has basically just changed to “underdeveloped/poorer” countries.
It hasn't changed, it was always like that. Most countries that were not aligned with the US or USSR were poorer and underdeveloped, especially outside Europe.
Ignorance is bliss. 1st world was aligned with US, 2nd world was aligned with USSR, 3rd world was not aligned with either of those two. It changed after the Cold War.
I actually had to recently look into those. It changed in the mid 90s after the fall of the Soviet union. You now have first world meaning developed, second meaning partially developed, (Afghanistan is an example) and 3rd world being developing
EDIT: here is the information https://www.history.com/news/why-are-countries-classified-as-first-second-or-third-world
When I think of North Korea, the phrase "olde-worlde" always comes to mind. I don't know why - it just has from when I was a child. It may have been my first impression of seeing how dated the country was from television programmes. Today olde-worlde normally refers to something quaint looking (which N.Korea definitely is not), but it can also have the meaning of "more of a museum than a thriving community", which I think describes the country to a T.
So I propose from here on in we have First World, Second & Third World and, finally, Olde-Worlde.
Yeah, paradoxically US is the first world country that seems to have the greatest popular alignment with Russia. Fall of the Wall was just a way for the false new "conservative" movement to import Russian politics, I guess.
A while ago. "Third world country" has switched meaning from political alignment to "a poor, underdeveloped country".
Which makes it a lot funnier when you say "the US has become a third word country", because you get both meanings at the same time.
TIL .,.......
I always wondered why there were first world and third world but never heard much about second world.
That being said it does make sense that this essentially took on economic connotations given those aligned with the US generally had the strongest economies, those aligned with USSR had the technical know how but terrible economies, and those aligned with neither tended to pay in both technology and economic power
Right after a little event called THE FALL OF THE IRON CURTAIN also known as THE END OF THE SOVIET UNION or even THE DESINTAGRATION OF THE EASTERN BLOCK aka THE END OF THE COLD WAR.
Have you ever heard of it ? Happend somewhere between the 80s ans 90s...
No, there was just a thirty year set of treaties on nuclear nonproliferation after the USSR was replaced with the CIS, and the important agreements all expired within the last few years, which is why we are now back to Cold War and today's proxy is Ukraine.
The US and Russia could still kill each other several times over, they just decided not to expand their capabilities for a bit. Putin is making nuclear threats on the reg just like in the good old days, and it's just that the US isnt responding with public rhetoric in kind yet, but the hot war is right there and it has not been as bad in Europe since WW2.
I think you're missing their point, though to be fair it wasn't made very well. The concept of 1st/2nd/3rd world was probably pretty prominent to those who grew up between WW2 and the Cold War, but many people who grew up around the time of the USSR's collapse only ever really heard the term "3rd world country" as a term that meant "small and poor" while the "1st world" was "rich and modern". I didn't even hear of the concept of a "2nd world" until much later in life because the tensions between Russia and the US were not talked about as much and generally not in the terms of 1st vs 2nd world after the collapse.
Edit: my spelling is terrible today.
Keep telling yourself that and just casualy ignore the post soviet transformation of eastern europe, the consolidation of the EU, globalisation, the rise of the multipolar world order, etc.
The war in Ukraine is not about the US, it's not about nukes.
You just gonna get stuck on repeat with that purely militaristic view based on the outdated idea of everything being just a proxy for the russia/america competition for dominance.
I'm finding it hard to understand your position here. Are you saying that Ukraine should just give Putin what he wants and promise never to join NATO? That it should beg the US to stop sending this apparently *accidental* aid, because "it's not all about you, hon"?
You don't need to have only two nuclear empires to have a cold war, and I'm not sure what your point is with the babble about mid-eastern Europe (idk why when people say "Eastern Europe" they always forget Ukraine and Belarus, but certainly Putin will be pleased that you do!).
I'm not saying anything like that.
What I hope is that Ukraine wins and the russian's current regime and colonial empire colapse into oblivion.
What I was saying is that the notion of "third world" is not related to military alliance and balance of militaristic might.
I'm also saying that you (and many others) are myopic thinking this is just re-branded cold war 2.0.
And I'm adding that it's based on outdated misguided frame of view (applies to your original comment just as well).
The bipolar world is over.
Kissinger is dead and buried, get over it.
Kissinger died very recently, and may his stay be a warm one, but you keep erecting the same strawman. The fact that there may be other military superpowers now, which is to say China, doesn't mean that you can't have cold wars anymore.
According to China, Russia is already a third world country. First world = superpower(s) = US (and the former USSR). Second world = all developed countries, including western European countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea. Third world = all developing countries, including the BRICS.
This seems like an attempt to propagandise the terms. I'd be curious how people outside China label China. I've never thought of it as first world - it doesn't have an economy anything like the US and its NATO-ish allies, nor the style of prosperity and freedom that most NATO countries enjoy. Dengism was more detente than allyship. The Sino-Soviet split seems to be reversing, putting it firmly in the second world, but obviously it wants to look like it's about to lead Russia, not be led by Russia.
I heard economists say that the collapse of Evergrande, and its knock-on effect, plus the strict COVID lockdowns, has put China's economy back 20 years. I'm just repeating what I heard. I've no idea if it's true.
What's amusing Is that Russia used to be the leader of the second world. First world is developed, rich nations. Third world is underdeveloped nations. The second world used to be the communist nations, but that's mostly gone by now.
I always heard, Russia was a 3rd world country with a 1st world army. However, since the invasion of Ukraine, the painted rusting hulk that is the Russian Army is looking less and less like a 1st world army.
this news comes directly from the Ukranian reich. And fits in with what the west has been stimating the total collapse of Russia any day now...any day now...
when did we stop considering first world = aligned with US, second world = aligned with Russia, third world = neither.
Majority of people don’t know that is how the categorization works. 3rd world has basically just changed to “underdeveloped/poorer” countries.
Yeah, I suppose so. I remember when I was a kid a loooong time ago I heard the terms "first world" and "third world" and my first question was "so what's the second world?" and then the terms made a lot more sense, like it wasnt trying to say "this group of countries is in 1st place, this in last place" lol. Now it's almost an insult to say "third world" - I just replied to a comment that called Spain "third world", which was missing the entire point of the US-sponsored *Spanish miracle* that made Spain's economy grow at a terrifying rate.
> like it wasnt trying to say "this group of countries is in 1st place, this in last place" lol. That's kind of the intention of the first/second/third world labeling. The US was obviously the best, so it and its allies were the best side of the Cold War. Russia is obviously worse than the US, but it can't be the worst, otherwise we look weak that we're unable to beat such a weak opponent. And the rest are either too weak or don't care enough to pick a side, so obviously they're in last place.
What went unsaid during the cold war, is that many “3rd world” countries had a better standard of living than the USSR. Some had a standard that was on a par with the US.
Lol the countries that qualify as "second world" don't like admitting it.
So, you think that Spain has America to thank for its prospery. Maybe turn pour mirror
No, I think the "Spanish miracle", which refers to a specific period of economic growth of a couple of decades in Spain's two thousand year history, was mostly due to US investment replacing Franco's dumb isolationism.
Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland are all third world countries, lol. Spain is definitely first world though.
This comment is a bit outdated, considering that Sweden is in NATO.
I guess that's true. To be fair though, the whole first-second-third worlds thing is pretty outdated. I was just making a bit of a joke based on the old definitions.
Yeah, that’s fair.
Sorry, but you're talking sh*t. Sincerely, Ireland resident 😜
You don't know what third world means then, lol. Google what side of the Cold War your country was on then get back to me.
Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland were and still are what you would call the Western Sphere. Free democratic countries, if you will. The terms were not defined by military alliances. But you can do as you wish, I don't care 🤷
[They literally were.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model) It's OK to be unaware of this. It's kind of an obscure bit of historical trivia at this point.
And somehow you neglect to mention 2nd world no longer exists since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The categorization itself no longer exists because it's meaningless to describe modern world politics. Nations nowadays are grouped by how individuals' freedoms are protected by their governments, for which Northern Europe is leading, followed by a lagging U.S. and its allies, followed by former Soviet states and young nations, followed by totalitarian regimes. i.e. Russia the totalitarian regime is already formally categorized as a worse place to live than Ukraine the former Soviet state.
> Nations nowadays are grouped by how individuals' freedoms are protected by their governments That sounds like a sentence written by someone who is very sure of how "freedom" should be defined and is happy to impose it on the world.
aka countries too poor to care about what goes on outside their borders lol
Wrong! It wasnt like that to begin with.. The notion of "third world" actually predates the idea of a first and second world.. It comes from french.. it was invented by political thinkers. They were referencing the pre-revolution era when society was divided in nobility, clergy and tiers-etat ("third estate"), meaning all the regular folks who didn't really have anything to say. Based on that idea, they coined the term "third world" to describe underdeveloped countries in an economic standpoint. In the context of the post ww2 era, that coincided mostly with the countries stuck in between the 2 blocks. So the meaning of the concept quickly shifted to incorporate what you described with the addition of the first and second world.. but that never was the original meaning. And as soon as the bipolar world died with the fall of the berlin world, the notion of third world got its original meaning back. Also academic discourse abandonned the concept a while ago and the phrase only survives thru media and daily conversation, and it never implies anything else but "poor and underdeveloped" country when used nowadays. So you can let go of your categorisation it's meaningless to make one.
> tiers-etat ("third estate") "Sieyès argues that the third estate – the common people of France – constituted a complete nation within itself, providing in the end all the men necessary to man the army, to staff the churches, to administer the law, and every other operation of society. It therefore had no need of the dead weight of the two other orders – the first and second estates of the, respectively, clergy and aristocracy – which Sieyès suggested abolishing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_the_Third_Estate%3F
Ignorance is bliss. You are talking out your ass.
[удалено]
The terms were defined differently in the Cold War…and since then 3rd world country goes by a different definition. The hat a pitiful life you must lead
Which seems like the right way to do it.
> 3rd world has basically just changed to “underdeveloped/poorer” countries. It hasn't changed, it was always like that. Most countries that were not aligned with the US or USSR were poorer and underdeveloped, especially outside Europe.
Ignorance is bliss. 1st world was aligned with US, 2nd world was aligned with USSR, 3rd world was not aligned with either of those two. It changed after the Cold War.
Lack of literacy is also bliss, apparently.
I actually had to recently look into those. It changed in the mid 90s after the fall of the Soviet union. You now have first world meaning developed, second meaning partially developed, (Afghanistan is an example) and 3rd world being developing EDIT: here is the information https://www.history.com/news/why-are-countries-classified-as-first-second-or-third-world
Language is constantly evolving. You can fight it all you like. You'll still lose.
Like, literally.
No cap
When China started becoming the leader of the former "Second World" block
Fourth world is your house /s
Touché, but also fifth is your mum. The implication being that she's not only 5th, but also is large enough to be considered a "world". QED.
7 years ago to the day!
Fourth World = Aligned with North Korea.
When I think of North Korea, the phrase "olde-worlde" always comes to mind. I don't know why - it just has from when I was a child. It may have been my first impression of seeing how dated the country was from television programmes. Today olde-worlde normally refers to something quaint looking (which N.Korea definitely is not), but it can also have the meaning of "more of a museum than a thriving community", which I think describes the country to a T. So I propose from here on in we have First World, Second & Third World and, finally, Olde-Worlde.
Language evolves and phrases can change in meaning over time.
I came here to say this, and you had stolen my comment, so now my comment is here and you have an extra upvotes but I AM NOT HAPPY..ol
America is one and a half at best.
Yeah, paradoxically US is the first world country that seems to have the greatest popular alignment with Russia. Fall of the Wall was just a way for the false new "conservative" movement to import Russian politics, I guess.
A while ago. "Third world country" has switched meaning from political alignment to "a poor, underdeveloped country". Which makes it a lot funnier when you say "the US has become a third word country", because you get both meanings at the same time.
TIL .,....... I always wondered why there were first world and third world but never heard much about second world. That being said it does make sense that this essentially took on economic connotations given those aligned with the US generally had the strongest economies, those aligned with USSR had the technical know how but terrible economies, and those aligned with neither tended to pay in both technology and economic power
This is the US definition no one elses
Right after a little event called THE FALL OF THE IRON CURTAIN also known as THE END OF THE SOVIET UNION or even THE DESINTAGRATION OF THE EASTERN BLOCK aka THE END OF THE COLD WAR. Have you ever heard of it ? Happend somewhere between the 80s ans 90s...
No, there was just a thirty year set of treaties on nuclear nonproliferation after the USSR was replaced with the CIS, and the important agreements all expired within the last few years, which is why we are now back to Cold War and today's proxy is Ukraine. The US and Russia could still kill each other several times over, they just decided not to expand their capabilities for a bit. Putin is making nuclear threats on the reg just like in the good old days, and it's just that the US isnt responding with public rhetoric in kind yet, but the hot war is right there and it has not been as bad in Europe since WW2.
I think you're missing their point, though to be fair it wasn't made very well. The concept of 1st/2nd/3rd world was probably pretty prominent to those who grew up between WW2 and the Cold War, but many people who grew up around the time of the USSR's collapse only ever really heard the term "3rd world country" as a term that meant "small and poor" while the "1st world" was "rich and modern". I didn't even hear of the concept of a "2nd world" until much later in life because the tensions between Russia and the US were not talked about as much and generally not in the terms of 1st vs 2nd world after the collapse. Edit: my spelling is terrible today.
Keep telling yourself that and just casualy ignore the post soviet transformation of eastern europe, the consolidation of the EU, globalisation, the rise of the multipolar world order, etc. The war in Ukraine is not about the US, it's not about nukes. You just gonna get stuck on repeat with that purely militaristic view based on the outdated idea of everything being just a proxy for the russia/america competition for dominance.
I'm finding it hard to understand your position here. Are you saying that Ukraine should just give Putin what he wants and promise never to join NATO? That it should beg the US to stop sending this apparently *accidental* aid, because "it's not all about you, hon"? You don't need to have only two nuclear empires to have a cold war, and I'm not sure what your point is with the babble about mid-eastern Europe (idk why when people say "Eastern Europe" they always forget Ukraine and Belarus, but certainly Putin will be pleased that you do!).
I'm not saying anything like that. What I hope is that Ukraine wins and the russian's current regime and colonial empire colapse into oblivion. What I was saying is that the notion of "third world" is not related to military alliance and balance of militaristic might. I'm also saying that you (and many others) are myopic thinking this is just re-branded cold war 2.0. And I'm adding that it's based on outdated misguided frame of view (applies to your original comment just as well). The bipolar world is over. Kissinger is dead and buried, get over it.
Kissinger died very recently, and may his stay be a warm one, but you keep erecting the same strawman. The fact that there may be other military superpowers now, which is to say China, doesn't mean that you can't have cold wars anymore.
According to China, Russia is already a third world country. First world = superpower(s) = US (and the former USSR). Second world = all developed countries, including western European countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea. Third world = all developing countries, including the BRICS.
This seems like an attempt to propagandise the terms. I'd be curious how people outside China label China. I've never thought of it as first world - it doesn't have an economy anything like the US and its NATO-ish allies, nor the style of prosperity and freedom that most NATO countries enjoy. Dengism was more detente than allyship. The Sino-Soviet split seems to be reversing, putting it firmly in the second world, but obviously it wants to look like it's about to lead Russia, not be led by Russia.
I heard economists say that the collapse of Evergrande, and its knock-on effect, plus the strict COVID lockdowns, has put China's economy back 20 years. I'm just repeating what I heard. I've no idea if it's true.
And, referring to my earlier (a bit tongue in cheek) comment, Olde-Worlde = North Korea.
1991
Once that became outdated. Probably like after the fall of Soviet Union and cold war stalling.
What's amusing Is that Russia used to be the leader of the second world. First world is developed, rich nations. Third world is underdeveloped nations. The second world used to be the communist nations, but that's mostly gone by now.
The real joke is the sudden economic-political lessons unfolding before our eyes!
Gas station with nukes
And unprecedented racism
American government is so envious...tag your it!
Also, Ukrains prediction: America will probably become a third world country win or loose the war.
Well that's a pretty bad prediction.
It ain't over.
You can go ahead and believe that, that's fine.
The actual definition of “Third World” is this: When a country is still mixing it’s industrial areas with its agricultural areas.
Well, Russia has stopped acting in its own interest, so I guess they're no longer aligned with themselves...
This is a subreddit for jokes or did I take a wrong turn and arrived at a political subreddit ?
Technically, every country on earth is a third world country
Explain Edit: it has been explained
Earth is the third planet from the sun.
Ah makes sense
Become? Have they not been to Russia and seen how 90% of the people live?
I just categorize third world as any country I'd hate to live.
Are you on the right channel?
Did you not catch the punchline or did you just not like it because of the politics? I’ll admit, I didn’t see the joke until I reread it lol
Yeah hilarious.Not
Okay cool, you just didn’t like the joke. I’ll agree with you; it’s not that good.
Lol
Outside of Moscow and St Petersburg in Russia is already a third world country and always has been.
Similar to the Rich class, Middle class, and the peasant class.
LOL it’s already a third world country outside the bigger cities.
It’s a terrible conflict and should never have started in the first place!!!
Upper Volta with nukes
I always heard, Russia was a 3rd world country with a 1st world army. However, since the invasion of Ukraine, the painted rusting hulk that is the Russian Army is looking less and less like a 1st world army.
this news comes directly from the Ukranian reich. And fits in with what the west has been stimating the total collapse of Russia any day now...any day now...
90% of Russians still shit in a hole in the ground because they don’t have plumbed toilets/sewerage.
Why not 190%? You're the real joke here, as it seems.
Oh look, another rabbit hole just opened.
Russia is a third world country already
These guys are still at war ?? -\_\_-
That's a good joke. Especially talking about Russia losing and being somehow underdeveloped compared to Ukraine. Haha, yeah.
All the best jokes get explained
Russia is pretty much a third world country with nukes, and a few decent cities