Your Logical Fallacy de Jour

The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were used to divide the nations of Earth into three broad categories. The three terms did not arise simultaneously. After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the “Western bloc” and the “Eastern bloc.” The two “worlds” were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in the 1950s this latter group came to be called the Third World. It then began to seem that there ought to be a “First World” and a “Second World” (see Third World for a fuller treatment of the history of the terms).

Eventually, it became common practice to refer to nations within the Western European and United States’ sphere of influence (e.g., the NATO countries) as the First World. Besides North America (USA and Canada) and Western Europe, the First World also included other industrialized capitalist countries such as Japan and some of the former British colonies, particularly Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

There were a number of countries that did not fit comfortably into this neat definition of partition, including Switzerland, Sweden, and the Republic of Ireland, who chose to be neutral. Finland was under the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence but was not communist, nor was it a member of the Warsaw Pact. Austria was under the United States’ sphere of influence, but in 1955, when the country became a fully independent republic, it did so under the condition that it remain neutral. Turkey, which joined NATO in 1952, was not predominantly in Western Europe and was not industrialized. Spain did not join NATO until 1982, towards the end of the Cold War and after the death of the authoritarian dictator Francisco Franco.

In recent years, as many “developing” countries have industrialized, the term Fourth World has been coined to refer to countries that have lagged behind and still lack industrial infrastructure.

Eventually, it became common practice (though not in the United Kingdom and only infrequently in the United States) to refer to nations within the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence (e.g. the Warsaw Pact countries) as the Second World. Besides the Soviet Union proper, most of Eastern Europe was run by satellite governments working closely with Moscow. The term “Second world” may or may not also refer to Communist countries whose leadership were at odds with Moscow, i.e., Albania, China and Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia, a communist east European country, was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Albania was a communist east European country which withdrew from the Warsaw Pact over ideological differences in 1968 and had stopped supporting the Pact as early as 1962.

Alternatively, First World countries may be defined as having developed market economies, Second World as having developed planned economies, and Third World as having developing economies that may follow either the market or (less often) the planned model, often characterized more by many features in common with feudalistic economies, than by either free-market or planned economies.

In recent years, as many “developing” countries have industrialized, the term Fourth World has been coined to refer to countries that have lagged behind and still lack industrial infrastructure.

Third World was a term first coined by Jawaharlal Nehru (First Prime Minister of India), originally to distinguish nations that aligned with neither the West or with the East during the Cold War, including many members of the Non-Aligned Movement. Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status. However, there is no objective definition of Third World or Third World country and the use of the term remains controversial. Latin America, for instance, is usually considered Third World although a few Latin American countries have a human development index above some central European countries which are not considered Third World. In general, Third World countries are not as industrialized or technologically advanced as OECD countries.

Terms such as Global South, developing countries, least developed countries and the Majority World have become more popular in many circles, to the potentially offensive and out of date connoations of descriving a ‘Third’ world. Development workers also call them the two-thirds world (because two-thirds of the world is underdeveloped) and The South. However, some dislike the term developing countries as it may imply that economic development (industrialisation) is the only way forward, while they believe it is not necessarily the most beneficial. The term Third World is also disliked as it may imply the false notion that those countries are not a part of the global economic system. Some note that the underdevelopment of Africa, Asia and South America during the Cold War was influenced, or even caused by the Cold War economic, political, and military maneuverings of the most powerful nations of the time.

The term Fourth World is used by some writers to describe the poorest Third World countries, those which lack industrial infrastructure and the means to build it. More commonly, however, the term is used to describe indigenous peoples or other oppressed minority groups within First World countries.

No, that was from Wikipedia but I just trimmed it down.

I think it would be more reasonable to think of countries in terms of two ‘developed’ categories — economics and politically — because we unfortunately tend to lump together countries that aren’t similar. Developed economically and politically (Western nations), undeveloped politically & developed economically (China), developed politically & undeveloped economically (lots of Latin American and South American countries), and undeveloped economically and politically (lots of Africa, Asia).