Talk:Second World: Difference between revisions
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
[[User:Mikiemike|Mikiemike]] ([[User talk:Mikiemike|talk]]) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)-- |
[[User:Mikiemike|Mikiemike]] ([[User talk:Mikiemike|talk]]) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)-- |
||
:Perhaps, but China is still a commy joint. Anyway, that all misses the point. The terms first, second and third world were indeed apt descriptions in the Cold War but many believe they still retain their meanings even after the elimination of that hideous Soviet system. Second world means that a country lacks a universally (i.e., nationwide) high potential for wealth and it |
:Perhaps, but China is still a commy joint. Anyway, that all misses the point. The terms first, second and third world were indeed apt descriptions in the Cold War but many believe they still retain their meanings even after the elimination of that hideous Soviet system. Second world means that a country lacks a universally (i.e., nationwide) high potential for wealth and it lacks universally high standard of living, owing mostly to the lack of freedom (at least economically speaking). Note that this does not mean that first world countries lack poverty. I know that these defintions are nefarious and seem a bit rubbery, but we all know what they mean just like we all know what 'common-sense' means without being able to nail it down. Put it this way: you couldn't get rich in Soviet Hungary but you can sure get rich now in Hungary; people eat well in Hungary but used to stand in line for moldy bread; Hungary is now first world (congrats!). The lack of freedom and incumbent lack of opportunity for entrepreneurship still define second world still today. China is included (and always will be as a commy outfit), and so is Pakistan, Bolivia, Syria, Mexico; these are all places where rags-to-riches stories are as rare as the demegogue-turned-tinpot-dictator stories are common. Anywhere that the average family queues up for government bread is second world country. See the point? |
||
Revision as of 20:56, 16 February 2008
 | Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | International relations Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Move request
Somebody please move this page to Second World, or either change the article references to world, uncapitalized. —Cantus…☎ 05:17, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
vandalism
Someone needs to elaborate on what Nikolaj's world is ? - A Cursory glance at google and i cant work out what it is. 19.25, April 21, 2006 (GMT)
- It was a vandal/joke that escaped notice! It's gone now. - DavidWBrooks 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I removed some more vadalism :/ Quote- "Gayness
I have come to the sense that this might be a trait of thrid world countries? Anyone agree? Third world countries do have higher GNP (Gay Number of People). Please consider."
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ararf (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Economy
The last paragraph of the History section seems quite out of date - it should be added that many of former Soviet bloc countries switched to market economies (more or less). After all quite a few Central-Eastern European countries joined the European Union in 2004.
- "The term "Second World" has largely fallen out of use because the circumstances to which it referred largely ended with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union" - which implies that everything we talk about is in the past. But I'll see about switching some verb tenses to make it clearer. - DavidWBrooks 11:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Map
Perchè non ci sono l'Argentina e il Cile tra i Paesi del primo mondo e c'è il Sud Africa
translation(?) Why not there are the Argentine and Chile between the Countries of the first world and is the South Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.97.56 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Why the map includes Yugoslavia as Second World, when it portrayed itself as "the leader of the Third World"? (as political category) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
4th World
The comment on the 4th world is confusing. The page for 4th world says that it is a term for those nations at the bottom of the barrel of the HDI, not partway between 1st and 3rd world.
- I remember a high school teacher telling our class (sometime in the early 1980's) that the Fourth World is the non-industrialised wealthy oil producing Middle East. Roger (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"Sphere of influence"
Just because China is communist does not mean it was strongly influenced by the former soviet union, nor is it now. This is becoming more apparent as those parts of the world are changing. Mikiemike (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)--
- Perhaps, but China is still a commy joint. Anyway, that all misses the point. The terms first, second and third world were indeed apt descriptions in the Cold War but many believe they still retain their meanings even after the elimination of that hideous Soviet system. Second world means that a country lacks a universally (i.e., nationwide) high potential for wealth and it lacks universally high standard of living, owing mostly to the lack of freedom (at least economically speaking). Note that this does not mean that first world countries lack poverty. I know that these defintions are nefarious and seem a bit rubbery, but we all know what they mean just like we all know what 'common-sense' means without being able to nail it down. Put it this way: you couldn't get rich in Soviet Hungary but you can sure get rich now in Hungary; people eat well in Hungary but used to stand in line for moldy bread; Hungary is now first world (congrats!). The lack of freedom and incumbent lack of opportunity for entrepreneurship still define second world still today. China is included (and always will be as a commy outfit), and so is Pakistan, Bolivia, Syria, Mexico; these are all places where rags-to-riches stories are as rare as the demegogue-turned-tinpot-dictator stories are common. Anywhere that the average family queues up for government bread is second world country. See the point?