Conference thebay::joyoflex

        Roger,
              I think you're right if we consider the other
              connotations of "Third World" such as poverty,
              underdevelopment etc...
              If it means unaligned then Switzerland falls 
              into the category but unless there are a lot
              of undernourished bankers I don't think that
              it's a very appropriate definition.
                                                 Max 

	Max, I was looking at it from a _logical_ viewpoint;
    	ie you can replace "communist" with "southern" or
    	anything else.
       
    	If something is not A, and not non-A, it doesn't
    	exist, right ? 
       
    	I feel the definition is meaningless, as a result 
    	of using a style (logical/mathematical) which is 
     	not appropriate. One could expect something better
        from the American Heritage Dictionary.
    
    	Is there anyone who does not agree nor disagree ?
    
    		roger
    
    

>    	If something is not A, and not non-A, it doesn't
>    	exist, right ? 

    Right.  However, there are more than two states here: allied with the
    Communists, allied with the non-Communists, and allied with neither.

    -Jim

re. .-1:

>	Max, I was looking at it from a _logical_ viewpoint;
>    	ie you can replace "communist" with "southern" or
>    	anything else.
>       
>    	If something is not A, and not non-A, it doesn't
>    	exist, right ? 
>

Yeah, but that's okay.  Consider something like:

	"Roger does not have brown eyes and he doesn't have non-brown eyes
	either."

This seems meaningless at first glance, but change change "Roger" to "Oedipus" 
and see if it scans any better.

I can remember when the third world nations were known as the non-aligned 
nations, which is precisely the sense conveyed by the American Heritage 
definition.


>    	I feel the definition is meaningless, as a result 
>    	of using a style (logical/mathematical) which is 
>     	not appropriate. One could expect something better
>       from the American Heritage Dictionary.

Why would anyone expect ANYTHING better from the American Heritage?
    
>    	Is there anyone who does not agree nor disagree ?
    

Sure.  The vast majority of mankind (who have not seen the question) neither 
agree nor disagree.

    		roger
>


Larry    
    

It's silly to come at the term "Third World" from the standpoint of 
logic.  It was never meant to be a litteral description.  The term was 
coined by one of the editors of the New York Times (I remember when it 
happened, but I don't remember who it was.) to describe the non-aligned 
nations.  

Switzerland is not non-aligned; just because they'll take a profit off
anyone doesn't mean that they are willing to play with either side. 
Suggest to a Swiss banker that they should switch to communism and see
what happens. 

The real thrust of the idea was that there were "two worlds" in the UN, 
The communist block and the democratic block.  But a "third world" had 
started to emerge that was willing to take from both sides and give to 
none as a way of bootstrapping themselves and their people into economic 
and cultural parity.  When the Third World votes as a block at the UN, 
they can do some serious trading on their political clout.

					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re: .2
    
        "If something is not A, and not non-A, it doesn't
    	exist, right ?"
    
    The definition is not illogical.  If the definition had said "countries
    that are neither aligned with the Communist bloc or non-aligned with
    the Communist bloc", I agree that there would be a problem with
    the law of the excluded middle (A or not A).  But it didn't say that;
    it said "not aligned with the Communist or Non-Communist blocs."
    This is perhaps not the clearest or best definition, but there is
    no logical contradiction if you allow that a country need not be
    aligned with any bloc.  It does suffer from the logical problem you
    referred to if you interpret the definition as defining a third "bloc."
    
Lew Lasher

               Re .5
               Switzerland may be aligned in an economic sense but
               politically they are "officially" non-aligned and
               in fact some months ago they had a referendum on 
               whether to change this or not but decided that this
               non-alignment gave them more 'clout' on an international
               level.I agree with you that the fact that it is 'good
               business' makes their non-alignment smell a bit of
               opportunism but their history for the last 300 years
               while not being quite so 'glorious' as many other small
               European nations has certainly been less traumatic for their
               citizens.
                                           Max
               

    Webster's New World Dictionary defines Third World as:
    "the underdeveloped countries of the world".
    
    Are there any countries that fall into this classification but are
    not considered "Third World"?  (I realize this definition omits
    the interesting political origins of the word.)
    
    Spd

    As a reader of _The _Economist_ and _The_Wall_Street_Journal_,
    the following seem to me to be the current meanings of the terms.
    
    First World: the developed "West" or "democracies".  The US,
    		 Japan, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and
    		 New Zealand, sometimes Latin America.
    
    Second World:the developed "East" or "communist" states.  The
    		 USSR, Eastern Europe.  Does not include China
    		 usually.
    
    Third World: the undeveloped countries (with exceptions, see
    		 "Fourth World").  Usually includes China.
    
    Fourth World:countries with no hope of developing.  Niger,
    		 Haiti, and other such unfortunates.  No place
    		 to go but down.
    
    This classification fails to distinguish the following important
    groups of countries within the whole of the "Third World".  For
    them there are special terms:
    
    The resource-rich:  Saudi Arabia, etc. self-explanitory.
    The little dragons: countries which are becoming rich through
    			trade: Taiwan, South Korea, etc.

    				-John Bishop

	
The definitions in .-1 sound good to me.

	In view of Lew's reply in .6, I was almost ready to admit 
	that the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary 
	mentioned in .0 was not illogical. 
	But on second thought, consider the following:

	1) Suppose there is the Dog Bloc and the NonDog Bloc. 
	
	2) If you're a dog, you're part of the Dog Bloc, thus allied
	with it (I hope)
	
	3) If you're a cat, a Senior Executive, a circumstance, or 
	anything else except a dog, you've got to be in the NonDog Bloc.

	This means that any existing thing belongs to one (and only one) 
	of the 2 blocs. It's a result from the base definition in 1), 
	which divided the world in _exactly_ 2 classes, not leaving any 
	room for a third class to exist.

	And they use this approach (X versus non-X) to define a Third 
	World ? Can't believe it.

	How about that ? Can I send this criticism to the editor
	of the American Heritage Dictionary ?  :)
                                 
		roger 

    Your problem is in how you're reading it. You seem to be reading
    it as:
    
    		(The [A bloc]) and (The non-[A bloc])
    
    when it's actually:
    
    		(The [A] bloc) and (The [non-A] bloc)
    
    Semantically, there is no problem. The Western democracies are
    considered a "bloc"; the Eastern communist states are considered
    a "bloc". The Third World nations are *not* considered a "bloc",
    so they don't fall under the "A or not-A" argument.
    

    Now, to come to the defense of the American Heritage Dictionary,
    I find that most of the ragging about it is based upon the little
    red (or blue) paperback *thing* that DEC supplies.
    
    The hardcover, unabridged AHD, which I use, says:
    
    	"Third World. Also third world. The underdeveloped or
    	developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America,
    	especially those not allied with the Communist or non-
    	Communist blocs."
    
    Me? I prefer Dave Barry's definitions (quoted from memory, so
    they may not be precisely accurate):
    
    First World: Those countries where most people drive Japanese
    	cars.
    
    Second World: Those countries where people from the First World
    	go on vacation.
    
    Third World: Those countries where the people jump from treetops
    	with ropes tied to their ankles to prove their manhood.
    
    
    --- jerry

    I've always assumed a chronological, or historic, interpretation of
"Third World", namely, those countries:
	- achieving independence after ...
	- developing after ...  or
	- not involved in
the Second World War.  After all the "Second"s fought it out, the "Third World"
is what ensued.  (Actually, my "not involved in" is rather tongue-in-cheek.)

    ... "nobody asked ... just my opinion"

    Might one suggest that "anti-Communist" might be a more accurate
    characterization than "non-Communist"? It would also, incidentally,
    remove any problem with the definition.
    
-dave
    

Re: .13

	It would remove the problem with the definition, but it would 
at the same time probably make it incorrect.  Many of the non-communist 
nations are not anti-communist.  Some even have active socialist parties 
in their governments while remaining democratic. In fact, even 
communist/democracy is not a safe line to cut on, since communist 
governments claim to be democracies, although our CIA disagrees with 
them.  US-aligned, Russian-aligned and non-aligned make a better cut for 
the three "worlds" but some countries (say, France) would object 
strongly to being termed US-aligned.

So in fact, even though everyone "knows" what is meant by the term, 
nobody can seem to describe it to everyone else's satisfaction.  In that 
it is a lot like "art."
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re: .5
    
    Are you sure that the New York Times coined the term?  I thought
    it was invented by Ghandi.
    
    Bernie

        Why do Americans seem to confuse 'socialism' with 'communism' ?

No, I give up. Why do they?

                 They don't "confuse" they "equate" :-)
    
                                                 Max

>                  They don't "confuse" they "equate" :-)
    

      But the point is, as they are quite different, why do they equate ?

  It's sort of like the difference between a male and a female hippopotamus;
  there is a real difference but it is somethat that would matter only to
  one of the principals involved in the comparison.

  JP

  P.S., I'd welcome your explanation of the difference... but perhaps that
        is another topic if not another notes file.

    Re .16:
    
    They are _extremely_ similar.  Even in Marxist theory, communism is the
    alleged final stage of socialism.  The difference according to Marx' is
    how goods and pay are distributed -- "equitably" or according to work.
    Some might deny there is any such thing as an "equitable" distribution
    or not such thing other than freely made transactions, so there can be
    no difference between something alleged to be communism and something
    alleged to be socialism. 
    
    Also, the terms are used other than to characterize distributions.
    With alternate meanings, they indicate who controls property rather
    than what sort of distribution it receives.  They both eliminate
    private property.  This means that property is no longer under the
    control of individuals.  It is controlled by some group, whether the
    group is called "the people", "the workers", "the producers", "the
    collective", or "the government".  Since there is fat chance that all
    the people will have equal say in the matter in any group of more than
    miniscule size, this comes down to a small group controlling the
    property for everybody, whether it is supposed to be socialism or
    communism.
    
    
    				-- edp

        It's one thing to talk about 'theory', Marxist or otherwise,
        but another to talk about political reality.  I bet also that
        a lot of the far left would find it difficult to discriminate
        between capitalism and fascism.

        There is a big difference in the real political world between
        socialism and communism.  The question therefore arises, how
        should the words be defined - according to theorists, according
        to politicians, or how ?



        I agree though that this may not be the right place to discuss
        this, though I'm trying to look at it from the point of view of
        'meanings of terms', not politics.

        So, Moderator, should this be moved to a new topic ?

Re: .15
>    Are you sure that the New York Times coined the term?  I thought
>    it was invented by Ghandi.
    
I'm not sure enough to get into a citation war.  I'll settle for saying 
that the use became popular in the US because of the NYT.


Re: .16 
	Why do they seem to confuse the two?  Why do all Frenchmen
seem to wear berets and striped shirts?  Small sample size, I guess.  



How about this: we make the cut along capitalism .vs. socialism, then 
you get the three worlds, Switzerland falls into the right column and 
we'll even throw in the Ginsu knives (made in the USA.)

						>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .0
    
    The problem with the original definition is that it named one
    bloc but did not give the other one a name.  Perhaps they 
    should have said, "countries that are not part of the Communist
    bloc or the Capitalist bloc."
    
    Spd

Re .23

> How about this: we make the cut along capitalism .vs. socialism, then 
> you get the three worlds, Switzerland falls into the right column and 
> we'll even throw in the Ginsu knives (made in the USA.)

        If you use this definition, then most western European countries
        straddle the line between first and second (probably all) and
        many are more socialist than capitalist (the UK included except
        by govenrment).

    	While interestingly, Yugoslavia has its foot over the line in the
    other direction. I heard it was easier to get U.S. export licences for
    Yugoslavia than either Switzerland or Austria.
    
    	I am a little worried that we may be deviating from semantics to
    politics, though.

    The problem here is not one of language, politics, or semantics. It is
    one of logic. 
    
    You see, a long time ago, a fellow named Aristotle came up with
    something called "The Law of the Excluded Middle." It states, quite
    simply, that all things that are not true are false. By implication,
    it also says that things that are not false are true.
    
    This law was really intended to be nothing more than a useful rule of
    thumb, but it has the unfortunate moniker of "law" and therefore people
    assume that it is beyond question. It is not. It is a convenient tool
    for certain types of logic and thought. It's a lot easier to do logical
    calculations if you can assume that things that are not true are false. 
    
    Misunderstandings arise because logic is not reality. Logic resembles
    reality, but just because something resembles something else doesn't
    mean that they are the same thing. The law of the excluded middle is
    really logic's way of saying that the world is black and white. Useful
    for some things, but it is only true enough that we have to say quite
    loudly that it isn't strictly true. 
    
    See what I mean, we're getting to the fine distinctions already. A few
    examples: something might not be difficult, but that doesn't mean that
    it's easy. When the weather reporter tells you that it will be "partly
    cloudy" it doesn't really mean that it will be partly sunny. It does,
    but what it really means is that it will be more sunny than cloudy.
    Also, as been mentioned here, those who are not members of the X bloc
    aren't necessarily members of the non-X bloc. Similarly, members of the
    non-X bloc may or may not be members of the anti-X bloc. To mention
    Bertrand Russell's famous problem, is the present King of France bald
    or not-bald? 
    
    Once again, this is not politics, etc. per se. It is reality. In the
    real world, there are fine distinctions, shades of gray. No logician
    has ever made a logic robust enough to handle shades of gray. We do
    black and white real well. We even are starting to handle judgment
    calls ("You may think that's black, but it looks white to me") in
    something called "fuzzy logic" which is currently trendy among the AI
    and database crowds. But fuzzy logic still works in black and white,
    not gray. 

    	Jon

re .27

Thanks ... Was this a subtle attempt to tell us that the definition
given by the AHD (.0) is not a pile of organic fertilizer ?        

I prefer the one below, which doesn't look illogical.

	roger

              <<< MEIS::PROJECT3$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ASKENET.NOTE;1 >>>
================================================================================
Note 52.14               What does 'Third World' mean ?                 14 of 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    Third World: loose designation originated in the 1950s for Asian 
                 and African nations emerging from colonial status or 
                 for nonindustrial and developing countries in 
                 general; originally used in the sense of a third 
                 'bloc', distinct from the Communist and Western 
                 countries (Encyclopedia Britannica 1981)
    

    Sort of. It's a subtle attempt to tell you that it isn't illogical. If
    you ask Jon the Logician, then I'll say that there's nothing wrong with
    it. If you ask Jon the Stylist, I'll say, "perhaps that could be
    written a bit more clearly." If you ask Jon the Diplomat, you'll get a
    long diatribe on how there really aren't any "blocs" at all. If
    you'd like *my* definition of the Third World, here it is. 
    
    Third World: Any place where the coffee is Nescaf�, or the customs
    officials must be bribed, or the local low-lifes will try to sell you
    contraband within ear-shot of the customs officals, even if you didn't
    have to bribe them, or the electrical wiring is so shoddy that they put
    the light switch for the bathroom outside the bathroom. Note that this
    includes, but is not limited to Egypt, Bolivia, Jamaica, Turkey, and
    Massachusetts. 
    
    	Jon

    Sounds like Chicago (where customs officials = the law, in general)
     
                        �   �
                         <
                      \      /
                        \ _/
                       
    Merry Christmas, everybody!
    
    Spd

Sorry to drag this up again, but I believe the proper "world view" is

-- first world: the developed, industrial nations: United States, Russia,
   Japan, Switzerland, etc.

-- second world: the emerging nations: Argentinia, Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan,
   India, China, etc.

-- third world: the underdeveloped nations: Nigeria, Albania, etc.

It is a simplistic view that doesn't take political systems into account.
It also doesn't deal with the complexities of the Middle East or Asia.

Martin.

    My TV magazine (T�l�rama) had a long article the other week, 
    not about the "Third World", but about the old French economist 
    Alfred Sauvy (who is quite famous here).
    
    He claims he has invented the expression, and used it for the
    first time in "France-Observateur" (a paper now called
    "Le Nouvel Observateur") in 1952.
    
    The expression he created was "le Tiers-Monde". It was a direct
    reference to "Tiers-Etat", an expression which is used in French
    only in the context of the French Revolution.
    In 1789, the society was divided in 3 classes: Church, Noblery, and 
    the rest, ie le tiers-�tat; this one was the exploited majority.
    In the Parliament they had one vote, the Church one, the Noble one.
    So the Tiers-Etat used to lose every time , and revolt soon appeared
    to be the only way to go ...
    
    In 1952, Sauvy and others thought that the under-developed countries
    were in a situation similar to that of the "tiers-�tat", in respect
    to the rich countries. This school was known here as "Tiers-Mondisme". 
    
    In the interview, Sauvy says that the expression was literally
    (and correctly) translated into "Third World"; but the English
    expression doesn't carry the historical connotation that gave it 
    most of its initial meaning ... 
    Without that context, "Third World" could be very difficult 
    to define (as you can see by reading this topic).

    He goes on saying that the theory "tiers-mondiste" didn't actually
    work out, because the expected evolution was modified by religious 
    factors - mostly the surge of islamism.
    He now expresses the wish that "tiers-monde" and "third world"  won't be 
    used any longer ...

    	roger    

    Interesting.  In a collection of short pieces, published as a
    collection in - I think - 1944, but published in various literary
    magazines before then, Jorge Luis Borges used the expression
    `Orbis Tertius' (Latin: Third World) in a context that for various
    internal reasons (details of which I forget, but I wrote an article
    on it about 14 years ago - so could dredge up the details if anyone's
    interested) made a socio-political reference to the current world
    economy.
    
    This doesn't argue against Roger's point in .-1. There are two
    possibilities that I can see:
    
    	o	I'm completely wrong, and Borges wasn't making
    		the joke I thought he was making (although he was
    		incredibly erudite and conversant with all the
    		relevant background and languages)
    
    	o	Sauvy had read or been influenced by Borges (or
    		someone who had been), and coined the expression
    		Tiers Monde with that in mind 
    
    In either case, it seems that Sauvy had a lot to do with the more
    current and widespread use of `Third World'. As Borges said, `un
    gran autor crea a sus precursores' [a great author creates his own
    precursors].
    
    b

    Parallel development would also seem to be a possibility, since
    the general idea that the conditions in the world were similar to
    those that brought on the French revolution was current at the
    time.  But none of the other authors expressed the ideas as
    concisely and memorably or with the theoretical underpinnings.
    
    A similar example might be the idea of evolution.  You can find
    references to a concept of evolution in literature and poetry
    predating Darwin by at least a decade, but it took Darwin's
    insight and expression to give birth to the finished idea of
    evolution. 
    
    --bonnie