Every time there is a worldwide shift in ideologies and
general political inclinations, there arises a need to adopt newer methods of
classifications of political systems. This happened again during the interwar
period with the emergence of Communism and Fascism amongst other ideologies.
The dominant classification method during this period was the Three Worlds
typology. However, in my opinion, not only has this typology become redundant
in the current world, it also had clear loopholes during that time.
The fundamental reason why this method cannot be used these
days is because of the fall of communism during 1989. According to the
typology, the second world consisted of the communist states which produced
just enough for its society to fulfill its needs. With the fall of communism,
there existed no second world.
Even if we look at the merits of this typology in the
context of mid and late 20th century, we find clear biases. The
segmentation of countries into three worlds implies differentiation on basis of
political and economic power. However, distinctions were made on ideological
basis, such as grouping all the capitalist countries, regardless of GDP and
other factors, and referring to them as the first world. The Soviet Union,
although communist (second world), was considered as the second largest super
power after USA. It had large stockpiles of nuclear weapons numerous other
weapons of mass destructions and not only fulfilled the needs of its own
people, but also of some of its allies.
Therefore, the “Three Worlds” typology can be seen as a way
to show capitalist nations as inherently superior to every other nation,
overlooking key determinants of political success.
No comments:
Post a Comment