Which countries in the third world are the most reactionary/imperialist-friendly/in need of revolution?

Which countries in the third world are the most reactionary/imperialist-friendly/in need of revolution?

Attached: threeworlds.jpg (539x348, 90.64K)

Gulf

Which gulf, you dolt?

Saudi Arabia has the third highest military spending in the world!

Who are they planning on using it against? Iran? Their own people?

yemen, apparently

The states of the Persian Gulf, specifically Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE. All are despotic monarchies which oppress their own people and/or import vast numbers of foreigners to oppress, sponsor terrorism throughout the Middle East and in general cannot stop sucking US dick.

I would hope it´s Congo, Central South Africa, no country was ever in such need of a nat-soc revolution

...

Just realized this has Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and other socialist states in red…


It's a Danish territory but I don't think it's really first world for the same reason I don't think Puerto Rico and French Polynesia are. Maybe that Greenlandic guy who posts here can weigh in.

Probably Brazil as of lately.
Any country that just happens to have large reserves of demanded raw materials such as copper (e.g. Chile) or oil (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Their position in the imperialist chain leads them to have apparently good conditions as a product of supporting imperialist policies such as commerce treaties, all while they're still completely dependent on the world powers. If demand for the specific raw materials they export ever decreases, their economies will go down the shitter since (at least in the case of Chile) no strong secondary sector whatsoever exists.
All of them.

South Africa

Iraq and Afghanistan

America

This

Poland, Ukraine.

Since when is Serbia second world
I thought the first/second/third world thing came from the blocks during the Cold war.
If so, Yugoslavia was one of the countries that created the Non aligned movement which makes them third world.
Today, I'm not sure where it stands honestly, it's pretty shit here.

Greece maybe
Or Hungary due to Orbán

it can't be reactionary and revolutionary at the same time faggot, back to Zig Forums

I agree, Laos and Vietnam are socialist but they're ecnomy isn't really that good. It is on a good way since the market reforms but they still are not very advanced. Good thing China helps them out

The first vs third world was originally meant for countries that fought during WWII.

Attached: hands.jpg (640x480, 34.02K)

First/Second/Third world all date back to the Cold War. Counties that were in/Pro-NATO were considered “First World” while Countries that were either industrialized and in/pro-Warsaw, Gommie, or actively went against US interests were considered Second World.
Then the 3rd world encompassed lliterally every single colony which wasn’t developed.
Literally China would be classified as “First World” if Mao lost the Chinese civil war (also the terms came about like in 1950 if i’m not mistaken)

Fuck off, Nazi

Right, but my question is if one country is a territory/colony of a first world country, is that territory/colony first world itself? Was French Algeria first world? Was British Malaysia?

India

By technicality, no. As mentioned. Colonies weren’t really under the first world rule except for the really industrialized ones. That’s why Vietnam was considered Third World but N. And S. Korea are both respectively 1st and 2nd world. The terminology came about when during the mists of decolonization so literally all remaining colonies basically got under the rule of “third world” since nobody knew how many colonies would rebel.

Are you American op?
I mean I am too but even I'm not that ignorant holy shit.

Attached: LOUD SCREECHING.gif (400x242, 2.13M)

Myanmar/Burma
Replacing the democracy with other more radical Communist ideas