Jameson’s First-Third World binary is empirically ungrounded against real economies.

Evidence

Bur analytically, this classification leaves the so-called Third World in limbo; if only the First World is capitalist and the Second World socialist, how does one understand the Third World? Is it pre-capitalist? Transitional? Transitional between what and what? … So - does India belong in the First World or the Third? Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa? And ? Bur we know that countries of the Pacific rim, from South Korea to Singapore, constitute the fastestgrowing region within global capitalism. The list could be much longer, but the point is that the binary opposition which Jameson constructs between a capitalist First World and a presumably preor non-capitalist Third World is empirically ungrounded in any facts. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 387

Categorization

• XREF: Ahmad’s materialist refutation of Jameson connects to the research thread on discourse-first moves being materially evasive; also parallels Spivak’s concern with positing a coherent Third World subject. — connects to: The world cannot be compartmentalized into discrete First, Second and Third zones — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 36; India’s capitalist economy refutes Jameson’s First-Third World binary. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 389

Broader Connections

• The world cannot be compartmentalized into discrete First, Second and Third zones #corroborates (0.95) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 36