My answer is a dismissal of your third worldism which hones in on the idea of an "oppressed country" and I don't really directly address your notion that it would take a collapse of "the first world" to engender circumstances where significant change could happen in the "the third world", so I will think on that some more. But for now this will do.
To echo ingrate's comment, the third/second/first world paradigm was concocted as social science jargon during the cold war. The third world was simply non-aligned states. Its coincidence with the content of Leninist theories of exploitation as euphemisms for those ideas lends no theoretical value to it whatsoever. It is a stereotype that is propagated by concurrent lapses of many minds in political discourse of the post-cold war world, plain and simple. There is no such thing as an oppressed country.
‘"Every other leader looks after his own country properly even if it means going to war," fumes a Tibetan scholar in Dharamsala who did not want to be quoted by name. "Here we talk about world peace, about taking care of the whole world. What about taking care of our own country? Our leaders are more concerned about how to present themselves to the rest of the world—peace-loving and kind. If you care about your own country, you have to do everything for it: kill, cheat, lie, steal."’ (From some article which I cannot recall enough of to link to.)
Another generation in another time learned this bloody lesson in the Russian Civil War. Nine million dead, not a minority of them at the hands of the Red Army, and the crowning massacre perpetrated in 1921 in the town of Kronstadt in response to seditious organization among former workers, sailors, and soldiers, many of them anarchists. For that reason alone anarchists could never accept Third Worldism. A country in the depths of poverty and war, blockaded and ostracized by wealthier states, lived up to the murderous ambitions that engender any nation-state's "development" in spectacular fashion and anarchists were among the prime obstructions in the way of its odious success.
The prosperity that you loathe is hardly distributed in an even manner, as dot explains, and it is also largely a facade. People in the US are working for wages of an average value that hasn't changed since the 1970's. What's the figure of indebtedness again? 75% of households? The entire thing is built on easily accessible and cheap credit that supplements the stagnant wages and fickle job market. Relying on the standard channels of livelihood you pretty much have to be in debt in America to achieve a quality of well-being that would be considered not impoverished or untenable. (More on these matters in this book review: http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/stupid-regulators-and-greedy-financiers-or-business-usual
The only thing more stupid than patriotism is patriotism for someone else's country! And that is really all I have to say about that!