You must log in or register to comment.
What is it with so many maps drawn by Americans pretending Canada doesn’t exist?
It’s a political cartoon not a map.
It’s a fully accurate map actually. Every time one of these gets made I immediately fall into the ocean and have to help rebuild my country again from the ground up. It’s not something many people talk about but it’s a real challenge in the Canadian way of life.
The neighbour we can’t make eye contact with anymore
Fuck you neighbor! (JK, unless you are a fascist)
No, but fair enough. We’ll try to keep it down, sorry
Canada exists?
IIRC, I believe this is from a KGB operation to promote socialist and anti-capitalist sentiments in the US population.
What’s with so many maps drawn by the USSR pretending Canada doesn’t exist?
Internet leftists heavily subscribe to the idea of spheres of influence. Canada (and Western Europe) fall into the US sphere. What the citizens of those countries think or want is of no importance.
This also explains the .ml’s support for Russia over Ukraine. In their worldview, Ukraine belongs solely to Russia, and Ukrainians resistance to that can only be explained by actions of the CIA, since Ukrainian citizens can have no agency of their own.
I’ve never seen such a reductionist view presented as so enlightened.
“Internet leftists heavily subscribe” is just a tad of an overgeneralization mate
Of course you’re absolutely right. I was hoping to avoid calling out the .ml denizens specifically. But here we are.
States function according to their strategic interests and trade relations, not as pot luck dinners.
For a long while, capitalism fans described worker democracies as the “ideal workplace”. They only changed tune, mostly to the “what if someone does not want to vote” mantra, after the resurrgence of real leftism online.
Name any nominally socialist country where the press wasn’t more tightly controlled than it ever was in the US.
Denmark. The Netherlands. Norway. Quality of journalism is generally better in the EU anyway.
I’m honestly lost for words.
Those countries are capitalist.
I do not agree with the other poster and I fully wish we adopted a more Nordic economic model, but they’re still capitalist with much more socialism to prop up those who need it.
Those countries are not “nominally socialist.”
Downvotes do not change literal objective facts, dumbasses.
Really? Well, let’s look at the definition of “nominal”:
Nominal (adjective)
- Being in name only; not literally.
- To be related to something, without being literally something.
- Of an amount smaller than is expected.
Sources; dictionary.com, Cambridge Dictionary, Merriam-Webster.
Let’s look at how the Nordic countries are described:
The Nordic Model:
“Includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining based on the economic foundations of social corporatism, and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy.”
Mixed Economy:
“A mixed economy is an economic system that includes both elements associated with capitalism, and with socialism.”
Source; Wikipedia.
So, either you’re wrong because you’re saying the Nordic countries have no socialism, or you’re wrong because you don’t understand the meaning of “nominal”.
Doubling down on this clown shit?
Let’s look at how the Nordic countries are described:
No, let’s look at how the Nordic countries describe themselves, since that is the only thing that is relevant when discussing which countries are nominally socialist.
Not a single one calls themselves socialist. Every single one calls themselves capitalist. “The Kingdom of Denmark” is nominally a monarchy, because that’s what it’s named. That’s what “nominally” means, by your own definition.
The only way you could twist words around to justify this absolute nonsense is first by ignoring the way they describe themselves completely (which makes the whole line of reasoning irrelevant since we are talking about nominally socialist countries), and then by focusing exclusively on the words “mixed economy,” ignoring the parts that say, "a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy.” Then, in the third part of this clown fiesta, you completely ignore the fact that a mixed economy only includes some elements associated with socialism rather than being socialist.
By the way, why did you have to scrape together definitions from different dictionaries, instead of using the same one? It seems like you were scraping the barrel for anything you could use to make this argument, and this is still the best you could come up with.
Right, so you want to continue not understanding what the word “nominal” means, even after I’ve done all the work finding the definitions for you.
Like, at this point I don’t even need to put effort into making you look stupid, you’re doing it yourself.
Merriam-Webster:
Nominal: existing or being something in name or form only
Something nominal exists only in name. So the nominal ruler in a constitutional monarchy is the king or queen, but the real power is in the hands of the elected prime minister. In the United Kingdom, the British monarch is also the nominal head of the Church of England; and those baptized in the Church who aren’t really churchgoers might be called nominal Christians.
You: The Kingdom of Denmark is nominally socialist
Yeah, I’m definitely the stupid one who doesn’t know what nominal means, champ.
Wow, well done! Here, have a treat.
Now your next step is to find the other definitions of “nominal”, also on Merriam-Webster to make it easy, and you’ll get your next treat.
You’ll get a really bigerest treat if you also connect those definitions to what me and you said, and realise that you’re wrong.
You Know, training a little monkey is actually fun.
Name any nominally socialist country
I’m stuck right there. Nominally…in the name? or something like this:
Or historically named/labeled socialist? Or current Democratic Socialist countries? And what type of press freedom? Seems like it would be a semester class in college to answer that, and would veer into philosophy at a minimum.
Ugh, the color choices for ‘former’ versus ‘socialist ruling party’ are impossible for color blind folks…
I don’t know why Greenland is pink in that picture. The liberals (right of center) won the latest election.
You think the press is more free in Russia than the US?
How is your reading comprehension that bad?
What color is Russia? What word does the legend label that color as?
Closer every day
You people are so funny.
Great retort bud.
TBF they weren’t allowed to learn about the Iron Curtain in Russia and they aren’t allowed to talk about it in China.
Removed by mod
Not more tankie hanky panky! Is this tankie in the thread with us rn?
The guy who got his knickers in a twist over me referring to “nominally socialist” countries would count in my book.
I still don’t know word “nominally” is supposed to mean, even after being awarded certificate of competency in a scientific field related to the mathematics. Guess that’s politic speak for ya (me)
Removed by mod
The state is not the only system of consolidated power.
The press obviously is tightly controlled by its wealthy owners.
The question is who is controlling the press and to what ends? Almost all press is controlled.
Yeah, people complain about billionaires owning the press. Which is a fair thing to complain about.
However… In communist countries, not only did the billionaires also own the press, they sent you to the gulag if you complained about it.
What is it you propose the USA is hiding, exactly?
The cartoon isn’t ambiguous
It’s really vague, and does warrant some specific examples…
I’d say if anything, they pretend some things are more peaceful than they are. Like sending the military in to capture a foreign leader being portrayed as simply “a military operation” rather than “act of war”. Emphasizing celebrations by Venezulan ex-pats.
The nominally socialist nations that receive media attention are generally truly not particularly peaceful, and the socialist nations that are pretty good peace wise are well known, but just too ‘boring’ to be in a ‘news’ cycle.
I suppose the point is that people can’t just take someone’s declaration of ‘socialism’ at face value, as there’s too many examples of malicious authoritarianism that claimed affinity to socialism as part of their rise to power. Not to say that capitalist nations are faring any better, just that the word ‘socialism’ when wielded as a brand isn’t to be trusted.
Removed by mod
Who are you to make me spend a bunch of time “enlightening” someone whose intentions are clearly in bad faith.
I’m not sure why you engaged at all if you didn’t have an answer to my question.
To call you out on being an antagonizer
When you complain about people disrupting the 3cho chamber you should be more subtle about it.
lol, try some better bait, asshat
Removed by mod
Here’s an answer if you’re willing to watch a 20 min video.
Removed by mod
That’s disappointing… I’ll give you one example then. I’ll try to keep it short. Democratically elected socialist, Salvador Allende, was overthrown with help from Nixon, Kissenger, and the CIA using the media to influence public opinion in the 70s. Allende wanted to nationalize Chile’s resources like its copper mines which at the time were owned by US companies.
PEACE AND SOCIALISM. It’s literally right there in the cartoon you knob
The means by which all people can be liberated, and the extent to which all people are currently exploited.
Removed by mod
Let’s start with universal healthcare for all.
the vast majority of americans don’t know the first thing about political movements originating from the global south. let’s start there
Removed by mod
Can we charge this guy with something, legally? Preferably enough to get him deported to El Salvadore.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
- the women’s war in syria
- liberation movement throughout africa seeking to erode neocolonialism
- the origins and collapse of congolese independence work that was disrupted by the CIA leading to the current civil war
- who the opposition to Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela is
there’s all sorts
Removed by mod
Syria is absolutely part of the global south. you know the global south is primarily about economic exploitation and not geography, right? and good for you knowing these things. but most americans aren’t keyed into all this at all
We could start with the violent history of union formation. I only got like one line in an elementary school textbook telling me the pinkertons existed and that was it. Then we can move on to the violent bombing of Tulsa, OK which nobody talks about.
