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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
https://lemmy.world/comment/21406958
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)
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?
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:
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.
The other definitions are irrelevant. Obviously, the first, primary definition is what the other user meant.
Why would you ignore the primary meaning of the word and jump to some obscure alternate interpretation that doesn’t even make sense in the context?
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)
There you go.
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.