Late Stage Capitalism
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Basic Course
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
view the rest of the comments
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?