You must log in or # to comment.
What is it with so many maps drawn by Americans pretending Canada doesn’t exist?
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
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.
States function according to their strategic interests and trade relations, not as pot luck dinners.
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.
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?
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.
The state is not the only system of consolidated power.
The press obviously is tightly controlled by its wealthy owners.
Denmark. The Netherlands. Norway. Quality of journalism is generally better in the EU anyway.
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.
I’m honestly lost for words.
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.
