No they are not. The whole term "socialism" turns on one's definition of that term much like "racist" turns on one's definition of that term. The link to the article goes into how socialism depends on one's definition of the term very well I thought. The article says about Denmark in particular as follows: "Denmark is generally considered to be a Scandinavian country, and the Scandinavian countries – which also include Finland, Norway, and Sweden – are renowned for their socialist policies and overall high rates of happiness and well-being. That said, Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist."
So, the article you linked to is internally inconsistent. It starts with "Democratic Socialism describes a socialist economy where production and wealth are collectively owned, but the country has a democratic system of government." Collective ownership of production and wealth is fundamentally incompatible with a free market economy.
What if we ignore the first sentence of the article and just look at the section about Denmark? If Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist, isn't the same true of the United States? If Denmark encourages businesses to run solely on market principles rather than government policies, why is it categorized as a Democratic Socialist state while the US is not?
If you want me to acknowledge you are right and I am wrong I am fine with that since you may know a lot more about these things than I do. Additionally, I am not looking for an argument. The main thrust of my assertion in the beginning, which is only an opinion, is that the USA is liable to go more into socialist solutions than capitalist ones given the current situation and the future challenges. I certainly do not know why the authors of that article made the decisions/assertions they made in writing the article. If you want to argue their points then do contact them. I just liked how they parsed the terms socialism and communism.
I use "socialism" to mean what the article you linked to says in its first sentence: production and wealth are collectively owned. I'm still trying to understand what you mean by "socialism," since that doesn't describe Scandinavian countries AFAICT.
No they are not. The whole term "socialism" turns on one's definition of that term much like "racist" turns on one's definition of that term. The link to the article goes into how socialism depends on one's definition of the term very well I thought. The article says about Denmark in particular as follows: "Denmark is generally considered to be a Scandinavian country, and the Scandinavian countries – which also include Finland, Norway, and Sweden – are renowned for their socialist policies and overall high rates of happiness and well-being. That said, Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist."
So, the article you linked to is internally inconsistent. It starts with "Democratic Socialism describes a socialist economy where production and wealth are collectively owned, but the country has a democratic system of government." Collective ownership of production and wealth is fundamentally incompatible with a free market economy.
What if we ignore the first sentence of the article and just look at the section about Denmark? If Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist, isn't the same true of the United States? If Denmark encourages businesses to run solely on market principles rather than government policies, why is it categorized as a Democratic Socialist state while the US is not?
If you want me to acknowledge you are right and I am wrong I am fine with that since you may know a lot more about these things than I do. Additionally, I am not looking for an argument. The main thrust of my assertion in the beginning, which is only an opinion, is that the USA is liable to go more into socialist solutions than capitalist ones given the current situation and the future challenges. I certainly do not know why the authors of that article made the decisions/assertions they made in writing the article. If you want to argue their points then do contact them. I just liked how they parsed the terms socialism and communism.
I use "socialism" to mean what the article you linked to says in its first sentence: production and wealth are collectively owned. I'm still trying to understand what you mean by "socialism," since that doesn't describe Scandinavian countries AFAICT.
Good Bye Jonathan.
That's disappointing. I thought there was potential for an interesting conversation.