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.