Their definitions don’t include the parties I was thinking about, that are doing the “alt-right” wave right now for example. So for that reason I think we’re working from different definitions.
The “alt-right” is still working on the foundations of liberalism. Fascism and liberalism aren’t really categorically different ideologies, but the same ideology in different conditions, with different class character, ie fascism is capitalism in crisis and comes from the petite bourgeoisie, while liberalism is capitalism when it’s doing better and nornally comes from the bourgeoisie proper.
Idk the Wikipedia definition that I commonly see people use doesn’t seem to agree with that. If you throw in fascism, alt-right, all of that under liberalism then the meme of course covers more ground but it can get more confusing to those not using the same definition of liberalism as you seem to use.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and sometimes conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]: 11
I agree with all of that being the general constructs of liberalism, especially the part where it is often conflicting. When some aspects win out over others, you get the different “flavors” of liberalism under its broad umbrella.
Wikipedia itself (and fwiw commonly others don’t either in my experience) doesn’t the talked about movements and parties as fitting under that umbrella, since they’re conflicting with too much of the basic defining principles. Imo that makes sense, but if you were to use a broader definition or going “if it fits even one part then it counts”, then I guess I could see them fitting under it.
It fits more than one part, though, and that’s because ideology has to be judged in the context of the base mode of production. Both fascism and liberalism are founded on capitalism.
It just doesn’t seem like the sort of Wikipedia definition and the common interpretation I usually encounter agree with you on this one since the mentioned movements aren’t counted. But of course it’s not one interpretation to rule them all, just using Wikipedia as representative of the common viewpoint.
I’m using basically what’s
here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_parties_by_country
And the subsets too get a wider view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism#Parties_and_organisations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Classical_liberal_parties_worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
Etc.
Their definitions don’t include the parties I was thinking about, that are doing the “alt-right” wave right now for example. So for that reason I think we’re working from different definitions.
The “alt-right” is still working on the foundations of liberalism. Fascism and liberalism aren’t really categorically different ideologies, but the same ideology in different conditions, with different class character, ie fascism is capitalism in crisis and comes from the petite bourgeoisie, while liberalism is capitalism when it’s doing better and nornally comes from the bourgeoisie proper.
Idk the Wikipedia definition that I commonly see people use doesn’t seem to agree with that. If you throw in fascism, alt-right, all of that under liberalism then the meme of course covers more ground but it can get more confusing to those not using the same definition of liberalism as you seem to use.
Copying wikipedia’s opening paragraph:
I agree with all of that being the general constructs of liberalism, especially the part where it is often conflicting. When some aspects win out over others, you get the different “flavors” of liberalism under its broad umbrella.
Wikipedia itself (and fwiw commonly others don’t either in my experience) doesn’t the talked about movements and parties as fitting under that umbrella, since they’re conflicting with too much of the basic defining principles. Imo that makes sense, but if you were to use a broader definition or going “if it fits even one part then it counts”, then I guess I could see them fitting under it.
It fits more than one part, though, and that’s because ideology has to be judged in the context of the base mode of production. Both fascism and liberalism are founded on capitalism.
It just doesn’t seem like the sort of Wikipedia definition and the common interpretation I usually encounter agree with you on this one since the mentioned movements aren’t counted. But of course it’s not one interpretation to rule them all, just using Wikipedia as representative of the common viewpoint.
I still don’t see where wikipedia disagrees with me, here.
In that it doesn’t count those movements as part of liberalism or those parties under that umbrella. It’s the reason I posted those lists above.