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.
Sure and it could be a salient point if it left out a few. It does tell you something when none of the parties in those movements are included though. Even in the articles for those particular ideologies you don’t see the claim that they’re subsets of liberalism, but a few mentions how they’re trying to counter liberal values.
Wikipedia isn’t going to word for word agree with Marxists, my point is that using Wikipedia at its own word, parties like Republicans fit into liberalism.
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.
I don’t think Wikipedia is trying to be an exhaustive resource, but instead a quick overview.
Sure and it could be a salient point if it left out a few. It does tell you something when none of the parties in those movements are included though. Even in the articles for those particular ideologies you don’t see the claim that they’re subsets of liberalism, but a few mentions how they’re trying to counter liberal values.
I don’t think it’s an accidental omission.
Wikipedia isn’t going to word for word agree with Marxists, my point is that using Wikipedia at its own word, parties like Republicans fit into liberalism.