I mean I’m not sure if Wikipedia actually counts MAGA part of the party as liberals. I don’t think it does. That’s more along the lines of movements I was talking about. European alt-right the same deal.
But if you’re working from a specifically Marxist viewpoint I’m guessing it uses a broader definition that includes those movements.
Do you disagree that MAGA fits the underlying principles of liberalism, such as a reliance on individualism, private property rights, etc? MAGA fits into that, it isn’t a distinct ideology.
I’m not sure it counts at Wikipedia, with how they describe it (they call it “Trumpism”)
comprises ideologies such as right-wing populism, right-wing antiglobalism, national conservatism and neo-nationalism, and features significant illiberal, authoritarian[7][8] and at times autocratic beliefs.[b] Trumpists and Trumpians are terms that refer to individuals exhibiting its characteristics. There is significant academic debate over the prevalence of neo-fascist[a] elements of Trumpism.
I mean the whole point of bringing up Wikipedia was to show a common definition and what sort of movements are counted. If you use wider Marxist definition it covers a lot more, from what I’ve understood. The common Wikipedia counting doesn’t cover as much, so it leaves out some pretty popular movements, in which case the meme just mentioning liberals doesn’t make as much sense. But this being on .ml I think using the Marxist definition makes sense
I think you and Wikipedia disagree here. But that’s neither here nor there really. By their counting, there’s plenty of non-liberals who would fit the meme. In your view there aren’t. So that explains the difference.
I don’t really see what you mean, but either way, I don’t think this conversation is going to be particularly productive. I generally agree with how Wikipedia described liberalism in that intro paragraph, MAGA fits a lot of it as well.
I meant the original topic of this discussion about non-liberal movements. Why you and Wikipedia consider MAGA (Trumpism) differently is, yeah that’s a discussion for some other day. The original topic is cleared up
I mean I’m not sure if Wikipedia actually counts MAGA part of the party as liberals. I don’t think it does. That’s more along the lines of movements I was talking about. European alt-right the same deal.
But if you’re working from a specifically Marxist viewpoint I’m guessing it uses a broader definition that includes those movements.
Do you disagree that MAGA fits the underlying principles of liberalism, such as a reliance on individualism, private property rights, etc? MAGA fits into that, it isn’t a distinct ideology.
I’m not sure it counts at Wikipedia, with how they describe it (they call it “Trumpism”)
I don’t mean how Wikipedia themselves view it, but how we take Wikipedia at their word for liberalism’s definition and apply it independently.
I mean the whole point of bringing up Wikipedia was to show a common definition and what sort of movements are counted. If you use wider Marxist definition it covers a lot more, from what I’ve understood. The common Wikipedia counting doesn’t cover as much, so it leaves out some pretty popular movements, in which case the meme just mentioning liberals doesn’t make as much sense. But this being on .ml I think using the Marxist definition makes sense
I’m not using a Marxist definition, I’m applying Wikipedia’s definition independently. Taking Wikipedia at their word for liberalism, MAGA fits.
I think you and Wikipedia disagree here. But that’s neither here nor there really. By their counting, there’s plenty of non-liberals who would fit the meme. In your view there aren’t. So that explains the difference.
I don’t really see what you mean, but either way, I don’t think this conversation is going to be particularly productive. I generally agree with how Wikipedia described liberalism in that intro paragraph, MAGA fits a lot of it as well.
I meant the original topic of this discussion about non-liberal movements. Why you and Wikipedia consider MAGA (Trumpism) differently is, yeah that’s a discussion for some other day. The original topic is cleared up