this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
497 points (85.7% liked)
Memes
52914 readers
602 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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
Fair enough. I see the whole DNC vs GOP division as liberal infighting.