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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not using a Marxist definition, I'm applying Wikipedia's definition independently. Taking Wikipedia at their word for liberalism, MAGA fits.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Fair enough. I see the whole DNC vs GOP division as liberal infighting.