The “MAGA is Marxist/Maoist” line is clever but overdone. Repeated comparisons to Marx, Mao, Stalin, Cultural Revolution, “purges,” and “loyalty cults” risks sounding hyperbolic rather than analytical.
The article blurs distinctions between authoritarianism, protectionism, and communism — conflating them for effect, but weakening precision
While Trump’s interventions in business are well-documented, the authors gloss over historical precedents (e.g., Obama’s auto bailout “car czar,” Bush’s TARP programs, Roosevelt’s New Deal interventions, Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex).
By omitting these, the article suggests Trump’s actions are utterly unprecedented when, in fact, U.S. presidents have long influenced markets during crises.
Some examples (e.g., the alleged Coca-Cola sweetener directive, CBS’s payment to the Trump Library) sound sensational but are poorly sourced within the text. Without hard evidence, they come across as anecdotes bordering on rumor.
Using Oliver Darcy or Matt Belloni (media commentators) as authorities weakens credibility compared to economists or legal scholars.
The piece is long, repetitive, and meanders. Several sections (e.g., the FCC/FTC/DEI digressions) dilute the main thesis.
The argument could be stronger if focused tightly on 3–4 categories of “government intrusion” rather than sprawling across 10+ examples.
“Maoist” and “Marxist” are used interchangeably, though they refer to distinct ideologies. This muddies the analysis.
Equating Trump’s transactional, personalized political economy with systematic communism is more metaphorical than literal. The comparison works rhetorically, but it weakens as serious political economy. |
