Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1552736)	8/16/2025 12:22:49 AM
From: Maple MAGA	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571199

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.