Update: they have ascertained that Parabola was Wisconcom lmao. In that light, if correct, it’s more of a wrecker doing what he does than the project failing. We still don’t have a lot of info though. They’ve written about it here: https://wiki.leftypol.org/wiki/Leftypedia:Community_hub
Earlier today, the new rendition of Leftypedia finally imploded. Going off the block list, it’s a real mess.
Leftypedia was brought back from its last incarnation in early 2023. If you remember (or not), it had issues with Wisconcom then who latched onto it. The problem is because they had no active admins and couldn’t find them, they couldn’t ban him indefinitely.
Eventually, they did find new admins who kicked the project back into gear, or at least they tried to.
Earlier today though, it seems there has been a split and one of the admins (Parabola) basically banned all the others as well as several other users. Where it gets weird is that another admin (Aussig) then banned Parabola, but didn’t undo the bans Parabola issued. Aussig also banned me and Forte’s account, which we used back when Wisconcom was on there, for “ideological deviations”, but Aussig calls themselves a Marxist-Leninist on their user page.
From what I understand there was a split between the different tendencies. So anyway that’s how the “left unity” wiki is going lol sorry but this is funny.
oh we are revisionists and that is precisely the point of Marxism. dialectical materialism is about development and change.
Revisionism in the Marxist context explicitly and precisely means modifications to theory that make Marxism compatible with liberalism. The Kruschevites were revisionist, but Lenin and Stalin were not. Both of the latter developed Marxist theory but we’re not revisionist. Mao also developed Marxist theory but was not revisionist.
That’s not the typical context in which the term “revisionist” is used, though. Usually it’s used to claim that someone is diverging from the foundations of Marxism itself- that they are betraying core principles such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the integrity of the one-party system and/or the revolution, class struggle, etc…
As such, I think it’s only good practice to distance ourselves from the term, despite what “revision” means in the English language. It’s enough simply to say- we’re not dogmatists.
eh to each their own, i’ve always found it as a silly word thrown around by purity fetishists so it doesn’t particularly offend me.
Agreed. To say ‘we are revisionists because we revise’ is ultimately a semantic gotcha which ignores the history and context of an established term. Of course we revise, how else would we add all these other names onto “Marxism-” in the first place!
Are quips like this really what it has come to?