~~Aussig supports the Shining Path.~~ But I don't think the distinction matters much in this case. She claimed to be a maoist in the discord server.
Edit: This statement is corrected because I've later learned that this isn't true from Aussig. However as I stated earlier, the distinction doesn't matter much. She's still an ultra. Everything else is correct.
Aussig is irrelevant in general, but her contributions had lead to the Prolewiki accounts being banned. She just took advantage of the vandalism and used it for her own purpose. I can personally confirm that Aussig is not a sock puppet account, especially given she was participating in the discord server not in the same way as Parabola (Wisconcom). She was a part of the scandal but for different reasons.
I think Parabola made a larger dent into Leftypedia that will take harder to scrub off compared to Prolewiki. Especially given at the rate the articles are being changed (Literally productivity has been cut in half since Parabola is gone, only leaving Harrystein to edit the wiki), we won't see Leftypedia recovered.
This is because Parabola (Or Wisconcom perhaps) originally introduced the idea of a leftypedia discord server in the matrix server, and so Parabola was the official owner. That means that Parabola has all official access to the discord server since he is at the top.
In my month staying in there, it is a gold mine of bullshit, I have amassed a collection of screenshots which clearly show that leftypedia is a place where left unity cannot happen.
Also, you have posted that link about Harrystein linking it to Wisconcom. I think Parabola is actually Wisconcom, given he made sock puppet accounts after his ban, and I'm one of the few people who can judge his tone and voice in voice chats since I heard it before when I was a part of the study group.
Since Aussig and Parabola are banned, I doubt Leftypedia would stand up again.
I had a conversation with one of the members of the Leftypedia discord server before my ban yesterday (whom I will not reveal the identity of), and they stated that Parabola has stepped down as administrator.
I thought there would've been more chaos at the discord server, surprisingly it was the opposite. It seems everything happened at either the editor's side or at the admin's side.
What is clear is that Aussig states through paraphrasing their words that:
They said they don't want Leftypedia to be for all Leftist peoples.
In other words, Aussig has directly stated that leftypedia does not want to be leftypedia. They have banned all "revisionist" tendencies including 3 prolewiki accounts that only existed to tackle the issue with Wisconcom existing on the server.
Leftypedia has become a failed experiment it seems. The split between the Hoxhaites and Maoists (Aussig was a maoist when she entered the server* and I know it from my days in that discord server) is real. I'm not surprised at the very least. Parabola kept shitting on anarchists, even banned an anarcho-egoist (or minarchist, doesn't matter) because they were reactionary and espoused anti-marxist views.
In the short amount of time I've been on that server (which is a month I think, a few days after the server's creation) it was clear that this server would break down. It's a funny coincidence that breakdown happened the day after I was banned for being "hostile".
EDIT: Made corrections, see points marked by a *.
I bet even the editors are laughing over the transcript:
[Editor’s note: Biden appeared to mean Xi here, not Putin.]
How the fuck can you confuse them? Actually I'm not surprised at this point. Biden must have dementia at this point.
I see Libertarians advocating for microtransactions as it is "how the consumer spends that benefits the corporation" bullshit.
Instead of Libertarians seeing capitalism advancing towards the usual notion of maximising profits, they just see as consumers helping the corporations and thus it should be perfectly legal to do so. Games become worse due to their "efficiency" (efficiency meaning to extract as much profit as possible) by laying off employees, replacing them with contract work, utilising microtransactions, especially if the game is Free to Play. Did this all happen when the consumer spend their game or was it due to the capitalist because he wanted to maximise profits?
The libertarians argue "They should just stop spending if they don't like the company!" but this doesn't explain why capitalists make a tendency towards maximising profits. Then they argue about " ""social"" enterprises " and whatnot. In other words, what they explain (i.e. the products consumers buy), doesn't explain the general tendency of capitalism, nor political economy in general.
This means that these libertarians have nothing to explain. Their arguments don't explain anything. They don't explain capitalism. Selective Apathy is nothing more than ignorance. They don't care about other people, they only care if they are not affected, or if this practice helps them in some way or another. This line of thinking of "I don't care what you do" can be extrapolated to many horrible ideas that libertarians or liberals can cling on to. We can also argue this is an aspect of alienation, but I made my point. This is just another aspect of individualism.
Add this one to the collection:
fascist-imperialist Russo-Chinese bourgeoisie
As a person who's about to head to University in a few months and currently does Maths, Computer Science, and Business Studies, I can definitely state that any degree/subject which involves liberal topics such as Economics and Political Science are useless.
As an example, in Business Studies, it's always about the business. They just put the thing out there, "the business is what matters". Of course they delve into ethics and stuff but they don't care about that because businesses are supposed to be the best option. It's just capitalist realism combined with writing too much.
Economics is similar, it just doesn't involve businesses as much. It's just: "keep the economy going, line go up means world more gooder." It's an absolute joke. People with Economics or PoliSci degrees are also utterly atrocious and worse than marxists who don't hold any degree of the sort.
I'm surprised that this shit is being taught to begin with. It's all liberal nonsense, really. I don't have much on PoliSci, but someone here made a series of posts where it delves into the liberal nature of PoliSci.
The UK wanted to have a unified legal definition of 'sex'. Scotland agreed to this but later on changed this with the Gender Recognition Bill to have a different legal definition of what 'sex' is. The CPB opposes this, saying it will create 'legal chaos', basically stating that there would be differences in how it's being carried out. The UK only recognises changes in sex only when there is gender dysphoria. Scotland changes this to ensure that anyone over the age of 16 can change their sex without needing to have gender dysphoria. The CPB thinks that a 'unified' legal definition of sex would help the UK somehow?
Not really. When it comes to Communist Parties in the UK, you either have revisionist parties or transphobic parties. There is almost nothing in regards to principled ML orgs.
Hi wisconcom. I know you can read this message, so don't bother saying you haven't. For others who do not know about him, just know that he's a "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist" (or Hoxhaist).
You keep going on this website, trying to infiltrate it in one way or another, defending yourself when you're being threatened. I have countless examples of your alts. One example is 'Sickomus', who wrote a 'critique' on my essay in Prolewiki. You defended yourself with another account as well, showing your clear cowardice:
How about you going on RationalWiki and changing your username so that you can hide away from your edits on ProleWiki?
I just wanna ask some questions. Why do you do this? What do you hope to achieve by doing this? If you're doing to 'trash Tankies and Dengists', then why are you bothering to literally blend in with us to begin with?
Even RationalWiki editors (whom are liberals) know that you're obsessed. This is just laughable at this point.
If you're just doing this to combat 'revisionism' or some other bullshit, then why are you not at all concerned that you're literally on rationalwiki? A website, which literally claims that communism is a totalitarian ideology:
What problem does fighting revisionism have? Nothing by itself. But you care more about fighting revisionism more than fighting capitalism. Therefore you're helping US imperialism.
I would like to end off this message by stating this:
Good day.
This is a copy of what he sent to me after I wrote my "What even is 'Dengism'?" essay. Here's what he said lol:
I have read your essay on ProleWiki, "What even is "dengism"?", and I must say, it is absolutely repugnant, as are the other essays (or rather, screeds which are little more than dengist propaganda and pseudo-socialist nonsense) you have concoted on the revisionist hive that is ProleWiki.
The contents of your scribbles is, in short, nothing beyond citing a few examples of Deng Xiaoping's propaganda in which he allegedly affirms his socialist ideology. You totally omit the true aspects of his bourgeois ideology (even claiming quotes he is well-known to have said were "fake" and "made up by Maoists").
Yes, of course it would be the case that if you took this-or-that Deng quote, while removing everything else he said, you could misinform your readers that he is a socialist. Of course, this is both false and intellectually dishonest.
Deng Xiaoping omited class struggle in favor of the "development of the productive forces". To this day, the revisionist CPC keeps ill-informed revisionist propagandists such as yourself servile to their social-fascist ideological line by merely "kicking the can down the road" as to when they are going to become truly "socialist". Once the year 2049 arrives, the revisionists in China are simply going to move the target for "reaching socialism" to 2100, and then 2200, and so on. I believe comrade Enver Hoxha wisely noted this trend when he said:
"In a demagogic way, Mao Tse-tung and the Communist Party of China have subordinated all their declarations about the construction of the socialist and communist society to their pragmatic policy. Thus, in the years of the so-called great leap forward, with the aim of throwing dust in the eyes of the masses, who, emerging from the revolution, aspired to socialism, they declared that within 2-3 five-year periods, they would pass directly over to communism. Later, however, in order to cover up their failures, they began to theorize that the construction and triumph of socialism would require ten thousand years."
Otherwise, you, in your essay, refuse to view things from a Marxist and dialectical view. You remove, among many other features, one of the most critical aspects of socialism: the removal of the bourgeoisie from economic power in favor of the proletariat.
Developing the productive forces is important, but it must be given lesser importance to class struggle, the creation of public ownership of the means of production, and so on.
Using your (very much poor) standards of "proof" for the ideological nature of these leaders, with which you use in this context to make Deng Xiaoping seem to be a Marxist, you could deceit others into viewing Adolf Hitler as a socialist. Your writing is nothing but propaganda to promote dengist ideology, an ideology which the rest of ProleWiki maintains with great zeal.
In the middle of your essay, you use the "cultural revolution" in China under Mao Zedong as a justification for Deng's coup and rise to power over the Gang of Four. However, you fail to account for the fact that, as comrade Hoxha once again correctly noted:
"The course of events showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian. It was a palace Putsch on an all-China scale for the liquidation of a handful of reactionaries who had seized power."
It is correct Deng Xiaoping was merely following Mao Zedong Thought (albeit a extremely bourgeois interruption of it), however, it is the case that Mao Zedong Thought was, at its core, a revisionist and anti-Marxist ideology, with reactionary elements it attained from religion, among other sources.
Of all, it is your conclusion which is the most revisionary and false.
Not only do you imply that it is exclusively supporters of the capitalist state of China who constitute "legitimate" Marxist-Leninists, you effectively say that only Dengists (additional note, Stalinism does in fact exist) are real Marxist-Leninists.
Not only do you pollute Marxism via attempting to claim pseudo-socialists such as yourself are theoretically genuine, you are engaging in what is effectively dogmato-revisionism; the adoption of revisionism, and attempt to make said revisionism seem like truthful Marxism, and the rejection of all non-revisionists as being "revisionist".
While it is true that Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are revisionists, you attempting to claim that all Anti-revisionists are "revisionists" is nothing but a dogmatic attempt to defend your revisionism.
Regarding what dengism is, it is true that not all Marxists who support the People's Republic of China are dengist, rather, most of them are simply misinformed or have made a correctable ideological mistake. Rather, dengists are those "Marxists" who persist in this mistake, and defend it, which is what both you and the rest of the ProleWiki community is doing.
I wish to present to you a definition of what dengism is from a well-informed and wise Anti-revisionist who is a comrade of mine:
"Dengism is a revisionist and pseudo-Marxist ideology which originated during the full restoration of capitalism in China in the late 1970s. With regards to its followers in this context, it refers to the “Communists” who maintain the view that state-capitalism is socialism, class struggle is trivial and secondary in comparison to the development of the productive forces, that maintaining the bourgeoisie in power is socialist, and that working towards a revolution in one’s own country is useless, and all effort of the Communists must be towards defending supposed “actually existing socialism.”
Dengism is the ideology of counter-revolution, stagnation, and social-imperialism..."
We call you revisionists dengists not because we seek to vacuously attack you, but to separate Marxists from pseudo-Marxists like you.
It is groups such as ProleWiki, GenZedong, and others which have motivated me to cease calling myself a "Marxist-Leninist", and instead refer to myself as a "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist". You people are giving outsiders to Marxism a bad view due to your crypto-capitalist ideology, your defense of revisionist and social-fascist state such as China, Vietnam, the DPRK, and so on. "Marxism-Leninism" has long since been hijacked and corrupted by revisionists starting with Trotsky and Khruschev, and presently with people such as yourself.
I hope you reconsider your views regarding dengist revisionism. Thank you and good day.
(I suggest you post this criticism on the talk page of your essay to give others an alternative view on this subject.)
It is true that they are not worse than the CPUSA. But just because they produce good "takes" doesn't make them worthy of critical support. They may have good ideas surrounding geopolitics, but their "critical" support (or lack thereof) makes them more prone to chauvinistic stances which are displayed within the takes of the Russian Federation. It may be more correct than the CPUSA's international stance, but they're both social chauvinists on different levels.
Let's not forget that patsocs initially "critically" supported Trump, who was deemed an anti-imperialist (or at least his actions were anti-imperialist) by Hazites, and likely the same by those who follow MWM or Hinkle. Just because the party statement rejects both parties doesn't mean it won't likely remain that stance. CPUSA claims to not be a puppet of the democrats yet in their twitter they claimed to be "small d democrats". Their tailism is a product of their chauvinism, they believe that the masses have nothing wrong with their thoughts, of being transphobic, homophobic, etc. That's revisionist, and just because they leech the working class from the republican party doesn't mean those chauvinistic thoughts go away. If anything it may be reinforced.
Also, critically supporting them for the sake of accelerationism is not going to do much. The regard for "chaos" at the cost of trans, gay, and black people would be more costly for them rather than for the cishet whites (or Conservatives to be more specific). This is not a party worthy of support, by any measure, as supporting them is supporting the same social-chauvinistic stances which Lenin initially opposed.