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.
That there would be some amount of revisionism is precisely my expectation of AES states. It's not like I said they weren't socialist -- and from a practical standpoint we can say pretty confidently that they all are, most especially the DPRK and Cuba.
"Revisionist" is basically shorthand for "deviating in some way from fundamental Marxist principles" which is a subset of "erroneous from a Marxist perspective".
"No true scotsman" isn't just a vibe, it's a specific type of fallacy. If I say that "No X is Y" and you say "I know John, he's an X and he is Y" and I reply "He's not really X then, because no true X is Y," I am performing the fallacy in its most archetypal form. Basically, it is asserting that no member of a group has some (usually negative) trait and, when confronted with a counterexample, saying that the presence of the trait in that example means the example wasn't really a member of the group.
Dumb college kids do indeed do "no true scotsman" all the time when reactionaries say "reds killed trillions" and they say "but that wasn't real communism, man" to preserve their ignorant idealization without really understanding either Marxist theory or the actual evidence around AES history.
I don't have anything that I'm trying to disavow, and in fact am making claims of various kinds against these states (though I might have been unfair to Cuba, admittedly) without any interest in protecting some group of "true scotsman".
I can try to get into more detail on this another time (I need to wind down for sleep) but I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that when you point at basically all states thought of as AES (maybe I missed one?) and call them revisionist in one form or another, it can end up sounding exactly like the "that wasn't real communism" trope or in another way, end up sounding like "that was real communism and see how it sucks and fails actually in practice." I'm trying to word this carefully because it could go in the other direction too if presented thoughtlessly, where it sounds like I'm saying that criticisms of AES projects are bad (criticism is important). The point that I hang on is, making sure we're not de-legitimizing the theory and practice as a whole by being unfairly dismissive of how closely practice aligns with the goal, where it is on the developing path. And also just making sure we are clear on tactics vs. corruption mindset. That to use a rough war analogy, sometimes you have to retreat in order to regroup, but that doesn't mean your army has taken a step backward in its ideological goals. Retreating has the risk of leading to giving up and compromising on what you intend, but the one doesn't automatically follow from the other. So making sure in the weeds of it, we are clear on when something is dangerous compromising on an ideological center and when something is a more complicated tactical development that undoubtedly contains some risk of losing the ideological center, but still has that center and has a specific plan in mind for how to develop past the "retreating" into an advance.
Edit: wording