User talk:Harrystein/sandbox/text/Draft principles

Feedback

Hello. Here are some thoughts and criticism I have about this draft. I hope you find this helpful.

On the introduction

In the intro, while mentioning other bourgeois media it states:

"effectively becoming yet another source which repeats or even amplifies the propaganda of whatever media Wikipedia has already declared to be "reliable". On top of these filters, Wikipedia adds its own..."

This statement is completely true and I in no way disagree with it. My issue is simply mentioning Wikipedia at the top of the page. This gives readers the impression that this site has no other purpose than to respond to the articles Wikipedia has on leftist figures and movement, as opposed to being a new project which offers original discourse.

In my opinion, mentions of Wikipedia should stay in the FAQ section (more on that later).

On the definitions

Once again, practically all of the content here is good enough for the time being. But I disagree with how in "III. Imperialism and war" it calls imperialism a "policy." This suggests that imperialism is just a decision of a bourgeois administration which can be started or ended like the flick of a light switch, when in reality imperialism is a unique stage in the development of capitalism which is beyond any government's control (and in fact, like capitalism, it controls the government!), and imperialism can only be ended by destroying the capitalist system as a whole.

I wager this is unintentional, but this wording is still misleading.

Also, is later says:

"This ignorance of real imperialism is the essence of American deviations such as "anarcho-Bidenism" and "anarcho-NATOism".

It should actually state real ideological deviations like radicalism liberalism, social democracy, or whatever. "Anarcho-Bidenism/NATOism" are only joke-terms used by actual leftists.

On the principles

All of the principles are great so far. The only ones which I take issues with are "Not politically correct" and "Not politically incorrect."

First off, "political correctness" is mostly a buzzword used by far-righters to complain about not being able to call for genocide against ethnic minorities. The term can have legitimate uses, but there are definitely better options to use.

As to the content of those principles themselves, I find them too vague and contradictory. If being not "politically correct" means allowing "[opposition] to superficial liberal analyses of social problems" which would necessarily mean targeting groups of people (most prominently LGBTQ+) even to be point of denying their very existence, then all of that would be contradicted by the "Not politically incorrect" principle.

I think there's room to question the liberal "pink-washing" and other dishonest ideas of liberal capitalists who don't actually care about these oppressed groups. But also, editors on this site shouldn't have to be targeted or insulted for their identity, and we have no obligation to let homophobic, racist, or transphobic bigots voice their hateful views against our editors, even if they call themselves "socialists."

At a minimum, these principles should be made much more specific to prohibit bigotry, racism and other forms of discrimination.

On Etiquette and guidelines

Some of the content here is good, but I see allowing non-leftists of any kind to be extremely questionable. Especially this part:

"'Pro-Nazi' positions, as in facts that happen to support nazi or anti-communist narratives, are not banned per se, and a certain perspective on a page towards/against a leftist angle is not banned per se."

but then it says:

"However, disruptive editing and rule manipulation may be considered bad faith if used in combination with consistently pro-rightist editing. "

To me, this is completely contradictory and I completely disagree with letting Nazis and other fascists on here (let me know if I'm misunderstanding this). Not even Wikipedia allows Nazis on their site.

Why? Their hateful views make their edits completely and necessarily disruptive. If they think socialism is a Jewish conspiracy and that all socialists deserve to be exterminated or whatever their sick ideas are, they are necessarily in conflict with the rest of our editors. If they are horrible fascists who disagree with all leftist ideas, they will always want to disrupt our content and revise our rules to allow more rightist propaganda.

Fascists and other horrible reactionaries have no place here and should be banned on sight, just like Wikipedia does.

Allowing less-extreme right-wingers is still something which shouldn't be allowed. This is Leftypedia, which is clearly here to promote left-wing views, not a general political forum where people can voice their views freely. Just like with Nazis, other right-wingers will be in conflict with the rest of our editors and will therefore be disruptive. They shouldn't be tolerated.

Will should be multi-tendency and open to other left-wing editors, but we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

On the FAQ

I don't disagree per se with anything in this part, more just stylistic changes.

For one, I don't think "There are tons of other alt-Wikis out there, including ProleWiki. Why should I use yours?" should be its own section. Most "alt-wikis" are either non-ideological, completely inactive, and/or right-wing extremist. Leftypedia is really the only site which fulfills this particular niche of a left-wing wiki. ProleWiki would be close, but they follow a very specific ideology which would exclude most leftists. This section should be shortened and merged with the one above on Wikipedia as they are very similar in focus.

That should be it. I'm eager to hear your reply. Thanks. RedParabola (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)