• CriticalResist8 [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hey, thanks for the feedback.

    For Mao, I asked our resident China expert and am waiting for a response; we’ll see what he says. Although I think it would make sort of a minute difference to move Mao’s card as his work was mostly about China’s material conditions and SWCC takes what he laid down; would you move Lenin because Marxism-leninism is a post-Lenin invention too? 😄

    Socialist doesn’t necessarily mean marxist, and Gaddafi joins the row of people like MLK or Einstein (for whom we have only 1 work so they don’t have their own cards). Gaddafi’s writings are unfamiliar to me personally, but we talked about him quite a bit with the editorship, including people who are familiar with him, and the consensus is that he was a socialist to some extent, but certainly not a communist or a marxist.

    As for the documents, our goal is to rehost every major document from communist parties around the world so as to archive them… but between what we want to do and what we have the current capabilities of doing is a lot of ground to cover lol. Sometimes we also rehost documents we intend to use as sources.

    • drinkinglakewater [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It may seem pedantic, but plenty of Mao’s writings have use outside of the Chinese context the same way Lenin’s writings can be used outside the Russian context. SwCC is by definition stuff that should only apply to the conditions in China, which I think narrows the view on the usefulness of Mao to a less informed reader.

      If you’re going to be looser with the definition of socialism in that way, may I recommend relabeling the header “non-Marxist Socialism” or something like that?

      I can appreciate the goal, but I think it’s a bit of a waste to do so and not have some editorial insight or at least critique of works by parties that are communist in name as this is another way to confuse new communists.

      And thank you for taking the time to consider my gripes!

      • CriticalResist8 [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not wrong with the SWCC, it might be to generalist a term. Likewise for the communist/socialist demarcation, I think we agree but in different ways.

        It’s possible documents can confuse new readers, but I think that remains to be proven. Sometimes there’s also good analysis in places, and bad analysis in others. One thing we don’t want to do is edit the works we put in the library, which is something that marxists.org does, like editing Stalin to make him look bad. We’re strictly a publisher for now.

    • AHopeOnceMore [he/him]@hexbear.netB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      SWCC is more about the direction China took under Deng, which can be anything from praise to neutral to derisive depending on what someone thinks of Deng and that direction (I think it’s worked out reasonably well, personally). It is heavily drawn from the direction under Mao, and by necessity cites Mao, so they aren’t purely distinct but I would say that means learning about SWCC should involve reading Mao but you can read Mao without SWCC. e.g., the Black Panthers were inspired by Mao’s writings and built on them, but did not build on Deng / SWCC.

    • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you’re adding Gadaffi because hes a socialist, just fuck it. Add anyone who is even vaguely related to the term. Add saddam hussein with his romance novels, it’s got as much to do with socialism. I mean read the green book, it’s barely legible as a text. It’s the nonsensical ramblings of a man who is trying to justify anti socialism and regressive cultural norms through socialist esque sounding buzzwords.

      would you move Lenin because Marxism-leninism is a post-Lenin invention too

      Yes, duh? Neither the term ML or the framework that defines ML existed during his life time. He is the ur text for the movement, but he is not part of it. And of course. Plenty of socialists have as much claim to being inspired by or deriving their praxis from Lenin but are not MLs

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      joins the row of people like MLK or Einstein

      I think you should expand into this. Historic figures, historic figures, historic figures. Lists of scientists, activists and so on, with their pictures, with contents of various length (even if it’s just a short quote) demonstrating their support for socialists, communists, etc etc.

      The biggest and most successful propaganda tool I have had in any discussion is namedropping Einstein, Nelson Mandela, etc etc and illuminating the history that liberals hide about them.

      • CriticalResist8 [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We decided to add cards for authors only after we had at least 2 works from them (but their works, like Einstein’s Why Socialism, are available in other topic cards). I agree though that it really helps having notable figures like MLK and Einstein appear on the encyclopedia.

        • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gathering collections of these notable figures, even if they don’t have “works” per se to reference, is still a really valuable way to portray socialism. A massive page full of notable figures and links to their various support for socialism alongside the academic content would have a strong effect on left-leaning libs that are riddled with anti-communist brainworms. Being bombarded with a large swarm of things they didn’t know about figures that they already consider to be “the good people” will have a rubbing off effect on the ones they are uneasy about, such as Stalin and Mao here. I am obviously not telling you guys how to do your work but I see the way you’re displaying it and see a massive opportunity.

          I would genuinely link to prolewiki regularly if it included this stuff with that presentation, because it would reinforce existing propaganda patterns I already perform when I’m trying to turn the baby-leftists(not intended as an insult) into proper leftists and prevent them turning down the anti-communist paths.

          • CriticalResist8 [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Everyone is free to request an account on ProleWiki and help improve our pages 😄

            You could make a page named something like “Supporters of socialism” with these people in it and what they said about socialism etc for example

            • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You could make a page named something like “Supporters of socialism” with these people in it and what they said about socialism etc for example

              That’s the thing, I don’t think it should be separated. I big long massive page of pictures of people they know but didn’t know were supporters of communism/socialism all in one place is how you get it to be significantly more powerful to people.