• 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.