22
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] drinkinglakewater@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Some gripes:

  • Mao should not be listed under "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics", this was a post-Mao invention and Mao's work contributes directly to Marxism-Leninism
  • Gaddafi should be removed entirely. He may be valuable as a historical figure but he is not a socialist theorist (iirc the Green Book is explicitly non-Marxist) and including him under "Socialism" is misleading to new and less informed communists
  • Why share the works of the revisionist CPRF? Here is an exert from ProleWiki's own article on them "Zyuganov and the [CPRF] support social conservatism"
[-] CriticalResist8@hexbear.net 3 points 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? ๐Ÿ˜„

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.

[-] AHopeOnceMore@hexbear.net 2 points 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.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13447 readers
891 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS