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.

[–] drinkinglakewater@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

That's fine but publishers aren't neutral, so if the ProleWiki team hosts something from an otherwise disagreeable source it would be good if the editorial team or submitter justified why a particular piece of analysis is worthwhile. Having that clarity helps guide people in the right direction versus them cobbling together a patchwork idea of communism based on assumptions like the CPC and CPRF are of the same importance because both of their works are featured

[–] YoungBelden@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

editing Stalin to make him look bad.

ooh that sounds interesting, is there a link I can read more about this?

[–] CriticalResist8@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure it's documented anywhere, but if you read anything by Trotsky on there it's full of inline notes to explain what he means, and these notes are full of words like "Stalinists" or "bureaucrats" lol.

Here they admit themselves to editing Lenin to remove "pro-Stalin bias" from editors: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/note.htm

They also removed portions from Mastering Bolshevism about restraint and care, compare yourself:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/03.htm

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MB37.html