ProleWiki is strictly Marxist-Leninist and takes its Principles seriously
More languages
More actions
← Back to all essays | Author's essays ProleWiki is strictly Marxist-Leninist and takes its Principles seriously
by CriticalResist
Published: 2024-03-02 (last update: 2024-03-03)
10-20 minutes
At different points in ProleWiki's life, we have been accused of being sectarian for refusing non-Marxist-Leninists into our project. This essay aims, through my own interpretation and analysis, to explain why the project has naturally grown towards an explicit ML position.
To situate new readers, we should quickly explain how one can join ProleWiki. Anyone is free to request an account, which requires them to answer several questions. On the basis of these answers, the 'trusted' editorship (editors who have been active on the wiki for at least a few months) votes on the application and either accepts or rejects it.
The early days of ProleWiki in late 2020 were not marked by any dominant ideological tendency. Accounts were open to anyone, and did not require a vetting process. Our founder purposely reached out to invite non-MLs to the project -- despite being a Marxist-Leninist himself.
Very quickly, we found ourselves bickering over irreconcilable differences: Is China socialist? Why is there no article about Hoxha? Why is the Sino-Soviet split article leaning this way instead of that way?
What was supposed to bring people together ended up further driving the wedge between them. We spent more time discussing what pages on sensitive topics should look like instead of writing them. There existed even at the time plenty of online spaces where marxists could have endless debates about the same ten questions.
Clearly, this approach was not productive and ProleWiki could be -- and wanted to be -- much more.
This happened in the first 6-9 months of ProleWiki's life. Soon, the hype for the newly established encyclopedia went down and ProleWiki entered the 'lull years', the period from 2021 to mid-2022 where not much of note happened. Our non-ML editors left and only the ML editors remained, albeit few of them.
It was during that process that we naturally refined ourselves into an ML encyclopedia. The process happened naturally as the administrators that remained, three of them, were active in the same ML circles online and thus recruited from there. As they kept writing articles, they naturally presented the ML version of an issue in it and attracted more Marxist-Leninists to the project.
The case against Marxist unity?
ProleWiki does not aim to extrapolate broader conclusions from its policies. We are not a party and have no desire to be one, even if in many ways we operate like one. We do what works for us considering our conditions (that of being an asynchronous online encyclopedia). Our vetting process, for example, is lengthy because we depend on the limited answers to the questions to make a decision about whether to let someone have an account. They need to properly assess a prospective editor's personality and knowledge.
Listening to our detractors, it seems ProleWiki is anything but ML. We have been called Dengists, ultras, revisionists, leftcoms, trotskyists, and many other contradictory words that we've stopped counting.
Yet we have always been consistent with our leaning and have never tried to misrepresent who we are or what we do.
It is precisely other users, both prospective and established editors, who have misrepresented and played down their ideological leanings for a chance to get into ProleWiki.
Every time we have extended our hands to non-ML tendencies, we have been taken advantage of.
From 2020 to 2022 for example, ProleWiki had a patsoc administrator in its triumvirate. Owing to the easy signup method of the early days, this user created an account before any vetting system was in place. One thing I didn't mention yet is that a few months after the start of ProleWiki, many editors were invited to become administrators. When we entered the lull years, only a few editors and three administrators, including the patriotic socialist user, remained active within the project. Their tendency would only become transparent as time went on, with them trying to keep a lid on it, but not fooling anyone.
The problem was, how do you remove an admin that has access to passwords and accounts? We hoped at first we could pull them out of this hole and correct their deviation, but that didn't happen. Their patriotic socialist tendencies could be kept at bay, however, as the editorship was strong enough to not let such edits pass. When the admin was found to have gone against our back by trying to get other patsocs to join the wiki under false pretenses so they could come to control it, we pulled a stop and purged his account and accesses in a swift operation.
We talk openly about this past because it is an occasion for us to improve, and we have nothing to hide. That user is not associated with the project anymore in any way, and we now have methods in place to prevent patriotic socialists from joining. By being upfront about this past, it will not come as a surprise to anyone.
Shortly after our patsoc admin was purged from the project, we had to ban an anti-revisionist user for being belligerent about China. He later made it clear his interest in ProleWiki was careerist (at least, as much as it could be inside a nascent online encyclopedia) -- he wanted to replace our administration with himself at the top, and turn ProleWiki into his own Hoxhaist pet project, despite accusing us of doing the same with Marxism-Leninism!
We removed a user who never explicitly called themselves a Marxist and kept getting into edit wars, even after remediation was attempted. When banned, they said we were a 'liberal' encyclopedia (and had very racist comments to say to our founder), despite them adding very banal facts to country pages such as flora and fauna, which anyone can already learn on Wikipedia. We have refused an editor who had sufficient answers on their vetting process, but ultimately repeated Zionist arguments. Commenting on this rejection, they said they didn't understand why they would be rejected (even though we explained what the problem was), or as if we should have overlooked their Zionist stance. We recently banned an 'anti-revisionist' editor after they admitted to writing made-up content to a page to troll us.
Up to this day, two users have told us their opinions drifted away from our principles and they would retire from the project on their own. We have thus blocked them from editing the wiki as a security measure (much like any company would change your passwords when you quit your job), leaving them a communication line in case they wished to discuss our divergences or come back to the project. In one case, despite the user agreeing to their block and understanding what it meant (that it was not a reflection on them but a security measure), they still later pretended they did not see it coming or understand why we blocked them.
We have outright refused anti-LGBT editor requests because we have LGBT editors, and have a duty to protect them. When confronted with this fact, they seemingly did not understand why they would be refused and why these opinions of theirs would be important to get an account, and subsequently tried to get more accounts approved.
All the users we purge are understandably upset when it happens. But I think it should not upset them; it should make them proud to have been rejected by such a coherent and ideologically strong project. We make no exceptions, and we encourage people to request an account again if they correct their stances.
Or, should we let in people who do not believe in a word of our principles but say they do just to get in?
Well, let me answer with another question: Do you expect a party to let you in if you disagree with and don't believe in their statutes? Would you agree to let in anyone into your party, even if they just wanted to sabotage it?
There are so many communist parties who protect abusers and ideologically-unsound members, even putting them in roles of authority. ProleWiki does not do that. At times, we've blocked users from editing after finding out they diverged from our principles in an irrevocable way, despite them never alerting us about it. We do our homework.
In fact banning is, for us, a last-resort option. It is something that, to this day, has had to happen simply because it was no longer possible to continue our work relationship with some editors. We try to fix things first, finding a solution so as not to ban someone. Some of our ex-editors have used our approach to try and game the system so to speak, seeing themselves as "too big to fail" due to their contributions or activity. But they were not. In fact, there is nothing to gain from trying to infiltrate ProleWiki: once discovered (and we are very good at it), infiltrators are banned and all of their edits reviewed. We keep the good edits online, and remove the offending edits. Thus, all an infiltrator does is improve our encyclopedia, which is the opposite of what they want to achieve.
One skill is knowing, the other is teaching
On the one hand, it is important that our editors agree with our Principles and understand what ProleWiki is and what role they will be able to play in it.
On the other hand, as we are an encyclopedia, it is also important that they know enough to teach others in turn. To that end, our vetting process is quite stringent in some aspects, asking varied questions to gauge a prospective editor's knowledge of Marxism. I can't say too much about it so as not to influence new answers, but a challenge we want to keep at bay is "how do we make sure what is written on the encyclopedia is true and understandable?"
We write for our readers and will always put them first; we don't write to congratulate ourselves on our writing skills and show how much we know about a topic. Our readers, however, can be at various stages of learning: complete newbies who have never even heard of the word communism, marxists who know a little bit in one topic and one to try and understand further, to long-time students that just want to confirm a claim.
How do you write one page for so many readers? It's a question we are still finding an answer to, and we are trying out different options.
It is good to know things, but it is useless to know something if it is not going to be shared. I can only encourage all developed Marxist-Leninists to join ProleWiki.
We have recently started opening up new account types, such as the library editor account, which prevents its members from editing anything other than our library. That way, they can add books to our repository and be involved in the project, and read them as they upload them. This is a win-win situation for both parties.
What's in a name
A criticism that has sometimes been raised is that an encyclopedia named 'ProleWiki' should be open to all tendencies, and the name is a misnomer.
But the Communist Party of Peru is Maoist. The Communist Party of Britain is revisionist and reformist. The Communist Party of the USA is historically chauvinist. The Communist Party of China, if you ask non-MLs, is not even Marxist.
And have Communist parties in Europe not turned to Eurocommunism following the illegal dissolution of the USSR?
Why does this specific rule apply to an online encyclopedia and not the multitude of revisionist and reformist parties currently existing in the world and taking on the Communist name?
A name means nothing, only actions do. Clearly, we see our detractors have nothing more to go on with than a general sense of uneasiness around such a project existing. If they feel it threatens their Marxist tendency, then it says more about them than us.
ProleWiki has no problem with other tendencies existing and has even encouraged other (non-ML) wikis to open. We are happy to take care of our project in peace, on our side of the web. If your ideology is coherent and answers the people's needs, it will attract them. This is what I believe in, and as such don't feel threatened by other projects existing. If we did not believe in Marxism-Leninism, we would not have started ProleWiki. This is self-evident.
ProleWiki is Marxist-Leninist because it couldn't be anything else
While tautological, this statement is ultimately true.
We are what we are and have no obligation to compromise our integrity to let in people who can very well start their own project, which we encourage.
However, we are not saying Marxist unity is impossible in other projects, whether they are organized in real life or on the Internet. We don't claim that our model is the only one that works or that should exist.
Principles are more than words on paper
I've mentioned our Principles earlier and it is now time to delve deeper into them.
They are to us what statutes are to a party.
Our principles in their current and latest incarnation have been established by our trusted editors following lengthy discussions and votes. Again, any ProleWiki editor will become trusted and join this 'central committee' (if we continue with the Party parallels) provided they stay active on ProleWiki. Once they do, they will have a right to vote.
As such, our principles reflect the collective positions of the editorship as a whole. We have reached them, and continue to update them, through a long process of debates and discussions held by our diverse editorship -- we note comrades from Cuba, Turtle Island, China, Africa, Europe, USA, and other regions of the world. This diverse core is our strength, and is made possible because we have strong principles, which does not attract opportunists. Through this system, we reinforce our editorship with people who will naturally agree to our principles and reinforce their application further.
I have certainly known parties who could not boast of this diverse base or were even open to revising their statutes.
It would be a mistake to say, however, that ProleWiki editors agree on everything. We certainly don't, and we don't police opinions which are not reflected in our principles. Disagreements, as communists are known for, arise often in the community, both within the Trusted editorship and the 'new' editors. These are healthy and welcome.
We somewhat regularly receive account requests who, when asked Have you read our principles? explain they have no objections whatsoever to them. However, when later asked if they think China is socialist, or what they understand gender to be, go into a tirade. Yet our Principles spell black on white that we consider China to be socialist and AES.
Two conclusions result: either the user did not actually read our principles, in which case we are not compelled to give them an account; or, they did read our principles and lied about agreeing with them, in which case we are not compelled to give them an account either.
On the handling of criticism
Ultimately, ProleWiki is its own project and, internally, works in its own way. In that sense, while we keep in mind the reader and write for them externally, we handle internal matters our own way and don't accept outside observers in these matters specifically, which are for us to take care of with our own processes and methods.
On the public-facing matters, however, such as the content of pages, we do read and accept criticism.
ProleWiki is the collective product of over 100 people involved over the past four years, for a total of 50,000 edits made over 3,500 pages. At this range, we can't easily patrol and audit every edit made and we certainly don't want to double-guess an editor's edit and undo it when one person disagrees with the wording. Sometimes, we have editors who are very focused in one topic and nobody else feels they know enough to call out the edit.
In that way, there may be incorrect or disagreeable statements made on the encyclopedia. The best way to change those, if one feels it does not represent the subject matter properly, is to request an account so one can start participating on those pages.
We are getting better on that front and are enacting more rules and methods to correctly handle content on pages. However, the collaborative nature of an encyclopedia means that anyone can, at any time, make any edit to a page. In other words, we never know at any point what the next edit will be, or what the next new page will be. We discover them, by and large, at the same time everyone does -- when these edits are published.
A project of this size is not built in a single day, we can only learn and evolve wherever it may take us.