ProleWiki:Hub

Discussion board focused on improving the work at ProleWiki, defining our goals and achieving them

After 4 years, we need a content licence. It wasn't as important back then, but as we gather more and more editors (especially now that anonymous users can make edits too), and as people are starting to be interested in using our content, we need a content licence.

The event that made us move forward on this was actually someone wanting to quote and screenshot ProleWiki on Wikipedia but the mods there denied him because we don't have a clear content licence.

Anyway, we've been discussing this licence over the past few weeks on the Discord and are now ready to move forward with it.

• The licence would be a CC-BY-SA licence. Creative Commons with attribution and share alike.
• It would only apply to wiki pages, i.e. pages outside of a namespace, like Karl Marx
• All edits made into these pages automatically fall under that licence.

Furthermore, the licence will be retroactive and apply to all edits made prior to it being rolled out. We need this because of the sheer amount of edits, otherwise it would just be impossible to have a licence for both the editors and people who want to use our content.

We assume everyone is on board with it being retroactive anyway as all edits were already made to the ProleWiki name and you have to expect, contributing to a wiki, that people are gonna use and cite it.

On the application of the licence, I mentioned that it will apply only to wiki pages:

• Library works are not our own (see source in infobox on book), so we can't really licence them. If we do release our own (such as the translated edition of CIA Shining Path), licence is specified in the foreword.
• Essays still rightly belong to their author. If you want to licence your essays, you have to specify it somewhere on the essay.
• Modules and templates is a discussion we haven't had yet. Possibly unlicenced until we reach a conclusion? We can licence them retroactively either way. Personally I might be against it due to how much work we've put into these templates and modules, and them representing our own visual identity. Happy to hear thoughts.

Essentially, everything preceded by Namespace: in the page URL would be licenced differently than "main" pages.

Finally, I will try to write a page before the licence goes into effect and add it to the footer so that readers can see at a glance what is licenced and what is not.

The licence is not going live yet, as it's only fair to have a period of discussion. The discord, where most of our active editors are, is pretty much all on board with this, but I know some of our editors don't use the discord and I don't want to throw this at them out of nowhere.

We will keep discussions open until Monday unless someone makes an objection; you don't have to make the objection this weekend, you just have to say you have one and can write it a bit later when you have more time.

If there are no objections, then starting on Monday we will roll out a CC-BY-SA 4.0 retroactive licence.

closing old (2 years+) topics

ProleWiki was started in September 2020 with much fanfare. In the early months already, dozens of editors had joined and believed in the project. This early success forced the project to quickly adopt mechanisms to ensure its survival and continuity, which we will detail in this document.

This document is not binding to our principles; it details how ProleWiki acts, and how it has been acting in the past. It was written and validated by the administration team, consisting currently of Forte and CriticalResist.

While ProleWiki strives to establish a proper democratic centralist structure, we have learned from the past that it is not currently feasible based on our numbers.

ProleWiki remains quite young. We passed our 2 year anniversary just a month ago. Due to the very large scope such a project entails, we have lots of decisions to make -- on editing guidelines, on principles, on who to let in as an editor, on pages to patrol for changes, etc. These decisions require decisional power guided by the original vision set out for ProleWiki, the reason it was founded: to be a proletarian encyclopedia for Marxist-Leninist learning.

Furthermore, we need to protect our aims and objectives (as found in the Principles) and due to our activity and interest from many comrades with different ideological outlooks (as well as outright detractors, for example fascists), the administration believes it needs to have this decisional power to safeguard the project.

The administration was not always what it is. In the early days of ProleWiki, we saw a lot of hype and the administration team was gigantic, to say the least. This was a mistake; it was too early to make an assembly out of the administration. It became impossible to take any decision as not everyone was equally interested in participating. Soon, ideological differences came up without any way of settling them. We were paralysed and spent more time in struggle sessions than actually writing on the wiki. That was about the time we decided to make our principles clear.

The administrators remaining after this initial wave were simply those that stayed interested in the project and did not leave. One was invited but left due to lack of time to commit, another was removed for betraying the project, leaving just two administrators currently. New administrators are approached individually based on their trustworthiness, involvement in the project, and general personality. While we are only two administrators, we would like to form a triumvirate of three administrators at the very least so as to diversify our range of ideas and capacity to act.

At this time, we look for administrators that align with the principles of the project. Learning from our past, we do not want a repeat of the fiasco from when the administrator team included anyone that momentaneously wanted in.

There remains lots of work to do on the wiki. Our editorial guidelines, our principles did not come out of nowhere, but were the results of days and weeks of assessing, debating, and writing – labour. To say nothing of the technical aspects, such as setting up and maintaining hosting, bringing outside talent to the project when needed, setting up namespaces, templates, and other MediaWiki software specificities. We cannot, at this time, be bogged down in struggle sessions or looking over the shoulder of every editor to patrol their edits. Not while we are so few to participate.

Currently, our editors act mostly as auditors towards the administration. They are encouraged to voice their criticisms on our principles and decisions, but the decision remains with the administration. This is the only way ProleWiki is currently able to function and keep working.

Editors have to request an account on the wiki by answering questions, which the administrator team can either accept or deny. These questions are based on our principles. Originally, this measure was put in place to counter spam from bot accounts. However, we soon found it necessary to keep this measure in place so as to avoid defacement. It did happen, before this measure was in place, that people anonymously edited pages to fit their biases. This would mean extra work from our editors to undo the defacement – time that could be spent on writing instead. These defacers usually are not interested in helping the wiki or actually providing knowledge, they are interested either in undermining the project or being contrarians to the "established" outlook of ProleWiki. Essentially, without any interest for the well-being of ProleWiki and appreciation for the work that went into providing them this platform, they use it as their personal soapbox.

We must remember that ProleWiki exists on the internet and is not in charge of a country. There are people online, and we have had to deal with them, that want nothing more than to wreck projects, or care more about the purity of the ideological content than actually building something. Whereas in real life they would be investigated before their attempt or even be powerless to effect change, on ProleWiki they would find their voice amplified if left to their own devices.

Conversely, we have accepted users that did not agree 100% with our principles and let them edit on the wiki as well, to encourage different viewpoints and interpretations of Marxism-Leninism.

Our current system evidently works and rarely gives rise to difficulties or issues. In two years of existence, we have found active editors and the wiki now contains almost 1800 articles, with many being incredibly detailed. This averages out to 2.5 articles a day. People that are interested in simply writing can do so without worrying about the politics going on behind ProleWiki, and the people that want to take a more involved role can submit requests to the administration for discussion.

ProleWiki remains a Marxist-Leninist encyclopedia as an inalienable principle of the project. ProleWiki is not Wikipedia, and does not claim to be neutral or unbiased. ProleWiki is not a catch-all Marxist encyclopedia that lets all currents and ideologies express themselves equally: it is a proletarian encyclopedia, and we believe Marxism-Leninism to be the most advanced revolutionary theory towards the liberation of the proletariat.

I have some questions on points that I would like elaboration on:

While ProleWiki strives to establish a proper democratic centralist structure, we have learned from the past that it is not currently feasible based on our numbers.

• What experience (or event) did you derive this from?
• Why would a democratic centralist structure not work in small numbers?
• How many (active) users are on Prolewiki?

Conversely, we have accepted users that did not agree 100% with our principles and let them edit on the wiki as well, to encourage different viewpoints and interpretations of Marxism-Leninism.

• Is there a system of thought that corresponds to when users don't need to agree with certain principles?

> What experience (or event) did you derive this from?

In the very beginning of the project, we brought many editors and let most of them into what we now call administrative positions. They did not necessarily have access to accounts and other sensitive info, but they could make decisions to guide ProleWiki. Note that this was before I became an admin, but what we found out was that everyone had their own idea of what PW should be and ultimately, we spent more time debating than actually doing anything. Most of those editors eventually left the project due to a lack of interest (if I remember correctly) and we had to rebuild a new structure.

> Why would a democratic centralist structure not work in small numbers?

In our opinion (Forte and me), it was more efficient for the project to have executive power remain between the administrators considering the age, numbers, goals and general context of our project.

For example, we were and are still wary of potential trolls or wreckers joining -- this is a problem with all online projects.

Derived from my own experience as a moderator in the past, I generally don't want to give too much power to users because you never truly know you who are dealing with (see for example Wisconcom). Also, I've noticed people don't really care about what goes on behind the scenes as long as the website (any website) works and they're given enough liberty on it. I think this makes sense because it's not really their lives or livelihood at stake, it's just a website.

Certainly though editors are allowed to propose changes and for a while now we've made them more involved in administrative processes. Changes on our principles for example are voted on (and proposed) by the editors and so are most new account requests. This is mostly done on the Discord though as Wikimedia is terrible for this kind of discussion, so we might actually make that clearer to new editors that they should join the discord.

> How many (active) users are on Prolewiki?

There is a page here: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers that shows Active Users based on at least 1 action in the last 30 days.

Generally I would say we are about 10 active editors, i.e. editors that edit every day or every 2 days. We've recently accepted 5 new editors too.

> Is there a system of thought that corresponds to when users don't need to agree with certain principles?

There's not any outlined process at this time. We evaluate their answers in the account request and might ask them more since they give their email. We generally look that they agree to our principles (which is a question), but sometimes it's difficult because they might say they agree to our principles, and then in later answers show they clearly do not.

100% (personal) agreement to the principles is not required, however PW pushes a certain line (ML) and so even if an editor does not agree with something, we ask that they at least contribute as if they agree to it. E.g. if an editor disagrees that China is socialist (contrary to our principle that China is AES), we might let them in, but look that they don't start reworking the whole page to remove mentions of socialism on the PRC.

I think generally we want to see maturity from our editors, in the case they don't entirely agree with the principles, i.e. that they understand why ProleWiki is the way it is and they don't try to go against it sneakily or push their own opinions in our articles like trots, lol.

Hope this answers your questions.

In our opinion (Forte and me), it was more efficient for the project to have executive power remain between the administrators considering the age, numbers, goals and general context of our project.

For example, we were and are still wary of potential trolls or wreckers joining -- this is a problem with all online projects.

Derived from my own experience as a moderator in the past, I generally don't want to give too much power to users because you never truly know you who are dealing with (see for example Wisconcom). Also, I've noticed people don't really care about what goes on behind the scenes as long as the website (any website) works and they're given enough liberty on it. I think this makes sense because it's not really their lives or livelihood at stake, it's just a website. Certainly though editors are allowed to propose changes and for a while now we've made them more involved in administrative processes. Changes on our principles for example are voted on (and proposed) by the editors and so are most new account requests. This is mostly done on the Discord though as Wikimedia is terrible for this kind of discussion, so we might actually make that clearer to new editors that they should join the discord.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree with you (Though Discord is a u.s social media platform, so I think we should seek an alternative if possible.)

We could apply democratic centralism to just the leadership or administrative positions and only after an amount of time participating.

There's not any outlined process at this time. We evaluate their answers in the account request and might ask them more since they give their email. We generally look that they agree to our principles (which is a question), but sometimes it's difficult because they might say they agree to our principles, and then in later answers show they clearly do not. 100% (personal) agreement to the principles is not required, however PW pushes a certain line (ML) and so even if an editor does not agree with something, we ask that they at least contribute as if they agree to it. E.g. if an editor disagrees that China is socialist (contrary to our principle that China is AES), we might let them in, but look that they don't start reworking the whole page to remove mentions of socialism on the PRC. I think generally we want to see maturity from our editors, in the case they don't entirely agree with the principles, i.e. that they understand why ProleWiki is the way it is and they don't try to go against it sneakily or push their own opinions in our articles like trots, lol.

Hope this answers your questions.

It does. Thanks.

closing old (2 years+) topics

Dear comrades editors,

Our first ever formal fundraiser was a huge success. Not in the sense that we achieved more than our stated goal, but in the sense that we achieved our goal in just 5 days thanks to an outpouring of support from our editors, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear.

We asked for 528 dollars to cover 2 years of a new hosting plan, as we are going to need more disk space soon (this will double it, as well as essentially double all of our VPS resources).

We received 518 dollars after fees, just short of 10$ which we can easily cover with Forte or, since the contract is renewed later this year, might receive in the meantime.

We also made 8 patrons on Patreon and receive more than enough there to cover our yearly hosting costs, provided however that they remain patrons for a full 12 months.

Finally, we also sold our crypto which had been sitting for a while (and actually gained in value). Our strategy regarding crypto, now that we've been able to sell it, is to accept it but convert it to fiat as soon as we see it, so that it doesn't depreciate and one's donation in XMR or BTC remains as close as possible to their intent.

This brings our account to a total of ~815 USD, which is enough for 3 years of hosting!

I would first like to formally thank everyone who has donated to our wiki. This success, achieved in under a week, shows our work -- your work -- is appreciated, valued, and useful. It is not thankless.

And finally, we urge every editor who is not on our Discord to join it as soon as possible, as this is where we will discuss what to do with the excess, if anything. The excess in this case is defined as anything above the money needed for 2 years of hosting, currently 528 USD. Essentially, every editor is invited to propose and vote on what to do with this extra money. I think for now the administration will audit every proposal (for cost, deployability, usefulness, etc) but we are excited to try out this model as we have been rapidly opening up our internal democracy since January.

The goal is not to spend this money, but with an excess we can start thinking about some expenses that might make sense for the goals of ProleWiki.

closing old (2 years+) topics

I don't get it, you're saying that you need people to create German pages, but when I wanted to create the page for Imperialism in German and translate it from the English page, it told me that I don't have permission to create a new page??? Like you want me to help or no?

Sorry, comrade, since your account is very new it takes a few edits for you to get permissions to create pages, but don't worry, I can create the pages for you meanwhile, sorry for the inconvenience. I created the page for Imperialism in German ProleWiki (Imperialismus)

Alright thank you very much! I started to edit some German pages yesterday and I hope to be able to also create new pages soon

closing old (2 years+) topics

Comrades, you have been aware Wisconcom was blocked recently. Many already understand why this decision was made, but I think this should be further detailed.

Wisconcom entered ProleWiki on 10 June 2022 and almost immediately displayed commitment through his constant editing. He made quality edits and has displayed an interest in the project as a whole. However, since he entered our Discord server, we immediately came into contact with his views on certain subjects. He has denied the Nazi character of the Ukrainian state, has denounced the war between Ukraine and Russia as an inter-imperialist conflict, declared that the People's Republic of China is a "capitalist state" and that even during the governance of Mao Zedong, the Communist Party of China was a "social-fascist revisionist party". Some of these views can be read in the talk page of Socialist market economy article.

Even though Wisconcom was in explicit opposition to our principles, we allowed his presence in the project, just dealing with a few problems here and then. He began engaging with others in the ProleWiki community in Lemmygrad, and his interactions can be seen here. He basically was an anti-China militant in his Lemmygrad presence, and eventually created a Hoxhaism community dedicated almost exclusively to promote anti-China propaganda. This behavior would eventually render him a ban in Lemmygrad. Still, even though we have a close relationship with the Lemmygrad community and administration, we decided not to ban Wisconcom inside ProleWiki, provided that he improves his behavior.

Wisconcom in fact improved his behavior over time, and his commitment to the project would render him a position as a member of ProleWiki's agitprop commission. However, we would still notice small conflicts here and there, but they would be resolved in a short time. Until in 16 October, Wisconcom deleted a massive portion of the article on the Shining Path without consultation, claiming the article was anti-communist in tone because the Shining Path was described as terrorists, but terrorism in this context is merely a description of a tactic, such as discussed by Lenin here. It appears Wisconcom showed sympathy to the Shining Path merely because they were anti-China, because they were also fiercely anti-Albanian, and this did not bother Wisconcom at all. Besides that, he routinely deleted his own messages, which made communication and accountability very difficult.

After being criticized both inside the Discord server and in his private messages after engaging personally with me, Wisconcom decided to leave ProleWiki on his own, and added a "RETIRED" in his profile on ProleWiki. Even though Wisconcom was difficult to work with, the editors lamented this decision, but we eventually accepted it. Since he left, he temporarily changed his social media profile to display he was a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and even changed his profile picture to the Shining Path hammer and sickle. for reasons unknown. A few days later, Wisconcom reached to my talk page demanding that we give him positions inside the wiki, and that we allow so-called "anti-revisionists" inside the wiki. His demands were denied, and since then we immediately ended our relationship with him, and decided to block him on ProleWiki. We have been extremely permissive with Wisconcom, and they showed they are not to be trusted, mainly because of his unstable and suspicious behavior.

He could be reinstated in the future, if agreed by other editors, but considering his Twitter profile, he doesn't seem much interested in having a dialogue with any of us.

closing old (2 years+) topics

Leftism and rightism are vague terms that do not adequately describe the political ideologies of organizations and countries. I think political ideologies should be described directly, instead of using a vague term. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 15:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Right and left are relative terms, so one is always left or right in relation to another view. It's a direction, not an accurate description. But how do you suggest a "direct" description of political ideologies? Can you give an example?

Just describing the actual ideology is enough.

For example, on the Nazi Germany article, the description of the country's ideology is:

The German Reich ... was a extreme-right fascist dictatorship which existed in Europe

The ideological description could instead be reworded to:

The German Reich ... was a national-socialist dictatorship which existed in Europe

- Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 17:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, given that there are liberals on the internet who claim Nazi Germany was "left-wing", the current one is actually more descriptive in this case

closing old (2 years+) topics

Ripped or edited from the tankie bunker discord. Tweak as necessary.

1. - This is a project of Marxist-Leninists ONLY. Of course we encourage debate and diversity of opinions, but only Marxists Leninists can join ProleWiki. Ultras (MLMs, Hoxhaists, etc) and patsocs are not allowed. Do not join if you are a non-ML who "wants to learn". There are plenty of other places to explore writing and editing for that.

2. - No offensive nicknames

3. - No posting of NSFW content unless it is from a journalistic resource. Also no sexual discussions, especially involving minors.

4. Prolewiki advises you do not doxx yourself. However, adults sensibly know the risks. Minors (<18) must not post any personally identifying information (pictures, real name, etc.).

5. - No personal attacking, witch hunting or harassment. Also no brigading.

6. -No racism, sexism, homophobia, or bigotry of any kind.

7. - It is fine to be religious, but inserting your religion into articles is not allowed.

8. - Similarly, do not promote any ideas or theories which fall under pseudoscience.

9. - You must be at least a confident ML to be able to join. If you don't know basic things about Marxism-Leninism (i.e. the definition of dialectical materialism, the withering away of the state, the labour theory of value, etc.) you will not be allowed to edit.

10. - Don't be Toxic. There is no tolerance for bullying or degrading other users here.

11. - At least critically support Already existing socialist countries, and those that have or currently on the communist track.

General Guidelines:

ProleWiki aims to foster an atmosphere of informative, friendly articles on all aspects of Marxism-Leninism and current events. Given it's easy to overstep the boundaries of proper discourse, we think it would be helpful to promote the following guidelines:

(a) don't repeat baseless slander about Marxist-Leninist parties (e.g. "this party is all feds!"). All discussion must be factual. If you don't have evidence for a claim, don't make it.

(b) Continuing from section a, directly and clearly articulate criticism of Marxist-Leninist Parties without relying on buzzwords, (e.g. avoid "they're revisionist electoralists" and instead "the Party's position as seen here is misguided because...").

(c) Discussion with fellow Prolewiki comrades should be done with the intent of mutual education and learning, not winning internet points. Assume good faith with your interlocutor.

(d) Do not be rude about insignificant interests, opinions, or hobbies about non-political subjects. For example, it doesn't matter if someone likes a show you do not. That is not grounds to antagonize someone.

(e) Heated discussions or arguments around critical or politically sensitive topics should be moved to INSERT CONTAINMENT AREA HERE.

(f) When an article has a heated discussion that is going nowhere, it can be difficult to know when to end it. If a moderator says it is time to move on or for a discussion to end, for the health of the site, it is important for users to disengage.

(g) That said, we can't spell out everything here, we expect users to read the room and behave apropriately.

closing old (2 years+) topics

I hope in this writing to sketch out a rough plan of how Prolewiki is to deal with both comrades and new comrades alike that abandon the socialist countries for nonsense like "china is imperialist." And other anti-communist thought against the various AES societies.

The above Title name is a rejection of one of our guiding sources of current Marxism-Leninism praxis and political theory. The 5 flowers. Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, the DPRK, and the one in question, China.

I would prefer, due to their successes, especially against COVID-19, that we not tolerate dissent against the 5 flowers.

I propose the following standard for our members here:

1. At least critically support Already existing socialist countries, and those that have or currently on the communist track.

2. Grandfather clause. Any comrades on here rejecting that standard must be given the opportunity to self-crit and receive education. If that process fails, the comrade is to be purged.

STANDARD ENDS HERE

This piece was written with China in mind,but could substitute another country where appropriate. For example, at present time of writing, the above 5 flowers or Bolivia or the pink wave. All are traveling the path of Marxism-leninism or making progress in the direction. Especially in anti-imperialist progress, aka the ability to resist USA/Capital bullying.

The struggle for a global socialist society grows brighter by the day. And I hope the above allows us to better shape and maintain the Prolewiki line.

~Deogeo

I am in full rejection of this dogmatic enforcement of your opportunist understanding of Socialism, this is clearly your malicious and underhanded way of seeking to purge Anti-revisionists such as myself from Prolewiki.

It is one thing to revise the clear and scientifically-determined definition of Socialism, it is something else entirely to actively conspire to purge anybody who does not hold your Revisionist views. Saying things like we are "abandoning" "socialist countries" is nonsense, as first you will have to prove that China even is a Socialist country, which has yet to be done, it would seem. China abandoned Marxism and Socialism half a century ago, that is very clear, as such, it is not "abandoning" something when that country has abandoned your cause.

"[...]for nonsense like "china is imperialist." And other anti-communist thought against the various AES societies."

Really? If that is so clear to the point where you, in your condescending tone, call it "nonsense", how about you prove it; Prove that China does not have the largest banking sector on the planet, prove that it does not have the largest valued trade with Africa, prove that it does not engage in loan and debt traps. "Anti-communist thought"? The only thing that is Anti-communist here is China itself, for clear reasons that I have already stated in other discussions.

"The above Title name is a rejection of one of our guiding sources of current Marxism-Leninism praxis and political theory."

I am sorry, but at what page in the Foundations of Leninism did it say "Let's have our Socialist State bail out wall street, have the largest amont of billionaires in the world, and enshrine Private Ownership into law!". Think what you want about China, but it is not a part of Marxism-Leninism to mindlessly defend Capitalist states simply because they still have a red flag.

"I would prefer, due to their successes, especially against COVID-19, that we not tolerate dissent against the 5 flowers."

Total nonsense. So just because China does somethings better than the USA means that we should purge anybody who does not brainlessly defend China like you? What do you think Anti-revisionists think about China? If you did any study of our ideas, you would know that we are not mindlessly critical of China, we understand that it is better than the USA in many ways.

"This piece was written with China in mind,but could substitute another country where appropriate. For example, at present time of writing, the above 5 flowers or Bolivia or the pink wave. All are traveling the path of Marxism-leninism or making progress in the direction. Especially in anti-imperialist progress, aka the ability to resist USA/Capital bullying."

Capitalism is regressive everywhere where it exists at this point in historical development, including China. By supporting Chinese Capitalism, you are therefore a regressive force, as you are supporting a regressive economic system.

I would prefer imput and discussion from Forte, juncheguevera and whoever else is active before we do a vote.

If other comrades here agree with me. It will be done. If a different set of standards is put in place, I will follow it. I will follow the rules of Democratic Centralism.

I would prefer if you could actually respond to what I said instead of just simply cowering behind people who you know are going to agree with you. You made your insulting and arrogant remarks, calling my ideas "nonsense" (you did not even have the decency to admit that you were targeting me particularly), it is YOU who should give me imput.

I am, to be frank, growing tired of your condescension. You do next-to nothing on this community, only appearing every few weeks to edit your factually incoherent and false "study notes", posting short and poorly formatted "essays" (or rather, works of other people which you just copied-and-pasted under your name). and little else to improve this community. Yet, you are openly demanding I be purged simply because I disagree with you on one topic. You do not even directly engage with me when I respond to your remarks, instead you just open up a new conversation topic and forget that I exist and had responed to you.

Of course you resort to "Democratic Centralism", because you know that people are going to agree with you anyways, considering the fact that this entire community has almost all of its recruits originating from fanatically Dengist-revisionist online communites like Genzedong; people who will support China mindlessly, and will reject any Marxist who says otherwise as a "Sinophobe" or "Sucdem".

Please; I invite you to engage in fact-based discussion with my auguments. Thank you.

Of course. I am sure they will, with ease, see past your scheme.

closing old (2 years+) topics

People who request an account on ProleWiki currently have to answer the following questions:

1. Where did you find ProleWiki?

2. What current of Marxist thought do you uphold? Describe as thoroughly as needed your path towards your current political perspective.

3. Have you read our principles? Comment your agreements or objections to our principles

4. What is your position on China? Do you believe China is a socialist country? Why so, or why not?

5. What is your position on Joseph Stalin? How would you describe his historical role?

6. What is your understanding of gender? Should Marxists support the LGBT community?

I think questions 1-3 and 6 are essential, but I think questions 4 and 5 are too specific. At the same time, I think they are helpful because they let us figure out if there's any ultra-left (in the case of China) or right-wing (in the case of Stalin) tendencies. I'm opening this topic in case anyone has any suggestion on different questions we should be asking

I think questions four and five are essential to gauge potential comrades' historical background. Giving a measure of understanding what a current socialist Nation looks like, and a past one that is no longer with us. National features like dictatorship of the proletariat and so on.

This is overall good, however, I just have two critiques:

First, how are we going to prevent any Ultra-right elements from joining our community? I would argue that Ultra-right Revisionists are much more common than Ultra-lefts, and are therefore much more dangerous.

Secondly, how is reasonablely using Marxist economics and theory, along with other sources of empirical information, to form the conclusion that the modern People's Republic of China is not Socialist "ultra-left"? By those standards, likely half of Marxist-Leninists, all Maoists and Hoxhaists, and many other Communists would be "ultra-left". If we are to develop as a community, we should consider opening up to other intellectual viewpoints on the People's Republic of China.

Comrade, because of your recent insistence on considering China a capitalist country, I will publish a critique of your "anti-revisionism" for what it is: pure and simply, metaphysical idealism. The text I will produce I will make public on Lemmygrad, and will publish it as an essay. I do not plan to make it a personal attack, I am engaging not with your personality, but with your ideas.

I should state, though, that your personality is sometimes "in the way" when you engage with others. You very commonly resort to name-calling (calling them "revisionists", "liberals", "anti-Marxists", etc.) and you do not engage with the idea of others, you simply attack them, calling their political understanding "Dengist Revisionist propaganda", and in general being usually hostile towards others in this position. I should remember you, in the last discussion we had about the Nazi sympathies of the Ukraine state and government, where you claimed I was "destroying our revolutionary ideals" through "text-book revisionism", when in fact you simply misinterpreted what I had said.

I've never seen so many people reacting negatively to comments from an account which ended up not getting banned, and I've been there for almost 3 years. This should say something, that the way you talk with others is not convincing, and that by being hostile to others, you're just making people hostile to your point, and shows you're extremely insecure in your position. But I will do the opposite of what you've been doing, and I will consider your points and produce a critique on the Essays section. Your capricious temperament will not be part of my criticism.

Struggle unity struggle comrades. China is many things,Wisconcom, capitalist however is not one of those things.

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

After reading this work which you have shared with me, I am not particularly convinced, I am afraid.

This work simply wishes away massive problems to the claim that China is socialist (multi-billionaires in the Communist Party, massive bank sectors, economic imperialism) by doing little more than citing some Castro quotes (while Castro often had many good ideas, and led a Socialist state, these quotes totally forgets the geopolitical context for why he would be servile to China) and saying that "billionaires are state-owned!".

They forget the massive role of the ultra-rich in Chinese politics (Xi Xinping has a net-worth in the hundreds of millions), how there are atleast 100 billionaires in the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party, and how the Chinese government has very commonly acted in favour with the ultra-rich, such as degrading labour rights (in a way similar to that of Neoliberal governments), exploiting labour markets overseas, and overall permiting the expansion of the ultra-richs' power.

At the end of it, it offers what amonts to capitalist and billionaire apologetic arguments, only it is exclusively being apologetic towards Chinese capitalism. It says things like "we need multi-billionaires because they build advance trains and improve the lives of the workers!". This is nothing more than a crude repeat of Reagan's "Trickle-down" economics, and a total justifcation for bourgeoisie. This just exposes the degree of logical fallacies and mental gymnastics Dengists must rely upon to claim that clearly Capitalist and social-imperialist states like China are "socialist", to the point where they emulate the same arguments of Far-righters.

I still do not see how we should not accept other viewpoints on the economic system of the People's Republic of China.

You have constantly claimed leaders such as Xi Jinping and Deng Xiaoping has amassed hundreds of millions of dollars, but I only heard this claim from you in 3 years since I began studying Marxism-Leninism and on discussions on the internet. Where did you take this from?

They forget the massive role of the ultra-rich in Chinese politics (Xi Xinping has a net-worth in the hundreds of millions), how there are atleast 100 billionaires in the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party

What levels of the Communist Party of China are these billionaires in? Who are them?

I see no evidence of this reactionary bourgeois character, aka capital's high priests, capitalists meaningfully penetrating China's people's government as you describe. Consider South Korea and Japan. Two countries who are described very well by the same shades of paint as what you use above, wisconcom. These countries are little more than junior partners in the amerikan imperialist firm. Such is the success of capital penetration there and there.

Or consider Russia. A rival capitalist power to amerika that could seriously develop a Russian imperialism if the USA were to stop flexing its muscles(which capital will not allow).

Over and over, I see evidence in both the global south and bourgeois north reporting that the dictatorship of the proletariat in China is strong. Strong enough to discipline unruly capital and keep its MCM cycle thoroughly subordinate to the needs of the dotp and its signifier, the cpc. Bourgeois media are terrified by the Chinese. And for good reason as noted in the Redsails article. There is a clear qualitative leap in how capital's various ideologies treat the behavior of the mightiest member of the 5 flowers.

Considering that the following two dictatorships are mutually exclusive, where is your line wisconcom? At what moment, at what year, do you believe China's dotp broke down and was replaced by a dictatorship of the bourgeois?

"I see no evidence of this reactionary bourgeois character, aka capital's high priests, capitalists meaningfully penetrating China's people's government as you describe."

The Chinese bourgeoisie has deeply penetrated China's "people's" government, both metaphorically and literally. It is no secret that a large portion of the people who make up the Chinese parliament are millionaires and billionaires, most others are petite-bourgeois, and only some are Proletarians. The milionaires and billionaires in the Chinese government are by far the most powerful, they form cliques with their fellow bourgeois, and own a massive amont of banking capital. In short, the Chinese government has long-since been subverted by Capitalist interests.

"Consider South Korea and Japan. Two countries who are described very well by the same shades of paint as what you use above, wisconcom. These countries are little more than junior partners in the amerikan imperialist firm. Such is the success of capital penetration there and there."

Correct, South Korea and Japan are merely USA satellite-states and economic colonies. This, however, does not change the fact that imperialists can have rival imperialists, like during the First World War for example. It is simply the case that China was able to form its own Capitalist-bloc, where Chinese bourgeois are free to exploit.

"Over and over, I see evidence in both the global south and bourgeois north reporting that the dictatorship of the proletariat in China is strong. Strong enough to discipline unruly capital and keep its MCM cycle thoroughly subordinate to the needs of the dotp and its signifier, the cpc. Bourgeois media are terrified by the Chinese. And for good reason as noted in the Redsails article. There is a clear qualitative leap in how capital's various ideologies treat the behavior of the mightiest member of the 5 flowers."

What source is doing this reporting? As to the part where you talk about business cycles, the reason why China does not as badly suffer from them as the West does is not because they are a Proletarian Dictatorship, but simply due to their particular economic position. China has had access to a massive labour market and work force; if one market crashes, they can simply sell goods to a new one.

The reason why the Western media dislikes China is not because it is Socialist, but, as I have already talked about, it is simply a rival imperialist to the US-EU bloc. Why would you trust what the Western-media has to say about Socialism or Marxism anyways? Many Western "news" sources, particularly those in the USA, call things such as Covid-mandates "Communism", are you really going to trust them on this matter?

"Considering that the following two dictatorships are mutually exclusive, where is your line wisconcom? At what moment, at what year, do you believe China's dotp broke down and was replaced by a dictatorship of the bourgeois?"

The People's Republic of China is a bourgeois-revisionist state, from even the very start of Mao's leadership of the Communist Party, it already showed signs of Revisionism: be it with its class-collaboration, bourgeois nationalism, and usage of the petite-bourgeoisie. By Deng Xiaping's leadership, starting in the 1970's, it had firmly become Revisionist and State Capitalist.

It is quite easy to find his vast hordes of wealth and capital. Here are some sources which prove what I am saying:

https://victor-mochere.com/xi-jinping-net-worth

https://caknowledge.com/xi-jinping-net-worth/

https://highincomesource.com/xi-jinping-net-worth/

These billionaires in which I am talking about are in the parliament, the highest level of the government. They directly oversee the passing of legislation, and hold a massive degree of influence over politics, to the point where they greatly over-shadow the Proletarians in the government.

As to the question "who are they?", the list would be to big for me to put here, given how many of them there are.

This begs the question: How can a country be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat when its head of state, its leader, is himself a landlord and multi-millionaire, if not billionaire? What kind of Communist Party has its ranks filled with ultra-rich bourgeoisie, the people we were supposed to be fighting aganist?

The websites you've used don't prove anything. You used random internet blogs who cite no sources to their claims. You simply searched for "Xi Jinping net worth" and that was your "research". The sources say that Xi Jinping's annual salary is of $22 million. This 2015 China Daily article mentions the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and Xi Jinping's actual salary:

According to the plan, all civil servants will get a raise. The basic monthly salary for national-level officials, who are the seven members of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, including President Xi Jinping, will increase from the current 7,020 yuan ($1,130) to 11,385 yuan, a raise of about 60 percent.

This makes Xi Jinping yearly salary about 136,620 yuan a year, or about $19,700 dollars a year. Here is an official source for the salary of Xi Jinping. The only sources that claim Xi Jinping has a net worth of about $1.5 billion like you claim, are random blogs like you cited and anti-communist pieces. The net worth claims range from $1.5 million to $10 billion and some of them are very honest that they are taking this estimate out of their asses, such as this one:

According to reports, Xi Jinping's net worth in 2022 is around $1.2 billion. Though most of his finances are not declared in public, there is no means to validate the exact figure.

One of your links claims cites a distorted interpretation of a Bloomberg article, which claims the following:

No assets were traced to Xi, who turns 59 this month; his wife Peng Liyuan, 49, a famous People’s Liberation Army singer; or their daughter, the documents show. There is no indication Xi intervened to advance his relatives’ business transactions, or of any wrongdoing by Xi or his extended family.

The article also claims wealth can only be traced to Xi Jinping's extended family, where they have investments in several businesses, but nothing linking to Xi Jinping himself.

He likely has other sources of income outside his base government pay. Even so, he is still likely a multi-milionaire.

You said you were going to offer "logical and fact-based proof" against my critiques yet so far all you've said is based on hearsay. You said he is likely a multi-millionaire, showing how you aren't afraid to claim ludicrous stuff about China without a single evidence. At this point, your arguments don't sound much different than anti-communist liberal slander against China.

Of course, on this topic of Xi Jinping's wealth alone, I perhaps could have done more research to the claim I was making. However, you failed to adress the other topics, in which I have massive amonts of proof to support, but no, you had to choose the single claim you likely knew it would be hard to prove.

"At this point, your arguments don't sound much different than anti-communist liberal slander against China."

What are you talking about? A Liberal would not care about billionaires, Socialism, and all of the things I am critical of China for, if anything, they would militantly support the present State-Capitalist economy of China. I would argue that China itself is an Anti-communist regime, considering the fact that they have turned away from the goal of moving towards a Communist society, and have completely distorted Marxism to fit its leaderships' own personal goals of self-enrichment. That is not to bring up the fact that China constantly sells firearms to Anti-communist government to kill real Communists in India, Nepal, and many other countries.

Marx and Lenin would be disgusted by the economy of China; all the labour abuses, exploitation, and revisionism. Therefore, if you are a true and educated Marxist, it would be Anti-communist NOT to be critical of China.

So be it. I will be sure to offer logical and fact-based proof aganist your critique. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

closing old (2 years+) topics

It's been almost two years since ProleWiki was realized, and we've done much since then. At the moment, we have mainly three constantly active users: @Jucheguevara, @Ledlecreeper27, and me, even though I have been less active recently. I'm creating this topic so we can discuss strategies to increase the flow of users in ProleWiki, so it can realize its potential as a political encyclopedia and as an education space.

We set up a Twitter account for ProleWiki, and we had a relative success inside the platform itself, reaching almost a thousand followers using it for a bit more than a year. However, this relative success did not translate into users joining ProleWiki, and when it did, the couple of users who reached us because of Twitter usually didn't interact much with the website besides creating an account. I don't think we should abandon Twitter or other websites that we manage, since our goal is being known, but we need to think of recruiting more comrades to join our effort, where we can recruit them, and how we recruit them.