Libs would twist this into “red fash tankies literally quoting Hitler to justify Stalinist Russia” or something

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

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!

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”