Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Re 'Origin of Communist terrorism' section

I fail to see how 'communist terrorism' can have it's origins in the French Revolution, since the participants weren't communists by any reasonable definition, even if Kautsky thought so (I find this unlikely). Is there any reason not to delete the section as little more than guilt by association? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, tell me does this sound familiar to you Its ultimate aim was the reshaping of both society and human nature. That was to be achieved by destroying the old regime, suppressing all enemies of the revolutionary government, and inculcating and enforcing civic virtue? mark nutley (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Revolution ≠ terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes revolution, much like the communist one i`d wager. There is a source from stanford which draws the parallels between the two you know, after all they were very similar. It describes the revolution in russia as a throwback to the french one mark nutley (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To speak about Comminist terrorism and French terrorisme based on parallelism between Russian and French revolutions is pure synth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not if a reliable source makes the connection, which it has. I`m wondering if there are others, i`ll go look around mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 'Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders' section

This currently contains quotes attributed to Marx and Trotsky, but gives no citations for the original sources, preventing any verification or contextual analysis. I'd be interested to learn what others think on the use of such quotations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the current references wp:rs? mark nutley (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The supposed Marx quote is from a book by Edvard Radzinsky. The supposed Trotsky quote is from The Black book of Communism. I think given the significance of the quotes in this article, and the partiality of both sources, their validity is at least worth questioning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That Trotsky quote can also be found on page 94 of Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century by Benjamin A. Valentino so i see no reason to doubt the BB of being inaccurate. The second is published by Anchor Books and is a reliable source i believe. Is there any reason for supposing it is not? mark nutley (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They are primary sources not explained by secondary sources. Ironically Trotsky is quoted as saying that Communists oppose individual terrorism, e.g., actions by groups like "Marxist terrorist groups" described in the article. TFD (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A book quoting someone is not a primary source at all, it is a secondary source. Trotsky wrote a book did he not called Terrorism and Communism? In which he wrote We are forced to tear it off, to chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon utilized against a class, doomed to destruction, which does not wish to perish (well gee who would want to perish) The quote is obviously accurate. With regards to communists being opposed to individual terrorism, that is incorrect, what he was describing in his book was not terrorism, just going on strike he said was terrorism, pointing a gun at someone (a communist boss) was terrorism, what he was saying was anything which held up the revolution was an act of terrorism, at least that is how his book reads to me. mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a primary source for the opinions of Leon Trotsky, unless you wish to write the article from a Trotskyist perspective. TFD (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No the primary source is Terrorism and Communism the secondary source is Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century by Benjamin A. Valentino simples mark nutley (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing at this source. Valentino discusses terrorist mass killings on the page 84 and on. Interestingly, only those events are considered as terrorist mass killings by him that occurred during a struggle for power (civil wars, etc.) The mass killings perpetrated by regimes which already came to power are not considered as terrorism by him. In addition, he does not separate the act of terrorism committed by Communist partisans from similar acts committed by other leftist, rightist or nationalist revolutionary movements. In other words, based on the Valentino's book I conclude that this article is a pure synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So based on one source you decide an entire article is synth? Interesting mark nutley (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The article is synth based on this source also.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So were`s the synth then? Are you saying there is no such thing as communist terrorism? mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is: Red Brigades, and other leftist groups in the second part of XX century can be considered Communist terrorist groups. Everything else is a synth or minority POV, because not all revolutionaries are terrorists, state terror is not terrorism, acts of sabotage are not terrorism, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

State sponsored terrorism exists, State terror has been described as terrorism, Trotsky said acts of sabotage were terrorism, as have many others, blowing up infrastructure is a terrorist act after all. mark nutley (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

State sponsored terrorism is not Communist terrorism (the latter is just a subtopic of the former, and not the major one), state terror has been described as terrorism not by majority scholars, Trotsky is a primary source, blowing up infrastructure is not a terrorist act if the primary purpose is to destroy infrastructure, not to affect public opinion. And, importantly, all of that is not specific to Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The USSR sponsored terrorist groups, so yes state sponsored terrorism. It does not matter how many scholars describe state terror as terrorism (were is your source for that btw) it has been described as such. Destruction of infrastructure is a valid terrorist tactic and has been done by groups throughout history for instance, the IRA used this tactic quote often in the UK, a phone call saying a bomb is on such and such a bridge causes massive disruption. mark nutley (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "The USSR sponsored terrorist groups, so yes state sponsored terrorism" so it belongs to the State sponsored terrorism article (along with similar actions of Iran, US, Libya etc).

Re "It does not matter how many scholars describe state terror as terrorism" Of course it does. If only few scholars describe it as such, whereas others do not, it is a fringe/minority POV.

Re "the IRA used this tactic quote often in the UK" to achieve some political goals, not military objectives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

to achieve some political goals, not military objectives yes, this is what terrorism is, the use of force to gain political ends. Good we agree. We will of course require a source for your assertion that state terrorism is a minority view. Now you have said above State sponsored terrorism is not Communist terrorism and of course this is not accurate as i have pointed out so you move the goalposts and say it belongs in another article, i disagree. As this article is about communist terrorism then it does of course warrant inclusion within this article, cheers mark nutley (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We do not agree. "The use of force to gain political ends" ≠ "terrorism". State terrorism is a phenomenon, so it can be neither a minority nor majority view. By contrast, the idea that state terror = state terrorism is quite fringe.

Re "As this article is about communist terrorism" We haven't come to a consensus on what "communist terrorism" means, so such an argument is quite incorrect and illogical.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So now you are saying groups taking arms against a government to gain their political ends by force are not terrorists? Still needing that source which says state sponsored terrorism is fringe as i have 18,000 results sources saying it ain`t and 36,900 results sources saying state terrorism is fairly common usage mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that taking arms against a government is not necessarily terrorism. For instance, this is a constitutional right of the American citizens. If we assume that "taking arms against a government" = "terrorism" then the word "revolution" becomes redundant, and not only Lenin or Danton, but also George Washington or Simon Bolivar could be considered terrorists. Re state sponsored terrorism, please, avoid straw man arguments, because I never said it to be fringe. My point was that state sponsored terrorism is not something specific to Communism and that this subject already has its own article--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not need to be specific to communism, but in an article about communist terrorists then communist state terrorism belongs right in here. You did say By contrast, the idea that state terror = state terrorism is quite fringe but it is obviously not given the amount of hits on google books. So exactly what is your argument here? mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Before doing that we have to make sure that majority reliable sources combine all there topics together in a context of Communism. Please, provide appropriate literature search results (based not on bare numbers of hits, but on an analysis, with quotes, of what the sources say in actuality).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, i have no need to provide anything. You however do. You are saying terror = state terrorism is quite fringe were is your source for this assertion please mark nutley (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

'Views of Marxist theoreticians' quote from Marx

I have amended the passage to give the quote in full. As it stood, the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis arguably distorted the intended meaning. The source is referenced in the article, but can also be found here [[1]]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The part replaced by ellipsis was arguably irrelevant in view of the fact that the quote was given for the purpose of documenting Marx's support of terrorism and showing how later Marxist leaders (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.) based their own position on that of Marx. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The full quote from the Marx/Engels archive Translation is as follows: "The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."[[2]]. I'd not noticed the numerous differences from the earlier translation given. Please note that amongst other things it says 'terror', not 'terrorism', and there has been a long-running debate on this talk page about the different meanings of the terms. In any case, unless a source for the English translation containing the word 'terrorism' can be given, the translation is arguably original research, and cannot be included in Wikipedia. As for Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin basing their own positions on this single statement in a (somewhat sensationalist) newspaper report by Marx, the only evidence that any of them had even seen it is for Stalin. It is also worth noting that Marx was at this time still formulating his theories, though the question as to when Marx became a 'Marxist' is probably one for philosophers rather than for Wikipedia editors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This [3] is not a reliable source as it is self published, i shall have to revert you i`, afraid. The current sources for the quote are wp:rs so i see no need to use a wp:sps to add to it mark nutley (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You can go and find the rs yourself. You are welcome. (Igny (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

The source i used was wp:rs thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring out a wp:rs to use a WP:SPS is a clear violation of policy, it had better stop now mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

I have requested page protection on this article for a few days due to two editors edit warring a WP:RS out in favour of a WP:SPS a clear violation of policy mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy allows us to quote reliable primary sources. That is exactly what we do here. Providing an extended quote instead of truncated one is quite correct. There is no need for the page protection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your use of a self published source over a reliable one is a breach of policy, please reconsider your course of action mark nutley (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a use of a self published source, this is a use of a translation of a reliable primary source taken from a self-published web-site. If you have a doubt in the correctness of this transaction, you may compare the original Marx's text with it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a use of a self published site, your continued use of it violates policy, Stop now. mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can use any translation to quote Marx's words, provided that the translation is correct. Do you see any problems with translation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with the sources already provided? And no you can`t use self published sources here. And i see you pal just reverted me even though WP:BRD had been called, the tag teaming on this article is quite depressing mark nutley (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "What was wrong with the sources already provided?" The problem is in selective quotation. Compare this:

“The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.”

and that:

"… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.” "

It is quite clear from the full quote that the Marx's words are (i) a response on a concrete situation (therefore they hardly can be generalised), (ii) a call for a terror as a response to the opponents' terror. However, the second part of the quote taken separately created an impression that Marx proclaimed a terror for a sake of a terror (which, as you can see, is absolytely wrong).

Re: "And no you can`t use self published sources here." I don't. Do you propose me to use a German quote without translation?

Re: "And i see you pal just reverted me even though WP:BRD had been called..." BRD implies that reasonable arguments are provided. Please, provide some.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky

This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there. The word "terror" is mentioned twice in footnotes. Lenin does not use it. He discusses the need of violence during revolutions, however, "violence" and "terror" are not synonyms.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Violence leads to terror your argument is flawed mark nutley (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Violence not necessarily leads to terror.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I`m guessing you have never been on the receiving end of extreme violence then, yes violence leads to terror to say it does not is wrong mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A policeman sometimes has to use coercion. States, including democratic ones, uses violence against their opponents. However, all of that is not a terror.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is if your on the receiving end of it mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please write grammatically. It is "You're" not "your". TFD (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I`ll write how i want to, cheers pal mark nutley (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You will earn other editors respect based upon your writing. TFD (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kautsky again.

Below is an extended quote from Kautsky. The words quoted in the article are underlined.

"The development we have just sketched did not, of course, arise in accordance with the intentions of the Bolsheviks. On the contrary, it was really something, quite different from what they wanted, and they sought by all means in their power to arrest its development. But in the end they had to resort to the same recipe from which the Bolshevik regime from the very beginning had worked, i.e., to the arbitrary force of a few dictators, whom it was impossible to affect by the slightest criticism. The Regiment of Terror thus became the inevitable result of Communist methods. It is the desperate attempt to avoid the consequences of its own methods.

Among the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible, Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of freedom of the Press, and ends in a system of wholesale execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent of all. It is that which gave rise to the greatest hatred against the Bolsheviks. Yet this is really no more than their tragic fate, not their fault – in so far as it is permissible to speak of fault or blame in so enormous an historical upheaval as we are now experiencing. In any case, at bottom any fault or blame can only be a personal one. Whoever sets about to discuss a question of culpability must set about to examine the defiance of certain moral laws on the part of individual persons; since the “will” taken in its strictest sense can only be the will of individual persons. A mass, a class, a nation cannot in reality will. It lacks the necessary faculties for such. Therefore it cannot sin. A mass of people or an organisation can act universally. Nevertheless, the motives of each person actively concerned may be very different. But it is the motives which form the determining factor in the question of apportioning culpability.

The motives of the Bolsheviks were certainly of the best. Right from the beginning of their supremacy they showed themselves, to be filled with human ideals, which had their origin in the conditions of the proletariat as a class. Their first decree was concerned with the abolition of the death penalty; and yet if we would consider the question of their culpability, we should find that this came to light at the very time when this decree was promulgated, namely, when they decided, in order to gain power, to sacrifice the principles of democracy and of historical materialism, for which they during many long years had fought with unswerving determination. Their culpability comes to light at the time when they, like the Bakunists of Spain in the year 1873, proclaimed the “immediate and complete emancipation of the working-classes,” in spite of the backward state of Russia; and with this end in view, since the democracy had not fulfilled their expectations, established their own dictatorship in the name of “The dictatorship of the proletariat.” It is here where the culpability can be looked for. From the moment they started on this path they could not avoid terrorism. The idea of a peaceful and yet real dictatorship without violence is an illusion.

The instruments of terrorism were the revolutionary tribunals and the extraordinary commissions, about which we have already spoken. Both have carried on fearful work, quite apart from the so-called military punitive expeditions, the victims of which are, incalculable. The number of victims of the extraordinary commissions will never be easy to ascertain. In any case they number their thousands. The lowest estimate puts the number at 6,000; others give the total as double that number, others treble; and over and above these are numberless cases of people who have been immured alive or ill-treated and tortured to death.

Those who defend Bolshevism do so by pointing out that their opponents, the White Guards of the Finns, the Baltic barons, the counter-revolutionary Tsarist generals and admirals have not done any better. But is it a justification of theft to show that others steal? In any case, these others do not go against their own principles, if they deliberately sacrifice human life in order to maintain their power; whereas the Bolsheviks most certainly do. For they thus become unfaithful to the principles of the sanctity of human life, which they themselves openly proclaimed, and by means of which they have themselves become raised to power and justified in their actions. Do we not indeed all equally oppose these barons and generals just because they held human life so cheap and regarded it as a mere means for their own ends? It will be urged, perhaps, that it is the object in view that makes the difference; that the higher object in view should sanctify means, which, in the case of mere seekers after power, become infamous and wicked because of their evil ends. But the end does not justify every means, but only such as are in agreement with that means. A means which is in opposition to the end cannot be sanctified by that end. One should just as little strive to defend one’s principles by surrendering them, as to defend one’s life by sacrificing what gives to that life content and purpose. Good intentions may excuse those who have recourse to wrong means; but these means nevertheless remain reprehensible, the more so the greater the damage that may be caused by them."

It is interesting to see how misleading can be the quote taken out of context. Yes, Kautsky does criticise Bolsheviks for their terrorist tactics, however, it clearly states that terrorism was immanent neither to Communism in general nor to Bolsheviks in particular ("The motives of the Bolsheviks were certainly of the best. Right from the beginning of their supremacy they showed themselves, to be filled with human ideals, which had their origin in the conditions of the proletariat as a class. Their first decree was concerned with the abolition of the death penalty..."); he also points at the very obvious fact that the Red Terror was a reaction on the terror of their opponents ("Those who defend Bolshevism do so by pointing out that their opponents, the White Guards of the Finns, the Baltic barons, the counter-revolutionary Tsarist generals and admirals have not done any better. But is it a justification of theft to show that others steal? In any case, these others do not go against their own principles, if they deliberately sacrifice human life in order to maintain their power; whereas the Bolsheviks most certainly do.") Note the last words ("In any case, these others do not go against their own principles, if they deliberately sacrifice human life in order to maintain their power; whereas the Bolsheviks most certainly do."). These mean that, according to Kautsky, the Bolshevik's goals were by default more humanistic and noble that those of their opponents.
My conclusion is that the way the Kautsky's words are used in this article is an example of a blatant POV pushing. The quote from Kautsky must be removed and the article must be carefully examined for other examples of POV pushing and OR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Restore to last stable version

{{Edit protected}}

Due to the recent edit war in which three editors continually inserted a self published source i request the article be brought back to the last stable version per WP:STATUSQUO as the self published source is still in the article. The last stable version was here [4] when i first removed the SPS and replaced it with a Reliable one, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Clearly, marknutley exhibits symptoms of WP:DONTLIKEIT. It is easy to find RS for the quote in the article, yet marknutley decided to edit war instead(Igny (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

It already had one which you reverted out in favour os a SPS mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment An alternative edit proposed: add [5], as a reliable source for the full quote. Please note that I have recommended mark to do that above, yet mark insists on his version of the quote. I wonder why.(Igny (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Comment A reference to RS (from the book above) is

Issue of November 17, 1848 in Revolution of 1848-9. Articles from Neue Rheinische Zeitung (New York 1972), p.149.

Oppose Wikipedia should not promote fringe theories or conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What would these fringe/conspiracy theories be then? mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the whole section is moot, because, as the ANI discussion [6] demonstrated no self published sources have been added to the article. In addition, as I already demonstrated, the previous (truncated) quote takes the Marx's words out of context and therefore is misleading. I reproduce my post again:

/////////

Re: "What was wrong with the sources already provided?" The problem is in selective quotation. Compare this:

“The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.”

and that:

"… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.” "

It is quite clear from the full quote that the Marx's words are (i) a response on a concrete situation (therefore they hardly can be generalised), (ii) a call for a terror as a response to the opponents' terror. However, the second part of the quote taken separately created an impression that Marx proclaimed a terror for a sake of a terror (which, as you can see, is absolytely wrong).

/////////

In my opinion, Marknutley must stop this activity, otherwise it will be difficult for us to assume his good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The source has not been proven to be not selfpublished i`m guessing you missed the last post i made about that. You also seem to be putting a bit of OR into this quote, you are using your own interpretation of it, not one from a reliable source. The source i used was from an academic publishing house, your source was written up for the web by some guy and put on his own website, this is not a reliable source at all. The article ought to go back to were it was before all this crap happened mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the source is "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 136, 7 Nov. 1848". It is self-published, because it was published by Marx in his newspaper. However, I do not think that is a reason for your revert, because Valentino quotes the same text. You concern about possible inaccuracy of translation is also baseless, because it was made by a reputable translator. You also can check that by yourself by comparison with another translation [7] of the same article, which was published in the book that meet all RS criteria.

Re: "You also seem to be putting a bit of OR into this quote, you are using your own interpretation of it..." Please, point at concrete fragment of the article's text where I did OR. With regards to my interpretation of this quote here, on the talk page, I am not aware of WP policy which prohibits that.

Re: "The source i used was from an academic publishing house..." No matter what source you use, if it quotes Marx, nothing prevents us from doing that directly.

Finally, the only crap that happened is that we found this piece of tendentious text too late.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose We now have several different sources for the full quote, as Paul Siebert has shown. If the edit protected article is to be amended, it should be with a verifiable complete version, not the truncated one that suits a particular POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

General comment. Upon careful reading I realised that the whole section "Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders" deserves to be deleted.

1. The first para, with the Marx's quote is in actuality a call for violence in a response on violence, so no theory were put forward by Marx that connects the need of terrorism with Marxism.
2. The second para is a vague Pipes' general notion that is not logically connected with the rest of the section and has no relation to terrorism.
3. The third para is a selective quote from Trotsky, who explained that the Red Terror policy was a response on the resistance of the bourgeois. Obviously, that is hardly a theoretical work, because during the first days of the revolution Bolsheviks even abolished death penalty (which demonstrated that initially they didn't plan to launch a terror campaign)
4. The fourth para is an evidence that Marxist theory rejects individual terrorism, and, therefore, it cannot serve as the theoretical base for the late XX century terrorism. This para is the only section's para that is relevant to this article.
5. The last para is simply false. As the extended quote (see above) demonstrates, Kautsky condemned the Red Terror tactics of Bolsheviks, because such a tactics was in a sharp contradiction with Communists' goals and intentions, and he recognised that this tactics was a response on similar actions of the Bolsheviks' opponents. One way or the another, since Red Terror does not belong to this article, the Kautsky's opinion is hardly relevant to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Respond I believe you are wrong here.

1. The Quote says nothing at all about violence in response to violence.
2. The second one, perhaps your right. Although it must also perish in order to make a room for the people who are fit for a new world this could be seen as terrorism
3. The third one On the other hand, they are opposed to individual terror (this one)? is actually trotsky saying anyone who stands against the revolution will be deemed a terrorist and executed. Which to me is state terrorism.
4. Among the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible, Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of freedom of the Press, and ends in a system of wholesale execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent of all Kautsky and red terror would fall under state terrorism so certainly belongs in this article mark nutley (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but difficult to follow what you are writing. TFD (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? How so? mark nutley (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "The Quote"? What does Paul Siebert's right have to do with anything? Bolshevism is responsible for phenomena? The oi mate awright goin down the pub no porkies estuary English is getting a little thick, don't ya think? TFD (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thick indeed. Look to Paul`s post, then look to mine which is a reply to it, perhaps then you will catch up to the rest of us. mark nutley (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Quote says nothing at all about violence in response to violence". Really? How do you interpret a phrase like "the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution"? Are you suggesting that counterrevolutionaries feasted on the corpses of communists who died by natural causes? Obviously, the cannablism is metaphorical (at least, I hope so), but the entire article is full of hyperbole - mostly regarding its subject, 'The Victory of the Counter-Revolution...' which Marx identifies right from the start as violent: "Croatian freedom and order has won the day, and this victory was celebrated with arson, rape, looting and other atrocities. Vienna is in the hands of Windischgratz, Jellachich and Auersperg. Hecatombs of victims are sacrificed on the grave of the aged traitor Latour". [[8]] (yup, I'm citing them again - any evidence that they've mistranslated?). This is elementary stuff - if a quotation is open to multiple interpretations, you look to the broader context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well now here`s the thing andy, we are not meant to interpret anything are we. We have to use what the reliable sources say. So do you have a source which will equate with what you say? "the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution"? can easily mean the destruction of the nation to rebuild anew. He does not say they will use violence in response to it at all. mark nutley (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Off topic and pointless
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What does any of this have to do with requesting protection of the article? TFD (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The article is already protected, what are you on about? mark nutley (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Yes I know, what I "am on about", to use the estuary vernacular, is why you are continuing to post to this discussion thread after the article has been protected. Oi mate doan be daft, doan make a pen an' ink, no need for a right barnie. TFD (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Have you actually looked at the title of this section? Or the great big notice which says Edit protected? And what is written within that template? Are you so eager to try and goad me you have not actually bothered to read what this thread is about? mark nutley (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Notice I posted oppose above. The point of protecting an article is to allow editors to resolve their disputes. Please respect the wishes of the editor who requested page protection and work toward consensus. TFD (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding between you guys. Mark edit-warred, then requested protection, then, unhappy with the state the article got frozen at, requested an edit back to the version he liked. (Igny (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Not at all Igny, i am requesting we go back to were we started from, per the WP:BRD in my edit summary mark nutley (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:The Wrong Version. TFD (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request disabled as there's evidently no consensus at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Justus Maximus, 7 October 2010

{{edit protected}}

(1) Why is there this irrational insistence on rendering German “Terrorismus” as English “terror”??? Can anyone explain this strange anomaly? I can see no logical reason why the English rendering “revolutionary terror” should be given precedence over the German original which has “revolutionary terrorism.”

(2) Whilst it may be the case that Marx in the above article appears to refer to revolutionary terrorism in a particular situation, the indisputable fact remains that: (a) he often used language suggestive of violence when referring to (Communist) revolution or class struggle in general, (b) both Marx and Engels advocated violent overthrow of existing society as a general principle at the time the article was written, and they both supported and were involved in armed insurrection in Belgium 1848 and Germany 1849 (I note that Wikipedia mentions this in the article on Engels but is strangely quiet about it in the article on Marx), (c) his use of the phrase “all nations” clearly indicates an intention for his call to revolutionary terrorism to be taken in a general sense and not restricted exclusively to the Viennese situation (after all, the establishment of the Communist dictatorship of the proletariat was not a local but an international project), and (d) he did use the phrase “revolutionary terrorism” and this is exactly what was practiced subsequently by his radical followers. Ergo, quotes documenting Marx’s use of such phrases as “revolutionary terrorism” are highly relevant and significant to, and cannot logically be excluded from, an article on Communist terrorism.

(3) In his article "On Authority", Almanacco Republicano, 1874, Engels defines revolution IN GENERAL as follows: “it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon … and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.”

As observed by eminent historian Robert Service A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, 1997, p. 108, Lenin in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky(1920), “advocated dictatorship and terror.” Says Lenin: “To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.” Here Lenin clearly reinforces the use of violence and terror as a general principle of Marxist revolutionary theory.

In State and Revolution Lenin is very emphatic about Marx and Engel’s teachings to the effect that the proletarian state can be established “as a general rule, only through a violent revolution.”

The Communist concept of terror as a general and necessary principle is implied in the concluding lines of Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto (expressly referred to by Lenin in State and Revolution) where it is stated: “The communists openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution.” The very same principle reappears in Lenin’s own statements: “Do it [publicly hang resisting farmers] in such a way that for hundreds of miles around, the people will see, tremble, know …” (telegram to the Penza authorities, 11 August 1918, in Richard Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 1996, p. 50). If this isn’t language consciously and deliberately suggestive of violence and terror, I don’t know what else it could be!

Thus, Communist terrorism is not a specific “response to a concrete situation” as has been erroneously and deceptively claimed here, but a GENERAL PRINCIPLE to be applied to revolution in general, and to Communist revolution in particular. Also, it is absurd to claim that no leading Marxists had heard of Marx and Engels’ views on revolutionary violence and its particular manifestation of terrorism when these views are clearly quoted by Kautsky, and referred to, discussed, and approved of by Lenin himself. The same applies to the claim that Lenin “doesn’t refer to terror” in The Proletarian Revolution which is patently untrue as can be seen from the online version on the marxists.org site as well as from the quote I gave above and Robert Service’s comment.

(4) The other important fact is that Marx and Engels were prominent members of the Communist League for which they wrote the Manifesto. It follows that for all practical purposes they were Communists (as well as terrorists), and their concept of terrorism cannot reasonably be excluded from any article purporting to concern itself with Communist terrorism.

(5) As stated by the Wikipedia article on Radzinsky, he is not only a playwright, but also a historian. In fact, one need not be formally trained as a historian (or be a historian at all) to give a written eyewitness account of items personally seen in official archives with one’s own eyes. At any rate, I know of no historian who has shown any documentary evidence obtained by Radzinsky from the Central Party Archive (where Kautsky’s book with Stalin’s annotations is kept) to be incorrect, unreliable or otherwise historically inadmissible.

(6) On balance, the article is heavily biased towards Marxists like Kautsky and alleged “Marxist rejection of individual terrorism” while attempting to cover up what ought to be indisputable facts about systematic endorsement of terrorism in Communist theory and practice from Marx and Engels to Mao and others – which ought to be the article’s central topic – thereby rendering itself meaningless. It’s like writing an article on Islamic terrorism based mainly on statements by Muslims who reject terrorism either in part or in entirety!

In conclusion, I request the restoration of the removed passages documenting Lenin and Stalin’s endorsement of violence and terrorism without which there can be no article on Communist terrorism. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. We should follow the contemporary meaning of these words. Now that is translated as "terror" and we have no reason to re-consider that.

Re 2. We should not take Marx's writings out of historical context. Since the commonly acceptable standards of the use of violence were quite different during Marx's times and now, we must consider Marx in a comparison with his contemporaries.

Re 3. Noone denies that the idea to use violence to establish the proletarian state was among central ideas of Marx-Lenin's concept. However, idea of the usage of violence was central for most XVIII-XX revolutionaries, not only Marxists. And, again, "violence" does not necessarily means "terror", and "terror" ≠ "terrorism".

Re 4. Please, outline briefly what the Marxist concept of "terrorism" is, taking into account that "terror" ≠ "terrorism".

Re 5. Rarzinsky is a playwright according to Steven Kotkin ("1991 and the Russian Revolution: Sources, Conceptual Categories, Analytical Frameworks", The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 384-425), and I found no positive reviews on Radzinsky's book in western scholarly journals (and several negative ones, including the notion that his books are a "potboiler" (Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 104, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp. 1419-1420).

Re 5. Marxist rejection of individual terrorism is not "alleged", it stems from the core of the Marxist doctrine, especially from their vision of the role of a person in history, as well as the role of economic factors as a driving force of historical progress.

In conclusion, I see no reason to restore these pieces of text so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on what Paul is saying, "revolutionary terror" is covered by the modern concepts of Red Terror and White Terror, it has no relationship to the modern concept of terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Terrorism" and "terror" were clearly used by Marx and Engels to mean terror-inspiring violence. The fact that this was central to other movements does in no way detract from the fact that is was equally central to Marx and Engels.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Radzinsky's book is a "potboiler", this doesn't detract from the fact that none of his documentary evidence from the Central Party Archive has ever been shown to be flawed or in any way inadmissible. It is imperative to carefully distinguish between Radzinsky's interpretation of information he collected (which arguably may be influenced by his playwright background) on one hand, and hard documentary evidence in the form of material items such as photographs, letters, annotated books, etc. that ought to be verifiable and indisputable.

The Marxist rejection of individual terror was not unanimous in practice. Nor does its existence change anything about the generally accepted Marxist principle of mass terrorism and its historically documented application. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to override the central issue of Communist terrorism which ought to be the article's main topic. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: ""Terrorism" and "terror" were clearly used by Marx and Engels to mean terror-inspiring violence. " Please, show me the quote that demonstrate that the Marx's objective was to inspire the terror. Yes, the violence was supposed to be used by the revolutionaries to suppress resistance of the former ruling classes, however, it is not clear from what Marx wrote that that was supposed to be done by inspiring the terror.

Re: Independent to what Radzinsky wrote, it is pretty obvious that Stalin used state terror to achieve his political goals. However, since the Great Purge is not a part of this article, I do not understand how the discussion of Stalin's vision of the state terror is relevant to the article dealing mostly with partisan terrorism, because, with exception of the section about KGB plans of sabotage (which, along with the CIA's plans to kill Castro and belong to the history of the Cold War, not to this article, because there is almost no logical connection between that and the rest of the article) the article discusses political terrorism of small groups of Communist extremists and partisans.

Re "The Marxist rejection of individual terror was not unanimous in practice" Do your mean late XIX - early XX century Communists or post WWII Marxist extremists? If you mean just the latters, I fully agree. However, in this case we need to focus on them, not on Marx, Lenin (or even Stalin, who was guilty in unleashing the non-precedent state terror campaign, but had no, or little, relation to terrorism).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We cannot rely on our own reading of Marx and Engles to determine whether or not they were advocating terrorist actions as that would be original research. TFD (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoting passages from Marx and other leading Communists showing that they advocate terrorism does not constitute "original research" by any accepted standard.

Inspiring terror (fear) is the natural connotation of the word "terrorism"/"terror". This is obvious and requires no special "demonstration."

To revert to the original issues:

I have seen no evidence that the German word “Terrorismus” in Marx’s time meant “terror” rather than “terrorism”.

Why has the quote been suppressed all this time???!!!

Why is there a tendency to illicitly dissociate Communism from violence including systematic terror/terrorism?

Why is the fabricated claim that Lenin “doesn’t refer to terror” in The Proletarian Revolution being used to remove passages showing that he does?

The article should first deal in depth with the issue of Communist mass terrorism – which ought to be the central topic – before digressing into controversial details such as the theoretical rejection of individual terror.

What is your definition of “individual terrorism”, anyway? What criteria are you using in determining that it was rejected not only in theory but also in practice? What is the evidence that it wasn’t applied in practice irrespective of theoretical statements? And how can it be used as a mitigating factor in a critical and objective assessment of Communist terrorism? Justus Maximus (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

""Inspiring terror" ... is the natural connotation of the word ... "terror"". It is a sin against standard logic.

Re: "I have seen no evidence that the German word “Terrorism” in Marx’s time meant “terror” rather than “terrorism”." In the English translations of Marx's texts the word "terror" is used. I see no reason to question that.

Re: "Why has the quote been suppressed all this time???!!!" What concretely do you mean?

Re: "Why is there a tendency to illicitly dissociate Communism from violence including systematic terror/terrorism? " Straw man. The tendency is not to equate violence and terrorism (since the later is just a subset of the former).

Re: "Why is the fabricated claim that Lenin “doesn’t refer to terror”..." This claim is not fabricated. Lenin does not use the word "terror"/"terrorism" in his article. With regard to equation of terror and violence, see above.

Re: "the issue of Communist mass terrorism", if you mean the state terror campaigns (Great Purge, Cultural Revolution etc), it has its own article, and has a remote relation to the article's subject.

Re: "What is your definition of “individual terrorism”, anyway?" We speak not about "my" or "your" definitions, we speak about majority views. The majority views are that political terrorism is the activity of small political groups who use terror to achieve their political goals (see, e.g. US penal code, etc), these groups may act independently, or they may be sponsored by some states; in that case we can speak about state sponsored terrorism. State terror is a quite different topic, although some scholars do combine these two things. Acts of sabotage against the opponent country/state is a third, quite different topic (and that was not specific to the USSR only, the US did the same).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Quoting passages from Marx and other leading Communists showing that they advocate terrorism" is original research and you would need a secondary source that makes the same connections you do. Also, neutrality requires that we determine how accepted this interpretation is and present it accordingly. I have taken this to the OR noticeboard.[9] TFD (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoting is not OR, drawing conclusions from that is OR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Meanwhile, German has two words - Terror and Terrorismus. In parallel with English usage. Collect (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

An objective analysis of the emergence and development of Marxist terrorism must begin by tracing its historical roots to Marx, Engels and their main followers – Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.

The logical sequence would be to first show that Marxism advocated and practiced terrorism before turning to its theoretical rejection of some aspects of it.

In what sense does a passage in which Marx or Engels describes terror/terrorism as the “only means” of achieving revolutionary aims require secondary sources?

If the quote hasn’t been suppressed, then why was it not included in the article, being instead tagged as “dubious”?

Lenin does, of course, use the word “terror”, and advocates the same, in The Proletarian Revolution as noted by Robert Service. Why is Service’s observation being suppressed? What is the evidence that this secondary source is inadmissible???!!! Justus Maximus (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "An objective analysis of the emergence and development of Marxist terrorism" It can be done only if it is demonstrated that Marx promoted the idea of the usage of "terrorism" (not "terror" or "violence" in general) for achievement of the Marxist goals, in other words, it has to be demonstrated (with maunstream reliable sources) that Marxism is a terroristic" theory.

Re "The logical sequence would be to first show that Marxism advocated and practiced terrorism before turning to its theoretical rejection of some aspects of it." Please, show that. That would not be easy (because mass state terror is not a terrorism, according to mainstream sources).

Re "In what sense does a passage in which Marx or Engels describes terror/terrorism..." Because just taking the phrase out of context, including historical context, is not correct. The example of good analysis of this quote in RS can be found, e.g. there [10].

Re "If the quote hasn’t been suppressed, then why was it not included in the article, being instead tagged as “dubious”?" Please, explain, what concrete quote do you mean, otherwise I simply cannot respond. Re Service, he probably meant "violence". I can read Russian and I looked through the original Lenin' text. I did not found the word "terror" in this article (although the word "terror" is mentioned twice in footnotes). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"The logical sequence would be to first show that Marxism advocated and practiced terrorism before turning to its theoretical rejection of some aspects of it". Not really, the theoretical rejection largely predates the 'practice', as is evident from the list of 'communist terrorist organisations'.

"If the quote hasn’t been suppressed, then why was it not included in the article, being instead tagged as “dubious”." - because the source was from a book about Stalin that neither gave the complete version, nor apparently the source for the quote. Asking for reliable sources for quotes before including them isn't 'suppression' it is common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that Marx's Victory of the Counter-revolution is available in online versions both in the German original and English translations. Making no attempt to trace and verify it does amount to suppression in practice even when this is not expressly intended (which is not clearly established).

Both Marx and Engels, and following them Lenin, use the word "terror"/"terrorism" in connection with Communist revolution. Why is this fact not being included in the article? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the meaning of the word "terror" has two aspects. An objective one consisting of an action done by a person (perpetrator) and a subjective one consisting of the psychological reaction - such as fear - that action provokes in another person (victim). Thus terror represents both the action by the perpetrator and the reaction or effect the latter has on the victim. In fact, the one is meaningless without the other. So, no "sin against standard logic." Justus Maximus (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is down to someone providing a quote to provide sources, not for others to search for them. I for one looked for the quote in Marx's more widely known works, and didn't find it. It was nowhere stated in the edit that added the quote that it was from 'Victory of the Counter-revolution' - a relatively-obscure newspaper article. If you want to argue that 'suppression' has occurred, please provide evidence as to how, where, and by whom.

'Terror' and 'Terrorism' are two different words, and have contested meanings. Using a word does not prove intent to follow the practice. What 'fact' is it exactly you wish to have included? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, it would be sufficient in the first instance to include the quotes in question instead of removing or dismissing them.

Incidentally, Radzinsky's Stalin does name the book where Stalin found the quote, as I indicated in the article when providing the quote. Which demonstrates that Radzinsky is not quite as unreliable as some have suggested. It also shows that those who criticize him haven't read his book and that research into the topic and associated "discussion" have been rather below standard. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe the word was edited out of the Russian version, which is not at all surprising. More to the point, however, the (possibly edited) Russian original is given preference over the English translation in this case, but the German original is rejected in the case of Victory of the Counter-Revolution? What can I say? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

'research into the topic and associated "discussion" have been rather below standard'. Absolutely. The talk page is littered with debates about dubious references. Vague comments about 'suppression' aren't exactly helpful either.

As for 'the English translation' of Victory of the Counter-Revolution, there seem to be two at least, and arguing that 'maybe' a word was edited out of a Russian version of a text is hardly evidence for high standards of scholarship. Which word are you referring to anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Radzinsky's Stalin is a popular book not published in the academic press and therefore not reliable. In any case using a book about Stalin to support a view on terrorism is wrong - if the view is notable it should be possible to find in a book about terrorism. TFD (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the book self published? Just because it is not published by the academic press does not make it unreliable at all. Published by Random House who have been in business since 1947, certainly a reputable publiser mark nutley (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is difference between a popular book written by a journalist and a book published by the academic press? In the first case errors are more likely and fringe views are more likely to appear. Furthermore, these problems do not get corrected by later scholarship because the book does not enter academic discussion. If something is true and notable, there is no problem in finding it mentioned in reliable sources. We waste so much time with these types of sources. TFD (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that is besides the point, the book falls under wp:rs does it not? Plus of course [11] it has been cited in academia mark nutley (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Academics are able to evaluate information in sources, which we are not. For example if one belonged to a communist terrorist cell and wrote one's memoirs, one's comments might be included in an academic book about the group. That does not elevate one's views to reliable. TFD (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The book meets all the criteria for wp:rs your arguments are simply pointless you can take it to the rs notice board if you want, were i suspect you will get the same response mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Instead of discussing minuscule details I propose to come to agreement about the overall section's structure which should combine the views of Marx and Lenin on Communism, terror and terrorism, and discuss more recent views that served as a theoretical base for post WWII Communist extremism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That one is easy. Delete the section with prejudice as SYNTH. The article's focus is on post WW2 leftist terrorism, and draw connection to older discussions/opnions of Marx/Trotskii/etc on terrorism is SYNTH. Someone else has to make that connection, not us. (Igny (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Who says the article focus should only be on post WW2? Communists were around committing terrorist acts long before then mark nutley (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To put it in other words. We can not discuss apples in an article on oranges, unless there is a mainstream scholar who makes some valid connection between the two. (Igny (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Between the two what? Terrorism is terrorism regardless of when it happened. A mainstream scholar is not needed at all, just reliable sources which say such and such a group were communist and terrorist Like this one The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda page 197 [12] Lenin and strategic Terrorism mark nutley (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. However, the question remains what is terrorism. According to majority views, it is something that is perpetrated by some individuals/political groups, which may be sponsored by some foreign states. Minority views also include state terror into this category. The article should be built accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul, do you have a source for the assertion Minority views also include state terror into this category just because you say this does not make it so. See new subsection below mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream definition: "Terrorism is the "terror" by state"

I found this on another wiki article so copying it over here as it may be of use The earliest use of term "terrorism" identified by the Oxford English Dictionary is a 1795 reference to what the author described as the "reign of terrorism" in France. During that part of the French revolutionary period that is now known as the Reign of Terror, or simply The Terror, the Jacobins and other factions used the apparatus of the state to execute and cow political opponents. The Oxford English Dictionary still has a definition of terrorism as "Government by intimidation carried out by the party in power in France between 1789-1794"..

According to the Britannica Concise terrorism is "systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective".[13] According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, State terrorism, also known as Establishment Terrorism, is "employed by governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups. This type of terrorism is very common but difficult to identify, mainly because the state's support is always clandestine."[14] mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, selective quotation. EB says: "terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police." You also forgot to tell that EB article makes a stress on revolutionary terrorism, , and, in lesser extent, on establishment terrorism, including state sponsored terrorism (with the USSR and the USA as two major alleged sponsors), and terrorism committed by the state's executive branch. Interestingly, the article does not separate Communist terrorism into a separate category, moreover, it even does not use the words Commu* at all. Maybe, we really need to think about transforming this article into something else to comply with what EB says?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please wp:AGF there is no selective quotation it is a copy and paste as stated right at the top of the section. So terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective This covers both state and individual terrorism. Just because EB does not mention communist terrorism in that article hardly means we ought not have an article on the subject. And the OED covers the argument in the above section about connections to the french revolution mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you haven't apologised for your recent behaviour it is hard to assume your good faith, because the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Sorry, but, since you ignored my proposal to rectify the situation (see ANI), from this moment on I will assume your bad faith until you proved the reverse. In addition, interestingly, the same article that you used refers to the UN defininion of terrorism as "...premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." Even more interestingly, the same article also does not define Communist terrorism as a special category. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor does in mention any form of government at all so what? You seem to think that a source giving a definition of terrorism ought to say a nationality or political type? It is a definition that`s all, it does not try to define groups does it mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your quote from The Oxford English Dictionary seems to have answered the question posed by Justus from the Roman provinces. In 18th and 19th century sources the word terrorism was regularly used for what is now known as terror; i.e. the "reign of terrorism" has become the reign of terror. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What is Communism?

If Communism has any concrete meaning at all, it is the form of Marxist thinking that was advocated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the Comintern – or marginally the Trotskyist Fourth International.

As the article now has this most unfortunate and unencyclopedic title, it means that we cannot interpret Marx, we cannot rely on anti-Communists like Benjamin A. Valentino to interpret him. We cannot even accept the most reliable scholarly sources on Marx. The only thing that is relevant to this article is how the Communist Party or Communist scholars interpreted Marx. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Petri what is it your after here? A definition of communism as an ideal? mark nutley (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

...as an ideal? No.

If you want to claim, that what Marx wrote is somehow relevant to your concept of "Communist terrorism", you have to reference communist scholars or scholars on (Soviet) communist ideology. We cannot go around reading the Bible like the Devil and cherry-picking quotes to suite our original POV. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – It is strange that the English language does not seem to know the proverb "to read the Bible like the Devil". Here are translations from Finnish "kuin piru raamattua". There might be the equivalent in German. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought everyone had the same concept of terrorism, i lived with it for a number of years so perhaps being closer to it gives a different perspective. Would a book on terrorism which has Marx`s bloody revolution quote be suitable as a source for saying he meant terrorism? Chronologies of modern terrorism mark nutley (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I would have thought everyone had the same concept of terrorism". Interestingly, I thought the same. My understanding of this issue is closer to what EB says:

"The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the systematic use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”"

By no means Communist regimes were weak, and, taking into account that they had wide support, they never relied primarily on fear. That is why it is quite misleading to apply the term "terrorist" even to the bloodiest regimes, like KR, because even these regimes were widely supported, this support was genuine, and was not based on fear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Would a book on terrorism which has Marx`s bloody revolution quote be suitable as a source for saying he meant terrorism?" No. Particularly not if the book is so sloppy as to capitalise the first word of the quote, falsely implying it is the beginning of the sentence. In any case, what is needed is a book from a reliable source that analyses what Marx meant, not one that recycles the same old half-quote. I find it astonishing that anyone can believe that 'terrorism' is so central to Marx's politics, and yet can find no other 'evidence' than this contentious phrase from a sensationalistic newspaper article. The whole thing looks more like conspiracy-theory-style 'evidence' than serious scholarship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I really need to say this again: the title of this article is Communist terrorism, not Marxist terrorism. Marx was not a Communist! It is thus irrelevant what Marx meant. The only thing that is relevant is how Communists, i.e post-October Marxists interpreted him. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – To put this another way, in an article on Protestant ethics we cannot quote the Bible or a Catholic scholar of the Bible. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

O come on, marxism is communism, your just spliting hairs here mark nutley (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I thought social democracy was equally Marxist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I believe the word you are after is commie, a Free World term that covers all forms of baddies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I hardly need reminding everyone that there are many ways in which information is being suppressed, distorted or otherwise manipulated on a daily basis. Some of these ways may be obvious, others more subtle, some conscious and others unconscious, some intentional and others unintentional, some well-meaning and others downright evil, but it’s happening all the time and it’s a historian’s duty to bring to light what has been obscured - deliberately or otherwise.

The way I see it, a Wikipedia article’s object is to provide accurate information and then let the reader decide how he wants to interpret that information. Suppressing information on spurious grounds such as that it constitutes “original research” (even when secondary sources are provided!), has more to do with politics than with objective research and analysis. So, in practical terms it all boils down to whether we want this discussion to be a fact-finding exercise or a mechanism for whitewashing the more unpalatable facts about Marxism.

If the evidence shows that in 1848-49 leading Communists like Marx and Engels preached revolutionary terrorism, were personally involved in terrorist activities, and were terrorists for all practical purposes (as, incidentally, were many of their associates and followers from Moses Hess to Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin), why is this being suppressed? How can we have an article on Communist terrorism if we remove all data on the terrorists???!!!

So far, an easily verifiable quote by Marx documenting his public endorsement of revolutionary terrorism has been dubbed “dubious”; a passage from Radzinsky documenting Stalin’s approval of Marx has been removed because someone who hasn’t read his book doesn’t trust him; and a passage from Lenin on revolutionary violence and terrorism has been removed because the same person can’t find it in the Russian original (from which it could have been edited out as was established practice in Communist Russia)!

Going back to Radzinsky and Stalin’s annotation to "The Victory of Counter-Revolution", here’s exactly what he says:

“In the Party Archive, I leafed through two of his [Stalin’s] books, both about terror. The first was Trotsky’s Terror and Communism (1920). Wherever Trotsky extolled terror and revolutionary violence Koba [Stalin] made an enthusiastic note: ‘Right!’ ‘Well said’’ ‘Yes!’ We can see him, alone with himself, expressing his real opinions of his enemy, who, as we shall shortly see, was always his teacher! A teacher second only to Lenin.

The second book was Terrorism and Communism, by the German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky. ‘The leaders of the proletariat,’ Kautsky wrote, ‘have begun to resort to extreme measures, bloody measures – to terror.’ Koba has ringed these words, and written ‘ha-ha’ in the margin. The Civil War leader, who had witnessed massacres from day to day, who had waded through a sea of blood, finds it funny, this ‘bourgeois fear of blood.’ He writes ‘nota bene’ beside this passage in Marx: ‘There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new – revolutionary terror.’ Koba took the lesson to heart. N.B: Terror is the quickest way to the new society (p. 150).” On page 569, under “Books From I. V. Stalin’s Private Library With His Annotations”, he lists Kautsky, K.: Terrorism and Communism. F558 O3 D90.

It’s all very proper and very much like what one would expect from a proper work of history. No academic publication has ever disputed the fact that Radzinsky had access to various key archives (the President’s Archive, Archive of the October Revolution, KGB Archive, and above all, Central Party Archive). So, what’s the problem?

In fact, if his critics took the trouble to actually read his book, they might be unpleasantly surprised to discover that most of his sources (apart from archival material like army and police records, intelligence and medical reports, etc.) are published sources, both primary and secondary, such as official and private correspondence, proceedings and stenographic reports of the Central Committee, memoirs, news articles, works by historians like Volkogonov, etc. In other words, most of his sources are in the public domain and can be easily verified. We may criticize his style and take some of his statements with a pinch a salt. But this applies to all historians. What matters from a practical point of view is that his hard evidence looks impeccable. Had it been otherwise, his critics would have long pointed that out. To my knowledge, they haven’t. In particular, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the authenticity of Stalin’s annotations to Marx’s quote just as we have no reason to doubt that the quote is by Marx once we refer to Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism and arrive at “The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna.”

Admittedly, the article may be obscure to some modern readers, but as I pointed out earlier it certainly wasn’t obscure in the days of Kautsky and Lenin. And let’s not forget that Kautsky has been available for ages and Radzinsky since 1996! At any rate, checking the sources instead of suppressing or dismissing them out of hand doesn’t harm anyone. On the contrary, in my experience, even when you don’t find what you want you always find other materials that lead to new and worthwhile discoveries. That’s what a historian’s job is all about. By contrast, when we introduce unwarranted bias into historical research we turn it into politics. It is to be hoped that this isn’t the direction in which this discussion is going.

As for that mysterious Russian original of Lenin’s The Proletarian Revolution, if I were a historian with any knowledge of Russian history I would probably be inclined to take missing bits in a Lenin book (eg., the word "terror") as a possible indication of textual manipulation. Obviously, inconvenient data can be either edited out completely, or disguised as inoffensive “footnotes.” There is nothing new about that. Anyway, if that footnote is not a state secret or something, why aren’t we being told what it says so the readers can judge for themselves? Also, what does the paragraph with the missing word say? Does it have a blank space, a substitute word, or what??? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"If the evidence shows that in 1848-49 leading Communists like Marx and Engels preached revolutionary terrorism, were personally involved in terrorist activities, and were terrorists for all practical purposes (as, incidentally, were many of their associates and followers from Moses Hess to Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin), why is this being suppressed? How can we have an article on Communist terrorism if we remove all data on the terrorists???!!!".

"If".

"Ok, so where is your evidence that Marx and Engels "were personally involved in terrorist activities, and were terrorists for all practical purposes", Justus Maximus?

As far as I'm aware, once we were made aware of the source of the Marx (half)quote in Radzinsky's book, nobody has disputed that Marx wrote it. The dispute is about its significance. As I wrote earlier, if terrorism was central to Marx's politics, wouldn't he have also written about the subject in more accessible sources? If anyone is excluding "inconvenient data", it seems to be those that would rather have Radzinsky's half-quote in the Wikipedia article than a full sentence that at least provides some context.

As for the questions over the Lenin quote, I have nothing to say beyond suggesting that what a Wikipedia editor thinks he would think if he was "a historian with any knowledge of Russian history" is hardly verifiable evidence of anything. You don't need to be a historian to be aware that books in the Stalinist Soviet Union (and elsewhere closer to home) had sometimes been edited to suit a particular political purpose. Those wishing to contribute to Wikipedia should be aware of this, and take all political writing with a pinch of salt accordingly. This does not however mean that one can legitimately construct an alternative version of history around words that are 'edited out' of texts as inconvenient, and yet somehow influence a later generation of 'communist terrorists' who one must then assume would then not have read them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So we require a source which says Marx and Engels were involved in terrorist activities now? Their readiness to ally themselves with conspiratorial elites who engaged in terrorist activitys Ought to do the job? Or [15] Under stalin communism became a truly terrorist ideology. mark nutley (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the half-quote rears its ugly head again. Lets at least look at the entire sentence: "Their [Marx and Engels'] readiness to ally themselves with conspiratorial elites who engaged in terrorist activities and sought to follow a non-capitalist path to socialism could have been justified in orthodox Marxian terms only when considered in the wider context of Europe as a whole". The quote suggests that terrorism isn't orthodox Marxism, but quote half of it and leave plenty of room for spin...

Besides, Justus Maximus stated that Marx and Engels "were personally involved in terrorist activities". The section stated does not state this. Just what was the nature of this 'alliance' with terrorists anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you name a specific action in which either of them were involved? Did Engles build the bomb and Marx throw it or vice versa? TFD (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Justus Maximus:I would probably be inclined to... And no one would probably ever care. I do not understand why anyone has to take that drivel seriously and base article's content on it. Just find mainstream sources and spare us from your interpretations. (Igny (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

@ Andy, it is not for us to decide what the nature was, we have a source which says they allied themselves with terrorists., that is what was asked for. @ TFD why do i need to @ Igny JM is discussing content here and in a pleasant manner and asking decent questions lets all just try to rub along here ya? mark nutley (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request disabled, as it's not clear that there is consensus for a change at this time. If there's consensus for a simple edit which resolves the above dispute, let me know. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Communism, terrorism and WW2 resistance movements

It occurs to me that there is a glaring omission in the list of 'communist terrorist' organisations, at least if one takes the broad-brush definition of terrorism that many topic editors seem to wish to apply. Many of the resistance groups that fought against Axis occupation during WW2 were communist (or at least labelled themselves as such, which is the criteria required for inclusion on the list). They often also engaged in acts of political violence which seem to fit in with the broad consensus of what 'terrorism' is. Is there any reason why they should not logically be included on the list? Or would this then make the ambiguity of what exactly 'terrorism' is all too apparent for some?

To be clear, I don't consider such resistance movements as terrorist, but I'm aware that my justification for doing so is more based on a belief that they were fighting for a 'just cause' than on any objective analysis of their motivations and/or methods. Should Wikipedia be making moral judgements in such cases, or leaving readers to decide for themselves? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was always under the impression we use what the sources say and then leave it to the reader to decide. We are meant to remain neutral and not worry about moral judgements, or the articles about child molesters would just read "Castrate the bastards" :o) mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes. Especially quotes which were cherry picked to advance a particular minority POV. (Igny (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

A few quotes does not a collection make, especially as those quotes pertain to this article. Nobody is cherry picking quotes here, it is what they said and that`s that really. What is this minority POV you mention? mark nutley (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The evidence that Marx and Engels advocated terrorism is their own writings such as ‘’Victory of Counter-Revolution’’ and ‘’On Authority’’. The evidence that they were involved in terrorist activities is secondary sources from Isaiah Berlin’s ‘’Karl Marx’’ to more recent works like that of Francis Wheen. See also the Wikipedia article on Engels.

On Lenin, Robert Service in A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p. 108, says: “Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror.” As source he gives “V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 37, pp. 244-5, 250.”

Service is Professor of Russian History and Politics, fellow of the British Academy, and a respected historian. I can see absolutely no rational reason why this shouldn’t be accepted as secondary source for the purposes of the relevant section, in particular in view of the fact that the Proletarian Revolution clearly advocates dictatorship and terror. Otherwise, we accord greater credence to AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert than to prominent historians.

Moreover, as stated by Paul Siebert, “the overall section’s structure should combine the views of Marx and Lenin on Communism, terror and terrorism” – with which I fully agree. Unfortunately, he has removed precisely those passages documenting the above views without even discussing the matter or making any attempt to provide alternative passages. Unless a proper explanation for this kind of behavior is given, it must be assumed that it is motivated by political interests. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"See also the Wikipedia article on Engels". Why? There is no mention of Engels engaging in terrorist activities in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: “Engels stayed in Prussia and took part in an armed uprising in South Germany”. See also Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx.

“If terrorism was central to Marx’s politics, wouldn’t he have also written about the subject in more accessible sources?”

1. Accessible to whom? His article or its content was accessible to other revolutionaries (including Kautsky) who wanted to access it.
2. Terrorism need not have been “central” to Marx’s politics. It suffices for it to have been important enough for him to advocate and practice it.
3. If terrorism was NOT important to his politics, why did he write about it and what was he doing being involved in terrorist activities in Belgium in 1848 – the same year when he wrote the article???

Justus Maximus (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, his involvement in terrorism in Belgium demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't advocate terrorism for Vienna only, as has been fraudulently claimed. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Who made a 'fraudulent' claim, Justus Maximus? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Justus Maximus. As I already pointed out, Lenin wrote not about dictatorship and terror but about "proletarian dictatorship" and "violence". I am proficient enough in Russian to read what he wrote in actuality. All of that has no direct relation to terrorism. Yes, I believe that it would be very useful to give the overview of the opinions of Marx, Lenin etc, as well as the opinions of historians on that account. However, that should be done not by cherry picking. For instance, the first ref on Lenin and terror I found (Lenin's Conception of Revolution As Civil War Author(s): Israel Getzler Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Jul., 1996), pp. 464-472) contains the following opinion:

"With the coming of World War I, Lenin turned his civil war conception of revolution into an appeal to 'transform' the imperialist war into civil war: 'Let us hoist the banner of civil war!'" was his answer to Martov's call for 'Peace and peace at any price!" He also insisted later that there was no longer any validity whatever to exceptions that Marx, Engels and their disciples may have envisaged as providing a parliamentary non-violent road from bourgeois capitalism to proletarian socialism in some Western countries. All states were now tarred with the same imperialist, militarisbt rush."

In other words, by contrast to Service, Getzler place Lenin's concept into a historical context, namely, that Lenin's words were not a call for terrorism in quiet and peaceful times, but during bloodiest imperialist war, and that was a request to transform one war (the imperialist one) into civil war. Getzler sees the terror campaign as a part of a civil war, and there is a big difference between terrorism and civil wars.

Another source (The Soviet Union and International Terrorism. Author(s): Leon RomanieckiSource: Soviet Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 1974), pp. 417-440), which discusses primarily the support of terrorist groups by the USSR, says:

"Armed terrorism, which became an international problem in the wake of World War I, gained in importance in international relations and became increasingly evident after the October revolution as a result of Soviet diplomatic activity. This was due to the fact that in the beginning of the I920S Soviet Russia was the object of terrorist attacks by groups of White Guards who raided Russia from the territory of neighbouring countries. In the world balance of political forces which existed then, and taking into consideration the unconsolidated internal situation, Soviet Russia evaluated these attacks as dangerous for that time and for the future. This helps to explain why Soviet Russia undertook some measures in the international arena in order to eliminate armed terrorism."

Interestingly, according to this source, the history of the armed terrorism starts in the beginning of 1920s (i.e. after the Civil war ended) and the USSR was the victim of anti=Communist terrorists. IMO, as soon as we agreed to discuss all aspects of the issue, this POV also should be reflected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That is beside the point. What does your Russian original say instead of "terror"? Could you please elucidate this mystery?

And why are you rejecting Service as a source? Isn't this cherry-picking your sources? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit of textual analysis including comparison of your Russian "original" with English translation available at marxists.org which has "terror" should settle the matter. As it is, it looks very much like you've got an edited version there. And as a general principle, I believe that Service should have precedence over Siebert. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lenin doesn't refer to terror in the context of civil war but in the context of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and he explains exactly what he means by that. See my quotes above which have been suppressed:

“To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.”

Here Lenin clearly reinforces the use of violence and terror as a general principle of Marxist revolutionary theory.

It is evident from Proletarian Revolution that terror was meant to continue even after the victory of the revolution (in line with Engel's "On Authority") and it had the purpose of exterminating the bourgeoisie (middle class). See also Robert Service.

Also, can't you do a bit of independent thinking and see that Lenin MUST have used the word "terror" since that is what Engels says whom he quotes with approval???!!!

Justus Maximus (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Russian original can be found here[16]. The word "terror" in Russian is "террор" [17]. You can see by yourself that this word is not used in the article and can be found only in footnotes.

Re civil war vs revolution, as you can see from the quote Lenin correctly predicted that the revolution would lead to a civil war, so he didn't separate there two. Interestingly, it is worth noting that Bolsheviks didn't start terror immediately after coming to power, which can be demonstrated by the fact that death penalty was completely abolished by them in 1917. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Obviously, inconvenient data can be either edited out completely, or disguised as inoffensive “footnotes.”" That is highly unlikely, because the word "terror" or "revolutionary terror" had no negative connotations during Stalin's times, and no editing of Lenin's works (including even his letter to the Party Congress, where he gives a very negative characteristics to Stalin and de facto warns about future cult of personality) were allowed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The union of communist youth? That`s really your trusted source? mark nutley (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, the discussion of the writings of Marx and Engles is something you should do at party school, not here. Here we are only interested in how topics are portrayed in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[Replaced with general comments below.]

I was commenting on a source, this strangely enough is what we do on an article talk page, discuss content, why not try it you might like it. Comment on content not editors please mark nutley (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please comment in order to improve the article not to discuss how we think Marx and Engles should be interpreted which, as I said, is something that belongs to party school discussions, not here. TFD (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[Replaced with general comments below.]

@ mark nutley. That is simply shows that someone has nothing to object. This site was the first in the google list[18]. However, I doubt it is important, because the content of the original work hardly depends on where it is taken from. This [19] is a quite neutral site, so you may compare by yourself if the two texts differ. If you do not trust this site also, go to a library. I provided the citation, and that is all what WP:V require.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the topic, I fully agree with the AndyTheGrump's proposal. It is quite necessary to overview all aspects of interrelation of Communism and terrorism, including the attitude of Bolsheviks to indifidual terror (strongly condemned as inefficient), attitude of the young Soviet state to the international armed terrorism (including their treaties with the Baltic states), terroris acts of European communists against Nazi, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment These discussions are getting close to original research. Orthodox interpretations of Marxist theory of course discourage acts of terrorism, but Marxists often joined common fronts which sometimes included advocates of terror. Also, some unorthodox interpretations of Marxism support terrorism. However, we should stick to secondary sources for this, and for its interpretation. But "Communist/communist terrorism" is not about Marxist attitudes about terrorism, but about Marxists who commit acts of terrorism. TFD (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what do you mean. Of course, different Marxists thinkers and different communist leaders approached this question differently, however, as soon as the article pretends to reflect opinions of Marxist leaders on that account, all these opinions should be reflected, not only opinions of those leaders who, during some periods of their political life advocated terror against their political opponents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus continues... (Marxism and revolutionary violence)

Paul Siebert, so where's the Engels quote in your Russian original then??? Whose footnotes are they and what exactly are they saying on terror???

Don’t you agree that this discussion should be balanced and objective, and not dominated by apologists for Marxism?

If you do, don’t you also agree that it is preposterous to insist that Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution is concerned with terrorism in the context of civil war when Marxism views the whole of history as a class war, i.e., a situation that justifies revolutionary violence including terrorism which is nothing but a manifestation or function of the former?

Is it not the case that according to Marx “violence is the midwife of history”?

It ought to be obvious to everyone that Marxist terrorism cannot be correctly understood without prior understanding of key Marxist concepts such as “class struggle”, “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “revolutionary violence.”

In a simplified form, the problem may be formulated as follows:

History = Class struggle = Revolutionary violence = Terrorism

Here’s what Marx and Engels say in Communist Manifesto:

“ “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles … Society as a whole is splitting more and more into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat … the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat … The Communists never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat … in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin … The Communists openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution.” ”

(Incidentally, the above is further proof that it is disingenuous to claim that Marx referred “exclusively to Vienna” when at the same time he called for violent revolution in Germany, Engels was taking part in armed uprising in Germany, and he himself was involved in supplying arms to his revolutionary followers in Belgium. Moreover, according to Lenin (State and Revolution) this is the very essence of the teachings of Marx and Engels. And yet you choose to ignore this important fact.)

In his article “On Authority”, Engels defines revolution IN GENERAL as follows: “it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon … and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.”

In State and Revolution, Lenin says:

• “The bourgeois state … cannot be replaced by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) through “withering away”, but, as a general rule, only through a violent revolution.”
• “The necessity of systematically fostering among the masses this’’ and just this point of view about violent revolution lies at the root of the whole of Marx’s and Engles’ teachings.”
• “The replacement of the bourgeois by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution.”

In The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, Lenin says:

• “In defining dictatorship, Kautsky tried his utmost to conceal from the reader the “fundamental feature” of this concept, namely, revolutionary violence.”
• “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [like Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another.”
• “…the revolutionary violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie [is] for the latter’s destruction.”
• “The pure democracy and simple ‘’democracy’’ that Kautsky talks about is merely a paraphrase of the “free people’s state”, i.e., sheer nonsense. Kautsky, with the learned air of a most learned armchair fool, or with the innocent air of a ten-year-old schoolgirl, asks: Why do we need a dictatorship when we have a majority? And Marx and Engels explain:

  - to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie;

  - to inspire the reactionaries with fear

  - to maintain the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie

  - that the proletariat may forcibly hold down its adversaries.”

“To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.”

(The above quote is so central to Lenin that he gives it twice and bases his whole book on it. It exposes the roots of Marxist terrorism and this is why it is being suppressed by those who pursue a Marxist apologist agenda.)

The salient points that logically emerge from the above are the following:

1. As a general rule, the establishment of a proletarian state can only happen through violent revolution.
2. Proletarian state means dictatorship of the proletariat.
3. Dictatorship of the proletariat means violence against the bourgeoisie.
4. One of the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to inspire fear (= terror) in the reactionaries and break down their resistance.
5. Revolutionary violence is the fundamental feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
6. The ultimate aim of revolutionary violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is the destruction (extermination) of the bourgeoisie.

   (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Lenin and other leading Marxists advocated the physical extermination of the middle classes – see among others Robert Service, p. 108: “Martin Latsis, a Cheka functionary, was in favour of exterminating the entire middle class; and even Lenin made remarks to this effect”)

7. Terrorism is a manifestation of revolutionary violence.
8. Revolutionary violence and its particular manifestation of terroristic violence or terrorism is to continue after the victory of the revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
9. Revolutionary terrorism has two phases:
   • (a) pre-revolutionary phase of anti-state terrorism (prior to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat)
   • (b) post-revolutionary phase of state Terror (after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat)

As clearly stated by Engels and Lenin, revolutionary terrorism fulfills the dual function of establishing AND maintaining the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Ergo, anti-state terrorism and state Terror in Marxism do NOT constitute two completely distinct and separate things that have nothing to do with one another (like “oranges and apples”) as fraudulently claimed by Marxist apologists, but two related functions or manifestations of the same fundamental feature of Communist dictatorship, namely, revolutionary violence without which the Socialist state and Socialism can neither establish nor maintain themselves.

In conclusion, the fabricated concept of anti-state terrorism and state Terror as two distinct and separate things should not be used as a pretext for suppressing an article on Communist terrorism that ought to deal with both forms of terrorism as part and parcel of the same historical phenomenon. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is synthesis at best. You need to use reliable sources to establish conclusions, not make them yourself.--Snowded ^TALK 11:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when are primary sources like Marx, Engels, Lenin "unreliable"??? And who decides that???

“The Red Terror was not simply counterterror in an emergency. Its roots lay in the class hatred of Bolshevik activists. The pre-revolutionary Bolsheviks, unlike the Socialist-Revolutionaries, had rejected terrorist attacks against individual representatives of the czarist regime. But after the revolution, these same Bolsheviks had no doubts about their right to defend the new regime by any means possible. So, in 1918, the Bolshevik leaders, particularly Lenin and Commissar for War Leon Trotsky, turned to terrorism. This was a correct move in terms of Marxist theories of class conflict. The Marxists rejected the idea, held by orthodox lawyers, that all legal systems should be impartial … It is significant that the organization that carried out the Bolshevik terror was created early in the regime’s history – in December 1917. This organization was the Extraordinary Commission for the Struggle with Counterrevolution and Sabotage (Cheka) [later KGB]”. – International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, 1997, p. 72.

In addition to the primary sources, there are numerous important secondary sources like the above showing very clearly that Marxist terrorism (both anti state and state) derived directly from the Marxist theory of class struggle and was subsequently legitimized by leading Marxists like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin on the basis of precisely those quotes from Marx and Engels that are being systematically suppressed here! Justus Maximus (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We cannot reach conclusions from our own reading of primary sources, and require secondary sources that instead. We should use secondary sources about terrorism. TFD (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't draw your own conclusions from primary sources you are wasting everyone's time and a lot of talk page space doing so, go back and read up the five pillars. If there are reliable secondary sources then quote them. --Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about "my conclusions" and I never demanded my personal opinion to be included in the article. There already are quotes from primary sources like Marx and Trotsky in the article. All I'm requesting is to include further quotes from Engels and Lenin (which I gave above) in addition to secondary sources like Robert Service and the Encyclopedia of Terrorism. IMO the onus is on you to show that generally accepted sources like Lenin, Service and the Encyclopedia of Terrorism are "unreliable". Justus Maximus (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(After some refactoring for readability) Justus is is in fact making a good if OR:ish argument. It is not even clear if this argument is made from a revolutionary Marxist point-of-view or or from an anti-Communist point-of-view. It has however little relevance to this article. The proper place to discuss the issues is an article named Marxism and revolutionary violence. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Not really as Marxism is communism, this is accepted the world over and i am unsure why you think there is actually a difference? mark nutley (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You can refactor as much as you want. I'm not interesting in any pointless discussions on Marxist-controlled projects. I was simply trying to show why it was wrong to suppress the Marx quote from The Victory of Counter-Revolution all this time (since 1996!) and why it was wrong to remove the quotes I suggested from Lenin and others. You can keep your "discussion" and "article". Justus Maximus (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, can you please provide evidence that anyone has suppressed the Marx quote. Who, How, Where and When? Your insistence on repeating vague assertions about conspiracies does little credit to claims of objectivity.

Mark nutley, if you really don't understand the different strands of Marxist thought, I'd suggest you do a little more study before making pointless generalisations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, can you point to any reliable sources that indicate that Communist terrorist groups are aware of this passage and use it as a justification for their actions. A quick search of books about the Weather Underground shows no mention of "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna" at all.[20][21] TFD (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy it matters not a jot what the different strands of thought are communism = marxism to say otherwise i would suspect is fringe as all people equate the two. @ TFD no such source is needed, to say communist groupies would not read marx is just way out there somewere mark nutley (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Yes they would read Marx but no they were not inspired by this obscure quote. We cannot connect the dots in this way if no one else has. BTW there are non-Marxist communists, e.g., Christian communism, anarchist communism. TFD (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Paul Siebert, so where's the Engels quote in your Russian original then??? Whose footnotes are they and what exactly are they saying on terror???" The word "terror" appears in the editor's footnotes. First one is about the Lenin's article "Plekhanov on terror", the second one is about the "Narodniks-Communist" party, a party which was formed based on the group of the supporters of the "Labour will" newspaper on 14 September 1918. The footnote says that in the first newspaper's issue the Socialist-Revolutionary terrorist acts were condemned. These are only two mentions of the word "terror". Both of them were made not by Lenin.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Don’t you agree that this discussion should be balanced and objective, and not dominated by apologists for Marxism?" Absolutely. There is absolutely no need to whitewash Marxism, however, it is absolutely necessary to avoid ridiculous accusations. What we need is just to describe what Marxist theory tells about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re your ##1-12.

Re 1-5. Correct.

Re 6. ("The ultimate aim of revolutionary violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is the destruction (extermination) of the bourgeoisie.") Wrong. You do not understand the Marxist theory. Marx's idea about dominating role of economy means that one's belonging to some class is fully determined by his/her relation to the means of production. If you have a factory (or significant bank assets), you are a capitalist. However, if your property has been expropriated and you have to work, you become a proletarian. Therefore, under "elimination" Marx and Lenin meant "expropriation", and these words are frequently interchangeable in their works and speeches.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 7. ("Terrorism is a manifestation of revolutionary violence.") No. Individual terrorism was condemned as useless by Marxists, because their goal was to change the economic structure of the society, not just annihilate bourgeois.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 8. ("Revolutionary violence and its particular manifestation of terroristic violence or terrorism is to continue after the victory of the revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.") This is a Stalin's concept that served as a theoretical base for the Great Purge and subsequent repressions. This idea was condemned in later USSR as a revision of Marxism-Leninism. Since that has a relation only to Stalin's terror, and only a tangential relation to Comunist terrorism, this thesis belongs to another article (thhe present article already suffers from numerous unjustified generalisations). BTW, thanks for giving the idea, I'll check Stalin's related acricle if they mention this Stalin's "theoretical achievement".

Re 9. ("Revolutionary terrorism has two phases) Absolutely wrong.

Re "(a) pre-revolutionary phase of anti-state terrorism (prior to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat)" Late XIX - pre WWII Communists never relied on terrorism prior to coming to power. Even the "Trans-Causacian military organisation" Leonid Krasin was a member of was not a terrorist organisation, but a group of ordinary robbers whose primary goal was to provide finances for the party's revolutionary activity. Moreover, terror was condemned by Communists before the revolution as senseless.

Re "(b) post-revolutionary phase of state Terror (after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat) " Yes, terror was needed against the former ruling class, according to Communists, as soon as they try to regain the power. It therefore was more reactive than active, and was supposed to cease after cessation of the attempts to re-establish old capitalist state structures. Therefore, it was not a necessary part of the Communist doctrine.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist-Revolutionary Party of course used terrorism as a tactic, which was opposed by the Communists. TFD (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re ("...the fabricated concept of anti-state terrorism and state Terror as two distinct and separate things ...") Could you please be more specific? Why do you believe this concept is fabricated and whom concterely you blame in that? Regarding "fabrication", please, see Definitions of terrorism: there is no commonly accepted definition of terrorism, however the idea that anti-state terrorism is terrorism sensu stricto is shared by everyone, whereas the idea that state terror is terrorism is not. Therefore, by mixing these two you push minority POV, which is hardly acceptable.

In connection to that, the correct way to build the article whould be to write about Marx-Lenin's vision of terrorism (sensu stricto), then about post WWII Communist terrorist groups and their relations with Socialist states, and then, in a "Controvercy" section, to add that some sources describe Great Purge, Cultural Revolution, Kampuchean massacre and similar events as terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We are moving into OR, On the one hand we have a conspiracy theory that "Communist terrorists" are following obscure writings by Marx in 1848. On the other hand we can contrast the fact that Communists opposed terrorism with the fact that some terrorists have been described as communist. The best solution is to rename the article "Left-wing terrorism" which is the term used in reliable sources and avoids the necessity of our using original research to determine which groups meet to include. TFD (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand. There is no OR here, just a discussion of the Marxist theory: we need to be sure that we use the same terminology and interpret it in the same way. Regarding Communist terrorists, they were not considered as pure Communists by official Soviet authorities (although they supported these groups unofficially). Yes, from the point of view of classical Marxism what they were doing was absolutely stupid, because the official point of view on this account was based on the Lenin's "revolutionary situation" triad, and by no mean could leftist terrorist act lead to victory of Communism in any particular country. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any source that says that if a terrorist group is helped by a Communist government that makes them "communist terrorists"? Many of the groups that they were alleged to have supported could not be described as left-wing and of course the U.S. has supported many terrorist groups but that does not mean we have an article called democratic terrorism. Nor is it up to us to determine what Marxist theory is - that is clearly OR. TFD (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I have no desire to search for such sources, because the sources available for me call them "ultra-leftist" groups. However, I am sure some politicised scholarships exist that call them "Communist". That may serve as a ground for calling them so, although I personally would equally support the name "ultra-leftist". Google scholar gives 3,010 hits for "leftist" Red Brigades [22] and only 2,260 for Communist [23].--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, some sources (e.g. Identity and morality in the Italian Red Brigades. A Jamieson - Terrorism and Political Violence, 1990, p. 508-15) states that the Red Brigades were formed by former young Communists who were excluded from Italian Communist party for extremism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So what? TFD (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that is obvious: I am am equally comfortable with both wording. "Communist" and "Ultra-leftist" are fine, because the word "Communist" was developed not by Marx and cannot be reduced to Marxism. However, although colloquially "Communist" refers to all left-wing movements, it would be probably more correct to say "leftist" in that case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If the question is on whether to call these groups "left-wing terrorist" or "ultra-leftist terrorists" the choice is simple. All terrorist groups are by definition extremist, so we do not need to disambiguate between left and ultra-left, thus "left-wing terrorist". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The literature uses the term "left-wing terrorism". It does not call them communist or ultra-left. Is there any reason why we should reject the mainstream definition and invent our own definition? TFD (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)