Jump to content

Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

More on quotes

It would be useful for everyone to read a really good source on that account. Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce the whole article here for copyright reasons, however the quote below is sufficient to demonstrate how misleading superficial interpretations, which are based on few quotes, may be.

"The clash between these interpretations, between these Lenins, is in some cases a product of unscholarly technique—the "get a quote from Lenin" approach that served useful and various purposes in Russia and the west, but paid little attention to the context or the development of Lenin's ideas. A related problem that plagues interpretive work on Lenin is the effort-occasioned by a highly politicized scholarship-to find a Lenin, a single leninism (good or bad) and to impose consistency upon a person for whom becoming an "ism" was never a goal. And a third obstacle to understanding Lenin's approach to law is, in many cases, a reductive notion of "law" itself, in particular the assumption that law and legality are concepts with fixed and universal meaning. Lenin, however, and other intellectual participants in the politics of late imperial and revolutionary Russia were well aware of the unfixed nature of legal systems and were engaged in a long-term struggle over what law might become in their society" (Lenin and the Law in Revolutionary Russia. Author(s): Jane Burbank Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 23-44)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That is why when we write articles about subjects we use sources about those subjects and do not engage in original research. TFD (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Correct. However, my point was different. We must rely not on "highly politicized scholarship" that draw conclusions based on cherry-picked quotes, but on serious sources that perform deep analysis of all aspects of the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
"Highly politicized scholarship" is an oxymoron. You may be referring to the garbage sources that Marknutley has introduced. Scholarly sources are fine. TFD (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree here. It is entirely possible to be 'Highly politicized' and scholarly at the same time. Actually, I'll go further and suggest that anyone who claims to be both 'scholarly' and 'apolitical' is perhaps of questionable relevance in a topic like this, where actually having 'no politics' seems indicative of indifference to human suffering and/or human stupidity. The measure of whether a source is relevant and admissible is not whether there is evidence of 'politics' but whether the arguments and evidence are presented in a scholarly way.... Whatever, I should be in bed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. Although scholarly sources argue political points the facts are checked and they acknowledge which theories are best accepted. Could you please present a scholarly source which would be unacceptable. TFD (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"scholarly sources... acknowledge which theories are best accepted". Really? Then where do new theories come from, and how do they come to be accepted? I've known a few 'scholars' who's attitude to 'best accepted' theories is to use them for target practice. Scholarship isn't repetition of accepted 'truths' but questioning them. Anyway, I'm not really interested in debating this - it is way off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly on-topic to discuss the types of sources that we use. When scholars develop new theories they acknowledge the older accepted theories that they wish to challenge. For example, Copernicus provides an explanation of the then accepted geocentric paradigm he wishes to replace.[1] We can then tell what acceptance the new paradigm has by reading subsequent papers. Scholars who take target practice against accepted theories tell us what those accepted theories are. If I am wrong, then give me an example to disprove me. TFD (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

More Suppressed Quotes/Sources

Paul Siebert, how do you explain away (a) the fact that Lenin refers twice to Engels on terror (ch. 1 & 3) in the English translation mentioned above and (b) Service's observation on p. 108?

Why do you give preference to your Russian "original" of The Proletarian Revolution while rejecting the German original of "The Victory"?

the correct way to buid the article whould be to write about Marx-Lenin's vision of terrorism (sensu stricto).

No, not sensu stricto. Terrorism, period. (Otherwise, this "sensu stricto" is liable to interpretation by those pursuing a Marxist apologist agenda.)

At the very least, we should be allowed to include a few quotes from Marx, Engels, Lenin, referring to terror/terrorism in the same way Trotsky was included. And then let the readers draw their own conclusions. It shouldn't be the article's task to push the readers' opinion in a pro-Marxist direction!

To revert to the quotes issue.

Quote from Marx:


Source: Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Vol. VI, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1959, pp. 505-6

Incidentally, in above article which is addressed to Royal Prussian Police Director Moeller, who had been instructed by the government to close down Marx and Engel’s paper for ’’incitement to armed revolution’’, the passage on terrorism from Marx’s “The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna” is being repeated so that there are two references to terrorism in the same article and at least three references in the relevant period of 1848-49 (when Marx and Engels were involved in terrorist activities).

Furthermore, in his Article “Elberfeld”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No 300, 17 May 1849, Engels himself who was one of the editors, describes his own participation in terrorist activities such as transport of ammunition for revolutionary workers in Solingen, being in charge of artillery, inspection of barricades, etc.

Source: Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Vol. VI, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1959, pp. 500-2.

And some more quotes from Lenin:



Source: Richard Pipes, The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996, pp. 56, 153-4.

At all events, The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism ought to be a highly relevant (and reliable) secondary source for the purposes of an article on terrorism. Why is this source being suppressed in addition to Radzinsky, Service, Pipes, and others???!!!

As to Marx’s statement from “The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna’’ it was mentioned and properly referenced by Radzinsky in 1996.

This being the case, doesn’t it seem fair to say that “historians” who haven’t heard of the article even after 1996 are ignorant of Marxist writings on terrorism, which raises the question as to the capacity in which they purport to contribute to the discussion?

Doesn’t it also seem fair to say that those who need 14 (fourteen!) years to check and trace a source must be either intellectually impaired or politically-motivated apologists for Marxist terrorism (which is why they quote apologist literature here, e.g., Getzler et al.)?

Whichever the case may be, I hereby challenge any of these “historians” to produce reliable evidence showing that Radzinsky (p. 150), Service (p. 108), Pipes (pp. 56, 153-4), The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism (p. 72), Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke (Vol. VI, pp. 500-2, 505-6) are all unreliable sources! Justus Maximus (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Justus Maximus, did you read my recent posts? (Both about the Marxist theory and on "the "get a quote from Lenin" approach")--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
A quote from Lenin saying what exactly? mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, never mind your posts. The issue is, why are you so vehemently opposed to the inclusion of quotes by Marx, Engels, Lenin, referring to terror/terrorism and allowing the readers to decide for themselves, if you are not an apologist for Marxist terrorism?

As a historian, shouldn't you be aware of the fact that there are numerous reliable sources identifying Communist terrorism as a derivative of the Marxist theory of class struggle (e.g., The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism). In addition, Marxist leaders like Lenin themselves do so in The State and Revolution, The Proletarian Revolution and K Kautsky (quoted extensively above), etc. So, what's your game? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet again, Justus Maximus comes out with his ridiculous assertions about 'suppression'. So yet again I'll ask him to provide evidence. WHO, HOW, WHERE and WHEN? This talk page is no place for the propagation of baseless conspiracy theories and grossly offensive personal attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I imagine he is refering to [2] Paul Sieberts last few edits which seems to have removed various bits and pieces mark nutley (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
We do not search through the tens of thousands of pages of Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. to find something that appears to be a defense of terror and allow the reader to decide if it is. We use academic sources that have analyzed these writings and represent their opinions in proportion to their degree of acceptance in the academic community. In this case the theory that they were advocating terrorism is fringe and should be ignored. BTW fringe theorists frequently claim their views are being "suppressed". See the discussion pages for 911, the Obama birth certificate, aspartame, global warming and other topics that have attracted conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Justus Maximus. I do not "so vehemently opposed to the inclusion of quotes". My point is, and a reliable source (see above) fully support that, that it is possible to find a lot of different quotes from Marx, Lenin, as well as form other primary sources to support virtually any point. For example, Gospel of Matthew says: "He who is not with me is against me" (13/30[3]), whereas the Gospel of Mark says: "For he that is not against us is on our part" [4]. Accordingly, by selectively quoting the Gospels one can create two quite opposite impressions about Christianity. One way or the another, as soon as we stepped into the realm of quotes, other Marx and Lenin's quotes, which demonstrate quite opposite ideas also should be used, and the article will turn into a complete mess.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "As a historian, shouldn't you be aware of the fact that there are numerous reliable sources identifying Communist terrorism as a derivative of the Marxist theory of class struggle" I am not a historian, I work in the area of natural sciences, however, I also am quite aware of the fact that, in addition to the sources you mention there are even more numerous and at least equally reliable sources that do not identify Communist terrorism as a derivative of the Marxist theory of class struggle. Therefore, as I already proposed (also you seem to ignore this proposal), the best way to take into account what all sources say would be to tell absolutely non-controversial part of the story (about leftist terrorism) in the main article and move the sources like The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism (which, by definition, is a tertiary source) into a "Controversy" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Paul Siebert, how do you explain away (a) the fact that Lenin refers twice to Engels on terror (ch. 1 & 3) in the English translation mentioned above and (b) Service's observation on p. 108?" I explain it as follows. In Russian, most foreign words exist in parallel with their Russian counterparts, however, the meaning of the formers in narrower. Although English "terror" is translated into Russian as both "террор" (terror) and "страх" (fear)[5] the reverse translation of the word "террор" means only "terror" sensu stricto [6]. In the Russian original Lenin uses the word "fear": thus, the Russian original of the phrase "And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries." reads like "И победившая партия по необходимости бывает вынуждена удерживать свое господство посредством того страха, который внушает реакционерам ее оружие." In addition, the modality is also translated not fully correctly in English. The words "партия по необходимости бывает вынуждена удерживать свое господство" are translated as "party must maintain its rule", whereas a more correct translation would be "sometimes is forced to maintain its rule" because the word "must" in Russian means "должен/должна" [7], whereas the word "вынужден/вынуждена" means "is obliged / forced / compelled" [8].
One way or the another, since many, if not majority sources describe Red Terror or Great Purge as "terror" and not as "terrorism" the article in its present form is WP:CFORK and should be re-written to reflect all majority views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert,

Since Lenin refers to Engels' quote TWICE, he must refer just as many times to "terror" as this is the exact word in Engels' original. This is precisely why the English translation has the correct word, viz. "terror"! It follows that the quote should be included as per my legitimate and justified request.

Whether the Encyclopedia of Terrorism is tertiary or not, it is a legitimate source and should be acceptable for an article like the present in the absence of a better source.

You have failed to produce any reliable evidence that the sources I mentioned above (Robert Service, etc.) are "unreliable".

The fact is that you have already implicitly admitted to being an apologist for Marxist terrorism:

(1) by asserting that it “doesn’t need whitewashing”,

(2) by fraudulently claiming that the terror was due to the Civil War (despite all evidence to the contrary),

(3) by quoting apologist literature (= propaganda).

Isaiah Berlin says in Karl Marx:

“Still comparatively unknown in England, he [Marx] had grown abroad into a figure of vast fame and notoriety, regarded by some as the instigator of every revolutionary movement in Europe, the fanatical dictator of a world movement pledged to subvert the moral order, the peace, happiness and prosperity of mankind … Others saw in him the creator of an irresistible movement designed to overthrow the prevailing rule of injustice and inequality by persuasion or by violence. To them he appeared as an angry and indomitable Moses, the leader and savior of all the insulted and the oppressed, with the milder and more conventional Engels at his side, an Aaron ready to expound his words to the benighted, half-comprehending masses of the proletariat” (pp. 159-60).

I think it would be fair to say, if your posts are any indication of your thought processes, that you belong to the latter category. Not that there is anything wrong with that. So long as the world is still fairly free and not wholly controlled by the fanatical disciples of Karl Marx, there is some freedom of religion and political belief. However, when the likes of you become the dominant element in the discussion, its objectivity obviously becomes fatally compromised. I think objectivity demands either that you and your associates temper your uncritical and unreserved support for Marxist terrorism – which is probably unlikely to ever happen – or, more realistically, we allow some supporters of the opposite camp to join the discussion. Until that time, I honestly don’t see how this enterprise can be taken forward in a balanced and objective manner.

As stated in my edit request, the article is already heavily biased towards unrepresentative figures like Kautsky and seeks to play down Marxist terrorism by laying undue emphasis on the theoretical “rejection of individual terrorism” thus in effect attempting to mitigate and whitewash what it ought to present in a critical and objective manner.

Surely you agree that by allowing apologists for Marxist terrorism to dominate the discussion and dictate its direction, we make matters even worse and can’t possibly have an objective and historically accurate article??? Hence my suggestion that we include a few quotes documenting what Marx, Engels, Lenin, say in respect of terror/terrorism, in particular such as contain the actual word “terror”/”terrorism”, and let the readers decide for themselves without trying to artificially push their opinion in a pro-Marxist direction. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ou left out this part of the text, "By these he was represented as the evil genius of the working class, plotting to sap and destroy the peace and morality of civilized society, systematically exploiting the worst passions of the mob, creating grievances where none existed, pouring vinegar in the malcontents' wounds, exacerbating their relations with their employers in order to create the universal chaos in which everyone would lose, and so finally all would be made level at last, the rich and the poor, the bad and the good, the industrious and the idle, the just and the unjust". Berlin was saying that the influence of Marx has been exaggerated, both by his supporters and by detractors. Let us follow the lead of Berlin and stop this nonsense. TFD (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
That`s one way to interpret it i suppose, but it is of course OR. Supply a source which actually says that can you mark (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You can discuss your reasoning at NORN.[9] TFD (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Justus Maximus, this talk page is devoted to Communist terrorism, not to my humble person, so most of your response is out of topic. In addition, it is highly inappropriate to comment on a contributor, per WP policy and guidelines. Please, avoid it in future.
Re Engels quote, please, provide them, otherwise I am not completely sure that we mean the same things.
Re Marx whitewashing, I, obviously, meant not that he does not need it because he was sinless, but because we do not need, and must not whitewash or blacken anything, but just neutrally describe the topics.
Re "by fraudulently claiming that the terror was due to the Civil War" You should have a serious ground for such claims. Of course, per WP:BURDEN I have to provide needed evidences to support my edits when I add/restore materials, however, I doubt I have to provide an evidence that I committed no fraud. I expect you to prove that I committed a deliberate fraud, or to apologise.
Re "by quoting apologist literature" Examples, please?
I am waiting for your response on these my comments, because our further discussion is impossible without that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it even worth attempting to reach a consensus on this article?

Given the lack of any progress towards reaching a consensus on the scope of this article, on what a reliable source is, and on what 'terrorism' is, and given the grossly offensive personal comments from one contributor, and the general unwillingness to accept any source not acceptable to a particular POV by some other contributors, I can see no point in contributing any further to this article. It is clearly being used as a POV fork by some and contains nothing that isn't better discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia beyond a relatively-uncontentious list of 'communist terrorist' (or if you prefer 'ultra-left terrorist') organisations. Unless it can be agreed that this should be the sole content of the article, I contend that the best remaining option realistically available is to delete it.

(Can I ask contributors to keep comments in this section to those of direct relevance. This talk page is messy enough as it is) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You can do an AFD if you wish, i doubt it`ll get any were though. Look we know there have been and still are communist terrorist groups, we know communist regimes supported them. The article can be ok if that is what is focused on. mark (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Just move it to Left-wing terrorism, which is a generally accepted category supported by the literature and presumably would include Communist/communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There was no consensus for that above as you well know, stop suggesting it. We have articles on all manner of terrorism Islamic terrorism Christian terrorism Hindu Terrorism mark (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
These three are religions, whereas Communism is a political doctrine, which includes Marxism and which is a part of the Leftist movement. By contrast, Hinduism, Islam or Christianity are not parts of some greater religion. Therefore, the analogy is completely flawed. In addition, taking into account that the members of Red Brigades and similar organisations were not members of Communist parties (as a rule, they were excluded from them for extremism) it is more correct to move them to "Leftist terrorism", and to add that some sources consider them Communist.
Note, I propose to take into account all points of view (in accordance with their prominence), whereas some anti-Communist editors insist on presenting of only their POV and reject others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously paul? the red brigades were not communist? I think you may have missed the analogy, any large organization be it religious or political which have committed terrorist actions have an article, thus communism should not be treated any differently mark (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
They possibly identified themselves with Communism, but they were not seen as Communist by large Communist parties, and were seen as "ultra-leftist" by others. Communism/Marxism is much more narrow term, and, accordingly, the Red Brigades etc should be moved to some more appropriate article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
"Religious extremist terrorism" is an accepted category of terrorism and scholars have subdivided it by religion. It is not based on fringe views of Wikipedia editors but on scholarly writing. TFD (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
So your saying there are no reliable sources on communist terrorism then? mark (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No one has provided any. One may find sources that the Red Brigade were communist and sources that they were terrorist. But to put the two together to make them "communist terrorists" and then to group them with other groups that were both communist and terrorist and then to connect this with actions by Communist governments is original research. You need to find a source that makes this connection. TFD (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)However, the sources stating the opposite do exist. See, e.g. (Identity and morality in the Italian Red Brigades. A Jamieson - Terrorism and Political Violence, 1990, p. 508-15). It states that the Red Brigades were formed ex-Comminists were excluded from Italian Communist party for extremism.
Another source groups these organisations together with rightist and nationalist organisations, and he does not use the word "Communist" in the article at all:
"In the past, terrorism was practiced by a group of individuals belonging to an identifiable organization with a clear command and control apparatus who had a defined set of political, social, or economic objectives. Radical leftist organizations such as the Japanese Red Army, Germany’s Red Army Faction, Italy’s Red Brigades, as well as ethno-nationalist terrorist movements like the Abu Nidal Organization, the IRA, and the Basque separatist group, ETA, reflected this stereotype of the traditional terrorist group. They issued communiqués taking credit for—and explaining—their actions and however disagreeable or distasteful their aims and motivations were, their ideology and intentions were at least comprehensible." (BRUCE HOFFMAN, Change and Continuity in Terrorism, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 24:417–428, 2001)
Taking into account the author's affiliation (The RAND Corporation), he is hardly a Communist supporter.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Erm, the current reference in this article already does, this is a stupid line of talk. The red brigade were communist to discuss otherwise is wasteful mark (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
....taking into account that one of the sources is named "Left-wing extremism" and discusses leftist terrorism, not Communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The source for the red brigades was added by myself Wilkinson, Paul (29 June 2006). Terrorism versus democracy: the liberal state response (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 4+222 and it most certainly calls them communist mark (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not a surprise that such sources exist, however, my point is that other sources exist that call them "Ultra-leftist". In addition, the fact remains that their members were expelled from their mother Communist parties for extremism, and therefore, were Communist with strong reservations. One way or the another, whereas "Communist" is a subset of "Leftist", and whereas numerous sources calling them "Leftist" do exist, insisting on the word "Communist" is a violation of the neutrality principle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Another source used in this article ("Left-wing extremism") states:
"In addition to the Soviet Union and other state sponsors including China and Cuba, leftist revolutionaries in the United States have gained inspiration, if not support, from members of the Communist Party of the U.S.A."
thereby distinguishing "leftism" in general with "Communism"--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
And this Drake, C. J. M. (October 15, 1998). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 19 Communist terrorist groups including the red brigades and frontline in Italy. Numerous sources call them communist, and they were self declared as such, and their aim was to bring about a communist state, to say otherwise is a violation of the neutrality principle mark (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You again ignore my point. Yes, some sources call them Communist, however, some doesn't. By saying that they are leftists we do not contradict to the sources calling them Communists, because Communism is a part of leftism. However, by defining them as Communists we ignore the sources that do not call them Communists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the Soviet Union and other state sponsors including China and Cuba, leftist revolutionaries in the United States have gained inspiration, if not support, from members of the Communist Party of the U.S.A." thereby distinguishing leftism in general with Communism well that dog won`t hunt, it separates them as different groups, how else does the one get inspiration from the other mark (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure this your interpretation of this source is correct. It calls them "leftist revolutionaries", not "communist revolutionaries", and that fact you cannot ignore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Paul which source are you refering to here? mark (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
" LEFT-WING EXTREMISM: The Current Threat Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Safeguards and Security. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education: Center for Human Reliability Studies ORISE 01-0439. 2001. p. 1. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/780410-SHVVvq/native/780410.PDF. Retrieved December 27, 2009.", a ref # 53.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
mark nutley, strictly speaking it does not call them communist, and certainly does not call them "communist terrorists.[10] It is tendentious editing to use a glossary in a book that does not even use the term "communist terrorism". Also not that the term "communist terrorism" does not even appear in Drake's book.[11] Furthermore it was not even published by the academic press. TFD (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, a book on terrorism which describes them as communists? Page 4 the red brigades (sic) with the aim of creating a neo communist state page 222 replace the italian government with a communist system what is that if not a communist group. mark (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
But to keep TFD happy, [12] marxist/leninist urban terrorist group and most lethal of all communist organizations mark (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Look at that mark nutley. "No results found in this book for "communist terrorism"".[13] Please find a source that defines and describes Communist/communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you taking the piss? All these sources are books on terrorism, all mention the red brigades as communist, what the hell do you think marxist/leninist urban terrorist group and most lethal of all communist organizations actually is? mark (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, you repeatedly ignore my point, namely that additional quotes that call them Communist are insufficient, because other sources exist that do not call them so.
In addition, if the quote you provided is correct, then Bolsheviks and others should not be included here, since, as CPSU was definitely more lethal then Red Brigades, the source does not consider the latter "terrorist".... (that is also a responce to Justus Maximus). --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Paul, they have always been known as a communist group, their aim was to bring about a communist regime and break italy away from nato. That is the very definition of a communist group, one which works against the state to bring about a new regime (communist) are you really arguing against this very obvious fact? mark (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's stick to what the sources say. leftist≠communist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
That is your own original synthesis. Please find a source that defines and describes Communist/communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I think the approach of attempting to base the article on mainstream scholarly opinion at all costs is not without problems of its own. In the first instance, it goes without saying that such opinion may be erroneous. For example, there was no shortage of mainstream scholarly opinion endorsing racism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Nor is there any need for finding a scholarly study on “Communist terrorism”, it being evident that Communist terrorism exists as much as Islamic terrorism does.

It may, of course, be argued that Communist terrorism is simply terrorism used by Communists and that, therefore, it is no different from other forms of terrorism.

However, what makes Communist (in particular, Marxist) terrorism special is its relation to revolutionary violence which derives from the doctrine of class struggle as pointed out by The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and many other sources.

Geoffrey Roberts says:

“But what did Stalin believe? What were his motives for the Great Terror? … [he cites two schools of thought, one saying that Stalin used Terror to consolidate his dictatorship, and another saying the Terror was necessary to defend the Soviet Union, then continues] … perhaps the most important key to Stalin’s motivation lies in the realm of ideology. The leitmotif of Soviet communist ideology in the 1920s and 1930s was class struggle – the inbuilt antagonism between mutually incompatible economic interest groups” (Stalin's Wars, 2006, pp. 17-18).

It is a well-known fact that Marxists sought to justify and legitimize everything they did on the basis of their fundamental theories like the theory of class struggle.

And, of course, it is not for nothing that Marx himself was known in his time as “The Red Terror Doctor”. It must be admitted that “Red Terror” comes very close to “Communist/Marxist Terror”, indeed, the two phrases are interchangeable and identical in many respects. Only that whereas “Red” would have been more common at the time, “Communist/Marxist” would be more common in modern parlance. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert,

(1) I repeatedly asked you about the Engels quote about terror in Lenin’s The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky precisely because I had seen the Russian original myself and knew that it contained a word meaning “terror” (like you, I can read Russian; unlike you, I always check the sources first before I talk).

Indeed, as I indicated earlier, the original MUST have had the word “terror” or equivalent as per the following logic:

(a) translation and original are the same text (in different languages);

(b) translation has word “terror”;

(c) therefore, original has word “terror” (or equivalent in original language).

In addition, I knew that Lenin is often very fastidious about translated quotations: “We must translate the quotations from the German originals, as the Russian translations, although very numerous, are for the most part either incomplete or very unsatisfactory” (State and Revolution).

Far from persecuting you, I gave you several chances to correct your erroneous statement.

Yet you persistently refused to do so and avoided giving a straight answer. Why were you so economical with the facts if you had nothing to hide?

You wrote:

The word “terror” is mentioned twice in footnotes. Lenin does not use it. (16:51, 6 October 2010)

and

As I already pointed out, Lenin wrote not about dictatorship and terror but about “proletarian dictatorship” and “violence” (14:58, 8 October 2010).

However, having been caught out, you are now admitting that Lenin uses “CTPAX”, the Russian word for “terror” which is the same as “TEPPOP”. (01:42, 11 October 2010).

Thus, it was disingenuous of you to claim that Lenin doesn’t use the word “terror” and to deploy this as a pretext to illicitly prevent the quote from being included in the article!

So, I’m asking you:

Isn’t it the case that the Engels quote in English translation says “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”?

Isn’t it also the case that whatever word Lenin is using in Russian it must be one that:

(a) means “terror”

(b) Lenin agrees with

and that, therefore,

(c) the English translation containing the word “terror” is absolutely correct,

and

(d) Service’s observation, “Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror” is absolutely valid and ought to be included in the relevant section of the article along with the Lenin quote?

(2) Did you or did you not claim that the Bolshevik terror didn’t start immediately and that it was a legitimate reaction to a Civil War situation?

You wrote:

Getzler sees the terror campaign as a part of a civil war, and there is a big difference between terrors and civil wars (14:58, 8 October 2010)

(which is one example of apologist literature = propaganda)

Interestingly, it is worth noting that Bolsheviks didn’t start terror immediately after coming to power (17:06, 8 October 2010)

The truth, however, is that the Bolshevik state terror started immediately after the October revolution, with the creation of the Extraordinary Commission for the Struggle with Counterrevolution and Sabotage (CHEKA) in December 1917. See The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism (p. 72), quoted above, or any other source you want. As its very name indicates, the CHEKA was created for the purpose of suppressing opposition to Bolshevism and it continued to terrorize the population long after the Civil War. Otherwise, there would have been no Red Terror, Great Terror, etc.

Now, since your statements are clearly contradicted not only by the facts, but also by your own later statements, isn’t it the case that your original statements must be false?

Logically speaking, there can be only two reasons why you would make a false statement:

(a) ignorance of the historical facts,

or

(b) intention to deceive.

Since you claim to be cognizant of the facts, this rules out ignorance. It follows that intention to deceive MUST be the reason for your telling an untruth.

In conclusion, I have nothing to apologize for. On the contrary, it is YOU who owe everyone an explanation for your behavior! Justus Maximus (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "It is a well-known fact that Marxists sought to justify and legitimize everything they did on the basis of their fundamental theories" The question is not what Marxist sought, but how contemporary scholars explain these events. These scholars (I mean serious scholars who are focused on concrete aspects Soviet history, not on general theorising, example are Roberts, Haslam, Carley, Gorodetsky etc) explain these events using the same approach as for other XX century countries, and they do not resort to the references to the Marxist doctrine to explain that. Accordingly, we should follow what they say.
Re: "having been caught out, you are now admitting..." Your ad hominem arguments just make your own position weaker. I doubt you can read Russian well enough because otherwise you should know that, whereas the word "terror" is translated in Russian as both "страх" and "террор" [14], the reverse translation of the word "страх" is only "fear" [15].
Re: "the Bolshevik state terror started immediately after the October revolution, with the creation of the Extraordinary Commission for the Struggle with Counterrevolution and Sabotage (CHEKA)" You project the later knowledge into the past. Immediately after the revolution police was disbanded and replaced it with militia, where volunteers were supposed to serve. Obviously, the new authorities needed some new institution to maintain the order in the country. The Commission became the instrument of terror only after the terror started.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Did you or did you not claim that the Bolshevik terror didn’t start immediately and that it was a legitimate reaction to a Civil War situation?" Yes, I did. You correctly conclued that "ignorance of the historical facts" is hardly applicable to me. However, I also believe that intentional attempt to deceive is also non applicable to this situation (I assume my good faith and I have no serious reasons to doubt in yours so far). Therefore, some alternative explanation should exist, and I am going to provide it.
Going back to the "immediately started Bolshevik terror", let me remind you the following.
1 The country's economy was heavily devastated by bloody WWI, and a huge amount of armed men combined with the absence of old traditions of democracy had a dramatic impact on the internal life of the former Russian empire.
"The escalation of violence during the Russian Revolution had its roots even before October 1917. The catastrophic economic and political conditions brought about by the long and tortuous years of the World War caused a lapse in morality among the population and a decrease in the authority of the church. The month of February gave an additional powerful impulse to these forces. On the front, this resulted in a disintegration of the army; the increasing democratization resulted in a drop in military discipline, the mocking and taunting of officers, marauding, and mass desertions. On the home front, businesses were arbitrarilyc onfiscated-the owners and other businessmen being dealt with summarily-and estates were looted and burned. The emerging base instincts of the mobs eventually unraveled the fabric of Russian society. The social aspects of this polarization affected morality and ethics as well." (White Administration and White Terror (The Denikin Period) Author(s): Viktor G. Bortnevski Source: Russian Review, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 354-366)
Therefore, it is quite incorrect to state that the Bolsheviks took a prosperous and peaceful country and turned it into a nightmare. The situation was terrible even before their coming to power, and it was exacerbated by the fact that all law enforcement system had been abolished in 1917 (even before October).
"The initial stage of the Soviet rule was characterized by the absence, for nearly five years (1917-1923), of established courts and a body of written rules of criminal law, a criminal code. Criminal justice was administered by various administrative bodies with a free hand in imposing penalties. Although some of these bodies were called "revolutionary tribunals," they were courts only in name, being bound by no written rules of procedure or substantive law in the selection and imposition of penalties" (Reform of Criminal Law in the Soviet UnionAuthor(s): Vladimir GsovskiSource: Social Problems, Vol. 7, No. 4, Symposium on Social Problems in the Soviet Union(Spring, 1960), pp. 315-328)
In other words, the very fact of creation of Vecheka means nothing, because it was created not in addition to already existing law enforcement institutions, but because of the absence of such institutions, so its creation just demonstrated the intentions of new authorities to restore order in the country, although on a completely new legal base. And you haven't provide any facts that proof the opposite, namely that the campaign of terror started immediately after creation of Vecheka. By contrast, I state that it hadn't, and the initially vecheka acted more like economical and criminal police, because no other such institutions existed in Soviet Russia by that moment.
In connection to that, please, provide the evidence that mass terror campaign started immediately after Vecheka was formed. The refs to occasional illegal executions will not be accepted as the proof, because there were no legal system in the country by this moment, and because majority of Vecheka actions during that time were directed against real or imaginary bandits or saboteurs.
2. Initial program of the Bolshevik government can be described as follows:
"The 1917 revolution destroyed the more or less organised use of extraordinary measures in Russia to a significant degree. But a new series of destabilising factors appeared at the moment when the first wave of armed opposition from the overthrown classes had receded, when it seemed that the civil war (in those forms in which it had been transmitted from pre-October times) had abated, and when the Peace of Brest-Litovsk had been signed with the Germans. Soviet power was left face to face with a huge petty bourgeois element, completely anarchistic in its mood and views. Having achieved a peaceful breathing space in March-April 1918, the Bolsheviks did not initially intend to master the petty bourgeois element and to hold the country back from movement by force of arms, as some anarchist-communists proposed. They placed their stake on the use of state capitalism. So far as the forms of power and government were concerned, the realities of the political process uncovered the manifest weaknesses of the initial ideas of the Bolsheviks. The idea of the commune-state, a state without police, without bureaucracy and without privileged people, still seemed achievable to Lenin during the period of the Brest peace. It would be a state where everyone became bureaucrats for a time and therefore no one could become a bureaucrat. Power began to evolve in a new direction at the end of March and during April 1918: reliance on the independent activity of the people, on self-administering and 'independent' territories and economic units, was replaced by an orientation towards 'individual autocratic government'. Lenin's starting point was that only a strong central authority was capable of guaranteeing the restoration of the economic links which had been destroyed by revolution and war. It alone could repair organised contacts with the countryside, normalise the financial system and introduce order and discipline. Only a firm hand could arrest the outbursts of individual and group egoism which had found expression in illicit trade by the 'men with sacks' (meshochnichestvo), and could curb the anarchy which ruled in the market and create a legal basis for its regulation by the state." (The Policy and Regime of Extraordinary Measures in Russia under Lenin and Stalin. Author(s): Gennadii Bordyugov Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Jun., 1995), pp. 615-632)
and only in May 1918 first mention of your lovely "terror" appears:
"The government, however, took the decision in May 1918 to introduce a food supply dictatorship. I shall not go into the causes of this fateful step, of this extraordinarym easuret o stabilise the food supply situation. What is important is that this measure, which was introduced from above, consciously laid the foundations of an institutionalised and systematised state of emergency, or chrezvychaishchina. The sphere of use of coercion was extended and terror was employed as a form of government." (ibid)
Obviously, that was a reaction on the initial failure of Bolsheviks to implement their idea in the country where the grain monopoly had been already introduced ... by the Provisional Government in March 1917, and even this decree was only a step beyond the stage the tsarist government had reached by September 1916 when a fixed price had been made mandatory for all grain sales and when state officials were given de facto control over all grain transport (Bolshevik Razverstka and War Communism. Author(s): Lars T. Lih Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Winter, 1986), pp. 673-688) Therefore, I doubt the idea that the Bolsheviks planned to rely on terror from the beginning has any serious ground.
3. To summarise, I recommend you to read the article: Bolsheviks, Baggers and Railroaders: Political Power and Social Space, 1917-1921 Author(s): Robert Argenbright Source: Russian Review, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 506-527) The author points out that two schools exists that try to ascribe primacy in Bolshevik policies and motivations to either "ideology" or "circumstances", and concludes that this dispute came into an impasse. According to him, "the "ideology" perspective originated in the early Cold War era on the basis of the assumption that some of the ideas of Marx and Lenin comprised a blueprint or plan for communism."(ibid), and, therefore, is a Cold war stereotype, although these studies did have some strengths. However, another point of view emerged later:
"In contrast to the traditional tendency to make sense of facts by reference to an ideological blueprint, in the seventies revisionists began studying the broad scope and complex variety of events connected with the downfall of Tsarism and the tortuous transition to Stalinism.8 These studies have illuminated the making of history in the social interaction of millions of people who appeared as a passive, faceless mass in previous works. Unfortunately, however, at times the environment seems an amorphous chaos overshadowing the Communist leadership's intentions, which makes the assessment of policy formation highly problematic. From this perspective, the Communists' responsibility for creating destabilizing circumstances may be overlooked."(ibid)
Obviously, although the Cold war school cannot be fully negated, it is also unacceptable to fully ignore the later school. However, I do not blame you in doing that. You didn't do that intentionally. And you didn't try to insult me intentionally. The reason is different: ignorance of the historical facts and scholarships, although from your side.
However, since now I informed you about these scholarships and facts, I expect you to treat my words with greater respect in future. In any event, the further discussion is more appropriate to another article. For instance, one editor pointed my attention on the fact that, whereas the Great Purge article exists in English Wikipedia, the more general article about Stalin's repressions is missing. I propose you to think about creation of this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
the campaign of terror started immediately after creation of Vecheka See here page 59 which covers that [16] mark (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A person who respects his opponents will not provide a link to crude google book search without attempting to understand the search results first.
A person who respects himself will never disgrace himself by showing his/her inability to use search engine. Results for the+campaign+of+terror+started+immediately+after+creation+of+Vecheka without quotation marks give any book that contained at least one word from the list. Even a little more stringent search [17] produced zero hits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
{ec} Paul, it does not matter how i search. The fact is the source provided says the regime lost no time in setting up state terror, already the Vecheka was already authorised to use the death penalty without judical process which is kinda what you asked for right? mark (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you simply didn't read my post in full. The statement about "the death penalty without judical process" is controversial, because the quote provided by me demonstrates that old judical system was simply abolished during this time, so there were simply no judical processes in Soviet Russia in 1917-22. In addition, although the source referred to the right to use a death penalty, nothing is said about how this right was used. The following source (Sheila Fitzpatrick. The Russian Revolution. Edition 3. Oxford University Press US, 2008 ISBN 0199237670, 9780199237678, p. 76) explains that:
"In addition to its military forces the Soviet regime quickly created its security force — the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Struggle against Counter-Revolution, Sabotage and Speculation, known as Cheka. When this institution was founded in December 1917, its immediate task was to controle the outbreak of banditry, looting ..." (you can read the rest there[18]
Therefore, initially it was not a political police, but something like FBI, and only after the outbreak of the Civil War its functions changed.
In addition, please read (I do not propose you to "re-read", because you obviously didn't read that) the quotes from the Robert Argenbright's article I provided above. You again repeat your usual mistake: if the source exists that supports your assertions you interpret that as a right to reject alternative opinion/sources. The reliable source provided by me states explicitly and unequivocally that two different schools exists and that the dispute between them has not been resolved so far, so presenting just one of these POVs would be against WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Is it suitable for the Red Brigades which have been described as both Communist and Left wing to be described in this article as a communist terrorist group?

Comments from uninvolved users

Comments from involved users

The question is not neutral. The neutral question would be:

Is the story about the Red Brigades, which have been described by different sources as either Communist or Left wing terrorist group, more relevant to the article about communist or leftist terrorism?--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Leftist terrorism redirects here, and as you know from above there is no consensus to move this article. Also leftist terrorism is not the same as communist terrorism. Given the Red Brigades have been described as both then they could conceivably go into two different articles on terrorism mark (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the article needn't describe the Red Brigades as anything. The list is entitled "Terrorist organizations claiming adherence to Communist ideology". All that is required is to ascertain whether they (a) claimed to be communist, and (b) fit unequivocally within the accepted definition of a 'terrorist organization'. I think in the Red Brigade case, both conditions are met.
It is the relative simplicity of determining whether a group meets the criteria for inclusion on this list that makes it a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, in my opinion. Most of the seemingly irreconcilable differences over the editing of this article seem to stem from attempts to broaden its scope to include other issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." TFD (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
TFD we have sources which call them communist terrorist groups and ones which call them leftist there is no synth here mark (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No we do not. Please find one. TFD (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see the section above were plenty were given marxist/leninist urban terrorist group and most lethal of all communist organizations such as this one mark (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again please see WP:SYN. You need a source that calls them Communist/communist terrorists. We cannot "connect the dots" and come up with novel theories. If you think that there is something called Communist/communist terrorism that for some reason the scholars have ignored then you should submit a paper to a scholarly journal and knock some sense into them. Until then your original interpretions have no place here. TFD (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you blind? The source calls them terrorist communists. marxist/leninist urban terrorist group and most lethal of all communist organizations how is that synth? mark (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone is definitely blind, and, in addition to that, non-polite. I said many times that yes, some sources call them Communist, however, other sources call them leftist and not Communist. In addition, the fact is that they have been expelled from the Italian Communist party for extremism, which means that Italian Communist party condemned such an activity. Taking into account that, whereas every Communist is leftist, not every leftist is Communist, we can cite the sources that call the Red Brigades Communists, however, we cannot cite the sources that call them leftists and not Communist, because that would be synthesis. However, if we move the Red Brigades into the leftist terrorism article, all sources can be used there, and there will be not synthesis.
In conclusion, the situation when the broader article is just a redirect page to the article with more narrow scope is ridiculous and cannot be tolerated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it shall have to be tolerated as there is no consensus to move this article, how many time must that be said? My response was to tfd who refuses to admit that marxist/leninist urban terrorist group and most lethal of all communist organizations means the red brigades were a communist terrorist group what it so clearly says that they were. If you want to create a separate article covering leftist terrorism go ahead but this article is obviously not going away mark (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Noone questions the fact that this particular source calls them Communists. However, that is irrelevant to what I say. Please, read my post again and give a concrete responce.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again please find a source that calls them Communist/communist terrorists. TFD (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Been provided, you are now being WP:TEDIOUS so just quit it mark (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No it has not been done which is why we are having this conversation. You have made a connection in your mind and now must find a source where someone else has made the same connection. It could be that you are well ahead of all the terrorism scholars but you have to get them to understand your theories and write about them before they are valid for this article. TFD (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The Red Brigades was a marxist/leninist urban terrorist group (sic) and most lethal of all communist organizations This does just that, your refusal to admit it is just disruptive and i shall not bother to reply to the same demand over and over when you had the answer already mark (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please find a book or article about "communist terrorism" that defines the topic and includes the Red Brigades. My reading of the literature is that such a category does not exist, and they are instead grouped under "left-wing terrorism". When writing articles you will find you have less conflict if you look at what the sources say and reflect that in your writing rather than developing your own theories and seeking support for them through data-mining. TFD (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Mark Nutley here. He's provided a source (a book about 'red terrorists') that describes the Red Brigades as 'terrorist' and 'communist' in the same sentence. If you want to argue about the validity of the source, then do so, TFD, but don't try to make out that it doesn't say what it clearly does. I cant see the problem here: if 'communist terrorism' is a subset of 'leftist terrorism' and a book about the latter asserts that they are the former, isn't it at least potentially an example of careful scholarship, rather than a confusion over terms? Personally, I don't consider some of the groups who have described themselves as 'communist' as anything of the sort, but that is my own analysis, and of no relevance to a Wikipedia article that lists terrorist groups that claim to be communist.

And by the way, Mark, swearing doesn't help, even if you are right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How about the sources that describes them as leftist but not Communist? You correctly noted that 'communist terrorism' is a subset of 'leftist terrorism' so by placement of these organisations into the leftist terrorism topic we do not contradict to the sources which describe them as Communist. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I have brought it [19] for anyone wishing to comment mark (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The 1992 book begins "this book examines a particular strain of terrorist group that is found primarily in Western Europe - the 'fighting communist organization' or FCO. For almost a quarter of a century, FCOs have caused politicfal and security problems in Western Europe." The authors were writing about a group of organizations active in the 1970s and 1980s. If we could show that the concept of FCOs had been accepted in the typology of terrorism, then we could write an article called "Fighting communist organizations". Since it has not been accepted, the best we could do is create an article about the book. What we cannot do is change the terminology and then decide to include groups such as the Soviet government that the authors would not have considered to fit into their category. That is why editors should read sources and let them drive article content rather than develop their own theories and seek sources that support them. TFD (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly TFD, your argument is getting ridiculous and strains credulity. Clearly this is just a case of wp: I just don't like it on your part. The book says "this book examines a particular strain of terrorist group that is found primarily in Western Europe - the 'fighting communist organization' ". Plainly it is discussing communist terrorism in Western Europe during that time frame. Words have meaning. You are engaging in nitpicking and parsing to deny the obvious. Mamalujo (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You need a source that includes "Communist terrorism" as part of the typology of terrorism. You cannot use the fact that someone wrote about FCOs in the 1970s and 1980s (which he does not even call Communist terrorists). If communist terrorism is such a well-known concept you should have no problem finding a book or article that uses and defines the term. TFD (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert,

(1) Your quoting endless apologist literature can serve no other purpose than wasting valuable talk page space and interrupting, in effect sabotaging in good Marxist fashion, the proper progress of this discussion.

How can your cherry-picked “scholars” explain anything without reference to Marxist doctrine when Marxists themselves do so?

Don’t scholars rightly explain Nazi crimes with reference to Nazi ideology? What makes you think that it should be any different with Marxist crimes, and what evidence have you produced to support your blinkered views?

Marx himself says:

“For nearly 40 years we have raised to prominence the idea of the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and particularly the class struggle between bourgeois and the proletariat” (Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle, 1879).

Don’t you get it that as Marxists believe that class struggle is the driving force of history, no historical events for which Marxists are responsible can be anything else but a manifestation of class struggle???

Ergo, The International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and other sources explicating Communist terrorism with reference to the Marxist doctrine of class struggle are absolutely correct.

(2) The fact is that where a text says:

“the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries”,

it is beyond dispute that it refers to fear in the sense of terror, in particular, state terror as this is what fear instilled by the state in any given population is.

As the meaning of the text is absolutely patent to all readers, it is not for me to show this to be the case. The onus is on YOU to show that this is not the case!

If the reverse translation of the word “CTPAX” is only “fear”, why does the English translation have “terror”, and why is that translation accepted by Marxists themselves?

How can Lenin possibly refer to anything but “terror” when the Engels quote given by him has the word “terror”?

And isn’t it the case that the primary meaning of “terror” is “fear” even in English just as it is in German, Russian and other languages???

Of course Lenin uses the word “CTPAX” or cmpax (strah) since that is the original Russian word for both “fear” and “terror” in the same way as “Schrecken” is the original German word for the same. Don’t forget that “terror” (“teppop”) is a loanword in English, German, Russian, and other languages, and that it became widely used in the 18th-19th centuries due to the import of French “terreur.”

Moreover, Communist terror/terrorism already existed in the days of the Paris Commune and Karl Marx. As noted above, Marx himself was a fraudster and terrorist, and was known as “The Red Terror Doctor.”

Thus, nothing that you have said, are saying, or will ever say, can in any way detract from the fact that the meaning of Russian cmpax is the same as “terror” of the original Engels quote, i.e., “systematic state-imposed fear”, “rule by fear”, etc., just as in German “Terror” means “rule by fear”, “ruthless behavior”, “oppression”, etc.

After all, Engels was German and when he said or thought “Terror” he meant “Schreckensherrschaft”, i.e., Rule by Fear. Lenin himself understands this perfectly well as is evident from his description of the dictatorship of the proletariat as rule imposed by means of fear = state terror:

"Why do we need a dictatorship when we have a majority? And Marx and Engels explain: to inspire the reactionaries with fear" (Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky).

This is why Lenin in 1922 said,

“It is a great mistake to think that the NEP put an end to terror. We shall return to terror and to economic terror”

In sum, I assure you that by remaining in denial about the facts and disingenuously playing with words you will do no more than reinforce the fraudulent character of your statements and drive yourself back into the Marxist apologist corner you came from.

(3) You wrote:

“I also believe that intentional attempt to deceive is also not applicable to this situation.”

Is your attempt to deceive perhaps unintentional then?

(4) You wrote:

“I assume my good faith.”

I never expected you would do otherwise. The question, however, is whether others too assume this so-called “good faith” of yours. Following your last post consisting of nothing but more propaganda and word-twisting, I for one am no longer able to believe in your good faith, much as I would like to. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, your arguments are nothing but (a) a self-generated synthesis, and (b) a conspiracy theory. Neither have any place on Wikipedia talk pages. And please stop demanding 'good faith' from those you can't even show common courtesy to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Justus Maximus, see WP:NOR. We cannot develop our own theories based on reading primary sources. Instead we need to find sources that make these connections. Please stop posting original research and find reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Re (1). I quote not "endless apologist literature", but the articles from academic and peer-reviewed journals, which are the most reliable sources per WP policy. You demonstrated your ignorance of what reliable sources are per policy. The authors are real scholars without quotation marks. By question this fact you just show your ignorance of what peer-reviewing procedure is. You statement about "cherry peeking" is a strong accusation and thus requires a needed support. Please, provide some, otherwise you may have problems.
Re "Don’t scholars rightly explain Nazi crimes with reference to Nazi ideology?" Wrong analogy. Nazi ideology is a collection of cliches and demagogy, whereas Marxism is a reputable scientific doctrine and Karl Marx is a reputable scholars who along with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber laid a foundation of modern social science.
Re (2).
Re ""the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries" it is beyond dispute that it refers to fear in the sense of terror" Unfortunately, it isn't. As I already pointed out, the translation is not accurate. The more correct translation of the words "И победившая партия по необходимости бывает вынуждена удерживать свое господство посредством того страха, который внушает реакционерам ее оружие. " would be "And the victorious party sometimes is forced to maintain its rule by means of the fear its arm inspires in reactionaries". That is closer to intimidation than to terrorising.
Re: "If the reverse translation of the word “CTPAX” is only “fear”, why does the English translation have “terror”, and why is that translation accepted by Marxists themselves?" Probably, because in English the word "terror" means also just commonsensual "fear", so you attempts to combine "terror" and "armed extremist terrorism" based on consonance of these words are ridiculous.
Re "Communist terror/terrorism already existed in the days of the Paris Commune and Karl Marx" How many people did Paris Commune order to execute? The answer is ONE.
Re "And isn’t it the case that the primary meaning of “terror” is “fear” even in English just as it is in German, Russian and other languages???" No. German and Russian have their own equivalents of loanwords. The primary meaning of "terror" in Russian is not fear and I already demonstrated that with the refs to the dictionary.
Re "to inspire the reactionaries with fear" As I already wrote, both the original Russian "внушать страх" and English "inspire fear" means more potential threat rather than actual terror. American navy inspires fear in numerous dictators, however that does not mean that the US use a terror against them.
Re "by remaining in denial about the facts and disingenuously playing with words you will do no more than reinforce the fraudulent character of your statements" I do not play with words, and you haven't proved even a single case of fraud from my side. However, I agree that by discussing primary sources we stepped into the realm of original research. That is why in my recent post I presented no quotes from primary sources. The sources I used are the top quality reliable secondary sources which have been wetted by a scientific community. The extended quotes provided by me serve as a demonstration that I do not play with words, so I expect you to focus on these sources or to provide equally reliable your sources. If these sources contradict each other, we can think how to neutrally reflect what all these sources say in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Do you have any comments on that account?
Re 3 & 4. The personal attack of that kind are just a demonstration that you have exhausted your arguments. They make your position weaker and may result in sanctions. Although I personally am not intended to do that, anyone else can report you in any moment. It is in your interest to refrain from such behaviour in future (if you plan to work on Wikipedia).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
PS Re "You wrote: “I assume my good faith.”" By writing that you took my words out of context (which means "cherry picking"). I wrote ("I assume my good faith and I have no serious reasons to doubt in yours so far"). Now you gave me a serious reason to doubt in your good faith, although I still believe the issue is just in your ignorance and non-politeness. I still assume your good faith. Please, don't disappoint me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A sabotage section

This section tells that

  • Some plans of sabotage against Western countries allegedly existed,
  • which were supposed to be performed, in particular, using Suitcase nuke (the latter were allegedly developed by both sides, btw),
  • although the validity of this information is questioned by American official,
  • and no acts of sabotage occurred in actuality,
  • and even no material evidence of the preparations to such acts (nukes, bombs, etc) have been found.

In connection to that, as well as because this sabotage is poorly connected to the article's topic, the whole section should be removed per WP:SYNTH.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, unless actual sources can be found which speak of actual sabotage it ought to be removed mark (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad we can agree about something. Let me point out, however, that the acts of sabotage, and even the plans to kill opponents' leaders can hardly be considered as terrorism. For instance, the US were also developing portable nukes and planned to kill Castro, however, frankly speaking, I don't believe we can speak seriously about terrorist activity of the USA.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The red brigades killed political leaders and such, that was terrorism, do you mean just plans? if so then yes i agree with that also mark (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the difference is that had the Soviet Union started using 'suitcase' nuclear weapons, or assassinating western leaders, it would have been taken as an act of war - a war crime, quite possibly, but not 'terrorism' in the accepted sense. I'd like to see this section go, it is little more than speculation based on questionable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I mean that I agree with the EB definition of terrorism as a weapon of the weakest. The Red Brigades planned and implemented terrorist acts with the primary and the only goal to create a state of terror. They didn't plan and were physically unable to come to power in Italy and to control the country. By contrast, American plans to kill Castro were just a part, and not the most essential one, of their plans to establish new government in Cuba, and they were quite able to do all of that in under some circumstances. Similarly, Soviet plans of sabotage (no matter if they were real or just imaginary) were just a small part of the possible scenario of future military conflict with the First World. That is why it is simply ridiculous to mix all of that together.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the section, which, in my opinion, considerably improved the article. I propose now to think about the ideology section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "Communist terrorism was seen as a threat by NATO and also by the Italian, German and British governments."

I removed this from the lede, as it seemed to be a sentence arbitrarily tagged on to the start of second paragraph. It has since been reverted. Not wanting to get involved in an edit war, I suggest we try to reach a consensus.

I will make it clear that I'm not disputing the statement, but instead suggesting that (a) it should not be part of the lede, which is intended as a synopsis of the article, rather than a repository of statements on the subject, and (b) it is rather arbitrary - many of the 'communist terrorist' groups referred to operated entirely outside the NATO area, and one would assume that they were also seen as a threat by their intended targets. In any case, much of the (disputed) 'communist terrorism' we have been referring to predates the formation of NATO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Andy i ought to have explained here not in an edit summary, that text refers to the FCO`s of which i have been adding to the article. I`ll edit said sentence for clarity mark (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As edited, it is clearer, but I still feel it is in the wrong place, and too specific. Regarding 'FCOs' I'm not sure either the abbreviation or indeed the general term 'fighting communist organisation' is in general use, rather than being specific to the particular source given - A quick Google search seems to suggest so (incidentally, the source seems to be cited in the wrong place). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
443 books The term is well known, hell i knew about these guys when i was a kid. What do you mean about the source? mark (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, right you are, mark. I must have done something daft in my Google search. A quick look at your results suggests that maybe half are direct citations of the book title, but it is clearly a recognised term - I'm not sure the abbreviation is needed though.
Regarding the source, the citation of the Yonah book which refers to 'FCOs' is placed at the end of the first paragraph. It ought to go with your sentence, along with the next citation.
Do you have any comment re my suggestion that your sentence doesn't really belong in the lede? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The lede is meant so summarize the article, half the terrorist groups in the article are FCO`s i was thinking of creating a section just for them but wanted to discuss it first. I am working on a draft in userspace. Were do you think it ought to go? mark (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure it will be appropriate to subdivide the FCOs from other groups, unless you can find a reliable source that does the same, with a theoretical justification for doing so. Unless they systematically differed in either ideology or tactics from other terrorist groups, the distinction would seem rather arbitrary.
I think the lede is in need of a substantial rewrite, it still seems disjointed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
mark nutley, before you provide us with hundreds of books, could you please take the time to read one or two to see if they support your assertion "the term is well known". The books I looked at were using the book as a citation, not adopting its terminology. Also, FCOs are seen as part of "left-wing terrorism" not "communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? Strange then how the source i have used describe them a communist, funny old world mark (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusively or exclusively?

In my opinion, the article is built based on the inclusive prinnciple, which is not correct. In other words, the fact that some leftist, or nationalist, or other terrorist group has been characterised by some sources as Communist, or was financially supported by Communists (at least partially), is considered sufficient for its inclusion into this article. However, the more general article Leftist terrorism still redirects to this article. That seem strange and unexplainable for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, redirecting Leftist terrorism here makes no sense at all, as far as I can see, given that not all leftist terrorist groups have claimed to be communist/Marxist (anarchists are usually seen as 'left' though this can be contentious). As for 'financially supported by communists' that does seem to be a rather open-ended, as a discussion I had with Mark Nutley over the IRA showed - over the years the various strands appear to have had financial support from the USSR, Nazi Germany, supporters in the USA, Libya and who knows where else... Many primarily nationalistic struggles have taken on political significance, but 'support' has often been for reasons more related to Cold War chess-games than ideology. We seemed to be moving towards a position that the article should concentrate on non-state terrorist groups that identified themselves as 'communist', and leave other issues for other relevant Wikipedia articles. The article will need to discuss the relationship between Marxist/communist theories and 'communist terrorism' (we have at least a start to this) but bringing in every group that was conceivably 'terrorist' at some point, and also had connections (however loose) with 'communists' is likely to make any such discussion impenetrable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are those like myself and one or two others who are making relevant contributions and pertinent and cogent remarks.

(Don’t forget it was I who provided the source for the Marx quote that allegedly none of you could find, as well as the Lenin quotes that are relevant to that particular section!)

Then there are those like:

(1) AndyTheGrump who

- keeps asking for sources such as showing that Marx and Engels were terrorists as if he had never heard of these well-known facts. (Don’t those who are incognizant of fundamental facts regarding the subject-matter disqualify themselves from participating in the discussion?)

- claims that he is not suppressing sources like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism whilst simultaneously demanding the deletion of the section showing its relevance to an article on Marxist terrorism.

(2) TDF who is constantly sneering and pontificating whenever someone quotes (original) sources that are inconvenient to his agenda.

(3) Paul Siebert who:

- very impertinently and rudely removes other editors’ contributions,

- claims that Lenin never used the word “terror”,

- claims that the Russian word strakh doesn’t mean “terror” in contexts such as The Proletarian Revolution and cannot be translated into English as “terror” even though the Oxford Russian Dictionary very clearly shows this to be the case,

- endorses Marxist terrorism by styling it “scientific”,

- quotes nothing but Marxist apologist sources like Getzler,

- dismisses scholarly works like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and Robert Service’s A History of Twentieth-Century Russia as “at best tertiary”, “unreliable”, etc.

In these circumstances, it is obvious that the discussion can neither be conducted in an objective, impartial and scholarly manner, nor be brought to a satisfactory conclusion unless and until either editors like Paul Siebert are removed or new editors from the opposite (anti-Marxist) camp are invited to join the discussion to restore the balance. I would, for the time being, favor the latter option.

Meanwhile, I would propose closer cooperation between the Objectives here in addition to the consideration of opening new defense lines such as starting a blog or website exposing the true facts about Marxist terrorism on the basis of the extensive (indeed, overwhelming) documentation found in scholarly works. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the section topic, and completely at odds with any reasonable understanding of how Wikipedia editing is conducted: WP:DNFTT AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You should familiarise yourself with what personal attacks are, and which sanction may follow.
Re "very impertinently and rudely removes other editors’ contributions" I, as well as other editors, sometimes remove the WP content when it does not serve to the encyclopaedic purposes of some particular article, however, I doubt I do that in a "impertinent and rude" manner. The latter claim needs to be either supported or refactored.
Re "claims that Lenin never used the word “terror”" False. My point was that he never used this word in a Russian original of one particular article.
Re "claims that the Russian word strakh doesn’t mean “terror” in contexts such as The Proletarian Revolution and cannot be translated into English as “terror” even though the Oxford Russian Dictionary very clearly shows this to be the case" I provided the link to the Russian online dictionary that confirms my words.
Re "endorses Marxist terrorism by styling it “scientific”" Ridiculous and false. I wrote that Marx is a reputable scholar and one of the founders of contemporary sociology. This statement is based on what Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says[20] ("Max Weber is also known as a principal architect of modern social science along with Karl Marx and Emil Durkheim.")
Re "quotes nothing but Marxist apologist sources like Getzler" Prove that the sources I cite are Marxis apologists or refactor your statement.
Re "dismisses scholarly works like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and Robert Service’s A History of Twentieth-Century Russia as “at best tertiary”, “unreliable”, etc." I do not dismiss them, I simply insist that they are used in not proper way (it is incorrect to reject other sources based solely on the fact that the sources available to you tell the opposite). I already proposed you to think how to reconcile what all sources say, but you ignore my sources as "Marxist apologist".
Re "new editors from the opposite (anti-Marxist) camp are invited to join the discussion to restore the balance" That means canvassing and is not acceptable. You are not allowed to invite some concrete editor to join the discussion if your purpose is to shift the balance. You also cannot coordinate your activity with other editors off-Wiki. Let me inform you that several editors have been recently topic banned and one admin de-admined for such activity (EEML list case). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. My purpose is not to "shift the balance" but to restore it. To my knowledge, it is not the function or purpose of the Wikipedia to suppress alternative sources of information on its own failure to provide an accurate and objective article on the subject. On the other hand, a blog or website providing the information suppressed here would not only provide the public with the information required for them to acquire a more balanced understanding of the subject under discussion, but by supplying a link to the Wikipedia article it would encourage more interested contributors to participate in the discussion and assists us in bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion. Thus, such alternative source would be of benefit to all parties involved. It may be inconvenient to your own agenda, but that is a separate topic.Justus Maximus (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Since WP is not a democracy, you can hardly "restore" balance by doing that. WP relies not on the number of votes, but on reliable sources, and these reliable sources (especially, the articles in peer-reviewed journals) are being written by Western scholars, who are, as a rule, quite reasonable, educated and capable to make correct conclusions from historical facts (that is, probably, what fits your definition of "Marxist apologists"). You will not be able to do anything with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Paragraph starting 'Marx also believed that "The present generation resembles the Jews..." ' in 'Views of Marxist theoreticians...' section

I know this was discussed before, but was never resolved. It seems to me to be an isolated sentence, lacking any real contextual significance. It is apparent from looking at its original source (in "The Class Struggles in France") that Marx was writing in the context of a hypothetical world revolution, and those that 'perish' do so in the sense of being succeeded by later generations. One might assume that Marx was sufficiently aware of the story of the Jews' wanderings to use his metaphor this way - the Jews after all were eventually able to leave the desert, and find their promised land. Hardly a metaphor for terrorism, and as such unrelated to the article's topic.

This is of course theorising on my part, so at this point I'll ask whether anyone who wishes to retain the paragraph can (a) provide a reliable source for an interpretation of Marx's statement that relates it to terrorism, and then (b) propose an edit that makes this relationship clearer. If, after a reasonable period, nobody does so, I'll assume it can be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if one is hell bent on finding quotes containing "marx", "terrorism", "die", and "kill" together with all possible synonyms in order to place them into a propaganda piece, they ought to be able to find something. Especially if work of revolutionaries could not avoid discussion of violence in human history or nature. And it really does not matter that the quotes are taken out of context or misinterpreted, or metaphors are taken seriously, or some other bull shit. As long as it helps to push propaganda, anything would work, right? (Igny (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC))
Er, yes... Maybe its down to my rejection of the concept of Original Sin or something, but I was hoping to edit this by consensus, and working on the perhaps naive assumption that this might work. I was actually asking whether anyone could find an in context reliable source to justify the inclusion of the Marx quote. As I've said, I don't think that one is likely to exist, but I'm at least offering the chance for it to be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
If you compare the way this quote is being used with typical examples of synthesis, it becomes clear that the quote must be immediately removed. Generally speaking, it light of the sources provided by me the point of view that the roots of terrorism can be traced back in Marxist theory is disputable, and should be treated as such, namely, the whole section should be moved to the end of the article as commentaries of some scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You can read the original here. It is part of The class struggles in France.[21] The quote is referenced to Richard Pipes's Communism: A History, published by the Modern Library Chronicles. Louis S. Feuer in Ideology and the ideologists (1975), a high quality source that was republished by Transaction Publishers with a new intro by Irving Horowitz no less sees the quote as an example of the "Mosaic revolutionary myth".[22] Incidentally Pipes' view has been included in Mass killings under Communist regimes and Red Terror. TFD (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's gone... Actually, the idea that 'the roots of terrorism can be traced back in Marxist theory' isn't even supported by the argument as presented in the previous version of the section, given that it asserted that "Karl Kautsky... trace[d] the origins of revolutionary terrorism to the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution. The "Reign of Terror" ended in 1794. Karl Marx was born in 1818. By this logic either the 'theory' isn't Marx's, or the 'terror' isn't. I'm inclined to argue the latter. People were using violence to achieve political ends long before Marx came up with his analysis of it AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote: Actually, the idea that 'the roots of terrorism can be traced back in Marxist theory' isn't even supported by the argument as presented in the previous version of the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus Maximus (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's another blatant lie that clearly demonstrates how Marxist apologist propaganda and disinformation is being systematically promoted here.

I have already quoted several reliable sources on that issue. I am repeating one now and I shall give more later should this be necessary:

“Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy” (Peter Galvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 138).Justus Maximus (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And here is another one:

“Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right" (Noemi Gal-Or, "Revolutionary Terrorism", IET, p. 203). Justus Maximus (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And another:

" ... perhaps the most important key to Stalin’s motivation lies in the realm of ideology. The leitmotif of Soviet communist ideology in the 1920s and 1930s was class struggle – the inbuilt antagonism between mutually incompatible economic interest groups” (Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin's Wars, 2006, pp. 17-18).Justus Maximus (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You are definitely unable to read and understand the posts of your opponents. As I already wrote, Stalin put forward a thesis (which was not present in classical Marxist-Leninist theory and which was later condemned as "revisionist") that the class struggle would increase when the Soviet society would be moving forward towards Communism. That was an essential part of Stalinist ideology and served as a theoretical base for Stalin's repressions. However, this views have a relation to the Stalinism article, not to this one.
Secondly, you seem to be unable to understand even your own sources. Obviously, the words:
"Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right"
refer to the broad spectrum of ideologies and mean that all political ideologies promote terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Justus Maximus, before you accuse people of 'a blatant lie', I suggest you learn to read. I pointed out that terrorism cannot have its roots in Marxism if it existed before Karl Marx was born. This is not only not a lie, it is so blindingly obvious that only a complete halfwit, or someone who thought that Marx was a time-traveller, would think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_terrorism/Archive_4&oldid=789366195"