Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 12 October 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Communist terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Communist terrorism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

See also

I have removed the following section twice

See also

• Active measures
• Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services
• List of designated terrorist organizations
• State atheism
• Communist genocide

Could you provide a valid rationale to include these seemingly unrelated topics? (Igny (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

Without providing any justification, the section has been restored again, this time containing Mass killings under Communist regimes, Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services, List of designated terrorist organizations and Communist genocide. Unless a valid rationale can be provided to include each of them, I see no reason not to remove them yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The obvious rational would be that they all part of communism and terrorism? What is your objection to a see also? mark nutley (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism → Communist terrorist organizations — For terminological reasons. The article discusses terrorist organizations with adherence to some form of Communist ideology. (Igny (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC))

• Stronly Oppose - The article is not just about communist terrorist organizations, a narrower scope, but about communist terrorism in general. Mamalujo (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I doubt that will improve anything. This article combines several different concepts that should be in separate articles: state terror, alleged connections between Communist governments and terrorist organizations, and leftist terrorist groups. The combination of the three into one article is synthesis and makes it POV. To Mamlujo: terrorists belong to organizations, otherwise they are just crazy people. TFD (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Agreed with Four Deuces. Fix the article first. One exception, rename the article Communism and Terrorism, which is nice and broad. Ocaasi (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment who started this bin liner of an article. mamalujo. what a surprise. Sayerslle (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

AfD time?

from the above discussion: "This article combines several different concepts that should be in separate articles: state terror, alleged connections between Communist governments and terrorist organizations, and leftist terrorist groups. The combination of the three into one article is synthesis and makes it POV." I totally agree. I think this article should be deleted as a POV synthesis, and any relevant content moved to legitimate articles such as those on the above topics (state terror, alleged connections between communist governments and terrorist orgs, etc.) Thoughts? csloat (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

I think the article should be deleted, but if it isn't going to be deleted I support the efforts to remove the illegitimate synthesis of original research. The article should be unprotected so the synthesis material can be removed, at least until the article is finally deleted. csloat (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The concept does not exist in academic literature and therefore there should be no article. There was a conspiracy theory in the 1980s that all terrorism in the world was directed from Moscow, which was popularized by the book, The Terror Network. It was also the name the British gave to insurgents in the Malayan Emergency. So it could be merged into those articles. TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the article seems to be little more than a collecting-ground for 'anything the Reds did/do we can call terror'. If this is a legitimate topic, would 'capitalist terrorism' be? There is an article on 'Christian terrorism', so presumably it would be reasonable to adopt the same approach there, and lump pipe-bombing of abortion clinics together with the KKK, the Spanish inquisition, and the Crusades? No, obviously not... It reads like a synthesis to me, and one with an obvious POV. I think it could be reduced to an article on 'Terrorist organizations claiming adherence to Communist ideology', and left at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting, but Christian terrorism and islamic terrorism are actually topics of study, while Communist/communist terrorism is not. One of the sources used for the article groups terrorist groups by country, not by ideology. TFD (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The ideas that it is synthesis or not an area of academic study are just plain wrong. If you search google scholar for the verbatim phrase ("communist terrorism" - without any permutations) it returns 240 results. If you search for communist terroism on google scholar without quotation marks, it returns over 100,0000 results - Marxist terrorism returns over 50,000. That it is synthesis or not a subject of academic study is patently false. Mamalujo (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a disingenuous argument. As I mentioned the term was used by the British to refer to insurgents during the Malayan emergency and the first two hits are for that. But if you believe that the concept exists in academic literature then please provide me with the name of an book about the subject. TFD (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just a disingenuous argument, as The Four Deuces says, it is a ridiculous one if you take any notice of the figures for results without quotes. I got these results using Google Scholar:

Capitalist terrorism 61,000, "Capitalist terrorism" 13, Fish terrorism 38,900, 'Fish terrorism' 1, Pacifist terrorism 16,600, 'Pacifist terrorism' 1, communist breakfast 31,000, "communist breakfast" 0! A search result without quotes is merely an article that includes both words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be plenty of sources for Communist terrorism : Hardyplants (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please recommend as single one of these sources that is about this subject. TFD (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You mix two quite different things: notability of the Communist terrorism concept and synthesis issues. Without any doubts, a number of leftist groups existed that used terrorism as a tool to achieve their political goals. Some of them (not all of them, and historically not first of them) were the Communist terrorist groups. That is a well known and indisputable fact. Had the article limit itself with the story of these groups ( such as the Baader-Meinhof Group (Germany), PFLP (Palestine), Red Brigades (Italy), Revolutionary Struggle (Greece) or Shining Path (Peru), and some others), there would be absolutely no problems with the article's neutrality of verifiability. It is worth noting that this article should be made a daughter article, or a subsection, of the Leftist terrorism article, which, along with communist terrorist groups should include, many others non-Marxist and non-Communist terrorist groups like "Narodnaya Volya", etc. BTW, this article currently redirects to the Communist terrorism article which is incorrect.
However, what is a synthesis, and, therefore, what is quite unacceptable, is the attempt to combine Marxism as a doctrine, Stalinist or Maoist repressions and all other unrelated things into a single article. This is unacceptable, because "terror" ≠ "terrorism" (for the same reason why "exhibition" ≠ "exhibitionism"). --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

: I agree that what Stalinist or Maoist regimes did to their own populations is not terrorism and does not belong. Hardyplants (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked up "left-wing terrorism" in Google books and apparently it is considered to be a type of terrorism. The other types are right-wing, separatist and religious. Here is an example. But I do not see "communist terrorism" as a subtype. I would suggest changing the name to "Left-wing terrorism" and using reliable sources to write the article. TFD (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would oppose any AfD. Paul's contention that "terror" ≠ "terrorism" is incorrect, "terror" and "terrorism" are intimately related terms. In fact the term "terrorism" originated from the french term "terrorisme" in 1798, which is itself from the Latin "terror", and was originated with the specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France". There are many parallels between communist terrorism of the Russian revolution and the republican terrorism of the French revolution. Communist terrorism was also a form of "government intimidation". There are plenty of sources that discuss communist terrorism . --Martin (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Martintg, that is incorrect. Terror is something carried out by a government against its citizens. Terrorism is something carried out by non-government actors. TFD (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't I just explain to you the etymology of the term "terrorism" above and how it was originally derived from the concept of "government intimidation" during the French Revolution? In fact the original sense of "terrorism" meant the "systematic use of terror as a policy". Ergo, "communist terrorism" is the systematic use of communist terror as a policy. --Martin (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The old meaning of the word "terrorism" differs from its contemporary meaning. Currently the word "terrorism" refers to the killing of civilians by some private group, non-governmental political organisation, etc, to create a media spectacle. Even so called contemporary "terrorist states" are the states that support one or another non-governmental terrorist group, as a rule, outside of its own border. Therefore, "terrorism" should be discriminated from:

1. Sponsorship of terrorism by some state : such a state is not a perpetrator of the terrorist acts, it is a sponsor of it (examples Iran, Libya);
2. State terror: the state does not try to intimidate its own population, it is powerful enough to eliminate all opponents (examples: Stalinism, Khmer Rouge, Indonesia, Pakistan, Latin American Juntas, etc);
3. Acts of sabotage against potential opponents: such a campaign is supposed to play a subordinated role during a military conflict. Incidentally, a notorious Chechen insurgent Shamil Basaev refused to recognise himself as a terrorist. He stated he was a saboteur, because his actions were aimed against the citizens of the state which he considered a foreign state (Russia).

All of that are quite different things, all of that is not "terrorism" sensu stricto, all of that is not something specific to Communism, and, importantly, all of them have their own articles. I agree that, taking into account the vagueness of the definition of the word "terrorism", all these phenomena fit some loose definitions of terrorism, however, that would be a minority POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PS I noticed that this article develops according to the same scenario as the Mass killings under Communist regimes did. Both these articles are quite legitimate when they are limited with quite concrete and indisputable topics, however, numerous attempts to broaden their scope lead (and will lead) to NPOV and SYNTH issues, which will inevitably lead to AfDs (which will fail because initial article's subject is quite notable), to endless disputes, page protections, and so on. Do we really need to waste our time?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Martintg, you would need a source that supports your conclusion. But in fact many cognate words have differing meanings, e.g., socialist and socialite. TFD (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How about a dictionary for a source: "a terroristic method of governing"? I agree with Paul that an AfD would be a waste of time and energy that would be better spent dealing with any NPOV and SYNTH issue. --Martin (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To save time I propose to limit the article with Communist terrorism sensu stricto (terrorism committed by Communist NGOs) and to provide links to more or less directly related articles. That would allow us to avoid any neutrality and synthesis issues as well as POV-forks. In addition, the Leftist terrorism article should be converted into the mother article of the present article, because leftist terrorism is the phenomenon which preceded Communist terrorism, is more general category and cannot be reduced to Communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We really need to establish that the academic literature considers these two things to be the same. Even if we were to call government terror terrorism it would still be a different concept. TFD (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A Definitions of terrorism is a very complicated issue, so I am not sure any academic consensus exists on that account. Regarding ""terror" and "terrorism" are intimately related terms", let me point out that even very inimately related terms frequently denote two different things. The fact that they are related does not mean they mean the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between "terror" and "terrorism", according to the Oxford English Dictionary is:

Terror = The state of being terrified or greatly frightened

Terrorism = A system of terror

The OED further defines "terrorism" as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted", i.e. originally a policy of government, but later including a policy of non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary or a legal textbook and the definitions used should be guided by academic literature. TFD (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you provide a cite to academic literature that verifies your assertion that "Terror is something carried out by a government against its citizens. Terrorism is something carried out by non-government actors". --Martin (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism is "the indiscriminate use of violence... to shake their confidence in the governments". Since this article is about terrorism not terror there is no need to define terror. However, I do not believe that many governments would commit violent acts in order to shake confidence in themselves. TFD (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What about this:

" the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

However these 21st Century definitions of "terrorism" are being retrospectively applied to early 20th Century scenarios; terrorism by NGOs only became the dominant phenomenon post-1950, and communist NGO terrorism was the dominant form up until the 1980s, but state terrorism is a type of terrorism that certainly existed in Stalin's Soviet Union, according to Amy Zalman, Ph.D. --Martin (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ASK says under "State terrorism", "Many definitions of terrorism restrict it to acts by non-state actors. But it can also be argued that states can, and have, been terrorists." We could mention that in the article, but it does not open a coatrack to list the actions of Communist governments within their jurisdictions along with non-state actors. TFD (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"state terrorism is a type of terrorism that certainly existed in Stalin's Soviet Union, according to Amy Zalman, Ph.D." I'm not sure I'd take a brief article on About.com as definitive, but what Zalman says is interesting. Note that she doesn't single out the Soviet Union under Stalin, but also applies the term to Nazi Germany, and goes on to write:

"However, many would argue that democracies are also capable of terrorism. The two most prominently argued cases, in this regard, are the United States and Israel. Both are elected democracies with substantial safeguards against violations of their citizens' civil rights. However, Israel has for many years been characterized by critics as perpetrating a form of terrorism against the population of the territories it has occupied since 1967. The United States is also routinely accused of terrorism for backing not only the Israeli occupation, but for its support of repressive regimes willing to terrorize their own citizens to maintain power."http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/a/StateTerrorism.htm

Are we really going to accept a definition of terrorism this broad? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Martintg's view is that a Communist government is merely a collection of individual terrorists, except that they are in stronger position to terrorize. TFD (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attribute to me things I've never said. The fact is, terrorism is a term that originally referred to government action against its own people, and was then broadened to include actions by non-government entities and individuals. That original meaning still remains. Britannica defines terrorism as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police." That certain communist governments have practised terrorism against their own populations is an undeniable fact that should be mentioned in this article. Applying a definition that really only gained currency post-1950s on events that occured before that doesn't make sense --Martin (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you think we should exclude the actions of non-government actors, like the Red Brigade, from the article? TFD (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We should include both government and non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a book that combines the two for Communism, or is this going to be another original project? TFD (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure can: A book titled The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda, which includes a chapter titled "Lenin, Stalin and State Terrorism". Here is a nice quote in the last paragraph of that chapter on page 207 which could be added to the article: "Of all the totalitarian regimes, that of the Soviet Union was, between 1929 and 1953, the most perfect embodiment of state terrorism. No other country had ever been so systematically subjected to terror imposed by the apparatus of a police state". What do you think? --Martin (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another book that discusses both government and non-government communist terrorism: "Terror: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism", published by the University of Queensland Press. --Martin (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My word, here is yet another tome: Terrorism: a history, which has a chapter titled "The Era of State Terror" about Uncle Joe's blood soaked worker's paradise and another titled "The Era of Leftist and International Terrorism" which discusses the Red Brigades, etc. --Martin (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems there are sources that cover communist state terrorism and as such they should have a place, and in lieu of this source I rescind my above comment. Hardyplants (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, Can you provide an example of a book that combines the two for Communism? There may be books that combine terror and terrorism - I never said there were not - but you need a book that combines Communist state terror with Communist terrorism. My guess is that none exist and what you are suggesting is a novel interpretation of sources. TFD (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just presented three books above that does just what you are asking. Please explain how a book about the history of terrorism that explicitly has a chapter titled "Lenin, Stalin and State Terrorism" not combine Communist state terror with Communist terrorism? All three books discuss the history of terrorism and includes both state terrorism and non-state terrorism perpetrated by communists. The mind boggles at your novel interpretation of these sources. --Martin (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

They may combine state terror and terrorism but they treat Communist state terror and Communist terrorism as separate topics. If you want to show that they are treated as the same thing, then you must find a book that does this. I.e., find a book called Communist terrorism. Otherwise this is just more synthesis. In fact, even fringe theorists do not do this. TFD (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you are moving the goal posts. You originally asked for a book that combines the two, I present three, now you ask for a book that combines the two in the same chapter! But that is irrelevant, because these books treat Communist state and non-state terrorism in the same single topic of the history of terrorism. --Martin (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here is your logic:

State terror and terrorism may treated as a single topic.

Communist states commited state terror.

Communists committed terrorism.

Therefore Communist state terror and Communist terrorism may be treated as a single topic.

My request to you is to find a source that actually does this, e.g., a book called Communist terrorism. Please avoid original syntheses of concepts that do not exist in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have presented three books that describes the history of terrorism, presenting that history chronologically in each chapter. Seems to me you are providing as novel synthesis the notion that since each period is presented in a separate chapter, there is no relationship between them. As I asked previously, please provide a source that states there is no relationship between communist state and non-state terrorism. --Martin (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying there is no connection between them, I am asking you to explain the connection between. For example this book it refers to "left-wing terrorism" as part of its typology. Where is your source that refers to "Communist terror and terrorism"? It appears you have made a novel synthesis, and refusing to provide sources explaining your concept is unhelpful. I am sure that I could create an article called "Eastern European terrorism" by combining the actions of Nazi collaborators, the contemporary far right and Stalinist governments, but that would be synthesis. In any case point to a page in any of your sources that explain the topic you think this article should be about. TFD (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be basing your argument on your source's omission of mentioning communist state terror in discussing "left-wing terrorism" (which happily mentions Nazi state terror in discussing "right-wing terrorism"), rather than any explicit claim there is no connection. Your source in discussing "left-wing terrorism" references a college level text book Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues By Gus Martin, which seems to have an excellent treatment of the connection between Marxist ideology and terrorism, this will be a good source for expanding the section "History and ideology of Communist terrorism". Thanks for that. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At this juncture, can I point out that[REDACTED] already has an article on State Terrorism, why should such terrorism need to have its own separate treatment if perpetrated by states run by (self-described) communists, given that state terrorism has been carried out by states that are clearly not communist by any definition? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am basing "my argument" on the fact that you have provided no sources whatsoever to support your viewpoint. That does not mean you are wrong. If can support your views with any type of source whatsoever then an article is possible, but otherwise it is not. Your book actually treats state terror (both left and right) as belonging to one category and terrorism (both left and right) as belonging to another. Remember too that the Left is not entirely Marxist, and there is no category for Communist terrorism. If we combine terror and terrorism for the Left, then we need to include acts of state terror committed by social democratic governments in Europe and the UK. TFD (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The books I cited are sufficient, it seems to be your viewpoint is that these chronologically based chapters represent some sort of "classification" and support your argument via omission of communist state terrorism in a book that uses a college level text book as a reference. It is well known that the so called "left-wing" communist non-state terrorism generally refers to the period from the 1950's to the 1980/90's, when it morphed after the period of communist state terrorism of the 1920s to 1950s. However the underlaying motivation/ideology remains the unifying factor as Gus Martin lucidly explains in his book Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. I propose that this article has four main sections: "Ideology", "Pre-1917 revolutionary terrorism", "Pre-1950s state terrorism" and "Post-1950s international terrorism". I think that would nicely reflect how communist terrorism evolved over time. --Martin (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You might point out where he says this. BTW left-wing terrorism pre-dates Communism since it existed in the 19th century. The Polish American anarchist Leon Czolgosz for example killed the U.S. president 16 years before the Russian Revolution. TFD (talk)

Here is a book that connects terrorism, mass killing and communism: Hardyplants (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the chart Rummel claims that official Communist parties in China, Spain and Vietnam committed mass killings partly partly motivated by Communism, but he does not write about what we would normally call terrorists. However maybe we should merge Mass killings under Communist regimes into this article. TFD (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the book Hardyplants cites, Communists did indeed use mass killing as a form of terrorism, but Mass killings under Communist regimes already exceeds 100k, this article will no doubt be just as large after it is expanded, so merging just won't work. --Martin (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We need wider input into this and I will set up an RfC. TFD (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing implications that all western communist groups used terror tactics

As it stood after the last edit by Marting, the 2nd paragraph seemed to imply that all western communist groups used terrorist tactics. I'll assume this wasn't intended. I've also edited the 'Views of Marxis theoreticians... section to indicate that the supposed Marx quote is lacking a direct reference, and corrected some spelling mistakes. I'm not happy with the article, as I still consider it has POV and synthesis problems, but at least for now it isn't potentially libellous! AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead

The lead begins, "Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claimed adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during the revolutionary struggle and also in the consolidation of power after victory". (Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. SAGE. p. 218. Since the source says no such thing I will delete this sentence. TFD (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does, the paragraph on page 218 states:

"Marxist socialism was pragmatic and revolutionary. It was action oriented and was adopted by many revolutionary leaders and movements throughout the 20th century. For example, Vladimie Ilich Lenin in Russia, Moao Zedong in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Fidel Castro in Cuba all based their revolutionary doctrines on Marx's precepts. Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory".

Note that the source explicitly names those leaders whose movements had engaged in terrorism in both the revolutionary phase and after consolidation of power, I had omitted naming any specific person in the lede. --Martin (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not use the term "Communist/communist" and certainly does not mention, let alone define, "Communist/communist terrorism". Find a source to support the unique concept that you have chosen for this article. TFD (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You were bold and removed that paragraph in the lede, I reverted you and now we are supposed to discuss it here, per WP:BRD, but instead you reverted it. I think this is disruptive. Gus Martin certainly uses term "communist" several times in the preceding paragraphs on page 218 when he discusses Marxist ideology, the context is quite clear to who he is referring to as the adherents of "marxist socialism" and who resorted to terrorism. Your removal of the text is unjustified. --Martin (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that you using a concept that you have invented, which would be original research. TFD (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you read the sources presented and discuss them, rather than continue this mantra "Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means". Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Please explain why you don't believe Gus Martin was referring to communists in the context of his discussion on page 218 when he states "Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory". Which revolutions was he referring to? --Martin (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to ask for a source that uses the term "communist terrorism" and explains what it means. If I havde to read through a book to understand what you are talking about, then it is OR. It is unreasonable to interpret sources in order to develop one's own concept. In any case, you may discuss this further at the OR noticeboard. TFD (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is unreasonable claim I am mis-interpreting a source but then not provide your take of what you believe the source is actually saying. Again, I ask, what is your interpretation of what Gus Martin is saying? --Martin (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Preparations for terrorism and sabotage operations against Western countries

This section relies on primary sources and should be based on reliable secondary sources that have been able to evaluate the claims. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: What is Communist terrorism?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is Communist/communist terrorism? Is it:

1. state terror under Communist regimes?
2. terrrorist acts committed by non-state actors claiming to be Marxist?
3. state terror under Communist regimes and terrrorist acts committed by non-state actors claiming to be Marxist?
4. a term that has no recognized meaning?
5. none of the above?

TFD (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I could not find any evidence that the term Communist/communist terrorism is used. The insurgents in the Malayan Emergency were of course called "Communist Terrorists" or CTs by the British, which is where the largest number of hits for the term goes. But they have their own separate article. State terror is usually distinguished from terrorism, and communist terrorist groups are normally grouped under Left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"What is Communist/communist terrorism?"? I think set theory from mathematics gives the only sensible answer here. Ii is the intersection of the 'set of all those claiming to be communists' and the 'set of all those who practise terror'. Unless there is anything special about this intersection, it is of no significance, and is just an arbitrary category. People of almost all political ideologies have carried out acts which fit within a broad definition of 'terrorism', but do they each deserve their own article? I'd say I recognise the meaning of the term, I just don't see its validity as an article for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding me, right? We have an infobox with a whole section on terrorism by ideology: Anarchist terrorism, Communist terrorism, Eco-terrorism, Narcoterrorism, Nationalist terrorism and Religious terrorism. In any case, the area is amply covered in the literature. Note that Anarchism is also considered "left wing", but it has its own article, and for good reason, "left wing" is too broad a category to include all the permutations. --Martin (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you need to understand what is communist terrorism is, Gus Martin's book gives a most excellent explanation that links both state and dissident terrorism together with Marxist dogma. --Martin (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to ask this, Martin, but given your somewhat gushing description of Gus Martin's book, and also given that you are User:Marting, are you in any way related to the author? I'm fully prepared to accept that this may be coincidence, and merely paranoia and/or bad manners on my part to ask, but I'm sure others may wonder the same thing if it isn't clarified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a legitimate question, Andy. I can assure you that I am not Gus Martin. Martin is my first name, not my surname. --Martin (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Martin. Maybe I am paranoid! I'll see if I can get hold of Gus Martin's book somewhere - I may have seen it in a library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course he is not Gus Martin. Martin's book is mainstream while Martintg's views are fringe (in fact do not even exist in fringe literature). Martintg, where in this book do you think there is a basis for your analysis? TFD (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your endorsement of Gus Martin as mainstream, why are you not accepting his view that both state and dissident terrorism was perpetrated by communists who adhered to Marxist ideology? --Martin (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that you using a concept that you have invented, which would be original research. TFD (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This mantra of yours is unhelpful. Please explain in what way Gus Martin's view is not being adequately conveyed in the text. What is your interpretation of what Gus Martin is saying? --Martin (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have replied above. TFD (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't answered my question. You evidently think I have misinterpreted what Gus Martin is saying, so please, give me your take on what Gus is actually saying. --Martin (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gus Martin never mentions "Communist/communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What does he mention? --Martin (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources to support your views then please present them. If we have to use our intuition and intellectual ability to understand arcane knowledge then we need a reliable secondary source that explains it. 911 was an inside job, Hitler got a bad rap and aspartame can kill you - just read the secret signals that the New World Order is hiding. Really, if you want to show that a point of view exists, please provide a source that presents it. TFD (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How come you keep evading the question? What in your opinion is Gus Martin saying? --Martin (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article not for general discussion of the topic. Whether I agree or disagree with Martin is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the name of terrorism Terrorism: a philosophical analysis some sources talking about communist terrorisim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.30 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us the relevent page references for a discussion on 'communist terorism' in these references, or is this just the result of running a search for the two words, and posting the result? The first seems to be about the Johnson administration's attempt to label the Viet Cong as 'terrorists' while diverting attention from the US military's own acts of political violence against the Vietnamese civilian population.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 2 called The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists would be the place to start on the first link. The second book link is right there whe nyou follow the link, chapter 5, all about Trosky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.30 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

From 'In the name of terrorism', page 19: "For the Johnson administration, the terrorism label functioned more to delineate the agents who conducted violent acts than it did to parse the specific nature of their activities. The resulting double standard allowed American soldiers to commit essentially the same acts that qualified as Viet Cong terrorism in official US accounts". The chapter isn't about 'communist terrorism' at all, it is about how the US government used the label to justify their own acts of political violence. Is that too difficult to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As for chapter 5 of the 2nd book you linked to being 'all about Trotsky', it isn't, as you'd know if you'd actually read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment With regards to the RFC i would go with number 3 on the list, Communist terrorism is committed by the state, state sponsored (as in the USSR and PIRA) groups who call themselves communist. That would be about right i reckon mark nutley (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? 'Communist terrorism is committed by the state...'? The USSR no longer exists, and the PIRA has disarmed, and in any case was neither state-sponsored (which state?) nor communist - or have you got any evidence to the contrary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course you get state sponsored terrorism, the PIRA (you actually think they have disbanded lmao) were sponsored by the USSR, this is well documented, a lot of terrorist groups were given arms and training from moscow. mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when has 'lmao' been a civil response to anything? As far as I'm aware, PIRA received support from many sources, and the biggest single source outside Ireland may have been from supporters in the United States. If you have evidence about PIRA funding and other support from the USSR please provide it, and while you are at it, how about some evidence to back up your claim that they are 'communist'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You think the IRA have disbanded, so sorry for the lmao but i`m irish and know better. some light reading to bring you up to speed on IRA USSR connections mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote 'disarmed' not 'disbanded', though I'd not be that surprised if they have a rusty rifle or two buried in a field somewhere. In any case whatever the PIRA did or are doing, it is only relevant to an article on communist terrorism if they were/are communist. can you provide a source that states this, if it isn't given in the latest links you provide - I've not looked at these yet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They fall under state sponsored terrorism which was what you asked about. Both links will give you a short overview of the IRA`s funding from the USSR, the were also a little communist with the provo`s denouncing them for it. Sources are not hard to find on this really, they were always getting infiltrated by grass`s. (More than a rusty rifle or two hidden away as well btw :) ) mark nutley (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the links is to an anonymous blog, and the other is about events in 1925. You also seem to be confused as to whether it is PIRA or the 'official' IRA that are/were communist, if I understand you correctly. The fact that they received assistance from the USSR is no proof of their politics, particularly when they received more from the USA and Libya (unless you want to try to label Libya as communist: a highly dubious proposition), and have historically received support from many sources, including Nazi Germany during WW2 - see e.g. IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous Blog? I think not and hosted by stanford. Look you asked for a few links showing IRA funding from the USSR which is State sponsored terrorism, this is what i gave you. Events in 1925 does not matter, the USSR funded terrorism, job done mark nutley (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The link you've just provided is to another website entirely. You specified the PIRA, which didn't exist in 1925. Given your complete disregard for actually verifying what you are arguing, I can see no point in discussing this further. You've provided no evidence whatever that the PIRA are/were communist, or that the assistance they received from the USSR was of any more ideological significance than that they got elsewhere, so they are of no relevance to this article. Job done AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No i said IRA, you asked for a few links showing IRA funding from the USSR see? The website is the same, look at the url. They got assistance from the USSR, proven. So state sponsored terrorism, Proven. If you want further links just ask. mark nutley (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What you said Mark, was this 'Communist terrorism is committed by the state, state sponsored (as in the USSR and PIRA) groups who call themselves communist'. PIRA not IRA. You've provided no evidence that either PIRA or IRA have ever called themselves communist. And like I said, they've taken assistance from all sorts of sources, state and otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• My response is a bit simpler. Options 1 and 2 are fairly distinct, without a necessary continuity between their methods, practictioners, and justifications. As far as[REDACTED] is concerned, Communist terrorism should be a disambiguation page referring to two separate pages as described in 1 and 2. Also, there should be no terror-ism in the state terror... page. And thirdly, if it's a disambiguation page consider also linking to Terrorism and Communism, the book by Trotsky.--Carwil (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is essentially what has been argued already - that the article is a synthesis of two different issues, without any real analytical connection or continuity. You're right about Trotsky's book needing to be referred to in addition, though ideally, it could have an article of its own, given its continuing relevance to the debate about what 'terrorism' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Right andy, please note The IRA A Communist Group, tole you my head was all over the place yesterday but i think i got there in the end mark nutley (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. This book seems to have been written for secondary-school pupils. And can you please provide page numbers with your links, it is entirely unreasonable to expect people to look through an entire book for confirmation of your arguments. Unless you do, I see no reason to take your claims seriously AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your impressions of the book are irrelevant it is wp:rs, The link leads right to the page mate, but it is page 24. I had not realized you were unable to figure out that the link was to the page as it works for me. mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

History of terrorism

I find it strange that this article does not discuss evolution of the terminology. Clearly the terror in the past(e.g., revolutionary terror) and terrorism nowadays are two different things. And yet nothing of the sort is discussed here. There is no even a reference to a classic History of terrorism, even though far more dubious Mitrokhin archive is used. But I understand the desire of certain POV-pushers to create tendentious articles, full of OR and SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

The article does not discuss the evolution of the terminology because no terminology exists that describes "Communist terrorism" as opposed to revolutionary terrorism, leftist terrorism or state terror in totalitarian states. "Communist" does not point at any features specific to Communism and is just an adjective.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Revolutionary", "leftist" and "state" are adjectives too. I have presented a number of sources that explicitly discuss the characteristics of communist terrorism (which is a subset of leftist terrorism along with anarchist and eco-terrorism), but I get the impression that some people appear to be playing a terminology game as if Misplaced Pages is a dictionary and we need to find sources that explicitly uses the exact magic phrase, while all the while avoiding discussion of what these sources, like Gus Martin, are actually saying. I think the article terrorism goes into the history of the term, so I don't see why it should be repeated here. --Martin (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism does not include state terror. No reliable sources describe communist terrorism as a subset of Marxist terrorism. Even categorizing individual left-wing terrorist groups as Marxist would be problematic. Often some terrorists in a group will claim to Marxist, others will adhere to some other ideology, some will combine Marxism with something else, and many will have very little understanding of ideology at all. TFD (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits

has removed the POV tags with the notation "you can`t have pov tags without a section on the talk page showing what is pov that is policy and will change ref page to 44" and changed the page reference with the notation "change page neumber to right one". However there is an RfC about the meaning of the subject and no reference to "communist terrorism" on the page presented by the IP as a source on p. 44. TFD (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the rules, but if this is clear-cut, can't it just be reverted? As for doubtful references, see my comments about the supposed links the IP gave in the 'RfC: What is Communist terrorism?' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP's comment, "read the book again, it mentions communist terrorsim 77 times" is misleading. In fact a search of the book says, "No results found in this book for "communist terrorism"". He should also be aware that there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article. Incidentally Martintg has been blocked for a week and is topic-banned from this article anyway. I will put back the tags and remove the unsourced text. TFD (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your link is to the book cover, not a search on the book. You broke the rules be reverting more than three times. Page 44 certainly does mention Communist terrorism of course your link just shows the cover so i reckon you have not actually seen it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.221.25 (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Before accusing people of breaking rules, it is a good idea to check what they actually are: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts... on a single page within a 24-hour period." TFD has not done this. ]. Can you cite the relevant passage from p. 44, so we can all see what the debate is about? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reinserted the POV tag removed by 88.108.221.25, as there is clearly a content dispute going on, and the IP gave no response to TFD's argument that it should remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

IP, the comment, "Your link is to the book cover, not a search on the book" is misleading. Yes, my link shows the book cover. But it is a search for the term "communist terrorism" and it says, "No results found in this book for "communist terrorism". Obviously if the term is used nowhere in the bbok it will not appear on page 44, but here is a link to that page anyway. TFD (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your wrong there, page 158 Ideological Communist Terrorism, 286 soviets did help inflame terrorist incidents, in fact the book has communism all over it, what`s the issue with this? mark nutley (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to p. 158. No mention of ideological communist terrorism. It may appear obvious to you that there is a concept called "communist terrorism" but unless you find a source that explains it, it is you own personal synthesis. TFD (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it was 159, my bad :) Funny thing is the ip guy posted a couple of links above which discuss communist terrorism, it is clearly not my own personal concept :) mark nutley (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And what does it say on page 44? This is the supposed source that was used by 72.20.28.30 to justify his edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Page 159 refers to "ideological communal terrorism". Communal terrorism is defined as "Group against group terrorism, in which rival demographic groups engage in political violence against each other". (p. 5). TFD (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It discuss communism though right? sorry for the misread mark nutley (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that the concept is original research. TFD (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The source presented does just that, it is about communist terrorism after all, what`s your issue with it? It`s book on terrorism with a chapter about communist terrorism after all How can it be OR when google books has 4,190 for "communist terrorism"? Obviously the concept exists mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The book does not have a chapter about communist terrorism, as is clear from perusing the table of contents, and never uses the term communist terrorism let alone define it. TFD (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ideological communal terrorism is about communism is it not? What part of the list there is not about communist terrorism? All the groups named within it are communist mark nutley (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really not know the difference between 'communal' and 'communist', mark nutley? And which list are you referring to, on what page? We have had far too many vague references to Gus Martin's book already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ideological communal terrorism is about communism this entire section of the book is about communist terrorism, why is this so difficult to get? mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'ideological communal terrorism' section is two pages. It briefly discusses events in Greece, Angola, and Indonesia. The first two were civil wars, where all factions used political violence, and Gus Martin says nothing specific regarding the 'communists'. As for Indonesia: "During a wave of anticommunist communal violence, much of it done by gangs supported by the government, roughly 500,000 communists, suspected communists, and political opponents of the government were killed" (P. 160) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So does it or does it not mention communist groups within that section? mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It also mentions other groups using political violence. So how is it 'about communist terrorism'? And is the section about the murder of half a million political opponents of the Indonesian government about communist terrorism? You made a specific claim that this section was 'about communist terrorism'. It isn't. It is about exactly what it says it is. Some of the perpetrators of violence have been communists, but so have some of the victims. Gus Martin seems to make no significant distinction between the different ideologies in his analysis, which is why it has been argued his book isn't a valid reference for 'communist terrorism' as a theoretical/analytic construct. By the way, you haven't yet told us where the 'list' you referred to can be found in the book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry been all over the place today and got my refs messed up, see here for the ever elusive list :) mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is about "Extreme Left Terrorism" "whose ideologies were based on various interpretations of marxism and/or anarchism". I already agreed that there is a category called "left-wing terrorism" which btw excludes state terror. TFD (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, from the abstract The aim of this paper is to analyze the strategy and tactics of the of extreme left terrorism in Europe. Traditional red terrorist organizations (combatant communist parties like the RAF, the RB etc.) It clearly is about communist terrorist groups as well. mark nutley (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Re 'Origin of Communist terrorism' section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re 'Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders' section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest renaming article "Left-wing terrorism"

Based on the sources that Martintg and mark nutley have presented, I recommend re-naming the article "Left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange as the sources i have used in this article and presented here describe communist terrorism so i would have to oppose this rename proposal mark nutley (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Which sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I`m guessing that question is for TFD yes? mark nutley (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. You mentioned some "sources you have". Please, explain what concretely do you mean, because at least Valentino does nor support your assertions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well lets see which sources TFD seems to think support left wing over communist, i`ll not waste my time posting up links when they may not be the right ones mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley has presented this source ("Extreme Left Terrorism") and martintg's book ] (Understanding terrorism) also discusses left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean the one with the list of communist terrorist groups and which has Some groups endorsed dogmatic forms of Marxism-Leninism in it? I fail to see how a source which describes communist terrorism and left wing extremism can be justification for renaming an article mark nutley (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So what distinguishes 'communist terrorism' from other 'left wing terrorism', Mark. If people are doing much the same thing for much the same reasons, why do they need a different article just because they claim allegiance to a particular ideology. Actually, from what I can see, if one wanted to break down 'left wing terrorism' this way, one could probably do the same with 'communist terrorism': the 'communist terrorists' listed almost all seem to be Maoists, in as much as they have any discernible ideology at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about communist terrorism, not left wing terrorists. The groups are different after all, unless you are saying all left wing groups are communist of course? Of the 23 listed within the article how many are Maoists? And is Maoism suddenly not communist for some reason? mark nutley (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not an argument. The article's scope and its name can be changed. In addition, you are simply wrong. The Leftist terrorism currently redirects to here, implying that these two things are the same. What we really need to do is to move all the article's context there, to expand accordingly and to convert communist terrorism into a redirect to the leftist terrorism. We also need to add more about leftist and noncommunist terrorist movements (like Socialist-Revolutionary Party) and about the position of Social-Democrats (Bolsheviks) who condemned terrorist tactics of the laters. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yours is not an argument at all, are you using a redirect on[REDACTED] as a reason to rename an article? Just because you assume this implies they are the same does not make it so. Perhaps a few reliable sources saying left wing groups are all communist would do the job? Be bad publicity for the Greens and Labour Party mind mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, respect your opponents and try to understand their point before posting your answers. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate support for or oppose to below. TFD (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

There is no need to rename the article. You are absolutely free to do what I proposed: to move the content to the Leftist terrorism article mutatis mutandi, expand it adding Narodnaya volya etc., and to make the current article either a redirect page or a daughter artilce. Per WP policy you don't have to wait for a consensus for doing that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As this is a potentially controversial move per WP:RM i have listed it for wider community input mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That will not be a move, because no article will be renamed as a result of that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Communist terrorism be renamed and moved to Leftist terrorism. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Communist terrorism → Leftist terrorism — Reasons for move given in thread above. mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Left wing organisations are not the same as communist ones mark nutley (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment. Since the initiator of this move request himself does not support the idea to move the article, and therefore his proposal is not genuine, I propose to close this move request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Comment. Am I getting confused here? TFD proposed the move. TFD supports it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD proposed the move yes, i just set up the template mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support The sources for the article refer to left-wing terrorism, whose ideologies are based on their interpretation of marxism and/or anarchism. No sources use the sub-category communist. TFD (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct, a quick look at the first fifteen sources in the article all refer to communist not leftist groups mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support For the same reason as TFD gives. Additionally, as it stands, this article has become a dumping-ground for extraneous and questionable references to non-terrorist actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Question: Is the proposal to create a Left-wing terrorism page that refers to terrorist actions by non-state left-wing actors, or to continue with the ambiguity that led to the RfC above?--Carwil (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources presented, left-wing terrorism refers only to non-state actors, so the article would have to exclude state terror. But it would be an issue to be resolved under the re-named article. TFD (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So you wish to move this article and then exclude state sponsored terrorism and state terrorism? Why? mark nutley (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The ideological basis and practice are different (as I said above). This means that there is no clear continuity between the two. Consider as opposing cases, the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein transition (from "left-wing terrorism" if you will, to parliamentary party) and the Bolshevik/Soviet Union transition (from left insurrectionism, with few hints of terror, to Leninist and Stalinist state terror). The concepts aren't coherent (and neither are terrorism and state terror, except for rhetorically, and as part of the the overarching concept, violence against civilians).--Carwil (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sinn Féin have always been a political party, there was no transition from terrorism to politics for them :) However i do not see how a transition from terrorist to political makes a difference with regards to the article, after all it is about terrorist groups which were communist at the time of their actions. The same goes for former communist governments which committed terrorist acts on their own populace or sponsored terrorist groups worldwide. Have i perhaps misunderstood your point here? mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No you have misunderstood the literature. Please find a source that explains your concept of communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Current title is a WP:SYN amalgam of Marxist Red Terror and left-wing terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The new name would be overbroad. There are leftist terrorist that are quite distinct, indeed very different, from communists. That article would clearly be synthesis. Mamalujo (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "communist terrorism" as a relatively narrow term (forgetting that "terrorism" is not): terrorism by adherents of Communist ideology. On the other "Left-wing" is a vague term, used to designate a "left" flavor of various ideologies and movements. Lovok Sovok (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

'Views of Marxist theoreticians' quote from Marx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that:

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

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

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

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

The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kautsky again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restore to last stable version

{{Edit protected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/////////

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

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

and that:

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

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

/////////

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respond I believe you are wrong here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Justus Maximus, 7 October 2010

{{edit protected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To revert to the original issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Communism?

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

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

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

...as an ideal? No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"If".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communism, terrorism and WW2 resistance movements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justus continues... (Marxism and revolutionary violence)

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

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

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

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

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

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

History = Class struggle = Revolutionary violence = Terrorism

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

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

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

In State and Revolution, Lenin says:

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

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

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

  - to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie;

  - to inspire the reactionaries with fear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re your ##1-12.

Re 1-5. Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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 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), whereas the Gospel of Mark says: "For he that is not against us is on our part" . 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) the reverse translation of the word "террор" means only "terror" sensu stricto . 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" , whereas the word "вынужден/вынуждена" means "is obliged / forced / compelled" .

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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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. 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, 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"". 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? … … 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" , the reverse translation of the word "страх" is only "fear" .

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)

Request for Comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 Misplaced Pages 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. "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 fucking 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 Mutley 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition, CD Version 3, 2002, Oxford University Press
2. Jenny Teichman (1989). "How to define terrorism". Philosophy. 64 (250): 505-517. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class socialism articles
• Top-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Requested moves