Talk:Communist terrorism

An aside for those who see advocacy of terrorism in Marx's works

I think much of the debate over Marx's use of language might be better conducted with a little understanding of the style of the times he wrote in. Consider this comment, written in 1890, arguing the necessity of the use of force to achieve change in Tsarist Russia, despite the reluctance of 'liberation-parties' to adopt such a strategy:

It seems to me that this is illogical - idiotic, in fact. Suppose you had this granite-hearted, bloody-jawed maniac of Russia loose in your house, chasing the helpless women and little children - your own. What would you do with him, supposing you had a shotgun? Well, he is loose in your house - Russia. And with your shotgun in your hand, you stand trying to think up ways to ["]modify" him.

Do these liberation-parties think that they can succeed in a project which has been attempted a million times in the history of the world and has never in one single instance been successful - the "modification" of a despotism by other means than bloodshed? They seem to think they can. My privilege to write these sanguinary sentences in soft security was bought for me by rivers of blood poured upon many fields, in many lands, but I possess not one single little paltry right or privilege that come to me as a result of petition, persuasion, agitation for reform, or any kindred method of procedure. When we consider that not even the most responsible English monarch ever yielded back a stolen public right until it was wrenched from them by bloody violence, is it rational to suppose that gentler methods can win privileges in Russia?

So who was this advocate of 'bloody violence'? I could provide a link, but that would be too easy. can I suggest that fellow editors first consider who they think it might be, then resort to Google to find out. And then consider a little more before judging yesterday's words by today's standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a master of Google-fu, and will not be denied. But I'm not gonna spoil it. Yet. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also found the author. I agree that the fact that the person who wrote that was an advocate of terrorism can hardly be denied :-).

Good job, Andy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He terrifies me, that's for sure! --Ludwigs2 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Clemen's anti tsarist views do not qualify as "advocating terrorism" any more than the American revolutionaries advocated "terrorism" in the Declaration of Independence. Advocating overthrow of despotism is not "advocating terrorism" by a long shot. Advocating controlling the populace by killing off all opponents or perceived opponents is "advocating terrorism." Os that clear? Collect (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless the American revolutionaries used horrific acts of terrorism against the British and loyalists, and genocide against the indigeneous population. TFD (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So what? mark (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well its pretty blatant now isn't it, anyone whose politics Collect (and possibly Mark) agree with who use violence are not terrorists, while as all others, supported by a mass conspiracy of marxist academics are terrorists. --Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, nope. Unless the american revolution was a communist movement then as i said, so what. Such discussion has no place on this article and is soapboxing mark (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "Unless the american revolution was a communist movement then as i said, so what" Wrong. American revolution, or American civil war and similar events were not communist revolutions, however, they set a historical context, and you cannot discuss the Marx's theory or his views out of this context. For example, Marx noted that slavery was a very progressive factor in the US, because he believed that the US was the world's most progressive country, and in 1830s-50s slavery was the key factor of their existence. However, it would be ridiculous to write in the article about slavery in the USA that the theoretical base for that was laid down by Marx.

As I already wrote, Marx and Lenin theoretical doctrine required annihilation of bourgeoisie as a class. Taking into account, that the major trait of a class, according to Marxism, is a relation to the means of production, under annihilation they meant primarily expropriation of the bourgeois private property. If you read Lenin's or Marx's work, you probably noticed that the words "annihilation" and "expropriation" are frequently used as synonyms by them. If you disagree, please, provide the proof of the opposite, namely that, according to the Marx's views, the dictatorship of proletariat implied "controlling the populace by killing off all opponents or perceived opponents". All quotes from Marx presented so far are not more inflammatory than the Mark Twain's quote presented above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, Collect brought up the U.S. revolution as part of his argument which I suppose was that not all revolutionaries are terrorists. And I mentioned that the U.S. revolutionaries did engage in terrorist activity, and that fact is supported by countless sources. Why do you not criticize Collect for bringing the U.S. revolution up in the first place? By only criticizing me you appear to be showing selectivity based on your POV. TFD (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No the "So What" was at everyone commenting in this section, not just you. Paul you require Mark Twain Terrorism article, if marx, lenin and the rest all made comments which endorsed terrorism then the quotes belong in this article, i have no interest in anything other than Communist terrorism being discussed here and i`ll ask all editors to focus on that and refrain from soapboxing mark (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Collect, I think it was me that first brought up the US revolution, in response to Justus Maximus's suggestion that taking part in an armed insurrection made Engels a terrorist. The point remains though, that it is unreasonable to use Marx's language as evidence for the support of terrorism without looking at the historical context, and nor can you necessarily consider actions as terrorist without doing the same. The 19th century was marked by political violence, and violent political rhetoric. To expect Marx, Engels and the rest to somehow stand 'outside history' and conform to the prejudices of early 21st century 'morality' is nonsensical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Collect, I think it was me that first brought up the US revolution, in response to Justus Maximus's suggestion that taking part in an armed insurrection made Engels a terrorist

As explained above, it is legitimate to ascribe terroristic intentions to Marx and Engels since they advocated terrorism for both pre- and post-revolutionary purposes while engaging in armed insurrection. It is evident also how later Marxists saw the situation: "The Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the direct continuation of which it represents" (Trotsky). The analogy with the US revolution is flawed at least in one respect, i.e., that the US revolution did not intend to create a dictatorship based on terror/terrorism, whereas Marx and Engels did. Whether "U.S. revolutionaries did engage in terrorist activity, and that fact is supported by countless sources" as suggested by TFD is in fact irrelevant. See also my comments in the section "Did Marx advocate terrorism?", infra. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"the US revolution did not intend to create a dictatorship based on terror/terrorism, whereas Marx and Engels did". Sorry, JM, but the suggestion that Marx and Engels wished the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to be based on terror isn't supported by any reliable source, making the argument invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

the suggestion that Marx and Engels wished the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to be based on terror isn't supported by any reliable source

It is supported by Engels' definition of revolution in "On Authority" and by Lenin's definition of dictatorship of the proletariat in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Marx advocate terrorism?

The fact is that even Marxists interpreted statements by Marx as advocating terrorism as evident from the following:

“ [In Bernstein’s opinion] Hegel was also responsible for the Blanquist element in Marxism, the belief in total revolution and the creative role of political violence … The Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League made in March 1850 was Blanquist in spirit: it appeared to assume that the will to revolution and the organization of terrorism were sufficient to provide the driving force of a socialist upheaval. In general, Marx had tried to find a compromise between two socialist traditions. The first was constructive and evolutionary: it had been developed in utopian literature and in nineteenth-century socialist sects and workers’ associations, and aimed at emancipating society by means of a new economic system. The second principle was destructive, conspiratorial and terrorist, and its aim was to transform society by the political expropriation of the governing classes. Marxism was rather a compromise than a synthesis of the two principles, and Marx’s thought oscillated between them, presenting different features at different times ” — Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, English edition 1978, p. 437

This also explains why Marx appears to endorse one or the other of the two traditions at various times. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Marx and Engels' endorsement of terror/terrorism at various times explains why later Marxist leaders, e.g. Lenin followed in their footsteps:

"He [Lenin] emphasized before 1905 that the party did not renounce terror as a matter of principle and that it was necessary in certain circumstances" (ibid., p. 690). Justus Maximus (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Socialist “heretics” like Bernstein, we find staunch Marxists such as Karl Kautsky, who unmistakably interpret statements by Marx as advocating terrorism. In his well-known Marxist classic Terrorism and Communism (1919) he writes:

“Even Marx himself in 1848 still reckoned on the victorious power of revolutionary Terrorism, in spite of the fact that he had at that time already criticised the traditions of 1793.

In the Neue Rheinische Zeitung he repeatedly spoke in favour of terrorism. In one number (January 13th, 1849) he wrote as follows concerning the rising of the Hungarians, whose revolutionary importance he overestimated: “For the first time in the revolutionary movement of 1848, for the first time since 1793, a nation surrounded by counter-revolutionary powers, has dared to oppose revolutionary passion to cowardly anti-revolutionary rage, and to meet white terror with red terror. For the first time for many years we find a truly revolutionary character, a man who dares to take up the gauntlet in the shape of a desperate struggle in the name of his own people, and who for that nation is Danton and Carrot in one. That man is Ludwig Kossuth.”

Before that, in a number of the same journal, November 7th, 1848, Marx wrote in connection with the affair in Vienna: “In Paris the destructive counter-stroke of the June Revolution will be overcome. With the victory of the ‘Red Republic’ in Paris, the armies from the interior will spread up to and beyond the frontiers, and the actual power of the contesting parties will become evident. Then we shall think of June and of October (the overthrow of Vienna by Windischgratz), and we too shall shout: ‘Vae victis!’ The futile massacres since the days of June and October, the exhaustive sacrifices since February and March, the cannibalism of the counter-revolution, will convince the people that there exists only one means of shortening, simplifying and centralising the death agony of the old order of society and the bloody birth-throes of the new – only one means, and that is Revolutionary Terrorism” (ch. 5).

So, once again, it becomes apparent that Marx’s advocacy of terrorism in “The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna” can by no means be construed as my “original research” as has been fraudulently claimed by the pro-Marxist camp. This is supported by the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism (IET), as indicated earlier (see section "Why the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism should not be suppressed for the purposes of the present Article").

Though Kautsky is of course of the opinion that by 1870 Marx had given up his advocacy of terrorism, he provides a link between Marx’s (earlier) endorsement of terrorism and later forms of Marxism, such as Bolshevism:

“Not long ago my attitude towards Bolshevism was described as infidelity towards Marx, whose revolutionary fire would certainly have led him to Bolshevism. As proof of this, one of Marx’s declarations on the terrorism of 1848 was quoted” (ibid.). Justus Maximus (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as follows:

1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94;
2. general A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted

(2nd edition, 1989, Vol. XVII, p. 420).

It follows that State terror as practiced in France in 1789-94 and as advocated by Engels in "On Authority", by Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, etc., falls under the category of "terrorism" as per the accepted dictionary definition.

-- Justus Maximus (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, "terrorist" is defined as:

1. As a political term:

a. Applied to the Jacobins and their agents and partisans in the French Revolution, esp. to those connected with the Revolutionary tribunals during the 'Reign of Terror'.

b. Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation (ibid., p. 521).

So the term hasn't actually undergone any fundamental changes, clearly retaining its core element of fear/terror as an instrument of coercion. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation":

George Washington

Winston Churchill

Nelson Mandela

The Metropolitan Police

...

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Justimus is (unfortunately) confounding a number of different points here. on one hand, military organizations have always relied on the use of terror as a weapon to control populations - you can see examples from modern era "Shock and Awe" and "Blitzkrieg" approaches all the way bask into classical history (e.g. the Romans, who used the threat of crucifixion to suppress insurrection and the threat of decimation to control conquered territories). It was a common military understanding that the populations of controlled territories had to be cowed into obedience, so that they would continue to supply the controlling army without the need of large garrisons (which could then be reassigned to more direct combat positions), and both the German and Russian governments of the late 19th century were known for using absolutely brutal techniques for the suppression of their populations. This is the kind of thing that 19th century revolutionaries are thinking about when they talk about terror. Terrorism in the modern sense of the word - acts of violence against strictly non-military targets for strictly non-military (i.e. symbolic/political) purposes - was practically unknown prior to the middle of the 20th century. Terrorism in the modern sense relies on an immediacy which can only be accomplished through electronic mass media (radio, television, internet...), because it's only through that level of immediacy that a sufficient segment of the population can be terrorized sufficiently to affect political sentiments.

Marx himself used revolution as a cautionary tale, not as a proactive measure: he saw it as the inevitable outcome of progressive capitalist exploitation (basically, in his mind exploitation would eventually reduce the working class population to such dire straights that they would have no choice except to revolt, out of sheer self-preservation). He didn't explicitly call for revolution as an overt act, and was not entirely comfortable with the idea as espoused by others (that lies behind his famous statement that perhaps he wasn't a Marxist). Most Marxists who used revolutionary language (which was a strong trend through maybe the first two-thirds of the 20th century) were not so interested in using terror, but rather in demonstrating to the working class how various forms of terror were used to keep them in place (with the aim of instilling a common class identity and a degree of righteous anger that would mobilize). You only find overt terror (of the 19th century definition) arising with guerilla warfare, where forces hiding in the mountains of jungles needed to instill terror in villagers in order to get supplies and recruits, and ensure silence about their location and activities. This kind of terror was used by both rightist and leftist insurgents, irrespective of political ideology, because it was a requirement for effective guerilla activity. Further, this kind of terror was usually used by the governments opposing such insurgencies (either because those governments were derived from previous insurgencies or because they saw no other means of getting at the insurgents than to make the population more afraid of the government).

Terrorism in the modern sense only came into existence from revolutionaries who were too scattered or disorganized to represent an actual military force - the began trying to instill fear in populations as a means of making political statements, not to change or overthrow governments but to coerce them. These were largely driven by religious ideology rather than political ideology: IRA fighting for Catholic sovereignty in the whole land, Muslim terrorists trying to advance muslim interests in Jewish controlled palestine, US Christian rightists assassinating abortion doctors to terrify other doctors out of the business... I do not know of any communist organizations that advocated for or committed acts of terrorism of this sort. A few anarchist groups with socialist leanings plotted sabotage, but they were largely aimed at symbolic targets (to demean the government) rather than populations. terrorism in the modern sense is actually antithetical to all forms of Marxist ideology, since Marxist ideology aims to free populations from oppressive force.

take it as you will... --Ludwigs2 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump/Ludwigs, apart from your exclusive reliance on original research, you seem to conveniently forget that internationally indicted terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda also lay claim to an intention to free the world (or at lest the Muslim part thereof) from "Western oppression/occupation". Needless to say, this claim in no way renders such organizations less terrorist. The same logically applies to Marxists advocating/deploying terror/terrorism for their own purposes. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Circular reasoning. And you have been repeatedly warned about making personal comments. Suggesting that I 'conveniently forget' something sounds perilously close to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs2. Re your "Terrorism in the modern sense only came into existence from revolutionaries who were too scattered or disorganized to represent an actual military force..." That is how I understood that. However, during the discussion with Martin few weeks ago I found that some contemporary sources describe state terror (including the Red Terror or Great Purge) as a form of terrorism. Of course, that is not a majority POV, however, that fact should be reflected as an opinion of some authors in the article about left wing terrorism.

@ Justus Maximus. The analogy with al-Qaeda is flawed, because historical phenomena must not be taken out of their historical context. Of course, it is impossible to imagine that some editor of some contemporary German newspaper seriously discussed a possibility of revolutionary violence against the ruling class. However, it is equally impossible to imagine that today's most advanced Western nation was involved in large scale genocide (what, during Marx's time, Britain did in India, or the US did on their own territory), in mass violence against their own worker activists, etc. Marx's language sometimes sounds somewhat unusual for us, however, it represented noting outstanding for contemporaries' ears. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, your label "circular reasoning" doesn't change anything about the facts stated by me above. As for "personal comments", look at your own invectives such as "idiocy", "idiotic", etc.

Paul Siebert, your comment is not only beside the point. It makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to have a predilection for becoming lost in your own theories (And we haven't even solved the mystery of your statements regarding strakh etc!) I think it's about time you faced the fact that socialist/communist/Marxist movements do have a terroristic streak that has been exploited by various historical figures down the decades. Don't forget that Communism is regarded as a criminal system (similar to Fascism) in many former Communist countries. This ought to give you some food for thought, shouldn't it? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "your comment is not only beside the point". Which concrete part (addressed to Ludwigs2 or to you) do you mean?

Re "do have a terroristic streak that has been exploited by various historical figures down the decades." ...and Bible has even more "terroristic streak" that has been exploited by various historical figures during last two millennia. So what?

Re "Don't forget that Communism is regarded as a criminal system" It refers to some specific regimes, mostly to Stalinism, which was a very specific implementation of Communist ideas. That has no relation to the Marx's works.

Re strakh. I have to concede that my Russian is really good. In connection to that, before we continue, I would like to know how good is your Russian. Can you translate "Косил косой косой косой" and "косой косой косил косой"?

Re food for thought, physician, heal thyself. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Keep the comments on the edits, not the editor. And nowhere is Communism considered a "criminal system" (Do you really want to try and call out China?) nor is fascism (and I'm not talking Nazism). They may not be popular systems of government, but they're not outlawed in most countries. McCarthyism was left behind a long time ago. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Paul: No doubt, but I suspect that any source you find which does that is post 9/11 (there's been a push on the fringes of academia to recast everything in terms of the modern conception of terrorism, as an aid to book sales. That will probably go on for another ten years, unfortunately, then die a quiet death). I'd question any such source on notability. Neither the great purge nor the red terror really counts as terrorism per se: they were purges, in which the government 'cleaned house' of people they viewed as threats. They were not terrorist acts designed to coerce a government into some behavior.

@ At Justimus: I have not forgotten that (conveniently or otherwise), I just don't see its relevance. That every terrorist sees himself as a freedom fighter goes without saying, but that does not mean that everyone who sees themselves as a freedom fighter is a terrorist. my point was that terrorism is distinct from the threat of violence used by military and paramilitary organizations: terrorism necessarily implies a desire to coerce a standing government by creating a threat to its populace, where no ability to challenge or overthrow it militarily exists. The distinction between a terrorist and a brutal revolutionary is crystal clear, because they have entirely different goals and intentions. I'm not saying I'd want to invite either of them over for a BBQ, mind you, but you are clearly leveraging an ambiguity in language (the multiple manifestations of the word 'terror') to blur the distinction between them. --Ludwigs2 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re post 9/11. I also thought so. However, after checking some sources I found that is not the case. I agree that that is illogical and counter-intuitive, however, some sources really speak about Communist regimes as "terrorist". Again, neutrality requires us to include this reservation into the article. Had JM been more prone to listen other's arguments, he would notice that I already expressed this opinion before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

they're not outlawed in most countries

They wouldn't be, especially where a Communist party is still in charge, like in China. But former Communist regimes like those in East Germany, Hungary, Romania, etc, are regarded by large sections of the population as criminal, irrespective of the official position. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

P.s. - I'd appreciate it if everyone who is overly emotionally involved would step back from this discussion and allow me to talk it out with Justimus. there's too much inflammatory language going on here. --Ludwigs2 17:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, Ludwigs. Let me just point out that "Outlawed" and "are regarded by large sections of the population as criminal, irrespective of the official position" are two quite different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

my point was that terrorism is distinct from the threat of violence used by military and paramilitary organizations: terrorism necessarily implies a desire to coerce a standing government by creating a threat to its populace

Terrorism implies coercion of either populations or their governments.

It refers to some specific regimes, mostly to Stalinism

That is not at all the case. The people from former Communist countries I have spoken to on the subject invariably refer to Communist rule ("Stalinist" or otherwise) as "Communist".

Can you translate "Косил косой косой косой" and "косой косой косил косой"?

I don't need to translate anything. An English translation of Lenin's The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky already exists (published in Moscow) and has the word "terror" as has Engels' original quoted by Lenin. You are using original research (a) to claim that this is not the case, (b) to claim that Lenin doesn't talk about terror in that book, and (c) to justify the exclusion of quotes from that book or references to it by respected historians like Service. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

allow me to talk it out with Justimus

Who is "Justimus"? Justus Maximus (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "I don't need to translate anything" Well, as I expected, you appeared to unable to do that. I propose to close this part of the dispute, because it is possible only when all participants fees the nuances of the original work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re @Paul: I would not know how to translate your Russian sentences to English, but in Finnish it would be as follows: Kokoo kokoon koko kokko! Koko kokkoko? Koko kokko. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That is funny, I didn't expect that these words are so similar in Finnish :-). Let me remind you, however, that in Russian both these phrases have the same meaning: a squint-eyed person (or a hear) mowed (something) with a scythe. The word order is not important in Russian. In any event, I just wanted to know the JM's ability to feel small nuances in Russian. He refused to answer, which, probably meant he was unable to translate. Sorry for this little diversion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus (sorry for the typo), you are again confusing two very distinct usages of the word terrorism. coercion of a population to establish or maintain political hegemony is a normal (if unpleasant) part of revolutionary activity. coercion of a government by threatening the populace is modern terrorism, and has almost nothing in common with revolutionary activity. This distinction is maintained even in the current war in afghanistan: Al-queda is considered a terrorist organization because they have no explicit revolutionary goals; the Taliban is (at best) considered supporters of terrorism, because they are an effective insurgent force aiming to gain political control.

again, you are trying to leverage an ambiguity of language to make a novel argument of your own, and that is synthesis.

Plus, can we try to rationalize the indents here? it's very hard to follow the conversation. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's hard to follow the conversation when it is constantly being disrupted with irrelevant comments. This section is about Marxist advocacy of terrorism, with particular reference to Marx.

It is evident from the statements of Marx, Engels, Lenin and other leading Marxists that (1) there is advocacy of terrorism by leading Marxists and (2) terrorism in this context refers to both (a) the means of establishing Communist rule (dictatorship of the proletariat) and (b) the means of maintaining such rule once it has been established.

See also the passage from Kautsky I added above. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to guess at what you meant by 'the passage from Kaustky', but assuming I found the right one, that only reaffirms what I'm trying to tell you here. You are making a mistake in language. 'Terror' in the sense that Kautsky and Marx are using it is Jacobin terror - the extirpation of a previously oppressive ruling elite to create a clean slate for the growth of the new society. It has literally nothing to do with terrorism in the modern sense of the word, and confounding the two uses without some very clear explanation of the difference is utterly misleading. Jacobin terror (revolutionary terror) has nothing to do with communism whatsoever (the Jacobins existed 100 years before Marx) - it's much closer to democratic revolution (the French Revolution was modeled after the American, after all), and modern instances of revolutionary terror (which are reasonably common, and usually associated with revolutionary socialism rather than communism), are entirely distinct from political terrorism of the al-queda/IRA variety.

You keep neglecting to address this point when I rasie it, and I'm not quite sure why that is. would you please address it now? --Ludwigs2 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute.

(1) The Kautsky passage I pointed out to you shows that Marx advocated terrorism, period. What kind of terrorism that was is another issue.

(2) It is evident from Kautsky and others (see chapter 8 of Terrorism, for example) what they understood under the term "terrorism". Whether this is exactly the same or not as "modern terrorism" (what's your definition of that, anyway?) is a separate issue.

(3) The terrorism advocated by Marx, Lenin, etc., is sufficiently similar (it doesn't have to be identical in all respects)

to what we understand today under the term, which is why Marx's advocacy thereof is mentioned in the IET and other scholarly works. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, where you say "what kind of terrorism that was is another issue" in the passage above, you are making a mistake in language, which amounts to a form of wp:synthesis. Of course variant meanings of the word 'terrorism' matter. the term 'WOP' stands for 'without papers': it was a perfectly normal bureaucratic term for undocumented immigrants at the turn of the century but later became a nasty racial slur against Italians; We don't get to say that it's perfectly OK to call Italians WOPs because it was an acceptable term at the turn of the century. The term 'gay' meant 'happy and carefree' in the nineteenth century, now it means 'homosexual'; Would you feel comfortable going around commenting on how gay all your friends are at parties? Words change meaning over time and come to refer to different things, and when a word has changed its meaning (as the word terrorism clearly has) we cannot pretend that it hasn't. Doing so distorts the meaning of the language and creates gross misrepresentations of the material. --Ludwigs2 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So, Justus, you have made no response to this, so I will take it that you are convinced by my logic and start revising the article accordingly, yes? --Ludwigs2 06:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The lack of a response here is due to wikipedia blocking software. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeow, that was one massive failure to pay attention. sorry, and thanks for pointing that out, and never mind! --Ludwigs2 14:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, here's my earlier reply given on my talkpage:

You wrote:

"The term 'gay' meant 'happy and carefree' in the nineteenth century, now it means 'homosexual'"

The analogy you draw between "terrorism" and "gay" is flawed. Whilst "happy and carefree" and "homosexual" are clearly two different things, "terrorism" in the 19th century is not so different from "modern terrorism". To begin with, the core element of "action inspiring fear" remains unchanged.

Furthermore,

It is not at all necessary to show that the terrorism advocated by Marx was identical in all respects to “modern” terrorism. It more than suffices to show (1) that Marx advocated terrorism and (2) that Marx’s advocacy of terrorism inspired subsequent Marxist leaders such as the Bolsheviks.

More specifically, we may note that in their “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” mentioned by Kolakowsky in the passage I quoted, Marx and Engels say:

“The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition … Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising … If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed” (Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 5th edition 1973, pp. 244-5).

We may further note that:

(1) Lenin himself advocated the organization of revolutionary (terrorist) squads along Marxian lines, no doubt under the influence of writings like the above.

(2) Kautsky cites at least one instance of Bolshevik use of Marx quotes on terrorism to justify their own policies.

(3) Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky quotes Engels on terror in order to support his own advocacy of dictatorship and terror – as pointed out by Robert Service.

(4) Stalin annotates with approval the Marx quote from “The Victory of Counter-Revolution” in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism - as pointed out by Radzinski..

I think it is quite clear from the above:

(1) that (as observed by Bernstein, Kautsky and the IET) Marx and Engels advocated terrorism

and

(2) that this terrorism was to be deployed as a means of achieving political ends prior to the establishment of Socialist rule (dictatorship of the proletariat).

On balance, this confirms my earlier assertion that revolutionary terrorism has two phases,

(1) pre-revolutionary phase of anti-state terrorism (prior to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat)

and

(2) post-revolutionary phase of state Terror (after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat).

It follows that, as indicated by the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, the artificial separation of anti-state terrorism and state terror/terrorism is unwarranted and illegitimate in a Marxist context as both are functions, and serve the purposes of, revolutionary violence which in turn is a manifestation of class struggle, the very essence of Marxist revolutionary ideology.

As Trotsky said: "The Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the direct continuation of which it represents".

If the pre-revolutionary terror is not distinguishable from the post-revolutionary one in Marxist terms, then it seems unreasonable for us to distinguish between the two forms of terrorism in an article section dealing with the views of Marxist leaders on the subject.

IMO the treatment of pre- and post-revolutionary terrorism as two aspects or phases of the same phenomenon should be the framework within which an objective discussion can be conducted. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"If the pre-revolutionary terror is not distinguishable from the post-revolutionary one in Marxist terms, then it seems unreasonable for us to distinguish between the two forms of terrorism...". I'd say this is a valid enough point to at least debate, JM. But that isn't the problem. The situation in immediately post-revolutionary Russia isn't the same as the situation in say late 20th century western Europe, and neither is the 'terror/terrorism'. What Trotsky was writing about was an entirely different thing - he explicitly argued against the sort of 'individual terrorism' that the groups later listed in the article engaged in as being counter to Marxist principles, as he saw them. From this it seems evident that what constitutes 'Marxism' is contested even by those who consider themselves Marxist, and it logically follows that you can't just pick and choose what individuals say about 'terror' to construct a definitive model of the relationship between Marxism and terrorism - you have to deal in concrete examples, and note where the differences over ideology are, as well as the similarities.

As for what constitutes the 'same phenomenon', I'd say it is easier to find WP:RS for discussions of 'terrorism' in the modern sense as a general tactic of extremist groups, than it is to find sources that dwell on ideological roots at all. Sometimes, the ideology espoused by terrorists is less than obvious in any case, and hard to confirm for obvious reasons.

In any case, this is synthesis, whether it is your analysis or mine. If we are to discuss 'the roots of terrorism in Marxism', or whatever we choose to call it, we need to find a reliable source that does the same. This is how Wikipedia works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The situation in immediately post-revolutionary Russia isn't the same as the situation in say late 20th century western Europe

No one said it was. Nor does it matter. It shouldn't prevent us from including in the section sources showing what early Marxists like Marx, Engels, Lenin thought about terror/terrorism. And of course ideological roots can be established when Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky advocate terror/terrorism with reference to Marx and Engels quotes in ideological writings like Terrorism and Communism. What is beyond dispute is that Marx advocated terrorism. That is where the discussion must start. Until now this has been impossible due to some editors disputing the historical facts. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Again you are getting into irrelevant conversations. You need secondary sources about terrorism that present your views and you have to show that those views are consensus in order to include them as facts in the article. You need to show that they are more than fringe even to mention them in the article. TFD (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus: please read wp:synthesis, because you seem unclear on this basic wikipedia policy.

With respect to the argument you are making (and you are making a novel argument, which is where the synthesis problem occurs), saying that "terrorism" in the 19th century is not so different from "modern terrorism" is completely insufficient grounds for implying that modern terrorism and 19th century terrorism are the same thing. again, the language you quote above is roughly identical to the language that the nascent U.S. used for justifying the 2nd amendment - an armed populace would raise fear in the hearts of potential tyrants. Are you suggesting that we can use that relation to claim that the US liberal democracy is inherently terrorist? I mean, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al were saying the same thing that Marx and Engels were saying (that the people themselves need to organize and defend their freedom). the only difference is that Marx et all happened to use the word 'terror' (which was conventional term at the time). Your entire argument hinges on the use of a word taken out of context from the use to which it was put; You basically have close your eyes and ignore what Marx et al actually said in order to focus on the words they used. it's a basic violation of logic and common sense. --Ludwigs2 17:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to show that they are more than fringe

Since when are scholars like Kolakowski "fringe"?

Ludwigs, you have failed to produce any evidence in support of your views. Besides, why are you so obsessed with the American Revolution that is irrelevant to the current topic? This discussion is about Karl Marx and terrorism. Please note that the article already says that Marx advocated terrorism in 1848. In fact, as pointed out by Kolakowski, he did so in 1850 as well. Moreover, you appear to forget the fact that Marx was known as "The Red Terror Doctor" precisely on account of his views. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus, this is basic logic: It doesn't call for evidence, it calls for reason and common sense. My point is that you are taking an unfortunate parallel in language and trying to build it into a philosophical statement. You might as well try to argue that orthodox Jews could never be members of the US Congress because pork spending goes against kosher laws. it's a plain silly argument that you're making, and the fact that you're making it with such assertiveness and dedication is odd (to put it mildly). I'm about at the point where I organize the other editors to simply bypass you and whatever anti-marxist program you see yourself as the champion of, so that we can return this article to something reasonably balanced. I'd rather edit with you cooperatively, but if you're going to push this silliness endlessly and thoughtlessly then there's no sense continuing to try to communicate with you. so which way is it - are you going to keep trying to make a major case out of a misunderstanding in language, or are you going to get reasonable and help build a better article? --Ludwigs2 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, are you now using a theory about "orthodox Jews and kosher laws" as evidence in support of your unsubstantiated opinions? Isn't it a gross misunderstanding of language to mix orthodox Jews and kosher laws with Marxist terrorism? Justus Maximus (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing analogy with evidence. This is not about evidence, this is about logic and common sense. that was a bad-faith response on your part: strike one. (If I get to strike three, I'm simply going to conclude that you are not at all interested in discussing things fairly and reasonably, and then I'm going to rename and rewrite the article over your objections) --Ludwigs2 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not about evidence, this is about logic and common sense

(1) Logic and common sense are of little value if used independently of empirical evidence, no?

(2) What you term "logic and common sense" constitutes "original research and synthesis" (= garbage) in the realm of Wikipedia. Or so I'm told. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1. No, you have it entirely reversed. Evidence is of absolutely no value unless applied with reason and common sense. Any good conspiracy theorist, UFOlogist, or religious extremist can produce evidence to support their position simply by ignoring the principles of rational thought which make evidence meaningful. This is precisely what you are doing here.
2. No. Original research is when you start creating novel theories about a topic by analyzing information on your own. You'll notice that I'm not saying much of anything about Marx or the topic here - I'm merely pointing out that the reasoning you (as an editor) are using is both novel and incorrect.

That was a reasonable question, even if it did go a bit astray, so I'll put it down as a foul ball. You still have two strikes left. --Ludwigs2 22:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

the reasoning you (as an editor) are using is both novel and incorrect

I don't think you have produced any evidence in support of your theory. Until you do so, it will remain just that, a theory. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ok, that was a bad faith response, and constitutes strike 2. You simply ignored everything I said in order to reassert your point. I'll give you one more chance to conduct a reasonable conversation, and if it doesn't happen I'll begin revisions. --Ludwigs2 15:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see that you just don't make any sense whatsoever? Begin whatever you want, I don't think anyone cares. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's strike 3. tomorrow I will begin revising this article to be reasonable, and work on the assumption that your opposition (which is well-nigh inevitable, based on what you've said so far) is simply advocacy. It's too bad we've come to this, but I do know how to work with it. --Ludwigs2 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you not start such an edit watr per discussions on this page. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have 'suggested' numerous times that discussions on this talk page use a modicum of reason, and have received (instead) some baldly insistent and ideologically driven original research. when honest attempts at communication fail this badly, there's really no other recourse than to stop talking and start acting. all I can say is that if you find my edits inappropriate, then you'd best have some really very decent reasoning behind opposing them. I'm always willing to talk with people who are using their brains, but I've lost patience with the endless stream of didactic blather I see on this talk page. is that ok with you? --Ludwigs2 15:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Communist terrorism#Official Irish Republican Army : Blueshirts

Anarchangel (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anarchangel is perhaps unaware of the complexities of Irish Republican movements. The Blueshirts date back to the 1930s, and were never part of the then IRA: in fact they were ideological opponents, though the IRA did later have contacts with the Nazi government of Germany during WW2. In any case, the formation of the Official IRA only dates back back to the split with the Provos in 1969. He is entirely correct in noting the sometimes strong influence of right-wing politics in the earlier Republican movement, but the Official IRA has been of the left: in fact it is evident that as they moved towards Marxist politics, they abandoned the concept of 'armed struggle'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

it is evident that as they moved towards Marxist politics, they abandoned the concept of 'armed struggle'

Could you please provide reliable evidence for the above statement, or do yo expect us to rely on your original research again? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything that isn't well documented in the sources given for the relevant Wikipedia articles on the IRA in its various forms, the Blueshirts, the Official Irish Republican Army and the Workers' Party of Ireland, so I'd hardly call my summary original research. What is it about my statement that you wish to have confirmed? Are you in fact disputing anything I've written, or perhaps suggesting it is a synthesis, or are you just looking for an excuse to cause problems? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe Irish terrorism, including the Provos, as Nationalist terrorism. Should remove from the article. TFD (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you were the one telling me I can't use Wikipedia articles as sources. You are now doing exactly that! Where is the evidence (apart from Wikipedia articles) (1) that the Official IRA "moved towards Marxist politics" (2) that this is the reason why it "abandoned the concept of armed struggle"? If you can't provide sources such as actual text, then I agree with TFD on this particular point. (The fact that I disagree with TFD on other points, serves to demonstrate my objectivity.) Also, I suggest you try to be less Grumpy and not take everything as "personal attack" against you. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@ TFD: Yes, but the Official/Provo split in the IRA was political, as well as being about methods. I think the Official IRA (not the Provos) can justifiably be included as a 'left wing terrorist group', though it is clear (to anyone who bothers to look into it using the relevant references in the Wikipedia articles), that as they moved left, they moved away from terrorism.

@ JM: If you really want sources, of course they can be readily found, I'll do this for you. As for 'personal attacks' this is currently under discussion elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you really want sources, of course they can be readily found, I'll do this for you

Good. That's all I want. After all, peaceful brotherly cooperation is what Wikipedia is about, no? And stop threatening me. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@TFD @ Andy The Provos should be removed as TFD says and the split with the officials was partly due to the Marxist stance adopted by the Officials/Stickies and similar thinking in the Workers Party. I don't really see how either can be used here to be honest - the IRA was always (during the days when it used violence) nationalist, although it had Marxists in its leadership.

@Justus, you need to just step back and think a bit before you edit. You are painting yourself into a corner --Snowded ^TALK 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The definitive source for the history of the Official IRA/Workers Party seems to be "The Lost Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and the Workers' Party, Brian Hanley and Scott Millar, ISBN 1844881202". There is an excellent review of the book here.

Snowded, the Provos aren't currently listed, and I don't think anyone is suggesting they should be. As for the 'Stickies', they are arguably a borderline case, though Irish Republican politics has rarely been clearcut. I'd say that Hanley and Miller's book probably provides enough evidence to argue that they were both 'left wing' and 'terrorist' at the same time for a few years, though the contradictions inherent in their position led to the 'terrorism' becoming a liability. Unfortunately, I don't currently have access to the book - I'll see if I can track down a copy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Interested to see what Hanley & Miller say, my memory (and its thirty years old) of a lot of the material was that the tensions between marxism and nationalism and between different marxist groups was probably the most significant aspect before '68 with terrorism more of a romantic harking back to the civil war and before. More a phantom limb to use an analogy so I am not sure of the notability. --Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Justus, you need to just step back and think a bit before you edit.

Shouldn't that apply to everyone? And which part of my editing do you find offensive this time? Justus Maximus (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Step back and think, oh and I'm not offended and I doubt anyone else is. --Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism is classified according to the objectives of the perpetrators, which in Northern Ireland related to national disputes. TFD (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of truth in that. So, unless AndyTheGrump comes up with reliable evidence to the contrary, this ought to be the accepted consensus. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The OIRA did not get rid of their weapons until [1] recently, were have you people gotten the idea they gave up armed struggle? And if you look at "Comrades!: a history of world communism" on page 399 you will see they never gave up on communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.201.92 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose that '81.94.201.92' could provide us with links to sources describing 'armed struggle' activities engaged in by the OIRA in the last couple of decades, could he/she? This would at least help clarify whether the 'Stickies' should be listed as 'left-wing terrorists' as opposed to 'old men who sit around in bars muttering quietly to themselves about the good old days'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how that matters here, they are still a communist terrorist group acording to both the source in the article and the one I just gave you. When they stopped has no bearing in the issue whatsoever does it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.201.92 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

'81.94.201.92', you asked "were have you people gotten the idea they gave up armed struggle?". I provided a source that suggests they have (Hanley & Miller), and asked you to provide another that suggests they haven't. And yes they may still be 'a communist group' in as much as they exist at all (as the Workers Party, or whatever it currently calls itself -I've lost track), that wasn't under dispute.

On another point, I'm sorry to have to ask this, but can you assure me that you aren't a Wikipedia editor currently blocked, editing using an anonymous IP? I can fully understand reasons for using IPs to edit, but it can also be open to abuse. If you wish to contribute regularly to Wikipedia, you may find it more useful to select a user name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If i were blocked then i would not be able to edit. Your name is just as anonymous as my IP is or had you not realized that. If you agree they are in fact a communist terrorist group then why are you saying they ought to be removed from the article? 81.94.201.92 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"[W]hy are you saying they ought to be removed from the article"? I didn't say the OIRA should be removed. I argued that there were grounds for their inclusion. Read first, then write? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Though OIRA suspended its military activities in May 1972 after which it was disbanded, OIRA members who wished to continue the military struggle set up the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) as the military wing of the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) (Revolutionary and Dissident Movements of the World, 2004, pp. 505-6).

“Despite a shortage of both funds and weapons, both Provisionals and Officials were prepared to use terrorism as a means of achieving their political ends … The “Official” IRA, the parent body from which the Provisionals had split in 1970, and which had ceased to be a real force two years earlier, effectively broke up. Some of its members formed the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). The INLA itself, adopting an avowedly socialist philosophy, carried out many terrorist atrocities over the next two decades” (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, pp. 599-600).

So, instead of focusing on the hypothetical renunciation of terrorism by the OIRA due to "Marxist orientation", it would be more profitable to highlight the factual terrorist activities of avowedly socialist organizations like INLA (that was a mutation of OIRA). Justus Maximus (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the OIRA ceased to engage in terrorism isn't 'hypothetical' for a start. As for the INLA, having argued that the OIRA should be included in an article on 'left wing terrorism', it would hardly make sense to exclude the INLA, would it? I've never suggested they should be. Describing them as a 'mutation' of the OIRA is however a use of a weasel word, and inappropriate.

It is probably appropriate at this point to suggest that any discussion of Irish/Northern Irish terrorist groups cannot however be solely restricted to links between Marxist ideology and the Republicans. 'Loyalist' terrorists were capable of equally brutal acts, and clearly not driven by a Marxist ideology, rather suggesting that ideology wasn't the driving force for terrorism at all - rather it resulted from conflicting 'nationalisms', overlaid by a centuries-old communal division largely defined by religion. This is a complex topic, and one that has created a great deal of heat on Wikipedia, so I'll not go into further details here, to avoid side-tracking an already complex discussion. I'd suggest that the appropriate place for debates on this topic are the relevant Wikipedia article talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the OIRA ceased to engage in terrorism isn't 'hypothetical' for a start

It IS hypothetical if you are arguing that they did so as a result of Marxist teachings without producing any evidence.

And yes, please include the avowedly socialist INLA. If you do that, then at least we will (finally) agree on something. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please concentrate on improving this article rather than soapboxing. TFD (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been doing. The inclusion of socialist organizations like INLA would definitely improve the article in my view. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{editprotect}} Would it be possible to put a merge from Left-wing terrorism into the article as it is an obvious clone of this article, in fact it contains only communist terrorist groups, Thnak you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.201.92 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 October 2010

Please read the discussions above about whether their are better grounds for an article on 'left-wing terrorism' than 'communist terrorism', given that there seem to be no reliable sources that give any theoretical justification for not doing so. Given that 'communist' is a subset of 'left wing', the broader article is clearly the more logical one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that these alleged "communist terrorist groups" are in actuality left-wing groups, according to majority reliable sources. Therefore, the content of this article simply has to be moved to the Left-wing terrorism, which will be done after Nov 4.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Especially since the "creation" of that article was per [2] intended as a strategic matter (a POVfork), and not a a genuine article. The only way forward is to create alternate content under a different title. To avoid initial opposition it may be useful to start the new article in your user space. Ask for like-minded or neutral editors to contribute to the draft. Make the article far better and better sourced that the politicized crap. "Steal" and merge useful content from the povish article. Also include the fringe views, but present them from a neutral-point-view. At first you only aim to isolate the POV crap. Neutral editors will come to your article. You can safely leave the crap to the fringe POV-pushers. They will make the article even worse, but in the end it will be useful for your aims. Only when your new article far exceeds the crap do you start merge or deletion discussion. By then it should be evident to everyone, that that the crap is a POVFORK of your article – not the other way around. If you do this well, the crap will melt away. If it does not, then maybe it was not total crap after all. shows the "strategic intent" of the POVfork there. Collect (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument about POV fork is correct, however, you must keep in mind that the present article is currently fully protected. After Nov 4 the major part of the content will be moved to the Left wing terrorism, and the POV fork issue will be resolved. In any events, since the search results demonstrate that the most appropriate name for the groups discussed in this article is "Left wing terrorism" and not "Communist terrorism", moving of the article's content there is quite natural. Let me also point out that, whereas the term "Communist terrorism" is rather abundant, I demonstrated that only few reliable sources exist which discuss the terrorist groups in a context of "Communist terrorism", not "Left wing terrorism". Therefore, it is natural to propose that this term probably refers to something else. Instead of arguing endlessly you could devote some time to the attempt to establish what this term refers to in actuality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This request is based on a false premise. In actuality, communist terrorism is a POV clone of a deleted version of left-wing terrorism. (Igny (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

• Strong Oppose. To make my view explicit. As Igny says, this article is a POV fork. Nobody has yet come up with a rational argument for the subdivision of the topic beyond 'this lot called themselves communists'. AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose The standard typology of terrorism as explained above is nationalist, religious, state sponsored, left Wing, right Wing, anarchist and special interest.[3] If "Communist terrorism" is "left-wing terrorism", then it should be merged into that article. Since the proposer and Collect believe that the two concepts are the same, this article should be merged into "Left-wing terrorism", which is the term used in the literature. TFD (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done:. Request disabled due to lack of consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comando de Libertação Nacional?

Should Comando de Libertação Nacional be included in this article? The president-elect of Brazil Dilma Rousseff happens to be a former member. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You need a book about "Communist/communist terrorism" that labels them, otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A good question, Petri. For a renamed 'left-wing terrorism' article they might very well fit the criteria if you can find WP:RS, though one must acknowledge that 'terrorist', 'guerilla', and 'freedom-fighter' could perhaps all be used to describe such groups - Brazil was under a military dictatorship at the time. And as I pointed out some days ago, if one only takes into account the politics and actions of a group to define them as 'terrorist' one would logically need to include many of the resistance movements that fought Axis occupation during WWII.

I'd suggest another group that should be included is the Symbionese Liberation Army, most notable for the Patty Hearst kidnapping, but clearly 'left-wing' in terms of their somewhat unorthodox ideology, in as much as it makes sense at all.

No doubt at some stage we will have to discuss a much more significant group, the African National Congress. That will open a whole new can of worms for the 'good' vs 'evil' brigade that seem to haunt this topic, eagerly applying labels... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

When writing articles we should follow what sources say, and include the most important groups. If the CLN was the 100th most noted group that engaged in left-wing terrorism, then it should not be mentioned unless the top 99 are also mentioned. I do not know how it or the ANC have been classified - they may be classified as nationalist rather than left-wing. The SLA has been classified as a group involved in left-wing terrorism, but it is overshadowed in the U.S. by the Weather Underground and other groups which all should be mentioned first. TFD (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If there was a WP:RS that listed such groups in order of 'importance', there might be some merit in your suggestion, TFD. I'd interested to see how it could be arrived at though. It is unlikely that any article about leftist terrorist groups is ever going to list them all, and even less likely if WP:RS is required to include them. I mentioned the SLA mostly because they sprang to mind as an example of a leftist terrorist group that achieved little beyond notoriety, in contrast to the ANC, who were certainly considered 'leftist terrorist' by many sources, at least in the west, and have achieved their prime objective (not that I'd suggest that SA is in any way some kind of socialist utopia).

Regarding whether the ANC is 'nationalist' or 'left-wing', I'd say that it it incorporates both, but only if you take 'nationalist' as meaning 'of the whole nation' rather than in the right-wing 'ethnic' sense of say the British National Party. Trying to shoe-horn groups into labelled boxes doesn't actually explain a great deal about how they come about, what they do, or anything else much. It isn't Wikipedia's job to try to classify humanity, but merely to help us understand it (sorry, coming over all philosophical here - time for bed I think). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We cannot classify groups ourselves, that is original research. If articles about left-wing terrorism do not include groups then we must conclude that either they do not fit the category or they lack notability, both reasons to exclude them. Most nationalist groups can be plotted along a left-right axis, but that does not mean that their motivation is left-wing. To use your own term, we cannot "shoe-horn" groups, just report how they have been described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article is about "Communist/communist terrorism" which is a concept in the imagination of some editors and not supported by any mainstream literature. TFD (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest that AGF is required - asserting that the topic does not exist is rather contrary to that requiremnet. Collect (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that AGF can override the need for WP:RS to back up the suggestion that "communist terrorism" as a theoretical construct is a subject for anyone but the fringe. Those suggesting it is have repeatedly been asked to provide evidence, but have yet to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked through various search engines and it seems that the Palmares Armed Revolutionary Vanguard, the successor organization to the National Liberation Command has been included in writings about left-wing terrorism in South America. I suggest that we find a source for left-wing terrorism in South America and create a section in that article. The article already mentions some groups. Here is link to a list of organizations with terrorist stategies that lists the group. It calls it VPR - the ALN appears to be a separate group. TFD (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The ideological roots of Marxist Terrorism

Two essential facts become evident from the sources:

(1) terrorism in the Marxist tradition has ideological roots and

(2) these roots are to be found in Marxist theories of class struggle.

For example, Trotsky in his Terrorism and Communism writes:

”Is it still necessary to confute Kautsky theoretically? Is there still theoretical necessity to justify revolutionary terrorism? Unfortunately, yes. Ideology, by its very essence, plays in the Socialist movement an enormous part … The man who repudiates terrorism in principle repudiates measures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed counter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship.”

“Kautsky’s onslaught on the Soviet system in his Dictatorship of the Proletariat (1918) drew a furious reply from Lenin: in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918) he repeated his attack on ignoramuses who talked of democracy irrespective of its class content … To Lenin all this was nonsense. Since the proletariat was governing, it must govern by force, and dictatorship was government by force and not by law …Kautsky’s next pamphlet, Terrorism and Communism, was answered by Trotsky in a work bearing the same title … This revealing work is in some ways even more emphatic than Lenin’s utterances …

True, the pamphlet was written during the civil war and the war with Poland … but it clearly aspires to be a work of general theory; the many quotations from Trotsky’s previous speeches show that he is not merely exaggerating his thesis in the heat of the moment. He presents the general principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the same way as Lenin. Bourgeois democracy is a cheat; serious issues in the class war are decided not by votes but by force … to reject terror is to reject socialism … it was right to shoot hostages …” (Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, English edition 1978, p. 463-4).

”Bukharin, like Lenin, regarded the system of basing economic life on mass terror not as a transient necessity but as a permanent principle of socialist organization” (ibid, p. 811).

“Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right. Both ideologies emerged in the first decades of the twentieth century. Each was influenced by the revolutionary socialists of the late nineteenth century, who are often numbered among the first revolutionary terrorists” (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 203).

“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” (ibid, p. 72).

Incidentally, Lenin makes it very clear (as do Trotsky and others) that terrorism in the context of revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean just “expropriation” as erroneously claimed by some: “the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie” (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky). Trotsky says it even more clearly: “The terrorist measures of the Soviet Government – that is, the searches, arrests, and executions” (Terrorism and Communism).

”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” (Karl Kautsky, Terrorism and Communism, Ch. 8).

Clearly, the dictatorship of the proletariat itself, that results from the Marxist theory of class struggle, is about violence against the political opponents, not just their expropriation. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions,Wikipedia articles cannot be based on original research. You have provided no reliable single source for the above argument - it is your own synthesis. Please take note of what is written at the top of the talk page for this (and every) Wikipedia article: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". If it isn't possible to find WP:RS that supports your 'Two essential facts', they are of no relevance to the article, regardless of their 'factuality'. Rather than wasting your time and everyone else's in filling this talk page with your ideas, why not look for sources that back them up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply showing that there are plenty of sources linking Marxist terrorism to Marxist ideology. This ought to be relevant to the article and hence worthwhile looking into. By contrast, you have failed to show how Marxist terrorism is connected with the American Revolution. You also seem to be unaware of the fact that amalgamating the two subjects is not only your own synthesis but is irrelevant to the article. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its original research Justus, until you get your mind around this and stop using (and interpreting) primary sources we are going to get no where --Snowded ^TALK 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"This ought to be relevant to the article and hence worthwhile looking into". I agree. I've just suggested you look into it. Just do it somewhere else, as required by Wikipedia policy. (And BTW, I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent what I said about the American Revolution). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, please note that the statement "revolutionary terrorism has its roots in Marxist-Leninist thinking" is not my original research. Nor is the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism "primary source".

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent what I said about the American Revolution

I'd appreciate it if you didn't mention the American Revolution here at all, it being utterly irrelevant to a discussion on Communist terrorism. Unless you are arguing that the American Revolution was a Communist one and produce reliable sources to back that up, your are wasting valuable time and space by talking about it. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, you wrote "you have failed to show how Marxist terrorism is connected with the American Revolution". You brought the subject up again. I merely objected to the way you misrepresented what I had written. If you don't think something is relevant, don't bring it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "bring it up again". I merely responded to your post as I am entitled to do. It was you who illicitly introduced it into the dicussion and "American/US Revolution/revolutionaries" occurs at least 10 times in this discussion even though it is utterly irrelevant. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As correctly observed by Mark, all editors should focus on Communist terrorism and refrain from soapboxing (15:24, 24 October 2010 UTC). Justus Maximus (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop doing it then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't stop something that I never started. Just stop bringing up far-fetched analogies seeking to equate Marxist terrorism to unconnected topics. That's all I'm asking. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, here's another clue for you: "Behind most terrorist groups there is a political influence and often a figure of inspiration, whether a thinker such as Karl Marx or a man of action like Che Guevara" (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 135). Justus Maximus (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Communist/communist terrorism, not terrorim in general. If you have any sources about this subject, please present them, otherwise please stop soapboxing. TFD (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus. Do you intend to take any notice whatsoever of the requirement to keep postings on talk pages to matters relevant to the article? It has been explained to you already countless times that your synthesis is not acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. Are you willing to do this? Unless you are, I'm inclined to concur with Oliver Cromwell: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" - see Rump Parliament. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess if you applied that quote to yourself we might stand a better chance of progress. And did you see my comment on OIRA? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

JM, please cut out the soapboxing and concentrate on improving the article. TFD (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In my view showing that Marxist-Leninist ideology has been a source of terrorism would greatly improve the article that at the moment, as noted by other editors, is rather makeshift and amateurish. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of 'showing' anything. It is a question of finding a reliable source that shows a causal link. Without engaging in original research and synthesis. This is all that is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've given the IET as example that revolutionary terrorism has its roots in Marxist-Leninist thinking, that the Red Terror is rooted in Bolshevik class hatred, etc. That is not "original research", so please stop saying that! Justus Maximus (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No original research:

'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'.

The IET may provide a (tertiary) source for A. It may also provide the same for B. Does it provide C? Has it published 'the same argument in relation to the topic of the article'. If it has, then we are getting somewhere. If not, it is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The IET has several passages (given above) linking Marxist terrorism (including the Red Terror) with "Marxist-Leninist thinking" and "Marxist theories of class conflict". There is no need to find a whole academic treatise on the subject to establish a link that, moreover, is established by logic. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"There is no need to find a whole academic treatise on the subject to establish a link that, moreover, is established by logic". Yes there is. Your 'logic' is original research. It is also not logical, but based on circular reasoning and selective use of evidence to 'prove' a predetermined case: effectively a conspiracy theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly logical to conclude that Marxist theories of revolutionary terrorism are rooted in Marx’s theories of revolutionary terrorism. In addition, as already shown, there are sources like the IET linking Marxist terrorism with Marxist-Leninist thinking. It follows that your charge of “original research” is false. By contrast, the “conspiracy theory” you’re talking about is patently your own invention based on rhetorical speculation and Original Research. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

JM, just how many times do you have to be told that you can't use 'logic', perfect or otherwise, to include arguments not themselves provided by WP:RS? Since you refuse to acknowledge this, I can only conclude that you have no wish to contribute to the article, and are instead using this talk page as a soapbox, contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, how many times do you have to be told that you are indulging in Speculation and Original Research, and hence are not in a position to criticize others? IMO I have made more, and more relevant, contributions to the article than you have. For example, you wouldn't have been able to provide a "full" Marx quote had I not first provided the section thereof that was relevant to the article. Also, your claim that Marx didn't advocate terrorism has now been refuted by TFD himself, etc., etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is "Marx, except for a brief period in 1848 ... did not advocate revolutionary terror" a falsehood?

“This particular falsehood comes from David McLellan, widely regarded as a leading Marx scholar:

[Marx] never (except briefly in 1848 and under Tsarist conditions in Russia) approved of the use of revolutionary terror ...

Marx and Engels, of course wrote the Address to the Communist League [in which they advocate revolutionary terrorism] in 1850 …

Finally [quoting Solzhenitsyn, The Mortal Danger, 1981, p. 114],

Marx and Engels reiterated on many occasions that “once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793 [the Terror]

” (Tom West, “Marx and Lenin”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1980).

IMO the passage must be changed to reflect the fact that Marx advocated terrorism in 1850 (as noted by Bernstein and Kolakowski) as well as his endorsement of terrorist activities by Narodnaya Volya in the late 1870s. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As acknowledged in the paper, it represents a minority view.[4] In order to present it as factual, you would need to show that there is a consensus supporting it. You would need to show that this viewpoint has received recognition in order to include it at all. TFD (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

McLellan was writing back in 1975. The article must reflect the fact that historical research has moved on since, and take into consideration the views of Kolakowski, Solzhenitsyn, West, and others that are supported by Bernstein, etc. Sources should not be restricted to those that (1) are fairly antiquated and (2) fail to consider all the evidence. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We really need sources for "communist terrorism" which is the title of the article. Do you have any sources that link bomb-throwing, political repression and state sponorship of terrorism by Communists to each other and to Marxist ideology, which is what this article attempts to do? I question too whether your sources are mainstream. Here is an article by Stephen Kotkin that summarizes all this literature. But it seems to represent a narrow spectrum of thought. TFD (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(An aside here: Justus Maximus, describing the work of a published author as 'a falsehood' is a clear violation of WP:BLP, I'd suggest you reword your comments immediately.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I question too whether your sources are mainstream

TFD, can you stop talking in parables, please? What sources are not mainstream, McLellan, West, or what???

AndyTheGrump, if you are worried that the description of the work of a published author as a falsehood is a violation of anything, why don't you try to find out whose description it is in the first place? Or, put some reading glasses on - immediately. (See the link provided by TFD for your convenience.) Justus Maximus (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

JM, I do not understand your reference to "parables", but the writers to whom you refer are outside the mainstream and are regularly cited by political extremists. Since we do not want articles to represent extremist points of view, we can safely ignore them. TFD (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I'm trying to understand how you define "mainstream" and I asked you a straightforward question. Are you saying McLellan is mainstream and therefore acceptable to you as a source but West is not? And if so, what are the criteria you are using in support of your position? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(I have replied in next section. TFD (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

'Origins' section - again.

I have removed the contentious 'Origins' section, as ungrammatical, tendentious, and unencyclopedic. Given the amount of debate that has gone on over this section, this seems the best way to ensure a consensus is reached. I propose that before anything is put in its place the following is required:

• (a) Find a neutral title.
• (b) Find a WP:RS for the central argument - that terrorism as discussed in the rest of the article is in any way 'evolved' from Marxist philosophy.
• (c) Draft the section in grammatical, neutral language.

Endless reverts of the existing text are not only against Wikipedia policy, but a total waste of everybody's time. The existing (longer) text is clearly unacceptable to a significant proportion of those editing the article, and working towards a consensus is required by Wikipedia norms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pieces of these cherry-picked quotes could be salvaged and added to revolutionary terror. Here, however, it would constitute WP:SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

The section is neither OR nor SYNTH, and the excision of it is improper. Collect (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added this POV-section to revolutionary terror, where it might find some peace. You can debate over this in detail at talk:revolutionary terror, not here. (Igny (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

I do not see how this section is irrelevant. Marx opposed terrorism? What has that got to do with "Communist/communist terrorism"? Reads like a high school essay, where original research is encouraged and marks are awarded for spelling. TFD (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"The section is neither OR nor SYNTH, and the excision of it is improper". In that case, can you provide us with a WP:RS for the argument it presents: a continuity between Marxist philosophy and contemporary terrorism? In spite of repeated requests, this has never been given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is essential to distinguish between (a) continuity between Marxist philosophy and contemporary terrorism on one hand, and (b) continuity between Marxist philosophy and Marxist terrorism (terrorism practiced by Marxists) on the other. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest that "ideology" would be the more accurate term than "philosophy" in this context. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps 'ideology' is a better word than 'philosophy' - though I suspect many Marxists would argue they are one and the same thing. As for distinguishing one 'continuity' from another, it is first necessary to find a reliable source that argues such a continuity exists, rather than just a set of cherry-picked isolated statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect many Marxists would argue they are one and the same thing

I suspect that too. The question is whether that would complicate rather than simplify things. For example, some might even argue that Marxist ideology is "science", which can only raise further difficulties. Marxist "ideology" or "thinking" seems a more basic (and less controversial) concept. Regarding continuity, we can't really ignore the fact that terrorism as advocated by Marx may have had something to do with Marx's own political ideology or thinking. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking anybody to ignore anything. I'm asking for contributors to provide reliable sources for arguments put in the article. Whether something 'may have had something to do' with something else is neither here nor there. What matters is whether the 'somethings' are linked in a source suitable for citation in an encyclopaedia. How much weight is then attached to such a source will then depend on how mainstream it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(out) If a cite is not given - use the "citation needed" template before deletion. BTW, who decides what is "mainstream"? Seems that the RSs given are "mainstream" as far as I can tell, while the Russian ITAR-TASS news service is not "mainstream." Demur? Collect (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, have you actually bothered to read what I wrote? There is no RS for the section argument for continuity. Please stop filling this talk page with empty rhetoric about Wikipedia processes. If you've got nothing to useful contribute, stop wasting everyone's time with your pointless interruptions.

And as for what constitutes 'mainstream' - without an RS for the section, nothing is. A source is only 'reliable', 'mainstream' or anything else in a given context. Provide the context (a source for the central argument presented in the section), and then assessments can be made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

IOW, anything which supports the section is, ipso facto, unreliable becaue of an assertion that it is unreliable? Alas -- following WP policies and guidelines is not "pointless rhetoric" as you assert. Collect (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you clearly have nothing constructive to add to this talk page. I was beginning to think there might be a way to find a compromise over the contentious section, but if this is the way the debate is going to be conducted, I can see little point. You are clearly incapable of giving a simple response to a request to provide a reliable source for the core section argument, without endless off-topic Wikilawyering, which seems highly indicative to me that you have doubts that such a source exists. Prove me wrong, or find some other talk page to fill with pointless hogwash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:NPA. Being concerned about WP policies and guidelines is, in fact, required. As for asserting that WP policies are "hogwash" - you are fully welcome to that opinion indeed. Such an opinion does, however, detract from serious concerns about violations of WP policies. Collect (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, who decides what is "mainstream"?

I'm afraid I must agree with Collect on that. This mysterious "mainstream" mantra seems to create more problems than it solves. I asked TFD, above, whether he thinks McLellan is more "mainstream" than West and if so what criteria he is using to arrive at that conclusion. The answer so far has been total silence. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for showing "total silence" to your post today at 11:57 and waiting until you reminded me at 16:46 before replying. Thomas G. West's 1981 paper, which was sponsored by the Claremont Institute, did not represent a mainstream view and has been ignored by subsequent academic writers. David McLellan, as West acknowledges, was "widely regarded as a leading Marx scholar". We should however consult modern scholarship to determine what the mainstream view is, but it is certainly not West's. It seems that McLellan's comments were added to counter the original research in the article, which should be deleted in any case. If you do not know what mainstream means, please see WP:MAINSTREAM. TFD (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring warning

Guys, the protection just expired and already edit warring seems to be heating back up on this page. If it seems that protecting it for two weeks was not an adequate measure to stop the edit warring, the next step is the liberal use of blocks on anyone and everyone participating in an edit war. All parties can consider themselves warned as of now. I don't know or care what the nature of the dispute is, it does not matter. Edit warring never helps, it only makes things worse, that is why it is not tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, though I'd suggest that it may be the intention of some parties involved to get participants blocked, and the article protected again. It is notable that during the recent protection period, there was considerable discussion on the talk page about possible improvements to the article (somewhat distracted by discussions over the inapplicability of the synthesis of a new editor to said article), but none of the supporters of the long and contentious version of the section were willing to take part in this. They seem more concerned with maintaining the status quo than correcting the obvious flaws in the article. The refusal by certain parties to engage in consensus-building makes any constructive work impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to add balancing material - not to wholesale delete cited claims with reliable sources. Collect (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes WP:SYNTH considerations beat mere WP:BALANCE issues. (Igny (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

Exactly. There is nothing to 'balance'. The whole section was no more than a series of cherry-picked statements and out-of-context quotations used to 'prove' a synthesis without actually stating it explicitly: doing so would show it for what it was. If you want to contribute something, Collect, how about either finding WP:RS for this synthesis/original research, or admitting that it doesn't exist? This whole tedious recital of supposed Wikipedia practice, of 'bold edits' and 'adding balance' is being used as little more than a smokescreen by those who wish to keep this tendentious POV-fork in the encyclopaedia, regardless of its obvious partisanship and utter disregard for proper sourcing. Wikipedia 'rules' and 'procedures' are supposed to improve the encyclopaedia, not subvert it for fringe political purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to add balancing material - not to wholesale delete cited claims with reliable sources

Exactly. That has always been my position and it's the only way to achieve balance. Constantly deleting things can only result in the article being turned into a stub, which seems totally self-defeating. Incidentally, Paul Siebert has also been a proponent of "balance" however he defined it. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I also fully agree with Beeblebrox. Resolution of disagreements by amicable discussion is obviously the only way forward. Spiteful kindergarten behavior must be neither encouraged nor tolerated. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The article reads like something from a conspiracy theorist website. Snippets of information gleaned to promote a novel view of history not supported by mainstream writers. No way to balance garbage like that with reliable sources. That would be to give parity to intelligent comment and paranoid musings. TFD (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Paranoid musings"??? I think you may well be afoul of WP:NPA with that sort of commentary. Collect (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. How about those who accuse editors of believing in "Marxist conspiracies" or being "anti-Marxist"? Isn't that paranoia too? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

wow, you guys are a trip. I'm debating whether to consider this strike three and start revisions, because this is such a bad faith conversation that I do not even know where to begin with it. Are you seriously accusing TFD of being paranoid for pointing out that this article is ridden with wp:OR? I don't have a lot of use for FOX News logic, so you might want to reconsider this. --Ludwigs2 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, why don't you read people's comments first before you offer your own irrelevant theories? Justus Maximus (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"How about those who accuse editors of believing in "Marxist conspiracies" or being "anti-Marxist"? Isn't that paranoia too"? Not if they start sections on their talk page that ask "Is Wikipedia a crypto-Marxist outfit?". I've not seen anyone accuse you of being anti-Marxist, but I'd say it was a fair enough observation, and in any case is hardly an insult by most standards. Can I suggest we try to get back to fixing the article. Ludwigs is entitled to his opinion of the section. If you don't like it, how about showing why it is more than 'Snippets of information gleaned to promote a novel view of history'. Where is this 'view of history' sourced? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"I've not seen anyone accuse you of being anti-Marxist"

Then you clearly haven't read any of the relevant posts (which wouldn't be the first time):

"... whatever anti-marxist program you see yourself as the champion of ..." - posted by Ludwigs, section "Did Marx advocate terrorism?", above, 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC). Justus Maximus (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"...you clearly haven't read any of the relevant posts..." Ludwigs' attempts to get you to understand how Wikipedia works, commendable as they are, are of no relevance to the article. So yes, I've only skimmed them. From now on I may well chose not to read them at all. If you want to be considered relevant, then work in a relevant way - on improving the article using the methods by which the encyclopaedia is intended to be constructed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that Ludwigs’ comments were relevant to the subject of accusations of anti-Marxism that you disputed. But I’m glad to hear you have chosen to ignore his comments. I myself had already done so. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is McLellan “mainstream” but West is not?

The central problem of this discussion seems to revolve on the issue of whether sources are “reliable”, “mainstream”, etc. However, nowhere has it been properly explained (1) what exactly constitutes “mainstream” in practice, (2) what criteria are used to establish this, (3) who has the power of decision in this regard, etc. WP:MAINSTREAM does not appear to clarify this in any way that could be regarded as even remotely satisfactory.

For example, whereas there has been no suggestion that David McLellan in not mainstream, it has been suggested or implied that Thomas West is definitely not mainstream. Even worse, it has been suggested or implied that he belongs to sources cited in “right-wing” circles, etc. Needless to say, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced in support of these views.

Moreover, if it is argued that West is “right wing” (assuming this is what is implied by "extremist"), it is equally arguable that McLellan is “left wing”, and so on.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how the discussion can progress without first resolving these fundamental issues. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We should not speak about individuals as "mainstream", rather the ideas expressed by them. See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

You need to establish that West's theory about Marx and terror has been recognized by other scholars, i.e., that it is mainstream. It seems that West presented a paper in 1981, never published it in the academic press, and his views on this topic have been totally ignored by the academic world, although the paper is available on a website.

TFD (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course I mean their ideas and NOT the individuals themselves. I'm asking you again: (1) Are you saying McLellan (= his ideas) is mainstream, and (2) where is the evidence apart from your quote from West's article that you are rejecting as "not mainstream"??? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if McLellan's views are considered mainstream today, although obviously you provided a source that they were mainstream in 1981. By the way, I was not saying that I rejected West's article as "not mainstream", just the opinions he expressed. It may be a good source for facts, i.e., for reporting what theories are commonly accepted. You need to understand the distinction between facts and opinions. TFD (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you "do not know if McLellan's views are considered mainstream today", on what basis do you make a comparison? And, does this not imply that it all depends on your personal knowledge (or lack thereof) on the subject, which is totally unacceptable? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Academic writing does three things: it presents the facts, it describes how the academic world interprets those facts and it presents the opinions of its writer(s). The first two tasks are expected to be presented in a neutral way and provide reliable sources for articles. As for the opinions presented, we cannot determine their acceptance until later papers are written that explain the degree of acceptance they have received. You presented a source that McLellan's views were considered mainstream in 1981. That is actually good enough for us to include them. It may be that they are no longer mainstream, but you would have to show that by presenting more recent scholarly writing. The best approach however is to remove all the OR that McLellan's writing was used to dispel.

Thanks to google, it is now possible to find sources supporting anything one wants. They are a goldmine for people presenting fringe views and conspiracy theories, but in the end cannot be used for articles because we need reliable sources that show that these views have been accepted.

TFD (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your statements are ridden with inconsistencies and contradictions:

(1) You first opposed the inclusion of anything showing that Marx advocated terrorism and now you’re saying McLellan’s statement to that effect is “good enough for us to include”.

(2) You have failed to show that West’s article is “not neutral” or that his sources (Solzhenitsyn and Marx himself) are “unreliable”.

(3) If West can be used, in your own words, as a “good source for facts”, he can also be used as a good source for the fact that Marx advocated terrorism in 1850. Otherwise you are cherry-picking your facts, which is one good indicator that your own position is far from neutral. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(out) Reply:

1. Only opposing inclusion of fringe views.
2. Most secondary sources are "not neutral". We report the opinions in them to the extent that they have gained acceptance in the academic community.
3. West did not in fact claim that Marx advocated "terrorism",[5] but rather "revolutionary terror". Since major scholars, as noted by West himself, dispute that, then we can only view it as an opinion. Most secondary sources contain facts and opinions and you must learn to tell the difference.

TFD (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) So, you are saying the view that Marx advocated terrorism in 1848 is no longer fringe.

(2) So, you are saying the view that Marx advocated terrorism in 1848 has gained acceptance in the academic community.

(3) The fact is that the distinction between "(revolutionary) terrorism" and "revolutionary terror" in the context of the 1850 Address to the Communist League is unwarranted in light of the fact that the words used are "terroristic action" Justus Maximus (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are having difficulty in distinguishing between facts and opinions. TFD (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Were your above statements fact or opinion? Or are you having difficulty in admitting your own statements? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are also having difficulty in distinguishing between terror and terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are having difficulty in understanding that terrorism = terrorism (and in certain contexts terror = terrorism). You are also having difficulty in distinguishing between questions addressed to you and questions addressed to TFD. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A notification.

Based on the google scholar search results, which demonstrated that the terrorist groups described in this article belong to the Left-wing terrorism article and not to this article, the content of the sections 2.1 - 2.16 must be moved there. Since this is a neutrality issue, no consensus is needed for that. This notification is a last call for counter-arguments against this move. These arguments may be: (i) explanations of why the above mentioned search results are not objective; (ii) alternative search results (iii) some other arguments of that type.
If no reasonable arguments against this move will be presented by tomorrow, the content will be moved to the Left-wing terrorism article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You are using your own OR on this, and I find this intended decimation of this article to be contrary to WP policy. Google Scholar is not an accepted reasoning for deletion of material from any article. Collect (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No one said anything about removal of the material. Paul said he would move the material to a more appropriate place. I do not see anything "contrary to WP policy" here. Care to cite the policy more specifically, may be I am missing something? (Igny (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Since there are no sources that any of these groups are "communist terrorists" and they are not even described as such in the article, they should be moved to the appropriate artcles. TFD (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it Paul --Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If for some reason this article lacks sourced content, then there is something here (Communist terrorism (disambiguation)) that can be used in such an emergency. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

How can there be an article on Communist terrorism without the Communist terrorists beginning with Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky? This is a very obvious (and entirely predictable) attempt to dismantle the article and get rid of it. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Most sources for these people call them communists, not communist terrorists. If you think it is the same thing, you may wish to change the name of the article Communism to communist terrorism. TFD (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If you can provide reliable evidence that Marx was a terrorist, you should put the information in the Karl Marx article. I'd bring it up on the relevant talk page first though, unless you have actually found something more meaningful than your usual 'logic' and 'proof' that relies on words always meaning exactly what you want them to, and any evidence to the contrary being Marxist falsification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What "evidence to the contrary"? Evidence that Marx advocated revolutionary terrorism has already been provided unless you've been asleep all this time. TFD and Snowded have clearly stated that they accept McLellan on Marx's advocacy of revolutionary terrorism in 1848. I never said Communists and Communist terrorists are the same thing, only that Communist terrorists should be included in an article on Communist terrorism. And there are of course sources referring to Lenin and the Bolsheviks as "terrorists". See R. D. Law's Terrorism: A History (2009). It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of what the sources say. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to propose this 'evidence' should be added to the Marx article, or not? I doubt very much that your assertions about what TFD or Snowded have said will be considered WP:RS there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already proposed that. Incidentally, I doubt very much that it is for you to decide what is or is not considered WP:RS. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"I doubt very much that it is for you to decide what is or is not considered WP:RS". Well I doubt very much that anyone (other than someone more concerned with scoring points than talking sense) reading what I wrote above would think I was suggesting that I could decide what was considered WP:RS.

I look forward to seeing how your 'evidence' goes down at the Marx article talk page. Should be good for a laugh... AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary Edit Proposal

All this talk about "moving the article" etc. is of course nonsense.

1. On the basis of TFD’s above statements it may be regarded as established that Marx advocated terrorism.

2. Marx and Engels’ 1850 Address says:

“If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.”

So, what West is referring to in his article is terrorism for revolutionary purposes. That is what Kolakowski (citing Bernstein) also says:

“The Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League made in March 1850 was Blanquist in spirit: it appeared to assume that the will to revolution and the organization of terrorism were sufficient to provide the driving force of a socialist upheaval. In general, Marx had tried to find a compromise between two socialist traditions. The first was constructive and evolutionary … The second was destructive, conspiratorial and terrorist … Marx’s thought oscillated between them, presenting different features at different times” (Main Currents of Marxism, 1979, p. 437).

It must be beyond dispute that both the primary and the secondary sources are talking about Marx’s advocacy of revolutionary terrorism in 1850. It follows that, as suggested by West, McLellan’s claim that Marx “never advocated terrorism except in 1848” cannot be characterized as anything but a falsehood.

In conclusion, my proposal is that the article should include a section on Origin/History saying something like:

“The most important source for ideologies of the left appeared with the writings of Marx and Engels, followed by the writings of later communists such as Lenin and Mao Tse-tung (Lutz & Lutz, Global Terrorism, p. 131).

Karl Marx’s thought oscillated between two socialist traditions, of which one was constructive and evolutionary, and the other destructive, conspiratorial and terrorist. Thus in 1850 he felt that organized terrorism would constitute a driving force for socialist revolution.” (Kolakowski, p. 437; Calvert (IET, p. 138). Then briefly mention the views of later Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky to illustrate their own advocacy of terrorism.

McLellan’s statement to the effect that Marx never advocated revolutionary terror except in 1848, may in theory be used as an alternative but only if rephrased to emphasize the fact that he did advocate terrorism, e.g., “Karl Marx first advocated (revolutionary) terrorism in 1848 and subsequently in Tsarist Russia.” McLellan (and Kautsky) can be given as reference. However, this alternative would entail ignoring important sources, both primary like Marx himself and secondary like Bernstein, Kolakowski, West.

So, perhaps the best solution would be a third alternative that combines the first two. Constructive suggestions are welcome. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Until you pay attention to multiple previous advise to avoid original research and synthesis I doubt anything constructive will happen. Tendentiousness is not acceptable behaviour in Wikipedia, no matter how passionate you are about your beliefs. --Snowded ^TALK 11:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) TFD has already admitted that McLellan is good enough to include in the article. Are you disputing this? (2) Including a relevant passage from Kolakowski is NOT original research unless you can show that it is! Justus Maximus (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that “The most important source for ideologies of the left [in the context of terrorism] appeared with the writings of Marx and Engels, followed by the writings of later communists such as Lenin and Mao Tse-tung" is from Global Terrorism. It is not my "original research" or anything of the kind. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem Justus is that you make very long postings with a fair amount of OR and SYNTH, then when you are challenged you cherry pick an odd sentence to defend yourself. You also tend to use authorities out of context. I'm sorry but a lot of editors have put a lot of time in to try and teach you how to edit here and you seem intent on ignoring them --Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? However, the fact is that I am not the only editor here to resist the attempt to dismantle and get rid of the article. What "cherry picking" are you talking about? I'm asking you a simple question, are you disputing the fact that TFD has accepted McLellan as good enough to include in the article??? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And why are you concentrating on the "fair amount of OR and SYNTH" and ignore what is neither OR nor SYNTH??? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with McLellan as a source, although that does not mean your use is necessary valid, especially as you take language out of its context on a regular basis. For example your continued confusion of "revolutionary terror" with "terrorism". Otherwise, and I'm sorry to have to say this but your period of grace as a newby is well over, you are in danger of being seen as a Troll on a soapbox. --Snowded ^TALK 11:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

you are in danger of being seen as a Troll on a soapbox

And what do you think YOU are being seen as? If you have "no problem with McLellan", why don't you include him in the article as I proposed? And no, I'm not "confusing revolutionary terrorism with terrorism". Revolutionary terrorism IS a form of terrorism as evident from both logic and sources like IET. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Per previous comments Justus, you will either learn or you won't; you will either read what people say or you won't. In the meantime until you make an argument for a specific change to the article backed up by sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy then I'll leave you alone. DFTT --Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have run out of arguments to come up with statements like that. Of course I'm reading "what people say". TFD said McLellan is good enough to be included in the article and no one has provided any evidence that he isn't. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Marxism is not the only 'communism'

A minor point, perhaps, but any article about 'communist terrorism' should make clear that not all people who describe themselves as 'communist' also describe themselves as 'Marxist'. I'm sure it won't be necessary to provide sources for this rather obvious statement, though if anyone wants them, they can be found for example at the Christian communism and Anarchist communism articles. Given the state of flux this article is currently in, there seems little point in making an immediate revision to reflect this, but it needs to be remembered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Marxism is a defined subset of "communism" and any article on communism can incorporate the subsets thereof. If you find Christian communist terrorists, add them to this article, for sure. Collect (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, that is incorrect. European socialists remained Marxist even after separate Communist parties were formed. The Social Democratic Party of Germany for example remained a Marxist party until 1959.[6] But no one would claim that West Berlin was run by communists! TFD (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Collect:

Off the top of my head, I think I'd be more likely to find evidence for Anarcho-Communist terrorists. Any section of the article purporting to show the 'origins' of 'communist terrorism' in Marxism would therefore also have to demonstrate the non-Marxist roots of this particular form.

I'm glad to see you support the idea that an article can include defined subsets of its topic. Clearly further grounds for including 'Marxist communist terrorism' in an article on 'left wing terrorism'. Or perhaps there should only be one article on 'terrorism', which discusses all 'subsets'? Just a thought...

Reply to TFD:

I think your point illustrates further the confusion caused by the naming of this article. Good point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But no one would claim that West Berlin was run by communists

Of course they wouldn't. As stated in your WP article, "The Western Allies remained the ultimate political authorities in West Berlin" whilst the country was run by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). As the WP article clearly says, "The CDU was the dominant party in West Germany for the first two decades following its establishment in 1949." The Socialists only became dominant after 1969 by which time as per your own admission they no longer were Marxists. With "historians" like you, no wonder this discussion isn't getting anywhere. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, If you actually want this discussion to get anywhere, can you please stop posting your nit-picking off-topic ramblings and let people who wish to work according to Wikipedia principles get on with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The "off-topic ramblings" were TFD's, not mine. I was merely pointing out they were crap. You should in fact agree with me instead of defending other editors' off-topic ramblings in addition to posting your own! Justus Maximus (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idiot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The topic is whether all Marxists are communists. Clearly they are not. TFD (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, read your own posts. You agreed with TFD's off-topic and historically false ramblings. I think everyone can see who the real idiot is. BTW, please retract your unprovoked and grossly offensive remark! Justus Maximus (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you remove all the grossly offensive remarks you've made about others (including the ones that you were blocked for making and were supposed to have removed before being unblocked), I'll think about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The topic is whether all Marxists are communists

If that is the case please refrain from indulging in off-topic and historically false ramblings. Justus Maximus (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, as you know the charges that led to the block were false which is why I was unblocked unconditionally. Besides, I removed all remarks that could have been construed as "offensive", whereas you never removed yours. So I'm asking you again to stop encouraging off-topic and historically false ramblings and retract your unwarranted and grossly offensive remarks! Justus Maximus (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Andy, as you know the charges that led to the block were false". Stop talking bollocks You accused me (and another editor) of being 'pro-terrorist'. Are you now saying you stand by that obnoxious garbage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, arguments are going to get nowhere here. Justus simple does not want to listen to any voice other than his own on this issue. the only way things are going to move ahead here is to ignore him and begin revising the article. It will cause a commotion, yes, but then we can take specific issues to RfC and/or ANI and deal with it on behavioral grounds. You cannot reason with someone who is playing King of the Hill with rhetoric; you just have to write something more encyclopedic, and then use the leverage of the project to dislodge him from the article. --Ludwigs2 18:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. Andy, you are just feeding a troll, best to leave it and move on --Snowded ^TALK 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very much that Andy can "move on". He is obviously committed to TFD and his off-topic and historically false ramblings like this one:

"The Social Democratic Party of Germany for example remained a Marxist party until 1959.[7] But no one would claim that West Berlin was run by communists!" TFD (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy if you don't retract your offensive remarks I'm going to have to start deleting them as I'm entitled to. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Provided you retracted your own first, as you were instructed to do as a condition of your unblocking, you'd probably be entitled to do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. The fact is the block was lifted unconditionally. If you want to be taken seriously you must distinguish between opinion and fact. BTW you were blocked yourself recently, so you're hardly in a position to criticize anyone. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Afd suggestion

Please see Talk:Left-wing_terrorism#AfD_suggestion Lovok Sovok (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

can not be a POV fork

Material from this article originally, with the original required edit attributions, is not placing material in a "POV fork". This is the original article for that material. See WP:POVFORK which states In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. Thus it is the articles which are newly created which specifically are "POVforks" by WP definition. Collect (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is NO "talk page agreement" to delete 80% of this article and place it in POVforks. Collect (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your opinion about POV forks with your view that communist terrorism and left-wing terrorism are not synonyms? TFD (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Collect. Firstly, the content has been moved (not deleted) based on neutrally formulated google scholar results, which demonstrated that this content is more relevant to the different article. Secondly, as Communism is a Leftist movement, the Left-wing terrorism is a mother article for the present article, and by no means can be a POV fork. Thirdly, the move was done to comply with neutrality criteria, so no references to any "talk page agreement" is relevant is this case. In future, please refrain from reverting (with misleading edit summaries) of such well grounded moves, because such behaviour is disrupting and may lead to sanctions against you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion from one article and placement in a newly created article is precisely what is meant by "POV fork." As for "neutrality" I would submit that the POVfork is far less "neutral" than this one is. Collect (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)