Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

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)

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",[1] 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)

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)

Afd suggestion

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

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)

POV forks are "created to be developed according to a particular point of view". What POV do you think the Left-wing terrorism has? It is not for example written using editors' own terminology, original interpretation of primary sources and synthesis of different concepts, representing a fringe point of view (as this article is). "[D]o not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view." TFD (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. A mother article cannot be a POV fork.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The "parent" in this case is this article - not the newly created one. Per WP:POVFORK and noting the colloquy about how to get an article deleted per TFD and Petri noted earlier. Collect (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The parent article is always an article covering more general subject, independently of the time of creation. Or you imply that Left-wing terrorism is a subset of Communist terrorism? Incidentally, I agree with the last Ludwigs' post..--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The parent article is the first one -- recall the attempt to rename this article which did not get a consensus - which is the reason why the POVfork was created? Collect (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, collect. this is an encyclopedia, not a diary. the parent article is the more general topic, without regard to the order in which the articles were written. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, there has only been one nomination to move, made by an editor, who has since been indefinitely blocked, and voted against his own request![2] He proposed moving it to "Leftist terrorism", a term that like "communist terrorism" has no definition and would have kept the article open to more POV-pushing, OR and SYN. Anyway, since you believe that "communist terrorism" and "left-wing terrorism" mean different things, by your logic, neither could be a POV fork of the other. TFD (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Your claim about what you think I think is errant. The fact is that coordinated edits with the eventual future plan to AfD the first article is precisely what POVFORK refers to. Collect (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop repeating your misunderstanding of the creation of the article Left-wing terrorism. Could you please also clarify whether or not you believe that "communist terrorism" and "left-wing terrorism" are the same thing. (BTW mixing highly colloquial terms such as "huh" with pedantic terms such as "errant" is distracting.) TFD (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@ collect: we have exhausted talk page options - there is no possibility of consensus through discussion with editors who refuse to discuss the matter reasonably. further, this article is the pov-fork, and moving material out of it into more effective locations is good editing practice. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is certainly NOT a POV fork. I created the article. When I did so I did not even know that an article "Left wing terrorism" existed. In a sense, it did not exist - it was merely a redirect at the time. Mamalujo (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well do you believe that they are the same thing and if they are which title is more appropriate? TFD (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo: what it was when you created it and what it is now are not necessarily the same thing. 'Communist terrorism' in its proper sense may or may not be notable enough for an article of its own - there is certainly discussion of it in the literature, but it is usually confused with revolutionary terror more broadly put (for instance, some people will refer to acts of terror from revolutionary groups that identify as socialist as communist terror, when in fact 'socialist' revolutionary groups run the gamut from proletarian-centered agitation to proponents of forms of statist capitalism). 'communist terrorism' (restricted to early-20th century theoretical claims about the need to destroy the bourgeois class, and some of the revolutionary and state activities that derived directly from that) is probably a decent article. trying to extend that either to claim that Marxism is inherently terrorist, or to associate marxism with modern terrorism (which has an entirely different set of rationales and goals) is just pure POV synthesis. --Ludwigs2 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

See

Communist terrorism (disambiguation) Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:18, 9 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.[3] 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)

(rude remark withdrawn) 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 (unnecessary rudeness removed) You accused me (and another editor) of being 'pro-terrorist'. Are you now saying you stand by that obnoxious (rudeness removed)? —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.[4] 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)

The fact according to Diannaa, that is. What makes you think she knows more about it than the unblocking admin? Here is your block log. You were unblocked "per final chance." That means watch your step. There's even a request to other admins to reblock if you resume your disruptive editing—see it? (It means watch your step some more.) I haven't been watching your editing since the unblock; I hope you have been watching your step? Because as soon as you don't, you'll be re-blocked. For instance, don't even think about deleting other people's posts. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

P.S., if you're worried about comments you find offensive (like "idiot" above), you may let me know which ones, specifically, and I'll redact them if necessary. Mind you, the whole removing posts business is silly IMO. Rude comments make the poster look bad, not the target. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

So, you're expecting me to guess which of your admins "knows more than the unblocking admin"? If you're accusing me of "disruptive editing", why don't you produce evidence for that? And aren't other editors' irrelevant and rude comments disruptive editing??? Justus Maximus (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear JM. I try not to be unreasonable, but, yes, I rather do expect you to realise that the unblocking admin knows more than, well, most people, about the comment he himself made about you in your block log. Did you notice that I gave you a link to your block log, where you can read his comment? Here is the link again: [5]. And that I also told you in words what that comment said? So sorry it still wasn't clear. Since, as I believe I mentioned, I haven't been watching your editing, I'm not indeed accusing you of "disruptive editing"! When I use the words "disruptive editing" I'm not speaking from myself, but quoting the unblocking admin's comment in the block log; that's why I use the sentence "There's even a request to other admins to reblock if you resume your disruptive editing." "There" (the first word) means "in the block log" — I was assuming you had clicked on my link to the block log — and the question "see it?" assumes, again, that you have clicked on, or "surfed to" the log and can actually "see" what it says. Sorry again it wasn't clear. Now then, would you like to learn a little-known trick for knowing who is and who isn't an admin? Everybody who speaks to you isn't an admin. Go here and consult the alphabetical list. You will find that Diannaa isn't on it. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Excuse me, but I am indeed on that list. Another way you can tell if someone is an administrator is to check here [[6]], which shows the user rights. Bishonen, I don't think Justus Maximus had any conditions attached to his unblock. He is only under the same restrictions as every other editor to obey the rules of the wiki and not be disruptive. If he is disruptive, he could face a block, as could any other user. Please use the talk pages of articles for discussing improving the articles, and not to discuss the status of other people's accounts. If you have a dispute with the user, there are dispute resolution venues for that as well. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa — gosh, missing you on the list was really careless of me, I'm very sorry. If I have a dispute with the user..? No. I read about him on ANI and am trying to give him some good advice, that's all. If that gets up your nose it's just too bad. I don't agree with you that "any other editor" is editing under the condition that it's their one "final chance". Unfortunately it looks like Justus Maximus is squandering that chance with the belligerence and unreasonableness I see from him on this page. As many people point out above, he doesn't seem to listen to what anybody says. It's particularly sad IMO to see Snowded, a patient man, starting out by trying to get through to JM, and then gradually having to give up. [7][8][9][10] You're not doing him any favour by implying that his editing is all right as it is. Bishonen | talk 02:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

I actually did not make any comment either way on Justus Maximus' behavior. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I just butt in here. I've just edited out the supposedly 'unprovoked and grossly offensive' remark about JM I made above that he seems to have got so upset about. As for whether this will do anything to prevent any discussion he participates in from turning into a long-winded soapboxing session, or an attempt to prove that Wikipedia is run by KGB moles, I'm not in the best position to judge. I'm beginning to wonder whether he is in fact not a politically-committed newbie, as he presents himself, but instead a sophisticated troll well versed in Wikipedia processes, gaming the lot of us. Since this idea of mine is clearly an unverifiable conspiracy theory, probably induced by sympathetic magic from JM's postings, it should of course be disregarded. Why don't we just get back to trying to make sense of Wikipedia articles, and to telling noobs like me not to be rude to other editors (or if we must be, at least try to be more subtle about it)? I can't promise to ignore JM, as much as I'd like to, but I can at least try. Why doesn't everyone else just do the same? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen, first of all I think you're being disrespectful to women by expecting me to assume that Dianaa doesn't know as much as other admins or by implying she doesn't know what she's talking about. Second, the charges of "disruptive behavior" brought against me have never been substantiated by any evidence. All those alleged "libelous remarks" etc. were established to be a figment of the imagination of Andy and Paul, which is why Andy himself got blocked and forced to retract his statements. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that Snowded identifies himself as a "Socialist" which obviously raises doubts about his neutrality in respect of the present article and discussion. Finally, you have conspicuously failed to adduce any evidence that there is anything wrong with the sources I want to include in the article. See "Lenin and terrorism" below. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL. No, that wasn't the reason Andy got blocked. Sorry, but I did read the relevant ANI thread, and you are saying the thing which is not. OK, I'm out of here. This is a waste of time, and I fear JM's soap-boxing, POV-pushing, inveterate assumption of bad faith and wikilawyering will soon have him community banned without any help from me. [/me goes off looking for some more women to be disrespectful to. Wait, since I'm a woman myself, perhaps looking in the mirror and sneering at myself will work? ] Bishonen | talk 13:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Whether you personally are a woman or not is irrelevant. You did seem to expect me to assume Dianaa knows less than others. That IS disrespectful by all standards. You also insisted that she wasn't an admin. At the very least, this indicates that your own assessment of the situation isn't quite reliable. Above all, your comments clearly demonstrate that you haven't followed the discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenin and terrorism

I hereby provide further reliable sources linking Lenin with terrorism. Ronald D. Law (a respected historian and Professor of History) writes:

“Frustrated by the conservatism of Russian peasants and impressed by the emergence of a new urban working class, some Populists turned to Karl Marx’s doctrines (typically known to its practitioners as social democracy) in the 1870s and 1880s. Out of the Russian Marxists, came Lenin and the Bolsheviks. They embraced terrorism in a circumscribed fashion while in the underground, but became terrorists “from above” after seizing the Russian state in 1917 … In the wake of the 1905 Revolution, Lenin recognized that terrorism was appropriate in two circumstances: as a means of generating popular support among workers and peasants for the Bolshevik cause, and as a means of raising money necessary for the party’s operations” (Terrorism: A History, 2009, pp. 77, 91).

As indicated earlier, the above is supported by many other sources like Robert Service (A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p. 108), Richard Pipes (Communism, p. 39), and Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections” (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 141). However, should there be any doubt, here's another source:

“Lenin had stated that the party should not flinch from the use of terror in order to safeguard the Revolution and implement socialism. Thus he was able to justify his use of terror. The Cheka’s powers were expanded during the Civil War so that counter-revolutionaries could be eliminated. Lenin and Trotsky agreed with the view of Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, that it was better to overkill than run the risk of being overthrown. Terror was to be used against class enemies although it was also directed against elements within the party, such as ‘adventurers, drunkards and hooligans’. At the end of his life, Lenin seems to have developed an obsession over the use of terror. Letters he wrote in 1922 called for intensified repression against the Mensheviks, including the harmless historian Rozhkov. This seems to indicate that Lenin was developing his own, personal agenda for the use of terror” – Steve Phillips, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 2000, pp. 135-6. The book is published by educational publisher Heinemann for History students and is therefore as mainstream as can be. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The section in the book, "Marxism and terrorism", is clear that they opposed terrorism, yet used it when it was useful.[11] Unfortunately, Law does not provide a category for their terrorist actions. TFD (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If one uses terrorism, it is rather difficult to say one opposes terrorism. Collect (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. If a laissez-faire "conservative" like George W. Bush bails out the banks, does that mean we redefine laissez-faire or re-classify Bush? Better leave it to the scholars, and just report what they say rather than trying to make the call ourselves. TFD (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Equally if one authorizes torture, such as say, water boarding, should one be labeled a torturer. --Snowded ^TALK 13:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As you all can see, Law says "embraced terrorism", "became terrorist(s)", "recognized that terrorism was appropriate". It shouldn't be too difficult to phrase one or two sentences comprising all of the above or even include the entire quote as it stands. IMO the latter option would seem more appropriate. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems though the best place for this would be the terrorism article history section, although it would have to be considerably expanded to include, among other things, the other Russian groups using terrorism in the 19th century and the use of terrorism but revolutionaries in other countries such as the future United States. Notice also, that you would need to present Law's other comments about Marxism and terrorism as well. TFD (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking in parables again? What "other comments"? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(I do not think that you are using the term parable correctly.) You forget the first sentence, "Russian Marxists condemned assassinations, bombings, and revenge-killing, but their concern was not morality. History was made through the class struggle, they maintained, not the actions of isolated cells of terrorists." You seem to be confused about the subject. Left-wing terrorists use terrorism as propaganda - they believe that blowing things up will cause people to rise up under their leadership. Communists on the other hand thought that the working class would rise up on their own, and then accept Communist leadership. You seem to think that these groups carry out their actions merely for the pleasure it provides them. TFD (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"You seem to think that these groups carry out their actions merely for the pleasure it provides them"

Not at all. That is what you think that I think, which is your personal opinion and has nothing to do with fact. My view is that they did it for ideological reasons. But that is beside the point. On balance, your comments are indicative of your confusion about the facts. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As should be clear from reading the source you provided, the Bolsheviks did not commit terrorist acts for "ideological reasons". In the case of bank robberies, for example, their motivation was to get the money in the bank. TFD (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Whilst you correctly quote the 1st and 2nd sentences of the subsection “Marxism and Terrorism”, p. 91, you seem to be conveniently omitting sentences 3, 4, 5 and 7:

“In 1911, Lev Trotsky got to the heart of the matter: “if we rise against terrorist acts, it is only because individual revenge does not satisfy us” (Trotsky, “Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism”). The chilling implication was that state terror as practised by the Jacobins could be effective and wholly satisfying. In fact, Marxists retreated from even this denunciation of individual terror when circumstances warranted … The result was that local Bolsheviks carried out assassinations of police, police spies, and petty officials throughout the Empire.”

So, the Bolsheviks DID practice individual terrorism after all.

2. As Law notes, Trotsky implies that Marxists only rejected individual terrorism because state (i.e., mass) terrorism was more satisfying to them. And satisfaction, of course, implies pleasure.

3. As Law also notes, the loot from “revolutionary expropriations” (= armed robberies) in which the Bolsheviks according to Law were “second to none” was used for the upkeep of the party in exile, hence it ultimately served ideological/political purposes. Even if that were not the case, it would merely add financial reasons to those of ideology and pleasure.

4. As indicated by the sources provided, Lenin seems to have developed a pathological “obsession over the use of terror”. So we can add psychopathology to the above three reasons. Since I never said ideology was the sole motivation for Marxist terrorism, that’s alright by me. I think we can now start editing the article accordingly. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think not (start editing the article accordingly), when I see statements such as "satisfaction, of course, implies pleasure" and "psychopathology" I see an editor who will simply not learn about the dangers of OR and SYNTH --Snowded ^TALK 10:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What "OR" and what "SYNTH"? And how are TFD's comments less "OR" and less "SYNTH". You seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between my response to TFD's comments and the statements of scholars like Law. It is the latter that must be included in the article, NOT the former. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, you scatter a long set of comments with the odd reference. It isn't fooling anyone. --Snowded ^TALK 11:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can see for yourself, my comments aren't any longer than those of TFD, yourself and others, especially if taken together. You seem to be using spurious accusations like "long comments" to prevent the inclusion of relevant sources in the article. It isn't fooling anyone. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No Justus, I've just lost patience with your editing and I'm surprised that TFD is still prepared to take you seriously. The above is a good example. I make the point that you have long posts with a lot of OR and Synth with the odd reference thrown in and you don't respond to the point, you cherry pick the odd word (which by the way is the way you treat sources). When you are challenged you either pick on the reference alone, and/or (as in this case) pick up on one aspect of an argument not the whole argument. You haven't learnt anything despite a lot of good will and tolerance from other editors. It gets to the point where such behaviour is disruptive and its taking place across many articles where you seem to be on a campaign. I'm happy from time to time to attempt to explain this too you, but in general I am not willing to waste time in feeding editorial behaviour which is clearly disruptive. Here you threatened to edit the article based on your particular blend of OR and SYNTH so I intervened to say that you do not have agreement to do so. Thats about the limit of my willingness to waste time on an editor who is now well past the point of being protected by a respect for WP:BITE --Snowded ^TALK 12:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the disproportionate length of your post and off-topic remarks. This section is about Lenin and terrorism. I'd suggest either you say something relevant or keep your opinions (and offensive comments) to yourself. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The section you set up is off topic. You have to provide sources that Lenin was a Communist terrorist or engaged in Communist terrorism, otherwise it is just a typical posting on a blog. TFD (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Lenin was a Communist who advocated and practiced terrorism. That is good enough reason to include him. Otherwise, I will include the above sources in the Terrorism and Lenin articles, which amounts to the same thing. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is synthesis. Can you provide a source that Lenin's practise of terrorism (before the founding of the CPSU) was "Communist terrorism"? Incidentally your source shows that Lenin did not advocate terrorism and in fact condemned it. TFD (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't "synthesis". Since Lenin was a Marxist he was at the very least a Marxist terrorist. This why Law includes him under Marxism and Terrorism. And the sources do say he "embraced terrorism", "became a terrorist", "recognized that terrorism was appropriate", etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at this was way, you may be social and you may be a democrat, but that does not make you a social democrat. "Communist terrorism" is not just the set of all communists who practice terror, but represents a unique concept that can be defined in reliable sources (or so it is claimed). TFD (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments make no sense whatsoever. Lenin is mentioned under Marxism and Terrorism precisely because he was a Marxist AND a terrorist. Since he was also a Communist and a revolutionary, his advocacy and practice of terrorism belong to articles on Communist terrorism, Marxist terrorism, Left-wing terrorism, Revolutionary terrorism, Terrorism, Lenin, and all other articles where that information is relevant but has been suppressed all this time! Justus Maximus (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You need a source that draws the connection, i.e., calls him a communist terrorist, otherwise it is just synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm sorry, but where exactly is the consensus to move this article to a new title "Leftist terrorism" and turn this into a disambiguation page [12]. I haven't been following this article for awhile, but from what I understand there have been proposals to either move or delete this article in the past and they have all failed. It seems like a couple of editors then decided to "gut the article from within", enforce a move to their desired title without a proper RM discussion, and make this article into a DAB page. Am I missing something? Is there a discussion somewhere someone could point me to where there's consensus established to support this kind of ... extreme, action? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You can read the talk page as easily as the rest of us. This article had become a POV-fork involving some fairly heavy synthesis to produce a novel theory about Marxism, and was mired down in an extensive and unproductive stonewalling debate. Farming the contents out to other pages lost nothing, sidestepped a whole lot of tendentious rhetoric, and obviated the synthesis. Do you have an issue with that?

I'm sorry, but the only way to deal with editors who are willing to put that much effort into stonewalling is to pull the rug out from under them. Now that they no longer have the thing they were blindly defending, they can (if they are so inclined) come back and start making reasonable proactive arguments for changes or restorations. --Ludwigs2 20:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can in fact read the talk page like the rest of you and one thing I don't see on it is consensus to turn it into a dab. And yes I have an issue with that. The article did not become a POV-fork, at least in my view - a seperate POV-fork was created and then a switcheroo was pulled by certain editors who began referring to this article as a POV-fork. But there was no consensus on this view. Farming the contents out to other pages resulted in loss of all the relevant material that had nothing to do with "novel theory about Marxism".

I'm sorry, but the only way to deal with editors who are willing to put that much effort into stonewalling is to pull the rug out from under them.. NO. Let me emphasize that: NO. That is not how Wikipedia works and it is certainly not how you deal with editors that disagree with you. YOU don't get to decide who's stonewalling and who's just disagreeing - in my view, it's you and a couple of others that are trying to cram their version down everyone else's throat and are inventing novel ways of circumventing standard Wikipedia's procedures to do that. YOU don't get to decide who gets "the rug pulled out from under them" (sheesh, battleground much?). And you don't get to set the status quo.

In regard to the last point - it's pretty clear why this sneaky tactic has been employed. In cases of lack of consensus articles remain under their old names or they NOT deleted. Some people have tried to do both in the past and there has been no consensus. They then invented this new way of achieving the same goal that doesn't have to (they think) defer to the status quo or the Wikipedia consensus.

There are still alternatives in the DR here. Try them first before forcing your preferred solution on everyone else. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing sneaky about it, we've been going at this for weeks now, and I think the move was perfectly appropriate, You are entitled to disagree, of course, but let's talk it out here rather than fight it out on the article page. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything, it should be the other way around

This [13] is the version of the article with most of the content preserved. It's true that a lot of this has been moved to Left-wing terrorism. But why exactly? In essence this is a renaming of the article without actually going through a proper RM procedure. There's no consensus for it.

If anything it's Left-wing terrorism that should be the disambiguation page as it encompasses several sub topics. Communist terrorism is a specific type of Left-wing terrorism. If I was an Anarchist I'd be pretty upset about being lumped in with the Marxists. There's also the left-wing eco-terrorists who aren't exactly communists. In fact the Left-wing terrorism POV fork has a big See also: Anarchist terrorism and Eco-terrorism right up top, which does suggest that that is the broader term. Hence THAT ONE should be made into a disambiguation page. This one should not.

This is not even considering that the dab page created by Petri itself is POV (with the "In Propaganda" being an obvious example). Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Communist terrorism is a specific type of Left-wing terrorism". Had anyone actually come up with WP:RS that demonstrated any theoretical basis for that statement, there might be a case for it having a separate article. Nobody ever has, to any meaningful extent. This has been requested time and time again. Since nobody has found it, one must assume it doesn't exist. This is old ground, and I see no point arguing over it again. Until WP:RS is found that argues that 'communist terrorism' should be treated differently from other forms of leftist terrorism, there is nothing to argue about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be requiring a source, for the statement that Communism is a particular type of a leftist movement. Which is equivalent to suggesting that somehow the idea that Communism is left wing is controversial. It isn't. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I require a source that says that 'communist terrorism' is a particular type of terrorism. I've not seen one. Actually, the article didn't even list 'communist terrorist groups', but terrorist groups that claimed to be communist/Marxist. In case you hadn't noticed, not even self-proclaimed 'communists' could agree amongst themselves who was and who wasn't a communist, so how the heck any real theoretical basis for treating 'communist terrorism' as a meaningful analytic category could be found, I really don't know. And then there is the issue that not all communists are Marxists, and not all Marxists are communists. An unholy mess, right from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

the article didn't even list 'communist terrorist groups', but terrorist groups that claimed to be communist/Marxist. - which from the perspective of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, NPOV and RS is sufficient. If a terrorist group claims they are communist/Marxist, then they fall under the heading of "communist terrorism". You don't get to decide that they don't - that's pure Original Research on your part.

so how the heck any real theoretical basis for treating 'communist terrorism' as a meaningful analytic category could be found, I really don't know - we are not here to establish any kind of theoretical basis, but only represent what sources - and that includes the groups themselves - say. You are trying to do something that an encyclopedia is not meant for. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Radek, I am surprised that you do not understand the reason of the move. Let me explain you that. If we assume that Communist terrorism is a separate type of terrorism, then we need a reason for placement of Red Brigares and Co to this particular article. The best and the most neutral way to do that is a gscholar search. The search made by me demonstrated that much more reliable sources discussed these groups in a context of "Left wing terrorism" ANDNOT in a context of "Communist terrorism" than vise versa. Therefore, we simply have no ground for placement of these groups in this article. Neutrality requires us to follow what majority sources say. However, if you believe there are some terrorist groups that are described predominantly in a context of Communist terrorism (Petri believes that at least on group is), they can and should be added to this article. I believe other groups exists that can be added here. Instead of arguing, try to indentify them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
PS> The discussion about connection between Marx, Lenin and Co with terrorism also belongs to this article, not to Leftist terrorism. If the sources that discuss this connection are notable enough (in other words, if it does not deserve to be deleted), this discussion should remain here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would actually tend to agree that not all of the groups that were previously included belong under the heading "Communist terrorism". Red Brigades, and things like the BM Gang may be some of those. Others, like say the Shining Path, cleary do. What it sounds like you're saying is that we should have two connected, but seperate articles. Ok that's a reasonable position. But then this shouldn't be just a dab page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you joined the discussion only recently, you probably haven't read the post that eventually resulted in the content move. I reproduce it below for your convenience. Please, read and comment.

Gscholar results

1. Origin of Revolutionary terror discusses Reign of Terror, i.e. Leftists, not Communists. Conclusion: belongs to Leftist terrorism.
2. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine: [14] [15]. Conclusion: Left wing terrorism (13 to 3)
3. Shining Path (Already discussed): Left wing
4. FARC "Left wing" wins 124 to 6 [16] vs [17]
5. ETA (already discussed) Conclusion: "Left wing"
6. Communist Party of Nepal Frankly, I doubted, but even in this case ("Communist" explicitly included in the name) "lef wing" wins 24 to 4 [18] vs [19].
7. Communist Party of the Philippines: "Left wing" wins 7 to 3 [20] vs [21]
8. Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Naxalites Zero in both cases, but just "Naxalites" gave 22 for "Left wing" [22] and only 4 for "Communist" [23].
9. Revolutionary Organization 17 November "Left wing" wins 27 to 7 [24] vs [25]
10. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party "Left wing" wins 5 to ZERO: [26] vs [27]
11. May 19th Communist Organization "Left wing" wins 4 to ZERO: [28] vs [29].
12. Red Army Faction "Red Army Faction" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Army Faction" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 201[30] to 2[31].
13. ERP ERP "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs ERP "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 33[32] to 2[33].
14. Irish Republican Army "Irish Republican Army" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Irish Republican Army" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 179[34] to 6[35]
15. Red Brigades: "Red Brigades" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Brigades" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism" 271[36] to 6[37].

In connection to that, can anyone explain me, what concrete in the WP policy can be an excuse for not renaming this article immediately to Left wing terrorism?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. It is not an attempt to insult anyone, however, let me explain what I did. I looked for the sources that contained the words, e.g. "Red Brigades" AND used the phrase "Left wing terrorism" and DID NOT used the phrase "Communist terrorism" (the first number). Then I did the same search for the sources that contained the words "Red Brigades" AND used the phrase "Communist terrorism" and DID NOT used the phrase "Left wing terrorism". In the case of Red Brigades the ration was 271 to 6 (you may do the search by yourself to make sure I am not cheating). That means that for all terrorist groups discussed in the article the definition "left wing terrorism" is much more common that "Communist terrorism", and, therefore, the article simply must be renamed per WP:NEUTRAL.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at google books and I'm finding different results, for example [38]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, by contrast to gbooks, gscholar looks mostly within scholarly (the most reliable) sources. Secondly, I didn't say there were no results for "Shining path" AND "Communist terrorism". Yes, they are [39]. However, there are much more results for the opposite search [40] (hence the move of "Shining path").--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking through these, you might actually convince me. My main concern is that even with the subtracting off of the other term, the "superset" broader term, like Left-wing terrorism, will always get more hits than the "subset" narrower term, like Communist terrorism. Sort of like if I did a search for ""orange" "citrus" -"fruit"" [41] (30k) vs. ""orange" "fruit" -"citrus"" [42] (219k) and used that to argue that since "orange and fruit WITHOUT citrus" is used more than "orange and citrus WITHOUT fruit", the article on citrus should be moved to the article on fruit. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You logic is quite correct, provided that "taxonomy" of terrorist movements is as strict and well developed as that of plantae. In actuality, it is not. For instance, many scholars use the term "communist" as a synonym for "revolutionary", so this term is frequently applied to the movements that have only tangential relation to Communism. One way or the another, we can carefully analyse each terrorist movement, and, if its close ties with Communism will be demonstrated, we can probably re-add some of these groups to this article. For instance, since many small Maoist groups are known to be terrorists, and because Maoism has a Communist origin, a separate section "Maoist terrorist groups" can be added to this article. Another option (taking into account that Maoism, along with Stalinism, are very specific versions of Communism) is to combine these Maoist groups in a separate article Maoist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the taxonomy is not as well developed - this sort of applies to social science more generally than it does in the hard sciences. Still, I think the point is a valid one. We can use google searches to decide between whether a particular article should be under, say, Jan Bazynski or Johannes von Baysen since neither of these is a subset of each other. But with things like citrus/fruit, communist/leftist because one is a subset of the other google searches are much less instructive. But like I said, I'm willing to be convinced.

However, again, what it seems like you're saying is that both articles here have a place. Some of these groups might fall under "Communist terrorism" (or its sub-topics), while others properly belong to an article on "Leftist terrorism" (my point about Anarchists belong here too). But this is an argument about the proper content of each article. But turning "Communist terrorism" into a disambiguation page, against consensus, against results of an RM, is ridiculous. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)