User talk:Justus Maximus

Did Marx advocate terrorism?
Ludwigs, given that I've been banned from Wikipedia, I'm replying here to your post on the "Communist terrorism" discussion page.

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. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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) 14:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, how many times do you have to be told that Wikipedia in not a forum for original research? To use this argument, you'd need to find a single reliable source that argued the same thing. All of it. Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Until you grasp this, all your arguments are irrelevant. This is how Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, you can (once you agree to conform to the existing rules) argue that the rules be changed. That is your right. It is not your right to ignore rules because you don't agree with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already provided sources demonstrating that Marx and others advocated terrorism. These sources should be included in an article on Communist terrorism instead of being suppressed or dismissed. The article ought to be edited by historians not by political activists like Paul Siebert and yourself. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you will go to the library of your local university (not to Borders) and open scholarly journals, you will find that most articles there are much more "pro-Marxist" (your definition) than highly politised books you are reading. The term "political activist" is more applicable to you than to your opponents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The article ought to be edited by historians not by political activists". Well, I've no idea whether Paul is a historian or not. Come to that I've no idea how 'political activist' is defined, and whether either of us actually fit into that category. I've already stated that I don't claim to be a historian though. Are you stating that you are a historian?
 * And again, who you think ought to write Wikipedia articles is irrelevant. Subject to conforming to the required rules and standards, anyone can. If you don't like it, argue that the rules be changed, or go elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia is a private enterprise it can do as it pleases, so I can hardly "argue that the rules be changed"!


 * Since both Paul Siebert and yourself have admitted to not being historians, I was wondering what qualifies the likes of you to dominate and direct the discussion other than your political commitment. Besides, you clearly behave like political activists though you may not be aware of this, or (for obvious reasons) not wish to admit it. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing whatsoever qualifies me to 'dominate and direct the discussion'. I can participate in it though, because I agree to conform to the Wikipedia rules (which are themselves largely arrived at through discussion). If you want to participate (or indeed to change the rules), you have to conform too. This is all that has ever been asked of you - and note that insinuations about others having a covert agenda isn't exactly in the spirit of Wikipedia standards of civility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no idea how 'political activist' is defined, and whether either of us actually fit into that category


 * If that is the case, how do you know you don't fit into it? Justus Maximus (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, I take it that you have finally seen my point and that the article can now be edited accordingly without further disruptions. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a crypto-Marxist outfit?
The blogosphere is abuzz with horror stories about any kind of projects purporting to be in the “public interest” and, make no mistake, Wikipedia is no exception. Still, I’ve never paid much attention to any of that until recently, when I accidentally stumbled upon this passage in a Wikipedia article mentioning a Marx quote that allegedly no editor had ever heard of.

It read:

“According to Marx, “There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new – revolutionary terror.”

Historian Edvard Radzinsky noted that Joseph Stalin wrote a nota bene “Terror is the quickest way to new society” beside this passage in a book by Marx.”

As I recognized the quote as being from Marx’s infamous revolutionary paper, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, I was immediately intrigued by the mysterious and strangely unprofessional words, “in a book by Marx.” I was even more intrigued by the statement of one of the editors bearing the ominous name “AndyTheGrump”, to the effect that “the supposed Marx quote is lacking a direct reference.”

I happen to be an oldfashioned sort of guy who prefers proper libraries to the internet when it comes to doing serious research on anything. I had barely ever used Wikipedia and had no experience whatsoever regarding its editorial procedures. Somewhat naively, perhaps, I had assumed the editors would be specialists in their respective fields. Surely, editors working on such an ambitious project as an article on Communist terrorism, would be expert historians well-versed in the writings of Marxist luminaries like … Marx himself, right? Well, no. These particular Wikipedia experts openly admitted they hadn’t a clue.

Grabbing a copy of Radzinsky’s Stalin, it took me just a few seconds to discover that the quote annotated by Stalin (or “Koba” as Radzinsky calls him) wasn’t actually “in a book by Marx” at all, but as Radzinsky clearly says, in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism. A quick search in Kautsky soon confirmed the exact source: Marx’s Neue Rheinische Zeitung of 7 Nov 1848!

Little suspecting what kind of vipers’ nest I was stepping into, I decided (on 5 Oct) to clarify the situation by amending the quote to a version I felt to be more faithful to the German original, which I took from Marx and Engels, Articles from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung 1848-49, by Moscow Progress Publishers (1977), and providing all the relevant sources, complete with German-language Marx/Engels Works (Werke) plus links to German and English online versions. That was honestly all I had ever intended to do - at first. Then it occurred to me that the section kept curiously shtum on Lenin, an even greater advocate of terrorism than Marx ever was. And that was when all hell broke loose.

Not only had there been no expression of gratitude for my contribution in the first place (not that I needed any, I just found the silence rather strange), but by next day (6 Oct) I found that my version of the quote had been “amended to give the quote in full” by none other than the same editor with the ominous name (AndyTheGrump) who had been claiming all along that he had never heard of the quote!

Now, I found this rather odd, as the quote in the form given by me seemed quite adequate for the purposes of the section. In short, it showed what Marx had written about terrorism. Adding insult to injury, AndyTheGrump claimed that “the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis arguably distorted the intended meaning.” Here was someone who had admitted all along he didn’t know the quote, and now out of the blue he knew not only what the full quote was, but also, “the intended meaning”! You can imagine my bewilderment: What “intended meaning”? How did he know? Was the meaning really distorted? What was he talking about?

We all know that Marx was a journalist, right? And journalists, especially those of the politically-committed variety, just love hyperbole. So let’s learn something about the historical background to the article:

“When the National Guard tried to disperse the protesters, there were clashes, which escalated on 23 August. The Academic Legion, though refusing to join in the repression, was reluctant to side with the insurgents and stood back, a mere spectator to what followed. Lacking the support of the very people whom they regarded as their leaders, the workers stood no chance. Demonstrators were beaten with the flats of sabres, bayoneted and shot. Between 6 and 18 workers were killed, and between 36 and 152 seriously wounded (depending upon whether one believes government or radical counts). When the fighting was over, women from the more prosperous quarters of the city garlanded the National Guards’ bayonets with flowers … The Democratic Club shouted down Marx, who was then visiting Vienna, when he tried to argue that the violence was a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For Engels, 23 August was the moment when the middle class abandoned the cause of the people: ‘thus the unity and strength of the revolutionary force was broken; the class-struggle had come in Vienna, too, to a bloody outbreak, and the counter-revolutionary camarillasaw the day approaching on which it might strike its grand blow’. But Marx found that it was not only the middle class who were deserting the revolution; there was little sympathy for his ideas even when he addressed workers’ meetings. On 7 September, he left Vienna, grumbling at the stubborn refusal of the workers to see that they should be waging a class war against the bourgeoisie” (Mike Rapport, 1848:Year of Revolution, London: Little, Brown, 2008, pp. 230-1). Marx, who was in Vienna at the time, must have known that the number of demonstrators killed by the National Guard was between 6 and a maximum of 18. It follows that his use of unwarranted rhetorical flourishes like “massacres” and “cannibalism” was intended to deceive the readers and fraudulently incite them to armed insurrection on false pretences. It is beyond dispute that the primary intention of the article was to incite to armed insurrection, as correctly observed by the authorities who closed down Marx’s paper on that very ground.

As various sources, such as Marx’s wife Jenny, tell us, Marx had attempted earlier that year (surprise, surprise) to stir up revolution in Belgium by buying weapons for insurgents using moneys inherited from his father – for which he had been promptly arrested and marched out of the country (Jenny Marx, “Short Sketch of an Eventful Life” in Reminiscenses of Marx and Engels, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, p. 223).

So, far from “distorting” anything, the quote as given by me fulfilled its basic function of showing that Marx advocated terrorism for revolutionary purposes, period. By contrast, the “intended meaning” as insisted upon by AndyTheGrump, arguably conveyed the false impression that Marx only did so as a reaction to unspeakable “massacres” and “cannibalism” on the part of the authorities. Vienna’s radical workers were in fact a minority and even they completely ignored Marx’s call to armed uprising – which in the real, extra-Wikipedian world ought to speak for itself.

While I was still digesting all this, I was attacked by AndyTheGrump’s twin “expert” or, shall we say “faux”, historian Paul Siebert who deleted my Lenin quote from the article and claimed that not only that quote, but none of the Lenin quotes I subsequently provided had the word “terror” even when the accepted English translation (of The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky) clearly did so (see V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 28, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974, pp. 227-325) …

To cut a long story short, the article, discussion and everything else that has to do with it, has been cleverly colonized by the above “editors”, resulting in a concerted effort to suppress anything that in any way, form or shape even remotely links leading Marxists like Marx, Engels and Lenin with terrorism, and this in spite of the fact that many reliable sources expressly do so. To “experts” like AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert no source is reliable enough when it comes to anything critical of their Marxist idols. Moreover, even the idea of an article on “Communist terrorism” seems pathologically unbearable to them. Hence their obsessive demand to alternately “re-name”, “move”, “delete” the article, etc. And everyone that dares challenge or expose their agenda is presently attacked by the whole colony, from Elen of the Roads down to our esteemed, inseparable twin “editors” and “expert historians” themselves who, as should be clear by now, behave more like second-rate political agitators (that not even former Communist regimes would employ) than genuine editors, let alone historians.

I do appreciate Martin’s effort to offer advice and help. But Martin has his own reasons to ignore some very important facts, e.g., there is no rational explanation why Elen of the Roads attacks me for my perceived “crusade to expose Marx as a terrorist” whilst colluding in Paul Siebert’s own crusade to suppress all sources showing that I am right. I was given a link to an old ANI version to make me edit the wrong page, etc., etc. The attacks on me started the minute I provided the sources for the Marx quote (which clearly frustrated some editors’ agenda to dismiss it as “unverifiable”) and culminated in a ban on me when I provided solid sources showing Marx’s advocacy of terrorism in 1848 and 1850. As far as I am concerned, I’m the only one to have provided those sources and the only one to get banned. Coincidences are possible. When they become daily occurrence they become systemic and deliberate. And, no, Martin. There is NO other arbitration. If it did exist, it would involve independent historians, not political activists. So, sorry, but it’s all a scam.

Nor will I buy into Petri Krohn’s theory that Wikipedia is a community and that so long as everything is decided communally or communistically everything is going to be alright. No sir! As historians (and some non-historians) know, there are communities or societies that are way out of order. Evil doesn’t turn into virtue just by being generally endorsed (genocide is one example that springs to mind). Petri’s logic, assuming he actually believes in it, is the perverted logic of the politically and psychologically committed. It only serves to show the advanced stage reached by the pathology having the world of Wikipedia and its inmates in its grip. I may have been banned (no surprise there), but at least I’ve rattled a few cages. To have done otherwise would have amounted to deliberate collusion in this collective self-deception. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Whereas I am prepared to take Paul Siebert’s and AndyTheGrump’s point that Wikipedia articles are written by amateurs, I would like to point out that when an article is so amateurish as to deny or suppress accepted historical facts it would be advisable to seek the collaboration of trained historians.

In addition, amateurs will profit from acquainting themselves with a balanced view on Marx and Engels’ life, beliefs and actions by studying biographies like those by Isaiah Berlin and Francis Wheen to avoid misinterpretations that may arise from an amateur reading of primary sources.

For example, AndyTheGrump on the Discussion page says that according to Engels’ own statements he did no more than transport ammunition boxes, “inspect all barricades and to complete fortifications”, etc., being appointed to those tasks by “the military commission”.

AndyTheGrump appears to ignore the fact that the Neue Rheinische Zeitung where Engels made those statements was a notorious revolutionary publication closely watched by the police (and that, incidentally, wasn’t as “obscure” as AndyTheGrump believes as it sold 5000 copies a day). Hence, it would be unreasonable to expect Engels to go into details of his revolutionary activities there.

Moreover, even an amateur historian like AndyTheGrump ought to investigate the matter further. If he did so, he would soon find out that Engels' superior was in fact none other than Marx and Engel’s old buddy and fellow communist revolutionary August Willich, and that Engels had become Willich’s chief adjutant, jointly directing operations and campaigns, and that, therefore, Engels’ role in the 1849 insurrection in Germany was not quite as trivial and innocent as suggested by that editor.

Moreover, Engels’ true intentions become evident from the sources:

“First Elberfeld, then Solingen fell into the hands of the democrats, who established ‘committees of safety’ to direct the insurrection. These committees tried to maintain as wide a consensus as possible, cooperating with the liberal, constitutional monarchists. When Marx’s close collaborator Friedrich Engels joined the insurgents at Elberfeld, he was soon expelled because he was accused of trying to convert the revolution from a movement of the ‘black-red-gold’ (the constitution) into a purely ‘red’ (social, republican) uprising” (Mark Rapport, 1848: Year of Revolution, 2008, p. 342).

It is evident from their writings that Marx and Engels intended to take control of insurrections once they had started (and of the revolutionary movement in general), by means of revolutionary cells expressly organized, prepared and kept ready for that purpose (see Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, June 1850, etc.).

True, all this may not amount to terrorism prima facie. However it does show that, like Marx, Engels was not a mere armchair revolutionary theorist but was quite prepared to put his theories into deadly practice. This is a very important point if we want to correctly analyze and assess the historical evidence.

In particular, this point represents a vital clue to Marx and Engels’ attitude to revolutionary terrorism which is relevant to the article. Having seen that we cannot reasonably expect Marx and Engels to have offered detailed description of their revolutionary theories and actions in publications like the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, we must turn to other relevant writings documenting what they actually thought.

In their “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” of March 1850 distributed amongst their followers as a circular letter, 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).

Even amateur historians can see that Marx and Engels here advocate terrorism for revolutionary purposes, and this is confirmed by Bernstein, Kautsky, Kolakowski, the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and other sources.

Whilst editors are, of course, at liberty to argue that there is no hard proof that Marx and Engels’ activities constituted terrorism sensu stricto, it is equally arguable that when a person who advocates terrorism engages in armed insurrection aiming to use terrorist acts, his activities do amount to terrorism for all practical purposes.

Whether Marx and Engels’ activities in 1848-49 did or did not constitute terrorism, it remains an indisputable fact that (a) Marx and Engels did advocate terrorism, and (b) as pointed out by Kautsky, their advocacy of terrorism (complete with original quotes) was subsequently used by later Marxists (e.g., the Bolsheviks) for their own purposes.

At any rate, it becomes evident that no objective article on Communist terrorism can be written by denying relevant historical facts, suppressing sources, or banning editors who provide them. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request
Objection: The above "reason" is extremely vague and does not appear to resolve the issue. It does not state whether I am still expected to remove or refactor any of the disputed pre-block remarks, and if so, what the relevant remarks are. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Further Notes:

(1) On balance, the logical and proper course of action would have been for the administrator/s to:


 * (a) indicate a time limit for compliance with the request,


 * (b) indicate that the removal of the removed phrase/s was insufficient,


 * (c) provide a list of all the remarks to be removed or refactored before imposing a block. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(2) As there is no Wikipedia rulebook it was unclear what the rules were.

(3) No evidence has ever been adduced to support the view that any rules had been broken.

(4) There were two separate issues:


 * (a) one regarding alleged “libelous statements”;


 * (b) one regarding alleged “offensive remarks”.

The alleged “libelous statements” such as “pro-terrorist” were in fact no such thing since, as already explained on AN/I, the word “terrorist” in my posts referred exclusively and without exception to the historical period from Marx to Lenin (the period under discussion) hence it had no legal implications whatsoever in current US and international law.

The alleged “offensive remarks” such as “Marxist apologist” were no such thing either as neither the word “Marxist” nor the word “apologist” are offensive in any law that I am aware of. On the contrary, as Paul Siebert has repeatedly expressed his conviction that Marxism is a respected science, the designation “Marxist apologist” ought to be regarded by him as a compliment rather than an offence.

It follows that the arguments leading to the block had no merit and were unsupported by any recognized legislation.

(5) It should be noted that in accepted legal practice the burden of proof rests on the accuser not on the accused.

(6) As already stated, the block was not properly thought out as it didn’t take into consideration essential facts such as that I had already indicated agreement to comply with Elen’s request, and had partly complied with it. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(7) Statements such as Elen of the Roads' on AN/I to the effect that I am conducting a "crusade to expose Marx as a terrorist" when in fact I have merely provided sources showing that Marx was known as "The Red Terror Doctor" and advocated terrorism, may be indicative of a pre-existing intent to block/ban me. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why Marxism is not a science
Even according to Wikipedia Marxism is a "political philosophy". Were Marxism a science, its predictions ought to come true. The fact is that, as pointed out by many sources, most of Marx's predictions failed to come true. As another example, Marx states that "the history of society is the history of class struggle". This is at best a philosophical proposition and has nothing to do with science.

The belief that Marxism is a science is not even supported by the Wikipedia article. The idea of “scientific socialism” was invented by Marx and Engels themselves for propaganda purposes (it being the fad of the day to represent one’s theories as “scientific”). It has never been a scientific proposition. There are many sources showing that Marxism is not scientific, from Russell to Kolakowski to Kitching.

We only need to have a look at the many absurdities found in Capital:


 * “… As a use-value, the linen is something palpably different from the coat; as value, it is identical with the coat, and therefore looks like the coat. Thus the linen acquires a value-form different from its natural form. Its existence as a value is manifested in its equality with the coat, just as the sheep-like nature of the Christian is shown in his resemblance to the Lamb of God …” (Vol. 1, pp. 142-3)

As Wheen correctly observes, “Short of printing the page upside-down in green ink, Marx could hardly give a clearer signal that we have embarked on a picaresque odyssey through the realms of higher nonsense” (Karl Marx, p. 307).

Marx himself describes his book as a “work of art”, confessing that “the advantage of my writings is that they are an artistic whole” (Letters to Engels, July and August 1865).

In fact, mainstream sources show that Marxism isn’t even a proper philosophy:


 * “Marx did not intend to write a philosophy and would have regarded “Marxist philosophy” as a contradiction in terms … Within a few years of Marx’s death, however, there were attempts to turn Marxism into philosophy …. after the empirical social sciences had taken from Marx’s work all that was useful to them … there remained much dross – disproven prophecy, hasty generalizations, and plain error. Instead of being discarded, as the errors and absurdities of Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur were discarded in the physical and biological sciences, this non-empirical material was kept alive by a social movement committed to preserving intact the whole of Marx’s legacy” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Thomson Gale: 2006, Vol. 5, pp. 735-6).

On balance, it would not seem wide of the mark to affirm that Marxism is best described as a pseudo-scientific belief system and its creator as either a fantasist or a fraudster. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Reasserting the allegations you were blocked for previously, tendentious editing, personal attacks, see .. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You should note that you may appeal the block, but if you sound off on your talk page like you did previously, you risk being blocked from editing here for a month as well. I recommend you use the time to think about how to put your points forward without attacking everything around you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Objection to above statement by Sandstein: The block reason given by Elen of the Roads does not say "incivility" but "tendentious editing", and no definition or explication is given. I cannot address something without definition or explication as to factual instances. As for "personal attacks" I am of course prepared to retract any remarks that can be construed as such provided that the above-mentioned editors do the same. I think that is a reasonable proposition clearly demonstrating that I am a reasonable person. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Justus, something like this was inevitable given your editing style and pattern. A lot of editors tried to advise/help when you first started but to little effect.  Even now you are responding to some isolated points rather than the substance of a broad pattern of tendentious editing.  Two pieces of advise (i) Recognising fault and showing that you are prepared to change is the best way of getting a block lifted and (ii) I strongly recommend that you find an experienced editor prepared to mentor you if you come back.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded, you are ignoring the fact that you have repeatedly made grossly offensive remarks about me, e.g., you called me a "troll", you agreed with AndyTheGrump's statement that I was an "idiot", you implied that I was a liar, etc. Nor am I responding to "isolated points" as you falsely imply but to the very points that are at issue on the ANI page and were brought up there by AndyTheGrump. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Sigh), Justus you have a history of using sources selectively so I asked for the full text which is normal wikipedia process, if you want to interpret that as lying fine.  After weeks of trying to get you not to simply repeat points time and time again when you did not get your own way I suggested to Andy that he should stop feeding the troll.  Many other editors would have said that a lot earlier.  I was trying to help above, on the assumption that a block might make you sit back and think.  Next time I won't bother-- Snowded  TALK  14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, here's my original post at Talk:Communist terrorism, section "Preliminary Edit Proposal", 10:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC):

"1. On the basis of TFD’s 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."

How does the above post constitute "trolling" or warrant such grossly offensive remarks as "Troll on a soapbox"???

As for my "using sources selectively", I am of course using those sources that provide the relevant information. You can hardly expect me or anyone else to use sources that are silent on the subject under discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK Justus if you can't see the point or don't want to I won't waste either my time or yours. The recommendations above stand however and you really need to think about the block rather than protest it. Your call, I'm leaving  -- Snowded  TALK  14:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You do not appear to follow your own piece of advise "Recognising fault and showing that you are prepared to change", given above. On my part, I was merely giving you a chance to explain why you consider my above post to warrant grossly offensive remarks such as "Troll on a soapbox", "idiot", etc. I think your failure to accept my gentlemanly offer speaks for itself. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx and armed uprising in Belgium
On Talk:Karl Marx, section “Karl Marx and armed uprising in Belgium”, 17:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC), TFD wrote:


 * “Incidentally, since you claim “[Marx] bought weapons for insurgent workers,” it would be helpful if you explained who they were. Are you referring to returning workers who were armed by the French government? If Marx had wanted to arm them, would it not have been easier to do this before they entered Belgium?”

Just a few hours earlier, at 14:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC), I had given, in the above mentioned section, the passage from Francis Wheen where he quotes Jenny Marx:


 * “’The German workers [in Brussels] decided to arm themselves,’ she admitted. ‘Daggers, revolvers, etc. were procured. Karl willingly provided the money’”

There is absolutely no mention in any of my posts of workers leaving or entering Belgium or anything of the kind. Jenny Marx’s statement is perfectly clear: it was German workers living in Belgium, period. It is of course a well-known fact that many German workers lived in Belgium. It is also well known that Marx had founded a German Workers’ Association in Brussels (end August 1847). It may or may not have been the same workers. But German workers in Brussels it was, because that is what Marx’s wife is telling us.

It is evident from the above that TFD’s questions are completely irrelevant. Why would it have been “helpful if I explained who the workers were”??? Why should it have been "easier" for Marx, who was in Belgium, to arm German workers, who also were in Belgium, "before they entered Belgium"???

What matters is that according to Jenny Marx, Marx had bought weapons for insurgent workers in 1848 as I had stated in my edit. True, Jenny Marx described the incident in 1865, i.e., 17 years after it had taken place. However, as his wife, she would have known exactly how much money Marx had inherited and what he had spent it on. There is absolutely no good reason to doubt her statement or to use irrelevant questions as a pretext for the exclusion of this piece of information from the article. And the information is relevant as evident from the text and context, and as observed by most editors there. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Statements by spouses, 17 years after the event about their partners use of money? Wives knowing exactly how much money their husbands have received and spent?   Even in the 21st C that is dubious, in the 19th?   -- Snowded  TALK  14:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 6000 gold francs is a round sum that is easy to remember especially since the Marxes didn't have much money. Jenny Marx was from an upper-class family and her father was a high government official. She was an intelligent and educated woman. Apart from being his wife, she later became Marx's secretary and would have known. There is no evidence that her statement was ever disputed by Marx. Her statement is accepted by other authors apart from Wheen. At any rate it is clear she was referring to German workers in Brussels. Anything else, including "leaving or coming workers", etc., is your own and TFD's Original Research. Finally, you said you were leaving. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When did I say I was leaving? -- Snowded  TALK  15:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At 14:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC), above: "Your call, I'm leaving." Anyway, I think we have agreed to disagree. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have in the meantime seen Jenny Marx’s original statement. She does not in fact specify the amount. So the question whether she does or does not correctly remember the exact sum does not arise. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD also wrote:


 * Why would he have given his money to the Belgian revolution, when Engels asked them not to rebel ...?" - 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

And


 * "It seems unlikely that Marx, who was setting up a newspaper and preparing to go to France just before the June Days Uprising, would use an advance on his inheritance to fund an armed uprising in Belgium, which Engels had discouraged and in fact never happenned" 14:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Earlier, TFD had written:


 * "In his article 'The Antwerp Death Sentences' of 3 September 1848, Engels claimed that democrats should never rise in arms."

Here are the facts:

1. As is well known, (a) Engels himself took part in armed uprising in 1849 as per the WP article Friedrich Engels and (b) he wrote the article in September whereas the arms purchase in question took place in February.

2. Most probably Marx had not yet received an invitation to go to France at the time. As stated by Wheen (p. 126), on 3 March, Marx had "just received" an invitation from his friend Ferdinand Flocon who had become a member of the Paris Provisional Government. Since the Republic was declared on 25 February, Marx evidently must have received the invitation around the end of February/beginning of March, leaving him plenty of time from mid-February, when he received the money, to the 3rd of March when he was issued with an order to leave Belgium within 24 hours, to finance the purchase of weapons.

3. Marx was deeply involved with German workers in Belgium, hence it makes sense for him to have financed arms purchases for them.

4. The fact that the uprising "never happened" cannot be construed as meaning that it was never planned and financed. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

5. It is also instructive to note what Engels’ “The Antwerp Death Sentences” really is all about.



We find that nowhere does he say anything about Democrats in February 1848 being told not to rise in arms. As Engels himself says, the purpose of the article is “to vindicate their honor [of the accused in the Risquons-Tout Case] before the face of German democracy.”

[The Risquons-Tout Incident referred to a up to 6000-strong band of Belgian workers living in France who had become unemployed as a result of the Paris Revolution and had attempted to stage an armed invasion of Belgium (at Quievrain on 26 March, and at Risquons-Tout on 29 March). They had been armed in France and were clearly unconnected with either German workers living in Belgium or the February events under discussion.]

Moreover, in the same article we find the following interesting passage:


 * “And finally Tedesco. Had he not visited the German Workers’ Association, did he not associate with people on whom the Belgian police had planted stage daggers?”

Clearly, the police wouldn't plant "stage daggers" on anyone. The daggers must have been real. And if Engels is lying about the daggers being "stage daggers" we may safely infer that he is also lying about the daggers being "planted".

So, not only does Engels say nothing of Democrats in February 1848 being told by him that they "should never rise in arms", but he refers to Marx’s “German Worker’s Association” and “daggers” (the weapons mentioned by Jenny Marx) in connection with a public prosecution. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

6. What TFD also ignores is the fact that as correctly pointed out by Martin, 23:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC), Wheen (p. 127) does indicate that there is "ample evidence" beyond that from Jenny Marx, one such evidence being a memorandum of the Belgian Ministry of Justice, given by Martin, 09:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC). TFD wishes us to ignore all this on the basis of an apparently non-existent (and irrelevant even if existent) statement by Engels to the effect that "democrats should never rise in arms". Justus Maximus (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In the same way as one may commit a crime by committing or omitting an action, there are two ways of telling a lie: by asserting an untruth, and by omitting the truth. We have seen that Engels is lying by telling an untruth about the daggers. He is also lying by omitting some important facts.

Engels mentions three important things: Tedesco, the German Workers’ Association, and daggers. What he doesn’t mention is what links all three elements with one another and with Marx: the Communist League.

As is well known, Marx, Engels and Victor Tedesco were the heads of the subversive organization, the Communist League in Brussels, Paris and Liege, respectively. The German Workers' Association was the legal wing of the illegal Communist League. In 1847, Tedesco had accompanied Marx to London where they attended the 29 November – 8 December Congress of the League at which The Rules of the Communist League were adopted, the 1st article of which read: “The aim of the league is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the rule of the proletariat, the abolition of the old society and the foundation of a new society.”

As the bourgeoisie (naturally enough) did not want to be overthrown, the only way of establishing the “rule of the proletariat” at the time was armed uprising. As this could hardly be directed from London, the League’s Central Authority there transferred its powers of general direction to its Brussels District Committee headed by Marx. This meant that Marx was the ringleader of the Communist League in Belgium in addition to being the leader of the German Workers' Association. When the French Revolution of 22-25 February broke out, Tedesco advocated the arming of revolutionary workers in Belgium, and as Engels' article says, he was linked by the police with people armed with daggers (and possibly other weapons). It is also clear that Tedesco wouldn't have acted without the knowledge and approval of his superior Marx.

As Marx himself tells, there was a huge gathering of revolutionary workers in Brussels on 27 February, at a meeting of the Democratic Association (founded by Marx in 1847, and of which he was the Vice-President) (“Persecution of Foreigners in Brussels”, La Reforme, 12 March 1848 and the authorities responded by arresting the leaders, (League members Tedesco and Wilhelm Wolf among them). Tedesco was sentenced to death but had his conviction commuted to 15 years imprisonment.

It was only on 3 March, following the arrest of the leadership a few days before, that it was officially decided to dissolve the Brussels Central Authority and empower Marx to form a new one in Paris (Engels, “On the History of the Communist League”, Sozialdemokrat, Nov 12-26, 1885. ). It follows that Marx, as head of the Communist League in Brussels, leader of the German Workers' Association, and Vice-President of the Democratic Association, had every reason to concern himself with the planning and financing of armed uprising in Brussels prior to the arrest of leading revolutionaries on the 27th of February and the subsequent decision to transfer the Central Authority of the League to Paris.

The following is another document in which Engels confesses that the above-mentioned Democratic Association (whose members also belonged to the German Workers’ Association) had played a leading role in the call for the arming of the populace:


 * “[On 27 February] The Association Democratique, however, took a series of most important resolutions, by which this body placed itself at the head of the movement. They resolved to meet daily, instead of weekly; to send a petition to the town-council, reclaiming the arming, not only of the middle-class Civic Guard, but of all citizens in districts … Now, you must know that there existed here, in Brussels, a German working men’s society, in which political and social questions were discussed … The Germans, resident in Brussels, were known for being generally very active and uncompromising democrats. They were almost all members of the Democratic Association, and the vice-president of the German society, Dr Marx, was also vice-president of the Democratic Association” – F. Engels, “To the Editor of The Northern Star”, The Northern Star, No 544, 25 March 1848.

How could Marx, who was vice-president of both the German Workers’ Association and the Democratic Association, have nothing to do with the latter’s call to arm the masses?

As indicated earlier, Marx continued to advocate armed uprising and arming of revolutionary workers both overtly, in his articles, and covertly, in his circulars to the Communist League.


 * “There is only one means of shortening, simplifying and centralizing the death agony of the old order of society and bloody birth-throes of the new – only one means, and that is Revolutionary Terrorism” – “The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848.


 * “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” – “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League”, March 1850.

In sum, the following becomes evident:

1. The article needs re-writing to reflect the historical facts based on the available evidence.

2. There is no legitimate reason for TFD, AndyTheGrump and Snowded to oppose this.

3. Elen of the Roads, Sandstein, Bishonen and Diannaa should not defend the efforts of the above three editors to silence me and to prevent relevant information from being considered. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I would like to commend the efforts of Slrubenstein and Martin to analyze and assess the relevant evidence in a neutral and objective manner. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You should note that I have no desire to silence you, and have left you commenting away on your talk page. I have no view whatsoever as to what the article should say. My only concern is that you cannot edit without continually attacking everyone around you. If you can work out how to put your case on the content of the article without the need to undermine every editor that disagrees with you, you would not need to be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be one way of looking at it. Another way is that you accused me of waging a "personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as terrorists" when in fact I was merely quoting sources documenting that they advocated terrorism. As (a) you made that comment before you blocked me twice, and (b) as demonstrated in my second unblock request, the main charge was false, this must raise doubts regarding your neutrality. You should also note that I have never "undermined every editor that disagrees with me" any more than those editors undermined me. Please re-read the discussion and see for yourself the comments of AndyTheGrump, Snowded, etc., including unprovoked and grossly offensive remarks. See for example the comments of AndyTheGrump and Snowded to my "Preliminary Edit Proposal" at Talk: Communist terrorism 10:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC). Justus Maximus (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also note how, as shown in this section, TFD on Talk: Karl Marx is using false arguments to prevent other editors from including relevant information in the article. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also note how Paul Siebert on Talk: Karl Marx, "Let's look at that from another point of view", 03:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC), starts a new section to say: "this story started from this edit made by the editor who is obsessed with the idea that Marx was a terrorist" and then embarks on a discussion of his totally irrelevant theory that "The right of rebellion is a natural human right". Justus Maximus (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What I can see is a whole bunch of editors of a variety of opinions moving towards a consensus, because they can disagree with each other's views without the need to embark on personal attacks. Incidentally, now might be the right time to raise that if you come off this block and immediately start up with the tendentious editing style, personalisation etc, you will find yourself reblocked for a longer period. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how I can be "reblocked" when I haven't even been unblocked. Unless you have decided in advance to reblock me, just as you did before. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The block was for a period of a month, and will expire at 22:25 on 11 December. However, once it has ended, you should be aware that the slate is not wiped clean, and a return to the behaviour which caused the block is likely to result in myself or another administrator blocking you again, this time for a longer period. As I have said previously, I recommend you use this time to see how other editors manage disagreements and move towards a consensus position, and develop a strategy to adapt your own behaviour accordingly, in order to prevent further blocks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus, you are evidently quite knowledgeable about Karl Marx's period in Brussels and I feel that you have something to contribute. There is need for a detailed sub article. Perhaps you can spend the remainder of your block time creating the article in your user space, perhaps titled User:Justus Maximus/Karl Marx's Brussels period or something similar. I can assist you with this and when your block expires we can move it into main space. This is a notable topic since the Encyclopaedia Britannica has such a topic. --Martin (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin, even history students know that Marx was the ringleader of the Communist League, a subversive organization aiming to overthrow the existing order and seize power, and this is the background against which the whole issue needs to be considered. Respected historians like Isaiah Berlin (Karl Marx, p. 137) state that in the years 1847-48 Marx believed that a revolution could be made by means of a coup d’etat carried out by a body of trained revolutionaries who would function as the spearhead of a proletarian attack. Engels in a letter to The Northern Star states that the Brussels Democratic Association, of which Marx was vice-president, had called for the arming of the masses on 27 February 1848. Statements by Jenny Marx supported by police records show that Marx financed the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers at that time. Wikipedia should not be in the business of suppressing historical facts. As I pointed out earlier to Mamalujo, it looks like the article will have to be published elsewhere, together with a note detailing its suppression here. This has now become even more imperative seeing that Elen of the Roads has decided in advance and not for the first time to reblock me. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no point claiming your crown of martyrdom just yet. If you stop attacking everyone around you, there will be no reason for you to be blocked again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus, you have obviously read extensively on Marx and have a lot to contribute. The volume of policies and guidelines can be daunting for a newbie and I personally think you have been severely bitten, but what is done is done and you need to take it on the chin and move on. While it may appear to someone new to Wikipedia that there is some kind of inherent bias of admins, Wikipedia is essentially chaotic but with a set of established relationships. For the most part, admins being not involved in particular disputes may not (and probably don't want to) have a deep understanding of the content issues, so they tend to give more weight to the arguments of established editors over newbies, which is fair enough. Wikipedia is a human organisation, and just like any organisation you have people who are sincere and people who game the system. I believe you are sincere. As Elen says those that can develop a strategy to adapt their behaviour accordingly will survive. Just as you have a rule against visitors to your home pooping on the carpet, Wikipedia has rules against openly expressing your opinion of people's motives. You saw how I was able to get consensus in the Marx article. That is why I think creating a subarticle in your userspace will give you an opportunity to get up to some runs one the board and I can assist. --Martin (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin, to demonstrate that I profoundly understand, appreciate and value cooperation between editors, and that I am being blocked unfairly, unjustly, and in a typical Stalinist manner, I give below a preliminary draft of the sub article as suggested. Apologies for taking only half an hour to compose it. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx’s Brussels period
In 1845 Marx was expelled from Paris at the request of the Prussian government and went to Brussels where he wrote The German Ideology in collaboration with Engels and established contact with various German communist workers’ organizations.[1] In the following year, he founded the Communist Correspondence Committee whose purpose was to maintain contact with the secret propaganda organization the League of the Just and similar bodies in western Europe.[2]

At its First Congress of June 1847, subsequently known as the “inaugural Congress” of the Communist League, the League of the Just merged with the Communist Correspondence Committee, forming the Communist League, whose Brussels, Paris and Liege branches were to be headed by Marx, Engels and Victor Tedesco, respectively.[3]

In late August, Marx and Engels co-founded the Brussels German Workers’ Association which in turn played an important part in founding the Brussels Democratic Association a month later. Whilst the former became a center for rallying revolutionary forces in Belgium, the latter assumed a more international role. Marx became vice-president of both bodies.[4]

In late November and early December, Marx, Engels and Tedesco went to London to attend the League’s Second Congress at which the Rules of the Communist League were formally adopted.[5] Article 1 of the Rules read:


 * “The aim of the league is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the rule of the proletariat, the abolition of the old bourgeois society which rests on the antagonism of classes, and the foundation of a new society without class and without private property.”[6]

Marx and Engels were commissioned by the League’s Central Authority to compose a document presenting a definitive statement of its beliefs and aims, and this was published in 1848, a few weeks before the outbreak of the Paris Revolution, as the Manifesto of the Communist Party.[7] In this period, Marx believed that a successful revolution could be made by means of a coup d’etat, carried out by a small body of trained revolutionaries acting in the name of the masses and functioning as the spearhead of the proletarian attack.[8]

In the wake of the 22-25 February Paris Revolution, the London Central Authority transferred its powers of general direction of the League to the Brussels District Committee headed by Marx.[9] At its weekly meeting of 27 February, the Brussels Democratic Association assumed a leading role in the revolutionary movement and passed a resolution calling for the arming of all Belgian workers.[10] According to some sources, Marx used the substantial sum of 6000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolution-minded workers.[11] (see note)

On 3 March, following the arrest of leading revolutionaries, including Tedesco and German Workers’ Association secretary Wilhelm Wolff, and an invitation from a member of the Paris Provisional Government (Marx’s and Engels’ friend Ferdinand Flocon), it was officially decided to dissolve the Brussels Central Authority and empower Marx to form a new one in Paris.[12] On the same day, Marx received an expulsion order and had to leave Belgium at twenty-four hours’ notice.[13] Justus Maximus (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

References and notes

1. Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx, 4th ed. 1978, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 117. ISBN 978-0-19-510326-7

2. Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, London: Fourth Estate, 1999, p. 103. ISBN 1-84115-114-9

3. Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, vol. 21, 1975, pp. 206-224.

4. Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, vol. 21, 1975, pp. 206-224.

5. Marx/Engels Collected Works, Moscow: Progress Publishers, vol. 38, p. 146.

6. Marx/Engels Collected Works, Moscow: Progress Publishers, vol. 6, p. 633

7. Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx, 4th ed. 1978, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 120. ISBN 978-0-19-510326-7

8. Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx, 4th ed. 1978, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 137. ISBN 978-0-19-510326-7

9. Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, vol. 21, 1975, pp. 206-224.

10. Marx/Engels Collected Works, Moscow: Progress Publishers, vol. 6, p. 559.

11. (a) Jenny Marx, “Short Sketch of an Eventful Life”, Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, p. 223; Jenny Marx, "Kurze Umrisse eines bewegten Lebens", 1865, J. Schütrumpf ed., Jenny Marx oder: Die Suche nach dem aufrechten Gang, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 2008, p. 57. ISBN 978-3-320-02147-4. Jenny Marx does not give any specific amount. The exact sum is given by Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, London: Fourth Estate, 1999, p. 126-7. ISBN 1-84115-114-9. (b) Martin, here you can add any of your sources you believe you've reached consensus on.

12. Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, vol. 21, 1975, pp. 206-224.

13. Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, London: Fourth Estate, 1999, p. 126. ISBN 1-84115-114-9

BTW it may be informative to add that by publishing the Manifesto and engaging in other political activities he was in breach of his written promise to refrain from such actions. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I see nothing tendentious in the text above, so I'm not sure what Elen of the Roads was referring to in her block comment. Certainly there is now consensus that the text Justus Maximus originally inserted into the Karl Marx article about him allegedly arming workers is acceptable. Could you sprinkle some inline references throughout the text? --Martin (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin, perhaps you could persuade Maximus that referring to the blocking admin as "Stalinist" is unlikely to get him any credit in the unblock stakes, as it is exactly the kind of problem that got him here in the first place. His capacity for good, verified work is being lost behind the wall of abuse he puts out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I got to admit that I did cringe a bit when I read that, but on the other side of the ledger he does feel he has been unjustly treated and is obviously still a bit upset. Justus, it is enough to say "I am being blocked unfairly, unjustly", the extra "and in a typical Stalinist manner" isn't really needed and serves no purpose other than give others the opportunity to report you to an admin. For sure others in a content dispute may say uncivil things to you but don't respond in kind. Remember when people start resorting to ad hominem attacks it usually means they have run out of valid arguments.  You just need to have patience and keep a cool head. I'm sure if you said to Elen "Okay, I get it, I'll endeavour to keep it civil in future", I'm sure she will unblock you immediately. --Martin (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I expect he does feel he's been treated unfairly, and I would prefer not to have to block those who create valid content.  I do also think it is important to present all mainstream viewpoints and notable minority viewpoints, so from that perspective I would rather he was not blocked.  Blocks are preventative, not punitive.  Justus, if I thought you had stopped attacking other editors I would unblock you, but calling me a Stalinist set the clock back rather, so you need to make renewed efforts to show me that you understand. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, is there going to be any commotion about "In this period, Marx believed that a successful revolution could be made by means of a coup d’etat, carried out by a small body of trained revolutionaries acting in the name of the masses and functioning as the spearhead of the proletarian attack.[8]" Is this statement at all in dispute?  Is the source acceptable to everyone?  It's the only sentence that's more than factual, so is the one likely to be picked up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the statement may or may nor be subject dispute, but if it was that is not a bad thing. People may have different perspectives due to having read different books. Content disputes if handled correctly can improve the quality of articles, as people bring other sources to the table. --Martin (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite. I just find it helpful to identify any flashpoints in advance.  If the source is generally well regarded, then people can't make 'fringe minority view' mutterings.  I think this piece is quite interesting - Marx using grandpappy's dime to buy knives and gats, and legging it out of Belgium ahead of the cops, is a nice counterpoint to the vision of Marx sitting in the British Library churning out revolutionary prose - and certainly should go in to the article (although I'm sure others will have differing views). JM is clearly a competent researcher and writer - if he could only moderate his typed communication, he could be an excellent contributor.  As it is, I've let him calling me a Stalinist pass (I had a number of elderly Eastern European acquaintances in my girlhood who were at pains that I understood what Stalinism was, on the "those who do not understand history..." principle).  But I can see him coming off this block, carrying straight on with the attacking everyone, back to WP:ANI and being banned by the community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You lot seem to have a fixation with ordering people about. Martin, why don't you stop telling me what to do and explain to the Stalinist camp that the phrase "Stalinist manner" is not a personal attack but a statement of facts referring to the obvious and incontrovertible fact that methods such as blocking people on false charges, telling them that the block has been lifted unconditionally and then using that as a pretext to reblock them, etc. can reasonably be described as "Stalinist". Indeed it would be hard to describe them any other way. It would be in everyone's interest if your allies learned how to be less arrogant and irritable, and above all refrain from suppressing well-known historical facts, which is where it all started in the first place. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note how they've already decided in advance to suppress the subarticle on the fabricated pretext that "it isn't acceptable to everyone", which can only mean that it's unacceptable to their own camp. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Justus, wrongly blocking people may be heavy handed or even politically motivated, but it isn't Stalinist, this is Stalinist. Ofcourse there are some editors here who deny that Stalin ever harmed anyone, but that is another story. Use your brain, don't be so politically naive, you need to understand who your friends are (I was almost sanctioned myself trying to help you earlier) and you need to understand the political climate and how you need to operate within it. Even admins have to operate within the bounds too and will be sanctioned if they act outside it. If you go into a library and start yelling you will be ejected, right? If you agree to stop yelling you will be let back in. Be pragmatic. If you had followed my advice you would likely have been unblocked now, but now you won't be. I'll let you think about it for a couple of days and I'll come back and discuss it further. --Martin (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin,


 * 1. If I removed the word “Stalinist” would they unblock me? Of course NOT. So why are you asking me to capitulate when this gang carries on attacking me, and when it’s obvious they’ve decided in advance to reblock me?


 * 2. Why are you telling me to spend the rest of the month writing the subarticle when it only takes half an hour to write?


 * 3. Your analogy about the library is false. First, I'm not yelling, and second, libraries do not as a rule suppress information by editing or deleting data. Unless you are referring to libraries in Communist states.


 * 4. Did they not accuse me of waging a “crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as terrorists?” What person in their right mind would object to Marx and Lenin being exposed unless they got a pro-Marxist agenda?


 * 5. They are saying they have “no opinion on what the article should say”, but they pick on sources that are inconvenient to their pro-Marxist agenda, etc. etc.


 * 6. Regarding their fabricated objection, it isn't just Berlin who says that. Stanley Moore in Three Tactics: The Background in Marx 1963, pp. 22, 32-3, also says that from 1844 to 1850 Marx’s and Engels’ tactics “were primarily influenced by the tradition of Babeuf, Buonarroti and Blanqui”. Bernstein in The Preconditions also says that Marx followed a Blanquist line in the period.


 * I have no doubt that some historians choose to dispute this. But you’ll find that they also choose to overlook that Marx and Engels advocated armed uprising. It is evident from his and Engels' writings that Marx intended his outfit (the Communist League) to assume leadership in a revolution brought about by armed insurrection. This obviously makes him a Blanquist, i.e., a putschist. Marx, of course, was extremely devious – you only need to see how he took over the Communist League and imposed his views on everyone (see Wheen and others).  Clearly he knew how to pull the strings from behind the scenes and he certainly covered his tracks by creating a set of organizations shielding the hard core of the outfit from public and official scrutiny, and to a large extent even from members in the outer circles. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * for your edification, I've got no objection to that sentence. I asked because I know nothing about sources, and I wondered if the guys you perceive as 'the other side' would object to it. If it is a mainstream source, then they can't object on the grounds that it's fringe or minority.  I like the piece you've written (see my note also to Martin above), and I think it will be included in the article, but you have pretty much zero chance of being involved in the process, because you cannot stop attacking everyone all the time. You are even attacking Martin.  I don't intend to follow your further career because I can see what it will be.  Someone will object to what you say - you will call them and everyone else around them a Stalinist...or pro-terror...or a commie sympathiser... or some such.  You will be reported back to the noticeboard, and the community will ban you, because this project already has too many people that no-one can edit with.  Can't you prove me wrong?  You can think what you like - I haven't got that CIA gadget that can see inside your head. You can yell what you like at the computer screen.  All you have to do is control what you type in the edit box. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin, please note how the person who accused me of waging a "crusade to expose Marx and Lenin" (as if that were a crime), and then blocked (and threatened to reblock me) in advance, is now predicting that she will ban me. At the same time she claims that she "likes the piece I've written" to cleverly conceal her hostility and deflect attention from the fact that important historical facts have been suppressed since the article was started in 2001. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The draft subarticle of course merely reproduces what the sources are saying and should have nothing to do with anyone's likes or dislikes. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "As it is, I've let him calling me a Stalinist pass"
 * As it is, I didn't call her a Stalinist. My exact words were "in a typical Stalinist manner." As evident from my post, and as subsequently explained, I was referring to methods like blocking people on false charges, etc. being Stalinist, i.e. repressive and devious. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "he could be an excellent contributor"
 * Maybe I could if I weren't blocked on false charges all the time. The fact is I have no desire to be a contributor as I distrust Wikipedia and its Leftist agenda. I merely wanted to draw attention to some valid sources and to protest being attacked for doing so. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why Karl Marx was a Blanquist putschist in 1847-50
According to the historian Isaiah Berlin:


 * “In the years 1847-8 he [Marx] was so far influenced by the propaganda of Weitling and Blanqui as to begin to believe that a successful revolution could be made by means of a coup d’etat, carried out by a small and resolute body of trained revolutionaries, who, having seized power, would hold it, constituting themselves the executive committee of the masses in whose name they acted. This body would function as the spearhead of the proletarian attack … The ‘permanent revolution’ was to be dominated by the dictatorship of the proletariat: but how was this stage to be effected, and what form was it to take? There is no doubt that by 1848 Marx thought of it as brought about by a self-appointed elite … a small body of convinced and ruthless individuals, who were to wield dictatorial power and educate the proletariat until it reached a level at which it comprehended its proper task … This doctrine (the clearest formulation of which is to be found in Marx’s Address to the Communist League in 1850) is familiar to the world because (revived by the Russian agitator Parvus) it was urged by Trotsky in 1905, adopted by Lenin, and put into practice by them with the most literal fidelity in Russia in 1917” (my emphasis).

But maybe Berlin is mistaken. Perhaps, as historians often do, he merely repeats what earlier historians wrote, or perhaps he misunderstands what Marx and Engels are saying? Well, here’s what their March 1850 “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” says:


 * “The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position … There is no doubt that during the further course of the revolution, the petty-bourgeois democrats will for the moment acquire a predominant influence. The question is, therefore, what is to be the attitude of the proletariat, and in particular of the League towards them … the workers, and above all the League, must work for the creation of an independent organization of the workers’ party, both secret and open, and alongside the official democrats, and the League must aim to make every one of its communes a center and nucleus of workers’ associations … Alongside the new official governments they must simultaneously establish their own revolutionary workers’ governments, either in the form of local executive committees and councils or through workers’ clubs or committees, so that the bourgeois-democratic governments not only immediately lost the support of the workers but find themselves from the very beginning supervised and threatened by authorities [like the League] behind which stand the whole mass of the workers. In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers’ suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally [the democrats] … To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party … the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition.”

It becomes evident from the very first two sentences that Marx and Engels are applying in 1850 Germany the system they had developed and attempted to put into practice in Belgium 1848: the Communist League supports the democratic (petty-bourgeois) revolution until the overthrow of the existing system, after which it turns against the democrats and seeks to overthrow them by means of a second and parallel (proletarian) revolution carried out by armed workers. The latter are led by a revolutionary workers’ party that is led by the Communist League that is led by Marx and Engels themselves.

The Brussels Democratic Association had been precisely the kind of revolutionary workers’ party that, as Engels says, had put itself at the head of the revolutionary movement and had called for the arming of all Belgian workers on 27 February. The Association of course had been controlled by Marx. Though officially Karl Wallau had been president and Marx just vice-president, the reverse had been true in the organization controlling the Democratic Association, the Communist League: Marx had been the supreme leader and Wallau his subordinate.

Since the March Address was a secret circular, it is evident that irrespective of his public position, Marx in reality was a covert Blanquist putschist, and a particularly devious one to that, operating from the center of an organization within another organization leading a clandestine revolutionary movement within the official revolutionary movement.

'''It follows that the key to the correct understanding of Marx and Engels is that they had two sets of agendas. An overt one (evidenced by their published writings) that was to incite the masses to armed uprising and revolution, and a covert one (evidenced by their secret circulars) that was to indoctrinate, organize, direct, and control the revolutionaries for their own purposes: a successful revolution developing along Marxian-Engelsian lines inevitably would have wound up with Marx and Engels as (official or unofficial) heads of state.'''

Understandably, pro-Marxist historians are of the opinion that Marx was some kind of Santa Claus. The evidence however strongly suggests he is more correctly described (to paraphrase Proudhon) as the "tapeworm" (Cestoda) of the revolution, and more generally, of 19th-century European society. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)