"

The Objectivity of this Discussion is doubtful (non-existent)

(1) As indicated earlier, the section on Marxist leaders’ views is misleading:

(a) it lays unwarranted and excessive emphasis on Trotsky, creating the misleading impression that other prominent Marxists (Marx, Engels, Lenin) did not advocate and/or practiced terrorism;

(b) it lays unwarranted and excessive emphasis on the theoretical “rejection of individual terrorism”, creating the misleading impression that this is the main (only) Marxist position on terrorism. 

(2) The discussion is not being properly monitored:

(a) no discernible attempt is being made to establish and maintain an acceptable degree of objectivity;

(b) important and relevant scholarly works such as the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism are being ignored or illicitly excluded from the discussion;

(c) though the only logical way to remedy the blatant imbalance in the above section is to include quotes by/on other leaders who are known to have endorsed and practiced terrorism all attempts to do so have been systematically blocked with impunity by the apologists for Marxist terrorism who have done their best to sabotage and wreck both the article and the discussion.

(3) Among the tactics deployed by the apologist wreckers and saboteurs the following may be identified as representative examples:

(a) it is claimed that Marx and Engels did not advocate terrorism despite the fact that scholarly works like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism show that they did, and Marx himself was known as “The Red Terror Doctor”;

(b) it is claimed that Marx and Engels were not involved in terrorist activities despite the fact that numerous sources from The Neue Rheinische Zeitung to Isaiah Berlin and Francis Wheen state otherwise;

(c) it is claimed that Lenin does not refer to terror in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky and other works/statements despite the fact that Robert Service, IET, and other scholarly and reliable sources state that he does;

(d) it is claimed that the Russian word ‘’strakh’’ does not mean “terror” when:

i. the Oxford Russian Dictionary says that it does;

ii. it is evident from the context that this is the case;

iii. any educated Russian speaker can confirm that strakh may mean “terror” depending on the context;

(e) it is claimed that Marxism is “scientific” when in fact:

i. Marx was not a scientist;

ii. Marx’s background was philosophy and law, not science;

iii. Marxism is not recognized as a science by the academic world;

iv. virtually every one of Marx’s predictions turned out to be wrong, as became increasingly apparent during his lifetime and incontrovertibly so after his death (R. Pipes, Communism: A Brief History, 2001, p. 15) from which it follows that Marxism does not qualify as a scientific system by any accepted standards;

v. the evidence indicates that Marxism is closer to a religious sect than to science proper;

(f) apologist literature is being quoted in a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;

(g) it is claimed that Marxist terrorism is not rooted in the Marxist theory of class struggle even though there are numerous sources showing that it is (please note that it is immaterial whether terrorism had already been justified in terms of a theory of class prior to Marx, the point being that it was advocated/practiced on the basis of Marxist class-struggle theories BY MARXISTS):

“Karl Marx felt that terror was a necessary part of a revolutionary strategy” (Peter Galvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, IET, p. 138);

“Revolutionary terrorism has its roots in a political ideology, from the Marxist-Leninist thinking of the Left, to the fascists found on the Right” (Noemi Gal-Or, ""Revolutionary Terrorism"", IET, p. 203);

“… perhaps the most important key to Stalin’s motivation lies in the realm of ideology. The leitmotif of Soviet communist ideology in the 1920s and 1930s was class struggle – the inbuilt antagonism between mutually incompatible economic interest groups” (Geoffrey Robert, Stalins Wars, 2006, pp. 17-18);

this fact is supported not only by reliable academic sources, but by elementary logic: 

“In 1907 Mehring published in the magazine ‘’Neue Zeit (Vol. XXV 2, p. 164) extracts from a letter by Marx to Weydemeyer dated March 5, 1852. In this letter, among other things, is the following noteworthy observation: … class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat …”