So you find that a right-wing and left wing unreliable source agree and assume they must both be correct.  There has been considerable study of Marx and there is no reason that we need to use popular books as sources.  The only reason one would use them is that they contain claims that have not been accepted by mainstream historians.  Also, they lead us into discussions about what really happened which is a misuse of other editors' time.  We have an unsubstantiated claim by Jenny Marx made years after the event that her husband provided money for workers to buy weapons.  We do not by the way have any reliable sources that these workers obtained or used weapons in Belgium in 1848.  Reliable sources state that the French government supplied unemployed Belgian workers with weapons in Paris and these workers then returned to Belgium in an attempt to overthrow the government.  We know that Marx was arrested on suspicion of carrying arms and was ejected from the country, but in fact the accusation was false.  The types of additional sources that Martintg has provided are unreliable.  Boris Nicolaevsky for example was a communist activist (writing in 1933), not a mainstream historian.  Wheen and Muravchick are neoconservatives writing outside the academic mainstream.  We just do not know what Marx did with the 6,000 francs he received.