[Akis Karatzogiannis]

The writer is dead! Otherwise I would have done it from the very beginning.

Of course I won't misuse the Engels' quote - I don't even think that I'll use it at all. It helps me though to understand some things.

[Crantag]

The writer is dead! Otherwise I would have done it from the very beginning.

Of course I won't misuse the Engels' quote - I don't even think that I'll use it at all. It helps me though to understand some things.

Well, that changes things.

I've accidentally been sure I read something from someone, and was wrong about it.

It can even infest your mind, and lead to errors.

I've never caught myself putting some attribution out which I had to retract, but I've had the case where I thought I was on to something based on what I had thought someone said, and had to pull back based on re-confirming it.

It's possible Marx said it, but I am also one to doubt it. But, your research activity makes more sense in this light.

I brought up the possibility of an opponent saying it, and mentioned Proudhon, because, in modern parlance, Proudhon kind of came off as a winy bitch.

But, that was after Marx obliterated and embarrassed him, so perhaps it was human of him.

They didn't have internets back then. Instead, they wrote books and lengthy letters.

Good luck with your research.

It's a worthwhile search, but if you can't confirm it, you might need to just delete it, as you know.

[Akis Karatzogiannis]

You're perfectly right. It happens sometimes, that's why I'm suspicious. I know that I might need to delete it, or at least put a footnote that it is an unconfirmed quote.

I doubt that Proudhon said it, because, as far as I know, the writer was familiar with Proudhon's work and was appreciating him as a thinker, as well as Marx, so I don't think he would make such a mistake.

Thank you anyhow!

[Crantag]

You're perfectly right. It happens sometimes, that's why I'm suspicious. I know that I might need to delete it, or at least put a footnote that it is an unconfirmed quote.

I doubt that Proudhon said it, because, as far as I know, the writer was familiar with Proudhon's work and was appreciating him as a thinker, as well as Marx, so I don't think he would make such a mistake.

Thank you anyhow!

I don't think it was Proudhon either, just picked the name out of the air. There are a number of people that could have, including the German mentioned earlier. Even Bukahrin.

[Drlee]

Wouldn't it be wise to strike and replace any quote that could not be confirmed? Surely there is something else that might support the author's idea and if there is not his position is likely just wrong. This phrase strikes me as a "zinger" anyway. Not much place in a serious work for them.

[Akis Karatzogiannis]

Well, yes, but then again, is it right to change the text if I'm not certain? After all, the quote may be real. That's why I search!

[ingliz]

After all, the quote may be real. That's why I search!

The quote is not real in the sense that Marx did not say those words.

[ThirdTerm]

“No real social change has ever been
brought about without a revolution.”
― Emma Goldman

"No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the purposes to be achieved."

- Emma Goldman
My Further Disillusionment in Russia
(1924)

Probably the quote was wrongly attributed to Marx. Emma Goldman was an anarchist political activist.


Bukharin's following quote is a better match. This quote may have been paraphrased.

“A revolution cannot be accomplished without terror, disorganization, and even wanton destruction, any more than an omelette can be made without breaking the eggs.”

- Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin

[Akis Karatzogiannis]

The quote is not real in the sense that Marx did not say those words.

Are you sure?

[Akis Karatzogiannis]

“No real social change has ever been
brought about without a revolution.”
― Emma Goldman

Probably the quote was wrongly attributed to Marx. Emma Goldman was an anarchist political activist.

I don't understand. That quote is completely different from the one I'm interested.

[Godstud]

To put it succinctly, Marx never said that. He was very much against anarchists.

[Akis Karatzogiannis]

But how can you be so certain? I have already written that the writer quotes this phrase as a paradox. He surely knew that Marx was against anarchists!

Anyway, I sincerely thank you all for your help. I truly appreciate it.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

There appears to be no evidence Marx said it, even if the situation was him supposedly defending anarchists. You can't confirm it, and none of us have ever heard of Marx having said that. A bunch of people on this forum are well-read on Marx.

At the very least you need to clearly note the quote is apparently apocryphal, or reword the context around the quote as, "A story goes that Marx..."

[Crantag]

I'd axe the 'quote' completely. Yeah, it's right. Unless you can actually confirm it, which I don't think you can. It's right because that's what an editor is for. More precisely, your responsible to the readers. Responsibility to the writers is secondary; in the case of a true editor (i.e. as opposed to a hired proof reader).

Publishing such a spurious quote would threaten to damage your credibility in the minds of most readers; and to perhaps perpetuate a myth in the minds of some others.

[ingliz]

how can you be so certain?

More quotes.

Marx criticized, and criticized viciously, every anarchist with whom he came into theoretical or practical contact. All of Marx's objections reveal a method of social and political analysis that was fundamentally at variance with the anarchist's approach.

Karl Marx and the Anarchists
By Paul Thomas

Example:

Mr Bakunin's innermost thoughts emerge. He understands absolutely nothing about the social revolution, only its political phrases. Its economic conditions do not exist for him. As all hitherto existing economic forms, developed or undeveloped, involve the enslavement of the worker (whether in the form of wage-labourer, peasant etc.), he believes that a radical revolution is possible in all such forms alike. Still more! He wants the European social revolution, premised on the economic basis of capitalist production, to take place at the level of the Russian or Slavic agricultural and pastoral peoples, not to surpass this level [...] The will, and not the economic conditions, is the foundation of his social revolution.

Marx (1874) Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy

.............

"There cannot be a revolution without anarchists"

The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is not a labour parliament and not an organ of proletarian self-government, nor an organ of self-government at all, but a fighting organisation for the achievement of definite aims... In an alliance of this sort, the anarchists will not be an asset, but a liability; they will merely bring disorganisation and thus weaken the force of the joint assault.

Lenin, Socialism and Anarchism (1905)

My emphasis.

[Crantag]

Of topic, but I wonder if the quote above on Anarchists as a liability informed the thinking of the PUOM when they decided to turn their rifles on their anarchist allies in Barcelona.

[ingliz]

PUOM

No.

The "quote" had nothing to do with it. The POUM were Trotskyites. Effectively, counter-revolutionaries who turned their coats, and 'aided' the fascists, because fascism was more palatable to them than Stalinism.

[Crantag]

No.

The "quote" had nothing to do with it. The POUM were Trotskyites. Effectively, counter-revolutionaries who turned their coats, and 'aided' the fascists, because fascism was more palatable to them than Stalinism.

It was just a random thought; just something that occurred to me. Certainly wasn't saying it as though I had any special knowledge of the matter. I've read Homage to Catalonia, and a couple things online, but am not so well studied on the Spanish Civil War.

I respect your viewpoint.

I hadn't understood the POUM as Trotskyites. A cursory glance at some online material shows the situation to have been rather convoluted, but includes some evidence of what you mentioned, so I can concede that you likely have it right. Your viewpoint comes off as a little cynical--which I don't mean pejoratively; perhaps more properly it is frank--but it is insightful. I have no problem accepting your view of the matter.

[Drlee]

Crantag is right. You should strike any quote you cannot confirm. But I would go further.

Concerning Drlee's answer, I don't think that this phrase is a quip. In any case, the writer who attributes this quote clearly does not consider it a quip.

(First I readily admit that I spend practically no time editing my posts here for grammar. It takes the fun out of posting for me. That said.)

You are a book editor. Having been 'edited' many times I believe my editors to be of the opinion that they were not there only as fact-checkers but also to make my piece as effective and readable as possible. For example, you are checking grammar, are you not? No split infinitives or errors of voice will get past you, will they?

We have not found a source for this so-called quote. You are responsible for that, not him. IF Marx said anything like this (and he probably didn't...witness his established dislike of anarchists) then this quote is, at best, a paring down of a much more developed idea. So much so that an editor would be careful lest the author is taking something out of context entirely. The only way to know is to have the entire quote in front of you.

Sometimes an author wants to make a point but does not want to attribute it to him/herself. The "it has been said" device can acceptably be used to do it. In this case, unless the author is specifically discussing Marx and his relationship with anarchists it seems the only reason to use this "quote" is to borrow some of Marx' credibility or innate gravitas. So of the quote was changed to "it has been said, there can be no revolution without anarchists......." what is lost?

Looking back I note that you said , "I also forgot to mention that the writer says that Marx said this phrase to some socialists who had negative attitude against Intern's anarchists. Excuse me!"

This seems to me to be the key. Here the author seems to be using the quote as evidence of a particular attitude Marx held in a specific situation. As an editor you can't allow an evidential quote to stand unproved. To do so is to allow your charge to place his entire thesis in jeopardy. No editor should do that.

So whether this is a quip or a strong piece of evidence you, the editor, cannot allow it to stand. You have to strike it or call upon the author to replace it with something verifiable.

That is what editors do.

[Akis Karatzogiannis]

I thank you all again for your answers and your concern! (Drlee is also giving me the chance to declare that I'm not a native english speaker, so I beg you to forgive my probable mistakes or inadequate verbiages. My english knowledge is based mainly on books of the past century and movies. I hope that you hadn't understood it so far! I'm Greek, by the way.)

Answering your question, Drlee, on my work as a writer, I do check everything, excatly as you say. I also remind you (or I merely inform you, in case you haven't read all of my posts) that the writer is dead, so I cannot tell him to replace the quote. The book will be published posthumously, based on writer's transcriptions.

To return on our issue. I don't think that one should remove a quote that one cannot confirm, especially in such case, for Marx' work is vast, and it is extremely hard to find whether or not Marx said this phrase. Neverthless I think that I finally will remove it, because the text where the quote lies has nothing to do with Marx and communism etc., therefore the whole passage is not "vital". It is a footnote, actually! (That's why I wouldn't want to put a footnote. I don't really like the footnote-on-footnote thing.)