Research talk:X4mer/MovementsBetrayed01 - Revision history

Reversedragon: The way Hegel applies to Communist revolution is that fine-grained forms of social structure are the thing that wins

2026-05-26T19:57:05Z

The way Hegel applies to Communist revolution is that fine-grained forms of social structure are the thing that wins

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 26 May 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Two movements taking immediate action together does not mean they care about each other (Trotskyism onto existential materialism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q42,11}})		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|Q=86\|Q2=86\|h4 = existential materialism }} / exmat / ({{9k\|RD/Q86}})

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Two movements taking immediate action together does not mean they care about each other (Trotskyism onto existential materialism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q42,11}})

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 35:		Line 37:
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">

	* The Revolution Betrayed [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/revolution-betrayed/introduction-david-north.html]		{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{book\|The Revolution Betrayed}} [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/revolution-betrayed/introduction-david-north.html]
	* "Stalinism and Bolshevism" (1937)
			{{li\|I=Z1/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{article\|Stalinism and Bolshevism}} (1937)

	{{li~~\|start=y~~\|I=S2/ML/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}[[E:Q4002\|Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism]] / Stalin's "Marxism" wasn't Marxism / Stalinists were not a Marxist party / Stalinists were not assembled around a Marxist theory		{{li\|I=S2/ML/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= [[E:Q4002\|Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism]] }} / Stalin's "Marxism" wasn't Marxism / Stalinists were not a Marxist party / Stalinists were not assembled around a Marxist theory

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The party is not the repository of class interests, but the instrument of class interests [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/ch02.htm]		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The party is not the repository of class interests, but the instrument of class interests [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/ch02.htm]

			{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The central party is not correct {{em\|because}} it wins; Marxists and labor movements <!-- labour movements --> push for parties with programs that will be correct in the future to win before they have won

			{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}A Liberal-republican party is not a competing Marxism; this includes early 1900s Mensheviks when they functioned as a Liberal-republican party, or so-called Eurocommunists

			{{li\|I=M3/IV\|tradition=ML, IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= Where's the class analysis? }} / Why didn't you use class analysis? -> another 'greatest hit' of Materialism, after "Why is your hypothesis wrong" and "Why isn't your theory forbidden"

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Subjective themes (zero AI) ==		== Subjective themes (zero AI) ==
	~~<!--~~
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">
	</li></ol~~> --~~>
			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The Hegelian dialectic involves fine-grained forms of social structure winning / The way that Hegel applies to Communist revolution is that fine-grained forms of social structure are in general the thing that wins, not the vanguard party itself; a sheer series of small islands with "blue" structure or a sheer network of people with "red" structure is what overcomes other Social-Philosophical Systems if and when two "competing Marxist movements" fight each other and resolve into a single central party; this is to imply that central parties really are just an artifact of the activities of the overall movement

			</li></ol>

	== Usage notes ==		== Usage notes ==
	* You are allowed to post ~~ChatGPT~~ <strong>prompts</strong> as nickels (the part you wrote), as long as they stay in the <code>Research talk</code> namespace and there are no quotes from response text. ~~Describing~~ abstract propositions that turn up inside response text is fine.		* You are allowed to post LLM <strong>prompts</strong> as nickels (the part you wrote), as long as they stay in the <code>Research talk</code> namespace and there are no direct quotes from response text. Concisely describing abstract propositions that turn up several times inside response text is fine.

Reversedragon: The party is not the repository of class interests, but the instrument of class interests

2026-05-26T19:26:43Z

The party is not the repository of class interests, but the instrument of class interests

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, 26 May 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	== Motifs or claims from response ==		== Motifs or claims from response ==
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">

			* The Revolution Betrayed [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/revolution-betrayed/introduction-david-north.html]
			* "Stalinism and Bolshevism" (1937)

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}[[E:Q4002\|Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism]] / Stalin's "Marxism" wasn't Marxism / Stalinists were not a Marxist party / Stalinists were not assembled around a Marxist theory		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}[[E:Q4002\|Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism]] / Stalin's "Marxism" wasn't Marxism / Stalinists were not a Marxist party / Stalinists were not assembled around a Marxist theory

			{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The party is not the repository of class interests, but the instrument of class interests [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/ch02.htm]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism

2026-05-26T19:06:36Z

Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 26 May 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	== Motifs or claims from response ==		== Motifs or claims from response ==
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">
	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618}}~~(to be added)~~
			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML/IV\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}[[E:Q4002\|Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism]] / Stalin's "Marxism" wasn't Marxism / Stalinists were not a Marxist party / Stalinists were not assembled around a Marxist theory

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: copy markup from trans4mer page

2026-05-26T18:23:43Z

copy markup from trans4mer page

New page

{{NickelBank/x4mer| revolutions and betrayals 
|nickel = MovementsBetrayed01 |Contents=y}}
{{HueCSS}}{{Contents}}
<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueRoster|P=engine| {{E:Q46,02|ai.wsws.org}} }} 
{{HueRoster|EP=P34| {{E:Q41,04}} | {{E:Q46,02}} }} 
</dl>

=== Links ===
* Thread ID (for search purposes): {{TTS|html=code|tts=640...4 (see page source)|640c3fa9-6b68-404f-b4bd-2d4f1618cd04}}

=== Nickel usage or significance ===
* (add later)

== Prompt ==
<blockquote>
Trotskyists have a general guideline applying to either movement strategy or modeling movement behavior that when movements take action together they "take action together" separately. As a descriptive model, this has been applied to China and the Kuomintang, reminding people that the KMT was never to be trusted in that acting together with the Communists did not mean it intended to continue to cooperate with the Communists or spare the Communists. As a prescriptive model, this has been applied to say that Trotskyist parties can demonstrate along with other movements that are not Marxist to achieve short-term goals, and it does not mean that Trotskyists are going to change into anarchism or into a Stalinist party.<br/>
The prescriptive model and descriptive model meld together well such that "movements demonstrate together separately" can in effect function as a descriptive model of how other movements can predict Trotskyism to behave (at least at particular points in time, in particular situations).

This leaves open the question: if Trotskyists take "movements demonstrate together separately" to be part of Leninism in general and how Leninism in general describes proletarian revolution, then why were the Trotskyists of the 1930s surprised when Stalin-followers separated from them and continued to carry out a conflicting program afterward, "betraying the revolution"? Haven't Trotskyists established that this is just the way all Marxist movements behave, demonstrating together with other movements but then separating from those movements and trying to exclusively realize their own goals? If it were the case that the Soviet Union between 1900 and 1936 in fact had two Marxist movements — whether those movements successfully got all the way to forming parties or a functioning dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, or not — then wouldn't it be the expected trajectory of events for each of those two movements to assume it is the only valid Marxist movement and for both of them to fight for exclusive control of the Soviet Union and try to eliminate the other? This would not be rational behavior on the part of party leadership as people, but at the same time it would be the expected material consequence of the parties existing as interacting material objects with internal behavior that causes them to disregard each other.

Is it really true that Marxist movements have no interest outside the interests of the workers if there will always be a moment within the process of revolution when Marxist parties must fight any other movement attempting to become a central party up to and including each other? If every Marxist party is a material object inasmuch as it and all its connected allies are a finite group of people, then it would seem every Marxist party has an inherent interest of bringing itself into reality in the specific shape it predicts its population and possibly other populations to form, which cannot be resolved by appealing to two Marxist parties both attempting to lead workers, and can only be resolved by reconciling the two future arrangements of people associated with two different parties until the "physics" of those two superimposed arrangements somehow collapses into just one; the programs of two Marxist parties would be in a superposition, and the highest interest of the two parties that most strongly directs their behavior would be predicting reality and theoretically or actually collapsing the superposition. (Here I would be comparing the Hegelian dialectic to quantum physics, and the way the principle of least action shows the way several different possible ways to achieve something in physics generally collapse into the simplest path to the future and not into other unnecessarily complicated material explanations.)
</blockquote>

== Motifs or claims in prompt ==
<ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Two movements taking immediate action together does not mean they care about each other (Trotskyism onto existential materialism) / ({{9k|RD/Q42,11}})

</li></ol>

== Motifs or claims from response ==
<ol class="hue clean reset">
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}(to be added)
</li></ol>

== Subjective themes (zero AI) ==


== Usage notes ==
* You are allowed to post ChatGPT <strong>prompts</strong> as nickels (the part you wrote), as long as they stay in the <code>Research talk</code> namespace and there are no quotes from response text. Describing abstract propositions that turn up inside response text is fine.

[[Category:Nickel links (NickelBank)]]