Research talk:X4mer/MovementsBetrayed01

engine

Z–46,02 (pronounced 46,02. (Z))⧼hue-philosophy-/en⧽ (pronounced ⧼hue-philosophy-tts-/en⧽) (pronounced ⧼hue-philosophy-tts-/en⧽)  /  (4602)ai.wsws.org (Q46,02)1:-1:-1

field, scope, or group [Item]

Z–41,04 (pronounced 41,04. (Z))[IV] [Z] (pronounced (Fourth) (Z):) IV (pronounced Fourth)  /  (4104)Trotskyism (top-level category)() (pronounced Fourth)1:-1:-1

Z–46,02 (pronounced 46,02. (Z))⧼hue-philosophy-/en⧽ (pronounced ⧼hue-philosophy-tts-/en⧽) (pronounced ⧼hue-philosophy-tts-/en⧽)  /  (4602)International Committee (Q46,02)1:-1:-1

Links

• Thread ID (for search purposes): 640c3fa9-6b68-404f-b4bd-2d4f1618cd04 (pronounced 640...4 (see page source))

Nickel usage or significance

• (add later)

Prompt

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.
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.)

Motifs or claims in prompt

86. Q86/Q86

    existential materialism

    / exmat / (9k)
618. Q618/Q618 Two movements taking immediate action together does not mean they care about each other (Trotskyism onto existential materialism) / (9k)

Motifs or claims from response

618. Q618/Q618 The Revolution Betrayed [1]
618. Q618/Q618 Stalinism and Bolshevism (1937)
618. Q618/Q618

     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
618. Q618/Q618 The party is not the repository of class interests, but the instrument of class interests [2]
618. Q618/Q618 The central party is not correct because it wins; Marxists and labor movements push for parties with programs that will be correct in the future to win before they have won
618. Q618/Q618 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
618. Q618/Q618

     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"

Subjective themes (zero AI)

618. Q618/Q618 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

Usage notes

• You are allowed to post LLM prompts as nickels (the part you wrote), as long as they stay in the Research talk namespace and there are no direct quotes from response text. Concisely describing abstract propositions that turn up several times inside response text is fine.