Research talk:x4mer/MovementsBetrayed01
- engine
-
/ ai.wsws.org (Q46,02)1
-1-1 - field, scope, or group [Item]
Links
- Thread ID (for search purposes):
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 (no AI)
existential materialism
/ exmat / (9k)- March separately, strike together / March separately, act together
- Two movements taking immediate action together does not mean they care about each other (Trotskyism onto existential materialism) / (9k)
Motifs or claims from response
- The Revolution Betrayed [1] [2]
- Stalinism and Bolshevism (1937) [3]
- 27 Reasons Why the International Committee Should Be Buried Forthwith and the Fourth International Built (Banda 1986) [4] [5] / (9k)
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- Trotsky had a predictive theory of Stalin's Marxism / The Left Opposition was formed in 1923 because Trotsky predicted what would happen later; this is to imply he knew better ways to build a functioning Marxist party; this is to imply he knew how to actually counter the rise of The Stalinists [6] -> there is one thing I can say for this. Trotskyists technically know to some extent what violet Marxism is. they think it should be used to tear apart other Marxisms assuming they aren't Marxism. but if you ask them to merely describe how Stalin's Marxism functioned and why it supposedly fell apart starting in its early stages, they will definitely try.
- The party is not the repository of class interests, but the instrument of class interests [7] / substitutionism (argument against; generic)
- 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
- 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
- Trotskyism is molecularized at the international scale / Trotskyism is not about preserving the Communist International, but actively regenerating a Communist International at any time in any place from correct understandings; Trotskyism is a molecularized model of Communist Internationals in which the relativity process within history is taken into account and thus any group of parties with correct understandings of historical materialism can snap together and become the Communist International (ICFI) / (9k)
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"- Trotsky caught the problem of substitutionism in 1904 before Lenin offered an improved model of how a Marxist party should function, therefore, in 1904 Trotsky's statement and Lenin's statement were both part of Leninism
Subjective themes (no AI)
- 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
- March separately, colonize together / "March separately, act together" applies to empires -> this honestly explains a lot. I really had no good explanation for "why" imperialist countries really love to form temporary Filament-axes to squash some particular enemy and then refuse to operate together. but, wow.... this is only making me more convinced there actually was something to the idea in my prompt
Usage notes
- You are allowed to post LLM prompts as nickels (the part you wrote), as long as they stay in the
Research talknamespace and there are no direct quotes from response text. Concisely describing abstract propositions that turn up several times inside response text is fine. - It's recommended you include all of the AI's "references", such that each prompt becomes a sort of 'combination nickel'. If any of the pages referenced are already nickels, you should link the nickel page.