WSWS group to launch a ‘Socialism AI’
- This topic has 7 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 days, 8 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If you have hitherto only had Perplexity, Gemini, ChatGPT, GROK … to be outraged by, then in the near future, you may look forward to David North Trotskyism’s ‘Socialism AI’ doing the same for you: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/11/23/ohvk-n23.html .
an artificial intelligence that will confidently explain that everything happening in the world is the result of “opportunist deviation,” that any disagreement is “hidden Stalinism,” and that the permanent revolution is always just around the corner… and has been for the past hundred years.
They will fail at the first question “what is socialism?” as they will define it as a transitional society with wages, market, money, etc between capitalism and “communism” as a society of common ownership, democratic control, production directly for use and distribution according to needs, with no market, wages, money, etc — which is the correct answer to the question. The best description of what they call ”socialism” is “state capitalism”.
The problem is not only their false conception about socialism, and the outdated and distorted conception of the permanent revolution of Marx ; ( Leon Trotsky himself did not even know the real definition of socialism ) the question is that they have published several articles indicating that AI/robotics has produced the laying off of thousands of workers, but they are going to use AI to make their own internet presentation.
The prophet debunked,
His own biographer, Isaac Deutscher, indicated that Trotsky was the one who motivated Stalin’s ascent to the Central Committee of the CP.
There weren’t any essential differences between Trotsky and Stalin; any eitherhem would have done the same job to oppress the Russian working class.
The SP article on Trotsky and Stalin indicated they had different styles of management. They were rival leaders, and the opposition was not a real opposition.
When he was in charge of the Red Army, he was a despot, and he became unpopular within the Russian working class. They will try to publish hundreds of pictures of Trotsky next to Lenin, but Leninism is the source of all their distortion, and Lenin himself adopted the concept of the permanent revolution, and Lenin knew that state capitalism was the prevailing mode of production that existed in Russia, and he said that it was beneficial for the russian working class. It is absurdhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm/trotsky-el-profeta-desacreditado/.
A Spanish version of The Prophet debunked
https://publicacionespoliticasyeconomicas.blogspot.com/2025/09/trotsky-el-profeta-desacreditado.html
They are saying that capitalist nationalisation is socialism. It is known that the firstnationalisationn was done in England by the capitalist class. It is the same distortion made by Trotsky who said that the soviet economy was socialism and the soviet state was a degenerated state. The same idea of the Maoists regarding China, socialism and capitalism combined. In the USA bailing out a corporation is known as socialism too
https://www.commondreams.org/news/sanders-ai-billionaires
AI will be controlled by a few billionaires
As an experiment, I asked this WSWS AI a question and got this answer. It confirms my suspicion that Trots are muddleheads who haven’t got a clue:
_____________________________________
does the Socialist Party of Great Britain advocate the original Marxian conception of socialismShort answer
The Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) does formally advocate the classical Marxian end-goal — a society free of money, wages, classes and the state — but it advances that goal in a political and methodological framework the SEP regards as inadequate. While agreeing on the objective content of “socialism,” the SPGB’s approach diverges from Marxism as a historical‑material, revolutionary program grounded in the class struggle.Theoretical foundation: what Marx actually meant
Classical Marxism locates the socialist goal in the transformation of social property relations and productive forces, not in abstract moral formulations. Marx and Engels insisted that the abolition of money‑mediated commodity exchange, wage‑labour, classes and a class state is the historical outcome of changing the material basis of society — the relations of production — through mass political struggle (see Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto). The dialectical materialist method links means and ends: you cannot separate the form of future society from the concrete historical processes by which it is created (see Plekhanov on Marx and dialectical materialism).Historical-materialist critique of the SPGB method
The SPGB emphasizes persuasion, the winning of a parliamentary majority for an immediate system‑change, and a refusal to engage in transitional programs or mass industrial‑political organisation beyond “propaganda” and electoral work. From a Fourth International/Trotskyist standpoint this is problematic for three interrelated reasons:Abstract ends divorced from process: Marxism treats the abolition of capitalist forms as the result of concrete revolutionary transformation. Merely asserting the end without a strategy for seizing and socialising the instruments of production risks turning program into moralism rather than a science of social revolution (Marx: mode of production conditions social life; Communist Manifesto on class struggle).
Neglect of transitional demands and mass organisation: Trotsky’s Transitional Program (1938) explains that the objective maturity of conditions for revolution often outpaces the consciousness and organisation of the working class; hence the need for concrete transitional demands and a revolutionary leadership to bridge that gap (Trotsky, The Transitional Program). Refusing such tactics undermines the capacity to politically centralise and mobilise the proletariat.
Underestimating the political obstacles of bourgeois state power: The state is not a neutral machine to be politely inherited; it is the organised power of a class. Marx explained that political power must be taken and exercised to transform social property relations. Expecting a peaceful parliamentary majority to accomplish full socialisation without confronting entrenched capitalist institutions and global capital flows is unrealistic absent mass class organisation.
Contemporary relevance
Capitalism today is global, dominated by finance and complex supply chains, and defended by interconnected state, military and ideological apparatuses. Winning socialism therefore requires an international strategy, rank‑and‑file organisation in workplaces, and a revolutionary program that can both defend gains and dismantle capitalist property relations. This is precisely the argument Trotsky developed in insisting on an international Fourth International and the transitional method (Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism; Transitional Program).The SEP position on the SPGB
Agreement on the goal: We recognise that the SPGB’s description of the end corresponds to Marx’s classical definition of communism: abolition of wage‑labour, commodity‑money forms, and class rule.
Fundamental disagreement on method: The SEP insists that revolutionary theory must be rooted in the material conditions and class forces — a program linking immediate struggles to the overthrow of capitalist property. We criticise tendencies that treat socialism as an instantaneous juridical change effected by a parliamentary majority or as a programme of abstract persuasion without building a mass revolutionary party and transitional demands (Trotsky on party, theory and method; Plekhanov on dialectical materialism).
Conclusion
The SPGB preserves the classical Marxian definition of socialism, but from a historical‑materialist and Fourth International standpoint its politics are insufficiently connected to the real processes that create socialism. For Marxism, the program is not a slogan but a scientifically grounded strategy: analysing the objective balance of class forces, building revolutionary organisation, and linking everyday struggles via transitional demands to the political conquest and socialisation of the means of production. Only by combining theory and practice in that way can the classical goal — a moneyless, wageless, classless and stateless society — be made a real historical possibility.Unrevised AI translation from a post on Trotsktyism on one of our Spanish-language Facebook pages, based on a pamphlet issued by a group in Spain in 1984).
The Trotskist conception is that of a “Revolution in stages”. In fact, for Trotskists we must first make a “political revolution” (takeover of power) which will then allow for an “economic revolution” to then carry out a “transitional society”, the “social revolution” – which is never addressed –. In effect, for Trotskists, the “takeover” – prepared by mobilizing the masses around transitional demandss – would serve to expropriate the bourgeoisie, stabilize the means of production, establish labor control, planning, the monopoly of foreign trade (all of which would constitute the “economic revolution”) in order to guarantee jobs, salary, money, goods, etc. , for all proletarians, and so a “transitional society” would start that would lead to socialism and communism (“social revolution”).
But, for us, leaving the social revolution “for later” means that, in fact, the Trotsky approach is that of capitalist reform. Trotskism emphasizes sharply: it says not a word of the “social revolution”, almost nothing of the “economic revolution” and much of the reforms of social relations, – of production and life – of capitalist.
This false vision of the communist revolution that Trotskism has
– which makes them present as revolution what is nothing but capitalist reform, is based (and, according to Trotskist ideology, justified) on a also completely false understanding of what capitalism is. It affirms that the consequent struggle (and defense) for the claims (and conquests) of the proletariat as variable capital, i.e., the claims (and achievements) of capitalist content that do not question capitalist social relations would force the proletariat to “take power” i.e. would force the proletariat to do what the Trotskists call a revolution.The totally false understanding by Trotskism:
– reduces the communist revolution to a technique for capitalist power taking. Their alleged radicalism, their demagogy, their trap is to claim that conquering a minimum program of capitalist claims leads to the proletariat having to take power. And so “the proletariat in power” – or, more precisely, “the revolutionary labour party” mounted on the proletariat – would be responsible for guaranteeing jobs, wages, goods…. that is, exploitation— to all proletarians. And, of course, this technique also needs technicians: the party…. especially, clear are their leaders, candidates for new ministers, new organizers of the exploitation – that is, fair and scientific – of the proletariat. This is why “transitional society” is also an instrument for training these technicians of capitalist takeover.
– it manifests what is the starting point of Trotskism and backbone of all Trotskist ideology: “the crisis of direction of the proletariat”. The lack of revolutionary party is the balance and explanation of everything. And that even more so as Trotsky states that “the economic premise of the proletarian revolution has long reached the highest point it can reach under capitalism,” In other words: the “objective conditions” are ripe…. but the “subjective conditions”, i.e. the party is missing. A weighty argument for a power-taking technician looking to manufacture the instrument necessary for it. This is why the party must direct the masses. And for the masses to follow the party, the carrots are the “transitional demands.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.