A Summary of a Summary; Criticisms of Liberalism, Anti-Culture, Vanguardism, and Anti-Philosophicalism

2 October 2025.

Notice: This article is a truncation by rewriting of the larger article by a similar name (read here). Whilst this rewriting may be more concise and comprehensible, I encourage the reader, if any section in this article proves of interest, to read the equivalent section in that larger article. Some important, contextual, or merely interesting pieces may be excised or simplified beyond recognition in this article, to maintain digestible thrift.

Note on Terminology: left-liberal is broader than social liberal, which refers to the strand of liberalism closest to social democracy, the former also including US Progressivism, liberal-identitarianism, and Woke-Stalinism (actually Woke-Yezhovism; that name is a bit of a misnomer) along-side it. Right-liberal and classical liberal are used in much the same manner. Conservative always refers to anti-burgher tendencies, whether feudal, noble, faithful, or some kind of post-liberal, thus are against both 'wings' of liberalism. Capital L Liberal refers to the American anti-intellectual splinter from social liberalism (then 'Prohibitionism'), also called 'Progressivism'. Lower-case 'p' progressive means positive historicism.

Note on Links: due to the amount of links (to enhance brevity), the customary 'here' and 'read here' are not given. The pertinent words will serve as the hyper-link. Any under-lined blue words are links, click them for further reference. I may add a 'Brief Review on Linked Topics and Personalities' as an appendix, for expedient context on their importance to the article.

Contents

---

I. Two Crises Converge

II. Bigger than the Hegel Controversy

III. Lenin's Gravest Error; High Culture Replaced by High-Handed Vanguardism.

IV. A Brief Lament on the Loss of Reading, and a Warning about the 'Resistible Rise' of Fascism

V. Four Nosts and Stroikas to Fix the Problem

Appendices

I. J O Martov; Testament on the Leader of the Bolsheviks

II. UCCCP State Structure Proposal Chart

I. Two Crises Converge

We are at the juncture of a potentially dangerous advent, with a growing impasse becoming the more apparent. The DNC(P) Democrats, embracing a new ideological mixture 'of the new type', formerly Leninist elements, which I call Liberal vanguardism and Woke-Stalinism, have begun to split with and shun their erstwhile comrades, now ,,those Red-fascist scum'' on the Cultivist and Menshevik Left. How did we get to this farcical repetition of the Menshevik-Bolshevik split, and does this mean we are now on the inevitable road to the Ban on Factions and thereafter the Great Terror-Purge? That is the question which concerns this article.

At the same time, this article cannot seriously treat that question without addressing the reasons for the alarming impotence of the Left. On that crisis, the fundamental, ideology-level crisis of Marxism, we will discuss how one half of comrades can nay longer find their way out of dogma, and the other half are so poorly learned as to not be able to formulate the very first elements of a rigourously Marxist dogma (doctrine/theory) to begin with.

These latter comrades, having nay theories of their own retreat into liberal political theory, philosophical foundations, political-economy (or vulgar 'economic' as the liberals name it), and ultimately liberal conformative-ideophobic tyranny (tribalism, or identitarianism) and cultural degeneracy, all in this specific order, usually. Viewing Marxism through a badly refracting lens, they develop, as stated, a theory of liberal vanguardism, identitarian tribe analysis, and practise Woke-Stalinism (Woke-Yezhovism).

They end up adding cultural degeneracy as the substitution for constructing socialism. Once everything in society is cheap, mass, easy, and ugly, everything will have equality, thus the liberal's twisted interpretation of the design of socialism. There is even a liberal vulgar economic principle which this reflects, called ceteris paribus: 'all things being equal' (in whatever market variable/evaluation).

II. Bigger Than the Hegel Controversy

The problem, whilst perhaps contributed to by them, for the moment goes beyond my disagreements with the Hegelians in this ideology-level, all-Marxist crisis we both face.

To recapitulate briefly, I agree with the likes of Lucio Colletti, Louis Althusser, and Glenn Magee, that firstly, Hegel is not as absolutely essential for nor tied to Marx as the Hegelians, and Marx and Lenin themselves, have ever been suggesting, and secondly, that Hegel, or Hegelianism, inspires hyper-dogmatic, quasi-religious (Hermetic or Gnostic: mystic/encoded or secret ,,knowledge'' for ,,superior'' ideology/theology) secular zealots of its adherents, which are poor material for shaping into proper Marxist cadres. This tribal Blanquism, perhaps implicit though forcefully restrained in Lenin, becomes encouraged by Hegelians, leading quickly into Woke-Stalinism and vanguardist intolerance.

Much of this is informed by my experience with nominally Hegelian Leftists, and with my albeit limited reading of Hegel himself, and this latter reading of his works most informs my analysis of Hegelian acceptance, even approval, of tyranny (such as Cancel-Purging ,,wrong ideas'' which do not align with the progressive truth of the 'world-spirit'). This acceptance is regardless to Hegel, who at the very least did not stoop to the creation of a vanguardist organisation and ideology to follow his every syllable as a sole syllabus, meaning his 'followers' to-day may be as close or as far to him as they wish to be, though still professing themselves to be arch-Hegelians.

III. Lenin's Gravest Error: High Culture Replaced by

High-Handed Vanguardism

Marxists Menshevik and Bolshevik have hitherto tried to cultivate society; the point, however, is to deconstruct it through purges and terror (mostly the former these days).

Many members of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, and then big names in the Bolshevik splinter party, had a theory of high culture, whose institution and then actual growth, much like Thomas S Eliot's (Notes Towards the Definition of Culture), Patrick Deneen's, and presumably Philip Pilkington's views, should innately shape the form, even the content, of political discourse and organising.

Comrades new and old, conservative or radical, from Gorky, Bogdanov, and Lunacharsky in pre-civil war Bolshevism, to Gramsci, the Frankfurt School (Adorno hated the left-liberal student movements of 1968), Christopher Lasch, and Alasdair MacIntyre in the post-war and proto-post-liberal movements. They should utterly reject the modern liberal conception that 'culture is the apolitical anthropology of ,,We liborzhwah Humainkindé'''. Only he who does not move his chains believes himself a free-man rather than a ,,free'' indentured servant, celebrated as first and most trusted underling of the household. The CIA uses these liberal deconstructors to promote cultural degeneracy, intellectual stagnation, and social purges, which the Agency views as indeed being legitimate anti-communist policies to allocate resources towards.

When high culture reigns, self-governance and sophisticated, respectful politic predominates. When degenerate anti-culture asserts, tyranny, terror, and tempre-tantrums are to be expected from the political, and eventually all arenas. One may see this in the history of the Russian Marxist movement. We went from internal tendencies within the Party (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party), to amicable and mobile external tendencies, to faction bans and inter-socialist imprisonments and reprisals, to outright terror purges and yezhovshchina amongst the factions of one sole tendency, in the titular Yezhovshchina (Great Terror-Purge).

As we will explore in Section Five, Do the Reading? Oppose Book Worship, (see origination article) being illiterate in the traditional sense of the art of literature forces one to be reliant on the catechism of leadership and the line of the party, neither of which are conducive to ideologically reproducing a core of inquisitive, pedagogically astute Marxist cadres. If this fails to happen for long enough, then hypothetically, the catechism and line will eventually deteriorate in quality, and so make way for the subversion of despotism, ending in the rule of tyrants. Perhaps this is why all mannish civilisation begins its teaching in mythology, which also, I might posit, allows for a superior education in the grasping of broader conceptualisation, the act of forming a concept in-self. A dangerous power to possess, as rulers know.

I will say as one last interesting aside, that I find it intriguing how left-liberals have sought to utilise the recent book bannings against the Bible and Mormon Scripture, and right-liberals the Koran and Hindu Scripture. One might wonder, if 'uncharitably' in rank speculation, whether this is an ideological crusade of liberalism to remove some ancient manuals of self-governance from the ,,filthy masses''' hands? Though they might provide poor, mystical modes of self-governance, they should also provide the material coals to awaken the flame of Reformation, and thus of Revolution, against the atrophied liberal order. 'The Decline and Fall began with a book', is it not usually written? Communism is, after all, total and universal self-governance, id est stateless, ruling through the Gemeinschaft, per Comrade Marx and Comrade Engels.

Before I continue on again, I should just wish to say in defence of the above positing that Comrade David Harvey of Reading Marx's Capital fame, (and possibly Comrade Richard Wolff), has said that when Comrade Marx wrote Das Kapital, it was much more understandable to that æra's industrial proletariat than it is to us (post-) modern smallburgher intellectuals. This suggests that what I posited does have some grounding. Further, the liberals themselves seem to be re-evaluating the potential damage liberalism has caused to organic (real) education, per Master Jason Brennan's Against Democracy and the film Idiocracy. Master Ortega y Gasset had already put forth these criticisms in 1929, or 1932 in English.

This is Why Liberalism Failed, because it is and ever was the first enabling act to set fascism and (post-) modernism into motion. Liberals left and right fight the sociality war, but conservative aristocrats and many Russian Marxists wage the capital-C Culture-Clash against imperial liberal consumer-cosmopolitan degeneracy, which debilitates any social intellectual activity, including the capacity for self-governance necessary for regime change and all lesser political theoretical and organisational work (leading to the triumph of fascism all over again, per Master T S Eliot's cycle of culture and decay).

This anti-intellectual and anti-culture mind-set could only be solved by Lenin in the most horrendous and tyrannical/stifling way possible: by the introduction of the 'party of a new type', what would come to be known as the Leninist vanguard party of the proletariat™.

But let us give Comrade Lenin the credit which context might warrant: prior to the civil war, and certainly prior to the Great War, Bolshevism had a, to be sure uneasy and tentatively established, place for Bukharins, Gorkys, Bogdanovs, Gramscis, and Bordigas. The Lenins, Zinovievs, Stalins, Trotskys, and Togliattis were never at ease with this arrangement, though Lenin was at least willing to acknowledge during times of political calm that he knew little of the way that culture affects politic, or of culture itself in full.

Now degeneracy and tyranny march in lock-step on the Left and in liberal seats of ,,power'', itself both a liberal and vanguardist theology, which I label 'Powerism'. Liberals think that 'power' is an actual manly motivation: leaders (and by implication everyone, for 'rights discourse' and natural rights theory in general, I suspect, is just powerism at the microcosmic, inter-personal level) do not act based upon an interplay of complex individual world-views and personally held ideals with the material, social, and cultural conditions of society at any moment, but act only in the desire to gain more 'power'. What is this queer, elusive magic of the dark realms called 'power'?

As far as I can tell, it is a world-view consisting of mannish-nature theory, philosophical voluntarism, (or the will to power?) and the broader underlying foundation of Great Man Theory, applied to every mode in society. Power is considered the sole desire of man, for power is something like the enforcement of recognition at first, and then in spheres of leadership, taking on the nature of enforcing others to completely adopt one's own consciousness as theirs, probably for some purported desire rooted in mannish-nature and natural rights theory to provide exterior affirmation of one's self-recognition, or what have you.

The vanguardists believe that party and state 'power' is also an organ of this mysterious and certainly miraculous power. Lenin thought that banning factions with party 'power', and then enforcing the Party Line against opposition and cultivated Bolsheviks with state 'power' should by some mystic mechanism erase all other views, thus all or most debates. and Just as Lenin thought so, the vanguardist DNC believes, by dæmonising Trump and Sanders, whose 'charisma' (personal 'power') they believe to be the essential shaper of history and action, therefore the source of all the movements coalescing under them, that it can erase all such divisions and dissatisfactions by banning, purging, or denouncing all the remotely oppositionist thinkers, faction, and movements through similar means.

Need I point out the falsehood of this view? Are there still Reform-Leninists and Bolshevik-Leninists (Bukharinists and Trotskyists) around, or did the movements die with their leaders? You are on a Reform-Leninist Netlog which celebrates Comrade Bukharin for Marx's sake, you ought to know the answer thus!

One might mock that this conception of action and movement is at once an anti-historical-materialist fantasy and a pipe-dream scheme for 'attaining absolute power, absolutely' to institute their ideologies' ideals, but neither liberals nor ultra-Leninists see it as such, so the irony should fail them. A minor aside, I do wonder how much of this Powerist thinking is endemic to the Hegelian system, and whether this Powerist ethic is the world-spirit of Hegelianism shamelessly retrofitted to serve political expediencies and ideological justifications.

Because I am not confident in my ability to explain this succinctly whilst intelligibly, I have shamefully asked ChatGPT to rewrite this section:

Powerism: the habit of explaining political life primarily as a contest over who holds and enforces power.It comes in two simple forms that look different but are the same mistake.

1) Micro-Powerism — recognition as force.At the interpersonal level, politics becomes a matter of forcing recognition: person A claims a right or status, person B is required to perform a public act of recognition, and failure to do so is treated as an injury needing coercive remedy. The moral demand for recognition easily slides into social enforcement: shaming, exclusion, professional discipline, or institutional punishment. The political question reduces to “Who will make others say what I demand?” — not to how habits, institutions, or shared practices might be rebuilt so recognition becomes a taken-for-granted part of common life.

2) Macro-Powerism — the vanguardist impulse.At the level of organisation and state, the same logic scales up: concentrate power, issue decrees, ban rivals, and the social problem is solved by fiat. Vanguardist practice — from faction bans to top-down purges — presumes that legal or administrative control can make social opinions and practices disappear. This treats the state as an unconstrained, self-acting instrument: supply enough force and politics will be fixed.

Why both are wrong (and why it matters).Powerism mistakes means for origins. It treats power — whether personal recognition or state force — as the primary causal engine, rather than as an instrument whose effectiveness depends on deeper conditions. Marxian method insists on causal order: material arrangements, institutional channels, and cultural formation create the conditions in which power can be effective or not. Decrees without social purchase fail; recognition demanded without shared practices provokes resistance. In short, power can enforce, but it cannot conjure legitimacy or the social capacities necessary to sustain lasting change.

IV. A Brief Lament on the Loss of Reading, and a Warning Regarding the 'Resitible Rise' of Fascism

I am hitting my self-imposed brevity page limit, so I must severely excise what I said in the origination article's counter-part to this section, despite its importance, despite its importance is something of the 'solution proposition' part. For more detail, please see that section in the origination article.

I will say something bold: without the likes of Lukacs, Althusser, even Nick Land, Patrick Deneen, and Slavoj Žižek, one's analysis of the social is subsumed (sublated?) by the superficiality of the political, leading one's analysis of the political to at best resemble the diversionary fanaticism of sporting events, and at worst a relenting to the use of terror and tyranny, which is the ultimate rejection of dialectical and historical materialism.

This is why I consider the DNC to be the likeliest purveyor of the future NSDNC, for it is the one party interested in subsuming/sublating social theory, in pretending to a sophisticated and scientifically undeniable social analysis informing its ideology.

Fascism is not lower-class racism. Fascism is in fact the pseudo-social science of of the smallburghers (middling-classes), and is only in favour of high cultural concessions in so far as these are required to pacify the majority of the proletariat and aristocracy, who unlike capitalists and smallburghers are not in favour of cultural degeneracy.

The DNC need only attain this last trait to have all the prerequisites as a pseudo-social scientific vanguard party of the smallburghers to form the NSDNC. All it must do is purge the rolls of, or, if it desires a more final solution, organise a back-stabbing of Long Knives against, Woke-Stalinist DNC activists.

I doubt anyone here could cite a late Twentieth Century Marxist theorist to prove my theory wrong, and that is why the Left's anti-intellectualist campaign against reading is so dangerous, in that it ends in an a priori victory for not merely fascism, but for most burgher ideologies, whether they are intellectually deeper than a puddle, or are themselves anti-intellectual. Fascism always beats the Left at the latter, for one certainly does not need to read Mein Kampf, Myth of the Twentieth Century, From the Kaiserhof to the Reich Chancellery, not even the slim Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism to be a high-ranking Volksgenosse in good standing. The rise of fascism, as Brecht points out, is entirely resistible.

The errors of Comrade Lenin (repeated ever more grievously by the modern Left) ensured the rise of fascism. The Comintern was too 'capricious, et cetera' towards other communists, such as the Netherlander and Deutsch 'Left-Communists'— specifically Council Communists, or, we might cheekily say, truly soviet Communists, —which Lenin notoriously attacked for daring to try anything other than vanguardist Bolshevism in his work 'Left-Wing' Communism; an Infantile Disorder. Eventually this precedent was used against Trotsky, Bukharin, Gorky, and later Deng.

The Left, nay longer believing in the virtue of friendship, and possessing a watered-down, easily rescinded notion of comradeship, now should rather denounce and discomradeship (literal shunning-ostracisation, akin to Jehovah's Witnesses) any ,,reactionary wreckers'' they disagree with, instead of bothering to read them. The Lenin's Vanguardians, whilst not a pre-packaged anti-social cult in itself, has certainly amplified particular proclivities in the present Left. LVs are more short-tempred than our infamously choleric leader, and do not wish to engage in indepedent reading or study, but desire the vanguard party to tell them what to do, or to do it for them (see 'Give me the Line Comrade Stalin' in origination article).

Besides suggesting comrades read more than material from 80-100 years ago (or for those who have not, actually read Marx, Engels, Lenin, et alia), and being kinder and more amenable and amicable to fellow comrades, I can only suggest the Four Nosts and Stroikas, whose brief description is that with which we end the article, excepting two small appendices.

V. Four Nosts and Stroikas to Fix these Problems

Now we reach the ultimate conclusion of these problems, the glorious platform of Reform-Leninism, the policies of the Four Nosts and Stroikas, which will be recounted again here, but in much briefer detail (click the above 'Four Nosts and Stroikas' link for the full announcement article).

Gladsnost (Cordialness) is meant to restore an atmosphere of respectful comradery across all ideologies and tendencies on the Left. This does not include either wing of liberalism, of course, but does indeed cover our fellow social democratic, conservative socialist, and anarchist comrades. The policy of Gladsnost also deals with rehabilitating past comrades and de-anathemising their works and ideas (Comrehabin: Comradely Rehabilitation Initiative). Another programme is the planned institution of Friendship Kommissars (Friendkomms) to maintain friendships on the Left by working out troubles and such.

Politstroika (Political Upstanding) is a policy of not being afraid to praise and promote ustanding comrades, and not being afraid to upstand dogmatic or insufficient/incompetent structures, leaders, policies, and theories.

Disclosnost (Disclosure/Attentiveness/Discretion) is a policy about transparency, pluralism, and ensuring all comrades know or can easily figure out what is going on. One of the most important programmes of this policy is Diskommizdat (Dissident Communist Publishing) whereby comrades have a duty to publish pertinent, necessary material which is being censored or is otherwise unavailable to the party/organisation membership which such information should directly affect (in decision-making or likely-resultant disciplinary action, videre licet corruption), or material of historical/archival significance at risk of loss. Wiki-Leaks was a template for Diskommizdat. There are currently projects under-way in this policy, but, ironically, this information may not be disclosed at this time.

Theorestroika (Theoretical Restructuring) is a wider miscellaneous policy for the philosophical, cultural, theoretical, and economic debates which are going on around the Left, such as the hegel debate, the Bukharin/Deng versus Stalin/Mao economic and political debates, and the debates on party structure which have only in one aspect been discussed in this article.

Other policies of Reform-Leninism currently on-going are the following.

The Union Council of Communist and Comrades' Parties is a multi-party concept for a state structure to replace that of the one-party vanguard state, and to abolish the harmful Trotsky-Stalin theory of the 'anti-bureaucrat scenario' (as Lars Lih has termed it), or bureaucrophobia, and the accompanying idea of the revolutionary leader cult. TOAC has said since of the beginning of Reform, bureaucratic socialism is SUCCESSFUL socialism, as has been demonstrated throughout history. At the end of this article, I will provide a little state structure 'org' chart made with ChatGPT.

The Court of Socialist Hearing is the concept for a pluralist inter-Leftist social tribunal to resolve conflicts betwixt Leftists, their organisations, and their parties, in order to facilitate the republican and comradely atmosphere required for a concept like the UCCCP.

Renewed Socialist Legality and New Socialist Constitutional Law are policies which are aimed at constructing a rigourous socialist legal theory and tradition of constitutional law, to both analyse liberal burgher law and its state, and to more smoothly enable the transition to and practise of socialism. The policies seek to encourage the study and discussion of law and constitutions, whether liberal or socialist, which is an area of study supremely neglected on the Left.

Reform-Leninism itself, the tendency all these policies exist under the banner of, seeks to renew Marxism-Leninism for the century into Reformed Marxism-Leninism, through correcting errors, revising debates, retrying some old experiments, and restoring some positive elements of the Enlightenment, republicanism, direct (proper) democracy, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, and pre-war and pre-revolution Bolshevism.

Some things were lost which ought not to have been forgotten. Comrade Gorky, Comrade Zamyatin, and Comrade Ryutin, to name not all of our Menshevik comrades such as Comrade Fyodor Dan, or our anarchist comrades like Infamous REG (Comrade Emma Goldman), tried to warn Comrade Lenin and then the Party about these grave mistakes, just as they are still warning us. Let us heed our comrades, for how can they all be opportunists, ,,revisionists'', and wreckers?

At a moment when the liberal empire and liberalism as an ideology are in decline, and may soon collapse altogether, why are we helping the liberal burghers prepare for the Blue-Brown terror purge which will target all Marxists and anarchists, regardless of tendency or views? We may very well live to see, in this life-time, the DNC return to its roots, making the jest of the NSDNC a reality. Now 'Herr' Buttigieg and 'Volksgenosse' Newsom have the necessary precedent to utilise the National Guard as a Blue-Shirted para-military; for Trump was always Louis-Napoleon the farced, the Bonapartist ere the willfull triumph of the fascist an sich (in-self, rather than merely purported).

To the comrades who think it impossible, the project of Reform-Leninism, I end this article with an address. I used to think the very same thing, for I , too, was a front-line polemical fighter for the inerrant doctrine of Marxism-Leninism with not a reform or revision. But here I stand, for I could not consider otherwise. And for those comrades that insist I have been infected by the liberal scourge: firstly, conservatism is a far superior world-view to both right- and left-liberalism, but anywise, am I not still a loyal son of Lenin and Stalin? Only now, I understand them and their policies better, accepting them of my own intellectual accord, that I may improve my conception and practise on the road to communism.

The Left must develop and advance. 'Either we say "Lenin Lives!" because we believe it... or because we are secretly afraid that it has become unbelievable', as I postulated in the article Adhere to the Four Nosts and Stroikas; Not a Nost or Stroika Off Course! As I said also in the article Problems of Reform Itself, and with which I leave this article:...

[omitted for brevity]

Appendices

I. J O Martov; Testament on the Leader of the Bolsheviks

'Comrade Lenin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us social democrats, becomes intolerable in the leader of a faction. That is why I suggest that our Bolshevik comrades think about a way of removing Comrade Lenin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Lenin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a unbridgeable division and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between V I Lenin and P B Axelrod it is not a minor detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance'.

II. UCCCP State Structure Proposal Chart and Notes

For actual details on what this proposal entails, see the end of the origination article.

For details, see origination article