Five Year Anniversary of Thoughts of a Comrade; 2021-2026 Recounting (complete)

28 February 2026.

Contents

---

I. Truth Through Adversity: Revolution Through Facts, 2021

II. The Original Nature and Focus of TOAC, 2021-2022

III. Prelude to Reform; Party Problems and Challenging Dogmas, 2023-2024

IV. Sublation, Rupture, Dogmatistic Break:

The Proclamation of Reform, 2024-2025

V. Mastering Investigations and Problems of Reform, 2025

VI. Reform One Year On and Beyond, 2026

On the Third of February Two-Thousand-and-Twenty-One (15 Pluviôse CCXXIX, Juche 110), a comrade made a publication, and posted his Blackshirts and Reds Notes up to page thirty-five. It is remarkable in hindsight, the path this comrade went on, which has become the legacy of the Thoughts of a Comrade Netlog. Though he had been a communist of one sort or another for five years prior to 2021, he was admittedly not well-learned in any discipline of study or craft, nor even in his own ideology. This Netlog should change that, for ever.

I. Truth Through Adversity; Revolution Through Facts, 2021

We might, in the retrospective of history, begin this article as the first one ended:

'To end: "stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains"

—Citizen Maximilien Robespierre.

"What should happen if capital succeeded in smashing the Republic of Soviets? There should permeate the blackest reaction in all countries, the working class and oppressed folks should be seized by the throat, and communism should be lost"

—Comrade J V Stalin'.

How prescient this came to be! For right after the creation of this new publication was discovered by the leadership of particular idealist world-views, as they did not bother looking into it for the longest time, despite a comradely invitation to investigate being immediately extended, said leadership ,,cautioned'' dissuasion. This comrade had the bloody robe of stale dogmatism shook at him, and eventually, though thankfully quite short-lived, had launched at him something of a campaign against Thoughts of a Comrade. In light of this, it is a possibility that the leadership set up its own web-log in a fit of jealous rivalry as a counter-voice to TOAC.

Yet truth is always revealed through adversity, as it were. 'Ante-Socialism' not only proved itself to merely be a propagator of pseudo-Left anti-communism in a pseudo-inquisitive dogmatic wrapper, but proved itself a completely unserious venture. Ante-Socialism closed down after two months, publishing a single article of across three or four posts; this, the organ of the leadership which accused TOAC of 'unserious nonsense'. Our uncomradely competitor could not make it to five months, let alone TOAC's present mile-stone of five years, and counting as we continue the expansion of our study amongst the Red Stars.

The point is not to gloat. Actually, it serves as a sad lament on the dilapidated and sometimes vituperative state of the Left when Thoughts of a Comrade emerged. How many pointless feuds were begun as long-standing comradeships were shattered can likely never be told, but the numbers should certainly be heart-breaking. But as this was, TOAC yet arose, and took the first steps of this gross journey. Is it too prideful that we suggest the origins of Reform dwelling so early on? As a retort, is it only dialectical that this should be? Could the necessity of Reform have been scientifically ascertained without rigourously confronting this adversity, gaining true information through the equally important experience of confrontation and analysis, id est praxis and theory together? It seems clear, dialectically speaking, that without this early anti-TOAC adversity, there could be nay higher state of Reform which took shape over the coming years as a result, at least not as quickly or introspectively as it has.

II. The Original Nature and Focus of TOAC, 2021-2022

Now that we have said a few words about the atmosphere around TOAC, we can move on from pre-history, to analyse the revolutionary struggles and developments which have brought us here. I do not mean to analyse the poor-quality articles of this æra, but to remark on the æra itself.

At this time, TOAC was dogmatic, polemical, surface-level, and idiosyncratic (only one of these traits having survived to the benefit of TOAC). Articles were normally two to four paragraphs, and were neither particularly profound nor well-organised. On both of these, Thoughts of a Comrade has made revolutionary strides. In spite of this, I might add, TOAC has adhered to its commitment for Disclosnost in maintaining open access to these sub-optimal, and many times dogmatically or theoretically mistaken posts. Some of the posts do hint at the future, or 'peer over the mountain towards the horizon', as they dialectically must. Even at this primitive stage, the idiosyncrasy of TOAC was fuelling the immanent growth of an intellectual reformation, which four years later sprouted as Reform, as Gladsnost and Politstroika.

Thoughts of a Comrade did not develop by examining each post it made, but by continuing to publish new articles on recent investigations, slowly causing a shaping of the Netlog's character and focus, as well as sharpening and deepening its knowledge gradually. The revolutionary output comparatively sped up the scientific input. It is quite true that there was nay singular 'Revolutionary Grand Performance', for as TOAC has seemingly intuited from the start, bureaucratic socialism is successful socialism, and grand performances are nay short-cut to perfection at all. The development of article-production went from scattered rants to scaling reasons, further along this path each year, revolutionising its craft.

III. Prelude to Reform; Party Problems

and Challenging Dogmas, 2023-2024

Anyone who knows about TOAC likely knows about it due to the famous articles created from summarising discussions held with an ex-Party of Communists USA member (and a friend) exposing many problems with the party. These discussions themselves were the result of a pro-PCUSA article we published in response to a video by a YouTuber named Dankey Kang, wherein he detailed multiple criticisms of said party. Priorto the publication of this article, it was completely unbeknownst that this friend had begun to harbour concerns of his own, of a different nature as they may have been, to be sure.

It is perhaps important to list at this moment the chronology of these articles' publication. Even I am surprised, looking at the dates right now, how quickly the turn against dogmatism and germ of Reform started to develop. Recall that the first post on Blackshirts and Reds was 3 February 2021.

-Response to Dankey Kang's anti-PCUSA Infantile Video; 4 April 2021.

-The Downfall of the Party of Communists USA: Testimony from a Former PCUSA Member (and a Friend); 11 February 2022.

-Break-Away in the Party of 'Communists' USA and the Uncomradely Reaction; 18 September 2022.

The question of where the first two articles on the newly founded/reconstituted American Communist Party ought to be placed, whether they fall within the prelude period or the æra of Reform proper, but for the official account, the two articles were prior to the article recognised and demarcated as the primary progenitor article leading more or less to the announcement of the formulation of the Reform policies of Gladsnost and Politstroika, being published on 25 July 2024 and 5 August 2024 as these ACP articles were. These first two ACP articles, unlike the PCUSA ones, are not very good. The ACP was hit in the internal cross-fire of the revolutionary turn against dogmatism, which should shortly prove itself one of the last necessary prerequisites for Reform proper.

Before we continue on to the next æra, we must say something more about the interim articles. Firstly, we apologise to the American Communist Party for the lapse in comradely critique (the lapse in Gladsnost, though it did not yet exist). The articles composed after them are far superior in every way. Of course, committed to Disclosnost, these theoretically misguided articles are still available. For how else may they serve as a good lesson? Though we do maintain that Comrade Garrido's quite inflammatory, rhetorical live-stream was not itself in the most comradely taste, which contributed to the ACP getting hit in the turn against dogmatism. Thankfully, it seems that the ACP may have learned from this early time as well.

Yet even in these articles, the formulation of the principles soon to be articulated as policies of Reform is apparent. Allow us to quote the 'Proto-Gladsnost Update Note', as it has come to be known internally, from the second article: 'Intriguingly, Carlos Garrido proclaimed that "there is no CPUSA, there is no PCUSA, there is no one else: there is the ACP!"... whatever the fact of the case, it is good, at minimum, to finally hear such a disavowal of the PCUSA by a leader of the ACP. Note that I say a disavowal, rather than an attack, or an accusation, or a denunciation. When parties do the latter, it is a damaging harm to the atmosphere of Leftist politic, but the former is a commendable statement of position (whereby principles may be inferred by each individual comrade)'.

Whilst this may seem like an insignificant bar to hold parties at now, it speaks to the growing concern about the weakening of comradeship, which even received brief mention in two different articles in 2021. These serious questions, howbeit, could not be truly analysed, and certainly could not be answered prior to completing the turn from dogmatism.

It occurs to me that we have not explicated the exact nature of the 'turn from dogmatism'. That should be a grave error to skip over, and a good lesson to clarify. The turn of dogmatism was a deeply personal process. Marxism-Leninism, inheriting the necessarily conspiratorial framework of Bolshevism, has long suffered from these conspiratorial methods, even when the time calls for them nay more, such as after the successful establishment of the new state power arising from victory in the Civil War. Why were the powers of the Cheka/GPU not lessened and its structure devolved? Why did Aesopian speech and the mad search for covert fiends not subside? Why did toleration for debate and discussion decrease, rather than increase? These were and are still active problems. Of much grosser worry, it seems that US Liberals (if not all-US society), in an enduring crisis mode, are beginning to exhibit some of these conspiratorial, dogmatic tendencies.

What this dogmatic mindset does to an individual comrade is difficult to explain, partially because psychology is a fickle and case-basis thing at the most organised of systematic formulations. The transcendent Party Line is a force inside oneself, the purpose of one's soul being to serve it and defend it. It watches at every moment, it knows every betrayal, every counter-revolutionary contravention of its stipulations. It is a fundamentally irrational, unnatural force. It is a fantastical (even a fatalistic) salvation, completely debased from the material conditions of reason within reality. This causes an intimidated reflexive anti-intellectualism, especially pronounced amongst US Liberals, who are not known for their interest in theory already. It is not a good mindset for developing thoughtful, inquisitive cadres. This is an important piece of the puzzle, perhaps, in why the USSR eventually faltered. The CPSU did not seize this question firmly enough, and did not examine it thoroughly enough to ultimately resolve it.

It is certainly considered an uncomfortable phenomenon to talk about so forthrightly, which further hinders resolution. With that said, now we must go Towards an Old Class and New Socialist Constitutional Law, towards the bright Red morning of Reform.

IV. Sublation, Rupture, Dogmatistic Break:

The Proclamation of Reform, 2024-2025

The article which is recognised as both the first to be published after the completed turn from dogmatism and that to be the immediate progenitor to the formulation of Reform into the policies of Gladsnost and Politstroika is named Towards an Old Class and New Socialist Constitutional Law, of course, and is dated 12 August 2024. It is this article, followed by its successor which should pronounce the new path, that changed the history of Thoughts of a Comrade for ever. It is also the first announcement of a policy of Reform which has since grown immensely in its importance and integrity to Reform (-Leninism, but we will get to that). Even from the first parenthetical note, divulging the original title of the article which was Get Titled, Be Lordly: Bukharinism in the Twenty-First Century, it is plain that the turn against dogmatism already produced a substantial effect.

Let us summarise the objectives and innovations of this article. The article was concerned with three or four questions: the political and cultural degeneration of the Cosmopole's sub-urbanising ,,proletariat'', the creation of non-dogmatic mechanisms through which to govern both party and state, securing some ability to criticise party leadership without instantly becoming vilified as a fiend of the party or a reactionary/revisionist, and implicitly affirming the rehabilitation of Comrade Bukharin without appearing to denounce Comrade Stalin (therefore reigniting the vicious mentality of yezhovshchina, only with the players reversed).

Being the first article to be free from the strictures of dogmatism, the solutions to these problems proposed were quite novel, if they suffered in want of realistic practicability or thorough deliberation. For the political and cultural degeneration of the sub-urban burghertariat (fun fact, it seems English does have a native synonym, 'underburg', making sub-urbanites... underburghers!). Perhaps less ostentatious than the rest of them, this proposed solution was to replace the proletarian-peasant alliance with a tiller-craftsman one. The justification used was that Comrade Bukharin was speaking of the whole class when he advised 'enrich yourselves'. Such a ,,revisionist'' interpretation should have been impermissibly unthinkable prior to the turn from dogmatism.

Such an example demonstrates the comprehensive shift in thinking which characterised the turn from dogmatism. If one wishes to see the far more ideologically extravagant proposed solutions, the article is available as always.

Of course, special attention must be placed on New Socialist Constitutional Law, which now forms such a pivotal focus of Reform (-Leninism). The initial proposition was that of building a massive constitutional collection akin to the Daoist Daozang or Judaic Talmud corpora, called the Constitution-Compositum, comprised of five layers of writings for different parts and phases of the entire constitutional project. A massive project of this scale is not possible for a single Netlog to accomplish, or make any significant gains in. Thus, New Socialist Constitutional Law evolved and was also divided into two policies, but that will be discussed in the next section. What will be said here is that New Socialist Constitutional Law came to be focused upon making commentaries on legal, state, and party documents, along with developing new socialist analysis of legal matters, in the hope that it might some day pioneer an independent, specifically socialist legal tradition.

We at last come to the article which officially and irrevocably set the new orientation of Thoughts of a Comrade, A List of Problems on The Left: Discussing Gladsnost and Politstroika. This was the article which expounded the conception of Reform, Gladsnost and Politstroika being the first policies of this movement.

The old question, then. What are Gladsnost and Politstroika? These are Cordialness and Political Upstanding, with various programmes such as the Comradely Rehabilitation Initiative (Comrehabin) and criticising grand performances over bureaucratic achievements. All these things are discussed in many articles including this first one, so we need not repeat them here. There is now a substantial bibliotic treasury of articles on this subject, with many topics covered. Seek truth from facts, comrades.

This article spoke of many other concerns which Reform sought to investigate and resolve. As demonstrated from the contents:

I. The Left's Discounting Friendship.

II. Disowning Fellow Communists.

III. Multitude 'One-Parties' and The Mess of Terrors.

IV. A Comrade's Freedom of Personal Thought (and Agency).

V. The Stalin Problem and Soviet History.

VI. Miscellanies.

VII. A Final Word for the Future.

Many of these sections' topics have since received deeper treatment in their own articles.

But, to address the title of this section directly, was there a sublation, a rupture, or a dogmatistic break? What, in essence, is the meaning of this title? The revolution of Reform was incontestably a rupture, but the open controversy was whether Reform should prove a continuity through sublation, id est taking the hard path in a critical dialogue with the past, or whether it should swiftly denounce the past in a dogmatistic break. This was the most important, and realistically the foremost question which faced Thoughts of a Comrade. Because of the urgency in its position, the initial orientation became soon formulated, yet this did not at all entail its singular resolution. TOAC should remain motive along this spectrum regarding each particular issue, until 2026 more or less resolved the placement of TOAC's general outlook foreseeably.

As discovered through investigation, the core of the communist philosophy is closer to a revolutionary synthesis of conservative feudalism and Enlightenment industrialism, both fully realised in their potential. It has very little to do with liberalism in its total, purified from as such. One of the reasons that Leftist in-fighting is so prevalent is that many socialists, if not consciously, innately understand the conservative respect for, exegesis of, and tradition from the past, which most forms of communism to some degree share. Alas, this opens all historical questions and interpretations up to debate, but those who understand communism's conservative element know this to be a good thing, a strength of our ideology and its philosophy.

All this to say that Reform had preference towards the path of sublation from the outset. An initial orientation of compromise was adopted after that article. It was decided through collective leadership that Comrade Brezhnev and Comrade Andropov should join Comrade Bukharin in forming a troika of comrades to be safely focused on and utilised when needed, substituting Comrade Stalin, Comrade Khrushchev, and Comrade Gorbachev, all too divisive and radical as they were, whilst still allowing us to uphold Reform via the new troika. Nay movement, especially of a revolutionary character, can do without a pantheon of virtuous and noble heroes or exemplars of the new outlook. This was therefore considered an essential compromise to conclude. This might be said to again point to the conservative character of truly revolutionary ideology. Even French Republicanism maintained a pantheon, and a respect for noble virtue and high culture, ere liberal presentist/historicist deconstruction rotted out to displace these sacred values.

There were many other matters, however, that witnessed a reformulation closer to a dogmatistic break. Two which come to mind immediately are Hegelianism and vanguardism, as well, perhaps, as the ready rehabilitation of the legacies of Glasnost and Perestroika (not of Comrade Gorbachev's, howbeit). Has it been so, eventually these matters, too, were revisited in a more contemplative spirit of critical sublation. Some may feel these represent retreats or betrayals of Reform. We, of course, disagree. Salvaging as much as we can of past comrades' efforts, improving the old, potentially virtuous and more robust than originally credited, in the good conservative Marxist style, is to us a supreme good, indeed a righteous, thoughtful labour to commit to. Let us never forget in our own efforts of Reform that comrades gave their lives for the ideas which now fall under the purview of our hammer. Let us refrain from forthwithal electing to smash our hammers down in deconstructive (unconstructive) rage, out of respect to the memories of these comrades— please.

This is where Reform officially began. In the coming section, we will discuss the gradual transition of Reform into the actual, formalised project of Reform-Leninism which it is known as to-day.

V. Mastering Investigations and Problems of Reform, 2025

We have already covered a large chunk of Reform, but there were later developments and a general consolidation of the project's world-view. At this point, sublation, synthesis, became the predominant if not exclusive model of historico-theoretical enquiry. The æra of Reform-Leninism, or Marxism-Leninism made ready for the century, had finally come to fruition as a coherent project with a particular practise and a framework of concerns and possibilities to work towards.

Reform-Leninism was first announced in an article published on 18 January 2025, around three months after the official announcement of Reform, in the article entitled Musings on The Stalin Problem for Gladsnost and Politstroika. I distinctly recall that we decided to name it 'musings' to lower its level of presumed canonicity in the grosser project of Reform. As is the nature of all internal reform, however, especially ideological reform, this article's contents were soon adopted into the foundation of Reform. Such is the revolutionary, dialectical mystery of Reform.

The article itself is an excellent document in the advancement of Reform. What we intended to be mere personal notes turned out to be immensely important, and led to the full rehabilitation for reintegration of Comrade Stalin, Comrade Trotsky, Comrade Mao, Comrade Khrushchev, Comrade Tito, and partially Comrade Gorbachev, perhaps.

Whilst my vast preference for Comrade Gorbachev's efforts and inspirations over those of Comrade Khrushchev is ever in evidence, I am honest enough to realise that rehabilitating Comrade Khrushchev will be more palatable to Marxists than doing so for 'the man who destroyed socialism for a slice of pizza and to please his secret lover McRonald'. I will deny the fact of reality; very few Leftists are likely willing to indulge my kinder sympathetic interpretation. This stumbling block has caused me to concentrate upon Comrade Deng and Comrade Ligachev, much more palatable for comrades, in my estimation. I have also in this time reframed Comrade Brezhnev as completing Comrade Khrushchev's good reforms, by collectivising leadership over them after their completion, Comrade Khrushchev having instituted them by improperly coercing the Party.

The article also did much to formulate the purpose of Reform. The broadness of rehabilitation was argued for on the basis of preventing a return to a vindictive Yezhovite mind-set. As the article states:

'[these] are not [things] which Comrade Lenin should have supported, but the conditions of our time and place have changed. We are not revolting against Comrade Lenin, Comrade Stalin, Comrade Trotsky, or Comrade Mao; we are reforming the ideological model for our present needs, which are by necessity qualitatively different'.

Whether this passage has remained accurate is not the point, only that this rejection of personality denunciation has proved fundamental to the goals of Reform. If we can not move past the mind-set of yezhovshchina, then the Left will always crumble into impotent, isolated enclaves come any moment of decision or victory. We must cease attacking each other's revolutionary pantheon, and rather find common theory, or at minimum common cause in revolutionary coalitions.

Many important articles, expanding upon the problems of Reform initially detailed in the announcement article were written throughout 2025. A supremely important article, but which pre-dated the revolutionary advancement of Reform-Leninism, was Bureaucratic Socialism is SUCCESSFUL Socialism: Oppose The Revolutionary Leader Cult and Grand Performances, published 17 December 2024, about a month or so after the announcement of Reform.

We hesitate on what first to say about such a canonically instrumental article, for fear of failing to do proper justice to it. Perhaps we ought to quote its opening quote, itself from the announcement article of Reform (A List of Problems on The Left: Discussing Gladsnost and Politstroika):

'From Section VII, A Final Word for The Future.

"My point for the above is that many impatient Marxists in the West do not understand that Comrade Brezhnev, and to-day Comrade Xi, are evidence of socialist success. Modern Leftists are more impressed with chaotic and severe struggles betwixt larger than life characters, rejecting the weekly statistical readings at technical committee meetings, attended ,,dull'', soft-spoken bureaucrats, as representatives of good governance in successful socialism. That this good governance has been rejected so mass-purges and intense rivalries have become ubiquitous with ,,successful socialism'' is shameful"'.

This view, however, has been revealed to not be as radically unorthodox as was originally feared. In 1926, Comrade Kalinin gave a speech named Study and Life, wherein he stressed matters in much the same manner as Thoughts of a Comrade had above. To quote said speech, from On Communist Education, page twenty-one:

'But, comrades, the forwards movement is not always rapid. We frequently have to retreat— and the drab uneventful years, the years of routine humdrum work occupy ninety-nine per cent of a man's life. The most valuable quality in a Party worker is the ability to work with enthusiasm in an ordinary, humdrum situation, and to overcome, day in and day out, one obstacle after another; the ability to preserve his enthusiasm in face of the obstacles with which practical life confronts him daily'.

One may easily enough denounce TOAC to the NKVD, but should any comrade dare to denounce our Comrade Mikhail Ivanovich for counter-revolutionary propaganda? Comrade Kalinin is irrefutable confirmation that the sole propaganda TOAC engages in is agit-propaganda; the propaganda of such comrades as Comrade Kalinin, gross and right-honourable Chairman of State, and beyond-wise All-Union Alderman of the USSR. If Comrade Kalinin is guilty, then we are guilty with him!

As the two passages quoted demonstate, this article was about reconstructing a usable model of history, namely that Soviet history, which was so filled with a terror of any amount of bureaucracy, of 'bureaucracy' as a metaphysical concept, a noumenal horror (the anti-bureaucrat scenario, as Lars Lih helpfully identified it). It is certain that liberalisation is the scheme of counter-revolutionaries and vengeful fiends, but we knew from the first moment that Reform was something attempted by true communists of genuine credentials. All Thoughts of a Comrade had to accomplish was developing a revolutionary history of Reform within socialism.

This article's importance is difficult to distil in a comprehensible manner, especially with how early on it became so fundamental. There is nay true substitution for reading the document itself.

Returning to the general chronology of Reform, it seems pertinent to move on to the next significant policy development, or we could spend another ten pages going through the many gross, enlightening articles of Reform-Leninism. Once again, there is nay proper substitute for investigation but actually reading these documents. If comrades wish to seek better truth, then they ought to do so through the primary, foremost facts. One small note before we do, allow me. Some comrades may consider this maxim trite, but until it starts happening, it will oft bear repeating. Seeking truth from facts is not a mere platitude. It is an intialising principle of investigation, and the fact that comrades do not seem to understand this does not bode well for any truth they might espouse. Seeking facts from logic misses the point of thinking entirely, it is the shallow folly of the 'debater-brethren'.

The next gross achievement came first with an eruption of controversy. The Editorial Board of The Philosopher's Interior made an arrangement with Thoughts of a Comrade, we being the appointed warden of the nearly derelict publication, for which we had a sentimental attachment, to continue its activity. Once New Political-Economic Knowledge was reconsecrated as The Philosopher's Interior, and then defaulted again in publication, TOAC was give the keys. Not having the time to bother of it, we decided in collective leadership to create an editorial board for the operation of The Philosopher's Interior. The single caveat was simply that we should be the ones to type and publish articles (or paste and publish, if the article were digital). This arrangement did not so much as entail the over-sight of suggestion— they wrote and sent, we typed and pressed 'publish'.

Alas what treachery was in store. Thoughts of a Comrade was readying to release the grossest announcement of Reform yet, the article well-known as Adhere to The Four Nosts and Stroikas: Not a Nost or Stroika Off Course!, set to be published on 19 July 2025. On that same day, only a few hours earlier, the Editorial Board of The Philosopher's Interior published a denunciation— in the style of Hoxhaist ultra-dogmatists —without having read a single word of the yet to be released article.

Our anger was not regarding the denunciation itself, to be sure. It was officially due to the violation in the established agreement that we be the ones to type and publish any articles written by them. Unofficially, it was also that they purposefully published the article shortly before ours was scheduled to be. Even if they still should have refused to engage our article substantively, their waiting until it was published to denounce it should have done much to preclude the heightened tension and sense of betrayal.

Never the less, we granted the Editorial Board an exorbitant favour. In the interest of maintaining Gladsnost after such a momentous announcement, in collective leadership we voted to liquidate the Editorial Board rather than officially recognising the purge of each of its sitting members. By voting to liquidate the institution of the Board, it as a collective entity was disciplined for the violation, instead of each individual member. This was done according to the operation of the Court of Socialist Hearing. As stated in the documents, every former-member is still allowed to submit articles for prospective publication to the reconstituted Philosopher's Interior. That publication has yet to find a particular discipline or subject, but has done well enough as a general, variegated newspaper.

About the article which was the recipient of this denunciation, now. As the title clearly suggests, a new Nost and Stroika had been formulated. Disclosnost and Theorestroika, as well as two minor additions, Kulturnost and Spiristroika, were introduced to the platform of Reform-Leninist policies. Furthermore, the article listed every policy and their programmes together for the first time, and collected all the articles on Reform into a guide with links and short descriptions for them. Finally, the article concluded with a new concept for TOAC, a whole list of slogans and maxims with which to promote the various efforts of Reform.

Unfortunately, or perhaps naturally,those completely unfamiliar with Reform-Leninism and Thoughts of a Comrade could not understand this article. Those who were versed enough in theory and history to understand it... were the dogmatists. Though it is true that the youth, especially the studentry, (those who are not taken with vulgar deconstructionist relativism, anywise) tend to be dogmatic out of inexperience and misguided demonstrations of enthusiasm or commitment, it is equally erroneous to consider all dogmatists to be unlearned. To the Left's detriment, but queer utility also, the dogmatists are the few ones to seriously respect and preserve our history, and to safe-guard the many teachings of their respective tendencies' traditions. The post-modern cosmopolitan democrat rarely cares to be truly educated, to join the living, organic, dialectical Gemeanship/Gemeinschaft of Marxism, which is a way of thoughtful life uncongenial to the trends of the faintly consumer.

Adhere to the Four Nosts and Stroikas, known always by its own title, rather than an epithetical description as prior articles had been, highlighting its importance, was novel for being the first article to actively plan its new policies, to be cognisant of its role and place in the project of Reform-Leninism. Every previous article in the tradition of Reform had developed a significance over time, filling ad hoc roles as they came about. This article understood itself immediately— perhaps a sign of Reform-Leninism's advancement. To this day, it is the sole article to be pinned on Thoughts of a Comrade. Such is the credible importance of this article.

There are so many excellent articles written after this one that it should turn this article into a whole booklet. To grosser benefit, this article ought to be included in a published collection of these articles, serving as a pre-face. But, being that this article is a history of Thoughts of a Comrade's development and variation, we must move over this excellent material, to the next importan qualitative development. I will merely suggest that comrades read the articles from August and September of 2025 for themselves.

Some may argue that the next major development comes from the article Observations on The Dangers of Vanguardism, Liberalism (Anti-Culture), and Anti-Philosophicalism, but in our view, this article merely served as a polemical restatement in the mode of propaganda. It was not in fact a qualitative development to those who had been paying attention and had sufficient theoretical context. The two novel things it possibly did was announce the re-opening of the Hegelianism question, and the preview of the as yet not fully developed concept of the Union Council of Communist and Comrades' Parties. The rest could already be found elsewhere.

The next article to be a gross achievement was the Commentary on The Constitution of the American Communist Party, not so much for its actual content as for what it represented. Promised throughout the duration of 2025, on 14 December, the first official commentary under New Socialist Constitutional Law was published. This commentary remains extremely educational and useful, regardless whether the points within have become out-moded or reformed.

Though we skipped over it, this commentary also serves as the first real action in the camaign against open polemic (open in the sense of targeting a present organisation for the benefit of another), as announced in the article Fed Up with Rhetoric; Finished with Polemic of 21 August 2025. Prior to this commentary, as we have remarked upon, TOAC held a negative view of the American Communist Party a priori and unfairly, due to the beginning of the movement towards Reform. Perhaps this politically novel Party's intentions were conflated as the intentions of the leadership of particular idealist world-views and the dogmatic Party of Communists USA. With this commentary, a new æra of Gladsnostly comradeship had been proved triumphant.

We will discuss the Merry Stalintime Address of 2025 in the next section, as it foretold some changes which should only begin to take place in 2026. To end this section, we need only mention the post-commentary review, titled Some Future Questions for The Constitution of The American Communist Party. This article wass a bit like the 'musings' articles: some thoughts and unresolved questions about the nature of the Party's constitution, and what the Party leadership intended, and wondering if this was meant to be a preparation for serious development in a hostile atmosphere.

This concludes what might be considered the hundred tulips period of Reform, in which it developed the set of policies and aspirations that comprises the tendency, or sub-tendency, of Reform-Leninism. We had 'let a hundred tulips bloom; let us find out what is true'. Now, it is time to codify those discovered truths, to develop, consolidate, and where possible, implement them.

VI. Reform One Year On and Beyond, 2026

Some will inevitably view the coming æra as a 'grave-digging of the reformation'. This view, it goes without saying, is a simpleton's misunderstanding or a deconstructionist's fanaticism. Reform-Leninism is still here, but now comes the sublation of all our efforts into a coherently codified whole.

The Merry Stalintime Address of 2025, as that in 2024, cautioned moderation, and careful study of the task at hand. Said task to be studied particularly closely being the organisation of the movement, especially the institution of the party and its post-revolution relation to the state, law, and Folk (both inside and outside the party). At the front of this question is of course vanguardism. Yet, all the article called for was a careful, serious pace, and to maintain comradeship in these often heated and sectarian debates. The Party is too sacred, when it is an organisation, id est a tool. Other organisations are also tools, neither sacred or mystified. But even these are now falling into the sacralised mode of late.

This article implicitly recognised the need to transition from constant reform of theory and policies, to proving the utility of them.

The article Year One of Reform-Leninism laid out the achievements and deficiencies which faced Reform-Leninism, or the Netlog's implementation of it, rather. The idea and policies of Reform-Leninism as such have still to be tested, the Netlog proving the only outlet to do so.

In essence, the achievements were the initial formulation of Reform-Leninism, the increasing quality of articles (including their length and depth), and the production of the first few legal document commentaries. The deficiencies were missing some of the quotas of two articles per a month, risking exhaustion in other months where the quota was grossly exceeded or by instituting too many reforms at too quick a pace, and ensuring we remain on the correct path, not going too far, not interpreting crevices for ravines, as sectarianism happens to do.

As stated in the article, it may be said that TOAC has 'made a mildly successful attempt at modestly revolutionary Reform'. This is the kind of stable, reasoned progress to be expected of Bureaucratic Socialism under Renewed Socialist Legality. Grand performances, delusional leaders dizzy with success, and revolutionary impatience or deconstructive grudges can do such damage albeit in a short time. This damage accumulates until a crisis erupts of it. Reform-Leninism is building slowly, but building well.

After this Year One overview, the next few articles took an experimental turn, trying out new theoretical frameworks and forms of propaganda-organisation for maximal accessibility and ease of learning. Brief Theses on Leftist Deficiencies is a reworking of the article Observations on the Dangers of Vanguardism, Liberalism, and Anti-Philosophicalism, shortened by half in length and lightly updated. This attempt at sharpening propaganda has been an unofficial objective of Thoughts of a Comrade for the past six months or so, one which has consistently met difficulty and obstacles. It seems that the trajectory of the Netlog is at odds with any general audience appeal, though efforts are yet under-way to attempt to rectify, or simply ease this challenge.

Now, at twenty-seven pages, we reach the present question: whither the future for Thoughts of a Comrade and Reform-Leninism? The formulation of Reform is completed now, but in some respects, our efforts have never been more fragile. What was once a collection of clumps of clay has become a fully refined dish, one that could shatter in its entirety were it to be dropped too badly.

Thoughts of a Comrade will continue the development of its Reform-Leninist policies, namely New Socialist Constitutional Law, which is the policy most planned out and possible to contribute to at the moment. Commentaries on legal documents present an obvious task to work towards. Commentaries on party and socialist state documents remain a priority to produce, though they are slow, labourious, and not always appreciated undertakings. These are of the utmost importance in relation to learning how the parties and the organisations of the future might be better formed.

Outside these precise points, the general future of Reform and the Netlog can not be elucidated any further, without drifting off the ground into rhetorical and ideal wishes. The path of Reform and TOAC is the revolutionary path of struggle, of, primarily to say, investigation and experimentation. Much time will seem wasted, ya, it is true, yet there is nay better way than through.

This closes our Fifth Anniversary Recounting of the Thoughts of a Comrade Netlog, and our laying out the history and experience of Reform thus far. Perhaps in 2031, for the tenth anniversary, we will add another twenty-eight pages to this article, making it a proper pamphlet! Jesting aside, it is almost impossible to wonder what matters may be like five more years, seeing how drastically they changed in these five detailed herein.

Come what may, Thoughts of a Comrade remains committed to publication, to the development of revolutionary theory, and to the irrefutable fact that socialism is good. Forwards Hold the Lenin Banner of Reform, comrades.