On the Resolution for Liquidating and Reconstituting the Philosopher's Interior; Responding to their Criticisms

18 August 2025.

Semantic note: liquidation is used instead of purgation because the body is being reprimanded, not the individuals comprising said body. Former members of the editorial team are still welcome to contribute to the reconstituted Philosopher's Interior, provided they grant assurance of their comradely intent. Had this been the work of an individual, he should have personally been purged from the editorial team instead.

Comrades, it saddens me deeply to announce that we have suffered our first break-down in Gladsnost. Our dear comrades at the Philosopher's Interior saw fit to— angered at my commitment to the Four Nosts and Stroikas, and reform generally —do something regrettable and uncomradely. Here, I will give some information about what this means for the future of that publication.

Let us first adhere to Disclosnost and Renewed Socialist Legality (the practise and sociality arising from New Socialist Constitutional Law and other similar 'lawful reform and tradition' endeavours). What did the Philosopher's Interior wrote a conservative [Marxist-Leninist] critique of the Four Nosts and Stroikas, before they were even put forth in publication. Let us be clear, the content of the article is not that which is being reprimanded. The cause for the liquidation and reconstitution was expressly triggered by the way the editorial team decided to publish the article.

As the editorial team itself readily admits at the beginning of the article (lest we be accused of Vyshinskeatrics), 'this posting of the Philosopher's Interior comes without official foreknowledge'. Videre licet indeed, for all to see from the defendant's pre-trial proclamations. The editorial team acknowledges its uncomradely breach of protocol, or else why should it bother to offer contextualisations and justifications?

This is what we are reprimanding: the rude, polemically motivated subversion of the proper and comradely relationship betwixt the Philosopher's Interior and Thoughts of a Comrade, which has harmoniously functioned, at this point, for years. There are nay words strong enough to condemn this Yezhovistic treachery perpetrated by these so-called! So-called ,,comrades'', except they stab you in the back at the slightest disagreement.

What this means for the Philosopher's Interior presently may currently be summarised: the liquidation of the editorial team, the retainder of the article on the site for public record, the reconstitution of the Philosopher's Interior into a pluralist forum for the socialitive, cultural, and topical institution of Reform-Leninism, and the provisional over-sight of the Philosopher's Interior by Thoughts of a Comrade pending the appointment of a new editorial team.

Under the Banner of Reform-Leninism, within the revolutionary guide-lines of the Four Nosts and Stroikas, these comrades could have freely published this criticism in a just and comradely manner. Instead of doing so respectably, they opted for alarmism and f(r)actional dramatics, those unsavoury characteristics of yezhovshchina. How they ought to be ashamed!

Responding to their Criticisms

So let us have a word about their 'ringing the alarm... on the clear and present danger of revisionist forces subverting socialism' that concerns them enough to violate polite, established procedure. We must mention two things immediately: as we have already said, they published this article pre-maturely, before they could even know what the Four Nosts and Stroikas were or contained , and that I intend to deal with this briefly, as I have planned a fully article in which I will discuss Reform-Leninism and those concerns around it.

According to the article, I am a few possible things, revisionst; subversive; anti-proletarian; liberal; social-fascist. I fell insulted: they did not call me a Bukharinite or Brezhnevite even once! One of the few identifiable claims worth addressing is that Reform-Leninism is seeking to promote 'freedom, choice, and openness'. Notice that none of the Four Nosts and Stroikas advocate for these nebulous liberal terms, these emotionally charged propagandical buzz-words. Cordialness, Political Upstanding, Transparency/Attentiveness, and Theoretical Restructuring may be conceptually broad, but they have very specific areas of purpose, and are simply the policy sectors that particular programmes are collected under.

The last criticism worthy of comment is that regarding Gorbachev and revisionism. The former is a simple matter, we are learning from Gorbachev and that period of reform; we have never accorded full, even majority support for him. Had he not failed (or failed less fantastically), Reform-Leninism should be made unnecessary, but here we are. That is also why we are seriously studying both the Chinese and Jugoslav methods of reform as well, to advance beyond all of them if possible. Finally, what can we say about the tired refrain of ,,revisionist!''? This is a dead-man's diatribe against the very nature of living ideology and sociality. The accusation of revisionism, specially in lieu of the authory of a ruling party, is stupid— please update your home to Lubyanka Basement.

Speaking of which, they ought to have more of a care about so brazenly insulting our glorious General Editor: one might erroneously mistake this for treasonous Trotskyite wreckerism. Of course, I have stressed such a point previously, but I am fairly certain, echoing Comrade Khrushchev's grim rejoinder, that the Philosopher's Interior should not have survived long in the atmosphere of the Yezhovshchina, even if they had been utterly servile.

But allow me to return to a concilliatory overture at the end, here. If the Philosopher's Interior had offered a serious commentary of critique, I'd have been over-joyed to develop a discourse of this kind. However, their criticism as it is stands hollow, yet another vapid, stale exercise in post-Bolshevik political correctness signalling. This cancer must soon or late be ultimately rectified.