Observations on the Dangers of Vanguardism, Liberalism (Anti-Culture), and Anti-Philosophicalism Which the Four Nosts and Stroikas Seek to Rectify

21 September 2025.

Note on terminology: I use left-liberal and social-liberal interchangeably, just as I use right-liberal and classical-liberal interchangeably. Liberalism, liberal burghers, and burgher liberalism refer to both wings/tendencies of liberalism. Neo-liberalism Capital-L Liberal and Liberalism refer to the anti-historical, anti-intellectual, peculiarly American tendency of social-liberalism (also called 'Progressivism'), and is not interchangeable with social-liberalism generally. Exempli gratia, (US) 'Liberalism' is not equivalent to the British Liberal Democratic Georgist tendency, or the German Ordo-liberal 'social-market' tendency in social-liberalism, despite being of the same ideology. Lower-case p progressive refers to the view of positive historicism, that history is inevitably positively progressing. Historicism itself is a neutral view of history developing in some way. Note also that conservative is NOT interchangeable with right-liberal or fascist, for it is always used to refer to feudal, noble, and faithful elements, which have proved resurgent against the morass of right-liberal impoverishing mammon and left-liberal conformative-ideophobic degeneracy, and which have traditionally been the most actively anti-fascist outside of us communists.

This article utilises end-notes rather than end-paragraph foot-notes.

Contents

---

I. The Origin Crisis

II. Bigger than the Hegel Controversy

III. The Culture Dilemma; Social Description or Governing Decision?

IV. Lenin's Gravest Error; the Dogmatic Terror of Vanguardism

V. Do the Reading? Oppose Book Worship

VI. Four Nosts and Stroikas to Renew the Movement

VII. A Word of Hope to Our Discouraged Comrades

We are at the precipice of another Menshevik-Bolshevik split in the metaphorical Russian Social Democratic Labour Party of society. This time, the true Marxist-Leninists are the Mensheviks, and the Woke-Stalinist left-liberals are the Bolsheviks, and already the atmosphere of terror is laying the groundwork for the machinery of great cancellation purges and a sociality of unquestionable dogma. This article is intended to explain in simple terms how we came here, the fundamental dangers we face, and how to peaceably resolve them, in the interest of preventing another yezhovshchina (mass political terror).

I. The Origin Crisis

Comrades, I warn you now, this is going to be a polemical article of the old style, so it will not be elegant or detailed as recent articles have been, for I am slightly frustrated at the wretched lack of good Marxist enquiry, or simple vigilance in light of present political forces swirling around us. But let us try to maintain some high culture political decorum, with a quote relating to none other than a comrade such as Comrade Jean-Paul Sartre for this time of monsters (as Comrade Antonio Gramsci should agree it is).

'Just as pluralism and foundationalism are seen as philosophic extremes, Western capitalism and Soviet socialism are seen as cultural [socialitive] extremes. The success of capitalism's mystification calls for an unmasking... The tragedy of Soviet socialism, for its part, demands a questioning of the roots of socialism to see how this large-scale failure could have been possible'.

—Joseph Catalano;

A Commentary on Jean-Paul Sartre's

Critique of Dialectical Reason;

Page 2 (Emphasis Mine).

The quotation above illustrates generally the purpose of this article. We need to speak in Disclosnost (Disclosure/Attentiveness/Discretion) comrades, the Marxist Left is facing a fundamental, ideology-level crisis which threatens to banish it to the rubbish bin of triumphant liberal history.

The crisis may be summarised across all particular domains with their specific problems as arising from this: one half of comrades can nay longer find their way out of dogma, or nay longer see a world outside of it, and on the other hand, half of the comrades have eschewed the need for philosophy and theory (for reading per se), and in so adopting the liberal world-view, are incapable of formulating a truly Marxist dogma to begin with. Neither situation is that of a living, developing, dialectical ideology.

II. Bigger than the Hegel Controversy

This problem goes beyond my disagreements with the Hegelians, and to the more quickly resolve this ideology-threatening crisis I should agree to an armistice for hostilities with the Hegelians. All Marxists are made endangered by this crisis, and I suspect that is why the liberals are trying to sow anew division and discord amongst our ranks.

To recapitulate briefly, in the interest of clarity, I agree with the likes of Comrade Lucio Colletti, Comrade Louis Althusser, and with the scholarly interpretation of Master Glenn Magee, that Hegel is not as apparently tightly tied to Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Marxism as is dogmatically presupposed, and that Hegelianism inspires hyper-dogmatic, quasi-religious (Hermetic and/or Gnostic) secular zealots, which are poor material for shaping into proper Marxist cadres. Some of this is informed by personal experience in having extensively interacted with Hegelians, and some of it by my admittedly limited reading of Hegel himself. That is my view, I can only be honest about it.

But we must unite, comrades. Howbeit, the scarred, artillery-battered tendency-fields of the great intra-Left trench war do not make this an easy task in practise. This article aims to open the discussion in redressing these historic wounds and collected ill-manners.

III. The Culture Dilemma; Social Description or Governing* Decision?

Notice that this was originally a perhaps not so small digression in Section One, The Origin Crisis. However, the importance of culture for those so-renowned Marxists as Comrade Maxim Gorky, Comrade Alexander Bogdanov, and Comrade Antonio Gramsci, obligate me to separate it into its own section.

One of the most conservative aspects of Marxism, which makes it positively incompatible with liberal burgher individualistic hedonism, is the requirement of a certain level of political high culture to complete a successful, rather than a malformed, transition to socialism.

Let me say to the liberal rebuke that 'culture is the apolitical anthropology of We humankindus' only that he who does not move his chains believes himself a freeman rather than a slave, and Free-State has perfected this enslaving formula. I should also argue, against the liberal historical interpretation, that the First Amendment exists only due to the Anti-Federalist (feudal conservative) backlash; it is an extension of the right to an audience with one's lord and the privacy of confession applied against the liberal Free-State.

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.

As we will explore in Section Five, Do the Reading? Oppose Book Worship, 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.

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.

Gorky, Bogdanov, and many Mensheviks understood the importance of high culture for the health of political life and in the transition to socialism. Not even Marxists alone: the true Zionists such as Master Max Nordau understood this! We did not listen, as history details to our shame. Thankfully, the Communist Party of China did learn from this egregious mistake, and reveresed their course down the road to terror. Comrade Deng and Comrade Jiang are to be absolutely commended for this prevention of terror and intra-Marxist calamity. Which brings us to another topic.

The Maoist student Red Guards, as I have stated, wished to employ the terror of yezhovshchina on a society-wide scale in their designs— like the Woke statue-smashers and Shakespeare-Canceler —to destroy all artefacts and remnants of high culture, tradition, and the conservative arts (erroneously called liberal arts during the Renaissance and after). This claim has been met with consternation by some Woke-Stalinist (Woke-Yezhovite) Liberals. But, as I was re-reading Comrade John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World, I stumbled across a confirmation of my claim right in the second section of the front-matter, Notes and Explanations:

'White Guards. Bourgeoise volunteers, who emerged in the last stages of the Revolution, to defend private property from the Bolshevik attempt to abolish it. A great many of these were University students'.

—John Reed;

Ten Days that Shook the World;

Random House, Modern Library Edition

Page XXII (Italics sic erat scriptum, Boldings mine)

This also, I must point out, damages the credibility of the reliance our Bolshevik-Leninist (,,Trotskyist'') comrades put upon the studentry as a revolutionary, committed socialist force. Comrade Reed disagrees from his actively witnessing their actions in a revolution. I disagree from my personal experience with organising the studentry.

If I may take a small digression, this is also why conservatives are innately more Left-Wing than liberals. Europe has indeed under-gone a 'dark age' separating its history, and the start date of this 'dark age' was 1776, the year of the mental and spiritual plague infection. Socialism can be pro-Enlightenment, but that ought not to be confused for pro-liberalism, for socialism can most certainly not be pro-liberalism, as a naturally conservative bastion of proletarians' and peasants' power (tradition is the inheritance of refined labour through history). Alas, even most Marxists do not understand this analysis anymore, being ideologically poisoned by the burgher mind-virus of '76.

Remember well that it was the conservatives shooting at Brown-Shirts in Austria, and trying to send Hitler's organs splattering against the walls. The liberals were initially cheering the Bohemian Corporal, as von Hindenburg was mocking him and His Majesty the Kaiser scolding him. Finally, should a socialist rather have a Red Tory aristocrat or a Whiggish Liberal Democrat in office? The point is made.

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).

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.

IV. Lenin's Gravest Error; the Dogmatic Terror of Vanguardism

We need to face the facts Reform has presented to us in Disclosnost (Transparency/Attentiveness), and meet them with Politstroika (Political Upstanding). Comrade Lenin, though of course a comrade of well-deserved stature and of revolutionary profundity, bestowed to the Left a troublesome organisational legacy, much how I believe Comrade Marx had with the ,,science'' of Hegelian dogmatism.

Vanguardism, splits, and faction bans are the foundations of this legacy so susceptible to terror in the service of dogma, more fatal and less noble than that in the service of virtue (and high culture) inaugerated by the Jacobins during the French Revolution. The Left has learned all the wrong lessons, and few of the correct ones.

What, then, is vanguardism? Comrade Lenin's conception of the 'party of a new type' may be summarised as a highly centralised party of professional revolutionaries and a dogmatical reliance on underground, secretive, sectarian manners of party discussion and operation. It is usually accompanied by an internal affairs (not to be confused with mere party/state security) wing to enforce political correctness and ensure nay 'factionalism'.

As Comrade Julius Martov, a leader of the Mensheviks and a personal friend of Comrade Lenin's for many years warned about his comrade post-break:

'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'.

—J O Martov

Testament on the

Leader of the Bolsheviks**

Though modern forms of vanguardism may not appear to be so, it can be seen all over, not just in the Marxist Left, but within left-liberalism itself. Normally liberalism is infecting the Left, but in this one case, it is the reverse.

Woke-Stalinism— more properly called Woke-Yezhovism, for this name is a bit of a misnomer, but is more easily explanatory —has its roots in the field of vanguardism. Social-liberals, not wanting to taint themselves by fraternising with the still very feudally conservative peasantry, nor the ,,Stalinist'' proletariat of the US, made all the worse by this proletariat's 'LaRouchite-Browderite-Maupinite-Hazite'*** proclivities to a mythological National Bolshevism, paint themselves as a besieged, barely legal or tolerated minority.

The left-liberals are now calling every view and tendency to the Left and Right of them communist and fascist, with the plain implication being that these are counter-... statusqutionary? ideas and are not worth engaging with so much as at the very lowest polemical level. Indeed that, the left-liberal Woke-Stalinists (Woke-Yezhovites) have shut down many former avenues of discussion with their fellow right-liberals, for these, too, are fascist Bushkarinite-Trumpskyites, at a time of great purge. What is left, but for vanguardist faction bans and Yezhovite terror?

Charlie Kirk may have been shot by a Mormon Rightist or Mossad asset, and Kash Patel may be a scummy despotic opportunist, but that must not delude us into dishonesty or wishful thinking regarding the pro-yezhovshchina pro-attentat cliques amongst us. For the health of the movement and future socialist construction, these cliques ought to be immediately and publicly denounced, or else they may in the future force us to denounce each other, before doing us some harm in secret.

I have been berated by Woke-Stalinist (Woke-Yezhovite) 'Bolsheviks' for this 'Menshevistic' compromise born of weak-willed sensitivities, and have been told I ought to shut up about the sociality of violence which is displayed by such parties as the Hoxhaist American Party of Labor. I have been accused by these, ironically, epitomes of revolutionary opportunism, of the trite thought-crime of counter-revolutionary 'wreckerism'. Ha! Come get me ,,Bolshevik'' Chekists; try dragging me to Lubyanka Basement, I think you will find it the fight of your life! If I cannot speak, then it is not a socialist revolution, but a tyrannical statch (state-change; putsch).

Other comrades have berated me from their doubt of the existence of pro-murder sentiments on the Left: of ice-pick jokes, and of the APL's publication of an article in their organ, Red Phoenix, ,,jokingly'' calling for mass-murder of anyone they deem 'fascist', that is, calling for political terror. The delusion is strong and must be combated. If they are willing to jest about murdering comrades like those fascist wreckers Trotsky and Bukharin, and are willing to start shunning friends of decades over a tiny political disagreement, then why may they not kill someone like Kirk? In an atmosphere of terror and yezhovshchina, absolutely nay one is safe.

I have seen the workings of multiple vanguard parties, and this anti-bureaucratic, constantly violent revolutionary dogmatism is the very sociality which they innately cultivate. The DNC, under the influence of Woke-Stalinist assumptions and ideological desperation, may not be far off from this kind of organisation. The vanguard parties of the Left, which means nearly all, if not all, parties calling themselves 'Marxist', and indeed all except TOAC calling themselves 'Leninist' or upholding Comrade Lenin, burn out and grind up their cadres in uncomradely, and frankly anti-social seminary classes on the correctness of the leadership's line.

I do not mean to sound like an anarcho-separatist, but these comrades do not burn out in the class war (not entirely); they burn out from a structure that cannot work! Marxist-Leninists, Bolshevik-Leninists; Woke-Stalinists, Liberal vanguardists; Marxists, Leninists: the only ones representing the will and well-being of the comrades right now are the Reform-Leninists, and like Bukharinists and Dengists. It is the various tendencies of the conservative socialists, the Mensheviks, and the albeit unorganised independent socialists and anarchists.

V. Do the Reading? Oppose Book Worship

Then, there is the reading crisis in the US, where the DNC and RNC have become the only 'socially acceptable' (videre licet sufficiently anti-intellectual, ahistorical, low culture) source of information, along with its ,,independent'' corporate satrapies, of reading to learn what Marxism is, and most damagingly, what new developments are taking place in Marxism. It is another example of the growing shadow of Liberal vanguardism and Woke-Stalinism (Woke-Yezhovism).

I used to be part of the anti-philosophy, anti-development Marxists, but more and more, in discussion with both comrades and liberals (and with the help of a rare actual conservative in this degenerate all-liberal Lockean-Millian hell-hole, Patrick Deneen), I discovered that theory without philosophy is half-remembered catechism. Comrade Althusser saved me the embarrassment of being a Marxist-Leninist fanatical theocratist, trying to jam Karl 19:17 and Vlad 3:16 into the analysis of every problem, new or old.

This problem is so prevalent on the US Left, and so incredibly frustrating that I made a little parody, which illustrates the point in outright mockery:

'Tell me the Line Comrade Stalin,

And if Bukharin should be alive or dead,

I'll follow you Comrade Stalin,

When on a cliff you order 'march ahead';

Don't forget to tell me any about-face,

And anything we ought to deface or disgrace.

Give me the Line Comrade Stalin,

Comrade Stalin, be a comrade for me;

Comrade Stalin build the party for me;

Comrade Stalin do the reading for me!

Or give the ABC'.

The Marxist Left abuses Comrade Mao's work Oppose Book Worship to do the exact opposite: to dæmonise reading in typical anti-intellectual fashion, which I will remind, has been a corner-stone of liberalism left or right up to the 1950s, when they began to de-emphasise it or hide it behind more sophisticated and pleasant ideological veneers.

How do you explain the present ideological conditions and general political activity without having any familiarity whatsoever with Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Gramsci, Mao, Lukacs, Althusser, or Mark Fisher? How does one begin to grapple with the existence and popularity of someone like Žižek at that point? I am not even speaking of Žižek as a philosopher himself, here, but about him as a popular phenomenon. How does one explain why a philosophical-critic is displacing the popular space normally inhabited by utterly vapid (pop/vulgar) ,,cultural-critics''? What does it socially indicate that a philosophical-critic like Žižek was able to do this, when literary-critics, actual (high) cultural-critics, have been trying to since the end of the Nineteenth Century? These questions are theoretical.

It is simple, the answer given by modern anti-intellectual Marxists, especially concentrated in the US: take catechism with either a Marxist (-Leninist) party, or become a Liberal vanguardist and take it with the DNC. Either way, the cadre is made beholden to a structure that cannot work and does not respect the will, general and particular, of its cadres.

Remember comrades, reading is dangerous to the liberal ,,Free-State''; if the unwashed masses can perceive, then they can effectively act, and if they can effectively act, then they might abolish the vanguard ideology of liberalism and smash the ,,Free-State''. Theory and philosophy are not mere pass-times, though some engage in them thus. Theory is a weapon, a weapon which is forged by the tools of philosophy in the forge of focused revolutionary consciousness (or of focused intellect for the general sense). To forsake these things is to unkowingly abandon living Marxism and Leninism, to betray the very practise characterising Marx, Engels, and Lenin in their own lives.

VI. 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:

The last thing I will say on this specific matter is two-fold. Some will charge that this conflicting set of policies has caused the eruption of many contradictions; they might even go for the denunciation of a 'contradictory world-view based on nonsense'. I say indeed, there are apparent contradictions in our epic struggle to reform Marxism-Leninism, but that is how we know our movement to be worth-while, and a living, developing movement. None of these parties and tendencies have any (apparent or other) contradictions because they are dead corpses (sometimes literally, if I may partake in a bit of black humour on their average cadre ages

The dual nature of Reform-Leninism brings us, naturally enough, to the problem of how apparent and necessary contradictions are viewed ideologically. The Left, following their Hermetically enlightened Lord of the Shelf Hegel, I suspect, have become extremely dogmatic in their epic hostility to all semblance of contradiction, nay matter the meagreness, duration, or reason. But it might be said that contradictions are evidence of a living development which is unfolding and evolving right before us, and that political movements and policies demonstrate such living development when new and more complex contradictions are able to arise.

By contrast, when contradictions remain unchanging, or there are nay contradictions at all, one may be said to be observing a corpse. This is indicative of the social death of (the life in) the political. If this is the status of our movement, then you have failed as a politican**** and the collapse of your movement and its projects shall some day be on its way. Only reforming sufficiently prior to that incoming date can resotre the living social nature, the political and intellectual energy, of a movement.

We must, of course, answer with something to the trite criticism that Reform-Leninism is revising Lenin's and Stalin's deck chairs upon the SRS Titantic. We absolutely disagree with such an assessment. Comrades who refuse to examine the wreckage are, in fact, labouring under the illusion either that the USSR never sank (hard-liners maintain that it has merely been driven off course by wreckers and revisionists; liberal-infected Leftists are haunted by its spectre, which they take to be the silhouette of the real ship bearing upon them), or that it was never truly the prized flagship of our navy. Both views avoid acknowledging the contradictory nature of the event: the SRS Titanic was a gross advancement and a disappointing failure in socialist political-economy and state-craft, and its wreckage is at once an error to be avoided and an essential education course to be studied under. Reform-Leninism accepts this contradictory nature and sails off from it. Copied parts; new ship; superior protocols guiding it.

UCCCP State Structure Proposal Chart and Notes

(Attent! For example purposes only: LLMs like ChatGPT can mess up)

HOW POWER FLOWS:

1. Central Committee → Secretariat (Executive)CC sets major policy direction; Secretariat issues temporary decrees to enact decisions quickly.

   
   

2. Secretariat → Politburo (Legislative Interpreter)Politburo drafts and implements these decrees into actionable, stable policy.

   
   

3. Orgburo → Both (Legal Oversight)Orgburo reviews decrees/policies for legality and constitutionality.If either executive or legislative oversteps, Orgburo can strike it down.

   
   

4. Standing Section of UCCCP → Vanguard PartyContinuous legislature watches over the party.If vanguard loses legitimacy, Standing Section can recall or replace it.

   
   

5. Unified Plenum of UCCCP (Annual)Large-scale legitimacy ritual, sets broad constitutional goals, and reviews entire system annually.

KEY DESIGNS:

• Separation of Powers: Bureaus divide executive, legislative, and judicial roles.

  
  

• Temporal Checks: Decrees expire in 90 days; CC reconvenes every 1–3 months; legislature always present.

  
  

• Democratic Legitimacy: UCCCP as a multi-party organ prevents one-party ossification.

  
  

• Continuous Oversight: Orgburo serves as a legal conscience; Standing Section acts as watchdog.

KEY PRINCIPLES:

1. Vanguard Party: Executes state policy but CANNOT:

- Alter state structures, foundational documents, or long-term laws

- Discipline non-party state officials

2. Court of Socialist Hearing: Sole disciplining body for all officials

3. UCCCP Supremacy:

- Its policies/laws last indefinitely unless repealed

- Only Plenum supermajority can recall vanguard

4. Central Committee:

- Implements UCCCP policy, not an independent legislative body

- Supervises Secretariat, Orgburo, Politburo

5. Legislative Flow:

- Standing Section (continuous) → Central Committee → Party Bureaus → State Execution

WHAT IS CLEVER:

• Vanguard Limitation: The vanguard’s role is now executor and interpreter of the legislature’s will, not a policy-originator. This reverses the usual Leninist model and avoids bureaucratic overreach.

  
  

• Judicial Firewall: The Court of Socialist Hearing is a neutralizing force, removing “disciplinary terror” from party hands (unlike the USSR, where the NKVD was under political command).

  
  

• Legislature-Centric System: The UCCCP isn’t just “supreme in theory” but has real teeth, enacting permanent policy, with a recall mechanism protected by a supermajority requirement to prevent factional coups.

CYCLES AND RHYTHMS

Rhythm of Accountability:

• Weekly Buro meetings

• CC every 1–3 months

• Plenum annually

• Standing Section permanent→ This ensures constant checks without overloading deliberative bodies.

  
  

Annual Policy Cycle:

• All CC decisions expire in 12 months, syncing perfectly with Plenum meetings, where they can be renewed, retooled, or overridden.

• Keeps the CC in a “responsive” role rather than entrenched authority.

ECONOMIC PLANNING STRUCTURE

UCCCP (Supreme Legislature):

• 6-Year Plans:

  • Long-term, strategic, and binding.

  • Backed by permanent state ministries (stable bureaucratic apparatus).

  • Can override or reshape all subordinate plans.

  • Provide enduring economic direction and macro-priorities.

    
    

• Legislative Continuity: Plans remain in force until formally repealed or revised by the UCCCP.

  
  

Central Committee (Party Executive):

• 3-Year Plans:

  • Tactical and adaptive, targeting sectors or emerging needs.

  • Executed through Kommissariats (temporary ministries/commissariats) that dissolve when objectives are achieved.

  • Designed to complement—not replace—UCCCP plans.

    
    

• Annual Policy Cycle:

  • All CC decisions expire in 12 months, syncing perfectly with Plenum meetings, where they can be renewed, retooled, or overridden.

  • Keeps the CC in a “responsive” role rather than entrenched authority.

    
    

Key Dynamics:

1. Hierarchy: UCCCP > CC.

2. Temporal Layers:

   • 6-year plans: structural, permanent, state-led.

   • 3-year plans: tactical, temporary, party-led.

     
     

3. Checks & Balances:

   • UCCCP provides strategic consistency.

   • CC provides agility and problem-solving.

     
     

4. Administrative Design:

   • Ministries = continuity & scale.

   • Kommissariats = flexibility & focus.

     
     

This sets up an elegant planning dialectic:

• UCCCP anchors economic stability.

• CC ensures rapid responsiveness.

• The Unified Plenum’s annual rhythm lets you reauthorize or replace CC-level plans, preventing executive ossification.

---

Again, everything here is for demonstration purposes only.

These ideas are subject to change, and were subjected to

having potentially been butchered by ChatGPT.

Many thanks.

END NOTES

*Governing in the sense of collective, ruling/impactful decision.

**In reality, Lenin's Last Testament from Letters to the Congress, namely with Lenin substituted for Stalin, amongst other small alterations.

***Lyndon LaRouche was an American conservative socialist and American social exceptionalist, still much maligned by the Liberal intelligentsia and thereby other Leftists, who have made him a bogeyman;

Earl Browder was General Secretary of the CPUSA during the Great Patriotic War/Second World War, who advocated moving away from strict vanguardism, eventually suggesting a citizens' clubs structure. He was practically purged from the party for questioning dogmas and Moscow;

Caleb Maupin is the founder of the Centre for Political Innovation and the theoretical expositor of 'patriotic socialism'. He may be an American social exceptionalist His extending allyship to conservative socialists was maligned by Woke Liberals;

Haz al-Din is General Secretary of the newly formed/reconstituted American Communist Party, and is known for his rash rhetoric and willingness to flaunt common Marxist-Leninist dogmas. His conservative socialist views, and his MAGA Communism propaganda drive to recruit way-ward proletarians in the wake of Trump's betrayals, has earned the hatred of the Liberal intelligentsia and Woke Liberals. He has also been criticised by other Marxists for many things, some justified, some not.

****Politican, and all -can suffixes, are meant to be broader than their -ian counter-parts. Exempli gratia, a commentator and a revolutionary can be politicans, where they are not usually able to be included in 'politicians'. Then, professions without -ian suffixes, tending to be very narrow, can be broadened, such as lawyers versus legalicans.