The Leader This and That; Against the Substitution of Revolutionary Personalities for Real Historical Enquiry

17 August 2025.

Notice: I am still recovering from being floxed, so the coming three articles will be more informal or clipped in tone. I apologise for this. The articles are:

I. Fed Up with Rhetoric; Finished with Polemic

II. Memorandum on the Study of Soviet and Socialist Legal Legacies for the Construction of New Socialist Constitutional Law

III. The Nature of Reform-Leninism and the Future Triumph of Reformed Marxism-Leninism: Responding to and Clarifying Concerns

Comrades, let us have some Disclosnost with each other. Over these weeks of decommissioning illness, I have been giving broader thought to the nature of various discussions on the Left. I have come back deeply dissatisfied.

The current US Left, it will be said with little surprise, is dogmatic, lazy, and polemical to an extreme. This is not an innovative observation on my part. I do intend, however, to address the rectification of this problem in novel ways. Something must give way, development must not be stalled for ever

Looking to Personalities; Looking to Cut Corners

I have grown to observe a very strange phenomenon on the Left. There is an unhealthy obsession with going to leading personalities instead of to the proper authorities. For instance, in matters of socialist law, US Leftists are quite content to remain with quoting Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and then an avalanche of random philosophers, rather than— as a genuine Marxist ought to —consulting the works of Karpinsky, Vyshinsky, Denisov, Grigorian, Chkhikvadze, Chinese sources, Western scholars, et cetera. Philosophy over fundamentals; personalities over authorities.

Their alternative model is all too simple, sometimes naive, and never intellectually satisfying but for the party cultists and bureaucrats. If Marxism is a philosophy club or contrarian political movement, then very good, this is sensible. If, however, Marxism is taken to be an ideology of governance, a substance of material fundamentals, then this is an unacceptable travesty. I hold to the latter view, hence my concern for penning this article.

I suggest we put a bit of a moratorium on incessantly looking to the top pantheon for all our answers, turning now to authorities of the respective subjects we are committed to studying.

Let Concrete Studies be the first programme of Theorestroika.

What Concrete Studies Means in Practise

Here are some provisional guide-lines for the programme of Concrete Studies. First of all, do not start your analysis from the top: start from a leading authority, then work your way down. Only when you have done this may you then add top leadership to the explanation. Use revolutionary leaders and personalities to tie conclusions up nicely; do not use them as either justifications of our evidence within the analysis.

Make sure to consult multiple authorities, specially those in contention with one another. Do not be lazy, satisfied to study the 'correct' view. Even if you are certain of one view's superiority, how can you understand the nature of its correction, if you know not what it is made in response to?

Do not be afraid of wrong or outsider views. Marxism is a scientific ideology, thus it is your duty to investigate the meaning of things. Remember Comrade Mao's dictum, 'nay investigation, nay right to speak'.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, do not take into consideration your standing with personalities or leadership. Read Bukharin, read Trotsky, read Khrushchev, read Tito, read Brezhnev, read Mao, read Hoxha. A wasting of time is always possible, so choose three of your most desired focuses, and study deeply in acknowledgement that some things will be less useful. But rarely may something be called totally useless.

On the Limits of One's Fortitime and Deferring Projects

A big reason for the over-reliance on personalities and leaderships is almost certainly a combination of three obstacles: want of fortitime (my theory of fortified, usable time), want of familiarity and accessibility, and fear of Partyclost (a term for dogma, conservative nature of ideology, and 'practical' interests). What is to be done about the burning questions you may have if you can not find the necessary time to engage and examine them?

My sole suggestion may be both dissatisfying and disappointing to new comrades. I suggest you simply move on to another question, or at least, echoing the advice of Umberto Eco, try to identify why, that is which part of, a question is really of interest or is pertinent to you. Once you have located this, try to truncate your area of enquiry, so that you do not have to interrogate whole fields with their extraneous or tangential focuses/contents.

Whilst every comrade may at some point become interested in, say, Soviet law from the Stalin to the Khrushchev Æra, the simple reality is that not every comrade will be able to devote sufficient fortitime to becoming a Marxist scholar of comparative socialist law. It is a shame, to be sure, but it is a fact of material conditions.

Specialisation is often misconstrued for the division of burgher state education, and thus denounced as dogmatic, one-sided, or artificial. This mistaken conflation must be dispensed with. Certainly, have your own political and intellectual opinions, by all means. However, always beware Comrade Mao's dictum, 'nay investigation, nay right to speak' (in the self-proclaimed capacity as an expert). Quote mining past revolutionary leaders, whilst perhaps at times useful, is absolutely not an organic, progressive development.

The Division Betwixt Party Work and Real Scholarship

We must rightly admit something that many Leftists should prefer to keep obscure: when you are engaging in party work (by this we mean propaganda), you are not engaging in serious Marxist scholarship. Indeed, there is an admirable, useful place for short courses, selections, and concise outlines, but these must be recognised for what they are. When you decide that you wish to go deeper into a subject, you ought to leave these propaganda materials and leadership selections behind. Remember, it is fine to use these materials for your conclusions, only do not allow them to justify or steer your study.

The party worker's purpose is fundamentally in opposition to the purpose of the scholar. The purpose of the party worker is exactly to glorify Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and socialist states and parties, as well as producing works of doctrine and polemic. This is called politic; it is the realm of political parties (gasp!). It is alos, let us be frank, the church of the age of ideology, religion being the predecessor of ideology in the pre-Enlightenment æra.

Some very intelligent and inquisitive comrades seem to feel ashamed about the nature of party work. They are misunderstanding the natural, mutual inter-connexion of these two systems, Marxist scholarship and party work. These comrades, perhaps justly, see the glorification of the party and its past leaders as cynical or perverse. it is most certainly a situation born equally of pragmatism and perniciousness (in the sense of destroying rival ideologies), but that is politic.

The party worker does, in fact, contribute to the possibility of the formation of scholarship. Certainly, he over-simplifies every thing, attributes all successes and nay failures to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Party, giving party-approved catechesis. Conversely, the party worker also sows the seeds of proper communist behaviour and the desire for deeper discourse.

Some might be tempted to lambast this division as a malformed Brezhnevite paradox or otherwise undemocratic gnostic imposition by a bureaucratic politburo. Allow me to say in all Disclosnost, it is both of these things. It is the worst method for successfully completing the socialist transition to power, except for every other one.

Once socialists attain state power, then we can discuss eschewing these parochial exigencies. Before this, however, scholars should be better served by playing their proper part, which will allow for a faster, more comprehensive transition from this mode of party work post-revolution. We must all play within our roles during the gross chess game.

Conclusion: One Party; Two Systems and Concrete Studies

In this article, we have briefly discussed the place and practical function of Marxist scholars, by which we have meant exclusively non-state intellectuals, and contrasted this with those of party workers, those involved with the creation of propaganda.

It is to be hoped that the poor state of my health did not prematurely shorten or in any way hinder the quality of this article, but if it did, I feel obliged to apologise and thank the comrades who read it to the end.

The two primary ideas of this article, One Party; Two Systems (one party in reference to a unified party structure, not an implicit advocation of exclusivist vanguardism) and Concrete Studies will be making a return in future articles, naturally.

General Thoughts and Rationalisations of Reform

On that particular note, let me end by explaining some of the rationale behind what might seem to some to be a severe 'conservative' (orthodox Marxist-Leninist) about-face when compared to my article(s) on the Four Nosts and Stroikas and Reform-Leninism. Obviously, there is the basic caveat that both my thoughts on and efforts at reform are still on-going. Speaking realistically, they still have only just begun.

One more problem facing me is the reality that I nay longer have any connexion with the Left (meaning with political discourse generally); I am in essence worse off than a monk in being able to develop these ideas from a social basis, for I am rather a lone hermit guarding the Library of Alexandria, 'Knight Jörg' shut in at Wartburg. So I toil away in study at matters such as socialist law, Glasnost and Perestroika, the rule of socialist parties and their relation to the state, and other such seemingly arcane esoterica of the ancient times.

I am trying to be pro-actively cautious in my prescriptions and practical pronouncements because I am all too aware that I am not 'out there'. To denounce precaution might well be applauded as more authentically Marxist by the further critical, but for me it should feel like the height of arrogance.

Moving into my actual thought process, I could sarcastically summarise my view thus: I am a Reform-Leninist, but that does not mean I am not a Bolshevik. The crass way of putting this is 'shut the **** up liberal-anarkiddie, the Majority are speaking'. I jest, of course, for a broader discussion and sense of Cordialness (literally Gladsnost) amongst the Left is, after all, one of the main aspirations at the foundation of my reform. Yet there is truth in this personal concern for maintaining some form of ideological and structural orthodoxy which I hold to.

Nay matter how much I learn from the reforms and debates of Glasnost and Perestroika, ultimately they will remain a suspicious legacy contested and stained. The point was to change things, and unfortunately, it changed them (and the world) for the worse. I do wish the triumph of reform, but not at any price. I also recognise that I am promoting highly unpopular ideas for the Left. You are lucky I am more in temperament like Leonid Ilyich and Yuri Vladimirovich; if I were like Stalin or Khrushchev, I would make you eat my reforms and publicly praise me for saving the Left, and if I were like Gorbachev, I would destroy the Left with the Right, to push my way. To quote from my article A List of Problems on the Left: Discussing Gladsnost and Politstroika, 'Nay one is satisfied by Brezhnev until the moment is past'.

I have nay Leftist mandate or support, which means, as a Bolshevik, I can not authoritatively dictate to and contravene against the Leftist community. I do not wish to cause the destruction of Marxism-Leninism or of its parties, so I refrain from encroaching on certain topics which such a mandate allows for the unencumbered (by discretion and Partyclost) discussion of.

Thus, I frame my projects in a possibly peculiar way, attempting to reconcile my hope for refomr with the internal red-lines placed upon me by my conception of proper Bolshevism. I am not here to replace the vanguard party and Marxism-Leninism, but to fulfil them, or so my rationalisation goes.

Further complicating this balanced inter-play are my very views on the rights and duties of independent, non-party comrades. The reason I cover vanguard parties, despite not being quite keen on them myself, is because I consider this to be a duty of independent communists, which both strengthens and holds accountable the various vanguard parties, insular and isolated as they tend to be. And like Chris Cutrone, I am in favour of inter-Leftist dialogue and debate. The absence of this I fear to be the dark road to yezhovshchina, and that is something everyone ought to wish to avoid.

Reform, if I have learned anything about it, is messy and difficult to completely plan out. I can only ask that comrades listen; that is my hopeful request. Thank you.