Year One of Reform-Leninism; What has been Learned in One Year of Reform

22 January 2026.

Comrades, we have arrived at the first year's completion in the project of Reform. In this article, I will deliver some of the lessons learned: which objectives were met successfully, which remain unmet, and what potential problems may have caused it to be so, how and where these impeded us. The article may not be the longest or the most lively, but it is only Year One, and therefore matters are not yet structured as they ought soon to be. Finally, do note that the wider discussion on the state and current purpose of the Netlog shall be reserved for the latter half of February, wherein the founding— especially this time around, as the fifth anniversary —of Thoughts of a Comrade falls.

When we published that article born of illness on 22 October 2024, 'A List of Problems on the Left: Discussing Gladsnost and Politstroika' (here), we did not expect these two words to become the foundation of a new tendency (sub-tendency) and platform to serve as the new general view of the Netlog. As usual, we assumed it should serve solely as a specialised term for the subject of the article or as a slogan, in either case only shewing up here and there. But the turbulent storms aligned to make this a revolutionary turning point. Most turns are the ones comprised of mundane weeks, whilst some turns can divert the course of decades. These turns may rarely be told apart until they happen, and this happened to be of the latter type. Such is the strange fate of Bolshevik revolutionaries, and such the standard nature of spontaneity and development which accompanies the reformation of ideologies.

We have come to learn that authoring your first article can be a dangerous business, especially when you are under the pressure of belonging to a group with a similar concern in the domains of said article, made worse in times of social crisis (or total societal collapse, naturally). Yet it is positively perilous to put off the ordering of your articles to a grosser purpose. Do this too early, and you will burn out, coming to resent the higher vocation which you have spent so long advocating for, to be met with silence or derision. Wait to do so without end, however, and each year will bring further degradation, self-isolation, and further misfocus, until your articles become exclusively those of the nature of a personal diary. None of these three things, or the phenomena in their less extreme variations, are bad as such. Indeed, the superior variations of these are called, rather, flexibility or respite, self-respect or conviction, and worldliness or curiosity. These are generally agreed, in genteel culture, to be good things.

Howbeit, we are strafing too close to the topic of the coming anniversary article. All this justification to give the reason for the storm and drag which resulted in the unforeseen, and at any rate little-knowable, ferment of Reform.

Perhaps the most important question is whether Year One of Reform has been a failure or success. Of course, to answer this enquiry, we must produce some notion of what the objectives were, that we may render anything like grounded judgement regarding their status. The word 'produce' is used intentionally, for in the first year, particular the primary half, when all was merely nascent, there could be nay substantiated objectives. Eventually, the platform took shape, and only then could determinable objectives emerge. One of the first true, not merely rhetorical, objectives to form was the drive to develop a socialist legal tradition, commentaries, and ultimately both a Renewed Socialist Legality and New Socialist Constitutional Law. These two later policies and their programmes are easier to quantify veritably than any of the Four Nosts and Stroikas (here). Naturally, as being later policies, they arose when matters were becoming clear and tangible.

So, having established our bench-mark, did we succeed in this? We have indeed published multiple commentaries on documents of a legal (or semi-legal) character, namely of the then-newly founded/reconstituted American Communist Party. These are some of the longest articles on TOAC, and some of the finest, in the sense of focused utility. Two may not be many, but we will only add to the excellent collection to which these articles belong.

Another objective which arose gradually, and is really the reinstitution of an older goal which TOAC had in general, was to maintain a quota of publishing two articles a month. In 2025, we missed both posts for February, and only managed to post one article in March, April, and November. However, we managed to outperform the quota for multiple months, particularly in August and September at seven and five articles, respectively. Prior to Reform, this should not have been considered a difficult feat at all. Before the institution of all these policies, TOAC posts used to be polemical, personal, and pitiful in length, some ,,articles'' being composed of just two paragraphs. Reform has imposed a higher requirement for quality in articles, causing their writing to take longer, when a topic is sufficiently supplied with material to commission an article in the first place. It is little wonder, then, that early February failed to meet the quota.

Thus, we may say that for Year One of Reform, we have made a mildly successful attempt at modestly revolutionary Reform. Considering it is only the first year, we should say it has ended with a better record than was initially to be expected. But the second year has deficiencies to solve, and must maintain the initial success of the first year, that we may further develop a mildly successful attempt at modestly revolutionary Reform.

On the other side of furthering Reformative forces, there is the possibility of burning through all our coal too quickly, burning out of the fortitude element in fortitime, which should grind all processes to a highly disruptive halt. Related to this are two similar potential problems: a wavering of telos, and a difficulty in judging the worthiness of topics for coverage. In essence, the unholy trinity of 'hast du den rechten Kurs für dein Leben?'. Are you on the right path, do you have a real, convicted purpose? This is a danger which we have struggled with in the past, and must have a care about into the future. If we fail, then, again, the schedule for posting, even the process of Reform will presumably be disrupted.

Renewed Socialist Legality and New Socialist Constitutional Law will likely be prioritised in the coming Year Two at the outset. Unfortunately, the Four Nosts and Stroikas are, by their nature, harder to begin developing, being more cultural and structural, that is all to say, collective in nature. Single digits of men can do little more than what TOAC has already done, besides continuing to promote and personally exemplify the four policies. The former aforementioned two policies are much easier for individuals to contribute to. Writing commentaries and other legal articles is something TOAC can and must do.

A final, but important point we ought to end with. We have been forthright in the future orientation characterising the project of Reform. Some do not understand this, and view Reform-Leninism as fantastical role-play trend or a fanciful academic thesis. The Left is far too dogmatic, sectarian, thus broken at present to to so understand the purpose, the very necessity of the project. Internal ideological Reform— what we mean by capital-r Reform —cannot be had until it becomes viewed as possible and then beneficial. Much as we had discovered the forgotten treasure trove of experience and analysis which was left from Glasnost and Perestroika, we have from the first moment intended the preparation of the theory and material of Reform, that the Leftists of the future, when the time is opportune, may commence in the full implementation of Reform all the more quickly and easily.

Luminaries often seem extravagant, indulgent, arrogant, or foolish at the time of their efforts, especially if, like TOAC, they are actively preserving an archive of their new knowledge for the future in the present. But such tend to be the brightest lights, with the most highly treasured. intriguing archives. I suppose history will judge us.