Ross Wolfe tackles Domenico Losurdo’s work as “a new school of falsification, all in service of justifying the course history has taken. Everything he wrote had to align with the geopolitical interests of [a] few nominally socialist states […]”
Ross Wolfe tackles Domenico Losurdo’s work as “a new school of falsification, all in service of justifying the course history has taken. Everything he wrote had to align with the geopolitical interests of [a] few nominally socialist states […]”
I wonder if the downvotes are angry about me very lightly bad mouthing authoritarians or involuntary sodomy.
These authoritarians you speak of, who are they? What’s the alternative to them?
My comment is that all of our “choices” are and that there specifically IS no alternative.
So I understand why my comment was censored, because it was true of course and they didn’t like to be exposed like that.
You know when you don’t even try and they prove you right anyway ?
You referenced SA unnecessarily and repeated lazy anti-communist tropes on a communist community. That’s likely why.
I don’t know how insecure and paranoid one has to be to interpret what I said as “anti-communist”, I find the very accusation ridiculous, did you even see the guys running the show ? You think any of these jackbooted thugs are any kind of communists ?
At best we can choose the flavour of the boot we’re going to have to lick ? Do you prefer that one ? Don’t like the graphic and poetic reality of what I said ? You think it’s “sexual harrassement” to graphically describe how we are treated every day ? Do you think I’ll be any happier because you remove the words from my mouth, that I won’t be able to say exactly how I feel about how the unacceptable presence that has been milking me my entire life ?
Yes, I’ve seen communists running socialist countries. I don’t think describing everything in a SA fashion is productive, especially considering using SA casually is extremely insensitive to those who’ve gone through it. I don’t really care if you are individually happy or not that you’re getting called out on for toxic behavior and blatant anti-communism on a communist comm.
What they are doing is worse than grape the ducking vampires are eating our entire lives while brainwashing us
This is an article about Domenico Losurdo, a deceased Marxist theoretician and historian. What on Earth are you on about?
Domenico Losurdo a champion of authoritarian statism, and the article itself, a stand against him and authoritarianism.
So that makes my comment authoritarian defeatism, because all current anti-liberal movement are strong authoritarian movements.
Ultimately whatever flavour you choose, you will still lose and the only choice is whether you’ll be gaslight into servitude or made to serve at gunpoint, the end result is the same.
What is it with western Marxists and all this proclivity for such comical hotdogging
You call it “comical hotdogging” when someone expresses rage, fear, or disgust at the state of political repression in a world where every faction in power, liberal, fascist, or nominally socialist, is tightening the screws. But when your side waxes poetic about “the historical necessity of the vanguard,” or excuses every betrayal of proletarian power as “dialectics,” suddenly that’s rigorous political theory?
Maybe you mistake intensity for performance because you’re so used to Marxism as posture, a kind of grim cosplay of seriousness, where anything outside the approved aesthetics of your tendency is just “hotdogging.”
The funny thing is, the article you’re commenting under? Ross Wolfe is a Western Marxist. He’s critiquing Losurdo precisely for turning Marxism into a theological justification for authoritarian statecraft. But instead of engaging with that, you fall back on vibes: “lol western Marxists always be hotdogging.”
Hot take: maybe what looks like “hotdogging” to you is just refusing to smile while licking the boot.
Cool anime villain speech I didn’t ask about all that tho. I know that dude is a western Marxist, I don’t know what’s funny about it, seems to me you don’t really know what you’re talking about and are being edgy for the sake of edge.
Your comment has been removed, but from your other comment I can conclude that its because you talk like you have an extreme case of reddit
Reported my good sir you have lost the internet today
I very tangentially hinted at my displeasure toward authoritarianism,
So proving my point they immediately gave me the internet death penalty, how on-brand
That is hyper-normalization at work, we know that you know that we know and here is proof and you still can’t do anything about it because we can delete you and you cannot do anything about it, so what are you going to do about it ?
Give up or be even more deleted.
And they wonder why humans, who have realized they are in captivity, are refusing to breed
This is simply too rich, they all want to farm humans, well they can farm their own children
Come on mama, birth right into the maws of the meat grinder !
Let’s see:
To be honest you’re lucky I’m not a mod because I’d ban you for defending the SA garbage.
No engagement with the article?
Are you sure you even read my comment? The entire point I made was an engagement with the core argument of the article: that authoritarianism; whether in Losurdo’s dressed-up Dengist nostalgia or in the cruder forms we see globally; is winning everywhere. Not just in capitalist or liberal regimes, but across so-called “socialist” states too. The writer of the piece, Wolfe, accuses Losurdo of resurrecting Stalinism in philosophical form. I expanded that: whether in Losurdo’s China-aligned realism or in Western liberal managerialism, the forces of emancipationl; real class struggle, worker-led politics, democratic socialism; are in full retreat. Authoritarians are scenting weakness and consolidating everywhere, left and right, East and West. That is engaging the article; maybe not in the approved academic tone, but with eyes open and blood pressure correctly elevated.
Soapboxing?
Says the person whose only contribution is performative outrage and defense of your favorite dead theorist. You want to reduce all dissent to “liberal nonsense”; because you need the illusion that everyone who criticizes the vanguardist-authoritarian line must be a bourgeois liberal. As if no one on the left ever rejected the gulag with the gun. Wolfe’s entire essay is one long demonstration that many Marxists, across generations, have warned against this exact trend; and you’re here pretending it’s all some Reddit-tier rant. Sorry, but calling out the erosion of liberty and the rising tide of elite managerial control isn’t “soapboxing.” It’s called waking up.
“Inappropriate SA references”?
No. You’re trying to hijack a metaphor to shut people up; and frankly, it’s authoritarian to the bone. The phrase “sodomized by the state” is not a reference to literal assault, and you know that. It’s a well-worn political metaphor, used to describe invasive, violating state power; the kind that enters every part of your life without consent. You don’t get to pretend not to understand that just to score fake moral points. That’s not solidarity with survivors; that’s weaponizing sensitivity to smother dissent, the oldest censorship trick in the book. Ironically, it proves the point I was making about how authoritarianism now works: by dictating what metaphors you’re allowed to use, what tone you’re allowed to take, and which elites you’re allowed to criticize.
So let me say it plainly:
You’re defending a line of thought that puts all power in the hands of distant, unaccountable Party elites, and tries to silence critics through moral performance and bad-faith categorization. You want to flatten all nuance into “either you’re with the vanguard or you’re a liberal.” But the article you’re ignoring; and the critique I’m extending; is about how that very mindset destroyed Marxism’s revolutionary potential from the inside.
And you’d ban me for it?
Thanks for illustrating the whole thesis of the piece.
You don’t want liberation; you want obedience.
Hey look you did all 3 points again. You even missed the point of this ultra’s meandering and bad faith polemic, which I actually explained at length (you chose to lie about this) to instead grind your own axe (point 2) again.
Are you surprised when nobody takes you seriously?