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 […]”
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.
Losurdo was a champion of Marxism, this article is a hit piece by Bordigists that tacitly run interference for western imperialism. “Authoritarianism” isn’t really a thing to begin with, and like the authors, just runs interference for imperialism.
When I think “what is authoritarianism” I think it’s a political movement that
Does not include me in decision making for the decisions that affect me.
Where the expression of dissent is punished and medicalized or criminalized.
Where any challenge to those who wield political power and even discussing them is effectively forbidden.
Where everyone repeats the words of the political authority and will browbeat you into submission at any chance, even if only out of fear of being stigmatized and unsupported of those currently in power.
Where the only freedom for expression are for the love of the leader and his ideas.
Where I am accountable to the party but it isn’t accountable to me.
Where laws and the carceral state no longer have to pretend they are simply the tool of elimination of the undesirables.
I don’t think the future includes politics that aren’t those things, except those places so bereft of resources that this level of oppression cannot be maintained. The people who live in those deserts will not have to believe in anything, they will be free to roam as they please until they become inconvenient and then they will be removed by remote controlled war devices.
This is all vibes-based and against reality.
Ah yes, the classic “vibes-based” dismissal, the kind of anti-argument you throw out when someone describes material reality in terms you find uncomfortable. If you think what I said is against reality, then by all means, show me the workers’ movement that is currently in ascendancy. Show me where the forces of democratic, emancipatory socialism are gaining ground, in power, not just theory.
What I described is the actual, lived condition of most people under every political regime:
You’re just upset the metaphor cuts too close. It’s easier to wave your hand and pretend I’m being irrational than to confront the fact that both the liberal capitalist states and your preferred so-called “socialist” states function more like authoritarian command systems than vehicles for human liberation. That’s the point Wolfe makes about Losurdo: he rehabilitates authoritarian power under the guise of realism, and you defend it by pretending it’s the only “realistic” politics left.
That’s not Marxism. That’s resignation.
So unless you’re going to refute the content, and not just vibe-check my tone, I’d say your reply is exactly the kind of hollow deflection that props up authoritarian ideology from both sides of the geopolitical aisle.
Incorrect, AES states have comprehensive input from the working class.
Dissent from capitalists should be punished in socialist systems.
Vibes-based.
Socialist states have comprehensive democratization.
Some are vibes, some are wrong.
You have no real points, they are vibes-based. If you get that a lot, it’s because you keep it up.
This sounds good on paper, but what does “comprehensive input” mean in practice?
Are workers writing laws? Controlling their workplaces? Choosing party leadership through open, competitive democratic processes? Or are they participating in pre-vetted structures with predetermined outcomes, where “input” means saying yes to a development plan handed down by technocrats?
If you believe the existence of mass organizations or consultative meetings equals democratic power, then we’re using very different definitions of input. I’m talking about real sovereignty, workers as a class directing society, not just attending approved assemblies or being asked to cheer along.
Sure, suppression of class enemies is nothing new in revolutionary politics. But here’s the bait-and-switch: Once you’ve defined all dissent as capitalist, then any criticism of the ruling party becomes fair game for punishment, even from within the working class. That’s where the authoritarian slide happens: workers who don’t conform are accused of “bourgeois deviation.” This is exactly the sleight of hand Losurdo deploys, and which Wolfe critiques.
If you’re serious about building socialism, suppressing bourgeois sabotage isn’t the same as silencing internal dissent. The second you collapse those two into one, you stop talking about socialism and start defending an apparatus that protects itself at all costs.
Again, define “democratization.” Does it mean:
Genuine multiparty pluralism within a socialist framework?
The right of workers to organize independent unions or parties?
Open debate about policy, leadership, or direction, without fear of retaliation?
If not, then “comprehensive democratization” sounds more like managed participation, not democracy. Yes, socialist states have forms of participation, and some of them are impressive. But that’s not the same as workers’ power. Even Lenin knew the difference, and warned about it. So let’s not flatten this into a slogan.
So to summarize:
I’m not arguing that socialism is inherently authoritarian. I’m saying when Marxists stop being vigilant about power, we create systems that no longer serve liberation, and then we rationalize it afterward by accusing critics of being liberals or capitalists.
Losurdo is part of that rationalization. That’s what Wolfe is pointing out.