Published posthumously in Italian, The Communist Question is a continuation of the discussion that began in Losurdo’s Western Marxism. Losurdo continues his analysis of the seemingly inescapable crisis, following the dissolution of the USSR, afflicting Marxism in the Western countries. Losurdo asserts that this outcome is not “destiny” and unapologetically asserts the legacy of the Soviet period and the necessity of Marxism as an approach. Moreover, he continues his analysis of Marxism to identify what it is capable of leading to in our immediate future.
Now Iskra Books are publishing it in English. It’s gonna be available in November.
Uhh, I am so behind on my book list. At the bottom there is just a line that says “Every book by Losurdo” lol, I guess I’ll get to it
‘Liberalism: A counter history’ is genuinely a brilliant read. Start with that. I am saving “Class Strugle” for later.
Yea I actually did read some of his articles and shorter works, but found them quite heavy. I hope his books are a bit easier to follow.
I wouldn’t say he’s ever an easy read, but you get used to the way he structures his thought and reading him becomes more fluid. There’s a wonderfully clarifying interview by some schmucks from Platypus that is a great example of how he marshals his arguments and responds in a fair minded way that must have infuriated them.
https://redsails.org/losurdo-and-platypus/
Ross Wolfe is apparently still seething about this.
Hearing that Losurdo pissed off the Platypus makes me want to read his work more. As someone whose had a… “controversial experience” with the PAS, I can’t help but enjoy some schadenfreude.
That being said, I’m interested in the section of this article where Losurdo criticizes the concept of the state withering away.
I’m not sure I totally understand his point. Is he arguing that the conception of a stateless soceity, even after the elimination of class, is not feasible? Sorry if this os a novice question, but I’d like to better my understanding.
Also, this portion:
Often Marxism has spoken of the disappearance of power as such — not the limitation of power, but its disappearance: the withering of the state and so on. This vision is a messianic vision, which has played a very negative role in the history of socialism and communism. If we think that power will simply disappear, we do not feel the obligation to limit power. This vision had terrible consequences in countries like the Soviet Union.
Do you know where he writes in more detail about how these consequences expressed themselves in the USSR?
If I may chime in.
There was a huge messianic trend in newly emerged Soviet Russia right after the revolution where a large portion of the revolutionaries were rebelling and tearing down thier membership cards and even resorting to sabotage etc. once they realized that they won’t achieve stateless communist utopia any time soon. Basically they were saying “this is not what we fought for”. Big part of the civil war (apart from the foreign intervention and the domestic bourgeois opposition) was the “disappointed communists” trying to “finish what they started”.
Although in this specific paragraph Losurdo seems to raise the point that improper understanding of the “withering away of the state” led the Soviet Union to fail to properly manage the beaurocratic tendencies which eventually resulted in corrupt officials accumulating wealth through various schemes which eventually led to the restoration of capitalism.
Thank you, that was very illuminating.
There was a huge messianic trend in newly emerged Soviet Russia right after the revolution where a large portion of the revolutionaries were rebelling and tearing down thier membership cards and even resorting to sabotage etc. once they realized that they won’t achieve stateless communist utopia any time soon. Basically they were saying “this is not what we fought for”. Big part of the civil war (apart from the foreign intervention and the domestic bourgeois opposition) was the “disappointed communists” trying to “finish what they started”.
This is a huge misrepresentation of the conflict between Bolsheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and other leftists.
Losurdo brings up the messianic point in his book on Stalin as well. He likes to tie it to Hegels critique of the french revolution regarding “abstract freedom” which is violated by any framework of “concrete freedom”. In part it might be tying a pretty ribbon on the issue, but I’m not sure and don’t think he means to say that this was the only diagreement with other left groups
As I understand it he’s saying that there will always have to be a social structure or order in some sense, and that complete “state”-lessness in this sense is impractical, utopian, anarchistic and messianic - ultimately counterproductive. Even more so in a situation where a new revolutionary order is being attacked by counterrevolutionary forces from both within and without. This is not to say that there will always be a state in which one class oppresses another. But especially in the initial stages of a revolutionary order, you certainly want the oppression of the bourgeoisie by a dictatorship of the proletariat - a situation that may linger on for a long time.
These are themes that run throughout his work. He expands on this in Class Struggle, Western Marxism, and his Stalin book, to name a few. There’s an interesting section in Western Marxism where he discusses the temporalities of western and eastern Marxism - the western Marxist wants to jump straight into the utopian future and resents the flaws, day to day struggles and imperfections of eastern Marxism (that is, actually existing socialism).
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
Thank you, that’s a very helpful explanation. Currently listening to an audio book of Liberalism, and enjoying it a lot.
Class Struggle is dense I heard.
Do you have any advice on which of Losurdo’s texts to start with?
Liberism: A Counter History
black prince baby! that or liberalism
