International Critical Thought

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rict20

Domenico Losurdo’s Perspective on Real Socialism

Diego Pautasso & Tiago Soares Nogara

To cite this article: Diego Pautasso & Tiago Soares Nogara (29 Jun 2024): Domenico
Losurdo’s Perspective on Real Socialism, International Critical Thought, DOI:
10.1080/21598282.2024.2368398

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2024.2368398

Published online: 29 Jun 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rict20
INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT
https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2024.2368398

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Domenico Losurdo’s Perspective on Real Socialism

Diego Pautassoa and Tiago Soares Nogarab
a
Department of Geography, Military College of Porto Alegre, Brazil; bCollege of Liberal Arts, Shanghai
University, Shanghai, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The seminal contributions of the esteemed Italian Marxist scholar, Received 25 January 2024
Domenico Losurdo, have significantly enriched the theoretical Revised 12 April 2024
and methodological landscape surrounding the study and Accepted 20 May 2024
practical application of historical-dialectical materialism. This
KEYWORDS
article elucidates Losurdo’s principal perspectives on the intricate Domenico Losurdo; Real
challenges inherent in the construction of socialist societies. In Socialism; Western Marxism;
stark departure from prevalent Western Marxist paradigms, Revisionism; Leninism
Losurdo’s analyses of revolutionary historical praxes are imbued
with a rigorous self-critical lens, eschewing adherence to
revisionist or liquidationist doctrines that characterized the
prevalent trend of anti-communist pseudo-Marxism fashionable
within some academic circles. This discourse systematically
unpacks the salient themes of this intellectual inquiry,
meticulously assessing Losurdo’s oeuvre as a distinctive and
invaluable contribution to the nuanced exploration of the
complexities and prospects entailed in the development of
authentic socialist experiences.

Introduction
In the writings of the esteemed Italian Marxist theorist Domenico Losurdo, the concept
of “rigor of objectivity” (Azzarà 2020, 15) holds paramount importance, as it is intricately
tied to both the meticulous engagement in theoretical discourse and the thorough evalu­
ation of historical dynamics. Losurdo remained faithful to the application of Marxist
theoretical-methodological principles and advocated heterodox conclusions regarding
key controversies within the field. Demonstrating remarkable erudition, he commenced
his academic journey by examining classical philosophers, particularly those of German
origin, before delving into the political-philosophical developments of the French and
American revolutions, thereby scrutinizing the trajectory of political liberalism.
Following the setbacks associated with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of
the USSR, Losurdo redirected his scholarly focus towards what would become his pri­
mary area of investigation. While some leftist and neo-Marxist thinkers vehemently
repudiated the experiences of real socialism, Losurdo embarked on the task of crafting
a more measured and nuanced evaluation of this intricate historical epoch, analyzing
the trajectories of the 20th-century revolutions. He contended that many self-professed
Marxists, in their fervor to implement autocratic socialist experiments, ultimately

CONTACT Tiago Soares Nogara tiagosnogara@gmail.com

© 2024 Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
2 D. PAUTASSO AND T. S. NOGARA

succumbed to what he termed as autophobia. This article aims to delve into the argument
that this autophobia prevalent in Western Marxism intersected with the formation and
solidification of what Losurdo identified as a deficient left.
Losurdo’s critique of Western Marxism as insufficiently engaging with the realities of
socialist experiments resonates profoundly in contemporary discourse. By examining his
insights into the complexities of Marxist theory and its application in historical contexts,
we gain not only a deeper understanding of leftist thought but also valuable perspectives
on the challenges facing progressive movements in the present day. This article seeks to
unpack Losurdo’s contributions to Marxist scholarship and their implications for navi­
gating the terrain of political theory and practice in an ever-changing global landscape.
In this context, the article will be delineated into three distinct sections. Initially, it will
scrutinize the phenomenon of autophobia prevalent among select Marxist and leftist fac­
tions vis-à-vis the empirical manifestations of socialism. Subsequently, it will elucidate
the seminal contributions of Losurdo in evaluating the trajectories of socialist regimes
throughout the 20th century. Finally, it will critically assess Losurdo’s indictments of
the purportedly passive “Armchair Marxism.” Consequently, the article will methodically
delineate the principal tenets of Losurdo’s political and methodological critique, accent­
uating the scholarly retreat witnessed within certain segments of Marxist literature con­
cerning the tangible praxis of socialist construction.

Real Socialism and Autophobia

Contemporaneously, when examining socialist experiences, many Marxists tend to revert
to an idealized socialist archetype, serving as a benchmark to evaluate existing experi­
ences. This notion implies that socialism’s existence hinges on the eradication of class
and conflict, power and the state, division of labor and the market, religions, and nation­
alities. Consequently, any continuities or contradictions in post-capitalist societies are
often viewed as deviations from this ideal type. Underlying this premise is the construc­
tion, and perpetuation, of the denial of real socialist experiences. As highlighted by Nove
(1991, 11), this simplistic assumption suggests that conflict dissipates in abundance,
while the new man fosters a new stable equilibrium. This perspective fosters a preference
for revisiting Marx’s writings incessantly in theoretical discourse, treating them as sacred
scriptures, and adhering to what Losurdo (2004) identified as the formalistic veneration
of martyrs—notably those who failed in their attempts to implement socialist revolution
—rather than focusing on the leaders of revolutionary processes who grappled with the
challenges and contradictions of seizing and managing power. Thus, a detachment from
reality is solidified, stemming from an entrenched idealism.
Autophobia, the fear or aversion to oneself, manifests through the denial of one’s own
history and the advocacy for a radical departure in constructing socialism. This mindset
rejects the lessons and legacies of past socialist experiments, which are perceived as hav­
ing yielded undesirable outcomes. Instead, proponents of autophobia envision a new
form of socialism, untethered from historical precedents and purged of perceived fail­
ures. This rejection of historical continuity reflects a desire for a pristine, idealized ver­
sion of socialism, divorced from the complexities and contradictions inherent in real-
world socio-political dynamics. However, this approach risks overlooking valuable
 INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT 3

insights gleaned from historical struggles and the need for a nuanced understanding of
the challenges inherent in socialist praxis.
In the preface of Escape from History? The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolu­
tion Viewed from Today by Domenico Losurdo (2005), the author explicitly delineates his
critique directed towards Marxists exhibiting “autophobic” tendencies towards revolu­
tionary movements. He contends that their failure to engage politically with the historical
legacies of socialist development in the 20th century reflects a capitulatory stance, indica­
tive of a relinquishment of the autonomous identity of the communist movement.
Losurdo identifies “autophobia” as a recurrent phenomenon in analyses that emphasize
the perceived “betrayal of ideals” in socialist revolutions. In response, he advocates for
rigorous self-criticism, asserting that the reconstruction of the communist identity
necessitates an understanding of the contradictory and complex trajectories of various
socialist experiences throughout history.
Numerous theoretical frameworks have sought to elucidate the nature of socialist-
oriented regimes established throughout the 20th century. These include various Wes­
tern Sovietology variants and a spectrum of Marxist approaches centered on concepts
of bureaucratic degeneration, theories of a new mode of production, or perspectives
guided by the centrality of state capitalism. Upon comprehensive evaluation of these
frameworks, it becomes evident that most of them reject the socialist character of existing
revolutionary experiences, primarily due to perceived inconsistencies with the models
outlined in classic Marxist literature (Fernandes 2000, 22). Losurdo sought to undertake
a profound examination of this controversy, employing rigorous historical and compara­
tive analyses. He initiated this endeavor by critically appraising socialist experiences
without succumbing to the prevalent autophobia pervasive in neo-Marxist discourse.
His aim was to conclude an analysis that avoided contemplative nostalgia and refrained
from delving into the shame and remorse underpinning the revisionism prevalent at the
end of the Cold War. In summary, Losurdo sought to strike a balance that rejected anti-
communist propaganda without succumbing to the trend of reinterpreting Marxist clas­
sics as immutable guiding principles for assessing socialist experiences (Losurdo 2005).
The initial issue addressed pertains to the generalizations typically made about real
socialism. These experiences unfolded diversely across dozens of countries throughout
the 20th century. At its peak in 1983, as many as 32 countries declared themselves social­
ist or Marxist-oriented regimes, albeit with varying shades and origins (Visentini 2017,
17). These were experiences marked by significant differences and specificities, with
each country undergoing various changes in economic policies and, at times, drastic
shifts in political and strategic orientations. As underscored by Nove (1991, 10), the
transformations initiated by real socialist regimes were characterized by diverse combi­
nations of market and planning mechanisms, experiments in economic management,
and political-institutional arrangements.
Despite the collapse of most of the socialist bloc, it is imperative to acknowledge that
this represented merely the first major cycle of large-scale attempts to construct a post-
capitalist egalitarian society. Therefore, numerous challenges were encountered, consid­
ering that these political constructs emerged amidst the contradictions of the capitalist
and imperialist system amid violent decolonization processes. Nevertheless, these experi­
ences endeavored to expand access for their populations to goods and rights, including
security, health, education services, housing, employment, and culture, while also
4 D. PAUTASSO AND T. S. NOGARA

enhancing workers’ participation in the political sphere (Visentini 2017, 144–145). It is

noteworthy that, for the first time in history, these social segments became a priority on
the state agenda, evolving into active consumers not only of basic consumer goods but
also of high-level cultural goods, as evidenced in the Soviet Union, where workers
enjoyed extensive access to museums, cinemas, theaters, bookstores, and musical con­
certs (Keeran and Kenny 2008). Furthermore, one cannot fully grasp the expansion of
rights in Western capitalism and its welfare states without considering how the pressure
from socialist countries influenced capitalism to internalize notions of citizenship,
including the expansion of social and democratic rights (Losurdo 2005).
In grappling with domestic challenges and international encirclement, the Soviet
socialist experiment necessitated theoretical and political compromises to “accidentally”
suppress its legacies. Among these legacies, noteworthy aspects in the Soviet case include
its transformation from a relatively backward and semi-feudal national state into a super­
power within a few decades, achieving the largest scale of social mobility ever witnessed,
indicating the potential for an alternative system to capitalism; its victory over Nazi
Germany, the greatest war machine of all time; its decisive contribution to the decoloni­
zation process and popular struggles in many peripheral countries; and the laying of
foundations for the dissemination of social rights and subsequent construction of Wes­
tern welfare states, among others. As emphasized by Losurdo, it is crucial to contextualize
that the regime resulting from the October Revolution represented not merely a clash
between capitalism and socialism but also the culmination of existing contradictions
between the interests of major capitalist powers on the international stage, inaugurating
a period of increased national liberation wars and decolonization (Losurdo 2017).
Drawing from historical and comparative analyses of socialist revolutions and the
ensuing political and economic transformations, Losurdo demonstrated the commonal­
ity of these revolutions failing to achieve all their objectives. However, he posited that
such limitations are inherent to revolutionary processes as a whole, rather than specific
to those directed by forces committed to Marxism-Leninism or socialist ideals. Just as the
Jacobins did not revive the Greek polis, American revolutionaries did not establish a
society of independent producers, nor did the Puritans realize their envisioned biblical
society. Consequently, analysts should not be surprised by the existence of a gap between
subjective consciousness and the contradictory processes of objective reality (Losurdo
2017). This detachment arises from the challenge of imbuing concrete content into the
idealistic ideas that propelled the seizure of power, representing a contradictory process
of gradually refining the abstract utopias that characterized the initial stages of social
upheaval.
However, the demonization of such experiences continues to wield a significant influ­
ence on 20th-century analyses, contributing to the persistent fortune enjoyed by the
negative cult of heroes (Losurdo 2008), entrenched in the political-ideological struggle
inherent in narrative definitions. Consequently, it is unsurprising that Marxist canons
like Antonio Gramsci rejected adopting messianic and idealistic positions, which, by dis­
torting the historical texts of Marxist thought, would presuppose the rapid eradication of
class antagonisms, state power, religions, nations, division of labor, market, and other
potential sources of conflict as prerequisites for revolutionary processes. Instead,
Gramsci advocated for adapting revolutions to the practical challenges of their historical
context (Thomas 2009), exemplified in the Soviet case by the implementation of the New
 INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT 5

Economic Policy, which entailed a tactical retreat based on the slogan “one step back, two
steps forward” (Lenin 1978).
Examining the responses of Marxist movements to the absence of socialist revolutions
in the central, and investigating Western capitalist contexts in general with greater scru­
tiny, the Italian philosopher delineates three alternative models that emerged throughout
the 20th century. Trotsky’s model prioritized the exportation of revolution from the
initial revolutionary nucleus, while Stalin’s model acknowledged the unfavorable inter­
national relations context and underscored the construction of socialism within his
own nation. The model associated with Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping attributed the
path to compensating for the non-realization of socialism in central economies to the
development of lagging productive forces. Drawing from Marx and Engels’ Manifesto
of the Communist Party, Losurdo (2005) illustrates the coexistence of two revolutionary
processes within it, interacting dialectically: the revolution from below, marked by the
renowned and frequently evoked seizure of the means of production, and the revolution
from above, a concept seldom referenced, characterized by efforts to cultivate productive
forces. Through an attempt to synthesize the two advocated revolutions in Manifesto of
the Communist Party, the author evaluates the contemporary landscape of the Chinese
socialist experience, juxtaposing numerous Marxist criticisms of its perceived capitula­
tion to the dictates of global capitalism.
Rather than adopting an analysis centered on autophobia and the supposed betrayal of
communist leaders to revolutionary ideals, Losurdo advocated for self-criticism
grounded in reconstructing communist identity by understanding the divergent paths
followed by different socialist experiences while asserting their broad legacy of achieve­
ments. To reinforce this perspective, he challenged critical theses about the content of
socialist revolutions, emphasizing debates on fundamental issues of Marxist theory,
including definitions of the state, the centrality of the national question, the imperative
development of productive forces, and the assessment of challenges confronting the com­
munist movement in the contemporary historical moment.

Challenges of Really Existing Socialism

Simultaneously rejecting autophobia and capitulation, Losurdo embarked on a meticu­
lous evaluation of socialist experiences within their unique historical contexts, as
demanded by scientific and methodological rigor. In essence, he scrutinized these experi­
ences through the lens of international siege and blockade, protracted internal conflicts,
legacies of underdevelopment, and institutional and political challenges. According to
Losurdo, it was this historical framework, coupled with the messianic vision of the state’s
withering away, that engendered dysfunctions and political disjunctions within revolu­
tionary experiences.
In Losurdo’s analysis (2004), these experiences epitomized the dialectic between the
state of exception as an abstract utopia and the subsequent hypertrophy of the state of
exception itself. This phenomenon had problematic repercussions as the messianic
impulse to dissolve the state, national identities, markets, and currencies clashed with
the persistence of remnants of the old regimes, resulting in the absence of a stable insti­
tutional framework and chronic inadequacy of the market for goods and services. By
assuming a supposed chronological and ideological universality of the processes
6 D. PAUTASSO AND T. S. NOGARA

triggering and evolving socialist revolutions, certain analyses veer towards the canons of
liberal thought, disregarding the particularities of social formations in each national
revolution.
In this vein, Losurdo meticulously examined the incongruities of the messianism
advocating the withering away of the state. According to the Italian author, Marx and
Engels acknowledged the disappearance of the state apparatus more due to its coercive
dimension than its governmental and administrative dimension; Lenin conceded that
even the most advanced democracy could not dispense with representative institutions;
and Gramsci underscored the impossibility of a society devoid of a state and its systems
of rules. For Losurdo, it was Gramsci who distanced himself the most from the inaccura­
cies and eschatologicalism of the classics of Marxism. This eschatologicalism, character­
ized by anti-statist features, envisaged not only the extinction of the state but also the
messianic vision of the end of all forms of conflict, markets, identities, religions, and
languages, thereby establishing an unprecedented utopianism. In this regard, the author
emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between the social elements destined to perish
with the downfall of capitalism and those that endure in revolutionary processes, solidi­
fying themselves as enduring achievements of humanity. This nuanced perspective facili­
tated greater adaptation to the challenges of constructing socialist experiences in each
historical epoch.
The imperative of developing productive forces was a constant theme in socialist
experiences, particularly considering that revolutions unfolded in backward or underde­
veloped countries and invariably grappled with inconsistencies in governance and insti­
tutional elaborations. Consequently, rather than the gradual extinction of the state as
initially envisaged by its theorists, there was a bolstering of state structures and their
respective interconnections with communist party structures, alongside the obstruction
of the refinement of socialist legal frameworks. The outcome was the concentration of
political power with significant autonomy of the state, still influenced by 1) an exceed­
ingly adverse international landscape; 2) the emergence of socialist political forms
from a pre-modern society; and 3) the imperative of modernization through state inter­
ventions. Consequently, institutional contradictions emerged from the fragile mediation
between society and the state, revolving around the direct connection with the charis­
matic leader and the strong bonds binding the party to the state.
Concurrently, certain eschatological and messianic views concerning the extinction of
the state underestimated the primacy and continuity of the national question, subscribing
to an abstract internationalism. Indeed, the challenge of transitioning from a state of
exception to one of institutional normality was influenced not only by the adverse con­
text but also by naive notions about the withering away of the state, impeding the con­
struction of mechanisms for curbing power and its democratic formalities. According to
Losurdo, the belief in the imperative to dismantle representative institutions and legal
systems, deemed inherently repressive, rendered the establishment of human rights in
socialist societies unattainable, eradicating stable and predictable general rules while
favoring arbitrary power. Denouncing new forms of power and institutional domination,
however, does not contribute to constructing a post-capitalist society, as the elimination
of the sharpest contradiction between social classes does not dissolve all other contradic­
tions, thereby preserving the role of politics and institutions as civilized mediators of
diverse and diffuse interests.
 INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT 7

In essence, Losurdo contends that various forms of populism pose stark challenges to
constructing alternatives to capitalism. First, populism rooted in nostalgia and the revival
of forsaken social relations relies on nostalgic communal bonds. Second, those who extol
sectors of the lumpenproletariat and marginalized groups as the exclusive embodiment of
moral excellence do so precisely because these groups are distanced from power. The
crystallization of the belief in the contradiction between the will of the popular masses
and power structures, resulting in a sterile denunciation of power, renders it impossible
to differentiate between revolution and counter-revolution. This is what Gramsci termed
“primitive subversion,” which obfuscates the understanding of the myriad contradictions
and stages of the class struggle permeating the contemporary world.
The naive notion of the state’s extinction contradicts the concrete reality of political
struggle, marked by the demand for greater relative and absolute power in the public
sphere, along with institutional instruments promoting the development of productive
forces. Contrary to this understanding, socialists are duty-bound to oppose the liberal
premise, evident in Hayek’s (1944) writings, which assert that planning and universalist
public policies curtail economic freedom and civil liberties. Likewise, socialists must
oppose anarchist rhetoric advocating political abstention in daily political contests.
These eschatological conceptions oppose not merely a specific type of state but all
forms of political-institutional organization. Even self-proclaimed Marxist authors
reduce the state to illegitimacy, contending that the assertion of the law of the strongest
is an integral part of the sociometabolic order of the capitalist system, as in the case of
Mészáros (2011, 213). In this view, the construction of a new society would unfold har­
moniously, devoid of contradictions and conflicts, without the need to erect and conso­
lidate new institutions.
It is pertinent to consider the socialist experience of the People’s Republic of China.
The country weathered the collapse of real socialism, readapting to an unfavorable inter­
national context and undergoing an unstoppable process of modernization and insti­
tutional transformations, marked by a series of complex advancements and setbacks,
practical challenges, ruptures, and continuities. In Losurdo’s estimation (2004), China’s
paramount challenge has been to adopt a stance of “demythologization” of the revolution
and the communist project, acknowledging the necessary transition through a learning
process fraught with contradictions, encompassing the protracted journey from a state
of exception to one of institutional normality. Consistent with this perspective, the theor­
etical development of Chinese Marxism has also evolved, seeking to provide profound
tools for understanding socialist experiences, as exemplified by the innovative Marxism
school (Cheng 2012), which substantially converges with many of Losurdo’s structural
assessments (Pautasso and Nogara 2023).
In summary, idealizing a developed and democratic socialism, devoid of resistance
and conflicts, does not foster self-criticism or an understanding of the contradictions
inherent in real experiences, which constitute concrete historical processes replete with
complexities. Conversely, for adherents of autophobia, confronting the purity and super­
iority of certain ideas vis-à-vis the objective action of transforming reality seems hypo­
critical. For them, revolutionary enthusiasm and refuge in idealism appear more
comforting, presupposing the dissolution of markets, nations, languages, religions, states,
and social and international conflicts as simple, instead of comprehending the challenges
that arise during revolutionary processes (Losurdo 2015a).
8 D. PAUTASSO AND T. S. NOGARA

However, it’s noteworthy that Losurdo has also advanced significant critiques and
reflections regarding certain trajectories of existing socialism. Losurdo’s critique of the
exportation of the revolution and the failure to recognize the national question of
other socialist countries encapsulates a profound insight into the complexities of revolu­
tionary praxis. He posits, “[r]evolution cannot be exported exogenously; rather, it must
organically emerge from the historical specificities and socio-political dynamics inherent
to each society” (Losurdo 2008, 112). This critique challenges the universalist tenet preva­
lent in certain Marxist discourses, emphasizing the imperative of respecting national
sovereignty and cultural autonomy. Losurdo argues that overlooking the national ques­
tion within socialist discourse risks perpetuating hegemonic domination, where the
interests of dominant powers subjugate the aspirations of oppressed nations (Losurdo
2015b).
In conclusion, Losurdo’s dual critique of revolutionary exportation and the underes­
timation of formal individual rights furnishes a compelling analytical framework for
reassessing socialist praxis in the contemporary milieu. His insistence on respecting
national sovereignty and safeguarding individual liberties serves as a poignant reminder
of the inherent complexities and contradictions intrinsic to socialist theory and praxis. As
we navigate the complexities inherent in the endeavor to construct a more just and ega­
litarian society, Losurdo’s insights compel us to maintain a steadfast awareness of the
potential pitfalls associated with both dogmatism and revisionism.

Debunking Armchair Marxism

Losurdo’s appraisal of socialist experiences was characterized by meticulous self-critique,
avoiding the pitfalls of autophobia prevalent in certain currents, which we here term as
“armchair Marxism.” These currents, marked by theoretical radicalism but sterile politi­
cal practices, epitomized what Losurdo termed an absent left, incapable of discerning and
combating neocolonialism in its multifaceted manifestations. Indeed, they failed to
acknowledge the collapse of real socialism as part of a broader conservative restoration
process, which fueled the neoliberal surge and interventionist escalation by the United
States. Rather than recognizing the demise of the socialist camp as heralding new hor­
izons for the progressive movement, these currents clung to a misguided optimism
that ultimately went unrealized.
Western Marxism gradually distanced itself from what its theorists deemed a carica­
ture of Marxism: the official ideologies of existing socialist regimes (Losurdo 2018). Its
critiques targeted the outcomes of the October Revolution, the trajectory of communist
China, and much of the progress of revolutionary movements in the Third World.
Although originating in the West, the ideas of Marx and Engels, as well as the Russian
revolution, laid the groundwork for transformations that reverberated in the East and
the periphery of the international system. It was these transformations that provided
insight into the realization that revolutionary processes were not instantaneous creations
but rather intricate endeavors marked by persistent obstacles inherent in the develop­
ment and consolidation of state structures in socialist experiences.
Consequently, divergences between Western and Eastern Marxism became pro­
nounced: the call for abolishing the state versus the imperative of constructing an inde­
pendent state capable of self-governance; the lofty and abstract internationalism versus
 INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT 9

anti-colonial patriotism; the abolition of the market versus commitment to national

development; and the notion of science and technology as instruments of oppression ver­
sus their central role in overcoming colonial or semi-colonial dependency.
In addition to pronounced Eurocentrism and ethnocentrism, these approaches often
favored the arbitrariness of innocence-based hermeneutics over understanding the his­
torical circumstances that shaped anti-colonial struggles. Rather than constructing con­
crete alternatives to the dominant order, they prioritized deconstruction, theoretical
authenticity, and the denunciation of power in its essence. Consequently, as highlighted
by Losurdo (2018), the inability to confront the current bellicose escalation has sounded
the death knell for Western Marxism.
Western Marxism, while straying from reality, took solace in the misguided paths of
Critical Theory, despite its premises conflicting with those of Marxist canons (Wood and
Foster 2006). Criticisms of the dysfunctions of concrete experiences, encapsulated in con­
ceptual clichés like Stalinism and totalitarianism, were intertwined with a reverence for
the libertarian spirit of the imagined revolution, conceived as the “authentic” successor to
socialist and Marxist traditions (Losurdo 2010). The continuum between autophobia
concerning real socialism and disillusionment with contemporary revolutionary experi­
ences in China, Vietnam, and other anti-imperialist nations on the periphery of the inter­
national system illustrates two sides of the same coin (Nogara 2019).
Much of the Western left, in its imperialist, populist, or anarchist variants, acquiesces
to interventionist scales, as evidenced in the works of Bobbio (1978), Hard and Negri
(2001), and Habermas (1957). Others opt to critique socialist China, like Harvey
(2008, 133), who accuses it of fostering “socialized misery” through an authoritarian
model akin to “neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics,” featuring “super-exploitation
of labor” and the “restoration of capitalist class power.” Harvey overlooks that China has
lifted over 800 million people out of poverty in the past four decades (World Bank 2022).
Slavoj Žižek (2012) wrongly characterizes the Chinese experience as a capitalist restor­
ation effected through violent state dictatorship, expropriating and disciplining workers,
purportedly mirroring distinctive features of 19th-century European capitalism.
In the broader context, the Western left, including its Marxist strand, often neglects
the internal contradictions within Western core nations, disregarding concepts such as
imperialism (Prozorov 2014). Arendt (1968) and Foucault (1994) have acknowledged
and critiqued purported parallels between racism and totalitarianism in the Third
Reich and the USSR. However, they remained silent on neocolonial racism perpetrated
by European powers in the Third World, exemplified by South African apartheid. In sup­
port of his thesis, Losurdo reconstructs the ideas of various authors, including Arendt,
Foucault, Agamben, Bloch, Negri, and Žižek, among others, while retaining the nuances
and transformations inherent in their works. Arendt’s case is particularly illustrative;
initially acknowledging the USSR’s role in combating Nazi imperialism and promoting
national liberation struggles, she later equated Stalinist USSR with Nazi Germany in
Imperialism: Part Two of the Origins of Totalitarianism (1968). Meanwhile, colonial
empires like France and Britain came to represent, in her interpretation, the democratic
West, devoid of authoritarianism (Losurdo 2018, 128). Foucault’s radicalism, which
denounced any power relationship, is juxtaposed with his scant attention to colonial
domination or its near absence (Losurdo 2018, 142). Moreover, “Arendt’s emphasis on
the role of individual agency in totalitarian regimes obscures the broader socio-political
10 D. PAUTASSO AND T. S. NOGARA

contexts that shape and perpetuate oppressive systems” (Losurdo 2009, 19). Further­
more, Žižek exacerbates this by avoiding categories like the Third World and imperial­
ism, while reinforcing the narrative of authoritarianism in anti-colonial struggles in
Chavista Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, and China, vehemently critiquing the structures
of their communist parties. Some individuals overlook interventionist escalations, as
was the case with Bobbio during the wars in Yugoslavia and the Gulf; others, like
Serge Latouche (2009), seek to delegitimize the fight against neoliberalism and imperial­
ism without realizing its implications.
Consequently, the New Left, initially propelled by the protests of 1968, gradually
honed its focus on the authoritarianism and interventionism of Western welfare states
and the perceived degeneration of socialist regimes (Fiori 1995). It emerged in tandem
with the resurgence of liberalism and the advent of postmodernism, leading to neglect
of economic development endeavors and anti-imperialist struggles, and a fascination
with behavioral agendas that champion individual rights and fragmented corporatism.
This panorama of deprioritizing political struggles, weakening the centrality of compre­
hensive collective projects with a universal focus on national development and anti-colo­
nial struggle, solidified within the left (Wood 1995).
In summary, many criticisms of real socialist experiences overlook the exigencies of
daily concrete struggles, the need to resist pressures and sieges by major powers, the chal­
lenges of wielding power, and the imperative of overcoming underdevelopment. Seeking
refuge in rhetorical principles and revolutionary phraseology may seem more comforta­
ble than engaging in concrete analyses of power dynamics and the daily imperatives of
socialism construction. These analyses often exhibit an inexorable tendency toward nihi­
lism and defeatism, incapable of effecting changes in prevailing power structures. Indeed,
the quest for solutions in post-capitalist societies, amid complex and adverse circum­
stances, demands a departure from messianic expectations. In contrast to this paradigm,
Losurdo consistently prioritized a meticulous and self-critical assessment of socialist
experiences, without succumbing to the prevailing autophobia of armchair Marxism.

Conclusion
Delving into the profound controversies of Marxist theory and contemporary historio­
graphy, Losurdo’s extensive body of work proves indispensable for comprehending the
divergent trajectories of the intricate social formations resulting from the 20th-century
revolutions. His panoramic perspective on the significance of these revolutions, contex­
tualized within a broader cycle of struggles initiated by the French Revolution, enables
readers to transcend the enduring myth of communism’s “failure.” Instead, Losurdo elu­
cidates the pivotal role of 20th-century socialist experiences in enshrining social and
economic rights within Western democracies, thereby fostering the emergence of a wel­
fare state previously disregarded by liberal tradition. Rising above stereotypes and
mechanistic, historically abstracted analyses, Losurdo’s holistic and dialectical approach
elevates the discourse on the dilemmas of socialist experiences to a new echelon, to which
contemporary reflections on the subject must be tethered.
In essence, Losurdo’s work reaffirms the central imperative of valuing socialist experi­
ences. Disguised as critiques of real socialist endeavors, many self-proclaimed Marxists
succumb to autophobia, inadvertently echoing anti-communist rhetoric and
 INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT 11

perpetuating Cold War propaganda. By relinquishing their experiences as sources of les­

sons and achievements, armchair Marxism perpetuates a colonized perspective on the
trajectory of capitalism in core countries and the unique challenges faced by peripheral
nations. Beyond forfeiting the capacity for criticism, it also forfeits the capacity for effect­
ing social transformation, as it assimilates, under the guise of purportedly progressive
intentions, the agenda and narrative of the ruling classes.
Contrary to this trend, Losurdo offers a robust appraisal not only of the historical pro­
cesses that shaped the rise and fall of old Marxist regimes but also of the foundational
elements necessary for comprehending the enduring political challenges confronting
socialist experiences that persist and evolve to this day, exemplified by the successful
and increasingly fortified Chinese revolution.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on Contributors
Diego Pautasso is currently a professor of geography at the Military College of Porto Alegre, Rio
Grande do Sul State, Brazil. He holds a master’s degree and PhD in Political Science from the Fed­
eral University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). He is the author of the book China and Russia in
the Cold War and several articles on regional-national development and international insertion of
emerging countries.
Tiago Soares Nogara is currently affiliated with the College of Liberal Arts at Shanghai University,
China. His research areas cover Marxist theory, Latin American politics, and China-Latin America
relations, with numerous publications in political science, sociology, and international relations
journals.

References
Arendt, H. 1968. Imperialism: Part Two of the Origins of Totalitarianism. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt.
Azzarà, S. 2020. “Domenico Losurdo 1941–2018.” In Losurdo: Presença e Permanência [Losurdo:
Presence and Permanence], edited by J. Moraes, 13–33. São Paulo: Anita Garibaldi.
Bobbio, N. 1978. “Is There a Marxist Theory of the State?” Telos, no. 35: 5–16.
Cheng, E. 2012. “Seven Currents of Social Thoughts and Their Development in Contemporary
China with a Focus on Innovative Marxism.” https://wapescholar.elsevierpure.com/ws/
portalfiles/portal/28100106/Seven_Currents_of_Thoughts_and_Their_Development_in_
Contemporary_China_with_A_Focus_on_Innovative_Marxism.pdf.
Fernandes, L. 2000. O Enigma do Socialismo Real [The Enigma of Real Socialism]. Rio de Janeiro:
Mauad.
Fiori, J. 1995. O Voo da Coruja [The Flight of the Owl]. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ.
Foucault, M. 1994. “Crimes et Châtiments en U.R.S.S. et Ailleurs” [Crime and Punishment in the
USSR and Elsewhere]. In Dits et Écrits, 1954–1988, vol. III: 1976–1979 [Speeches and Writings,
1954–1988, vol. 3: 1976–1979], 63–77. Paris: Gallimard.
Habermas, J. 1957. “Zur Philosophischen Diskussion um Marx und den Marxismus.” [On the
Philosophical Discussion about Marx and Marxism]. Philosophische Rundschau 5 (3/4): 165–
235.
Hardt, M., and A. Negri. 2001. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12 D. PAUTASSO AND T. S. NOGARA

Harvey, D. 2008. O Neoliberalismo: História e Implicações [Neoliberalism: History and

Implications]. São Paulo: Loyola.
Hayek, F. A. 1944. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Keeran, R., and T. Kenny. 2008. O Socialismo Traído [The Betrayed Socialism]. Lisboa: Avante.
Latouche, S. 2009. Farewell to Growth. Cambridge: Polity.
Lenin, V. I. 1978. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Crisis in Our Party. Moscow: Progress.
Losurdo, D. 2004. Democracy or Bonapartism. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/UNESP.
Losurdo, D. 2005. Fuga da História? A Revolução Russa e a Revolução Chinesa Vistas de Hoje
[Escape from History? The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution Viewed from
Today]. Rio de Janeiro: Revan.
Losurdo, D. 2008. Liberalism: A Counter-History. London: Verso.
Losurdo, D. 2010. Stalin: História Crítica de uma Lenda Negra [Stalin: A Critical History of a Black
Legend]. Rio de Janeiro: Revan.
Losurdo, D. 2015a. A Luta de Classes: Uma História Política e Filosófica [The Class Struggle: A
Political and Philosophical History]. São Paulo: Boitempo,
Losurdo, D. 2015b. Marx e o Balanço Histórico do Século XX [Marx and the Historical Balance
Sheet of the 20th Century]. São Paulo: Anita Garibaldi.
Losurdo, D. 2017. Guerra e Revolução [War and Revolution]. São Paulo: Boitempo.
Losurdo, D. 2018. O Marxismo Ocidental [Western Marxism]. São Paulo: Boitempo.
Mészáros, I. 2011. Para além do capital: rumo a uma teoria da transição [Beyond Capital: Towards
a Theory of Transition]. São Paulo: Boitempo.
Nogara, T. S. 2019. “Domenico Losurdo and the Marxist Revolutions.” Ciências Sociais Unisinos 55
(1): 124–125.
Nove, A. 1991. The Economics of Feasible Socialism. London: Harper Collin.
Pautasso, D., and T. Nogara. 2023. “The Real Socialism: A Dialogue Between Domenico Losurdo
and Cheng Enfu.” In Innovative Marxist School in China: Comments by International Scholars
on Cheng Enfu’s Academic Thoughts, edited by J. B. Foster, G. Zyuganov, T. Andreani, H.
Onishi, A. Freeman, and N. M. Hoan, 41–55. Berlin: Canut International Publishers.
Prozorov, S. 2014. “Foucault and Soviet Biopolitics.” History of the Human Sciences 27 (5): 6–25.
Thomas, P. 2009. The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism. Leiden: Brill.
Visentini, P. 2017. Os Paradoxos da Revolução Russa [The Paradoxes of the Russian Revolution].
Rio de Janeiro: Alta Books.
Wood, E. M. 1995. “A Chronology of the New Left and Its Successors, or: Who’s Old-Fashioned
Now?” Socialist Register 31: 22–49.
Wood, E. M., and J. B. Foster. 2006. In Defense of History: Marxism and the Postmodern Agenda.
Delhi: Aakar Books.
World Bank. 2022. Four Decades of Poverty Reduction in China: Drivers, Insights for the World, and
the Way Ahead. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Žižek, S. 2012. Vivendo no Fim dos Tempos [Living in the End Times]. São Paulo: Boitempo.