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.