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 does the ultraleft think about left political parties being involved in bourgeois democracy, e.g., parliament?
The ultraleft isn’t a monolith, they are largely incoherent, actually, which is why they have so many tendencies.
Which ultraleft tendencies support working within bourgeois parliaments, winning elections, etc?
Depends on the org, again, ultraleftism is inherently incoherent and undisciplined. There’s a lot of variance between ultraleft orgs, from straight Bordigists to Eurocomms to left-comms, etc.
Smells like bullshit to me.
How? What do you think best represents the views of the authors, “leftists” that uphold Bordiga and attack socialist countries?
There’s only one author.
You’re incredibly evasive. What do you think best represents the views of the authors, “leftists” that uphold Bordiga and attack socialist countries?