Besides almost passing references to Italian giants like Gramsci and Togliatti, one is left with the impression that Western Marxists are either academic ethno-chauvinist hucksters, Eurocommunist revisionists, or unimportant. This does a disservice to history and to struggle.
I suspect this part is pointing at the real motivation behind this criticism: the author is a Communist Party of Canada member, i.e., unimportant (like it or not, let's be real here), and so doesn't like the heat that Losurdo has for Western Marxists for obvious reasons (he is one). He wants Losurdo to
show the ways that Western Communist Party theoreticians have criticized opportunism and chauvinism!
and, generally, show deference to the Western Communist Party theoreticians (like him), making the point only about the "frauds from the academy". It's not just about the frauds from the academy though. Our parties and party-like formations are also failures. This is demonstrably true, and if we can't wrestle with that fact, and seriously investigate its causes, we're never going to get anywhere.
As it happens, being a Canadian also makes the issue he takes with the colonialism lens pretty suspect. It feels a bit class reductionist to demand that Nazi expansionism be explained in terms of class conflict and only class conflict. Frankly, I think it's valid to be suspicious of such ideas, particularly when they're coming from a white man in a settler colony. This criticism reeks of defensiveness in general, and though it may be correct about some weaknesses in Losurdo's work, I think it's fundamentally reactionary.
EDIT 2: I have no qualm with down-voting, but I would prefer a comment explaining what parts specifically you did not like, so I know how to not make the same mistake in the future.
Political compasses are silly and pointless brainrot. Yes, this includes trying to make new and better galaxy brain political compasses. It especially includes that. "Meritocracy" lol.
I suspect this part is pointing at the real motivation behind this criticism: the author is a Communist Party of Canada member, i.e., unimportant (like it or not, let's be real here), and so doesn't like the heat that Losurdo has for Western Marxists for obvious reasons (he is one). He wants Losurdo to
and, generally, show deference to the Western Communist Party theoreticians (like him), making the point only about the "frauds from the academy". It's not just about the frauds from the academy though. Our parties and party-like formations are also failures. This is demonstrably true, and if we can't wrestle with that fact, and seriously investigate its causes, we're never going to get anywhere.
As it happens, being a Canadian also makes the issue he takes with the colonialism lens pretty suspect. It feels a bit class reductionist to demand that Nazi expansionism be explained in terms of class conflict and only class conflict. Frankly, I think it's valid to be suspicious of such ideas, particularly when they're coming from a white man in a settler colony. This criticism reeks of defensiveness in general, and though it may be correct about some weaknesses in Losurdo's work, I think it's fundamentally reactionary.