Talk:Domenico Losurdo/Archive 1

Notability
There is nothing under the section Life for this person. I saw a notice for deletion on the talk page of the editor who created the article, but I could not figure out if any decision was reached. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Domenico Losordo's Work. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple non-trivial book reviews; sample:


 * Settling Accounts with Liberalism: On the Work of Domenico Losurdo. By Azzarà, Stefano G. Historical Materialism, Jun 01, 2011; Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 92-112. Liberalism is currently the hegemonic world-view, capable of dictating its terms even ... more
 * Liberalism: A Counter-History by Domenico Losurdo. By MANN, GEOFF. Antipode, Jan 01, 2012; Vol. 44, No. 1, p. 265-269. A review of the book "Liberalism: A Counter-History," by Domenico Losurdo is presented... more
 * Extended book review: Gramsci’s Political Thought, by Carlos Nelson Coutinho and Gramsci: Du libéralisme au ‘communisme critique’ by Domenico Losurdo. By McKay, Ian. Capital & Class, Jun 01, 2014; Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 455-462

Also see WorldCat Identities: substantial library holdings esp for Liberalism : a counter-history & multiple other books.

I will remove the notability tag. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Domenico Losurdo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717173427/http://www.scienzeformaz.urbino.com/Prodotti/SchedaProdotto.asp?PathID=329.402&IDDB=1&Lan=IT to http://www.scienzeformaz.urbino.com/Prodotti/SchedaProdotto.asp?PathID=329.402&IDDB=1&Lan=IT

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalization of the article
This article has recently been vandalized. New lengthy content, mostly consisting of Losurdo's apologetics with references to his books (often without page numbers) have been added. Since he is not a notable figure on whom Wikipedia should report, but a notorious Stalinist whose views shouldn't be propagated on these pages, I took the liberty of deleting that content and adding neutral sources with the relevant information. If someone tries to insert more changes of the sort mentioned, it would be advisable to report vandalization of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.61.230 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologetics? Really? So now stating with references the thoughts of the author as to better understand the criticism is vadalisation and apologetics? Now I admit my version may have been POV-pushing despite me being neutral and I welcome eventual corrections and improvements as well as thoughts and dicussions by other users, but so is yours in the oppositive direction. A "notorious Stalinist whose views shouldn't be propagated on these pages" is POV-pushing. You also claim "he is not a notable figure on whom Wikipedia should report", yet the talks right above this state the contrary. As far as I know, he is no Furr since his work has actually been praised, despite the criticism. Furthermore, whether you think his views "shouldn't be propagated on those page" does not matter, it is important to state his thoughts as to better understand the criticism. For instance, the political-moral despecification and naturalistic despecification section which you deleted is important in understanding his criticism of totalitarianism and the equation between Nazism and Stalinism. Therefore, I restored my previous version with a few tweaks while retaining your additions.--82.53.220.176 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All right, I have added Neo-Stalinist designation in the first sentence, and Furr's personal account which is extremely important. I believe that the opening section is too long, since the topics mentioned there are discussed in the article. Positive reviews from non-experts don't mean much since people like David Irving and Grover Furr have hundreds and thousands of such positive feedback from their fans. The article itself should be moderated with the reviews of Losurdo's work by established experts in this field (which are extremely lacking, and that is, in turn, indicative of his reputation), and not filled with his "theorizing" about communism and liberalism. It is like reiterating Stalin's views about the liberal democracy or Hitler's statements from Mein Kampf. An expert Wikipedia user with some experience on this issues should review the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.61.230 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and understanding. However, I had to remove the neo-Stalinist designation because Stalinism, or neo-Stalinism, is not a philosophy, but rather an ideology. I have also never seen here such designations, but always Marxist philosopher in the lead, where I retained the Furr's citation. I think the "In defending Joseph Stalin and Stalinism" lead part is enough. I could be wrong, but your words give me the impression of being biased against Losurdo. For instance, I am rather perplexed by your statement that "Furr's personal account which is extremely important", wondering why is that, almost like you want to make a guilty by association fallacy. I find the introduction decent and I tried my best in summarising his thought and most known works. I am not an expert and I do not consider myself as one, au contraire, that is why I freely admit I could be wrong and I welcome your call for the article being "moderated with the reviews of Losurdo's work by established experts in this field" and hope for other users to improve the page with reliable sources. However, while I may seem biased towards him (I am not), you seem to be biased against him, for instance with your Godwin's law reference. Since he is a philosopher, I thought it was important to analyse his thought, no pun intended. His book on liberalism and its double standards seems to have been well received. As far as I know, both Stalin and Hitler are considerated politicians rather than philosophers, that is why in my opinion your reasoinig does not hold up. He was not the first one to argue against moral equivalance between Nazism and Stalinism and he likewise was not the first one either in criticising the totalitarian model, see the revisionist school of Cold War historiography. However, he seemed to have a more positive view of the Soviet Union than most Cold War revisionists and indeed it is his book on Stalin which caused the most controversy. He has stated that he did not want to rehabilitate Stalin, but rather to have put him in the historical context of the time and have a more nuanced, neutral view vis-à-vis orthodox Cold Warriors. Now whether this is true, or an 'excuse', I will let people better preparated than me and reliable sources to state. Thank you for this interesting, fruitful and respectful conversation which I hope can keep improving the page.--82.53.220.176 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree to your removing references to Neo-Stalinism or the defense of Stalin from the first sentence. All the neutral sources mention Losurdo as a Neo-Stalinist thinker, and some of those sources are Marxist and socialist themselves:


 * Jacobin Magazine (https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/domenico-losurdo-italian-marxism-counter-history): "While he recognized the exorbitant, paranoid aspects of Stalin’s leadership, his efforts to relativize it were often governed by a polemical zeal unjustified by the evidence marshaled. This made his reframing of Stalinism more “interesting” than necessarily persuasive."


 * Christoph Jünke (2007), Der lange Schatten des Stalinismus. Sozialismus und Demokratie gestern und heute. Köln: ISP. p. 123: the whole chapter is called "The Criticism of Domenico Losurdo's Neostalinism"


 * Twenty Italian editors have sent their letters of protest when his book on Stalin was published, accusing him of the rehabilitation of Stalinism: https://web.archive.org/web/20100116001009/http://letteresustalin.liberazione.it/


 * Although he tried to relativize his Neo-Stalinist statements in the book, he continued to actively cooperate with Furr (which is why Furr's testimony is extremely important), which means that he actually didn't back down on his Stalinist viewpoints (https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/losurdo_furr070118.html):


 * "In 2012 Losurdo engaged French anticommunist scholar Nicolas Werth in a debate over Stalin. I noticed something that Losurdo could not: that Werth was citing recent publications about collectivization of agriculture and the Soviet famine of 1932-33 in a dishonest manner. I wrote about this to Losurdo, who thanked me and put my remarks on his blog. In 2014 I was on a panel at the Left Forum in Manhattan, New York City. At the end of the panel a gentleman approached and introduced himself to me as Domenico Losurdo. Delighted, I introduced him to the still-full room as the renowned communist philosopher. In town to present a new book of his own, Losurdo had come to hear my talk! An update English version of my book on Khrushchev’s Secret Speech, Khrushchev Lied, had been published in 2011. Losurdo offered to introduce me to an Italian publisher, Città del Sole, and to write an introduction to the Italian translation. With his permission, Losurdo’s introduction appears in the Italian, German, and French editions. Losurdo graciously agreed to write a back-cover comment for my book The Murder of Sergei Kirov (2013) and a longer introduction to that book which remains unpublished. Losurdo, as he himself always insisted, was a philosopher, not a historian."


 * I am against Stalinism and the rehabilitation of Stalin (and Hitler and etc.) and I have no sympathy for such views. Just because other prominent historians have rejected the concept of totalitarianism means that Losurdo is not important for that point, but is known mostly as an apologist of Stalin(ism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.61.230 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining this to me. I respect and understand your views. However, I am not still sure that is what he is best known for. Even the English source critical of him added by you states: "Domen­ico Los­urdo, for ex­ample, en­joys the repu­ta­tion in the Eng­lish-speak­ing world of a di­li­gent and wide-ran­ging in­tel­lec­tu­al his­tor­i­an. Richard Sey­mour was among the first to her­ald his work, opin­ing in 2007: “Los­urdo is, if you ask me, the best crit­ic of cap­it­al­ist ideo­logy writ­ing today.” His ar­gu­ments were cited fre­quently, moreover, in the 2010 study Fan­at­icism: On the Uses of an Idea by Ba­di­ou trans­lat­or Al­berto To­scano. Mean­while, the mono­lin­gual Hegel schol­ar Har­ris­on Fluss praises Los­urdo’s re­search to the rafters, Ishay Landa laud­ing him for his “mas­terly dia­lect­ic­al style” [meister­hafte dialekt­ische Art]. Speak­ing just for my­self, I find his book on Hegel and the Free­dom of Mod­erns (1992) to be his strongest work, though his cri­tique of Aren­dt on to­tal­it­ari­an­ism and over­view of Heide­g­ger and the Ideo­logy of War: Death, Com­munity, and the West (1991) are also pretty good."
 * By just looking at his bibliography, to me it does not look like that is what he best known for. Rather, it seems that his 2008 book on Stalin caused the most controversy and criticism. The "Arguing from a Neo-Stalinist perspective" phrase in the lead seem to be a POV in that it looks like he describes himself as a neo-Staliist, rather than what critics accuse him of. That is why I have added it to the controversy section and put the neo-Stalinist label there along with Furr's praise. As for my thoughts on your request for comments opened below which I support, I do not think these parts should be deleted; I think it is important to state his thought so that he can be better criticised. Indeed, there should be a criticism section, or the Stalin controversi section should see the full addition of critiques, meaning it has to state what the critics criticises him for and the book's flaws, rather than just state they criticised him as it is now, so as to better understand the critique. --82.53.220.176 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment on the article opening and content
I'm requesting comments on the formulation in the opening paragraph of the article, on how to deal with the content and the length of the article considering the fact that it is mostly reiteration of Losurdo's own views, and considering the fact that scarce neutral sources all point to his justification of Stalinism as his most "notable" contribution. This leaves the impression that the article serves the purpose of propagating Losurdo's own Neo-Stalinist views on communism, liberalism, democracy, totalitarianism etc. 213.149.61.230 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would personally propose to shorten the lead to maximally one or two sentences. It should be clear from them that he is a Neo-Stalinist defending Stalinism which should be referenced by neutral (Jünke, Jacobin Magazine, 20 letters of protests by Italian editors) and other (Furr) sources. The two other paragraphs should be incorporated into the corresponding places in the text. The article itself, especially the section "Philosophical thought and work", should be shortened. His strongest statements (Kant's Nicodemism, Nietzsche's antimodernism, Heidegger's Nazism, Arendt's alleged defense of imperialism and colonialism, cherry-picking and selecting atrocities from the history of liberalism) should be clearly contrasted with the views of the established scholars in the field. The author of this version of the article, if I'm not mistaken, also created a separate page for Losurdo's book "Liberalism: A Counter-History". I think that the book shouldn't have its separate page because everything about it is already stated on this page. The section on "Liberalism" should also be shortened, thoroughly checked and rewritten for the same reasons (for example, under "modern" social liberalism the article confuses (probably with purpose) communism by stating that such liberalism rejects property rights) and expressed in more general terms (anti-Americanism, communist militancy) with adequate references. post left unsigned by IP:213.149.61.230

Almost all of the third paragraph in the lead (The one that begins "Losurdo's 2008 book Stalin: History and Criticism of A Black Legend...") belongs in the main body of text, rather than in the lead. While his defense of Stalinism and his critique of liberalism should probably be featured in the intro, as they are the positions that he is most famous for, there is really no need for that level of detail in the lead. Both books that are mentioned in that paragraph (Stalin: History and Criticism of A Black Legend and Liberalism: A Counter-History could and should be covered better by subsections in the main article, rather than trying to cram all those positions in an introductory paragraph.  The text is also generally difficult to follow and could use a good rinsing by somebody who's good at making dense political and philosophical writing appear more readable. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Unclear English
This very dense 'ideas' text is not helped by what seems at times to be poor/unclear/tortured English. For example para 2 of lead, "Stalin: History and Criticism of A Black Legend raised a debate on the figure of Stalin, on which he claimed it weights a kind of black legend built to discredit all communism".

I suspect the meaning is "Stalin: History and Criticism of A Black Legend stimulated a debate about Stalin," ... does then "on which" refer to the debate stimulated, the book he wrote or Stalin himself? If the book, it should read "in which", if the man, "of whom". Given what follows, it could be that the public/accepted image, or similar is meant by "the figure". The final thought, from 'weights', could mean something like "is built a kind of black legend, intended to discredit etc.". 'Weights' isn't even a verb, but is being used as one - is "bears down on" or "burdens" the intended meaning?

I'm simply guessing here what the intended meaning might be, because at present the text is impenetrable. This is one of the worst instances, in other cases I'm unsure as to whether I'm reading text dense with ideas, or simply tortured English. Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Link doesn't lead anywhere
The link attached to the following part doesn't lead anywhere "(see the debate he stimulated on the figure of Stalin which raised several reactions and controversies)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.124.53 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Stalinism"
Jones Manoel is one of the most well-known "Losurdian" students and can be considered an authoritative scholar on Losurdo. He has a degree in History from the Federal University of Pernambuco and is a researcher of Marxist political theory and critical criminology. Some time ago, he had been shed some public light after his discussion with Brazilian liberal Caetano Veloso where he recommends Losurdo. After accepting the recommendation, his mind, he claims, had been changed by reading him. He is well-known for his knowledge and material put forward to educate the masses. He has also written a compilation of Losurdo's works called "Colonialismo e luta anticolonial: desafios da revolução no século XXI" for Boitempo Editorial, and written the book "Revolução Africana: Uma Antologia do Pensamento Marxista" published by Autonomia Literária. Christoph Junke is also a marxist historian. If Junke accuses Losurdo of being a Stalinist in his anathema, Jones claims that's absurd. Therefore, there's no academic agreement on whether he is or not, so putting it in the lead is wrong. But there is an agreement - he is a Marxist-leninist, not only by them both, but also by the man himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunnyyHop (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Your edits, in my humble opinion, go against WP:NPOV, WP:V, and so many other things which are the core of Wikipedia editing policy. You cannot claim that someome is an academic because of the BA or MA degree, but a person with a PhD who works in or is affiliated with the institutions of higher education/scientific research. As it is said in WP:SPS, "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert." Your claims about Losurdo's student and his skills of convincing other people are obviously promotional and therefore WP:NOTRELIABLE. Contrary to that, Furr is an academic and Jünke is an academic. Jünke published his works on Losurdo on the pages of the far left Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and in a published book. Besides, Losurdo himself published works on Stalin and Stalinism. Therefore, we have, among many already cited things, far left sources which are pointing to the obvious fact that Losurdo was promoting Neo-Stalinist stuff. Where's the problem? 188.252.196.122 (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * He Graduated in History from the Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE and has a Masters in Social Work from the Graduate Program in Social Work of UFPE-PPGSS. He is an educator and popular communicator who develops journalistic initiatives in the sites Revista Opera, Blog da Boitempo, Jornal O Poder Popular, Lavrapalavra, PCB website (political party), Youtube (Jones Manoel), TV Brasil 247 and Revolushow (Podcast). He is interested in research topics: history of socialist experiences in the 20th century, national and colonial issues, Marxist theory of dependence and Latin American social thought, Brazilian social formation, political and state theory, racial issue and antirracist struggle, sociological theory and the works of Frantz Fanon and Domenico Losurdo. He is currently a history professor at UFPE. You claim this is not enough because he is not a PhD graduate and has not the same academic career as Junke - but this does not mean his opinion is not authoritative on the subject. As for Furr - you have yet to link me where he says Losurdo is a "Stalinist".
 * Now for Junke. His biography reads:
 * "Christoph Jünke studied history, philosophy and sociology at the University of Cologne and the Ruhr University Bochum. He was active as a journalist for many years. He received his doctorate with a thesis on the life and work of Leo Kofler. Based on his dissertation, Jünke published the first comprehensive biography of Kofler in 2007. Jünke is involved in a research project on Viktor Agartz on the subject of Viktor Agartz and German post-war politics. The project is based at the distance university in Hagen."
 * According to the guidelines, both are pretty solid.
 * As for the RLF - it's a foundation associated to the Die Link party, which is not just "far-left". Junke is also a trotskist.
 * While the background of one is more academic than the other - both are equally valid. ::Check Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#Social_sciences
 * Domenico Losurdo is also a reliable source, a proclaimed Marxist-leninist, as it's said in the head of the article.
 * In conclusion, you uphold Junke's critique as if it's a mathematical fact. It's not. BunnyyHop (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This page is constantly edited and vandalised by users who sympathize Stalinism
For some time now, this article is subjected to constant edits by users who are trying to supress negative facts about Losurdo and Stalinism in general:
 * 1.) There are constant attempts to present Marxism-Leninism, i.e., Communism as formed by Stalin in the Interwar Period and represented by Losurdo, simply as Marxism which could be classical Marxism of Marx and Engels, or orthodox Marxism of Social Democrats before 1914/17 like Kautsky. This is all done in the attempt to conflate various forms (benign and "non-benign") of Marxism.
 * 2.) In an attempt to do this, sources like students or sympathisers of Losurdo are cited in support. No amount of other, more reliable sources in form of scholarly books and articles are enough to justify the characterization like Marxist-Leninist, Communist or Neo-Stalinist although Losurdo was a Marxist-Leninist, he was a lifelong member of various Italian communist parties and was frequently defending Stalin and his actions as completely normal for its time. Those kind of sources are simply deleted from the lede when they are cited there.
 * 3.) This is being done by users who are of Stalinist background. For example, the last time the article was edited it was by an user called User:Davide King who under the same name ("David King") promotes Stalinism on Quora and has the picture of Stalin as his profile picture there. (188.252.196.122 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC))
 * Stop that nonsense, that is not me and that ain't my name. My f#cking (user) name is Davide King, not David King. Stalinism is about "the means of governing and policies which were implemented in the Soviet Union from 1927 to 1953 by Joseph Stalin" and Marxism–Leninism, which to be clear I do not actually support, is not synonymous with Stalinism (that is the left-wing critique/POV, see "[i]n Marxist political discourse, Stalinism, denoting and connoting the theory and praxis of Stalin, has two usages, namely praise of Stalin by Marxist–Leninists who believe Stalin successfully developed Lenin's legacy and criticism of Stalin by Marxist–Leninists and other Marxists who repudiate Stalin's political purges, social-class repressions and bureaucratic terrorism."). Therefore, Marxism–Leninism also includes those who are critical or opposed to Stalin. I suggest you to actually read Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology which says that "Soviet Marxism-Leninism was subject to significant adaptation under various leaders, contrary to the widespread impression that official Soviet ideology remained static after Stalin." Davide King (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And another beautiful example of evading the question and deliberate confusion of issue. I wrote that you, among others, are constantly editing the lede by reducing Marxism-Leninism to Marxism and you respond by redirecting me to a source which claims that Marxism-Leninism changed during the 20th century! Guess what? Marxism-Leninism changed under Stalin as well! And it was not the same during the 1920s and the early 1950s! Does this mean that Marxism-Leninism is the same as Marxism of Eduard Bernstein or Habermas? No it doesn't! But this was not the point, was it? The point is to post something here on the talk page so as to show that you responded and that you can revert source-based edits and present Losurdo as another Marxist like Habermas! Isn't that right?
 * And the fact that you are editing articles on Stalinism here on Wikipedia under virtually he same name as an user on Quora which is promoting Stalinism there is just a f#cking coincidence, isn't it? (188.252.196.122 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC))
 * You have been engaged in edit warring and are completely ignoring that you have also been reverted by at least two other users (4thfile4thrank and CFred). Are we, are they all Stalinists, too? Losurdo is a philosopher, a Marxist philosopher. Marxism–Leninism is an ideology and we literally have a section about his political views, where we state that, so what is your point exactly? This is consistent with many other articles of Marxist philosophers, where we state they are Marxist philosophers and explain in the article their views and in more detail what school of Marxist philosophy are they (neo-Marxism, post-Marxism, etc.). I also reiterate that is not my damn name and I do not use Quora! This amount to nothing more than a personal attack and harrassement through hounding. Davide King (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On edit warring: I started editing the article after your edits. Your edits changed the version which User: BunnyyHop was promoting. You edited the article without consulting the talk page, but simply changed Marxism-Leninism to Marxism and other things. Coincidentally, Bunny hop, who was until recently striving with all his strength to demote Losurdo from Neo-Stalinist to Marxist-Leninist, is now striving with all his strength to demote Losurdo further, from Marxist-Leninist to simply an ordinary Marxist. You are both deleting cited sources from the lede, replacing them with the formulation without any sources. Which sources exactly are claiming, for example, that Losurdo is mostly known for his critique of the concept of totalitarianism?
 * On Marxism and Marxism-Leninism: Wikipedia clearly states in the lede of its article on Lenin that his version of Marxism is called Leninism, on Stalin that he formulated a version of Marxism which is called Marxism-Leninism and that his own policies are known as Stalinism.
 * I don't know whether you are active on Quora, but since you have virtually the same name with the user over there and that you are both dealing in Stalinism, it would be logical to point out in this context that you are the same person. I'm not accusing anyone of being a convinced Stalinist nor do I want to draw others into this discussion, but on the other hand, I can see that you and Bunny hop are cooperating very well, whether consciously or unconsciously.
 * In conclusion, you and Bunny hop are now deliberately deleting the sources to misrepresent Losurdo, formulating the lede which suits you (without any sources), when you are confronted on the talk page you simply throw dust in the eyes and again edit the page without any sources or biased sources. I was deliberately letting Bunny hop do have his own way after last exchange to see where he would go from there, and he went just in direction which I expected him to go - further presentation of Losurdo as ordinary Marxist like J. Habermas. (188.252.196.122 (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC))
 * See Silence and consensus and your edits have been reverted by two other editors. Again, it is very simple. Losurdo is relevant to Marxist philosophy (note that Marxist does not link to Marxism but to Marxist philosophy, which include Marxist humanism, Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, while Marxism–Leninism is about the ideology; note that the parameter is about School, i.e. a school of philosophy, in this case Marxist philosophy, which is not the same thing as Marxism–Leninism, that is why I changed it to link to Marxist philosophy. Is this really such a big issue? I simply thought Marxist philosophy was more accurate for the School parameter, which is about philosophy, not ideology.
 * Again, Marxism–Leninism, while formulated by Stalin and others, it is not Stalinism and wildly different Communist leaders were Marxist–Leninists who opposed Stalin. Regarding Quora, I can assure you that is not me, so please just stop making assumations, in this case even false ones, including the false theory that BunnyyHop and I are conspiring together against you when we have actually disagreed on several points at Talk:Marxism–Leninism, and focus on content. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, which does indeed include his critique of anti-communism, colonialism, imperialism, the European tradition of liberalism and the concept of totalitarianism, and there is no requirement to put sources if they are already in the body, as is in this case. Note that opposing the equivalence of Communism and Nazism is actually the mainstream view in academia and scholarship, and equating the two is an example of the double genocide theory. His comment that the Gulag, while still awful, is not equivalent to Nazi concentration camp, is well within the mainstream, with historian Amir Weiner writing that "[w]hen Stalin's successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution."
 * Losurdo is also certainly not the only one to have criticised the revisionist work of Furet and Nolte. Indeed, he seems to be controversial mainly for his book about Stalin, which is where the neo-Stalinist label comes from, but that is just one work and he has also received much more nuanced reviews for Liberalism: A Counter-History. You are giving too much weight to one, out of dozens, of his works about continental philosophy. Davide King (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here we go again with misleading claims, confusions and contradictions.
 * About Marxism-Leninism not being a philosophy, a quick search on Google shows a plenty amount of scholarly books and articles dealing in Marxism-Leninism as a philosophy and there is therefore no reason not to characterize him in such a way: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-3636-8_9
 * You are claiming that Losurdo's views on revisionism and totalitarianism (not to mention imperialism and colonialism!) are mainstream and that he is controversial and therefore known mainly for his book about Stalin. However, you are continuing to edit the lede by claiming that Losurdo is known for his views on colonialism, imperialism, totalitarianism etc., although those views (in different, non-Marxist-Leninist form) are mainstream and there is nothing special about them per se.
 * Those issues for which Losurdo is special and known, his Marxist-Leninist, non-humanist Marxism, non-liberal views on the issues of colonialism, totalitarianism, as well as Stalinism etc., are constantly being deleted from the lede despite plenty amount of reliable sources!
 * And no, since you don't bother to check the sources and talk page, for the 10th time, he was characterized by other leftist sources as a Stalinist years befor his book on Stalin: (188.252.196.122 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC))
 * I think this can be solved very simple by looking at what sources says. Do they refer to him as Marxist or Marxist–Leninist? Whatever sources say, we should say. And I did not mean to deny that Marxism–Leninism is not a philosophy too but that it is mainly know as the ideology of Communist states and that in philosophy it is still part of Marxist philosophy. Since the parameter is about School, we should say the main type of philosophy. This is what we do for most philosophers. We do not say Liberalism or the ideology, we say Analytical philosophy, so perhaps we may say Marxist philosophy and Hegelian philosophy.
 * Either way, Verso refers to him as a Marxist philosopher and the academic journal International Critical Thought refers to him as a "Hegelian" and "Marxist". Jacobin says "he was already among the most renowned Italian Marxists at the international level, as a richly partisan historian of philosophy [...]." Historical Materialism, a peer-reviewed journal, refers to him as "a renowned Marxist historian and philosopher [...] who pioneered a distinctive method of historiography and intellectual history."
 * That you think "[t]hose issues for which Losurdo is special and known, his Marxist-Leninist, non-humanist Marxism, non-liberal views on the issues of colonialism, totalitarianism, as well as Stalinism etc." are your views and are contradicted by the sources a cited, who paint a more nuanced view. You are essentially asking that we present Cristoph Jünke as fact rather than a criticism. None of those aforementioned sources refer to him as a "neo-Stalinist." We shold not focus only on one controversial book and call him a "neo-Stalinist" in the lead when sources paint a much more nuanced picture and when his views on colonialism, imperialism and totalitarianism are not so outside mainstream or outright fringe. Davide King (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

And some more obscurantism, contradictions and misleading claims. You've gone so far that I'm forced to cite your own words just from a few lines above:
 * "...Marxism–Leninism is about the ideology...Marxist philosophy was more accurate for the School parameter, which is about philosophy, not ideology..."; "...I did not mean to deny that Marxism–Leninism is not a philosophy too..."

First and foremost, Losurdo was a COMMUNIST, member of various Communist parties in Italy involved in politics and most of all, communist ideology, and this is how most reliable sources describe him:, , ,

Those sources which describe him as a Marxist (and those are far-left) are immediately also precisely stating that he is a communist/Marxist-Leninist or they are stating that they understand Marxism as Marxism-Leninism:, , , ,

A huge amount of sources are stating that he is a Stalinist, apologist or sympathiser of Stalinism:
 * "I found Losurdo’s firm defense of Stalin, particularly on the basis of the Soviet Union’s and the Comintern’s fight against imperialism, to be a breath of fresh air, a sign that there were others who questioned the demonization of Stalin and the consequent rejection of the communist movement of the 20th century."
 * "While he recognized the exorbitant, paranoid aspects of Stalin’s leadership, his efforts to relativize it were often governed by a polemical zeal unjustified by the evidence marshaled. This made his reframing of Stalinism more “interesting” than necessarily persuasive."
 * "Against the sources of the "black legend" (Trotsky, Khrushchev, the propaganda of the cold war) the author defends Stalin."
 * "Because then it reminds us that in Italy in 2008 one is finally free to call oneself Stalinist without fear of consequences."
 * I've counted around thirty reactions of Italian intellectuals who protested against Losurdo's defense of Stalin/Stalinism.
 * , And finally Jünke, who is obviously not the only one who is calling Losurdo a (Neo-)Stalinist, as you and others continually claim. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the sources [3], [4], [5] and [6] actually use Marxism–Leninism, they say communism and this is not mutually exclusive with Marxist, which the Jacobin piece you used a ref in support of the "Italian communist" claim actually says "Marxist". [7] actually say "Marxist philosopher", "Hegelian-Marxist" and only use "Marxist-Leninist" once in reference to the "formation set him in close contact with the Chinese experience", which we already say in the body at Political views and is not really in contradiction to "Marxist philosopher". Many sources referring to "far-right" parties as "right-wing" do not mean those two are mutually exclusive and the context make it clear when they use "leff-wing" or "right-wing" to refer those to the further side of the political spectrum. Likewise, [8] still uses "Marxism and the National Question" and in the abstract there is no mention of "Marxism-Leninism", it actually says "contributed to the theoretical maturation of the national question within Marxism" and keywords include "Marxism", not "Marxism-Leninism". Same thing for [9], it says "Marxist" or "Marxism". [10] is the Jacobin piece that actually says "Marxism" or "Marxist", does not call it a "neo-Stalinist" and only mentions "Marxist-Leninist" to write about his "background", which we already write at Biography, Thought and Political views, where we mention it. None of this contradict those sources' use of "Marxism" or "Marxist" and Jacobin describes him as an "Italian Marxist" and "a renowned scholar of Hegel", meaning "Hegelianism" and "Marxism" are correct for the School parameter in the infobox. [11] says "Marxism" or "Marxist" and there is no mention of "Marxist-Leninist"
 * As for [12], [13], [14]. [15], [16], [17] and [18], only Jünke, another Marxist, calls him a "neo-Stalinist". We already says in the body his views about Stalin and that they have been criticised, yet you want us to state it as fact in the lead that he is a "neo-Stalinist" when only Jünke calls him that. [12] is simply Furr's POV that it was a defense; other reviewers disagreed and Guido Liguori wrote "[h]is controversial Stalin. Storia e critica di una leggenda nera was not without its interesting elements. He proposed not so much to save Stalin (in fact he recognised many of his limits and faults)" and both Liguori and the Jacobin piece [13] take a more nuanced picture and do not call him an "apologist" or "neo-Stalinist". [14], [15] and [16] do not call him "neo-Stalinist" and are reviews of his book about Stalin, not a review of Losurdo whole work, hence why we put all this already in the section about the book. If "Jünke [...] is obviously not the only one who is calling Losurdo a (Neo-)Stalinist", then it should be easy to find (although I would beware of cherry-picking by searching for sources that call him that and ignoring all those who do not), but only Jünke called him a "neo-Stalinist" and the Jacobin quote, the more reliable source of these, does not call him a "neo-Stalinist", so it is original research on your part to imply it means he was a "neo-Stalinist".
 * In short, your edits clearly violate BLP and NPOV by stating as fact that he was a "neo-Stalinist" when only one of your given sources says so; and both original research and synthesis by changing the text from "Italian Marxist" and "Marxist philosopher" to "Italian Marxist-Leninist philosopher" when an analysis of sources shows they use "Marxist", "Marxism" and "Marxist philosopher" and only mention "Marxist-Leninism" in reference to his background and political views, which we already say at Political views. Davide King (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A reminder that Wikipedia operates based on consensus. It appears that the prevailing, or at least pre-existing, consensus is to describe Losurdo as Marxist -Leninist . To the unregistered user: if you want to change this to just Marxist -Leninist, you will need to get a new consensus first; you cannot unilaterally change the page. I trust that there will be constructive discussion here; I do not want to have to take further administrative action in this matter, but I will if it is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC), amended 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:C.Fred, you have no idea what we are discussing on this page. Because if you did, you would know that I'm not supporting the lede which describes Losurdo as a Marxist, but as a Marxist-Leninist at the least. You simply slided in with reverting edits of the lede and are contradicting yourself because now it doesn't describe him as a Marxist-Leninist. You should take time to read the talk page carefully. I'm calling now for a dispute resolution. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I flipped the two. (I'm not focusing on the content directly; I'm focusing on the administrative issue of edit-warring to brute-force a change.) That's evidence of my concern: the edit history is a mess, and the discussion hasn't focused on specific changes. You would be better served to put forward a clear "change X to Y" style edit request here and get editors on board with edit. Edit warring to force a change through is unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Davide King
 * No, I didn't say that sources [3], [4], [5], [6] describe him as a Marxist-Leninist, but as a Communist.
 * No, I didn't say that sources [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] all describe him as neo-Stalinist, but as a neo-Stalinist OR apologist of Stalin and Stalinism.

In short, you are continually twisting my words and citations from sources. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why did you repeatedly changed it to "Marxist-Leninist"? The solution is to say "Italian communist, Marxist philosopher and historian", as those sources actually do; they call him a "Marxist philosopher and historian". Neither Liguori nor Broder call him a "neo-Stalinist" or "apologist of Stalin and Stalinism" and both actually say that "[it] was not without its interesting elements" and that it was an "interesting" reframing, albeit not "persuasive". We simply can not present the "neo-Stalinist" label in the lead and as a fact. So my proposal is the same; we say that his work on liberalism received positive reviews and his work about Stalin was controversial and criticised for relativising Stalin/Stalinism. Davide King (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, I agree. Let's call him "Italian communist, Marxist philosopher and historian" in the lede. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Domenico Losurdo was a Marxist not a Stalinist, he was not an apologist for Stalinist crimes. If you have other evidence provide sources. I disagree alot with Davide King, but I have to agree with on this one. He isn't a Stalinist, or a Marxist-Leninist. Also 188.252.196.122 much of the word you used are POV pushing, I would also recommend creating an account. I am also an absolute anti-Stalinist and anti-authoritarian, anti-state, and anti-soviet so don't start accusing me of nonsense, or use personal attacks like you did with other editors. BunnyyHop he is a member of the PCP however. Vallee01 (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I have requested a dispute resolution on the lede of this article, but can't find it anymore on the [WP:DRN] page. Both User:C.Fred and User:Davide King have responded to it. If someone can find where this request has dissappeared, link should be posted here. Otherwise, I'm opening a new request for dispute resolution. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to be that one user (10sne1), trying to "move [...] detail to proper section/wrong location originally" made a mess and removed many discussions, including ours. I have since restored it. Either way, Robert McClenon closed it, stating that "[t]wo of the editors listed have replied with complaints about the conduct of the filing editor. They made the statements here because they were replying.  They can report the conduct issues at WP:ANI." Davide King (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you're quite familiar with the mechanisms of Wikipedia and how they may be used to neutralise "unfavorable" facts. I've reverted the lede according to the last consensus. And note that to be both a Hegelian and a Marxist is a contradiction. I don't think that the lede should be left without reference to Losurdo as a Communist, Marxist-Leninist and his defense of Stalinism for which he is known. How would you write the lede? Is it possible that we expand that part of the article by accomodating all the views? 188.252.196.122 (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop your apprehension and accusation that "[I am] quite familiar with the mechanisms of Wikipedia [which is actually a good thing, unlike you who is not aware of it] and how they may be used to neutralise 'unfavorable' facts." I already explained in my analysis of sources above why your edits violate BLP, NPOV and synthesis. Only Jünke calls him a "neo-Stalinist." We may say that his work on liberalism received positive review and his work about Stalin was controversial and criticised for relativising Stalinism. Davide King (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hegelian Marxism is a thing. It is also not clear he is mainly notable for his book about Stalin or for what you ascribe to him. We currently have an article about his book on liberalism but not his book about Stalin, so that may mean he is more notable for the former and that the latter is described as part of controversy. As written here by, it seems his other works make him just as notable even without his single work on Stalin. Perhaps when the book is published in English and there are more scholarly reviews, we may weight it on which work makes it notable, but notability and controversy are not the same thing, and you seem to be conflating the two. As shown by k.e.coffman, Losurdo seems to be notable on his own even without the controversial book on Stalin. Davide King (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit when it was the last consensus, as clearly stated by User:C.Fred? How can a book (on Liberalism) which has a single positive review (as you claim) be more renowned than a book (on Stalin) which has thirty reviews and reactions? An article on his book on liberalism should be merged with this page. As is known to all with just a little knowledge of Marxism, Marx belonged to a young Hegelian philosophical circle but he broke with it and his criticism of Hegelianism led to the development of Marx's own philosophy. That is why Marxists, Marxist-Leninists/Communists etc. are also studying Hegel. They are not Hegelians. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I made no such statement; what I said was that this IP is editing against the pre-existing consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * USer:C.Fred You first wrote that the consensus is to describe him as a Marxist-Leninist, because this was BunnyyHop's position and I didn't move against it. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which I later corrected and explained that the talk page was such a convoluted mess that I flipped the two. I should have consulted the article text before writing the first comment. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And who, except Davide King, is calling him just a Marxist? BunnyyHop and I have called him a Marxist-Leninist. You have now reverted the lede which is only Davide King's version and has all that confusing "Abstract" and other signs. Please write a normal version of the lede which describes him as an "Italian communist, Marxist philosopher and historian", as Davide King has now proposed and I agreed. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Marxist" was long-standing going back to December 2019. Most of the sources we discussed call him a "communist" and "Marxist"; none call him a "Marxist-Leninist philosopher", they just call him a "Marxist philosopher". And by "communist", they essentially mean "Marxist", as they are not certainly referring to anarcho-communism. So can we agree to "Italian communist" to reflect his militancy and "Marxist philosopher and historian" which is what sources have called him? Davide King (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The long-standing consensus, going back to December 2019, is actually just Marxist philosopher and historian; "communist, Marxist philosopher and historian" is redundant. His book on liberalism did not receive just "a single positive review" as you claim. You also seem to ignore that much criticism for his book about Stalin came from other communists and those are not scholarly reviews. Indeed, people protested because Liquori gave a less negative review and did not dismiss him as a "Stalinist". In an actual scholarly review of his work on Nietschze, Daniel Tutt wrote "Losurdo made his scholarly mark in philosophical works as well as historical studies of important thinkers from John Locke and Hannah Arendt, to biographical and historical studies of Joseph Stalin. His scholarship on Hegel and modernity is considered an exemplary contribution to Hegel scholarship and he has published widely on topics such as conceptions of class struggle throughout history and the evolution of nonviolence in modern political life." So much to limit this only to Stalin and his book about him. Davide King (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I went through the talk page and it is obvious from the cited sources that he is a communist. Marxism was put there originally, but I don't think that the article was objectively reviewed then nor is it now. The confusion about Stalinism arose because he seems to have belonged to some communist faction in Italy which was aligned with the politics of the Communist Party of China after the Sino-Soviet split, as the New Left source shows.90.137.136.236 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Communism" and "Marxism" in that case means the exact same thing; it certainly does not mean "anarcho-communism". Slavoj Žižek is a self-described "radical leftist" and a "communist in a qualified sense" but we do not say "communist" in the very first sentence, we just say he is a philosopher. This is no different from many sources using "right-wing" to refer to obviously "far-right" parties; the context they write, they make it clear they are referring to the "far-right" rather than the "centre-right" party. Same case here; "communist" and "Marxist" are not mutually exclusive. How does "belong[ing] to some communist faction in Italy which was aligned with the politics of the Communist Party of China after the Sino-Soviet split" mean he was a "Stalinist"? It means, he was a "Maoist", not a "Stalinist". Politically, i.e. to which party he belonged to, he was a Marxist–Leninist but we already say that and it does not contradict the "Marxist philosopher" thing. Davide King (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Marxism was put there originally, but I don't think that the article was objectively reviewed then nor is it now." The fact it was put there originally and that no one challenged, it means that it was part of a long-standing consensus, which you have challenged, so we should revert to that, but you are the only one and that he is not a "Marxist" is nonsense. Davide King (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Marxism is the school of thought. Lukács is refered to as a Marxist philosopher, and so is Althusser, for example. I agree with u|Davide King, it should be kept as it is. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Stalinism in the lead
Regarding these additions to the lead, they are not lead worthy and are more appropriate to be moved at the section about his book on Stalin. We should first add content to the body and then summarise it in the lead, if it is lead worthy. In addition, I dispute how reliable or notable these sources are:
 * Revista Fevereiro
 * Esquerda Online
 * O Globo

In addition, I would note O Globo does not take a black and white position. It says he has been "[p]raised for his criticism of liberalism by some and accused of Stalinism by others", not that he is a Stalinist as an undisputed fact. It also says "[f]rom liberals to the far left, everyone has an adjective on the tip of their tongue (or fingers) to refer to Caetano's new favorite author: Stalinist, revolutionary, farcical, anti-imperialist, revisionist. For some, the Italian was a champion of socialism who denied the farces propagated by liberalism. For others, a defender of the crimes of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) and of Chinese authoritarianism."

Diego Pautasso says "after the dismantling of the Soviet Union, Losurdo devoted himself to four areas of research: 1) critique of liberalism and the fight against the belief that liberals they were at the forefront of democratic struggles; 2) balance of socialist experiences (USSR, China); 3) criticism of colonialism, imperialism and 'the various forms of subjugation of peoples to Washington and its allies'; 4) the critique of the contemporary left, in particular of 'Western Marxism' [...]", so I do not see how this can be limited to Stalin. The source says "Losurdo compared the crimes of the Soviet leader (some 20 million people died while Stalin remained in power) with the crimes of liberalism (genocides sponsored by capitalist nations, concentration camps maintained by the powers colonial crimes, war crimes) and argued that in the end, it is the liberals who have the 'dirtiest' track record." The source then quotes critic Cícero Araújo, who nonetheless says Losurdo does not actually deny any crimes as the wording for the lead implies but gave a criticism of his book on Stalin. In other words, this may be added as a review, not to support that wording for the lead, which should not be used as a coatrack for criticism in the lead.

Esquerda Online calls him a chic defender of "neo-Stalinist", although the author then says "I am not an expert on his life and work", hence I do not see how that is enough to state it as fact; Jacobin, a much more notable and reliable source does not call him as such. Nonetheless, Esquerda Online says "I still think that books like 'The Counterhistory of Liberalism are positive, exposing liberalism, this 'Western', in an energetic and very well documented way" and in general gave very positive views of his books on capitalism, colonialism and liberalism ("The examples given by Losurdo of the extreme reactionary nature of so-called liberals, including people often cited laudably, such as Toqueville, are edifying.") and the criticism was mainly in relation to his book about Stalin ("Like Caetano, I am convinced that reading these books on Liberalism and Bonapartism is useful to historians and Marxists in general, they illustrate the history of capitalism in very convincing detail. That said, there are essential criticisms to make of your most recent work [i.e. the book about Stalin], I will highlight three of them."). So we may say what O Globo noted, namely that he has been "[p]raised for his criticism of liberalism by some and accused of Stalinism by others", mainly for his book about Stalin, not stating this as fact or that he denies crimes, which even his critics say he did not deny. Revista Fevereiro similarly says "he recognizes 'tragedy and horror' from the years when the Soviet Union was led by Stalin." What they argue is that he relativised it but we already state that as reported by both Liguori and Jacobin.

—Davide King (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add this text published after Domenico's death by this academic professor. (translated) http://www.ifilo.ufu.br/node/1034
 * "The death of Domenico Losurdo aroused great emotion in the philosophical and political world in many countries where he was not only appreciated and studied, but received as one of the most organic, systematic and coherent philosophers of the 20th century and the beginning of this new century. For me, who was fortunate enough to graduate with him, he was not only a master, but the intellectual reference point through which I could study and understand the great interpreters of the past. In Brazil Losurdo also found an audience of lovers. His books have been and continue to be translated and published with great sales success and are the object of study in the main Brazilian universities. The conferences and lectures he gave everywhere in this great country (the last ones at the end of last year) were always crowded, being accompanied by young people, scholars and readers who, even partisans of different ideological strands, animated debates and discussions that extended beyond the event. He who, in the future, wishes to write the first intellectual biography of this thinker, will assume not only a great responsibility, but a workload that cannot be carried out hastily and superficially, such is the depth and breadth of his theoretical production: from the classics of philosophy to the debate around the figure of Stalin; from the analysis of the role of China to historical revisionism; from liberal thinking to the issues of Bonapartism and modern democracy; from the history of Western thought to the problems of colonialism and imperialism. Losurdo's studies of historical materialism, as well as those of Kant, Hegel, Heidegger and Nietzsche, are a fundamental milestone in the history of ideas and events of human societies, such is their scientific seriousness and intellectual autonomy, their problematic richness and interpretative complexity. In such dark times, dominated by the democratic reflux at the international level, their philosophical battle never forgot to intertwine with the demands of politics. Nevertheless, the clarity of his positions never translated into an apology for the ideological convictions he evoked, nor into a relaxation of the intellectual rigour that was characteristic of him. On the contrary, Losurdo always asked with critical severity and without indulgence the limits of the philosophical-political universe in which he had decided to military and to which he dedicated all the energies of his life. His last work, 'Western Marxism,' published in 2017 in Italy and now also in Brazil by Boitempo, represents an exemplary synthesis of all this. We could classify it as a kind of intellectual political testament. Losurdo did not love rhetoric, being always available to confront everyone on an intellectual level, and for this reason this great interpreter of critical thought, besides the long hours dedicated to studies, spent a good part of his time with a suitcase in his hands, traveling tirelessly through Europe, Latin America and Asia, in order to stimulate a dialectic that was neither ritual nor apologetic around his works. The best way to honor this great philosopher, who loved Brazil so much, would be to discuss his latest work in depth and, through it, to direct a systematic scientific research work on his extensive intellectual production, so essential in the world panorama of contemporary critical thinking."
 * --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The Western Marxism Section
Isn't a bit odd that the section regarding "Western Marxism" says more about what Mario Maestri (a local historian and Trotskist from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, with far less coverage and notability than Losurdo. Notability) has to say about the book, than the book itself? This looks like a defamatory campaign by a political oppositor. The irony in that is that Losurdo has made a tour in Brasil for the release of his books by respectable publisher Boitempo Editorial in 2018, when he was alive, and not a single hand was raised to discuss that. Only after Losurdo died, Maestri released his book calling Losurdo a liar.

To me, 100% defamatory campaign. Vandalism.

I don't see the need of call him names like Stalinist or Neostalinist. He's never claimed to be one, and for anyone that's been remotely close to any of his books, there's not a bit of apology. You open any Stalin-related articles and you see the data on his crimes and deeds are inexcusably unprecise and often biased to make it much worse or much better than it was actually. For example, The Black Book of Communism literally uses Nazifascist War Propaganda as sources to hit the magic number of 100 million.

That's precisely where Losurdo critic resides. Why people, even in the left, accept and even reproduce critically those inaccuracies which impacts the ability to correctly evaluate the impact of the Revolutionary process in the 20th Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.179.235 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

USA liberal tradition
The intro states: "Losurdo was best known for his critique of anti-communism, colonialism, imperialism, the European tradition of liberalism, and the concept of totalitarianism." His Counter-history of Liberalism spreads its criticism pretty much equally over the forms taken in the UK, France and the USA; and in the latter case concentrates on the slave states. So I suggest the American tradition of liberalism be added to the sentence. Shtove (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)