• @GarbageShootAlt
    link
    211 months ago

    The book acknowledges lifting its thesis from Jones Manoel (who wrote the original essay about “Fetish for Defeat”) and Domenico Losurdo (who wrote “Class Struggle”).

    But these two writers have a very different idea of what this means: they de-emphasize “workerism.”

    I am confused by what exactly this guy is saying. It appears that he then quotes Losurdo here, where the writer (whoever it is) criticizes another figure, Tronti, for crassly reducing Lenin to a work-abolitionist trade-unionist with no concern for imperialism, racism, etc., and this attack of Tronti seems entirely correct. What’s the connection to this purity book?

    • cucumovirus
      link
      711 months ago

      The quote is Losurdo’s critique of Tronti’s book where Tronti imagines Lenin in modern England, but only limits himself to trade unionism without analysis of imperialism. You can find it here.

      The connection is that midwesternmarx takes a similar stand in not analyzing how the working classes of the imperial core (and particularly the settlers in the US) benefit materially from imperialism. This material basis is the source of their misguided ideology which midwesternmarx ignore and instead write about “impurity” and similar concepts that don’t really explain anything.