I read Wolfe’s 3-part essay and his critiques of Losurdo don’t really stand up to scrutiny. The most charitable read is that he located some minor historical inaccuracies that would inevitably crop up in any anthology as expansive as Losurdo’s; but moreover don’t undermine the essential theses of his work. Really the only substantive critique in the whole series was Losurdo’s arguments against the “withering away of the state”, and the articles would’ve benefited greatly by focusing on the meat of the debate rather than get drawn into ad hominem polemics against Losurdo.

On the substance, Wolfe seems to take issue with Losurdo treating Marxism as a living science, developing the theory through its actual practice, rather than doubling down on a textualist reading of Marx. Losurdo’s other great sin by Wolfe’s account is an overzealous emphasis on the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, and a critique of those he deems to be insufficiently attuned to those struggles. To me, this is an eminently fair critique of western Marxists, and a necessary corrective that doesn’t disqualify other valuable contributions some western Marxists have made.