This doesn’t make any sense to me. I know they aren’t Marxists, but the goals of communism are people-centric. We’re trying to achieve a better society for all people, so why exclude certain groups from that?

  • SovereignState
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1810 months ago

    I am curious what ultras you are specifically talking about.

    I agree with the other commentors regarding the nature of ultraleftism, but I am a bit confused. Is “Ultras” being used in a different manner here?

    When I was considering myself a “Maoist”, the circles I was active in were often very LGBT+ inclusive (to a fault, at times - by this I mean taking ultraleftist lines on the LGBT+ question of liberation a la plastering arcane propaganda on building walls like “Death to Truscum”, a term mostly only known by the chronically online). Same with anarchists. Which ultras in particular are this LGBTphobic? I’m not trying to defend ultras here, but I have interacted with just as many, if not more, bigoted “Marxist-Leninists” as ultras.

    • @lemat_87@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 months ago

      Please excuse my ignorance, but I am confused who is to consider as ultra. In my country, sometimes some socdems are considered as far left 🤣🤦🏻‍♂️I suppose in US it is the same, according to Fux news, Bernie and Kamala are ultras 🤦🏻‍♂️

      • @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Conservatists can’t even make a difference between anarchist and succdem, not to mention between trot and maoist*, for them, everyone left of Reagan is “far left”.

        *To be honest lately i also have that problem somewhat, it’s hard when so many of them are COINTELPRO centrist and support nazis all the time.

        • SovereignState
          link
          fedilink
          English
          510 months ago

          hahaha I feel you hard on your second paragraph, I feel like there should be a drinking game where comrades read shitty “communist” articles and try to decipher the ideological bent of the authors, maybe called “Maoist, Trotskyist, Anarchist?”

      • QueerCommie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        910 months ago

        I usually think of ultra-leftists as people who are at least somewhat idealist and consider themselves to the left of ML (the type who call us revisionist or authoritarian). The ideologies I’d consider Ultras most of the time are Trotskyist who are idealist in that they think we can have world revolution in one go, and anything less isn’t internationalist enough, Leftcoms who look for the ideal revolution where everything was pure and Marxist, Maoists who are sectarian and look for perfect ideologically revolutions as opposed to what actually works and has a positive impact, and anarchists whose whole ideology is based on a blanket opposition to doing anything because other people tell them to, and think that organizations are too authoritarian, so we just need a spontaneous revolt that will magically get rid of all governments and everything will be fine.

        • @lemat_87@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          610 months ago

          Thank you. While I can understand some idealists (even if their theories fail since the world is not an ideal place), I totally do not get anarchists. How we can build big things, like intercontinental railway, or big water or nuclear power plants, if there will be no government? If everyone would live in small decentralized communes? I did not considered them to the left to ML, just rather closer to libs. But I am not so politically mature.

          • QueerCommie
            link
            fedilink
            English
            810 months ago

            I don’t consider them to the left of us either. I can respect an anarchist who is willing to work with us, but most are just radical liberals. They see us to the “right” of them because they think “authoritarianism” is a right wing characteristic. Like the right libertarians whose political spectrum is lib to auth rather than left to right.

            • @lemat_87@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              610 months ago

              I see. I think they do not want to acknowledge that liberalism and “freedom of speech” sooner or later may lead to fascism. As once did.

  • @ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Ultras miss one of the foundational aspects of Marxism in that completely derails their entire perspective and analysis.

    Socialist countries and their various leaders were ALL EXPERIMENTS.

    Missing this view in turn impacts why ultras are so hostile to the LGBT and hold the views that freagle outlined.

    One of the major things that sets us apart from fascists and liberals is that we do not have an idealized, cultish, worship of the past and our leaders. They all made mistakes, they all had misinterpretations, they were all human, and they were falliable.

    It is from this that me must not dogmatically cling to the exacts same views and Stalin, Castro, or Lenin, but instead take the successes of their experiments and build upon them while rectifying their mistakes.

    We must flow like water and adapt to changing times. Never ceasing to learn, grow, change perspective, or improve. Ultras refuse to do this and that is their downfall, because the material and social conditions that created past countries and leaders will never be replicated one for one, which is why we must forge our own paths, and build on the knowledge of those that came before.

    This is why the modern left movement has embraced sexual minorities, something that had not been done by previous movements, and thus, hated by Ultras.

    • @pleasemakesense@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -710 months ago

      “One of the major things that sets us apart from fascists and liberals is that we do not have an idealized, cultish, worship of the past and our leaders.”

      Granted I’m new to this community, but the interactions I’ve had so far (like the weird attachment to Russia, which stopped being even even remotely communist many years ago, and is at the moment bordering fascism) kind of don’t reflect my recent experience. If this truly is an integral part of communist ideology then many people didn’t get the memo.

      • @ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It’s because you misunderstand our support for Russia. We don’t think Russia is communist, we just think the US is our greatest enemy in building socialism, so any country resisting our (I’m American) hegemony (and thus a part of the anti-imperialist block) gets our critical support.

        America has constantly expanded nato since the collapse of the ussr, breaking agreements left and right, and tbh it gets really tiring arguing basic facts like that which helped lead to this war (as just one example) so many communists do away with the nuance when arguing with liberals. Why waste all our time writing out the actual nuanced reasons we support russia in this horrible conflict when liberals are just going to dismiss it out of hand because an “evil tankie” wrote it you know?

        • @pleasemakesense@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1210 months ago

          Ahh so it’s not really about communism at all but anti-american imperialism. I don’t know what mental gymnastics you have to go through supporting an invasion on an neighbouring country by a fascist regime as a communist

          • @CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            NATO has murdered millions of civilians since their inception as an anti-communist bloc, and Russia even under Putin has been there at every turn to prevent that (Syria, South America, Iran just in recent years). The US admitted shortly after the beginning of the war that Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, and Merkel admitted late last year that Minsk I and II were only made to gain time and prepare Ukraine against Russia (i.e. giving them equipment and weapons so they can keep the grinder going to the last Ukrainian).

            If the “international rules-based order” thinks they can ignore those rules and interfere in foreign affairs as if they’re the world police, what do you think is going to happen at some point? Strong words clearly brought Russia nowhere, who participated in the peace talks of Minsk I and II and who received an agreement that NATO would not expand east of their 1991 member countries.

            supporting an invasion on an neighbouring country by a fascist regime as a communist

            Yes yes everything you don’t like is fascism 😴

            • @pleasemakesense@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -410 months ago

              I take it you are completely fine with the current state of Russia’s leadership, or how would you describe it?

              • @CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                810 months ago

                It’s not about what we like or don’t like. It’s about the situation we have. We live in the material world, not in our escapist fantasies. But liberals don’t understand that, you would rather keep fantasizing that you lived in a perfect world rather than do anything to actually make that world a reality.

                No matter how much you wish the war didn’t happen, it did and that’s not gonna change. The question now is how to move forward from this situation we are dealt. Keep sending Ukrainians into the meat grinder until there are no more Ukrainians left?

                I take it you are completely fine […]

                You assume a lot of things from the people you speak to.

          • @redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I’m not sure that MLs support the invasion. That seems like a bit of a mischaracterisation even if it is one way of reading what is being said.

            I’ll make two clarifications.

            First, MLs are not in favour of war or violence except in self-defence. If MLs ever seem to be in support of a war, it must be because they see it as in self-defence. But they would always, unequivocally prefer a peaceful solution.

            This war in Ukraine is tragic in the extreme. I wish it could be ended today but that’s just a fantasy. Ukraine has attempted to negotiate with Russia several times since the invasion. Every time, a ‘Western leader’, be it Biden, Blinken, Boris Johnson, or another ghoul has sent more weapons and insisted that Ukraine make no compromises. This is not a route to peace. The ‘West’ is not motivated to seek peace, as it’s historic pattern of behaviour demonstrates.

            So it’s not necessarily ‘support for Russia’, so much as criticism of those who impede the peace process and cheerlead for war. This only looks like support for Russia’s invasion to people who (1) don’t understand imperialism, (2) don’t accept the truth about the motivations of the US and it’s allies, and (3) insist that (i) the US is a righteous state, and (ii) as such, criticising the US must mean ‘supporting’ the ‘bad guys’.

            It’s a false equivalence. There’s a certain irony in the criticism of MLs that relies on this logic at the same time as insisting that the US is not involved and that this is a war solely between Russia and Ukraine. If the US is not involved as one of the main drivers of this war, the ML critique does not apply to Ukraine and, more importantly, the idea that MLs support Russia would not appear to follow logically from the ML critique of the US.

            The MLs would simply be wrong because they’re making (falsifiable) political economic analysis, not moral claims. The political economic truth of the matter is crucial to MLs as it is this truth that guides ML practice. There is no incentive to make faulty arguments for MLs who want to win (by making revolution).

            Others have addressed the fact that Russia tried repeatedly and in apparent good faith to avoid war in Ukraine for years – and succeeded, too, for a long time. We now know for a fact that the other side was not acting in good faith in those negotiations, during which time neo-Nazi militia troops killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians.

            Still, MLs aren’t necessarily ‘supporting the invasion’ inasmuch as they have analysed the situation and decided it’s naive to think that Russia just decided to invade Ukraine for whatever motivations are ascribed to Russia/Putin.

            Second, related to this point, it’s not anti-American imperialism. It’s anti-imperialism. The US just happens to be imperialist and the core of the imperial core.

            Imperialism has several meanings. It can mean ‘relating to empire’. But that’s not generally how MLs use the term.

            Following Lenin, imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism, in which finance capital is used to create monopolies and crush all competition.

            There are serious contradictions within the practice of imperialism. Understanding these contradictions allow one to predict the form and content of all three World Wars (including the European colonial period of conquest), the ‘end’ of colonialism (really, a shift towards socialism, as in China, or neo-colonialism, as in most of Africa), and the imperialist approach to the cold war, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, etc. That is: imperialism requires (1) infinite growth, which means always looking for new markets, resources, labour pools, and (2) crushing those who refuse to be part of the monopoly.

            As the lead player in imperialism, the US’s actions, and any conflicts in which it is involved, can only be understood in light of imperialism. This is a basic fact of current geopolitics. As such, even if the US says one thing, it’s actions can only be understood by analysing those actions in light of the fact of imperialism.

            (Maybe US motivations in Ukraine are benevolent. It’s impossible to know for as long as the US is materially vested by trapping Ukraine into debt and selling it weapons.)

            Russia is not an imperialist state in the same sense, even if it’s ruling class would love to set that up and even if an invasion could be understood as empire-building as in times of old. I doubt it, though, as isolationism cannot work and international law does not recognise changes of land borders through war (we’ll ignore the fact that the US has supported Israel’s doing just that because that’s an anomaly, with which much of the rest of the world disagrees).

            Russia does not have a monopoly of finance capital, in part, because the US has that monopoly (although it’s currently losing that monopoly as the world becomes multipolar). Russia’s actions in Ukraine are unlikely to be imperialist under Lenin’s model. You may want to look into Michael Hudson’s work on imperialism to better understand this process (his book is Super Imperialism, in it’s third edition).

            In conclusion, any apparent ‘support for Russia’ is in fact a valid criticism of imperialism based on the available evidence. I.e. it is not ‘support for Putin’ simpliciter. Accepting this means accepting the ML critique of imperialism. From this perspective, the US hand in perpetuating this war is visible. Whatever Russia has done wrong (and as a capitalist state, it’s not exactly benevolent), we cannot progress without also acknowledging that, to put it colloquially, it takes two to tango.

            Edit: the equation of Russia with fascism is a strange one that will require a nuanced analysis of fascism. Perhaps that question would be better separated into it’s own thread.

          • @kallisti@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1110 months ago

            To attempt to explain this without using the ‘critical support’ formulation, it’s not necessarily ‘support’ of Russia in as much as it is supporting the prospect of your own state (whichever that may be) failing to advance its war goals so that instability (and thus a potential path to a revolution) is created. I personally don’t look at Russia as some kind of darling, but if the West proxy-war stomp them that isn’t any good for the prospect of conditions changing in any way that supports raising of class consciousness, worker organisation, and eventually revolution. (Not to mention the threat of a frankly very much more erratic Russian Federation potentially using nuclear weapons, which is a complete failure state for humanity)

            Russian communists should be anti-Russia, western communists should be anti-West. (ex: Russia loses, is destabilised, creates better conditions for revolution there. If Russia keeps this going for a long time, the West keeps bankrupting itself, causing internal strife, creating better conditions there) If that makes any sense.

            With regard to sympathy for Ukraine, it is kinda like… the US is absolutely going to drop Ukraine like a toy they’ve gotten bored of the moment that war goals are achieved (and this is already happening with Europe pivoting away from Russian gas and toward US LNG exports). In a scenario where Russia is defeated, you can already see US capital rubbing their hands together in glee for all the exploitation they can do “rebuilding” Ukraine in their own image.

            I personally think a lot of people get a bit lost in the sauce trying to pick one side or another to “support” when the answer is to be against your “own” side, which sometimes looks like “supporting” the other side.

          • @ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            10
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            so, we don’t really view Ukraine’s government as good for the people you know? To us, does it really matter if it’s western, Ukrainian, or Russian oligarchs controlling the workers’ of Ukraine resources? The absolute best scenario, for us, would be worker revolutions taking over Ukraine and Russia during this war, but that is literal fantasy. So, we have to play geopolitics here.

            China is our biggest hope for dethroning the US as the hegemon. In fact, barring something absolutely terrible like Russia becoming an actual US puppet regime or nuclear holocaust, it seems inevitable that China will accomplish this. So, for us, Russia losing the war and either starting ww3 with nukes or losing and turning into another place that will allow another gazillion US military bases is the absolute worst result.

            It’s fucking horrible, the loss of lives in this war. But since it’s happening, we have to pick a side. And picking Ukraine is picking the side of US imperialism.

            I’m not the best at explaining all this stuff, but I swear we aren’t bloodthirsty Putin fans, those are lies told about us.

            • relay
              link
              fedilink
              English
              9
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              (if we are to assume that we dont get full Posadism)

              The USA and EU are domestically destroying their own economies with this war. This silly war undermines NATO’s ability to oppose China. Asking countries to sanction Russia when they produce alot of grain and oil for African nations makes joining the Chinese belt and road initiative more appealing. This creates opportunities of alternatives to the IMF which gives imperial periphery nations the opportunity to have their governments control industries for the domestic population, not the foreign corporations. The contradictions of capitalism create the seeds of socialism. I personally believe that socialism is best promoted domestically and not imposed on by a foreigner.

              The diplomatic demands from the collective west are making china seem like a more reliable partner. China did denounce the invasion (as they should).

              This invasion has the interesting effect of weakening the soft and hard power of the imperial core and also gives workers in the periphery opportunities to industrialize in socialist terms not strangled by the IMF or world bank. The BRICS alternative is looking more likely. Saudia Arabia and Iran working together with china is part of this advancement.

              If Ukraine were to be victorious, that would be a disaster for international communism because it would normalize the superstructure of international fascism to seep even further in imperial core countries. With a Russian victory the Russians may have no trouble controlling the eastern Ukraine, but suffer from political violence in western Ukraine. I suspect that this invasion is a financial loss for Russia even if they finally get the port and oil they wanted. My suspicion is that Russia will fall into the orbit of China.

              Neither the current Russian government nor the current Ukrainian government are particularly great for our LGBT comrades, but I don’t understand how siding with Nazis helps them in any manner.

              Sorry for going off on the international implications of the war, but here is a video about Ukraine specifically from a Marxist perspective:

              https://yewtu.be/watch?v=g9rHjlOtH2A

              Russia and China only have good things to look forward to. If a Nuclear war were to start, I suspect the USA to start it.

              • @ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                910 months ago

                gahh another huge ass post that scares me as im browsing!!! damn socialists with their wall of texts (/hj I love the info).

                Appreciate this, I asked for more detailed/educated analysis like this :)

            • @pleasemakesense@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              310 months ago

              I see your point and accept the way you rationalize it, don’t agree on the prediction in terms of Russian defeat though, a weakened Russia would just as likely or more come into the fold of china which I believe you would be quite happy with

              • @ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                610 months ago

                I’m not really sure what would be preferable, as far as a more independent from China yet stronger Russia, or a weaker Russia more dependent on China, I would need a more educated person to chime in… Not really sure the likelihood of US friendly coup vs weaker China friendly Russia.

                However, I do think it wouldn’t be worth the risk of nuclear holocaust. I would really rather not test whether or not they’re being serious about using nukes

                • @pleasemakesense@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  310 months ago

                  I can see how the risk of nuclear weapons being used might shift ones perspective on would be a preferably outcome, personally I don’t want my opinions held hostage by the possibility nuclear war

          • @m532@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            810 months ago

            Stop projecting, yankee. YOUR country is doing imperialism, has always been doing imperialism and will continue doing imperialism until it dies. There can only ever be max. one imperialist overlord in a connected world, and it currently is the usa.

              • @m532@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1010 months ago

                Ah. Did you know europeans get parts of the spoils of the usa’s slavery loot? They are all paid off, that’s why they hate communists. Because the communists want to free their (indirect) slaves. It’s called labor aristocracy. That’s why those europeans will do anything to defend the usa.

  • @freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1410 months ago

    Part of it is this idealistic adherence to “materialism” that rationalizes existing oppression with Marxist rhetoric. Gay sex doesn’t produce offspring, so gay sex must be unnatural and worthy of oppression, and since we see the liberal bourgeois culture being more accepting of queer phenomena, then it must be a bourgeois degeneration against the very real materialism that says sex is always between a man and a woman because science.

    As Lenin said, it’s an infantile disorder.

    • ⚧️TheConquestOfBed♀️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Not all factions of the bourgeoisie really care for LGBT people, and the ones that do are hardly capable of grasping queer theory the same way we do. They do fundraisers to feel like they’re not imperialist monsters even if they fail in every other way to make our lives less horrible under capitalism.

      • @freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 months ago

        I’m not saying it’s a correct analysis, I am merely relaying some rhetoric of anti-queer connunists

        • ⚧️TheConquestOfBed♀️
          link
          fedilink
          English
          410 months ago

          I know, just providing extra context for people reading. Wasn’t really directed at you, didn’t mean for it to come across that way!

  • @ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1010 months ago

    Ultras tend to be overly dogmatic, and some past socialist leaders like stalin unfortunately had bad analysis of this so they cling to that. That is my impression, anyways, someone more educated please chime in and correct me if im being stupid

  • comfy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    710 months ago

    It’s not useful to make a broad assertions like that about a large (and somewhat vague) term like ‘Ultras’. Like many comments have said, that’s not the experience we’ve had with any ultras. It’s like saying “why are Americans anti-LGBT”, when there are millions of Americans that are, and millions that aren’t, and the ones that are often have different reasoning for it (e.g. religion, tradition, misconceptions/pseudoscience, ideology, etc.) so the question will get a bunch of shallow unhelpful answers.

  • @tamagotchicowboy@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    610 months ago

    Just bigotry pure and simple, anyone can have a flawed analysis when they let this mindset override any education or knowledge that tells them otherwise. It is also reflective of the culture/society they interact with too, new economic systems having some tinge of the old and all that and unfortunately for a while will be sharing with their bigotries until root issues are addressed and education given.

    • @ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      610 months ago

      While anecdoatal, the vast amount of ultras that I have met or encountered, mostly followed the old old Stalin line of thinking that homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence, and anti-materialist.

      Some additionally believe they associating with the LGBT community will make them greater targets in the public eye so they want to try to avoid accepting sexual minorities.