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?
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
I’m not saying it’s a correct analysis, I am merely relaying some rhetoric of anti-queer connunists
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.
“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.
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?
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
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 😴
I take it you are completely fine with the current state of Russia’s leadership, or how would you describe it?
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.
In short, they are utopian.
Dogmatically idealist and utopian about the past to the point they stagnate and rot.
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.
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 🤦🏻♂️
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.
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?”
USwCC - Utopian Socialism with CIA Characteristics.
