I’m curious whether calling someone an ultra has a generally agreed upon meaning here.
Not to defend any accused ultras or whatever. Recent post got me thinking about it though. It feels like a very loaded word and using it seems like in-group/out-group differentiation signalling or … I dunno.
Maybe another way to put it is often when I see the term being used it feels like its serves a similar purpose to the “tankie” label’s utility for anarchists and liberals.
I might just be running up against tone parsing issues or something, and so maybe this is just me or a figment of my imagination, but it often seems to limit or shape discussion when it pops up early in a discussion.
Again I’m sure I’m just Wrong about this, but it almost feels like a mild thought terminating cliche at least some of the time.
Not trying to fight with anyone, I’m just curious about the nuances (if there are any) with the term.
What does it mean to you and do you have any thoughts you feel like sharing regarding the role it plays in online leftist spaces?
Usually Leftcoms with occasional Trots and Councilcoms of the sort that oppose any left unity, are against parliamentary involvement or at least extremely sectarian about such, and lack critical support for any and all AES projects, even the fairly universally supported ones like Cuba.
More colloquially online and in RL, the person claiming that any project that isn’t immediately organising the working class for revolution is succdem pseudo-fascism, and organising with any non-communist org, especially religious, is actual fascism and thus we should shut this soup kitchen we co run with Anarchists, Cliffites, Sikhs, the local mosque, and the Jesuits down immediately!
Other communists might have ultra positions (i’d say most have one or two axes to grind) but are generally not ultras and you should consider that someone just has a bad take before calling them an ultra.