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?
They are/were communist because communism was/is the nominal end goal of their ruling ideologies
I would say that they were/are socialist states with the end goal of communism. I don’t think communism is a single state is possible. I do think and I did say I think their parties are communist but communism one one state is a ruse.
IDK you can say I’m being pedantic but I prefer to say they’re socialist states with communist parties.
no i mean that’s what saying a given state or government is communist means, it’s not a statement of “has achieved the theoretical state of communism”
You can’t achieve a stateless, classless society when the only way to stop a bad guy with a state is a good guy with a state; therefore, real communism has never been tried
spoiler
Sorry, this is like 98% shitpost
Yeah that’s the point of dotp and using the state apparatus to install a socialist state
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm
Also Lenin would disagree with you
“State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.”
Here he is writing about transitioning the ussr into state capitalism, it wasn’t even socialist yet.
I fail to see why people can’t comprehend the fact that a country doesn’t just press the communism button the second a communist party is in charge.
And yet the bolsheviks were still a communist party. Because they were attempting to establish communism.
I never disagreed with this. Neither would lenin. I’m a leninist, I have his books in print.
If I became communist dictator of America right now, if wouldn’t stop being a capitalist country over night.
The government would now be communist but the economic mode of production would still be capitalist. It would take years to change to socialism.
That’s the entire point of the tax in Kind
I agree their governments are communist but the countries themselves have a not reached communism.
Yeah but saying “China is communist” isn’t saying “china has achieved communism”
I think the argument you want to make against is that I’m being pedantic by saying the CPC is communist but the economic mode of China is socialism, which is fair in day to day conversation I wouldn’t say that.
But you’re kinda just repeating yourself saying china is communist and like, I agree the cpc is communist, they’re a Marxist governing body. But I’m just being a pedantic ass and saying their economy isn’t communist