Ask Lemmygrad

Ultra-leftism can take different forms. Ultra-leftists don't correctly analyze and understand social conditions, so they criticize socialist countries for not already having progressed further toward communism (and often actively oppose them for this reason), and they criticize socialists for speaking to the people in the context of their own social conditions instead of pretending the people are ahead of where they are. They'll say things like that you're not a real socialist if you're not physically fighting agents of the capitalist state or only speaking about core issues like class (instead of what the people care about). They're often fixated on particular revolutionary leaders or particular kinds of direct action instead of real-life organizing based a serious and informed analysis of current social conditions.

Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder by Lenin is great but may take some extra time and effort and additional resources to understand if you're new to studying topics like this or unfamiliar with Lenin's history. "Infantile" isn't an insult here but a clear statement about how such ideas are based in undeveloped thinking.

Others already gave good generalized answers. I would like to make a mention of western marxism specifically because in english-speaking circles, it's where you're liable to find a lot of ultra-style positions coming from.

In essence, the west (but mostly intensely, the US) put a stigma on any kind of support for communism (via Red Scare, etc.). This helped corral people into a very narrow and disarmed form of marxism, where they say things like, "I believe in communism, but it has never been properly tried." Or, "I believe in communism, but those socialist states (USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.) are revisionist because they deviated from true marxist practice." This allows them to land in a more palatable and non-threatening ideological place where they cling to the idea of support for marxism in theory, but in practice, they take the side of the empire in disavowing the leadership of socialist projects (even if they don't disavow them for the exact same reasons in every case). There's a certain irony to it in this form because they are themselves capitulating in order to be able to "safely" say anything about marxism, but are accusing actual practicing marxists of being the ones who capitulated and failed.

But bottom line is, they end up throwing their international comrades under the bus to be able to push a theoretical view that doesn't go anywhere near practical, applied liberation. There is plenty to learn from international socialist projects that have succeeded and continue to succeed in many ways. Not because they are magic, but because they put the theory into practice, they developed it beyond what marx had to say about it (ex: ML), and they produced many improvements to quality of life for their people with it. There's not a lot to learn about the subject from academics who never put theory into practice, unless they're trying to pass along knowledge they learned from people who did.

For a rough comparison, imagine if somebody insisted that space flight has never been tried and the people who have tried have deviated from real rocket science theory, and that's why sometimes accidents and loss of life have happened. Rather than the fact that space flight is incredibly dangerous and can't be made risk-free.

Ultraleftists have no understanding of dialectics so they adopt an idealist binary view of things that is so common in current education thus they see every AES as revisionist since they're not instantly moneyless classless societies.

An ultra is a dogmatist/reductionist who thinks revolutions and socialism can only be built by following what's written in the old Marxist texts and completely disregards the part of Marxism where the authors talk about our theory being a call to action, a scientific Method, and not a dogma. They would say stuff like AES countries are not socialist because they are still using trade to build productive forces for their people in the third world, which is an incredibly foolish thing to say for anyone who is familiar with the transitional phases of socialism. They also promote adventurism that emphasizes on spontaneous action rather than the disciplined militant class struggle that the Marxist-Leninists believe in.

The term originated in the 1920s in the German and Dutch workers movements, originally referring to a Marxist group opposed to both Marxism-Leninism and social democracy, and with some affinities with anarchism.

These people would spend more of their time reading theory, which is the first step of the theory study, and less time actually practicing it, which is the 2nd part. They sacrifice material analysis for ideological stubbornness and that is antithetical to Marxism. They fall for things like 'class reductionism' and neglect 'class intersectionality' that is important for the liberation of all oppressed people in society. Therefore, they also often reject the proletariat's class alliance with other different classes like the peasantry and the lumpenproletariat.

That's why they are attracted to all the failed revolutionary authors in history, e.g. Bordiga, Paul Mattick, Herman Gorter et al.

Some major sectors of Ultraleft are: Left Communists, Trotskyists, left-anarchists, Hoxhaists, and Maoists who don't read Mao.

These people have been criticized by various successful revolutionary communists in history who have proved the effectiveness of scientific socialism i.e. the original school of Marxism in building successful revolutions. Some of the biggest critics were Lenin and Mao Zedong. Some good texts written by them on this topic are,

• Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder by Lenin.
• Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality by Lenin
• A Suppressed Speech of Lenin (at ECI) And Other Items
• On Practice by Mao.
• Oppose Book Worship by Mao.
• On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People by Mao.
• Mao’s "Speech at the Lushan Conference" (1957)

People who claim to be communists but denounce all socialist states for not being communist enough. Generally ultra-left organizations are run by anti-communist using leftist language and aesthetics. They don't criticize or analyze Existing Socialism they rebuke it and insist they are traitors. They love failed socialist projects because their goal is to maintain the status quo not bring about communism. They are communists in rhetoric and aesthetic but anti-communist in their word and actions.

Anarchists, Gonzaloites, radlibs, Khmer Rouge are all possible examples

"Ultra-Leftism" is a term I personally try to avoid as it tends to get used as a thought-terminator to dismiss people out of hand and has a bit of a smug/condescending tone to it when used.

But in essence it is essentially Left-wing Idealism; that is the Leftists in question are trying to match the socialism that exists in theory with the socialism being conducted in practice and when faced with apparent contradictions are not taking into consideration how material reality might have altered that practice and instead draw the conclusion that it isn't really socialism and can therefor be dismissed out of hand.

An example of this could be found in the Kronstadt Rebellion in which the sailors became disillusioned with Lenin and the Bolsheviks because the latter hadn't delivered on all their promises. The rebels did not consider that those promises could not be delivered upon at the time and failed to understand that socialism doesn't immediately produce communism but rather works to undo the effects of capitalism while building the foundations for communism. The suppression of the rebellion through violence is often critiqued by "Ultra-Leftists" (including myself at one point) as revealing the 'true' nature of the Bolshevik state and its 'totalitarianism'; ignoring the context that this rebellion occurred during the Civil War and that the Whites were still operating in the area. The initial response by local Bolsheviks was in fact to engage in dialogue and to negotiate an end to the rebellion and had this rebellion occurred during peace time this is likely what the central government would have done as well but in the broader context of an armed conflict it was inappropriate to waste time trying to talk the rebels down and give the enemy an opportunity to exploit the chaos. Socialism was under siege and needed to be defended. Distasteful as it may be to persecute one's own comrades the success of the revolution comes first; if the revolution doesn't succeed then their idealism is pointless.

"Ultra-Leftism" is a utopian understanding of socialism that demands it conform immediately to its ideals and will not tolerate any deviation regardless of reasoning. For the "Ultra-Leftist" the idea of socialism is more important than what conditions the socialist project finds itself in. It must be humane, egalitarian, and libertine at all times and any failure on any of these fronts is 'proof' of dishonesty, corruption, or betrayal on the part of the Party. This is the mentality that gave rise to the "that wasn't REALLY socialism/communism" argumentative trope that all Marxists are accused of by anti-communists as these were the people making precisely that argument.

Not a lot of ultra-leftists out there. Most ultras are just “leftists” who are afflicted with a liberal bias.

An actual ultra would reject any sort of concession towards capitalism, without regard for anything else.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9IhJHsbmuI