The person who started the linked thread who was praising China is a self-described “misplaced Kentuckian”, e.g. they are from the US. The one who was being an ultra is probably western too based on how they talk, but it’s not obvious from their profile alone and their profile has a Kurdish slogan; my read of it is, likely a westerner who puts certain Kurdish movements on a pedestal.
That said, I don’t know who the fuck the “we” is supposed to be who is putting western leftists in a “pit.” It reads a lot like PvP video game level of shit-talking with nothing behind it. If you’re not from the west, why would your priority be where western “leftists” go? And if you are, why would your priority be thoughts of putting some in a pit when the west’s biggest “left” problem is not even having political power in the first place, not the degree to which it leans ultra or not. The conclusion here doesn’t even make sense, considering the thread in question started from a westerner unashamedly praising China.
There are plenty of things to say about how absurd the positions of ultras can be. That’s what is important to focus on, not this empty posturing and hasty generalizing.
Ultras tend to do that, as do socdem reformist apologists for empire who style themselves as on the left, but they do it for different reasons. These terms exist for a reason. For example, an ultra is much closer to being an ML than a soc dem is. Ultras can be a problem because of wanting purity that doesn’t exist, while reformists can be a problem because of being unwilling to do fundamental change. The ultras may cry betrayal when a revolution attempts strategic retreat, as described here: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2026/03/03/tactical-retreats-why-venezuelas-revolution-still-stands/ (under the section “Negotiation under gunpoint: Brest-Litovsk in the Caribbean”). The reformists are more apt to be ones who are opposing revolution entirely and siding with the established order.
These are different kinds of issues. One is more of an internal issue in a revolutionary formation from people who are readily willing to do revolutionary work and step into danger but expect too much and lose sight of dialectical grounding. The other is more of an external issue from people who think the system can be changed from within and resist overthrow. In the west’s case, there is a problem in general with organizing getting past electoralism/reform brain.
The person who started the linked thread who was praising China is a self-described “misplaced Kentuckian”, e.g. they are from the US. The one who was being an ultra is probably western too based on how they talk, but it’s not obvious from their profile alone and their profile has a Kurdish slogan; my read of it is, likely a westerner who puts certain Kurdish movements on a pedestal.
That said, I don’t know who the fuck the “we” is supposed to be who is putting western leftists in a “pit.” It reads a lot like PvP video game level of shit-talking with nothing behind it. If you’re not from the west, why would your priority be where western “leftists” go? And if you are, why would your priority be thoughts of putting some in a pit when the west’s biggest “left” problem is not even having political power in the first place, not the degree to which it leans ultra or not. The conclusion here doesn’t even make sense, considering the thread in question started from a westerner unashamedly praising China.
There are plenty of things to say about how absurd the positions of ultras can be. That’s what is important to focus on, not this empty posturing and hasty generalizing.
The western leftists support ‘liberation’ of Venezuelan and Iranian people that end up doing consent-manufacturing for the US invasions.
Ultras tend to do that, as do socdem reformist apologists for empire who style themselves as on the left, but they do it for different reasons. These terms exist for a reason. For example, an ultra is much closer to being an ML than a soc dem is. Ultras can be a problem because of wanting purity that doesn’t exist, while reformists can be a problem because of being unwilling to do fundamental change. The ultras may cry betrayal when a revolution attempts strategic retreat, as described here: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2026/03/03/tactical-retreats-why-venezuelas-revolution-still-stands/ (under the section “Negotiation under gunpoint: Brest-Litovsk in the Caribbean”). The reformists are more apt to be ones who are opposing revolution entirely and siding with the established order.
These are different kinds of issues. One is more of an internal issue in a revolutionary formation from people who are readily willing to do revolutionary work and step into danger but expect too much and lose sight of dialectical grounding. The other is more of an external issue from people who think the system can be changed from within and resist overthrow. In the west’s case, there is a problem in general with organizing getting past electoralism/reform brain.