I mention the ultras in my response to the next comment. I think there are both libs and ultras here, but in some ways I think ultras are libs too because instead of applying a materialist analysis they are being idealists. they are dogmatically trying to apply ideas they have no experience with, not realizing that the ideas aren't universal for every material circumstance. it is liberal in the combat liberalism sense

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The key difference is that ultras can read combat liberalism and conclude that Rodríguez is a liberal they need to combat.

I really don't they can be put in the same group. These are not opinions borne from passivity or indifference or personal interests or opportunism or half-heartedness or pride, they come from feeling indignant at every retreat as if it is counter-revolutionary and harming the interests of the masses. In fact, they engage with strategic retreats as if they are combating liberalism.

[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

misinterpreting a text to fit it into your prescribed worldview is liberalism. thinking that you can read a book written in China and apply it to Venezuela without being a member of the Venezuelan revolutionaries who have an understanding of their own material conditions is liberalism. Book worship is liberalism. Thinking that you have any right to feel indignant about a situation you created in your head is liberalism. Thinking that a strategic retreat is liberalism, is also liberalism.

ultras are almost always people who have no direct experience with organizing in general, but particularly with the subjects they are trying to opine about. thinking you know about a place you've never been, a people you've never met, a history you've never studied, is, well you get it

edit:

The key difference is that ultras can read combat liberalism and conclude that Rodríguez is a liberal they need to combat.

just want to be extra clear, if you read combat liberalism and then conclude that a person in a country you've never been to and have no relationship to or knowledge of is a liberal you need to combat, you have a parasocial relationship with that person and it is a sign that you need real help. Mao was talking to Chinese communists about their work together in China. If you think Mao was talking to you, a (probably white) person in 2026, about Delcy Rodriguez, you have fully given up on reality

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Honestly, I didn't take any of that away from combat liberalism. Mao mostly described feckless weasels and backbiters and prideful little worms that go-along-to-get along and are always looking out for themselves before the masses or the struggle.

The main difference, I think, is liberal types will drag the movement down into liberalism. Ultras won't do that, they'll split and form their own anti-revisionist/anti-liberal/anti-sectarian (lol) splinter group. They're infantile, but present their own distinct problems.

[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 8 points 4 days ago

Mao mostly described feckless weasels and backbiters and prideful little worms that go-along-to-get along and are always looking out for themselves before the masses or the struggle.

even if this is your only understanding of liberalism, this is describing the ultra themselves for abandoning actual revolutionary struggles they aren't even involved with because of purity testing. people who aren't revolutionaries themselves, deciding that they are more revolutionary than others, but can't be associated with someone less revolutionary, while the alleged less revolutionary people are actually going through a revolutionary process. this is pure idealism, of the liberal variety.

we can look at Venezuela 11 months after the president was abducted and see a unified party supported by a mass, popular movement.

we don't see any cracks in that reality, despite the cracks in the state itself and its geopolitical position, both the consequences of decades of sanctions more than anything.

for one to be so sure that that they are now a neo colony, entirely controlled by the US, and that Delcy specifically (but somehow not all the PSUV and masses behind her) is a unilateral dictator comprador who has handed over Venezuela, they can only be making shit up. these are the actual defended positions of these folks here, for months, and they are 100% unquestionably made up. they have no evidence, just vibes, that is liberalism