u/bluemagachud - originally from r/GenZhou
Where is the successful ultra revolution? How was it able to repel the forces of reaction and build a dictatorship of the proletariat? Oh, it has never even kind of happened, then why care? Let them froth uselessly in their armchairs. They're dogmatic unscientific utopians unwilling to bend to the material conditions in the moment in order to continue the revolution at the pace that can be sustained. Like anarchists, they would much rather be dogmatically perfect in the realm of ideas and failures in practice.

u/aimixin - originally from r/GenZhou
I feel like I've answered this question like several times already.

When I still had a limited understanding of Marxism, I had some ultra-leanings before understanding things better, but the more I read, the more I moved away from that.

Ultimately, I find ultras tend to have two stumbling blocks.

First, they tend to lack a rigorous historical materialist analysis. They understand, in very vague and abstract terms, that "capitalism lays the foundations for socialism". But that's about as much as they understand, without any specific details on what this means or how it achieves this. They treat development in a very abstract way, that during the course of capitalism's development, there is some arbitrary line you cross where you can suddenly build full socialism.

Because of this, they will make absurd claims which I've seen multiple times from Maoists, like that China in the 1970s where only 10% of the population was urbanized had the productive forces necessary to abolish all private property.

Second, they tend to treat the abolition of private property as an almost holy decree. I have seen some Maoists before say that Cuba, for example, was socialist until they legally recognized private property in their constitution, then they stopped being socialist and abandoned Marxism. As if the abolition of private property is merely a legal thing.

Of course, if you point out how absurd it is for some of these countries to fully abolish private property, some might accept that, because you can point to how the USSR had collective farms which were not part of public property. But then will respond by saying that they still have "abandoned Marxism" because they could turn their underdeveloped sector into worker co-ops instead of bourgeois property.

There is a strong obsession from ultras with treating "abolition of private property" as something that you have to absolutely do almost immediately or you've "abandoned Marxism", and for the ultras who will accept that making all property public is impossible at the current stage, they will instead insist that you still should "abolish all private property" immediately just by collectivizing the underdeveloped sectors.

While there can definitely be some benefits of collectivizing certain sectors of the economy into worker co-ops, there are also clearly some disadvantages, such as, it makes it difficult to integrate into the world economy in a capitalist world, it makes it difficult to bring in foreign investment.

The ultimate goal is not to merely reorganize private property into a different form, but to move beyond private property entirely, to centralized, large-scale public property. This requires development, and if worker co-ops in the underdeveloped sectors are slowing down development, then it is a retrograde step to use them.

How do you even get from Marxian theory the necessity to immediately move to co-ops even for the industrial sectors? It doesn't exist anywhere in Marxian theory. At best you can find a few letters from Engels mentioning it may be beneficial, but Engels was not a prophet. You actually need to construct a theoretical argument, not "Engels said this", to why it is necessary to have a universal application of to all underdeveloped sectors without exception.

The motivation to believing in a universal application of co-ops, of course, comes from their treatment of "abolition of private property" as some sort of holy decree, that you have to achieve this as rapidly as possible without exception or else you've "betrayed Marxism". When, in reality, the "abolition of private property" occurs gradually, in the same way the state withers away over time, or the money as money withers away over time, etc, etc, none of these happen immediately from the top-down, but are all gradual in line with economic development.