It’s idiotic to suggest you stop debating. Theory isn’t optional. It’s the framework that separates effective action from performative gesture. You want to bypass clarification for the sake of “unity,” but that’s precisely how movements get absorbed, diverted, or broken. Action without theory isn’t courage it’s idiocy. And your theory contradicts itself: you call for a broad front while dismissing the most successful actually-existing socialist project that has lifted the most people from poverty, challenged imperialist containment most effectively, and created the most material space for the Global South. It’s incoherent nonsense. Also side note, but every single even semi successful revolution has been some flavour of Marxist Leninist, this clearly isn’t a fluke or luck.

You’re correct that shitposting alone achieves little. But a coalition that includes those who uphold the imperialist state achieves less. The Chinese revolution for example didn’t succeed by treating all anti-Japanese forces as equals. It succeeded by applying a materialist analysis to the principal contradiction at each stage, coordinating tactically when interests aligned, and never surrendering political independence. Unity isn’t an abstract good, it’s a conditional tool. Its value depends on clarity about objectives, adversaries, and the balance of forces.

So debate continues. Not for its own sake, but because sharpening theory is how you avoid repeating errors, co-optation, and strategic dead ends. You should organize with those who share a material commitment to dismantling imperialism, not just those who oppose fascism in the abstract. That isn’t sectarianism, it’s the precision necessary to build something successful.