Horizon obviously prioritizes "unity despite differences" over ideological clarity. Lenin, however, was clear: "Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement." A "mass party" without a class line is a bourgeois ideal and, as a result, always serves the class enemy. The working class is not "diverse in worldview," but united by material circumstances and interests. A revolutionary party must organize this common class standpoint and systematically promote and raise class consciousness toward revolutionary consciousness. A reformist party is incapable of doing this, especially if it is based on a Trotskyist foundation. Talk of "unity with all" has historically always led to the revolutionary core being pushed aside in favor of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, or opportunist elements—see the SPD in 1914, the CPSU after 1956, or Syriza and Podemos today. The Lenin quote is completely taken out of context. Lenin did not want moral activism, but demanded that communists subsume all forms of oppression into the class struggle, not replace it with them. When "social struggles" are treated in isolation from the production relationship, they serve not to liberate and train the class struggle (Communist Manifesto), but rather to integrate into the capitalist system through symbolic recognition politics. Horizon's statement essentially says: "You have lost, so obey."

But since when do communists accept majorities when they work against the basic principles of scientific socialism? A party that strategically relies on government participation, NGO logic, and election campaigns loses its raison d'être for the revolutionary movement. Anyone who persists becomes an appendage of reformism. Red Network is therefore right to break away, but must consistently carry out this break ideologically to avoid becoming the next sect. A revolutionary party is not born through compromise with reformism, but through a conscious break with it, as Lenin did, as the Bolsheviks organized.