though they are a severe right deviation, not understanding dialectics, material conditions or the character of nationalism.

I agree, but at some point a deviation becomes a full disconnect. I think some of the people that end up in patsoc spaces are just misguided while actually searching for an alternative to mainstream narratives, but I don't think that applies to the leadership. I'm constantly reminded of stories of fascist movements starting out in Europe using all sorts of leftist sounding rhetoric while obviously being reactionary. A perfect example I think is Mussolini's story.

I know you're not saying we shouldn't criticize (this part is not necessarily directed at you but at everyone in general), but we must criticize the patsoc positions (and ones like MWM that are either there already or seem to be on their way). How else will we ever build a proper communist movement? Marx, Lenin and all the other great communist theorists relentlessly criticized anyone that was deviating. Of course, this didn't stop, for instance, the Bolsheviks from forming strategic alliance with e.g. the Mensheviks, but only to achieve specific political goals, and all the while still criticizing the incorrect positions held by their temporary, strategic allies.

I don't think there's much, if anything, to be gained from US communists allying with patsocs. Lenin talks about compromises, their nature and how to approach them (which types of compromises are beneficial and which aren't) in '"Left-wing" communism, An infantile disorder' and I think we should take that lesson a bit more seriously.

I'm also reminded of his criticisms of the Economists in 'What is to be done?' while talking about the need to build a genuine Marxist movement, and not to allow the class struggle to be limited only to certain areas (in that particular example, trade unionism) and that the Party should be ahead of the spontaneous class consciousness of the proletariat so it can guide it to the correct line and not chase it's tail (tailism). The patsocs and patsoc-adjacent positions limit class struggle in the realms of settler colonialism and corresponding land-back and decolonial movements, and in a lot of cases in the realm of struggle for LGBTQ and other minority rights.

In the imperial core in general the conditions are not ripe for revolution (and I don't think they will be for quite some time) so I think that building a proper ML party/movement should be the main goal. A movement that is ideologically "pure" if you want to call it that, but one that will be strong internally and ready to lead the revolutionary masses when the time come. Lenin talks about keeping the correct line and thus achieving actual results for the proletariat which will itself bring more people to the movement as opposed to other, deviating movements. Doing all this is of course much easier said than done but I think more effort going in that direction is sorely needed.

The main point I would like to say about this "purity" discussion is that I think it's framed in an entirely wrong way. The material conditions simply aren't revolutionary in the imperial core yet and we need to be thinking about long-term plans. This talk of purity in ideology is largely useless when the majority of the western working class is benefiting from imperialism. Of course they aren't flocking to the ML line. The material conditions guide ideology, not the other way around. (sorry for the long comment)