Yep, really US foreign policy purely supports that which it can profit from, and it can't do that if the population starts using its own resources for its own benefit rather than allowing them to be stolen by the US.

If I'm being honest? Reading Liu Shaoqi's How to be a Good Communist (also in the reading list on my profile). A good part of it stresses the importance of maintaining a level head and trying to maintain good relations with "wrong" but well-meaning comrades.

There's a difference between a difference in opinion, and a difference in understanding of what is clear-cut. I specifically singled out Trotskyism as an example because it's an overwhelmingly western ideology, hasn't seen any real practical success, and the fact that Trotskyists have historically ended up indirectly supporting Capitalism by attacking AES with the same or sometimes even greater vigor. I don't denounce Trotskyism out of arrogance or pretentiousness, most Trots spend more time fighting Leftists than working to overthrow Capitalism, and can therefore not be seen as genuine allies.

Are there good Trots? Yes, many in fact. The Party for Socialism and Liberation has Marcyite roots, but due to adopting a strong, pro-AES internationalist position, they end up, despite differences in opinion and what I consider clear-cut theoretical shortcomings, as actual allies worthy of support. In fact, that's why many Marxist-Leninists end up joining PSL. I also get along quite well with many Anarchists, as I used to be one myself, and many Anarchists get along quite well with Marxist-Leninist analysis of geopolitics and thus serve as more immediate allies than anti-AES Trots do.

If you mean that I in general am pretentious and arrogant, I try not to be. In fact, I try to always take a positive and gentle approach when correcting misconceptions about Marxism, and try to disengage when it's clear that that isn't working. If you have suggestions for how I can be better, I am more than willing to listen. However, I am not going to stop correcting misconceptions when I see them, as to not do so when I know better weakens the movement overall. It's akin to the Socialist Revolutionaries in pre-Revolutionary Russia denouncing theory as "divisive" and celebrating individual acts of terror as "real victories," when we know now that it was the Bolsheviks, and their adherance to strong theoretical study and working class organization that led to successful revolution.

In fact, building off that last point, I think we have spoken about this before with respect to Solarpunk as an instance. The lack of actionable theory and the instead focus on "Utopia Building," ie the process of trying to design a perfect society rather than focusing on working with existing society and what needs to be done in the immediate for revolution and building Socialism, can lead to bad-faith actors taking advantage of it, like traditional conservativism and misogynistic gender roles did with Cottage-core. That's the key danger of aesthetic-based movements, and why I suggest coming up with a clear theoretical line and list of actionable theory first and foremost. An example of this is China's clear-cut domination of the solar industry, but many Solarpunks being vehemontly anti-PRC, which is antithetical to the process of building mass sustainable green energy in as short a time as possible.