“Ideological tests and so on are a means of finding out whether people do actually support the overthrow of capitalism! Sometimes they are stereotypical – for example, someone might conceivably be an actual Communist and yet have bourgeois views regarding Communist history. But such a case is extremely rare compared to fakes, who are either delusional (think they wish to overthrow capitalism when really they do not), or deliberate saboteurs.”

…sounds like the kind of “I want to be an inquisitor and expel the unbelievers” argument that perpetually afflicts the communist movement. Fanaticism and Sectarianism will not disappear until this attitude does.

How many different sects would say the exact same thing about another sect? Of course, the only response is, “But NO, I *really* *really* support the overthrow of capitalism, and *you’re* the saboteur/delusional one.”

And then every side shakes its head at every other side and nothing happens.

As for the second point, you miss my point entirely – the issue is exactly NOT to “sweep away petty ideological differences”, but to fight them out in debate. It should not be hard to show to Dengists how their tactic will tend to favor capitalism and revival of exploitative social relations. Moreover, it should especially not be difficult to show this to the workers in general. If they would then still support the Dengists, it would be time to consider why that would be, and you would have to re-do your analysis. This is what makes socialism ‘scientific’.

First, Communist parties are exceptionally prone to splitting and sectarianism only in the first world, where Communism has no mass base and therefore ends up being little more, at best, than an intellectual hobby for a few people. One small British Communist Party-Unified Front would advance the cause of global Communism no more than a dozen tiny ones do as-is. I see no evidence that Communist Parties in poor countries are any more or less prone to counterproductive infighting, egotist leadership, or any other sort of political bone-headedness than parties of other ideologies. In fact, third world Communists in peaceful circumstances tend to be extraordinarily accommodating; if anything I think they are TOO accepting of compromise and “small steps.”

Second, the statement, “The only thing a Communist party needs to require of its members is that they support the overthrow of capitalism in whatever way best effects this,” is more-or-less true but basically unhelpful because it begs the enormous question of knowledge whether someone does in fact support the overthrow of capitalism. Should Communists open their arms to Dengists, for example? After all, their ideology claims to be the only route to the eventual realization of communism. By your principles here I can only surmise that we should sweep away “petty” ideological differences and march arm-in-arm.

Serious (i.e., third world) Communist parties have always been and continue to be beset unceasingly by pretenders and wolves-in-sheep’s clothing who wrap themselves in the red flag only to dismantle Communist progress and uphold dictatorship of the bourgeoisie whenever their chance comes. Ideological tests and so on are a means of finding out whether people do actually support the overthrow of capitalism! Sometimes they are stereotypical – for example, someone might conceivably be an actual Communist and yet have bourgeois views regarding Communist history. But such a case is extremely rare compared to fakes, who are either delusional (think they wish to overthrow capitalism when really they do not), or deliberate saboteurs.