I would argue that despite appearances successful revolutions actually did embody that: despite sectarian power struggles between different organizations, revolutions were defined by concessions to material reality and the cooperation and compromise needed to actually keep going and survive. "Doctrinally pure" sectarians were wreckers while the surviving party became an impure synthesis of its component members. Like Kropotkin personally argued with Lenin, but ultimately cooperated with him in the limited capacity his age allowed and he was likewise provided for by the Soviet state. In China the CPC relied heavily on peasant anarchists during the revolution whose ideology shaped the party and its policies even as they were subsumed into it.

Obviously there was still sectarian infighting and whatnot, but fundamentally history shows that revolutions have to be a synthesis of their component parts and a compromise between doctrinal purity and material reality. So if a revolution comes to the imperial core it is going to be made up of everyone who is willing to work together, and anyone sticking to ancient party lines and splitting over them at that point will be a wrecker. Hexbear's basically following that ideal, laying out some basic core tenets against bigotry and chauvinism and then saying "don't start petty bullshit with each other over other policy disagreements." Like someone should be dogpiled for doing American imperial apologia, but not for having a different take on what post-revolution logistics and organization should look like for example.