Ask Lemmygrad

Lenin labeling the communists that were telling the leaders to follow the workers instead of leading them (in "What is to be Done?") as those following tailism was an example of labeling that was useful; it allowed Lenin to point out a tendency that was harmful to the worker's movement and criticize it under a name. This is why labeling is important, and how it is not tribalism (criticizing an erroneous tendency is not tribalism).

I never disagreed with the final sentence about communist divisions not being as important before the establishment of a worker's state, but to ignore the time that will necessarily exist after they replace the capitalist system is to ignore the fact that communists cannot lead them under a unified set of goals when communists are not a homogenous group in the first place (terms in terms of methods of achieving communism and who they support). What then? The time after the momentary united front is important as well.

Your criticism of so-called tribalism is like the liberals arguing against violent action because it will "alienates those that are against violence"; it comes across as compromising principles for the sake of weak unity under the guise of not falling to tribalism. My argument does not support inaction, nor designating certain figureheads to follow; I merely say that this aversion to labels is an aversion to clearly criticizing wrong ideological trends and other things.