of revolutionaries requires this level agreement, makes any internal discussion debate Lask. dangerous. If any disagreement is allowed to develop on questions of tasks or tactics, then a split is potentially threatened.
The essential thrust of this argument is saying-that unity between the IMG and the SWP is impossible without agreement on our tactical approach in the class struggle today. But this is a polemical point on Chris Harman's part, ratner than a state ment about the actual practice of the SWP.
For wamnle at the last SWP con. ference a substantial minority led by Steve Jeffries were in considerable disagreement with the maion over tae analysis present situation, and also over what has done Did Chris Harman move the expulsion of this minority from as perhaps he should have on the logic of own view?
Of course not. In fact he had a sense of proportion on the degree of seriousness of the disagreements that were developing inside the organisation and saw minority view nonetheless expressed itself being a The tionary organisation. does Debates are serious and ranks lightminded way. taken serous v. Minores wnch alsarice over any number of questions both great and small are not usually hounded out of une organisation wnen new . comrades ioin the SWP they don't promise to agree with every new line or analysis that the leadership pro«uces. struggle is not set in aspic; that arriving at analysis of the present position where cone ever a conn discussion, reassessment, and reappraisal ol new laclols.