JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> One of the things about being a nonline org us that
> we din't in fact have lines on what other groups have considered make or
> break issues. That may help account for whyw e are still here when many
> others, rigorous in their purity, are not. --jks
There are shades of definiteness, and there is a point where avoidance of "rigorous purity" becomes simple emptyness. I'm sure someone who supported Clinton's welfare reform would be made to feel very uncomfortable in Solidarity. Certainly I cannot imagine Solidarity tolerating in a member or a local vigorous support for reversing Brown vs. Board of Education or repealing the 13th amendment.
It is very close to an overt lie to claim that any political organization has no "make or break issues" which define it.
Carrol