If you are saying that the fundamental difference can be found in any single argument, then it would have to apply to every argument. If he’s a liar in saying he agrees with Trotsky, then he’s a liar when he says he agrees with the #metoo movement.

He, in fact, is in fundamental /disagreement/ with the #metoo movement for his own class position rather than /for/ the discovery of the best position for the working class.

The article itself says, “So Steiner was. And so he is today.” But you say: “No, because the arguments Steiner supports today, as opposed to the arguments he supported in the past , are not rooted in the class position of the ICFI.”

The roots of the arguments, the parts that are not apparent but from which the arguments are derived, are not the same because of class differences, hidden from view of those only reading about theoretical differences. Still, there is a unity, which was also an admitted official unity, including a leadership role co-writing pamphlets.

That alone proves my original point, which is that agreement between Steiner and anyone else does not prove them wrong. Your insistence to the contrary does not change this proof, but only undermines the position you are trying unsuccessfully to defend.