"Marxist" parties siding with the state are either in error or are not Marxist

Please see this before reading.

I am trying to determine whether this is a giant error, or evidence of outright service to Langley or some other organ of the ruling class.

It is incredible to me that a party aiming to be the vanguard of the working class can continuously side with the class enemy against actual workers.

The people I know in PSL seem honest and intelligent but there is a continuous reference to the definition of terms offered by the ruling class on just about every question that preoccupies actual workers in the US. This is just the latest.

Brexit was a right wing phenomenon. Trump supporters were fascist dupes. January 6 was a flareup of white supremacy.

Now the truckers who are in rebellion against mandates - and a host of other concerns dealing with their material conditions, BTW - are supporters of a "reactionary movement" and should be opposed.

When the leadership of a vanguard party that would lead the working class to its liberation finds itself on the opposite side of actual workers and siding with the state on a succession of issues that these workers find urgent, it raises obvious questions. Those that occur to me include:

Why was it necessary to side against workers who sought to withdraw from the EU and bring state power back to a less remote venue?

The situation of immigrants, which was what opponents of Brexit - and some Brexit supporters - claimed was at the basis, has not been materially affected one way or another. In fact, it was inane to believe that this was the fracture point in the first place. The conditions creating mass migration - war and imperialist extraction - remain. And there was little mention of these in the discourse around Brexit among opponents.

The effort spent to oppose Brexit was made at the cost of further dividing workers, which rendered any effort to address these fundamental questions even more difficult.

It also cost the would-be vanguard its credibility before a large number of workers.

Why was it necessary to frame the phenomenon that resulted in Trump's election as a neo-fascist movement of white supremacists?

First, the allegation simply wasn't true. That "critique" ignored the multiple expressions (the rise of Trump and Sanders on trade and jobs, along with the uprising in the streets over police brutality) of the phenomenon that should properly have been viewed as an uprising-in-place of the working class, based upon the deterioration of their material conditions. The task there was to find unity that could transcend the bullshit flowing from partisan electoral cultism. Instead, the "sides" defined by the corporate-and-foundation media were the vantage point from which the "analysis" was derived.

The result?

The envisioning of a working class divided pretty much down the middle, with one side - the one organized around Sanders, who was suppressed by the machinations of the DNC - being deemed "worthy" and the other - organized around Trump, who had won nominal state power - deemed, reactionary, proto-fascist, white supremacist (or, to use the language of their preferred cult, "deplorable"). The resulting vision was self-fulfilling.

Meanwhile, the people in the street were brought back into the sympathetic arms of the Democratic Party, and are now arrayed more against Trump supporters than against the state.

And, again, the vanguard party lost its credibility before a large number of workers.

Why were Trump's claims of a rigged election dismissed as "Q-anon conspiracy theory" and "white supremacist" election suppression?

The 2020 election was riddled with corruption. This fact did not distinguish it from any other election held in the US since the rules governing these were first implemented with the US Constitution, which was designed to thwart popular democratic governance in favor of slave-holding genocidal colonialists.

But what did distinguish it was the method in which it was stolen, and the fact that it was done out in the open in a more flagrant manner than even the 2000 Presidential election. (As evidence of the aggregate failures of the "vanguard" party, the facts of the case pertaining to this claim are largely unknown not only to most workers in the US, but even to those who regularly read Liberation newspaper and participate in party activities.) In short, there was a blatant constitutional question regarding the enabling of process changes that were taken outside of the mandate that such be the product of acts of the state legislature. These changes produced an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots that were nakedly vulnerable to fraud, which were overwhelmingly in favor of Joe Biden and were decisive in the outcome of the election.

What is relevant is not whether or not these claims were accurate, but that a large segment of the working class - and, despite the characterizations to the contrary, that is where much of Trump's support rested, and rests - believed that the election was stolen, and they had ample and valid reasons to so believe. And their belief, and consequent protests - including the January 6 protest - were again treated as evidence of support for white supremacy(!).

Now there is rising a movement of people across political fractures in opposition to the imposition of fascist practices under the guise of public health mandates. It is neither anti-scientific nor otherwise reactionary to point out that millions of workers - men, women and children - are being subjected to severe economic and social harm in the name of public health policy that has little supporting evidence of efficacy and safety and which, in any event, has done practically nothing to stop the spread of Covid.

Among those raising these questions are this set of workers, referenced in the PSL's editorial, who massed in Ottawa and were brutally repressed by the state. Rather than dismissing these workers as petit bourgeois reactionaries from the safety and sanctity of the academy or the non-profit world, it must be understood and acknowledged that these protesting truckers are workers in the same material sense as those working seamstress women who did piece work on their own, or on rented, sewing machines (and, as many still do around the world).

Rather than support a movement of actual workers protesting to raise their actual material grievances, the vanguard again chose to use as its reference point the public narrative of the ruling class, and side with it against those workers.

I must say I am completely baffled wondering what the strategic thinking is which drives this consistently wrong-headed divisive anti-worker politic.

The idea that the white working class is a repository of fascism, racism and reaction is itself reactionary. And it is not true in essence.

This society has a legacy of these that survives, but the real repository of racism, sexism, classism and imperialism is among the ruling class (to whom, by the way, the fruits of these still flow), not the workers. For a vanguard party to assume - or even intimate - otherwise, and to then proceed from that assumption, operates only to reinforce the divisions within the working class which are continuously woven from the sick history of this country by the very beneficiaries of that history - the class which holds that same wealth which was created by the very real genocide and enslavement of millions and is now constituting, albeit in distorted form, a part of the enabling mythology of "woke" modern neo-leftism.

It is useful - and troubling - to note the complete material harmony with US intel agencies, the political establishment in general, the media and other organs of the state with the position of the "vanguard" party on the above questions, particularly given the deep divide it helps engender among workers on these very points.

This is the wrong direction. That is obvious, The question is if this is error, or something else.

And then, of course, is the question of what is to be done.