Marx wrote:
Proudhon had a natural inclination for dialectics. But as he never grasped really scientific dialectics he never got further than sophistry. This is in fact connected with his petty-bourgeois point of view. Like the historian Raumer, the petty bourgeois is made up of on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand. This is so in his economic interests and therefore in his politics, religious, scientific and artistic views. And likewise in his morals, IN EVERYTHING. He is a living contradiction. If, like Proudhon, he is in addition an ingenious man, he will soon learn to play with his own contradictions and develop them according to circumstances into striking, ostentatious, now scandalous now brilliant paradoxes. Charlatanism in science and accommodation in politics are inseparable from such a point of view. There remains only one governing motive, the vanity of the subject, and the only question for him, as for all vain people, is the success of the moment, the éclat of the day. Thus the simple moral sense, which always kept a Rousseau, for instance, from even the semblance of compromise with the powers that be, is bound to disappear.[99]
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/01/02/capitalisms-court-jester-slavoj-zizek/
The charlatanism in science of the WSWS, as exhibited by their witch-hunt against the scientific community on behalf of Pentagon contractor Peter Daszak, and their political accommodation to Presbyterian Ministers Norman Thomas after the DSA threats and Chris Hedges in their panicky response to internet censorship, which they themselves support, among other examples of political accommodation (Tom Mackaman’s accommodation of Gordon Wood and “anti-presentism”, “anti-moralism”, and the slander of Charles Beard[1,2,3]) proves that petty-bourgeois charlatanism and not Marxist dialectics informs the thoughts and philosophical standpoint of the Nanobureaucracy. We should not oppose a public debate or public proclamations of solidarity, but with this solidarity we introduce the influence of bourgeois ideology on the revolutionary party. Such an éclat necessitates an immediate moral response in contradiction to all the faulty ideas in defense of class oppression represented by the Neo-Malthusians like Daszak and the hypocritical pacifists like Thomas and Hedges and the anti-presentists like Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, et. al.
The Nanobureaucracy’s immoral position in favor of private ownership by one individual of both the party and the press, their tyrannical powers to sack any member of the board for any disagreement, their immoral and ruthless organized attacks on dissenting members, their ceaseless opposition to factional democracy (the heart of the Left Opposition) proves their immorality has spread like gangrene into their rationality. On the one hand, Trotsky opposed the party bureaucracy and defended factional democracy, on the other hand, they argue, the Trotskyist movement must submit to its own bureaucracy and heap slander upon slander to fight the revolutionary trends in society. In order to defeat this petty-bourgeois Trotsky cult in defense of legal and public revolutionary politics, the essence of Trotskyism, we will need to force the Marxist dialectic back into the center of the debate of what good leadership means, the debate about what we require exactly from our revolutionary leaders.
The RandomPoster33 Press Page 
Leave a comment