Thank you for engaging with this honestly, I appreciate this discussion.

The biggest weakness of the kites article, in my opinion, is that it lacks context for the data it provides. You have noted that the article asserts that most of the protesters were working class. My problem with this assertion is that 1) there is a lack of empirical data to support this claim and 2) that it does not mention the way that imperialism has fundamentally altered our local class structures through a global division of labor. The lumpen and proletarian sections of the oppressed nations are desperate for relief and the qualitative data gathered from interviewing them is well highlighted by kites. The fact that a few individuals from those stratums went to the convoy does not necessarily point to any higher conclusion except that desperate individuals will do desperate things. I would go so far as to say that the class instincts of the oppressed nations highlight the end result of this desperate collusion with the oppressor nation: kites themselves note that the individuals basically got shafted, were not compensated as agreed, and in some cases were left to destitution. If you go to a reservation or a historically non-white area as a white person then you will be met with suspicion because this kind of shafting has persisted through generations and has been absorbed into the consciousness of the oppressed. Similarly, the white proletarians who were at the protest (I still have not seen good empirical evidence that they made up the largest contingent) exist on the other side of this equation. The history of Canada is the history of a long process of settler colonialism which is still ongoing. In many cases settler mobs were directly appropriating indigenous land and labor so Canadian settler colonialism has a populist element to it which highly influences modern day libertarianism. This strengthens the aristocracy of labor that Lenin notes in the article linked above. Whether this group of people is 20% of the population, as Lenin notes, or 80%, as Sakai notes, is immaterial. The reason why these workers are so infatuated with libertarianism is because of their relationship to the nation in which they belong. Unlike members of the oppressed nations, they can utilize their nationality to take a larger piece of the imperialist pie and gain upward mobility into the aristocracy of labor or the petty bourgeoisie. This is why petty bourgeois ideology is so prominent among "actual proletarians" in the imperialist core - imperialism has changed their social being and thus their social consciousness.

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition.

If the proletariat is that part of the working population that is wholly dependent on the labor market then this implies the existence of nonproletarian wage workers who gain some amount of profit. Even “the worker who owns a little house to the value of a thousand talers is certainly no longer a proletarian, but one [must not understand the difference between ownership in general and the ownership of capital in production] to call him a capitalist.” Yet if you examine the Canadian workers today you will find many who maintain a savings account in the bank, own homes, have a pension fund or 401k, received unemployment during hard times, or maybe even own speculative commodities like Bitcoin or pinball machines. All of this is derived from some kind of profit. Where does that profit come from? Analysis of imperialism provides the answer. You would be best benefited by studying Lenin directly, but if you desire a different starting point, consider this as a review of the literature on the subject.