As we pointed out in The role of division tactics: Strategy and tactics in the majority-exploiter countries, most of those calling themselves "Marxist" in the imperialist countries are abandoning the goal of fighting exploitation out of a weakness that subjectively stems from feeling they are "surrounded by enemies" if they take up the MIM line. The result is re-labelling of the petty-bourgeoisie and other enemies as proletariat. A practical result is that there is not a united fight led by the proletariat against fascism and so we had the Red Lake shooting by a youth that could have been saved had a more powerful MIM existed. A closely related expression of this same idea of going into denial about being surrounded by enemies is the one that says MIM is right, but white worker utopianism is benign. Again such a statement stems from a failure to conceive what Marxist science is, the power of it and why genuine Marxists have always distinguished between line on the one hand and strategy and tactics on the other.
It is not permissible to go "do something" and sum up how to win the most tactical battles, then generalize a strategy from that and then induce what the line of the party should be. An imperialist handing out $100 bills can easily create a certain tactical impression. We cannot sum up that we should take service to the imperialists as tactical victory. Likewise, the class structure does not depend on whatever is easiest to win opinion polls with. The class structure comes from the mode of production and nothing having anything to do with the ease of strategy and tactics. So only the upside-down and backward reason, "the MIM line is too hard and I can't implement it, so therefore the class structure of the united $tates must be 90% exploited people." The class structure stands independently of the party's strategy and tactics until the completion of a strategy implementing dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, a huge historical class struggle can change the class structure, but it does not change because some opportunists cannot handle proletarian science.
The evasion of hard reality is to the point where there is a German party attacking the "petty bourgeois mode of thought" while not recognizing that Germany is a majority petty-bourgeois, something Lenin and Zinoviev said even in World War I, never mind today after decades of more parasitism. Calling the petty-bourgeoisie "proletariat" is itself the petty-bourgeois mode of thought, but once again it's a case where people shirk the consequences of Marxist science to avoid something unpleasant. In this case, the party in question wants to distinguish between manufacturing petty-bourgeoisie and other petty-bourgeoisie for the leadership of their party. In other words, their whole shirking of the question comes down to the sectarian question of who should be the leader of a tiny party! They don't want to call the petty-bourgeoisie what it really is, because then there would be a party leadership dispute based on identity politics. It's a horror really and a proof of the far-reaching effect of post-modernism, its ability to create white worker identity politics.
So then we have some people who say, "OK, that is unscientific to mess with the depiction of the class structure for narrow political purposes. The opposition to MIM is unscientific, but white worker utopianism is benign." Others have admitted, "the white workers are not revolutionary people now, but they will be some day." In some united fronts against fascism and war, there may be some white worker utopians, especially those not calling themselves "Marxist." For party-building purposes this is not true and the most important white worker utopians are in parties claiming to be socialist or Marxist.
Marx said in the "Theses on Feuerbach" --and a lot of other places-- science proceeds with an edge, not by vacillation: "Man must prove the truth -- i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice." That word "this-sidedness" points to the edge in Marxism.
There are some backward people who refer to MIM as a cult because it proceeds by putting an edge into its stands. They wonder why MIM does not have the sense to water everything down and pander to larger numbers of people by vacillating more, because they have allowed the bourgeois parliamentary infection into their bloodstream to the level of principle. Despite MIM's obvious success, they cling to dogmatic opportunism.
MIM science is not like astrology where it comes up with something that has to be true eventually. Now if MIM put itself on a limb without factual backing, that would be lazy. Yet in fact, MIM is the most read party calling itself Marxist in the majority-exploiter countries because people recognize the research that goes into MIM Thought; even though this particular article is not research, just an explanation of materialist method.
In MIM Thought, we always refer to words like "best" and "most advanced." We never allow people in the party or in connection to Marxist science to have questions both ways, especially the major questions like the line between exploiters and exploited. Only some tactical questions should be allowed to go either way. Having it both ways on important questions is the hallmark of the petty-bourgeoisie.
White worker utopianism sounds benign until one actually thinks about the concrete world. At first one may say, "so what if s/he dreams that white workers rise up for communist revolution? What's wrong with that?" The persyn who is dreaming of white worker revolution despite the past 100 years is a simple idealist usually. It could be the creation of a perfect Aryan Master Race or white worker uprising and the dream would not change much. The persyn who knows there is something wrong with that via Marxism, but says "so what" may be guilty of what Marx called "contemplative materialism" in his "Theses on Feuerbach." Contemplative materialists may be good anti-fascist material but they are not Marxist.
So just by itself saying "what's wrong with dreaming of white worker utopia" is contemplative materialism at best. Marx explained it leads to individualism.
To grasp the difference between Marxism and contemplative materialism, we have to go the extra step. Then we will also see the difference between MIM Thought and revisionism.
The extra step we need to make is to realize that white worker utopianism never comes with class neutrality on history. It's impossible. Either the Black Panther Party was the most advanced communist movement within U.$. borders or it was not. Either the rebellion in France in May, 1968 was more advanced than the Black Panther movement or it was not. Either the KPD in 1945 was more advanced than the anarchist/Trotskyist/pseudo- ist movement of France, May 1968 or it was not. Materialist science production proceeds in this manner, not by splitting the difference or evasion.
The problem with the white worker utopians and their contemplative materialist defenders is that white workers had the physical opportunity to make revolution twice and failed--in 1945 in Germany and in May, 1968 in France. We are either telling the public the truth about that or we are evading it. White worker utopians downplay it, because they are unwilling to put the whole problem on the table squarely for today's youth to struggle through. They lack confidence in anything but a white worker dream despite Mao's warnings on the need for strategic confidence in the proletariat of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Had something else happened in May 1968 or the years right after May 1968, MIM would have to say something else! That's the difference between science and astrology.
Without exception, the white worker utopians have at one time or another run down the Black Panthers. They may vacillate to support the Black Panthers, especially lately because of MIM's huge progress. It did not used to be that the Black Panthers were such an historical phenomenon. Now MIM is the most read party calling itself Marxist in the imperialist countries and the Black Panthers are evoking huge interest. Not surprisingly, the white worker utopians have to change their stands and vacillate in our direction. This vacillation in the MIM direction can only take permanent proletarian form by answering the question: was the Black Panther movement more significant than the May 1968 movement in France or not? Are you still waiting for a revolution to stem from May, 1968 in France or not? Do you seriously think a 1917 following a 1905 as in Russia awaits us in France? Are you admitting that the French sold out the Vietnamese, Chinese and Black Panthers for double-digit raises, yes or no? Do you glorify the assistance of the KPD to the Red Army in 1945, yes or no? Where do you stand on the political manifestation of this, the "collective responsibility movement": was it the most advanced movement of the majority-exploiter oppressor nations or not?
The petty-bourgeoisie cannot give straight answers to these questions. It cannot be dialectical materialist. The parties criticizing MIM would have to go through their own history and criticize it seriously to even start to take a consistent line against MIM.
The petty-bourgeois interpretation of dialectics is like astrology: "This is true and that is true." The petty-bourgeoisie never spits out: "the principal aspect is this" or "the best historical experience was this" or "the most advanced was that." Watch for those words "principal," "most" and "best." Without them, there is no Marxist science.
In school, we learn to grade our work. Some work is better than other work. If we ask people "3x3=?" One persyn answers "9" and another answers "33." We pick one answer as better than the other.
If someone asks what is "2x(-2)" and one answer is "4" and the other is "63," "4" is better than "63." Then if some people do multiplication by counting, others by set theory and others by memorization, we may ask who can do it fastest and thereby determine the relative merits of each approach.
If we want to promote advance, then we have to recognize advance when we see it. That means to promote revolution, we must uphold the most advanced or we create an opening for reaction. White worker utopianism is not benign, because it is not historically true. We need to teach people both the problems and the greatest advances that have occurred in communist history in the majority-exploiter countries. Anyone who understands the importance of knowing history understands why idealism and contemplative materialism have to be defeated. The oppressor always tries to rob the oppressed of history as the best way to disorganize the oppressed. So we cannot say white worker utopianism is benign, because history is important.
We should never run down the most advanced even slightly in the name of a dream of white worker cataclysm that has not happened. Running down the actual communist advances (Stalin, Mao, Huey Newton) in the name of a cataclysm that has not happened yet is identical to the method of religions including Christianity. That is key for right now. If the nukes fly or the environment falls apart or the Blue States go at the Red States, then, and only then, we can re-evaluate material conditions. We do not run down Stalin, Mao and Huey Newton now, because the imperialists may destroy everyone's conditions in the future. We cannot do so, because we must teach ourselves history accurately. That's what Marxist materialism teaches. It's completely connected to having an edge in practice.
To reiterate, once the nukes fly and destroy white so-called worker conditions in majority-exploiter countries, that becomes part of history and also practice. Before that, the notion that prosperous conditions could be destroyed is only an idea, a fascination of people Marx derided as contemplative materialists at best. Only after cataclysm can an argument start about what to do in the name of a previously counterrevolutionary class. That is the difference between a Marxist materialist method and a Trotskyist conjuncturalist or Christian method.
Huey Newton may look poor for his drug habit induced quitting of the revolution relative to Zhu Deh (Chu Teh) who made sustained contributions after a drug habit, but Huey Newton stands tall within history inside u.$. borders. Running down Huey Newton in comparison to Zhu Deh is one thing, but in comparison to May 1968 in France or the various white worker parties in the majority-exploiter countries is another thing. It's not even close. That's why we have to defeat white worker utopianism and its defenders of contemplative materialism or petty-bourgeois vacillating sorts.