Since when is being an idealist a bad thing?

[Aspiring Humanist]

For some reason I hear the word "idealist" being thrown around as an insult (usually by Stalinists).
Why is this

[Zealot]

Most Marxists are dialectical-materialists which is a philosophy presented in Marx's writings and espoused by other communists ever since. It is vehemently opposed to idealism which will probably explain your question. btw, calling me a Stalinist for being a materialist isn't insulting, read some Marx bro

[Aspiring Humanist]

Opposed to the concept of idealism? And why is this?

[$lim_$weezy]

It's a philosophical distinction, so "idealist" doesn't mean what it means in everyday usage. It doesn't mean "overly optimistic and anti-pragmatic" or whatever, but a worldview based on ideas/ideals as opposed to material conditions. However, many people use it that way anyway, and I can't really tell you why. Perhaps it is similar to calling someone a utopian, in that it means their analysis is not grounded in facts but in ideas, which is decidedly un-Marxist.

[L.A.P.]

For some reason I hear the word "idealist" being thrown around as an insult (usually by Stalinists).

Ummm, are you seriously suggesting that M-Ls are the only communists that are materialists? Marxism is founded on materialism, which is the idea that reality is made up of physical objects rather than ideas making up reality (idealism).

[Zealot]

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of "the Idea", he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of "the Idea". With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought. -Marx [The Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital]

To put it in an extremely simplified form, idealists think the material world is the result of ideas, which lead philosophers such as George Berkeley to conclude that nothing actually exists. Materialists posit that our thoughts are a reflection of the material world i.e. The exact opposite of idealism, as Marx said.

[Zealot]

Oh, and the reason it's a bad thing, apart from being a terrible philosophy, is that Marx felt the useless metaphysical debates were....well useless:


"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it" - Marx, Theses on Feuerbach.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The fundamental basis of Marxism in the realm of philosophy is the primacy of the material world. Meaning, that all things material come first and out of interaction and interrelation with the material world, and organic body at some point may have the capacity to develop abstractions, ideas based on those experiences. Even the old radical bourgeoisie were almost anti-idealist with their mechanistic materialism (though it still fell in the realm of deism)

Idealism, on the other hand, is the primacy of the idea. Meaning, that a thought was had and the material world came into existence. God said 'let there be light' and voi-la there's light! That is the idealist perspective in general. Idealism can actually exist in certain 'materialist' philosophies like the mechanical materialism of the bourgeoisie i just talked about. To them, all things are simply products of one force acting on a mass acting on another mass. And, if you could freeze all matter and take a proverbial picture of it, you could then work backwards to find the initial position of all matter and then 'god.' Because in mechanical materialism, something must set it in motion. Here, the material world is still subjected to the ideal. Generally, the 'God the clock maker' line falls into this.

Dialectical Materialsim, in short, is the view that the material world absolutely comes first in all things in the universe and then from that ideas and abstractions can be made and that all things have a general internal contradiction that set them in motion. Since all matter is always in motion in relation to all other matter, and that it has its contradictions internally, it is also ever changing. Like an atom emitting radiation.


Utopianism and Idealism can be interchanged when talking about politics. Utopian socialism back in the day was about putting the idea of a fairer world first and, like Robert Owen did, try to convince everyone that a nicer system is possible. No material circumstance is taken place, just the idea that a better world is possible. Kind of like the notion of a spontaneous communism, or a need to not build a workers state(in any form) - It rejects the need to combat the remaining forces of the bourgeoisie and demolish the remnants of capitalist society because if everyone just 'accepts the idea' then things will be fine.


I could go on, but i think I'm about to get into a tangent.

[Ocean Seal]

For some reason I hear the word "idealist" being thrown around as an insult (usually by Stalinists).
Why is this
You cannot be both an idealist and a Marxist. Marxism is based on providing a solid ideological road for the liberation of the working class based on material conditions. Hence, Marxism isn't merely a list of demands, which we believe will be accomplished because they are our whims, but it is a demand which is in the natural interests of the majority of the population. It is scientific in analysis unlike idealism which would essentially be: well maybe someday the ruling class will give up all their private property because they'll grow to understand that what they're doing is wrong. That is idealism because there is no material basis for the ruling class giving up their property. Another example of idealism/utopian socialism would be: maybe if I start up a commune with my friends, then everyone else will follow suit, even though its harder than working in a capitalist society--as eventually the result will be good. Marxism on the other hand predicts that because wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, production works in the interests of a few. This causes it to be a highly destructive process, which does not fully utilize the means of production. Eventually, this process get exacerbated and is no longer tolerable. It reaches a point where capitalism is not sustainable, and the only solution for the working class is a revolution, and political control to be left in their hands. Then production works in the interests of our class. That is a very topical approach to materialism and idealism, I recommend Socialism: Utopian and Scientific for a more complete view.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I second the recommendation of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
I would like to also add, if you can find a copy of it: "Materialism and the Dialectical Method" by Maurice Cornforth. International Publishers. Its based off of lectures given by the CPGB in the 50s.

[La Comédie Noire]

Well there is a colloquial and a philosophical sense to the word "Idealist". The ladder implies the belief in the primacy of ideas as the moving force in reality, as described above, while the former implies a Naivete and lack of practicality, "you're just a dreamer!"

[Rafiq]

Both Materialism and Idealism are very complicated and it's best to learn about them on your own.

However, I will say this: Idealism is pretty fucking terrible and reactionary.

Idealism is the philosophy that is indoctrinated into children by the Bourgeoisie, and beliefs of this "Human nature" and "Poor people are poor because it's their fault", Moralism, religious extremism, all stem off from Idealism.

[eric922]

Well there is a colloquial and a philosophical sense to the word "Idealist". The ladder implies the belief in the primacy of ideas as the moving force in reality, as described above, while the former implies a Naivete and lack of practicality, "you're just a dreamer!"
Marxists are often accused of being the former, but anyone who understands Marxism knows Marxists are certainly not the later.

[ColonelCossack]

It's similar to the difference between religion and science. I'm not saying that the difference is the same; I'm just saying that the methods that they possess contain parallels. For instance, science is all about basing ideas and hypotheses etc. on hard facts, as is materialism, whereas religion is more subjective and is based on a whole load of idealist reactionary stuff.

I'm oversimplifying so much (like, a lot), but to the best of my knowledge, that's the general gist of the thing. But there's a lot more to it than that. Sorry in advance for my wholly inadequate explanation.

[Catmatic Leftist]

Marxists are often accused of being the former, but anyone who understands Marxism knows Marxists are certainly not the later.

Anyone who understand Marxism is certainly not the former either.

Honestly, childish utopianism and putting ideas before material reality are pretty related.