Communism as Idealism

[Comrade #138672]

People often think of Communism as Idealism. "It's nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." This seems absurd to a Marxist, because a Marxist actually dismisses Idealism since it's a creation of the Bourgeoisie to control the Proletariat. Even Historical Materialism is Idealism to them.

You've probably heard this before, but I wonder how to properly counter this?

[Solidarity]

Well, considering the fact that all they now about Communism is the Soviet Union, I don't think it's gonna be positive.......

[The Jay]

Explain that there is a conventional and a philosophical definition of Idealism and that they should not be conflated.

[helot]

The claim that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will learn to co-operate is itself nonsense. All of the evidence suggests that the interests of employers and employees are inherently antagonistic.


The whole "it's nice in theory but doesn't work in practice" is purely a matter of the person hasn't seen it work therefore it can't. It's a logical fallacy wherein something outside of someone's experiences thus can't exist.

Anyway, the only way to counter it is through the details as to why the person thinks it can't work which varies from person to person. More often than not it's little more than a lame dismissal with no actual thought behind it. Although you'll probably be faced with the notion that private property is required for scarce resources however the general successful nature of peasants collectively managing common lands refutes it.

[Rafiq]

Ironically enough, for you, no Marxist has ever asserted that "idealism was created by the bourgeoisie to control the proletariat". For Marxists, Idealism was a mode of thought which indeed was pressuposed by bourgeois thinkers, inherent in Liberalism, but was not devised in such a way. Idealism was a form of thought which manifested itself in several different ways, in several different existing modes of production due to the lack of an existing, real scientific method, or the analyzation of history through the basis of the scientific method. Take for example the conception of natural history before Darwin... Absurd, no? It was eclectic. However this conception was not a result of the lizard men trying to control the masses, it existed simply because a proper conception of natural history had not been developed yet, certain discoveries had not been made.

[Камо́ Зэд]

If anything, that's capitalism in a nutshell: it sounds good on paper . . .

[Questionable]

Based on my own experience, the people who put forth this "argument" usually don't know a goddamn thing about Marxism other than some vague ideal about everyone being equal, or maybe they've read the Communist Manifesto once. They want to sound like wise sages who are above silly utopianism, when really they're intellectually lazy.

I would take the offensive and point out all the flaws in capitalism, then ask them what's going wrong.

[ckaihatsu]

Explain that there is a conventional and a philosophical definition of Idealism and that they should not be conflated.


Or, better yet, explicitly make the distinction between 'idealistic' -- meaning, of course, 'overly imaginative' -- and 'idealism', which can quickly be appended with 'dualism', meaning that someone thinks there's a *secondary*, imaginary alternate reality alongside our own material one.

For anyone who's blithely dismissive and characterizes socialism as being childish, just use some clear-cut history and rhetorically ask them why people used to think that *slavery* was "the natural order of things".

Also straight-out ask them if the world is perfect. No? Well, then, why not? What's holding us up from being more relaxed, social, and less hoarding? (Etc.)

[PetyaRostov]

I think "idealistic" criticism arises in part because capitalists are unable to imagine anything other than capitalism

[RevoTO]

I find its good to start with how marx developed the ideas of communism. His analysis of historical materialism and then his understanding of capitalism is the basis in which he reached the concept of working class power. If you understand the scientific process that Marx used to develop his ideas you can explain confront this idealism argument.

For example, the reason Marxist talk about working class power and how they will be driving force of socialism is not due to a personal love for working class people. It comes from a very real economic and social relation that Marx describes. Marxism by its scientific nature is the opposite of idealism but has a very firm ground on reality.

I would strongly recommend Socialism: Utopian and scientific (a short pamphlet you can find it on marxist.org). It really was a fundamental work in my education and changed my understanding of Marxism. In 2 posts il come back and link you to the webpage, cant do it just yet due to my low post count!

[Raskolnikov]

People often think of Communism as Idealism. "It's nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." This seems absurd to a Marxist, because a Marxist actually dismisses Idealism since it's a creation of the Bourgeoisie to control the Proletariat. Even Historical Materialism is Idealism to them.

You've probably heard this before, but I wonder how to properly counter this?


#1: provide evidence in both the Soviet and Chinese spheres (and others if you desire) of people getting it good out of the system. Musicians, Singers, Scientists - those that loved what they did and were able to do those things and not be restricted by a bourgeois-academic controlled system of education and employment,

#2: Show that in practice Capitalism has destroyed more lives than Communism. All of Colonialism, Slavery and so forth is apart of Capitalist due to the key economics of it. That slaves were commodities to be sold and bought due to their labour-value and the fact that you had to sell your labour power in order to survive. (You sell your services for a fraction of the amount of the company/factory produces.) One may also use the Imperialist interventions in the Cold War, Colonialism of Central America by the US, and so on.

#3: Ask how Communism has worked. We've seen Socialist states, yet never a classless society because (always) the capitalist states have intervened, sabotaged and attacked the socialist states. Retort with the argument that after the French Revolution "Well Republics are a grand idea, fantastic on paper! But in true they can not work due to the fact that the people can not hold on to the state like civilized people. So the Kings must take the burden of rulership upon their shoulders and we rely on their leadership." They are basically using an argument which goes on 'Because it has failed it will never work!"

#4: Go on the scientific nature of Communism and Socialism. How they are experiments and tests, in a view point. You take what works and attempt again, as things must be retried to have a nominal result. One can not succeed on the first try. Even with this the USSR did go on as the first experiment on the scale of the world.