What do Marxists mean when they call something "idealistic"?

[argeiphontes]

In the thread about secular humanism, somebody mentioned that Marxists may consider it "idealistic." What do Marxists mean when they accuse something of being "idealistic"? Is it one of these:



In philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology), idealism manifests as a skepticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism) about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In a sociological sense, idealism emphasizes how human ideas—especially beliefs and values—shape society.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#cite_note-1) As an ontological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) doctrine, idealism goes further, asserting that all entities are composed of mind or spirit.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#cite_note-Brittanica-2) Idealism thus rejects physicalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) and dualist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) theories that fail to ascribe priority to the mind.


I think I understand all of the above, but the Marxist sense of "idealism" has never been clear to me. Why would secular humanism be "idealistic"? Why isn't socialism/communism "idealistic" since those are just ideas?

[Queen Mab]

Communism results from the contradictions of capitalist society. It's not a philosophy imposed on the material world from the realm of ideas, it is a development out of the material world.


In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.

Secular humanism as a philosophy is the inversion of this.

[reb]

One interpretation is that ideas can preceed the material base for them. Or to put it another way, idealists contruct an ideal picture of reality and then try to fit the real world to that.

[Hit The North]

In the thread about secular humanism, somebody mentioned that Marxists may consider it "idealistic." What do Marxists mean when they accuse something of being "idealistic"? Is it one of these:


Originally Posted by Wikipedia Article on 'Idealism'
In philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology), idealism manifests as a skepticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism) about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In a sociological sense, idealism emphasizes how human ideas—especially beliefs and values—shape society.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#cite_note-1) As an ontological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) doctrine, idealism goes further, asserting that all entities are composed of mind or spirit.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#cite_note-Brittanica-2) Idealism thus rejects physicalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) and dualist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) theories that fail to ascribe priority to the mind.

I think I understand all of the above, but the Marxist sense of "idealism" has never been clear to me. Why would secular humanism be "idealistic"? Why isn't socialism/communism "idealistic" since those are just ideas?

It means all of them at any given time.

I'm not sure it is correct, from a Marxist standpoint, to call secular humanism a form of idealism, but then I'm not sure what the tenets of secular humanism are supposed to be.

[Skyhilist]

Idealist notions are ones that sound great and utopian generally, but don't have any plausible plans for how such notions could be realistically accomplished and aren't always rooted in reality.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The proposition that “the process of social, political and intellectual life is altogether necessitated by the mode of production of material life"; that all social and political relations, all religious and legal systems, all theoretical conceptions which arise in the course of history can only be understood if the material conditions of life obtaining during the relevant epoch have been understood and the former are traced back to these material conditions, was a revolutionary discovery not only for economics but also for all historical sciences — and all branches of science which are not natural sciences are historical. “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” This proposition is so simple that it should be self-evident to anyone not bogged down in idealist humbug. But it leads to highly revolutionary consequences not only in the theoretical sphere but also in the practical sphere. - Marx in A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx2.htm)

Sometimes I find it difficult to discuss these concepts with people without a broad understanding of philosophy or Marxism because colloquially 'materialism' means something far different to how it's meant in contrast to idealism, which is also understood differently.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Idealist notions are ones that sound great and utopian generally, but don't have any plausible plans for how such notions could be realistically accomplished and aren't always rooted in reality.

This is what it means in the general sense though. When marxists refer to idealism it usually is criticising people who think that, and I'm putting it very simplistic here, ideas shape society instead of the other way around. Though your definition does kind of tie in with that in the sense that if ideas have no material basis for their execution it is pretty much impossible to be accomplished so ideas can't just shape society.

[argeiphontes]

Sometimes I find it difficult to discuss these concepts with people without a broad understanding of philosophy or Marxism because colloquially 'materialism' means something far different to how it's meant in contrast to idealism, which is also understood differently.

Not to worry, I've completed a minor in philosophy plus a couple of classes, though that was several years ago. I'm broadly familiar with philosophy thru Kant, and Hegel's Logic. I know what I'm doing when I call myself an Idealist. (That's not strictly true but it's not important for this discussion.)

I was interested in what you (plural) mean when you use it pejoratively because it leaves me with some cognitive dissonance, so either I don't understand it or it's being used vaguely, or both. It seems to me that, as you implied, it's generally said in reference to historical materialism.

Historical materialism doesn't have much to say about metaphysical or ontological idealism. On the other hand, people do seem to behave in a way that makes it seem that they are small-i idealistic in the sense of trying to improve the world in reference to some ideal. Does historical materialism have something to say about this not being able to work? The general idea is that ideas can't create social change, not that they can't influence personal behavior, right? But if they can influence personal behavior, then why can't they create social change?

What is the status of ideas in historical materialism?

[BornDeist]

Not to worry, I've completed a minor in philosophy plus a couple of classes, though that was several years ago. I'm broadly familiar with philosophy thru Kant, and Hegel's Logic. I know what I'm doing when I call myself an Idealist. (That's not strictly true but it's not important for this discussion.)

I was interested in what you (plural) mean when you use it pejoratively because it leaves me with some cognitive dissonance, so either I don't understand it or it's being used vaguely, or both. It seems to me that, as you implied, it's generally said in reference to historical materialism.

Historical materialism doesn't have much to say about metaphysical or ontological idealism. On the other hand, people do seem to behave in a way that makes it seem that they are small-i idealistic in the sense of trying to improve the world in reference to some ideal. Does historical materialism have something to say about this not being able to work? The general idea is that ideas can't create social change, not that they can't influence personal behavior, right? But if they can influence personal behavior, then why can't they create social change?

What is the status of ideas in historical materialism?

Historical Materialism is just looking at history through Marxist lens. The reason why marxists are against idealism is because it makes ideas to be the superstructure of society. Ideas exist based on current material social progress. Idealists sill say if you want to change society, simply plant the idea in the people's mind. But a materialist will say you need to change social relationships like mode of productions and changes in ideas will follow.


"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

You should read Theses on Feuerbach to get a better understanding on Marx's ideas on materialism.

[reb]

The reason why marxists are against idealism is because it makes ideas to be the superstructure of society. Ideas exist based on current material social progress.

I am not sure if you have just made a small mistake but ideas are a part of the superstructure of society. Usually they form part of the ruling ideology. And this is because, as you say, they grow out of the material base of society.

[BornDeist]

Yeah I meant to say base not superstructure.

I can't post links but here's a good small picture on it
imgur.com/hVoFs3v

[blake 3:17]

love you dawgz

I think there's a lot of confusion which arises from difference between the meanings of materialism and idealism in philosophical thought, and the common usage of materialism meaning greedy consumerist and idealist meaning naive utopian.

The single best work in English on the idea of ideology is Terry Eagleton's Ideology.

For introductions to materialism, I've found Antonio Damasio -- a neuro scientist with a philosophic streak -- very helpful.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

It seems to me that, as you implied, it's generally said in reference to historical materialism.
The more important part of what I quoted would be this concept: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

[argeiphontes]

The more important part of what I quoted would be this concept: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

Yeah, but how far do you take that? Just class consciousness (or call it something like consciousness of structure), on the one hand, or all mental constructs, on the other? And what does "social" mean?

(I'll read the Theses on Feuerbach but not tonight.)

[Illegalitarian]

I don't know, it seems pretty deterministic to me to believe communism is just some inevitable social relation that will arise from the contradictions within capitalist society on its own no matter what. People have to want a socialist society for it to come into existence, there has to be a shared ideal of what this society will look like between enough people before that society can live. In this sense I don't think the distinction between "materialist" and "idealist" means much of anything.

Maybe I'm missing something, though.

[argeiphontes]

I don't know, it seems pretty deterministic to me to believe communism is just some inevitable social relation that will arise from the contradictions within capitalist society on its own no matter what. People have to want a socialist society for it to come into existence, there has to be a shared ideal of what this society will look like between enough people before that society can live. In this sense I don't think the distinction between "materialist" and "idealist" means much of anything.

Maybe I'm missing something, though.

No, I don't think you are. I just read Theses on Feuerbach (Its maybe 15 sentences ;) ) and it's not very helpful either. The human essence is the ensemble of social relationships, apparently. That sounds pretty deterministic to me. It's all pretty vague, too, and hard to think about.

[argeiphontes]

Just to add one more thing. Maybe my cognitive dissonance on this subject is because I don't really consider historical materialism to be a philosophical principle. I.e. I don't think it's possible to just pronounce that historical materialism is "true". The determinants of individual consciousness and behavior are really something for sociology, psychology, and biology to study.

One of my favorites was always this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu

If Marx wants to establish historical materialism to be a philosophical principle then I would expect an actual proof, not the Theses on Feuerbach or other pronouncements. And a detail or two about the scope of the thing. In any case, I'm leaving it up to the social sciences to decide. Philosophical idealism is about something else.

edit: Hey, that just solved my problem and dissolved my cognitive dissonance / feeling of vagueness. Whether or not ideas can influence individuals and society is just an empirical question. Now nobody has to jump thru hoops. Thanks, thread! ;)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think I understand all of the above, but the Marxist sense of "idealism" has never been clear to me. Why would secular humanism be "idealistic"? Why isn't socialism/communism "idealistic" since those are just ideas?

Like others have said, I think idealism in this context means believing that ideas take precedent over the shaping of the world. Idealism is just ubiquitous in capitalist societies (well class society generally... God wants you to be a peasant and me a King!). The more silly common examples being "the power of positive thinking" type arguments as if there could be a Cheerfulness-Theory-of-Value and production is the result of good attitudes.

But historical materialism, or materialism generally, doesn't mean ideas have no importance, it just means that ideas are not the foundation of things. So we don't explain the advancement of Europe as due to "enlightened ideas" (or "civilization") but due to material changes in the world which then in turn allowed for new "enlightenment" ideas to emerge. Material conditions shape ideas and while ideas might then cause other changes which lead to new material conditions, it's not that the idea emerged from nothing in the first place. While anyone in society can develop any idea, the ones that become common will have some kind of material basis. So, for example, why do ideas and ideologies about education leading to advancement or why self-discipline and hard-work lead to success stick with us in this society? Because these ideas are useful to the ruling class, to a certain extent are just facts of life for the working class (you have to work hard anyway, so why not believe that it's morally a good thing?), but professionals and shop-owners actually do try and advance themselves in this way.

Humanism is too broad to define as either materialist or idealist IMO because it can be either. Humanism to me just suggests a view that "humans make their own societies, not gods, not inherent biology, etc". I personally think that Marxism is a materialist version of humanism and I think the famous line about humans making history but not in (material) conditions of their choosing, sums that up well. But humanism could also be idealist as in people believing that humans shape society through intellect, ideas, alone - like Utopianism... believing that you can imagine a better world irrespective to actual existing conditions and then implement it by having the right ideas and morals.


I don't know, it seems pretty deterministic to me to believe communism is just some inevitable social relation that will arise from the contradictions within capitalist society on its own no matter what. People have to want a socialist society for it to come into existence, there has to be a shared ideal of what this society will look like between enough people before that society can live. In this sense I don't think the distinction between "materialist" and "idealist" means much of anything. People have wanted or imagined an egalitarian society probably since class societies emerged - often this has taken a religious form. But no matter how much they wanted it, the material conditions (scarcity, namely) created a barrier and so attempts and revolts ended up with some variation on the same exploitation or a new form. But Marxism and working-class oriented anarchism argue that workers have both the material ability and the class disinterest in producing through exploitation - so this is the potential material force that could want and achieve an end to exploitation and classes.

I think you are totally correct that arguments of "inevitability" are deterministic though. People do have to want and fight for this against the ruling class for it to happen - but the potential for that desire is based in real material relationships and conditions for workers. So it's not opposed to materialism to also place an importance on consciousness and ideas - they are just not the fundamental source of things in society.

[Queen Mab]

Just to add one more thing. Maybe my cognitive dissonance on this subject is because I don't really consider historical materialism to be a philosophical principle. I.e. I don't think it's possible to just pronounce that historical materialism is "true". The determinants of individual consciousness and behavior are really something for sociology, psychology, and biology to study.

One of my favorites was always this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu

If Marx wants to establish historical materialism to be a philosophical principle then I would expect an actual proof, not the Theses on Feuerbach or other pronouncements. And a detail or two about the scope of the thing. In any case, I'm leaving it up to the social sciences to decide. Philosophical idealism is about something else.

edit: Hey, that just solved my problem and dissolved my cognitive dissonance / feeling of vagueness. Whether or not ideas can influence individuals and society is just an empirical question. Now nobody has to jump thru hoops. Thanks, thread! ;)

The point isn't 'ideas can't influence society'. The point is that the ideas that influence society are a product of society.

But I think Marx agrees with you that it's an empirical question:


The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.

[argeiphontes]

Like others have said, I think idealism in this context means believing that ideas take precedent over the shaping of the world. Idealism is just ubiquitous in capitalist societies (well class society generally... God wants you to be a peasant and me a King!). The more silly common examples being "the power of positive thinking" type arguments as if there could be a Cheerfulness-Theory-of-Value and production is the result of good attitudes.


Those are definitely silly but I don't think they have anything to do with idealism. That God wants me to be a peasant is actually an example of historical materialism because the landowning classes are using religion to maintain their class dominance. (The content of their theological ideas is being determined by their material position.)

Those "positive thinking" things are just scams based on an Idealist metaphysics, but metaphysics doesn't really have much to do with historical materialism as I see it. Historical materialism makes claims about the influence of human material conditions on consciousness (ideas, beliefs, values, etc), and can be believed by a metaphysical or ontological Idealist just as well, I would think, since it doesn't depend on any particular ultimate beliefs about matter itself. (It's only about society, ideas, and consciousness, not metaphysics.) It's just a sociological theory AKAICT.



But historical materialism, or materialism generally, doesn't mean ideas have no importance, it just means that ideas are not the foundation of things. So we don't explain the advancement of Europe as due to "enlightened ideas" (or "civilization") but due to material changes in the world which then in turn allowed for new "enlightenment" ideas to emerge. Material conditions shape ideas and while ideas might then cause other changes which lead to new material conditions, it's not that the idea emerged from nothing in the first place. While anyone in society can develop any idea, the ones that become common will have some kind of material basis. So, for example, why do ideas and ideologies about education leading to advancement or why self-discipline and hard-work lead to success stick with us in this society? Because these ideas are useful to the ruling class, to a certain extent are just facts of life for the working class (you have to work hard anyway, so why not believe that it's morally a good thing?), but professionals and shop-owners actually do try and advance themselves in this way.
I will readily agree that material conditions help shape consciousness, but not that they are the only influence, or that they account for the full content of ideas, or that ideas themselves can't spread and influence society.

If Kritik's interpretation is correct, then all ideas are the result of the synthesis and analysis of abstractions of material "things" (whatever "material" is but that's a separate issue). And if this is true, then what is the problem with these kinds of ideas spreading and having social influence? More importantly, why would you call somebody an idealist in a derogatory way, ever? Or are any kind of synthetic ideas suspect? (In this view, an "idealist" would be somebody who disagrees with this theory, not somebody who is attempting to apply alien ideas to society, since no ideas can be alien in this way. That is, there are no out-of-the-blue "new" ideas, only novel syntheses of materially-derived ones.)

If what you (and Kritik) are saying is true, that "condition precedes consciousness", then changes in condition must temporally precede the development of ideas about them, but that's clearly not true. Activists are acting to change the future, not gloating over changes in the past. Any kind of attempt to spread the idea of revolution should be denigrated as idealist. The French Revolution was influenced by the ideas of Liberalism, wasn't it? The Russian, of Marxism. Revolutionary consciousness precedes revolution. And how is anybody going to support communism without having experienced it?

Anyway, it might be better to post a link to a write-up of historical materialism than answering my questions.

[argeiphontes]

But I think Marx agrees with you that it's an empirical question:

Yeah, the only way it makes sense is as a sociological problem. But that would mean that the people going around calling other people and their conceptions "idealist" are mistaken because what they're saying doesn't make any sense. Which is what I thought anyway.

Just now in another thread I read somebody call democracy "idealist". If I could figure out what that means I might be able to say it's wrong ;)

[cantwealljustgetalong]

in short, they mean two metaphysical things:

ontological idealism: that the fundamental stuff that reality is made of is non-material
casual idealism: that the ultimate determining force in social science is human consciousness
('ontological' means having to do with being and existence)

the first concerns whether the external world constitutes reality, as a 'common sense' view would entail. external world skeptics, who believe that either God or some other spiritual realm is the fundamental component of reality, would be ontological idealists in this way. some important ontological idealists: Plato, Berkeley, Hegel

the second has more to do with how causation works in our social scientific understanding. Marxists tend to be economic determinists of some stripe, meaning that the available technology and economic power relationships are the major causal factor in society: these Marxist are causal materialists. non-Marxist sociobiologists can also be causally materialist if they are genetic determinists. the alternative is to think that the mere spread of ideas causes things to change, as many 'New Atheists' in the tradition of Dawkins seem to think. while unabashedly ontologically materialist, 'New Atheists' are causal idealists.

[argeiphontes]

^ Right. Better not to argue too much about it on a Marxist board. ;) (I'll read The German Ideology instead.)

[Fakeblock]

I will readily agree that material conditions help shape consciousness, but not that they are the only influence, or that they account for the full content of ideas, or that ideas themselves can't spread and influence society.

If Kritik's interpretation is correct, then all ideas are the result of the synthesis and analysis of abstractions of material "things" (whatever "material" is but that's a separate issue). And if this is true, then what is the problem with these kinds of ideas spreading and having social influence? More importantly, why would you call somebody an idealist in a derogatory way, ever? Or are any kind of synthetic ideas suspect? (In this view, an "idealist" would be somebody who disagrees with this theory, not somebody who is attempting to apply alien ideas to society, since no ideas can be alien in this way. That is, there are no out-of-the-blue "new" ideas, only novel syntheses of materially-derived ones.)

If what you (and Kritik) are saying is true, that "condition precedes consciousness", then changes in condition must temporally precede the development of ideas about them, but that's clearly not true. Activists are acting to change the future, not gloating over changes in the past. Any kind of attempt to spread the idea of revolution should be denigrated as idealist. The French Revolution was influenced by the ideas of Liberalism, wasn't it? The Russian, of Marxism. Revolutionary consciousness precedes revolution. And how is anybody going to support communism without having experienced it?

Anyway, it might be better to post a link to a write-up of historical materialism than answering my questions.

It's not that the concrete, specific conditions in which individuals find themselves determine their specific mode of thought. Rather our consciousness is constrained by our material conditions, i.e. our position within capitalism in this particular period.

That is why communism as an ideology could only have come into existence in capitalism, since capitalism is the first mode of production to hold the material preconditions for the overcoming of class society. That is why Liberalism could only have emerged with the development of the bourgeoisie and so on.

The idealist error is to abstract ideology from its material foundations, to treat ideas as if they exist in a vacuum and ignore the way in which our material existence shapes our behaviour and thinking.

[Rafiq]

We call those who fail to recognize the social foundations of society as the source of general consciousness, among many other things, idealist. All Marxists recognize that ideology is a most basic prerequisite to reproduce social relations, and that in turn social relations produce a more specialized ideology (i.e. Neoliberalism and finance capitalism). We recognize this relationship not as completely direct, but dynamic. While we recognize the potency of ideas, only if they retain a social basis could they survive, i.e. only if they reproduce the conditions of production can they survive. It is not so simple as to think the egg preceded the chicken, because the relationship between the social relations of production and ideas is an ever-changing, dynamic one. While many times, ideological structures and thoughts can produce the character of a state, the totality of the mode of production (the summation of social relations, the state, ideology, etc.) has it's basis in social relations. One thing that we can call idealist, is the notion of free choice (which leads to accusations of the povert being so because of their own doing) because it fails to recognize that social being determines consciousness. We call this dynamic because at times, indeed consciousness is not directly a result of 'social being' (through education, through some small accident, or whatever) but that the overall summation of a social circumstance (i.e. the fact that in majority of cases, this is certainly not the case) allows us to recognize the impotence of 'social mobility', capitalism requires such poverty to exist, at least in it's current form.

Idealists attribute human consciousness to that which is devoid of it, and for that reason do we call the religious idealists, because their adherence to a false dichotomy.

[BornDeist]

Idealism would be like trying to eliminate racism in a slave driven society without trying to eliminate slavery itself. People can change society with ideas but only if the material conditions allow them too first. Things like philosophy and politics rose when there was an abundence of labour which allowed idleness.

[argeiphontes]

Yeah, I'm definitely an idealist! Someday I'd like to have a no-holds-barred Armageddon-scale battle between proponents of historical materialism and "idealism" but today is not that day. Thanks for your response, though.

I would like to point out though that this is clearly false:



One thing that we can call idealist, is the notion of free choice (which leads to accusations of the povert being so because of their own doing)


The notion of the poor "choosing" poverty does not follow from the concept of free choice / free will at all. (No idealist has to believe that the poor choose poverty, those beliefs are the result of something else, and almost nobody believes that rhetoric anyway.) I don't know if that's a mistake or an attempt to slander "idealism" but it's false.

[Slavic]

I would like to point out though that this is clearly false:

The notion of the poor "choosing" poverty does not follow from the concept of free choice / free will at all. (No idealist has to believe that the poor choose poverty, those beliefs are the result of something else, and almost nobody believes that rhetoric anyway.) I don't know if that's a mistake or an attempt to slander "idealism" but it's false.

But the ideal of free choice does provide the notion that the poor do in fact choose poverty. If you are free to choose your own actions, then naturally you are forced to say that your current situation is determined by your own actions.

Now you will rebuke and say, "But the poor are not able to choose their situation freely; their agency is restricted by the rich." Now this accusation rings true, if someone's agency is restricted then they are not able to fully operate at their own will and are in effect acting out the will of their oppressors. This being said, in an idealized world of free choice, the poor can choose to overthrow their oppressors and change their situation. This then leads to the sad fact that if the poor do not overthrow their oppressors, then they are in fact choosing to stay poor.

The determinist view, which I subscribe, will state that the poor are in poverty because of the situations that create poverty. It is not the poor that create, or choose poverty, it is society at large that creates poverty. The poor do not choose to be impoverish or to overthrow their oppressors, they are but actors on the ever changing stage of the material world.

[argeiphontes]

But the ideal of free choice does provide the notion that the poor do in fact choose poverty. If you are free to choose your own actions, then naturally you are forced to say that your current situation is determined by your own actions.


I'm assuming you mean what's commonly called "free will" when you say "free choice." But even if you just mean economic choice, it's still relevant.

What you said doesn't make any sense. By that logic, if free will is real, then I can't spread my wings and fly to the moon because I choose not to. Just because I have free will does not mean I have the actual power to do anything I want. I can only do what I am capable of doing, and what others are not preventing me from doing. If I'm stuck in a crevasse while mountain climbing, it's not by choice, is it?

Just because you can choose, does not in any way imply that your condition is a result of your actions. That's absurd.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Those are definitely silly but I don't think they have anything to do with idealism. That God wants me to be a peasant is actually an example of historical materialism because the landowning classes are using religion to maintain their class dominance. (The content of their theological ideas is being determined by their material position.)The idea that the natural world is ordered by a god would be pretty idealist from my understanding. If we explain WHY people believed in that idea or why the idea took that exact form or why castes in other places took on similar forms and also used some magical explanation for hierarchy, then that explanation could be based in historical materialism they way you talked about it (it was in the class interests of the exploiting class to promote the belief that society was ordered and unmoving).


Historical materialism makes claims about the influence of human material conditions on consciousness (ideas, beliefs, values, etc), and can be believed by a metaphysical or ontological Idealist just as well, I would think, since it doesn't depend on any particular ultimate beliefs about matter itself. (It's only about society, ideas, and consciousness, not metaphysics.) It's just a sociological theory AKAICT.I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean someone who holds idealistic beliefs can also believe that material things are important too? Well usually most people are not consciously thinking: "I have a materialist/idealist viewpoint". Most people take bits and pieces of different views and ideologies based on what seems to make the most sense to them.

But in terms of someone having idealist views and also being part of the class struggle, yeah, if someone belives in a soul but also believes that workers should organize themselves and fight, then it's not an issue. Sometimes it can become a practical issue though and might be a barrier to developing more militant ideas for some people in non-militant times.


I will readily agree that material conditions help shape consciousness, but not that they are the only influence, or that they account for the full content of ideas, or that ideas themselves can't spread and influence society.Ok, but where do those ideas come from? We all have millions of random ideas all the time, but only some stick with us internally and even fewer become social trends. For ideas to gain traction, there has to be some kind of material basis for it. Few people, even Christians believe in the "great chain of being" anymore and most of that is because we no longer live in a ridged caste system - the idea that god chooses our station isn't compatable with a bourgeois world of constant change and mobility. So new christian ideas arose based on the idea of being rewarded, of having a personal relationship to god, on god giving humans more power to shape society and their own destinies, etc. These ideas could catch on because for people living in a world more like the capitalist relations we know today, these ideas made more sense than feudal ideas of steady hierarchy and an unchanging world a hostile natural world (rather than a sublime one for the taking - which became popular in the colonial era).


And if this is true, then what is the problem with these kinds of ideas spreading and having social influence? More importantly, why would you call somebody an idealist in a derogatory way, ever? Or are any kind of synthetic ideas suspect? (In this view, an "idealist" would be somebody who disagrees with this theory, not somebody who is attempting to apply alien ideas to society, since no ideas can be alien in this way. That is, there are no out-of-the-blue "new" ideas, only novel syntheses of materially-derived ones.)The short answer is that IMO the problem with these ideas is that they do not work in regards to changing the material world. This is part of the reason I think idealism has so much pull among the middle class: it generally involves individual actions or views and don't actually pose any challenge to the material working of society.

It's only derogatory when applied to people who are trying to figure out ways to materially influence or change society. I guess it would also be derrogatory if used in the "hard" sciences too.


If what you (and Kritik) are saying is true, that "condition precedes consciousness", then changes in condition must temporally precede the development of ideas about them, but that's clearly not true. Activists are acting to change the future, not gloating over changes in the past. Any kind of attempt to spread the idea of revolution should be denigrated as idealist. The French Revolution was influenced by the ideas of Liberalism, wasn't it? The Russian, of Marxism. Revolutionary consciousness precedes revolution. And how is anybody going to support communism without having experienced it?An egalitarian society doesn't need to exist for people to have the idea for it because non-egalitarian societies DO exist and so that's all the material basis needed for people to wish or wonder for a world without hierarchy or exploitation. So the existence of slavery is enough materially to spread the idea of abolition. But how people go about that is where the question becomes important. Because you can think if we teach slave-owners to be a different kind of christian, then slavery will be abolished by the slave owners, then you are into an idealist explanation for slavery and its abolition.

So right now, the idea that we shouldn't have bosses is mearly materially rooted in the fact that most of us have bosses. But that doesn't mean we can actually do something about it, however, the material relationship of labor in the capitalist process means that a group who doesn't necessarily want bosses (i.e. has a potential class interest in socialism) and also produces more than it needs to survive as a group actually has the potential to achieve socialism.