this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
282 points (96.7% liked)
Memes
50208 readers
1172 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[deleted]
Traditionally, idealism places ideas before material reality, while materialism places material reality before ideas. Idealism isn't usually a deliberate choice.
An example of idealism in practice would be "Great Man Theory," the idea that history is driven by great men and their great ideas. Materialism asserts the opposite, that production and material forces are the driving force of history, and that historical leaders aren't special people. Don't confuse this as the idea that leaders have no power, more that, say, figures like Lenin are remembered because of their achievements, Lenin wasn't destined from birth as a special being.
People are born into a definite reality, and this shapes your experiences from birth. A peasant in 1500s England has an entirely different framework of ideas as a modern English worker. This is why social classes have a large impact on ideas, small business owners are constantly chasing large business owner dreams, yet crushed by centralization of market forces.
The former decides on an outcome and looks at what needs to happen to achieve that outcome. If you define the latter as realism, then it looks at what is reality now and what that will lead to if nothing changes or what is realistically possible with the hurdles that you will likely encounter.
That's not what the other commenter is speaking about, the speaker (and this meme) are talking about these concepts in the Marxist sense. Idealism is closer to the idea that ideas exist independent of surrounding reality, and an application of idealism would be the assertion that Marx was an especially gifted human that came up with Marxism of his own. Materialism asserts instead that Marx existed within the context of his existence, and his experiences and those he learned from were the primary genesis of Marxism.
Marx asserts that Materialism is true. In the context of the prior example, Marxism could not have come about before society had learned and advanced to the level that Marx first was born in. Marxism may not have come from Marx, but anyone else following that period, who had similar material conditions, but the prerequisite progression of society and the experiences before them allowed Marxism to come to being.
I recommend reading Elementary Principles of Philosophy to better understand these concepts.
I don't think that's the meaning OP is going for. In philosophy, idealism is the position that ideas exist independently of materials, or even that ideas are the true reality and the material world is either false or just a reflection of it. Many religions argue for some form of idealism.
Materialism, in contrast, is the idea that the material world is the primary one, and that ideas are at best descriptions of materials. Marxists and physical scientists hold this view. Finally, dualism is the idea that there is both a material and an ideal (i.e. 'of ideas', not 'perfect') world. Descartes is probably the most famous proponent of this school.
In the modern age, pretty much all serious thought accepts materialism, often implicitly, to the point that the material world is often called the 'real world' or even 'the world'. But this was not always so, and there are still relics of idealist and dualist thinking.
What can I say, the implausible seems more possible the longer the status quo persists.
The justifications of keeping things as is gets so ridiculous that in comparison even the most ultragigagigantic dreams seem reasonable.
In my mind, this is ironically why every time communism "has been tried", those countries have slipped into authotarianism that had little to no similarity with the ideal of communism. Because the reality is, that if you focus too much power on one position that decides how resources are distributed fairly, those positions attract those that care for achieving and holding power above all.
There are 2 big errors here. The first is the idea that Actually Existing Socialist states, the ones governed by Communist parties historically and presently, have nothing in common with the "ideal" of Communism. The second is the idea that Communism is an ideal. I bring this up because your perception is very common, especially in the West.
People not trained in Marxism-Leninism tend to see Communism as a perfect model to emulate, ie a "utopia," while Marx himself was strictly anti-utopian, instead firmly believing in taking a scientific approach to Socialism. This means that different levels of development and situations will have different structures of society, but all will generally hold the power in the working class through a proletarian government.
In reality, states like the USSR absolutely followed Marxist analysis when deciding what to do and when. This is abundantly clear when reading historical documents and rationale. This can be further obfuscated by western propaganda, like the idea that Socialism concentrated power into the hands of the few, when in all cases it has represented a democratization as compared to previous systems like Tsarism.
The combination of the "Red Scare" vision of all AES states being the default, combined with a thoroughly "liberal" vision of Marx as some Utopian as the default for understanding Marx in the west, leads to a very difficult time with growing Marxist movements.
As a side note, idealism doesn't refer to literal ideals, like goals and such. Idealism instead refers to philosophical idealism as opposed to materialism. The idealists believed that ideas come before matter, ie everyone exists in their own mind palace perception of the world. The materialists like Marx believe the opposite, that matter creates ideas. Social practice like labor creates social consciousness, this is why Marx believed the proletariat as accustomed to cooperative labor form a genuinely revolutionary class towards socialism, while other classes do not to the same extent.
Second side note, all states are authoritarian, all states are the means by which one class asserts its authority. It is good for states to be proletarian.
Where do I start if I want to achieve this level of knowledge on the subject. I want to further educate friends and family
Which subject, specifically? If you mean Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory reading list, if you mean Idealism and Materialism, as well as Dialectical Materialism (the philosophical component of Marxism), I highly recommend Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer.
In reality, states like the USSR absolutely followed Marxist analysis when deciding what to do and when.
How do millions of deaths under Stalin factor into that?
You can be more specific, without specificity all I can say is that most westerners' view of excess mortality in the Soviet Union comes from the Black Book of Communism, notoriously debunked "historical" book that included the following as "deaths due to Communism:"
- Nazis killed during World War II
- People the Nazis killed
- Non-births as deaths (such as increased access to contraceptives)
- Made-up numbers to get to the "100 million" figure everyone has heard of
- Came out before the release of the Soviet Archives
- Several of its own writers came out and denounced the book for being essentially mythology
No Marxist asserts that there were no excess deaths in Socialist states, that would certainly be off-base. However, us Marxists do affirm that historical record overwhelmingly favors the notion that the real historical totals are heavily distorted quantitatively and qualitatively in western media and education.
If you want to be specific, we can go further into detail, if you'd like.
I just opened Wikipedia. There is a whole article about the excess mortality under Stalin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin
Even the Wikipedia article opens up, affirming what I just said:
Estimates of the number of deaths attributable to the Soviet revolutionary and dictator Joseph Stalin vary widely.[1] The scholarly consensus affirms that archival materials declassified in 1991 contain irrefutable data far superior to sources used prior to 1991, such as statements from emigres and other informants.
Even further, it attributes starvations in gulags occuring during World War II when the Nazis invaded Ukraine, the USSR's breadbasket, to the USSR rather than Nazi Germany. It also includes all executions as "excess deaths," presumably implying any execution is unjustified, even those of fascists and the members of the White Army that had committed crimes against humanity.
The article even says the 20 million number commonly reported is bogus, and the actual number of deliberate deaths is less than 5% of that, and among those deliberate deaths were legitimate executions of murderers, rapists, anti-semites, and war criminals.
This does mean that there were certainly excesses, but at the same time, you've gone straight to a non-scholarly source influenced heavily by the US government, who has been known to lie about the very subject, or try to obfuscate the real character of events.
The very next paragraph read as follows:
Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher.[5][6][7] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953),[8][9][10][11][12] around 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag,[13][14][15] some 390,000[16] deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[17] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[18] According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were "purposive" while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.
You can't blame all the deaths on Nazis.
I literally referenced that paragraph, and explained. The vast majority of gulag deaths, included in that 1.5-1.7 million estimate, were starvations during World War II. The executions? The large majority were, again, rapists, murderers, fascists, war criminals, and members of the White Army.
The total deliberate killings of innocents? Entirely left obscure. Any execution is marked as "excess," including the criminals I listed, starvations during World War II are "excess" rather than listed as deliberate murders from the Nazis.
I even said there were excess deaths, my point (that you're proving, no less) is that real facts are quantitatively and qualitatively obfuscated to push a narrative.
Would you mind telling me what point you think I'm making?
I just want to know if those excess deaths are part of the Marxist ideology or not. You say the USSR was a country following Marxist theory. At least 7 million people died either because they were killed by the state or died through negligence. Are all those deaths explained away by "The war caused their deaths" and "They deserved it anyways"? Were a significant number of them killed despite the USSR being marxist or because of it?
Dekulakization was the process of collectivizing agriculture. This process was frustrated by Kulaks, bourgeois plantation owners, killing crops and their farm animals, rather than handing them over to the red army, and even getting into skirmishes with the red army. This led to famine. The reasoning for collectivization was absolutely driven by Marxist analysis, so we can file this under "deaths that happened because the Soviets were trying to bring about Socialism," though the blame is absolutely on the Kulaks.
The 1930s famine was a tragedy, accelerated by drought, though the Ukrainian Communists hid how bad the famine was getting until it was too late. This can be considered partially state responsible, though obviously most of the blame is on the Ukrainian Communists for trying to hide how bad it was getting. It was more of a human error compounding a natural famine, hard to attribute it to Marxism or not.
Those that died during the purges? Yep, the fascists, White Army war criminals, rapists, anti-semites, and murderers made up the majority of those executions, and these people may have lived had the Tsar remained. There likely were innocents killed as a part of the chaos, though. All in all, definitely a consequence of the Socialist system defending itself from an onslaught of infiltrators.
Deportation? Not really driven by Marxism, and I don't know enough about that particular subject to speak on it.
The USSR as a whole was formed based on Marxist analysis, it was a largely publicly owned and centrally planned economy. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to 99.9%, healthcare, education, and childcare were free and high quality, and working hours were lowered gradually and vacation days were higher than in the US. Whether or not the USSR was following Marxism isn't in question, it absolutely was for the bulk of its existence guided by Marxist analysis, even if errors were made along the way.
On the other hand, Capitalism kills millions directly every year. The US Empire committed many deliberate genocides during the USSR's existence, while the Soviets stopped the Holocaust. You are happily accepting the US State Department line, and doing their work for free.
If we apply the same measure to capitalism then we can get hundreds of millions of deaths
Churchill himself is responsible for various deliberately engineered famines and genocides.
And you're really here crying over some assholes who got executed? Do capitalist countries not execute people? Wanna also talk about all the innocent people CIA killed to defend capitalism?
You're just arguing in bad faith, regurgitating the same garbage we've heard a million times before
Marxist analysis also includes "when nazis are invading your country, kill them."
In your mind, there's white spremacy brainworms. "Authoritarianism" = when not ruled by anglo cracker kkkolonizers
Yep. Well, yeah that and the CIA interference.
But seriously? Same thing happens under capitalism too. It’s not so much the economic structure as it is the desire for total control. Why do we so fetishize molding the world to our will when given the opportunity.
Sick little monkeys we are.
Greedy sociopaths are a fact of humanity, they will always exist and will always be drawn to positions of power. The fitness of any system to avoid authoritarianism is based solely upon the effectiveness of the obstacles it erects to oppose aspiring dictators.
Materialism isn't just about base economic principles, it's about ensuring that your systems are suitable to actual reality, rather than just utopian hypotheticals. Anyone can design an idealistic democratic system of government that works perfectly when everyone is kind, reasonable, and cooperative, but such a system is useless. Lasting success requires a system which fulfills the necessities of government efficiently without being exploitable by greedy sociopaths.
That's why consent of the governed is important regardless of economic ideology
Consent of the governed exists basically nowhere, including so-called liberal democracies. There is no "do you consent to this government?" question that results in a major change if you or even a majority say no. All are subject to an oppressive state, the only question re: consent is whether you want that state organized for or against the ruling class.
All systems should hold those with power responsible if they abuse power. I'd suggest harshest punishment for politicians via referendum of the constituents. Don't like that people could put you behind bars for life? Don't step into the political arena! Grift in the private sector if you need to be your worst self, we shouldn't have to keep tabs on all the rat fucks in Ottawa (Canada). If they do some shady shit, jail em or worse