Just to be clear, by idealism we mean the conception that thought is prior to matter, ie supernatural explanations for material phenomena. We do not mean having ideals. An example of idealism is ascribing a morality to the state to begin with. There is no such thing as a supernatural “good or evil,” and that’s why Marxists reject such frames of argument.
I’ll assume the typical leftist political context of it’s use implying an ‘aspirational’ view of my fellow humans they would often fall short of due to material concerns.
But? Nah who would ever claim certainty in this type of casual anonymous interlingual forum?
I’ll assume the typical leftist political context of it’s use implying an ‘aspirational’ view of my fellow humans they would often fall short of due to material concerns.
That’s not the typical leftist political context? In a leftist political context idealism posits that ideas are the driving force of history, as if thought creates reality rather than reflecting it. This flips the actual relationship: material conditions shape consciousness, not the other way around. When we start from abstractions instead of concrete social practice, we end up justifying the status quo or chasing illusions. Real change comes from engaging with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.
Ok tell me about the country with the moral founding.
Vietnam.
This silly, idealist question isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Actually it’s pretty foundational anarchist doctrine.
Idealism?
I guess?
But I was referring to the innate immorality of the state.
But I won’t deny a certain amount of idealism is required to be an anarchist.
Just to be clear, by idealism we mean the conception that thought is prior to matter, ie supernatural explanations for material phenomena. We do not mean having ideals. An example of idealism is ascribing a morality to the state to begin with. There is no such thing as a supernatural “good or evil,” and that’s why Marxists reject such frames of argument.
Are you sure you understand what idealism means in this context?
I’ll assume the typical leftist political context of it’s use implying an ‘aspirational’ view of my fellow humans they would often fall short of due to material concerns.
But? Nah who would ever claim certainty in this type of casual anonymous interlingual forum?
That’s not the typical leftist political context? In a leftist political context idealism posits that ideas are the driving force of history, as if thought creates reality rather than reflecting it. This flips the actual relationship: material conditions shape consciousness, not the other way around. When we start from abstractions instead of concrete social practice, we end up justifying the status quo or chasing illusions. Real change comes from engaging with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.
Interesting. I understand why I’ve never heard of idealism as a political ideology. Doesn’t seem very, viable.
I was just bastardizing the dismissive use of idealist used in US discourse.
Christianity is anarchist doctrine?
Christianity is whatever we want it to be.
You’re bolstering my case, given anarchism’s track record. Communism is founded on historical materialism, not on morality or idealism.
But you don’t have to subscribe to communism to get value out of letting go of moralism.
Cool nobody asked.
just because you lack any inquisitiveness on your part, don’t assume the same for everyone else