99% of the time, Materialism means being driven by greed(material wealth), while idealism means being driven by moral principles(ideals). This set of definitions is NOT the one that philosophers used.
Marx and Engels discussed materialism and idealism in philosophy, which is a completely different thing. Even in philosophy, both terms are extremely vague and are not enough to mean anything on their own without pages upon pages of elaboration.
It's laughable how online leftists throw around these words without even knowing what they mean. No, calling something "idealist" is not a valid critique and saying "material conditions" instead of "reality" does not make your argument stronger. Read an actual book for once and never ever use those words again. Save them for serious writing of substance.
“Reality” doesn’t even convey the same meaning as “material conditions.” Conservatives will reply with “this is reality, not everyone will have a home and that’s their fault.”
Also, I’ve never seen someone use “idealist” as in as “someone being driven by ideas”. I’ve only seen it used as in “a naive person who doesn’t account for reality (material conditions)”. And this is way before I even knew what a leftist was.
Idealist as naive is another definition I guess, but also one that has nothing to do with philosophy.
"This is the material conditions, the productive forces are not advanced enough and therefore exploitation of workers is justified" is something I hear a lot from these people lol, they are literally used the same way.
Hurry up and build your co-op/commune then dipshit
what?
ohhh you’re one o’ them sinophobic peeps. Okay cool, what’s your opinion on Bordiga or Gonzalo?
:jesse-wtf:
Yeah, that’s how I feel about both of them too.