From:andy@werple.net.au 26/6/97
Mustafa, there may have been a little English language problem, but I am sure now I do
understand your point, and I do have a philosophical disagreement. (I must say, your
English gets better and better all the time, and I think it is very good. I look forward to
seeing if your spoken English is as good as your Email-English!) 
It is possible to contrast idealism and materialism in a way which makes the contrast at
a similar level to these other categories you mention. For instance, recently at a meeting
I had the following exchange:
"Young person (explaining error of "state-capitalism): The ISO say the USSR was
capitalist, but if this was so, when was the counter-revolution to overthrow the workers'
state?
"Andy: I think that argument against "state-capitalism" is idealist, because it argues
from principle to history. As materialists we need to improve our principles to better
understand reality. We learnt that it IS possible for a workers state to be overthrown and
replaced by capitalism without a counter-revolution of any significant kind. We were
wrong about that idea."
In this exchange, I use the term "idealist" loosely. In the reply to Alex, I also explained
my understanding of Hegel's idealism "loosely". 
So, while I am saying I disagreed with your statement, I say that even though I also
argue in this way sometimes. But there is a danger in this approach. 
The danger lies in the fact that matter and consciousness are the most fundamental
categories of philosophy. They are absolutes. All of Hegel's Logic is concerned with
relations *between concepts*. I have heard people saying that dialectics makes the
contrast between idealism and materialism relative, and that the truth is some kind of
dialectical synthesis of the concepts of matter and consciousness. I think that this line of
argument leads back to idealism. So, one must be careful when explaining this basic
issue of epistemology. It is difficult to see what is wrong with Hegel's idealism. He is
SO CLOSE to materialism. His idealism is SO sophisticated.
I am one of those fans of Hegel, who also think that Lenin was auite correct in what he
wrote in "Materialism and Empiriocriticism". But also, I think in the past, sometimes we
Trotskyists have thrown accusations of idealism back and forth much too readily.
Andy
>Andy,
>When I wrote; "Matter, objectivity, particular, and similarly, idea,
>subjectivity, universal can be used equivalently, but we should choose the
>best one for our purposes." I intended to say, 'matter, objectivity,
>particular may be used to refer to empiricism or materialism alternatively;
>and, subjectivity, universal, idea may be used to refer to idealism
>alternatively. We should chose the best pair for our purposes.' Other than
>bad construction of my sentence, I had to chose "alternatively" instead of
>"equivalently." I'm sorry. Obvious that I need to study English urgently. I
>am looking forward your further assessment.
>
>Mustafa Cemal
>
>