The material conditions don't care about your idealism

I hate idealism but I never know how to explain the difference between it and materialism.
- 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.

the things dont care

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
  
  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?
- 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