Materialism or idealism?

I started to be more aware and rejection of historical materialism for idealism - namely: historical ethicism.

I don't think we can predict what's historically and deterministically necessary, we can try to determine what is ethically good. And this is the realization of the spirit of mutual aid, the fight on the side of the weak and oppressed against the power and violence, whoever they are. It's always choosing stronger enemies, not weaker than us.

And that's why I can't abandon struggling against all forms of oppression, or creating a hierarchy of validity. Of course, I do not mean looking for the oppressed in all classes and washig the class war in liberal idpol, I mean only that I will not sacrifice anyone on the altar of mass propaganda. Ethics are the most important, only later is effectiveness; without such an assumption, I would cease to be who I am, and my activity would be pointless.

You never understood dialectical materialism. It isn't about predicting everything under the sun, and just because some members of Holla Forums can be a touch too autistic, morals/ethics do actually exist.
Wait wtf I just realized you said historical materialism. You reject the Marxist theor of historical development?! How the fuck do you explain how scientific research often explodes after the development of tools like the microscope other than an increase in certain material items making it possible? Did they act ethically enough for microbes to reveal themselves??? Explain yourself at once.
People aren't ever who they used to be.
I like that you like people though, that's always nice.

...

Not entirely. I believe that Marx was right in the fact that being determines consciousness and that historical processes are determined by economic conditions. But we can know it only when we look back in time. We can't predict in what historical moment we're now, if we're convinced that we can - we are deluding ourselves. Marx himself wrote about the spectre of communism that has circulated over Europe for 150 years and somehow has not come. This doesn't mean that it won't come, but we can't predict when.

Only true choice we have is not in support for the historical process that we think will lead us to communism, but support for what we consider the most ethically right at the moment.

Not, but we never predicted future development of science. We could only ethically choose to be good scientists striving for truth - fulfilling our moral duty as a scientists.
I strongly resonate with Kotarbinski ethics - a ethics of good work, because it looks me as inherently working class ethics. I perceive revolutionary work as being worker developing his work ethics and doing job better and better. Striving for moral perfection, as revolutionary and social organizer.

When I met once old comrade from the British Solidarity Federation, I was very impressed, I would like to be as good as he does in his work.

I literally seized at that doozy. Straight up flopped like a fish for a second.
No one has ever claimed this, excluding some edgy kids who know nothing. You are turned off by an effect that no one claimed it would have.
It isn't about following a historical process either, a most you can just develop things instead if destroy/regress them.
What is truly confusing is that your ethical beliefs don't predict anything either?! What is perhaps even FURTHER confounding is that your historical ethicism seemingly isn't in conflict with historical materialism at all?? You just seem to have (rightfully so), accepted that alongside purely material forces, man and his beliefs develop as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Holla Forums made it seem like materialism=ethics suxx, they really like the "no rulez" bad boy vibe, but are too tsundere to commit. Beyond the point tho.
To size up my post, it sounds like you are a materialist who recognizes the roles ideas have on human development, which is a 100% materialist notion.

Ok. Still I have some doubts that pure materialist approach would lead to attitude "always stand on the side of the winner". Ie. Marx argues, that petty bourgeois ideas are unworthy of attention because they are doomed to nonexistence to the decomposition of this class becasue of economic factors. I don't love petty bourgeois ideas, but I started to wonder, why if modern left (where I live) for example, rejects some philosophical intellectualism because it's "petty bourgeois", even if some of them are ethically good.

Political practice to win elections is for me something other than revolutionary activism, maybe both are needed. But the most important thing for me is to do everything I can to win of good idea, than being on the side of the idea that will win becasue political process.
Many anarchists, because of this understanding of materialism, went through the side of Bolsheviki. Soviet communists crushed the Hungarian uprising with such a spirit. So it's not just that the edgy children misinterpret Marx, there must be something deeper. :/

Bye bye baboons

No more bananas for baboons!

Moreover, I think I need to "always stand on the side of the weak" and being against strong and won. This requires us to develop constantly and struggle potenally lethal, but also heroic. It's more Nietzschean than materialist IMHO.

I suppose you are communist because it's "ethically" good too? That the world is not sunshine and rainbows because of the capitalist? Well I have news for you. It is SHITTY bourgeois moralism that ground your reasoning for rejecting materialism. Perhaps like said, you are merely acknowledging the effects that ideology has on society and that's all fine and good, but if your rejection of realpolitik is on the basis that you refuse to adjust with material conditions than I can only see a repeat of anarchist historical failiures. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your views massively. Correct me
if I am.

Google Bookchin. He does a great job of sublating Marx's materialism, as well as recovering a naturalistic ethics similar to Kropotkin