(Moral Theorizing) as a Class Criterion?!: The Paradox of Identity between Marx and Marxism

I have recently come to view, in particular, that the importance of the international thinker and economist Karl Marx stems from the fact that we, as individuals and as societies, are able to take, invest, and benefit from his ideas in the economic, social, and philosophical fields without being obligated to have absolute belief in everything he said, uttered, and authored, at least as I see it from my perspective.
From this very point emerges the importance of Karl Marx and his extraordinary ability, therefore, to read the movement of the history of human struggle and its contradictions, and to derive its outcomes through the epic of dialectics and class struggle.
Also because he is a universal, international human being, not nationalist´-or-“patriotic,” and this grants him an additional advantage, in my personal view, and in my belief, it liberates him from narcissistic political classifications.

Consequently, his ideas became highly radiant and brilliant.

When you enjoy and benefit from the thought of a person without him treating you, owning you, and dealing with you as a cheap commodity through what he writes and thinks, then at that very moment you become free in your way of thinking, and his influence on the atmosphere becomes endless.
Here also lies the beauty of the essence of his ideas and dreams, in that they make a person a living obsession in the mind of another person, and with that, ideas and possibilities expand and interact through dialectics in length and breadth, economically and socially, and begin to transform into an aura and a dream and a material ideal with the aim of aspiring toward a life that is lived in a reasonable and possible way.

But I do not write this article to praise a thinker whom millions of people believe in, and hundreds of specialized writers around the world write about him in a way that may far surpass mine in material, mathematical vision and economic analysis. I am not an ideological Marxist writer, and Marx’s thought, after all this complex accumulation of human development, does not need praise, for it has already established its roots.

And what preceded does not mean, nor should it by nature mean, that his thought is not subject to criticism, even for the radical leftist, because his dialectical doctrine is based originally on critique and on the development and derivation of the idea from within the idea itself in a striking ascending manner.

The essence of his ideas intensifies and interacts with those preceding it with tremendous speed and effectiveness, giving us a pure and brilliant ideal conclusion about the nature of relationships and their contradictory productive complexities on the one hand, and on the other hand, an attempt to explain the fragility of those relationships among themselves and their desperate search for the eternal, just economic material salvation.

For me, as a poet, and although my personal world is more concerned with the arts and psychological conclusions than with political economy, I find myself a great admirer of Marx’s biography as a revolutionary and rebellious human being in general, and of his philosophical historical materialist thought, and his consideration of class struggle as the primary driver of consciousness and human history. We are in front of a massive, restless, and influential material idealism.

For me, I believe in it with admiration—i.e., historical materialism—it is truly inspiring, realistic, and fair, and also surrounded by a pure and deserving dream and a wild imagination from its author. But the idea of historical inevitability, through which class struggle supposedly ends by reaching a single just class, as many Marxists´-or-communist revolutionaries believe, raises my concern, and this is a conviction and a point that must be examined deeply in the future, because I have not found it clearly in the previously mentioned works.

I say that it has made me engrossed in thinking about it and circling around it from a critical angle. I seem as though I want to know more about it and struggle with it, despite everything that this great thinker has written and presented.

It appears, that is, the historical inevitability—if it truly exists—appears vague and distant, and I fear that it was a highly luminous and revolutionary speculative adventure, but in my opinion it relied on deep and fertile imagination capable of being believed on a material basis more than it relied fundamentally on Marx’s earlier material conclusions arising from historical circumstances and the nature of contradictory productive relations, which are relatively immediate and which would, naturally, lead to economic inevitability according to that viewpoint, which is extremely radiant by nature.
This is truly one of the most fertile and pure phases of Marxist thought.

Why do I say this, regarding my view of doubt? I say this because there is a temporal gap between historical materialism and its solid foundation, and its economic result that is crystallized through the systematic and fair reaching of the intended class, for which we do not possess a precise temporal conception of its occurrence.

This is due to the absence of a clear time frame in Marx’s writings, and this is not something to be underestimated in my view. The second and extremely important reason, in my belief, is that there exists an instinctive and destructive psychological tendency within the human being that becomes activated especially when he gains power and influence.

Therefore, bypassing this point in reality—I do not know how it would be handled in the case that a single class controls the means of production for a long period—since one destructive instinct within an individual in a proletarian authority could affect the entire ruling working class, and thus we may witness, at any moment in which the proletariat holds power in its previous sense, the emergence of another traditional nationalist chauvinist dictator.
Here, specifically, dialectical thought cannot be set aside in its practical foundational sense, not its theoretical moral sense, because economic justice and the emergence of the working class as a leader of society will necessarily require additional principles of a committed nature, away from party ideology.

This is because the dominant communist class with power will later be forced, in order to maintain its system over time, to evade those additional values, namely those related to transparency, freedom of criticism, empathy, and even mercy, in favor of the continuation of the mode of production and the stability of society.

This is what has practically happened with communist systems that ruled in the twentieth century. Consequently, the accumulation of repressed feelings over many years becomes a decisive factor in change and in overthrowing a concept that once established a reasonable and inspiring social position for economic and social justice.
As for those assisting values, they act as a catalyst and can coexist alongside the prevailing economic justice and its strict adopted path.

We are not talking about solutions-;- we are talking here about human existence, about the importance of the human being and his dreams, and this is the axis of the entire matter, meaning that it is supposed to be the essence of Marxism.

It is the accumulated human material, naturally, and everything has no meaning without it according to Marxist logic. Therefore, it is impossible to underestimate´-or-bypass the essence of the human being as an individual who possesses highly complex and particular tendencies and behaviors,´-or-to ignore his desperate desire for power and authority, especially when he attains it and becomes its primary representative.
Because when you ignore an instinctive and dominant behavioral trait in a human being, you thereby negate the essence of that human as a value, which Marxism is supposed to, as an economic product of justice, place within a more equitable economic condition so that that instinct does not turn into a monster, and thus loses the basic foundational principles upon which the idea of what it means to be a human who loves, laughs, hates, moves, and thinks is built.

Therefore, one cannot bypass the essence of the individual if we aim for a more advanced and just collective and social state. Here lies the contradiction between what I am presenting and many Marxist theorists, because they do not believe in individuality as an independent entity´-or-as a starting point for their thinking, as this does not matter and even harms the essence of their idea and negatively affects collective production.

What matters to them is how matter evolves, which is the foundation, and how this matter expresses itself through a fair and solid social economic structure that preserves the dignity of farmers and workers, upon whose efforts the entire theory depends, and on how they understand and adopt the importance of that matter and the beauty of its striking role through its changing and contradictory nature.

I can clearly envision the idea that Marxism views humans as moving societies´-or-as social masses that move, change, and progress within a progressive and fair economic material context. Therefore, individual tendency as an independent essence becomes its opposite,´-or-rather an obstacle to it, because it simply does not constitute its subject.

The value of Marxism is not expressed through the individual as many details, but rather through society as a class and as relationships and contradictions. The working class is the beloved eternal attraction, and the progress and brilliance of this class is the crowning achievement of Marxism, as is well known.

From the above, and from another perspective, my question becomes as follows:

If it is true that the richest 250 families in the world possess as much as one billion people worldwide, and this gives us a clear picture of the greed and accumulated absurdity in the world on the one hand, and that the desire for ownership, control, and self-assertion among humans in general represents a fundamental driver of human production and the essence of productive relations on the other hand—

If this bleak economic reality is an indisputable fact, then what will actually change, and deeply so, if the working class reaches the head of governance, class distinctions are abolished, and there is no longer a state in the modern political sense as we see it now—and I, of course, support that—while at the same time that possessive, lustful instinct for self-assertion continues to impose itself on some individuals and on the human scene from an economic practical perspective?
I mean that over time we will obtain the same previous result, which we reject, namely the capitalist´-or-new liberal state.

In my humble opinion, I do not see that there will ever be an end to conflict-;- perhaps its intensity and expression may diminish, yes, that is possible.

Therefore, it is not possible to dispense with establishing a foundational logic that is planted from the beginning within the emerging communist society, nourished by passion, creativity, empathy, and respect for the value of the human being as a comprehensive real condition with all its emotions, impulses, and complexities, rather than focusing only on the human as a living material and an abstract productive force around which the nature of relationships and their contradictions revolve.

Also because those values I refer to contribute to containing the instinct of desire to some extent without completely eliminating it among the later ruling class, which is the working class.
And the slogan here: creativity and passion against selfishness, cheapness, and childish possession, which are expressed by capitalism in its ugly form.

These values I am speaking of do not make a Marxist´-or-a communist support dictatorial regimes simply because they align with their ideological views on Marxism. Instead, they end up supporting and encouraging parties and governments that they themselves would oppose and fight if their followers were to come to power, thereby judging the present and aligning with the current moment at the expense of the essence of foundational revolutionary thought, thus becoming another face of imperialism instead of being its principled opponent.

It is something catastrophic and extremely naive to support a dictatorial regime in a country like Syria´-or-North Korea simply because they insult Israel and the United States in the media´-or-even oppose them. Because when you, as a Marxist´-or-communist, support those dictatorships, you are simply and foolishly supporting the United States, since it strengthens and sustains the existence of those dictatorships, and here lies the contradiction and schizophrenia within those people.
These authoritarian regimes, implicitly, do not care whether America is their enemy as much as they care that there is an enemy existing on earth. The more that enemy exists, the more they exist and continue. That is the matter, simply put. Therefore, those regimes need the United States and Israel more than they need Marxism, the left,´-or-anything else. And in the absence of those two, they will invent an enemy so that they can continue expanding their authority and tyranny.

We are speaking here about the future and about hope more than we are speaking about the present. We are speaking about the human being, who is the fundamental driving force expressing the entire idea, that is, the noble Marxist idea.

I also believe that my previous idea about values reduces the need for violence in the future and also-limit-s the idea that there must be a great human cost in order to implement a just idea. Because if an idea, no matter how just, expresses itself through more violence and oppression, then we will achieve no real benefit, and in the consciousness of a future generation it will appear as a destructive and evil idea if its price is many lives and much misery.

For example, before World War II, Nazi thought was something normal among Germans and Europeans in general—a simple nationalist political party that came to power, and what next?!

But after World War II and the Holocaust, and what was committed during it in general, the view of Nazism became extremely repulsive, and today European generations consider Nazism to be at the peak of political abnormality and the peak of aggression and violence at the human level. Today, such a party is not allowed to exist in Germany at all.

In the Soviet -union- during the era of the Soviet leader Stalin, slogans of fighting evil, workers’ and peasants’ rights, social justice, and industrial and technological development in confrontation with the industrial West filled the world. All of this was beautiful and applied on a not-small scale in some areas. But if the cost is always human beings themselves, then what is the value of that justice in its economic material sense, that is, in its Marxist sense, and in whose interest will it ultimately be?!

I mean, if some good and just ideas are implemented at the cost of much misery, poverty, and oppression, then what is the value of that justice?
When the cost is far greater than what that justice requires, the value of that justice gradually erodes, and its role as justice is negated and turns into injustice because it loses its essence as a practical application.

What will then happen is that the opposing capitalist evil—which, by coincidence, did not require that amount of victims and blatant oppression—will become the voice of good and justice. This is precisely the farce of the age and of history, because the malice of capitalism has led to a catastrophic event in the full sense of the word, such as the United States dropping atomic bombs on two cities in Japan and annihilating their populations, and yet it is passed over smoothly in an unprecedented way. It has simply been forgotten—imagine that. Yes, it is important and necessary to move beyond the past, hatred, and the disasters of war, but not while that capitalist mentality is still ongoing and raging in its brutal, merciless economic form.

You can forget when the disaster ends, but you cannot move on while the disaster is still ongoing in other forms.

Let us return to the first idea…

My doubt does not stem from a rejection of the idea of determinism in a specific´-or-systematic sense, but rather from a desire to engage in debate with it, as Marx himself says, and regarding how it would be realized amid the uncontrolled complexity of human nature and its desperate desire for power and authority.

Once again, I say that this part, in my humble opinion, is extremely important. Just as capitalist greed has a desire to control and place its hand on the necks of workers and the middle class, and to instill trivial selfishness in generations through the media machine, likewise, when a society becomes fully communist in a political-military sense, there will necessarily be individuals with authoritarian psychological tendencies who will want to change things according to their own desires.

Because ultimately, no one can control all human behavior, and it is impossible to predict the impulses that may emerge from the human psyche.

In many cases, if not most of the time, instinctive deep behaviors outweigh ideas in many decisions and actions, because the driving force behind each of our decisions is an instinctive one based on the level of security and protection that decision provides.

The brilliance of any idea lies in its ability to prevent violent behavioral distortions from surfacing and instead transforming them into structured violence that aligns with and reinforces ideology in its ugly sense.
If any idea fails to reduce the accumulated violence in the world, it is worthless! What is its use then?!

Just as there is military violence, there is also economic, political, and media violence—and this is what a country like the United States excels at in particular.

Therefore, no idea can succeed in expressing itself for a period through the use of violence.

I do not want to appear contradictory, but I repeat again: we are speaking about the value of human life, not about the way it disappears through imagining the production of another life unworthy of it.

When I place historical determinism within the context we are discussing, I find it to be an extremely marginal and at the same time complex issue, because I am also speaking about the complexity of the human being himself and the inability to always predict what emerges from him.

What I imagine is that there will always be a class emerging from another class in a cyclical manner, and I believe it is natural that many people reach this conclusion as well, because Marx himself did not specify a clear´-or-expected time frame for reaching that deterministic outcome, as I mentioned earlier.
The beauty of his idea is unbelievable—it sometimes reaches a level of deep, almost childlike innocence, yet it is an innocence filled with sensitivity, intelligence, and a profound awareness of the ugliness of exploitation and injustice that fills the world and burdens others.

But we are not speaking about aesthetics alone here.

I understand that he does not have the ability to determine clear timelines for that.

Yes, perhaps I would align with historical determinism and come close to it if I knew that it would occur, for example, after five thousand years,´-or-one thousand years,´-or-a few hundred years,´-or-even two hundred years.

Because from a long-term perspective, anything can happen in life, and developments on the planet can evolve in unpredictable ways, as is happening now with the communications revolution and artificial intelligence, which has transformed the future of humanity in just a few years.

Thus, perhaps Marx did not explicitly speak about determinism as some Marxist theorists claim, but the atmosphere of this belief somewhat governs´-or-influences what the essence of the theory itself predicts later.
Because it represents the long-term realistic temptation of the core of Marxist thought.
And because, in the end, there is a clear and practical goal for that thought, namely reaching a fair and progressive working-class society.

For Marx, these shifts related to production revolutions would occur within the communist system, and this is also not something that is easily accepted today as something inevitable by most of the world. Here I must say that it is not required at present for the idea of determinism to be believed by all people on earth,´-or-even by Marxists themselves,´-or-by me as the writer of this paper. Rather, the goal is that the idea expresses its effectiveness through those who believe that the essence of Marx’s thought has the potential to create a more just and less oppressive human environment.
And this is something extremely exceptional and great.

Let us also not forget that Marx was not entirely correct in all his conclusions. He was mistaken in predicting that the workers’ revolution would begin in Germany´-or-in one of the major industrial countries of his time such as England.

Also, many of his conclusions did not apply to Russia, which carried out the first communist experiment, because it was not within his theoretical framework as a revolutionary starting point, and he even sometimes saw Russia as an orthodox, rigid, and reactionary adversary.

But this is also somewhat natural, because no one can be correct about everything.
In reality, such conclusions cannot be placed within a serious critique that touches the core of Marx’s economic theory amid the earthquake of great ideas he presented.

In my humble opinion, Marx is clearly more flexible—even though he is very rigid and consistent in presenting his ideas, especially in the Communist Manifesto, which contains some explicit violent indications—than the military communist regimes that later adopted his materialist theory.

I believe that his genuinely bold dialectical tendency and his reaching conclusions through confrontation and debate often prevailed over the necessity of ideological rigidity in many moments. This made his thought distinctive and compelling, allowing him to reach profound and astonishing conclusions.

He is therefore somewhat distant from the political-military rigidity that characterized the communist regimes of the twentieth century. For example, he was able to reveal the important role of capitalism as a revolutionary economic phase early on, before rejecting it and proposing a broader, more just, more efficient, and more creative revolution, then analyzing and deconstructing it, and calling for revolution against it.

He also repeatedly emphasized the importance of Hegel for him through the role that Hegel played via dialectics, even though Marx later almost completely reversed Hegel’s thought.
Yet Hegel remained like a foundational environment from which he emerged with distinction, and he and Engels described themselves as students of Hegel.

For this reason, I find myself drawn to Marxism as a living, analytical, and brilliant philosophical system far more than I am drawn to communism as a rigid political and military ideology, despite its clear connection to Marxism as its foundation.

It is an expression of it, as happened in the October Revolution of 1917, which represented a great dream and an exceptional historical event for many at its inception.
And because I see that rigid societal ideology gradually kills the human being over time, even though I can also say that ideological feeling cannot be removed from the human soul through coercion´-or-force.

Technically, there is no real problem if an individual has an ideological stance toward an issue as long as it is not rooted in violence´-or-evil.

Therefore, Marxism will continue to shine sometimes and fade at other times, but it will remain present and influential as a thought studied in universities and major economic institutions, and it will continue to provide hope and stimulate free analytical thinking until it reaches its best possible form.

In discussing ideology, we find for example that the United States represents a capitalist ideology that impoverishes the human being and promotes selfish individualism through its commercial dimension, not through creativity, passion,´-or-equal opportunity for all members of society.

This ideology places wealth in the hands of a minority and supports authoritarian regimes around the world until the end, regardless of whether the Republican´-or-Democratic Party wins elections.
This is also a longstanding ideological political orientation.

America has a soft and subtle form of dictatorship in appearance, through ancient traditions that place power between two parties and allow individuals to criticize the leadership only if they are independent, but if you work for corporations, criticism is highly restricted.

In practice, and according to the logic we are discussing, it is a dictatorship because its economic and media system crushes the human being and destroys dreams in a clear and -dir-ect way.

And I believe this system must collapse.
The lie that America is a land of opportunity, as promoted by media and visuals, is a fragile and miserable idea. It is also a hollow media slogan, because if some individuals can rise and express themselves in a country with over 330 million people, then there is neither goodness nor justice in that country.

It is enough to know that 40 million Americans do not have health insurance. This is the scandal before us: that the United States, the world’s largest economy and largest military budget, has a problem with healthcare.

Although I have not visited America, there are dozens of testimonies, experiences, and documentaries that support this view. Even their own media reinforces the truth I am describing, though unintentionally and in a foolish manner.

American cinema also plays the same reverse enlightening role, making you see the ugliness of America more than its beauty.

This does not mean, as I mentioned earlier, support´-or-justification for the existence of an oppressive military dictatorship like North Korea, which perhaps does not recognize the existence of a human being with the right to think. Both America and North Korea are two sides of the same coin.

I cannot accept, as a human, a writer,´-or-a revolutionary, that Marxism as a thought and an economic approach becomes a justification for dictatorship. That would empty Marxism of its revolutionary rebellious essence and clearly destroy the spirit of revolt at its core.

From here, I strongly criticize and reject the foolishness and lack of awareness among many Marxists, communists,´-or-nationalists who see authoritarian regimes such as Syria under Assad, Iran, North Korea,´-or-Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as progressive liberation systems simply because they oppose Israel.

These individuals are trapped in a major moral and ideological illusion. They must free themselves from their desire for dictatorship and militarization.
They cannot understand the nature of oppression and the harm it can inflict on all segments of society, especially workers and peasants.
Their “reverse consciousness” lives within that very oppression while being satisfied by it, as long as it is applied to them and surrounds them.

Accepting dictatorship in that mindset is like an old psychological clamp that creates a false sense of ideological gratitude as long as one remains subjected to it and supports it.

Thus, the issue is not intellectual awareness but rather a massive psychological barrier preventing true perception of rebellion and freedom. They simply cannot be free.
Their problem is the same as that of dictatorships themselves in dealing with freedom and expression.

They are prisoners of a massive environmental, educational, and historical barrier that prevents them from becoming truly rebellious.

And regarding reverse consciousness, we find in Europe, for example, a terrifying form of it. The term “antisemitism” is used as a crime label, and individuals are punished and imprisoned for it. Yet the term itself is a selective and discriminatory concept that divides people into classes.

Reverse consciousness accepts that the one who criticizes is the racist, while in reality the term “antisemitism” itself produces the very environment in which racism grows.
Thus, when a government accuses someone of antisemitism, it may itself be more discriminatory than the accused, because it possesses the power to enforce and institutionalize that discrimination.

Returning to the main idea, I consider myself supportive of a democratic socialist system, one that allows socialist´-or-radical leftist´-or-anarchist´-or-Green parties to reach power without bloodshed, as has happened in some South American countries, such as with figures like José Mujica, Lula da Silva, and the current Chilean president Gabriel Boric.

Marx and Ethics:

It is known and common that Marx did not write specifically about moral philosophy, but his economic thought and the essence of his philosophy implicitly contain a solid moral foundation that does not bend´-or-compromise. In my view, the man’s complex, highly creative, and deeply intellectual thought presented a revolutionary meaning of ethics without writing about it in a systematic way. The essence of that ethics does not emerge from philosophizing´-or-merely talking about it, but rather from being behaviors and the translation of practical actions to the extent that they deserve to be called ethics. This is achieved through economic justice that originally arises from the contradictions of production relations and the rejection of greed. Naturally, I do not deny what moral philosophy has contributed throughout history in terms of effort, as it paved the way toward reaching a new moral meaning. However, what you see with your own eyes and experience -dir-ectly will have a different meaning from what you hear´-or-read from someone else.

In my opinion, the claim that ethics is simply “doing good” and feeling it is not enough for reaching a relatively just model that makes life more qualitative, creative, and peaceful. This means, from my perspective, that ethics are not firmly established when they are-limit-ed to doing good. There are many positive behaviors that we perform that are related to goodness´-or-positive conduct, yet they do not rise to the level of truly revolutionary ethics—meaning courageous, creative behaviors that express truth and transcendence. This is because they lack a deep aesthetic and creative sense that ultimately fights injustice and exploitation.

We do not need ethics as much as we need human self-understanding.
Ethics are what enable consciousness to develop a deep revolutionary reading of the concept of injustice and exploitation, and thus elevate us as a fundamental value.

For example, is refraining from killing and stealing considered ethics? Absolutely not. This is a naive de-script-ion. The natural primitive state of human behavior is not to kill´-or-steal in order to allow life to continue normally among people. But the concept of ethics is an added, progressive value that elevates the essence of human material existence.

For the same reason, I believe—modestly—that religion in all its forms is completely devoid of ethics and does not engage with it at all. Religious teachings are based on reward and punishment and on submission and belief, and therefore they have no relation to the advancement of consciousness´-or-the creation of an environment concerned with creativity, art, thought, passion, and unbiased emotion—topics that were foundations of classical European ethics.

I do not want to fall into the trap of turning this discussion into a utopian theoretical construct that is difficult to reach,´-or-into an abstract symbolic form that cannot be achieved in reality and will endlessly remain a subject of writing and debate until the end of time. Nor do I intend to invent a new definition of ethics that would continue the endless philosophical discussion about its meaning.

On the contrary, my aim through these words is to completely move away from the abstract theoretical form of moral philosophy and its previous definitions in earlier philosophies, and to dismantle those traditional notions tied to superficial acts of goodness and metaphysical ideals. Instead, the goal is to transform ethics into a practical, creative, and clear behavior that reveals its beauty and strength rather than its weakness and formalism. For this reason, I referred to Karl Marx’s thought in relation to ethics. This is why I am drawn to his dialectical materialism, which is governed by the fight against injustice and the desire for justice and advancement—in other words, it is ultimately governed by an ethical outcome, even if not labeled as such.

Ethics, in my understanding, are not about lacking weaknesses, but about reconciling with one’s weaknesses while not denying one’s potential, strength, and ability to change.
You can feel the beauty of Marx’s ideas even if you oppose some of them—and that is another victory for him. Marx’s materialism is pure practical ethics. The most beautiful thing about it is that we do not need to talk about it´-or-define it in a rigid way, because it is as pure as the sun.

Thus, ethics in their old sense come to an end and transform into something that surpasses them—a practical standard with creative qualities that is higher than ethics as a theoretical philosophy written on paper.

In reality, and this is a fact, after Marx the approach to philosophy changed radically due to the revolution of ideas he helped spread—though he was not alone, as he was joined by Friedrich Engels and the great Hegel, the prominent dialectician, as well as Feuerbach before him, and other economists and thinkers he opposed. He benefited from many thinkers to present an exceptional synthesis shaped by deep creative impulses and highly unique internal intersections.

Living ethics are necessarily linked to the creative and practical aesthetic condition that must characterize each person’s personal history, rather than being merely simple good actions here and there.

And now, what is the relation between the class standard and the moral standard?
I ask myself this question, considering that discussions of ethics no longer attract people as they once did during the era of classical Western and especially German philosophy, which has declined as a theoretical philosophy after fulfilling its role.

Today, class-based ethics produce behaviors with a clear form in sensitive and central regions of the world such as Britain, Canada, and Western Europe. These ethics are related more to public taste, politeness, and a desire for civilization than to actual ethics. This does not mean they are evil—on the contrary, they provide many services and contribute to stability and relative comfort for the people there. Most likely, they are better than others in terms of living standards and social peace.

This is reflected primarily through media and through the conditioning of people.
The question is: what has been consolidated in moral thought over the past three hundred years? This is a fundamental question that must be examined.

In my personal view, the most luminous moment in moral philosophy over the past three centuries is the moment when ethics were not discussed as a theory, a term,´-or-a separate concept detached from human action. Instead, it is what has been presented through material scientific thought by several thinkers—where ethics were not the central subject of their philosophy, but rather its essence. They were not explicitly mentioned, but were implicitly included as a coherent, revolutionary, and evolving set of values when linked to fighting injustice, securing social justice, and granting workers space for thought by reducing working hours.

In truth, the essence of Marxism is the greatest healthy investment in the concept of ethics in its deepest and most meaningful sense.

When does the moral standard become a formal, class-based, and repulsive standard?
It becomes so, for example, when a major economic and industrial power like Germany believes that it must always maintain a stance that does not contradict Israel, regardless of the latter’s actions—even if they involve mass bombings of civilians. This “green card” attitude, as it is known, is a reaction rooted in justification due to the Holocaust committed by the Nazis, who were Germans during World War II.

Germany—and not alone—Europe in general accuses anyone who criticizes Israeli military behavior of being antisemitic. Germany, in particular, is among the strictest countries in preventing´-or-restricting any demonstrations in support of Palestinians.

The result is that the German mindset committed atrocities in the past and continues to support new ones today, with only the victim changing. Yet the change in the victim does not change the political mindset, which uses its historical past to justify its present stance. Thus, it has not made moral progress in this regard.

This is what German children are taught: the Holocaust becomes a form of collective purification, as if they themselves committed it rather than their ancestors. This creates a major issue: what is the connection between today’s German child and what their ancestors did?

Students in Europe bear an excessive burden regarding the Holocaust, despite its horror and symbolic weight, which I acknowledge.
I support teaching children the horror of killing others, but with a different mindset—not one of guilt, but one that is not self-deceptive. The memory should not turn into an obsessive psychological burden that justifies every Israeli action.

It is important to remember what happened to the Jews, but this should not be exploited to justify ongoing injustices.

The practical moral behavior would be for Germany to oppose Israel when it commits violent actions, especially given Germany’s own historical responsibility.
It becomes so, for example, when you believe and act based on the mindset of a leading economic and industrial government like Germany, which insists on maintaining a position that must not contradict the state of Israel, regardless of what the latter does in terms of crimes´-or-mass bombardments against civilians. This so-called “green light,” as it is known, is considered a justificatory reaction due to the Holocaust committed by the Nazis—who were Germans during World War II.

In fact, Germany is not alone in this-;- Europe in general accuses anyone who criticizes Israeli military actions of being antisemitic. As for Germany, it is among the strictest countries in preventing´-or-obstructing any demonstrations in support of Palestinians´-or-in support of Palestinian civilians.

The result is that the German mindset committed a massacre in the past and supports the occurrence of other massacres in the present. Only the victim has changed, while the change of the victim does not -alter-the German political mindset´-or-the fact that Germany continues to invoke its bloody historical past to justify its current position. Thus, it has not made any moral progress whatsoever in this regard.

This is exactly what German children are taught, as if the lesson of the Holocaust becomes a kind of collective purification session for children, as if they themselves committed the Holocaust rather than their ancestors. Here lies another problem: what connection does a German child living today have with what their ancestors did?

Students in European schools carry an excessive burden regarding the topic of the Holocaust, despite its horrific and symbolic weight in the minds of Jewish people, and I respect that.

I am in favor of teaching children about the horrors of killing others, but with a different mindset—not one of guilt´-or-defeat, and not in a deceptive manner toward oneself´-or-others. In other words, such a memory should not turn into an obsessive psychological burden within German and European consciousness, used to justify everything Israel does in terms of violations.

It is important for the world to remember what happened to the Jews in the past, but this does not mean that the Holocaust should be continuously exploited and activated in every situation to justify any Israeli military aggression that, in turn, reproduces tragedies in different forms.

However, the practical ethical behavior in the German example would be for Germany to oppose Israel when the latter engages in brutal military actions, because Germany itself committed similar acts in the past. Therefore, it should apologize for supporting actions that resemble what it once did, and thus take a stance of prior rejection.

I may appear somewhat utopian through this example, but this does not change the essence of the idea, which revolves around what we aspire to and the nature of human beings in their pursuit of progress.
Through the German example, the class concept transforms into a negative, pre-programmed mental attitude that involves despising the weaker and less privileged other and justifying harm and violence against them.
A superior outlook is also a class-based outlook. Classism is not only an economic condition
although it is that, but also a spatial, geographical, media-related, and social condition. Media today is extremely important because it -dir-ects and manipulates people’s thinking at will. Its main role is either to magnify an event´-or-trivialize it.

For example, when the King of Sweden rides a bicycle, the media’s treatment differs from when an ordinary person rides the same bicycle. Likewise, when the Prince of Wales cleans a restaurant kitchen and is portrayed as a hero for doing so, this is very different from when a cleaning worker does the same task. These are also class-based situations.
A class-based perspective is not only an economic condition, but also a geographical, social, and media-driven one. Media in our time plays a crucial role, as it can -dir-ect and neutralize people’s thinking whenever it wants. Its primary -function- is either to magnify an event´-or-to trivialize it.
For example, when the King of Sweden rides a bicycle, the media’s treatment of this act is completely different from when an ordinary person does the same. Similarly, when a member of the British royal family cleans a restaurant kitchen and is portrayed as a hero for that, this differs entirely from when a cleaning worker performs the same task. These are also manifestations of class-based distinctions.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the goal of writing this article is not to critique accumulated flaws within Marxist philosophy as much as it is an attempt to search for what can make Marxist materialism completely ideal and pure, by opposing attitudes and distortions that continuously exploit Marxist philosophy through the adoption of temporary political positions that, in the long term, do not align with the essence of Marxism, but instead contradict it and increasingly distort its usefulness—regardless of whether that image is incomplete, unclear,´-or-was never fully so in the first place.

This is a call for Marxism to cleanse itself from those obsessed with repression, supporters of dictatorships, and those who resort to chauvinistic national´-or-nationalist thought.

And I do not say this because I believe Marxism has no flaws´-or-that it should not be criticized. On the contrary, there is nothing sacred´-or-beyond criticism and renewal. But criticism is one thing, while overturning it´-or-exploiting it for meanings it does not contain—while still identifying oneself as a Marxist—is something entirely different.

What I mean by everything stated above is:
Every worker, farmer,´-or-person living day-to-day anywhere in the world has the right to critique Marx and Marxism, because, quite simply, they represent its core and essence. They are the very party from which historical materialism derives its ideas, its conclusions, and its strength.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1