For as long as the proletariat was an oppressed class fighting for its emancipation, its opponents always attacked it for its militant philosophy, that of orthodox Marxism, on the basis that it does not take into proper account the ethical aspects of human relationships. For the superficial observer this objection is indeed valid. After all, the fundamental premise of Marxism is that it sees the ultimate cause of every societal change in the transformation of the relations of production. The essence of Marxist action, meanwhile, in every regard culminates in the idea of uncompromising class conflict. What degree of moral stature is desired of the proletariat in the waging of this class struggle, we will not discuss now. The philosophy of class struggle did not recognize sentimentality; it did not make martyrs out of the fallen. It exacted from every fighter the ultimate sacrifice.
Marxism’s seemingly total independence from the moral aspects of actions is more sharply pronounced in the dictatorship of the proletariat. The ruthlessness of class struggle only grows. Because what is at stake now is the final victory––the annihilation of the bourgeois class. To this effort, the naked are exposed; class struggle does not know mercy, echoing the age of tyranny. Before, class struggle was self-defense against a stronger opponent. It now assumed a belligerent quality, for the enemy ought to be eradicated. In this final battle one cannot stop halfway, because the even the slightest hesitation can jeopardize the outcome of the entire proletarian struggle. It therefore appears as though moral forces were entirely eliminated from the proletariat’s actions: an uncompromising class struggle remains the sole regulator of actions.
But this arrangement seems only illusory. That is, because the ruthlessness of class struggle derives strength from that objective––that the struggle will conclude with the establishment of a society that does not recognize class differences. However, here the question arises: what elements will hold this new society together? And the second question: Is it already possible today to prepare for the new society somehow? If the sole element of this new society were the organization of economic life, the answer to this question should be that one cannot prepare for it. Once it is clear to every serious Marxist that the true organization of production, that serious socialization was entirely impossible until the proletariat seizes power, so one should say here that one need not wait for the new society to take shape––one must fight for its arrival––but as for what the new society will be like, that will only be considered and attended by those who live to see it.
At this point, however, the moral question arises. If communism ultimately prevails, if all class distinctions are in this way eliminated from social life and from the consciousness of men, if economic life and concern for survival cease to play a role in the structure of peoples’ lives––then the question arises: what will sustain and bind this new society, and what will be the most important content of those living in it? The answer to this question can be found only from the standpoint of ethics. Only then does the dissolution of class differences make sense, if along with it everything else that separated men from each other was eliminated: every ire and every hatred, every jealousy and every conceit––in a word, if classless society were also one of mutual love and understanding. However, transformations in social and economic life only lay the foundations for such a society, create only the bare possibility for its actualization, and for this, people themselves must also undergo transformation.
We must understand each other well. But do not think that this inner transformation will by itself bring forth the new society. No––until these social conditions have been established, all our inner transformations are futile. But nevertheless, a new moment is obtainable in them. Correspondingly, economic and social transformation alone cannot establish this new society. It remains merely a possibility if the people are not prepared, if a classless society is not at the same time a society of love.
And we all must prepare for this in ourselves. And this preparation is made all the more difficult because we are at war. And as long as we are at war, the moral pillars of our new society cannot be erected. Until then, and it cannot be overstated or stated too bluntly, only relentless class struggle can serve as the proletariat’s moral compass. On the other hand, if we desire that this class struggle achieve total victory as soon as it is won, everyone must make the inner preparations for love––must, at the very moment upon which class differences are extinguished (from which we are certainly distant), be receptive of a new disposition: one of love, understanding, and togetherness.
We call upon education not to bridge irreconcilable viewpoints, but to lead us into a greater unity; that is the effect of proletarian labor, the task of education in the domain of spiritual life: the dissolution of class difference. The transformation of economic life consists in the rupture of present structures and the establishment of new ones, or in other words, in the external reconfiguration and unification of life. Education, in contrast, brings forth unification in the internal. Its task is to bring people closer to each other. Although eliminating education’s privileged status is a destructive task and is similar to the restructuring of social life (both are most closely connected), the work of education goes far beyond this, for it allows men to grow closer internally if we eliminate not only the external means of living dividing them, but also reduce their internal differences and educational disparity as much as possible. In short: if we create as many relationships between men in this domain as possible, if opportunities are ensured for everyone to acquire for themselves external and internal culture.
An apparent contradiction is resolved in the matter of education. The total eradication of the bourgeois class through unbridled class struggle. Complete equality of education. There is no class war against children, because we must see that in every child is a founding member of the coming classless society. If a new generation raised this way comes of age by the time the bourgeoisie is abolished, then this society will have, in addition to an economic basis, an ethical foundation: mutual love and solidarity among man.