But this doesn't follow through to materialist principles. For example if you have a tranny or a criminal or another defective what you have is a defective machine so the materialist solution would be to simply let it die of it's defects and replace it with a better one. This idea of reorientation society to work around defects because we "ought" to is not materialist. "Ought" or "morality" are also esoteric concepts. It's like if you had a combine harvester that missed every other crop, redesigning the farm to half half as many crops spaced twice as far instead of just throwing out your broken combine harvester and getting a better one
Marxism sees itself as a science, not a moral philosophy. I'm trying to summarise thousands of pages of interminable leftist dogma so I'm simplifying a bit. In its purest form, there is no "ought" in Marxism, there is just historical inevitability. The world is inexorably headed to Communism and equality, and doing anything that opposes that is being on the wrong side of history and being counter-revolutionary. The "evil" of being counter-revolutionary is different, on a philosophical level, than the "evil" of other contemporary or earlier Enlightenment philosophy, defined as opposition to progress rather than the breaking of moral rules or the causing of harm. In the text, it isn't really "evil" at all, just a wrinkle that needs to be ironed out for progress to be made towards paradise. If that sounds like a fanatical religious dogma that justifies genocide, well, I'm not going to disagree with you. A lot of "Marxists" behave as if the things they oppose are moral evils in the more classical sense, I put this down to the fact that most "Marxists" haven't read Marx and that Marx was wrong about good and evil and how people think about it.
In practice, however, it looks really fucking similar, I agree. Human beings, in my view, simply don't think or function the way that Marxism says they do. Marxism tries to patch over this by adopting the dogma of "thought paradigms" whereby a change in economic circumstances (i.e. the adoption of Communism) will cause a change in the way human beings think and act, and that most contemporary criticisms of Communism (that people won't work with no incentive to do so) will be irrelevant because human nature will change, as everything is an economics-led mechanical system.
If that sounds like bollocks to you, that's because it is. It's very hard for me to talk about Marxism without revealing my utter disdain for it. I don't think that people are selfish because of capitalist economic thought paradigms, I think we're selfish because of how we evolved and our desire to preserve our consciousness and souls, because I'm a dualist and always have been.
Sorry to derail for the second time in one day but this isn't technically true as it ignores emergent phenomena- which consciousness is widely regarded to be.
So take a car, find out everything about it, all the materials, the engine cycle, everything. Look at the highway code or whatever. Is there anything in it that dictates the behaviour of a traffic jam? No. A traffic jam is an entirely different phenomenon that arises when multiple cars together interact. A traffic jam cannot be explained by the properties of a car alone, but its a purely material phenomenon nonetheless. A more directly physical example happens during phase transition according to a very rough memory from over 15 years ago.
I don't want to derail further by plunging into the Philosophy of Mind, because whole libraries of books that are absolutely teeth-pulling to read have been written expressing a thousand different views on what consciousness is and how it works. In my view at least, consciousness differs from a traffic jam because a traffic jam takes place in the same place as the cars that make it up. Consciousness, the "first-person perspective" of the mind, is not (or at least is not provably) in the same "place" as the brain. Thought is a subjective phenomenon that cannot be seen from the outside. You can explain how the behaviour of each car in a traffic jam can cause the jam in itself to behave as a single entity, but we have never found the link between the objectivity of the brain's electrical activity and the subjectivity of thought. Thought is happening
somewhere and it's not a place that we can see from any other perspective but inside our own minds, Idealism even states that the subjectivity is all that is real and the objectivity is a huge assumption made from the perspective of the mind. We don't directly experience a physical universe, we only experience thought and sensory phenomena, and then form assumptions about a physical universe without any evidence save the images that flash in our mind. Kant tried to merge the two ideas in a series of books so dry and autistic that your brain will turn to cheese just reading the introduction. Kant was smarter and more autistic than me so I'm not going to be able to summarise thousands of pages of his books here even if I understood them all.
I'm massively over-simplifying and letting my own opinions cloud what I say, so there will be things I missed in two internet posts, even within the bounds of my own understanding rather than the many books I haven't read, can't remember or misunderstood over the years. Sorry.
attention 
