Why not have a unified stand anyway?

When one of Marx’s teachings meant that we are the one who actually makes the world, I would say no more but to simply agree with that teaching.
Why? Because there has never been a time in history ever that views the rise of a nation as a result of ideas helping in the development of the nation. In fact, Marx’s materialist perspective does make things more sensible through viewing the development of the world through the actions of man. Of course, it is no one but man that makes the changes in the world a possible task. After all, we are told by God (and I’m speaking here in behalf of theology) that we humans are stewards of his creation and that we should be responsible for these creations.
Hence, I agree with what Karl Marx said that theory is practiced, and put into action. A good case study for this is the emergence of corruption in the Philippines. We keep on complaining about our government officials, the President and the senators to be specific, to be corrupt. We blame the tycoons for being inconsiderate to the poor in their ambitions to increase their wealth. We blame the thieves who steal our things, or even kill people just to have something on their tables. They did not happen because it just happened or it was a result of a discriminative society, but it all bends down to the actions of every human being who is part of that society that aggravates to the problem.
Try to take the analysis to a micro perspective, say in schooling for example. Have you ever wondered how do government officials have this certain tendency of becoming corrupt, doing illegal activities yet at the same time they are perceived to be good by the public? Believe it or not, these large scale illegal acts starts in as early as during schooling, even to the grade-school days. How? Through small scale acts such as copying, stealing, teasing, and the like. From these small acts, they develop overtime, enhancing the skills of a corrupt adult-in-the-making, until they have become seemingly impossible to solve problems, into a large scale, macro perspective, into these corrupt government officials. In addition, these seemingly small but illegal acts committed by children and teenagers gets aggravated through peers and other factors like economical factors, making the idea of corruption and injustice a bigger problem to deal with.
Another example that we can put in consideration on theories being put into action are the existence of the People Power revolution in both the times of Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada. Since all three classes then believe at the fact that these presidents are not doing their duties well anymore, then the acted as one for a revolution to make these two tyrannical presidents step down.
Having said that, given the fact that all of us are essentially a part of this problem with corruption, Marx further elaborates his argument, stating that there is no such distinction between theory and practice, wherein we should maintain our biases and hence, recognize our one-sidedness towards the problem. Since we are a part of this problem, the solution to it is essentially not to be for or against solving the problem, but instead abolish those who are against solving the problem, and instead make everyone be on the side on being in favor of solving the problem, in this case, the problem of corruption.
What interests me with Marx “one-sidedness” is the fact that it contributes to a conflict-less society, wherein everyone would simply agree with each other, and together as one community help each other in battling corruption. Yet such an idea is idealistic in nature, and is a challenge for it to apply in terms of the present situation of the Philippines. Why? Because of the conflict between three conflicting classes: the rich elite, the emerging middle class, and the struggling poor. In such case, it becomes more complex since we are not dealing with two sides but with three sides instead. When applying the one sided principle in the context of the Philippines, it is hard to determine which of the two classes should be abolished and which class should remain. Ideally speaking, in my own perspective, the rich elite and the struggling poor should be abolished because once these two distant classes are abolished, then therefore there may be no more conflict within the state, and hence people will be equal in treatment, both sociologically and economically since every one would end up belonging to the middle class, wherein everyone is not too rich, and not too poor.
Again, that is the ideal situation we are talking with that, because with what is happening now in our Philippine political situation, it is perceivable that the rich elite, with all of their wealth and power, will make most of what they have in efforts of eliminating the struggling poor and the emerging middle class in the process. Despite that the Marxist principle of one-sidedness would seem to be impossible to apply in the context of the Philippines, it would be a very effective approach in combatting corruption when it is applied properly and fairly.