Humanism.

[Il Medico]

I have some basic understanding of the philosophy. I would however, like to learn more. Especially considering it seems compatible with Marxism. Would my comrades who are better acquainted with the subject explain?

[ComradeOm]

It might not be the best place to start but there's an interesting discussion going on in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/antihumanismi-t111001/index.html?p=1469214#post1469214) that I've been keeping an eye on

[ev]

I assure you, humanism is 100% compatible with Marxism, allow me to elaborate with simplicity for your convenience:

Humanism:

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

So humanists are trying to say "society is created by man" (+ lets have this sort of approach to life)

Antihumanism: Antihumanism is a term opposed to the project of philosophical anthropology. Central to antihumanism are the notions that talk of human nature or of "man" or "humanity" in the abstract should be rejected as historically relative, or as metaphysical, as well as the rejection of the view of humans as autonomous subjects.

So antihumanists are trying to say "man is created by society" (+ lets reject humanism because it doesn't incorporate this, hence forth our pseudo philosophical title)

Both are positions are true, but what my quaral with Louis Althusser (the guy who really created the philosophical term antihumanist/ism) had only one objection to humanism and then moved forward to promote his "antihumanism" (ridiculos name by the way).

From my perspective, humanism needs to be revised to incorporate the fact that man is created by society and destroy antihumanism once and for all!

But it is understandable where each person stands, and from a personal philosophy humanism is more relevant, unless you have the power to change society which individuals alone do not (that is to say a minority of educated people among masses of ignorant people, in a country like the US). See, if i were to take the approach that society is created by man then i would recognize the need to change man so that a better society is created, whereas if i were take the approach that man is created by society then it would be vice versa and i would try to change society so that a better man is created.

Either however, produces the same outcome, just different means and that isn't really acknowledged by these respective groups, I personally am a humanist because it is a philosophy as well as a life stance with values incorporated into it which you can live your life by whereas if i were an antihumanist (which has no values - only the rejection of the humanist perspective of historical relativeness) I could reject the values encapsulated in the The International Humanist and Ethical Union, Minimum Statement on humanism linked above and oppose marxism and anarchism. So you have a situation where a humanist can't really oppose marxism whereas an antihumanist can.

Finally, i could compare the two with this analogy say you had a communist and an anticommunist, now the anticommunist does not have another socioeconomic structure in mind but he still rejects communism regardless based on it's historical relativeness.

I hope this helps.

[el_chavista]

I have some basic understanding of the philosophy. I would however, like to learn more. Especially considering it seems compatible with Marxism. Would my comrades who are better acquainted with the subject explain?
When he was young, Marx defined communism as a "completed developed humanism", in his manuscripts from 1844.