Marxism and Humanism

[bolshevik1917]

A common criticism of Marxist philosophy is that Marxism is not "humanistic." I would beg to differ, not only does Marxism embody humanism, it transcends the limited bourgeois moralist conception of it. As the Soviet philosopher Vladislav Kelle once said: "Marxist humanism is revolutionary humanism because it links the realization of humanist ideals with the revolutionary class struggle."

Marxism breaks away from the abstract conception of the individual as divorced from his social environment. A Marxist is aware that only through the elimination of private propriety and the misconception that man is divorced from his social environment that humanism may truly flourish. Marx once wrote, "Communism's demand for abolishing private ownership means the demand for a life worthy of human beings. It means the triumph of practical humanism."

The struggle for socialism is the struggle for a humane society, a society free from exploitation of man by man. This must be achieved through practical struggle in everyday life, through the class struggle, not through philosophizing on how to make the violent system of capitalism more "humane."

Only by breaking the reigns of capitalism can "freedom" and "democracy" move forward from the realm of idealism to the realm of material reality. The capitalist countries are the most vocal in spewing forth proclamations of "freedom" and "democracy" to only violate the most elementary rights of man the very next day. Through their actions they show that in reality they care little for the suffering of humanity.

So why concern ourselves with this 14th century Western European philosophy of humanism - is it not the 21st century? Bourgeois conceptions of humanism have always plagued the revolutionary movements of then and now. Too often these days Marxists are criticized for lacking the "moralistic" qualities of the broader anti-globalization movement and the peace movement. Barbara Epstein in a recent article in the Monthly Review stated, "Anarchism has the mixed advantage of being rather vague in terms of its proscriptions for a better society, and also of a certain intellectual fuzziness that allows it to incorporate both Marxism's protest against class exploitation, and liberalism's outrage at the violation of individual rights."

Marxist share this outrage from the violation of individual rights but furthermore we understand that this is an inherit part of the capitalist system, a vital mechanism to maintain the status quo and hinder revolutionary social movements. Advocating "peace now" in the abstract will do mankind no good, we know that there can be no peace under capitalism, peace can only be brought by the war to end wars: the socialist revolution. Anarchism's "vague" conception of a better society shows its bankruptcy, it offers no solution, no alternative, and no guide to action.

Lenin stated in the essay "War and the Workers" that "Peace reigned in Europe; but this peace was maintained because the rule of the European nations over hundreds of millions of inhabitants of colonies was exercised only by constant, uninterrupted and ceaseless wars, which we Europeans do not regard as wars, because often they resembled, not wars, but the brutal massacre, extermination, of unarmed people."

This is the peace that bourgeois "humanists" offer - the maintaining of imperialist order and the disarming of the world proletariat for "peace now." The world proletariat is faced with a choice of revolutionary struggle to build a humane socialist society or for "peace now" under the vile rule of imperialist exploitation. Which will you choose?

[redstar2000]

A good post, bolshevik1917, but what of "our own" fuzzyness?

Pick a "Marxist" or "communist" at random and quiz him/her on their vision of a post-capitalist society; is it really likely (or even POSSIBLE) that you will get a response that is MORE than a few vague formulas, a few worn cliches?

And the excuse for this will be, of course, that we "Marxists" do not draw up blueprints for future societies, that is utopianism. The anarchists are really no worse off than we are--no one has anything really useful to say at this point about post-capitalist society except that there won't be capitalists.

Marxism is, of course, a far superior tool for analyzing class society than anything the anarchists can come up with (except the syndicalists, who once had their own base directly in the working class and thus acquired a Marxist outlook without ever reading Marx).

But in terms of a practical vision of classless society that could easily be communicated to any person of normal intelligence...it seems to me that we are VERY WEAK in this regard. When it comes to a realistic description of how communism MIGHT work, we...change the subject.

This is unacceptable.

[bolshevik1917]

Lenin's 'state and revolution' or Trotsky's 'the revolution betrayed' I think are two of the best books for understanding how the working class can set up socialism. We cannot offer a blueprint, we dont have the right too. The working class, whether it is next year or in a hundred years will decide democraticly how things are done.

A good explanation on such a topic is on the YFIS website Q&A section

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp

Q. What Will Socialist Society Look Like?

A.. Although no one can provide a blueprint in advance of what such a society would look like, we can say that this form of social ownership and democracy would mean the beginning of the end of the class division of society, and indeed of the social division of labor. The working class having taken power will proceed to radically transform the way the economy and society is run. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. This refers not to some formal democracy on paper - more accurately bourgeois democracy where you are allowed to vote every few years for a committee (parliament) who then run things in the interests of capitalism - but a democracy where we all play a full and active part not just in voting but in actually running our communities, our workplaces, and our society. Once the modern economy, industry, science, and technology, is in the hands of all members of society, we will be able to achieve full employment and shorter working hours - giving us the time as well as the resources we need to really begin to realize our talents. We could see the economy forge ahead at 10 or even 20% a year! This would be entirely possible once we have done away with the anarchy of private ownership and the profit motive. Such growth could double the wealth of society in five years!

The reduction of the working day, and an increase in the productivity of society are the prerequisites for the disappearance of the class division of society, and for the birth of socialism. It would be, as Marx put it, a society where everyone contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs. Such a society is no utopia but the only alternative to a slow and painful descent into barbarism. But it will not come about automatically even in a million years. Only a socialist revolution, that is, the conscious movement of the working class to take control over their own lives, can effect this change. This requires the building in advance of a trained and educated leadership that can ensure its success. For the last hundred years, at least since World War I, the capitalist system has ceased to play an historically progressive role. It stands like a roadblock in the path of human progress. We cannot wait for its instability to drive us back into the dark ages. There will be many opportunities for us in the coming years. But the success of socialism is not inevitable, it can only be guaranteed in advance by the extent to which we begin preparing for it today.