Humanist Marxism

The history of Polish Marxism has often been described as divided between two schools: scientistic (neopositivist) and humanist (anthropological). The awareness of that plurality of subcurrents within Marxism first appeared in the context of the Polish Thaw. In the early 1960s, it was described by Stanisław Krajewski, a representative of the "scientists," and Bronisław Baczko, a representative of the "humanists" Baczko 1965a). It was later acknowledged in discussions of the essence of Marxist philosophy that took place at the end of the 1960s, when it was often criticized (e.g., Szewczyk 1969; Dziamski 1969), and later appeared in many commentaries, including texts written after 1990 . The anthropological current in Polish Marxism was not a philosophical school in the same sense as the Yugoslav Praxis School or, to look for more local traditions, the Poznań Methodological School. Its representatives were not closely connected institutionally or generationally, and they did not leave behind any kind of manifesto or programmatic text. They shared, however, common philosophical interests and an understanding of philosophy-a wider paradigm or, as Bronisław Baczko called it, a "style of philosophizing" (Baczko 1965a). This turn towards humanist discourse and anthropological issues is often viewed as a phenomenon inherently linked to revisionism, where emphasizing the human dimension of Marxism served a critical rather than a legitimizing role in relation to the system (see e.g., Satterwhite 1992). However, as I demonstrate in detail, Polish anthropological Marxism transcended the distinction between official and revisionist Marxism. The anthropological framework was employed by both ardent critics of the regime and authors who did not challenge it in any way. Because of this, I closely examine the evolution of this current, showing how its initial critical impulse gradually M. Woźniak

This article examines the Marxist-humanism of two recently-published articles in leading journals of Marxist theory (Ahn, 2023; Flisfeder, 2023), which argue that posthumanism within social science and philosophy has produced an apolitical response to the question of ecological crisis. The articles assert that the post-humanist insistence on removing the human subject from the centre of theoretical enquiry has left this theory without a political motor, and that Marxist theoretical responses to ecological catastrophe must contain a political and ethical injunction upon the human subject to take action in the face of this catastrophe. This article argues that post-humanism's apoliticism is inherited from the ideological structure that it shares with theoretical humanism and that the insistence of these authors on Marxist-humanism is doomed to reproduce the very apoliticism they attempt to escape. The article argues that the renewal of this discussion is indicative of a crisis of Marxism (Althusser, 1979), and gestures towards a theoretical anti-humanism, reconstructed through a Spinozist-Marxist political anthropology, as a way of developing a more effective knowledge of political intervention in the face of ecological catastrophe.

Publication: https://brill.com/display/title/70173

Here at academia only the pre-review version.
After years of neglect, alienation has again reached the agenda of critical thought. In my case, I recognize alienation as a challenge for education in contemporary societies. To obtain conceptual resources to overcome this challenge, I have revisited the comprehensive 20th century discussion of alienation. Today, alienation is naturally discussed as an existential condition of human being, but still in the 1980s, there was a strong Marxist current that claimed alienation to be implied by capitalism, in particular by the institution of private property and the social division of labor, and that alienation therefore should be criticized as part of the critique of capitalism and political economy and possibly overcome. Today, under the hegemony of neo-liberal capitalism, this critical and processual concept of alienation is more relevant than ever. Hence, in the present work I argue that the basic logic of Marx’s idea of alienation still has critical potential, and that it also has constructive political potential. The argument forms a long engagement with mainly 20th century literature, departing from the very idea of capitalism, considering the ideas of history, education and democracy, discussing how to distinguish and translate key terms, considering why alienation became an object of controversy among Marxists, offering an interpretation of Marx’s critique relevant for contemporary society, thus considering alienation a consequence of working under conditions of private property, i.e. being a human being in a capitalist society, and finally presenting Marx’s idea of communism as relevant to the contemporary political and educational agenda.

One of the most influential recent developments in supposedly radical philosophy is ‘posthumanism’. This can be seen as the successor to ‘deconstructive postmodernism’. In each case, the claim of its proponents has been that cultures are oppressive by virtue of their elitism, and this elitism, fostered by the humanities, is being challenged. In each case, however, these philosophical ideas have served ruling elites by crippling opposition to their efforts to impose markets, concentrate wealth and power and treat everyone and everything as mere instruments in a way that is not only undermining democracy and threatening economic, social and political stability through growing inequality, but is crippling efforts to deal with the global ecological crisis. Philosophers, Nietzsche claimed, are physicians of culture. Why should people claiming to be philosophers, or at least aligned with philosophers, subvert their own calling? In this paper I will suggest that with the expansion of education and the rise of neoliberalism, those involved in education and research, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, have been proletarianized, and most have accepted this proletarianization. They have been reduced to a fraction of the proletariat - wage-slaves without economic security and therefore dependent on the will of others on whom they are dependent. They are not ordinary wage-slaves, however, but wage-house-slaves, having salaries rather than wages. If, as Marx argued, social being determines consciousness, posthumanism can be understood as the expression of ressentiment of these house-slaves at their condition while simultaneously serving to affirm their superiority to field-slaves while serving their masters. Their work is supported because it provides ideological cover for their masters, the new transnational managerial class or corporatocracy as they expand their power through information technology, while absolving this corporatocracy from responsibility for the consequences of their growing power. In making this claim I will argue that the real target of deconstructionists and posthumanists, although this is now seldom appreciated, has been the humanism of the New Left, a revival of the Radical Enlightenment inspired by Renaissance civic humanism and the German Renaissance.

Marx’s take on the future is pivoted around the contradiction of a revolutionary’s need for a “detailed and persuasive account of what any future socialist society might look like”  and a philosopher’s sober mind that such an endeavour is only redundant and future comes with iron necessity. This essay looks into this contradiction and tries to answer the question of whether Marxism depends more on a clear and accessible conception of the future than other ideologies. It shows that while the core of Marxism - the emancipation of man - requires a vision of an alternative, the foundation of Marxism - historical materialism - denies the need nor possibility of such a vision. It ultimately argues that Marxism does depend on a conception of the future, but for Marx, the future does not take the form of a clear and accessible vision, but remains a telos in the direction of the “realm of freedom” that is beyond the ability of the perception of today to give a detailed account.

In the world where theories related to physiology and biology is studied to enhance the living of the people to bring hope for better health. On the other side, the theories within the social science discipline bring hope for better social ties and social relations to unveil the social realities. Marxist theory is one such theory which has inspired the people time and again in every aspect of life. 1 Karl Marx's most celebrated book ‗Das capital' has widened the horizon of thinking rationally for both his followers and even for those who never read anything from it. Marxist theory has been a quest for social change and distributive justice. It has been inspirational to reason the systems and the standards of living to study and to fight the oppression and encourage peoples' understanding and the worth of their being. Marxist theory has stemmed from and shaped its aura encircling the characteristics of social movements as such and yet there is dichotomy in its creation that it does not specifically talk about constituent parts of social movement. This paper works towards the nexus of Marxist theory (Marxism) with that of social movements and presents a lucid picture of -Marxist understanding of the social movements‖.