Why are people here antihumanist?

idk.
I thought it was a critique of its philosophy.

Someone please come and tell me if there's something I should know.

bump

Ignore the other guy, he's just a Zizek memer.

Marxism is anti-humanist because humanism is very "muh human nature" and idealist.

How though?
Give me the deep shit

There's actually a lot of criticism of humanism. The critique that's specifically Marxist is:

Firstly, Marxists don't believe there's any sort of moral or rational core of humanity. Human behave largely in accordance with their material conditions and their place within the socio-economic system of their society.

Secondly, the humanist conceptualization of human rights is viewed as both flawed and hypocritical. Human rights are viewed as very much a part of the dehumanizing force of capitalism that they're meant to oppose. The institution of human rights, the prohibition of dehumanization, implies that the logic of the system is one that encourages dehumanization. Not only that, but in practice human rights tend to be viewed as merely extensions of property rights, and thus human rights are only meant to protect bourgeois from bourgeois, not the greater mass of people. Indeed, they're often used to protect the bourgeoisie from the proletariat far more frequently than they're used to protect the proles. Human rights are thus hypocritical because they use the language of liberty and equality to protect and legitimize a social and economic order that is anything but free and equal.

Lot of things.

Essentialism, inherited from idealism. The idea that (in this case) the individual in itself is a positive entity, naturally bearing identifying qualities. A religious example would be "soul," a political one: the "human" in "human rights". The essentialist claim in humanism would be: "Everyone has this human-ness inside him/her which makes him/her worthy of X treatment." People who argue for a "human nature" are essentialists.

Abstraction: the idea that you can just take out the individual from its defining surroundings and analyze it in itself. Marxism has a completely different methodology that does not allow for you to take out at will bits from the whole and talk about it because it leads to incorrect results. An example would be modern economists focusing on only one aspect of capitalism as the remedy to all our problems: "the free market will fix it!" or "raising the minimum wage does the trick." Marxism on the other hand does not allow for such operations because it identifies the system as a whole, each process in it and each contradiction being connected.

There are other political/ethical consequences of humanism. One can easilly detect the different attitudes of a Marxist revolutionary and a "humanist Marxist." When it comes to organization communists tend to be militants, humanists not so much.

You can find good critiques of human rights from a Marxist POV online. If you want to understand the method (dialectical materialism), read Althusser's For Marx.

...

Thank you ma dudes

You do realize that following this line of reductionist reasoning can only lead to nihilism, right? If you assert that the whole can never be greater than the sum of its parts, then you can't even claim that it's wrong to feed babies into a wood chipper. Every argument just boils down to "is it allowed by the laws of physics?".

The more time I spend here the more I think there might actually be nothing wrong with personally embracing capitalism. After all, apparently giving a fuck about the working class would be "undialectical" or something.

wew

If your "reason" for caring about the working class really is because of some spooky duty to humanity, then you probably didn't care, though I doubt that's the actual case.

Because humanism is religious dogma for atheists? "Humanity" as an ideal is very abstract and silly.

this 2bh

Good Rebel

read zizek lol, you are operating with an almost worthless definition of ideology

No, really, enlighten me as to why the wholesale slaughter of babies is wrong. I'd love to hear an explanation from first principles without appealing to ethics or spooky labels like "human". They're just clusters of atoms, so why not rearrange those atoms if it makes me happy?

oh boy, the stirnerites are out of their caves.

Atoms and the void my dude.

It's because human rights. Before we had human rights the wholesale slaughter of babbies was right.

Daily reminder that not all Marxists are anti-humanist marxisthumanistinitiative.org/

I'm not necessarily one myself, but I still consider their theory leagues above the usual ML memery.

It's very debatable if they are actual Marxists, tho. They resurrect the Hegelian/Feuerbachian young Marx to sacrifice the epistemological break of mature Marx.

The wholesale slaughter of babies is neither right nor wrong. It is the wholesale slaughter of babies.
Atoms and the void my dude.

people like you faggots ruined leftism

[LITERALLY WUT INTENSIFIES]

Read Geras.

Killing the left really doesn't take much, huh?

Because humanism is a spook

Fucking stupid. A "right" is generally something like "a thing society doesn't want to allow people to do to each other". The idea that rights allow proles to be exploited isn't an argument against rights in general but an argument that the rights we enshrine (like property) are wrong.

Do you have a foundational assumption that you base your labels of "good"/"bad"/"right"/"wrong"/"should" or "ought" off of?

I don't see how this is related (because I don't shared your hidden assumptions).
Why does nihilism remove right/wrong?

If you understand Holism, you see how killing babies comes about, and what it leads to; and you see that it requires and generates a state of the universe that you subjectively find to be less preferable than a not-killing-babies state of the universe.
You can use your Free Will to shape the universe's state.

Where does this subjective preference come from?

Here lies the ultimate question:
Yes: nihilism implies existence is a waste of my time (who is this "my/me/I" anyway?).
No: I'm here to enjoy the ride (so I'll make sure it's a good ride, ie destroy capitalism).

Any criticism of humanism along the lines of "morals don't exist" immediately refutes any advocation of communism, as it is an extremely moral argument (workers SHOULD own the means of production).

Nihilism doesn't imply anything of the sort. Besides which your statement presupposes that a life devoid of meaning/purpose isn't worth living.

It doesn't have to be a moral argument at all. You can argue that the workers should own the MoP because it is in your self-interest (and all the other workers' self-interest) to own the MoP.

It is in my self-interest to rule the world, which is only slightly less possible than staging a revolution, surviving it, winning it, and setting up a functional system afterwards.

Most people have no desire to rule the world and even less to help you take it over. All people want a good standard of living for themselves. Socialism and then Communism are the best way of achieving this for as many people as possible.

There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who are dedicated to making you ruler of the world? More on on topic though, the downfall of Capitalism is inevitable. It is an unsustainable system. While capitalist states are strong now, they will not be forever.

revolution into communism is easier, you'll have help instead of opponents.

Yes, that's what I meant with "No: I'm here to enjoy the ride (so I'll make sure it's a good ride, ie destroy capitalism)". I should have continued with: "nihilism implies hedonism once the Void chooses to identify with the individual Ego"

You're doing it again. Advocating for what OTHER people should do, for their own benefit. Most people are clearly not communists so you are not describing an actual state of affairs, but one that SHOULD be.

motte and bailey. believing the downfall of capitalism is inevitable =/= actively advocating for the downfall of capitalism.

You are a hopelessly deluded LARPer if you think a revolution will be a pleasant experience.

Humanism is idealist shit, based on ethic and moral bullshits.

Humanism of the 18th century was pure ideology, against revolution, for God, for the king.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism

Materialist don't deal with ethical bullshit.

...

That idea, as envisaged by Althusser at least, is utterly debunked. As he wrote a letter to Engels before starting on Grundrisse expressing his fascination with Hegel's Logic. If anything we can say that Marx becomes more Hegelian as he matures.

If you're only supporting the revolution out of self-interest then there's little reason not to try and subvert it for your own ends. The chances are that even if you don't try to establish yourself as a member of the new bourgeois, someone else will. The optimal strategy is a race to the top with no regard for how many people you have to screw over along the way. Once you accept that everyone's just out for their own gain, all notions of solidarity go out the window.

The downfall of capitalism is inevitable, but the survival of the proletariat is not. It would actually be in my rational self-interest to set up a company designing autonomous weapon platforms for defending private property and preventing revolutions. It's going to be a huge market in the near future.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Even if you want to argue that Marx became more Hegelian (how do you quantify this?) the epistemological break is obviously there around the Manuscripts. FFS, just look at how Marx's terminology changes around that time.

Do you know the definition of humanist? It means that humans are God.

Human rights in general are stupid because they imply a society in which dehumanization is so normalized and systematic that a specific prohibition on it is necessary. The fact that human rights are so hypocritical in their enforcement is just evidence to the flaw in "human rights".

precisely

10/10

How does a right to not be tortured to death constitute an extension of property rights?

Except that's not a problem with human rights, that's a problem with society.
In fact, your entire argument just reeks of the same kind of semantic bullshit which surrounds the SJWs and other idpolers. You're arguing against something on the basis of how it sounds and how it makes you feel rather than what it actually is.

This - all of this - is a symptom of the problems which have rendered the left entirely impotent and insignificant. Take a step back and look at this shitty thread.

ok, so what is "human rights" excluding the actual social context?

That's actually you, friendo.

marx wheeps

...