Friday, August 24, 2007

On antihumanism

Marxist humanism is a self-contradiction in it's very nature, and makes almost as much ideological meaningfulness in it's statement as for example "christian atheism", "poetical mathematics" or "physical spiritualism". Yet, many modern socialists, pseudo-marxists and real marxists claim to be adhering to the idea of marxist humanism, or humanist marxism.

Humanism and marxism are polar opposites. Humanism is the tool of the bourgeoisie, and marxism is the tool for the working class. If marxism is the oil that drives the engine of worker emancipation, then humanism by all means is the water that dillutes it.

The foundation of humanism is the idea of the cartesian subject, the rational man who is acting and knows that he are acting, in the words of the vulgar Austrians. Thus, according to humanism, man is more than his physical and mental characteristics, a metaphysical being in essence, open up for rationalism, reason and enlightenment.

The foundation of marxism is that the basis of mankind is the means of production by which he acquires his living, and that the superstructure which makes possible more efficient methods of distribution and some form of predictabiliy is society. Historically, society has always tipped the distribution inefficiently in favor of those who control the superstructure. Under feudalism, it was the armed barons. Under capitalism, it is the capital-owners. Under post-leninist socialism, it will most likely be the labor aristocracy.

Humanism is a method to atomise society into the individual particle, and to worship an idealised culturally alien image of that particle. The reason why I say culturally alien, is that rational man by definition is thinking and acting according to economist dogmas inframed by Anglo-Protestant methods of thinking.

According to humanism, man is free and rational because he is aware of his own existence and not put under direct oppression.

According to marxism, man is unfree and alienated since he is not the master of the means of production as long as society is divided according to class lines.

Humanism is also an idealist notion about the "sacredness" of human life and the universal church of secularism, the UN, has taken the authority to define reality according to some idea about "inalienable rights". A humanist is basically a secular christian, who have fired God, the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ from the equation while still fanatically preaching christian individe-centrism and guilt.

For marxism, morale, ethics and rights are not inalienable metaphysical subjects independent from human mind, but the living result of the ruthless class struggle which have formed and continues to form our civilisation. An individual is not only an individual, but also the agent of a class, who economically act in behalf of particular class interests (while maybe not fully aware of it by himself).

Marxists who claim that Marx was a humanist, are most often themselves from the bourgeoisie cultural establishment, and has not encountered Marx due to any repression that they've faced but instead as the adoption of a cultural cliché. Hence, due to their meeting with Marx on the dusty university libraries and the wet student union parties, they have come to be unable to understand the sentiments of marxism. For a bourgeoisie student reading Marx in a totally bourgeoized society is like an Earthling have found a Martian piece of litterature. It is like two different languages, from two different planets.

Humanism is a natural posture for the establishment, since it is based on the christian dogma, the biophobic, metaphysical religion which for 2.000 years like a drunken prostitute has lended herself to all types of Anti-European repression. Christianity has made the comprehension of secularism into a monoteistic faith with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the sacred Ten Commandments.

For a marxist to accept that, he must either be an intellectual microbe or a bourgeoisie ideologist cloaking in a marxist mantle. He must accept the legitimacy of the bourgeoisie laws, the bourgeoisie policemen, and the bourgeoisie social order, in order to have something to criticise.

He is thus reduced to a parasite on the back of the working class, not better or worse than a sinister cosmopolitan capitalist, but more poisonous a therefore more dangerous for the working class. It is not the duty of the marxist to sit on a university and talk about the plights of the "intelligentsia", but to engage in the real flesh'n'blood struggle against the beast of international capital.

Real marxism is a honourful warrior-code based around the vision of a new red dawn, where the workers would emancipate themselves and take control over the means of production. Real marxism could be called warrior socialism. It is manifested through the struggle which the Communist Revolutionary Action Party is enduring each and every day, and not on all these countless, fart-smelling university seats in Europe.


1 comment:

Superiorsaviour said...

I always thought of Marxism as a form of Humanism. Don't kill me XD

But seriously, Humanism does deny the determinism that is integral to Marxism, and accepts a 'rule-based' system of ethics, unlike marxism's consequence-based ethics. I would say that Marx's warrior code, which existed in his (burgoise) writings would lead to a less scessfull and shorter lasting revolution than a slow corruption of the burgouise from within, as people pefer humanism to marxism. Tricking people into thinking marxism = humanism is one quick way to change society XD