Thanks for the comment!

I don't know a lot about the Marxist-humanist movement. As far as I'm concerned, humanism is the only possible ethical core for Marxism. Or to put it another way, true Marxism is humanism. As is clear from the 1844 Manuscripts, and other key works, Marx's entire concept of exploitation and alienation is based on a conception of human nature (species-being) that is oppressed by capitalism.

But I believe the Marxist-humanist movement was led by Raya Dunayevskaya who developed a novel approach to politics over the 2nd part of the 20th century. Without having seriously studied her writings, I would highlight two possible disagreements with her:

Firstly, I am a Leninist. Now, I realise that Leninism has a bad rap - people commonly understand Lenin to be an authoritarian. This is absolutely untrue; the historical record is overwhelmingly on Lenin's side. The key to Lenin's politics; the centrepiece of his activism, were the workers councils - the soviets. The October revolution saw these soviets - like working class parliaments - come to power.

Lenin was distinctive, however, for advocating that revolutionary workers form a political party. His Bolshevik party, by October of 1917 had over 250,000 members. The fact that the revolutionary workers (and students, the poor, radical intellectuals, etc) of Russia organised into a party meant they could act in unison to achieve outcomes.

So, the Bolshevik party campaigned vigorously in a number of regards, and this culminated in it sweeping the elections to the workers' and soldiers' councils. They recieved over 400 out of 600 delegates at the 2nd all-Russian Congress of the Soviets. Having won this majority, they led the revolution.

So to sum up, I am for revolutionaries organising a party on broadly Leninist lines. This would by necessity be a democratic party. I am for this party leading the working class.

Dunayevskaya explicitly rejected this approach.

Secondly, from what I've read of the Marxist-humanist movement, they seem to bring to bear a very abstract, philosophical and at times moralistic approach to politics.

For example, their writings are very preoccupied with dialectics, or with safeguarding against authoritarianism. Now, I am a big supporter of dialectical philosophy, and of course, I am against authoritarianism - but it seems as though they are quite focused on those things, to the point of being rather inaccessible to anyone who isn't a philosophy major.

I think there can be a tendency on the far left to isolate yourself with theory, rather than making theory accessible to the non-initiated.

So, the overall approach taken by the organisation I'm a member of, and other organisations I support, is more concrete, and more concerned with addressing struggles on a day to day basis, and relating them to theory.

Moreover, unlike anarchists, I don't believe that focusing on 'authoritarianism' is very useful. For example, I support certain forms of authority - I wish trade unions had more authority. I am inclined to see authority in class terms. I.e., I oppose the oppressive authority of the ruling class, but I support democratic authority.

From having read a little bit on the Marxist humanist website, their approach seems to be a little on the libertarian side.

But of course, to talk too much more about that would leave me typing all night! Hope my answer is useful and interesting, though.

Cheers!

Thank you tovarisch!

thanks for the vote of confidence!

Most other artists I like on the internet are in my favorites section.

But, for your browsing pleasure, here is an amazing collection of colour photos taken in pre-revolutionary Russia.

They aren't all political, but they are a stunning look into a rich and bygone culture (or more accurately, cultures).

[link]

Cheers!

And your profile is named after a fucking Nazi general. We stand for liberating humanity, you stand for exterminating it in gas chambers.

Go fuck yourself, Nazi scum.