THEORY: Humanism and Humanitarianism (regarding Gaza)

Humanism is a philosophy that, to put it simply, replaces classic religions with ‘Man’ or the 'Human Spirit'. There are many kinds of humanism, there is even a version of socialist humanism, sometimes called utopian socialism (Engels wrote against this tendency). Often Marx is described wrongly as a humanist, or in humanist terms.

The link between humanism as a philosophy and humanitarianism might seem obvious at first glance, the ethics of humanism appears to call for an understanding of the human spirit that is essentially humanitarian, in that it apparently cares for people.

Is it possible to be humanitarian without also being humanist?

You might assume that all ideologies, politics, religions, and philosophies, can advocate humanitarianism if they want, but is this true?

Marxism is not a version of humanism (the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser wrote about this), but this does not stop it from being a supporter of humanitarian measures. However, it should be circumspect of humanitarianism at least, for its close connection with humanism. This is because the humanist face is bound to be two sided. The kindly caring one and the cold hearted one, this is its Janus face. Its caring attitude can easily flip over into anger and hatred, in fact it can encourage this, because some versions of this philosophy are based on understanding things sentimentally, and as essence or innate spirit: for instance, ethnic essences and nationalities. Nationalism therefore has these two sides and is a form of humanism.

You can consider most media to be fundamentally humanist in orientation. For instance, because they always refer to nations as ‘thinking’ and ‘deciding’ certain things, Britain thinks this, the US thinks that; Israel wants this, etc. This is true especially for the capitalist democracies, where the leviathan (Hobbes) that is understood as generated by the electorate, becomes identified with the popular will via the elected government, and this is then assumed to be ‘Israel’, or ‘France’ etc.

This is also anthropomorphic, unless we really believe in the myth of the leviathan, the giant human figure as a manifestation of a democratic will.

The question as to whether voting can generate such a thing, in spirit, whether democratic representation of this kind is real or not, in detail unfortunately must be left aside here, it is a long argument. But suffice it to say, fundamentally such humanist framing of the debate automatically excludes any discussion of class conflict in the media, except on rare occasions. It is not just a question of laziness on the part of the media worker (although considering class certainly makes the positions of nations more complex, so it probably plays a part), but a reflection of the inertia of the media as an industry, which I suggest we call a state apparatus of the ruling class.

The media of course presents itself as free, as the ‘free press’ etc, which adds to this notion of the universal ‘spirit’ or ‘will’ of the people thought to be expressed in this media.

You can see that a great deal hinges on this concept of democratic representation, the freedom achieved by this, and the free media, which is a part of the same humanist framework. Whilst Eisenhower warned us to watch out for the military-industrial complex regarding the far right, he left out any questioning of a media-industrial complex, presumably because this was what he was using to make his warning; it is in fact a more hidden secret of bourgeois rule, the close relation between capitalist industry and the industry that is the media.

Sometimes communists are drawn to the idea of being a family and a ‘broad church’, perhaps being influenced by the sheer ubiquitousness of this humanist media (almost every film, TV series, news source, has this ideology and aesthetic underlying it), but the communist concept of being a comrade really comes from being soldierly, being comrades at arms, in a class struggle, and of course the family can be understood as an apparatus of the state, so not always a good thing, there are of course also abusive families, and patriarchal families, and exploitative families.

On the other hand, sometimes we communists go to the other extreme to get away from this quagmire, and end up seeming unemotional, almost sociopathic, for whom everything comes down to economics and science, so this is not the entire answer, we should not fall into this false dialectical opposition in the first place.   

Is humanitarianism really something exclusive to humanism, does it force a humanist philosophy on whoever adopts a humanitarian approach?

In the same way that the love of God was often practised as the missionary arm of conquerors, enslavers, and colonisers, I suggest the humanitarianism of modern times are a way to enforce modern, basically western, ethics onto the people who are to be exploited, and to excuse their massacres when they become necessary to them.

Today there are many institutions, like the UN and the non-governmental aid agencies, plus those that watch over the conventions of war and international criminality such as the ICJ (International Court of Justice, a part of the UN) or the ICC (International Criminal Court), that hold to the humanist philosophical ethos. They are all very western in orientation. This is presumably why they seem reluctant and slow to take to task any central western power if they breach these rules, this is not who the rules are intended to apply to, - themselves in other words.

A relevant current example: recently some western powers led by the USA and the UK bombed the rebel Houthis in Yemen for trying to defend the Palestinian civilians in Gaza by attacking shipping trade routes through the Red Sea, which is very important to global capitalism, led by the USA, and one of the few avenues for resistance available. This bombing by these western powers was authorized by the UN. Yet, the highest UN court, the ICJ, if it finds Israel guilty of genocide in the case currently being brought by South Africa against Israel, would automatically justify the actions of the Houthis (I suggest) and make the attacks of these western countries and the UN complicit in defending genocidal acts. In short, the UN would be contravening itself. I am certain that it is doing so in any case.

These institutions generally support the rules of the capitalist mode of production and exchange. To exploit a fresh market, the exploited must feel the superiority of the conquering force, which says that it is not just by force alone that it rules, but by spirit too, it must also have the moral high ground, it must not just win by its superior force, it must win in all other ways, morally, aesthetically, it must seem to be at the forefront of ethics, and have the complete right to rule.

We might ask, why can the ruling class not simply look itself in the mirror and say that it wants to further its imperial strategy to secure future economic profits and is willing to kill innocent civilians to achieve this? Well, presumably it perceives as a class that a significant tactical advantage is to be gained by supporting certain myths about itself in its media, it must be important for its self-image and so for its morale in the class struggle, as well as to spoil and confuse the understanding of their opponents in this struggle and so to reduce their class morale.

So therefore, the question of Marxist science versus humanism is a crucial one exactly on this point. Does a Marxist humanist conception improve the confidence of the working class and communists in the class struggle? Not really, since it is, ultimately, approving all these myths of freedom within bourgeois class rule and about its essential righteousness and fairness, all the while it is carrying out the ruthless expansion of capital interests. It is not just conjuring away the class consciousness of its struggle and its interests in this struggle; but preventing the feelings that correspond to this from flourishing, of comradeship and solidarity, leading to feelings of isolation which it might seem only the media can solve.