Marxism vs Liberal Humanism

Marxism is definetly a completely different way of looking at interpreting literature then liberal humanism. Having learned liberal humanism and starting to try and fully grasp that concept of looking at a text and realizing it should go past the time it was written and always be revalent. Good literature relates to human nature which no matter the period or culture it should still hold true. Going from that to now a Marxist view on literature which doesnt neccessarily transcend the time in which it was written it is very culturally specific and holds true always to that time period.

According to a liberal humaist approach to literature human nature stays the same throughout the ages. At first many would look at that in disbelief but it really holds true. No matter what time or place inhistory there are some core elements that hold true. This makes literature always relatable because human nature is not completly changing all the time. Marxism completely challenges this idea with saying that literature is written to change the human nature of the time. It keeps trying to change peoples thoughts and push the idea of a classless society and all decisions should be made to better the society. It seems like a nice idea but rather unrealistic opposed to liberal humanists.

Marxism has the belief that not only do you look inside the text to understand it as liberal humanists say you should it is also or more important to look outside of that. I do not completely agree that in order to fully understand a text you must appreciate what was going on in the political, social and economical situation of the times. That seems helpful to me but it is really not the end all be all to interpreting meaing in a text. Text shouldnt be judged better if a more educated man wrote it than if a lesser educated man did. However with that said I think knowing information such as the authors education gives the reader more insight and can help get a better understanding of the text.