@article{Antonovich, author = {Antonovich, I. I.}, title = {Antropologicheskoe Izmerenie Sotsialnogo Progressa i Burzhuazni Gumanism [Anthropological Measurements of Social Progress and Bourgeois Humanism}, series = {Voprosy filosofii, Vol. 27 (No. 10, Oct. 1973), pp. 161-166.}, journal = {Voprosy filosofii, Vol. 27 (No. 10, Oct. 1973), pp. 161-166.}, abstract = {The theory of the decline of Western Civilization offered by L. Mumford in the >Condition of Man< is criticized as ignoring the historical framework offered by Marxism. He is a typical representative of the liberal school of critics of Western capitalism. The hallmark of the approach of this school of bourgeois humanism, measurement of the scientific-technical revolution by means of anthropological abstractions, tends to stress parallels between man and machines and machines and nature. The views of B. F. Skinner and Erich FROMM are also criticized in this perspective. The basic shortcoming of bourgeois humanism, the views of some of whose representatives have been summarized, is that it tries to evade a concrete answer to the social contradictions from which the symptoms it notices arise and deceives itself with theories of gradual >humanization<. From bourgeois humanists to ultraleft critics, attempts to measure social progress in antropological terms is basically a reflection of anxiety over the fate of capitalism. The psychological make up of the middle and petty bourgeoisie is such that even when it claims to be concerned over issues of social welfare and justice it continues to identify itself with the interests of the ruling class. Therefore, it is forced to deflect its criticisms from the social economic reality which causes the conditions against which it complains. S. Karganovic}, language = {ru} }