According to Wikipedia: “Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential, and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry. The meaning of the term “humanism” has changed according to successive intellectual movements that have identified with it.” My understanding is that humanism arose with the enlightenment which was the movement post ‘Black Death’ to stop accepting religious explanations of the world as default and start using science and reason. This gave rise to multiple ideologies and sects of philosophical thought, primarily liberalism, but also Marx could be included at the later end of the enlightenment. There are multiple definitions of humanism and the main two I know are basically part of early liberalism, and just anyone who wants the best for humanity. The latter being from some liberal book I read a while back that was claiming “liberalism says the rights of people as individuals should be pursued for humanity, communism says everyone’s literally equal and should be treated as such for the good of humanity, and fascism says the Aryan race should be defended from all the inferior ones for the best of humanity” def anti-communist, but still a definite you could accept. However, I would say we don’t need to associate with humanism as Marxism is enlightenment on its own and we do not necessarily think humans’ interests should be prioritized at the risk of harming the “lower animals” for socialism also means protecting the biosphere. The last person I heard explicit associate with humanism was a larouchite, so that’s also partially why I’m suspicious. TLDR: I don’t have a strong position against associating with Humanism, but I don’t see the benefit of doing such. Although, as Marxists it might be useful to study other enlightenment thinkers. Nvm on the idealist thing, I can’t find much evidence so.