Marxism and Liberal Humanism

Marxism and Liberal Humanism differ in many ways. Marxism challenges liberal humanism and its non political nature. Where liberal humanism defines good literature as being timeless and truly reflective of human nature in its organic sense, Marxism takes into account the political landscape that influenced the creation of a text.
Liberal humanism presents the idea that literature must contain certain elements to be considered god literature. The text must convey a meaning that can reach out and speak to the reader on a humanistic level. Despite its age it should be understood by anyone of any time because of its innately human message. This message and everything that comes with it should hold no significant connection to its time and place in history other than to set a simple and unimportant backdrop for the subject at hand, human relationships and human struggle.
Marxism presents a different perspective on what makes literature worth reading. Marxism claims that the literature is extremely dependent on the political forces that shaped the environment of the author and the story. Class is the most important issue for Marxists. A text created by an aristocrat would be so incredibly different from a text by that of a middle class, or the poorest of poor. The language alone would be completely different. The language can reflect social class and education thus it makes for a seriously noticeable difference. The values of each class present different needs and economic strife or in the case of the aristocrats, lack there of.
So in the end liberal humanism presses the issues of nature whereas Marxism supports emphasis on social constructions.