No, not really. Reading Marx chronologically, it's clear that he progressed from his early humanism, which was influenced by Feuerbach, to a properly materialist analysis, fully developed in Capital. Marx went from discussing alienation as the central factor depriving Man from his ideal human nature to saying outright that alienation is a necessary aspect of production in all societies, past, present, and future.
To offset their reliance on Marx's early writings, the Marxist humanists latch onto whatever they can interpret as humanist in Marx's later writings, specifically in the first chapter of Capital: the concept of the fetishism of commodities and the free association of workers. To sum up Marx's observation, in commodity production, material relations between people (direct exchange of the products of concrete labor) become social relations between objects (mediated market exchange of the products of social labor, commodities, and money). When people see objects as commodities and through exchange, the true nature of the material relations of production are obscured, and the role of the objects is elevated to the status of a religious fetish. In commodity production, concrete labor only becomes social when it's mediated by exchange (and value).
For labor to be directly social, it has to be unmediated, an example of this is in the relation of personal dependence that a peasant has with a feudal lord. TO the peasant it's obvious that their personal labor is being used up to serve the lord. A hypothetical example is a community of freely associated individuals, who consciously and willingly apply their labor for the community as a whole, and the resulting social product is rationally divided up for use or reinvestment. That's all well and good for the Marxist humanists, but if you compare this to Marx's discussion of alienation in his 1844 manuscripts, there is little comparison. The idealized "Man" is no longer present, the division of labor is no longer spoken about as the original sin of alienation, and human freedom is used to illustrate an example in distinction to coercion rather than as an ideal future society.
Marxist humanism does not seem to be a method of analysis that is concerned with communism: the real movement to abolish the present state of things. Rather, it's a ethical ideology *for* communism, which is for them the ideal of morality and freedom.>>5424>Marxist dogma of the proletariat infinitely and absolutely being the world-historical subject
This is definitely another problem, and it's something that humanists will never be able to decouple from.