Returning to the Economic Context: The Supplement of Eastern European Neo-Marxism to the Perspective of Marx’s Humanist Interpretation

Philosophical critique and the critique of political economy have long been regarded as the two main threads of Marx’s social critique. In his understanding of the human being, Marx moved from philosophical critique to the critique of political economy, from a conceptual study of human essence to a study of the real human being in production. In particular, starting from the relationship between the human being and production, Marx reaffirmed Kant’s ethical proposition that “the human being is an end” in his economic studies. However, in the development of Marxism after Marx, the close connection between philosophical critique and the critique of political economy was gradually severed. Marx’s thought was either one-sidedly interpreted as economic determinism or abstractly subjected to a humanist interpretation. It was not until the 1920s–1930s that a new upsurge in the study of *Capital* once again brought the relationship between philosophical critique and the critique of political economy into the view of theorists, and in the 1960s a tendency to reconstruct Marx’s tradition of the critique of political economy developed. For example, the New Marx Reading project, initiated by Alfred Schmidt and others, reintroduced political economy into social critique. During this period, Eastern European Neo-Marxism contributed its own efforts. They criticized Soviet Marxism for neglecting the humanist factors in Marx’s economic works, criticized some Western Marxists for denying and avoiding Marx’s economic thought, and conveyed the humanist values contained in Marx’s economic thought with the basic thesis that “the human being appears as the end of production.” Among them, Petrović, in the process of translating the *Grundrisse* into Serbo-Croatian, entered the economic context and, focusing on Marx’s three economic works from different periods—the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manuscripts*), the *Grundrisse* (hereinafter referred to as the *Grundrisse*), and *Capital*—analyzed the view contained therein that the human being is a “practical” being. Kosík, in *Dialectics of the Concrete*, proposed that the key to understanding Marx’s *Capital* lies in clarifying the relationship between economics and philosophy within it, arriving at the argument that “the commodity … is, first of all, a sensuous-practical thing, a creation and a manifestation of social labor in a specific historical form.” Schaff, using the concepts of alienation and the human individual running through Marx’s *Capital*, *Grundrisse*, and *Manuscripts*, demonstrated the continuity of Marx’s thought. Markus’s research materials on Marx’s human essence also mainly referenced Marx’s economic works such as the *Manuscripts*, *Grundrisse*, *Capital*, and *Theories of Surplus Value*. On the one hand, the Eastern European Neo-Marxist humanist interpretation of Marx in the economic context shows its difference from the abstract humanist interpretation of Marx by Western humanist schools; on the other hand, it refutes the erroneous perception among researchers that Eastern European Neo-Marxism lacks the study of political economy.

哲学批判与政治经济学批判一直以来被认为是马克思社会批判的两条主线。在对人的理解上，马克思从哲学批判走向政治经济学批判，从对于人本质的概念研究走向对生产中现实的人的研究。尤其是马克思从人与生产的关系出发，在经济学的研究中重申了康德“人是目的”的伦理主张，然而，在马克思之后的马克思主义发展中，哲学批判与政治经济学批判之间的密切联系逐渐被割裂，马克思的思想要么被片面地解读为经济决定论，要么被抽象地进行人道主义解读。直到20世纪20—30年代，《资本论》研究新热潮再度将哲学批判与政治经济学批判之间的关系问题推到理论家的视野内，并于20世纪60年代发展出重建马克思政治经济学批判传统的趋向，例如，由施密特等人发起的新马克思阅读项目将政治经济学重新引入社会批判。在此期间，东欧新马克思主义贡献了自己的力量，他们批判苏联马克思主义忽视了马克思经济学作品中的人道主义因素，批判一些西方马克思主义者对马克思经济学思想的否定和规避，并以“人表现为生产的目的”为基本论点传达了马克思经济学思想中所包含的人道主义价值。其中，彼得洛维奇在将《政治经济学批判大纲》译成萨尔维亚—克罗地亚语的过程中进入经济学的语境，围绕着马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》(以下简称《手稿》)《政治经济学批判大纲》(以下简称《大纲》)《资本论》等三部不同时期的经济学著作分析其中蕴含的人是“实践”的存在的观点；科西克在《具体的辩证法》中提出，理解马克思《资本论》的关键在于明确其中经济学与哲学的关系，得出“商品……首先是，一个感觉实践之物，是特殊历史形式的社会劳动的一个创造物和一种表现”的论证；沙夫以贯穿马克思《资本论》《大纲》和《手稿》中的异化和人类个体概念论证了马克思思想的连续性；马尔库什对马克思人的本质的研究材料也主要参考了马克思《手稿》《大纲》《资本论》《剩余价值理论》等经济学作品。东欧新马克思主义在经济学语境中对马克思的人道主义解读一方面展示出与西方人本主义流派对马克思的抽象的人道主义解读之间的差异；另一方面，驳斥了研究者对于东欧新马克思主义缺乏政治经济学研究的错误认知。

I. The Theoretical Necessity of Returning to the Economic Context to Understand Marx

一、回归经济学语境理解马克思的理论必要

In the development of Marxism in the 20th century, the study combining Marx’s philosophical critique and the critique of political economy gradually became differentiated. Soviet Marxism, by criticizing Marx as a philosopher through Marx as an economist, obscured the humanist thought in Marx’s ideas. The Western humanist Marxist trend sought to reveal the humanist dimension of Marx’s thought and criticized the regression in Marx’s thought from philosophy to economics, yet it fell into conceptual discussions at the abstract philosophical level. The reason for the many differences of opinion in interpreting Marx is primarily the failure to clarify the close connection between Marx’s philosophical critique and the critique of political economy. Marx’s philosophical theory was further confirmed and completed by the critique of political economy, especially Marx’s study of the “real human being” in economics. Therefore, on the basis of the humanist interpretation of Marx by Western humanist Marxist schools, it is necessary to return to the economic context to confirm the humanist essence of Marx’s thought.

在20世纪马克思主义的发展历程中，马克思哲学批判与政治经济学批判相结合的研究逐渐被分化，苏联马克思主义以作为经济学家的马克思批判作为哲学家的马克思，马克思思想中的人道主义思想被遮蔽；西方人本主义马克思主义思潮力图揭示马克思思想的人道主义维度，批判马克思思想从哲学向经济学的倒退，却又陷入哲学抽象层面的概念探讨。之所以在解读马克思的过程中出现诸多意见的分歧，主要是因为没能明确马克思的哲学批判与政治经济学批判之间的密切联系，马克思的哲学理论是由政治经济学批判进一步证实和完成的，特别是马克思在经济学中完成了对“现实的人”的研究。故而，在西方人本主义马克思主义流派对马克思的人道主义解读基础上，有必要回归经济学语境去确证马克思思想的人道主义本质。

(1) Marx Completed the Study of the “Real Human Being” in Economics

(一)马克思在经济学中完成了对“现实的人”的研究

Through the theoretical mediation of Feuerbach, Marx’s study of the human being moved from the “abstract human being” to the “real human being,” and with the thesis that “the essence of the human being is the ensemble of social relations,” he surpassed Feuerbach’s humanism. This definition of human essence prompted Marx to clarify the necessity of economic research, because relations of production are the most basic social relations, and relations of production are economic relations in material production. Without entering into economics, one would remain at the metaphysical level of conceptual analysis and would be unable to complete the study of the “real human being.” Marx’s study of the “real human being” was precisely completed in the economic context. In the economic context, Marx analyzed that the alienated relationship between the human being and production is a product of specific social relations, thereby conducting a thorough critique of capitalist private property.

借助费尔巴哈的理论中介，马克思对人的研究从“抽象的人”走向了“现实的人”,又以“人的本质是社会关系的总和”的论断超越了费尔巴哈的人本学。对人的本质的这种界定促使马克思明确了经济学研究的必要性，因为生产关系是最基本的社会关系，而生产关系又是物质生产中的经济关系，不进入经济学就会停留于形而上学层面的概念分析，就不能够完成对“现实的人”的研究。马克思对“现实的人”的研究恰恰是在经济学语境中完成的。在经济学语境中，马克思分析了人与生产之间的异化关系是特定社会关系下的产物，从而对资本主义私有制进行了彻底的批判。

In his critique of alienated labor, Marx discovered that under conditions of low productive forces and the non-establishment of private property, human production aimed to obtain the use value of things, so the quantity of the human being’s direct needs was the limit of their production. The emergence of private property changed production centered on needs. Human production was no longer to obtain the use value of things but to obtain exchange value. This caused the limit of production to no longer be set by the quantity of needs but to be constrained by wealth. Marx stated in the *Manuscripts*: “In the first case, need is the measure of production; in the second case, the production of the product, or more precisely, the possession of the product, is the measure of the extent to which need can be satisfied.” Private property changed the purpose of production from satisfying human needs to possessing wealth. However, once the purpose of production is not to satisfy human needs, alienation arises. In objectifying activity, the human being’s essential powers are not confirmed but are instead dominated by wealth, so that production is carried out to obtain wealth. In the *Grundrisse*, Marx more deeply criticized the problem in capitalist society where the human being’s purpose is transformed into production. “The ancient conception, in which the human being always appears as the end of production, whether in the narrow national, religious, or political determinations, seems very lofty when compared with the modern world, where production appears as the end of the human being, and wealth as the end of production.” When the relationship between production and exchange is transformed into exchange determining production, and the purpose of production shifts from obtaining use value to the production of value, “the human being appears as the end of production” is transformed into “production appears as the end of the human being” and “wealth appears as the end of production.” In *Capital*, Marx again summarized the alienation problem under capitalist conditions where “the worker exists for the process of production, not the process of production for the worker.” It can be seen that in Marx’s economic works, although Marx conducts economic research at the surface structure, at the deep structure he reveals the humanistic core beneath the economic shell, criticizing the alienation of the relationship between the human being and production under conditions of private property. At the same time, in the economic context, through the explanation of the relationship between the human being and production, the human being Marx studies is not the concept of the human being at the abstract level, but the problem of the “real human being” in production. It can be said that Marx completed the deep study of the “real human being” through economics.

马克思在对异化劳动的批判中发现，在生产力低下、私有制未确立的情况下，人的生产是为获得物的使用价值，所以人的直接需要的量就是其生产的限度。私有制的出现使得以需要为核心的生产发生了变化，人的生产不再是为了获得物的使用价值而是为了获得交换价值，这就造成生产的限度不再由需要的量来设定，而是受财富制约。马克思在《手稿》中说道：“在第一种情况下，需要是生产的尺度，而在第二种情况下，产品的生产，或者更确切地说，产品的占有，是衡量能够在多大程度上使需要得到满足的尺度。”私有制使生产的目的发生了变化，由满足人的需要转变为对财富的占有，然而，一旦生产的目的不是为了满足人的需要就会产生异化，在对象化活动中人的本质力量没有得到确证，反而为财富所支配，从而为了获得财富而进行生产。在《大纲》中，马克思更深入地批判了资本主义社会人的目的转变为生产的问题。“古代的观点和现代世界相比，就显得崇高得多，根据古代的观点，人，不管是处在怎样狭隘的民族的、宗教的、政治的规定上，总是表现为生产的目的，在现代世界，生产表现为人的目的，而财富则表现为生产的目的”。当生产与交换的关系被转换为交换决定生产，生产的目的从获得使用价值转变为价值的生产，“人表现为生产的目的”就转变为“生产表现为人的目的”“财富表现为生产的目的”了。马克思在《资本论》中又总结了资本主义条件下“工人为生产过程而存在，不是生产过程为工人而存在”的异化问题。可见，在马克思的经济学著作中，虽然马克思在表层结构中进行的是经济学研究，但在深层结构中揭露的是经济学外壳下的人学内核，批判私有制条件下人与生产之间关系的异化。同时，在经济学语境中，通过人与生产之间的关系阐释，马克思研究的人不是抽象层面的人的概念，而是生产中的“现实的人”的问题，可以说马克思通过经济学完成了对“现实的人”的深层研究。

(2) The Humanist Interpretation of Marx Detached from the Economic Context Falls into Abstract Humanist Discussion

(二)脱离经济学语境对马克思的人道主义解读陷入抽象的人道主义探讨

In the mid-20th century, Western humanist Marxist trends were prevalent in Eastern European societies. Early Western Marxism and Sartre’s existentialist Marxism both exerted a tremendous influence on Eastern European Neo-Marxism. However, Eastern European Neo-Marxism did not confine itself to the romanticist interpretation of Marx by Western humanist schools. Instead, it sought to restore Marx’s study of “real individuals” and further entered the economic context to carry out a humanist interpretation of Marx. The prominent Polish Marxist Adam Schaff analyzed two theoretical currents that emerged under these historical conditions: one was existentialism, which attempted to fill the empty space of a Marxist theory of the human being; because it detached itself from the sociality and historicity of the human being, the human being understood by existentialism was an abstract, general human being. The other was a current that proceeded solely from Marx’s early works to give an ethical-humanist interpretation of Marx; because it clung to Marx’s early works, it excluded “everything known as scientific socialism.” [5]5 “Everything known as scientific socialism” is a phrase Schaff uses to refer to the later Marx’s economic and political theories, which the ethical-humanist current dismissed as dogmatic. In the view of Eastern European Neo-Marxism, both currents detached themselves from the economic context and did not truly understand Marx.

20世纪中叶，东欧社会流行西方人本主义的马克思主义思潮，早期西方马克思主义、萨特的存在主义的马克思主义都对东欧新马克思主义产生了巨大影响，但东欧新马克思主义并没有局限于西方人本主义流派对马克思的浪漫主义解读，而是力图恢复马克思对“现实的人”的研究，进一步进入经济学语境中对马克思进行人道主义解读。波兰著名马克思主义者亚当·沙夫分析了在这种历史条件下出现的两股理论思潮：一个是试图补充马克思主义人学空场的存在主义，由于脱离了人的社会性、历史性，存在主义理解的人是抽象的、一般的人；另一个是单纯从马克思早期思想出发对马克思进行伦理—人道的解释思潮，由于执着于马克思的早期思想排除掉了“以科学社会主义著称的一切”。在东欧新马克思主义看来，这两种思潮都脱离了经济学语境，没有真正理解马克思。

First, in response to the Sartrean thought then popular in Poland, Schaff criticized existentialism’s non-social, a-historical understanding of the individual. First, existentialism and Marxism are not only different but completely opposed. Schaff believed that the crux of the divergence between existentialism and Marxism lies in the “concept of the individual.” In the existentialist understanding, the individual is an isolated, solitary, tragic existence, whereas Marx understands the individual within social and historical relations. “It is precisely in the views of the young Marx that we can see his definite and resolute objections to the existentialist position on the question of the individual… These views constitute a refutation of the theoretical foundation of existentialism—the subjectivist, non-social, and a-historical theory of the individual.” [6]6 Adam Schaff, *Marxism and the Human Individual* (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 64. Sartre himself also found that the isolated individual lacks sociality, hence his later inclination toward a synthesis with Marxism. But Schaff believed that existentialism and Marxism cannot be synthesized. This is because Sartre expresses his position in a contradictory manner: if one insists on examining the individual historically and socially, one must abandon the theoretical foundation of existentialism. That is to say, existentialism holds that the individual must make independent decisions in situations of moral conflict; whereas Marxists hold that the individual makes decisions based on social conditioning factors. “Historical materialism explains individual actions and their motives through social conditioning factors; existentialism seeks the ultimate source of social phenomena in the autonomous, free individual. What appears here are two completely opposed theories that cannot be unified.” [7]7 Adam Schaff, *Marxism and the Human Individual*, p. 68. Second, existentialism is not a genuine humanism. In Schaff’s view, humanism refers to a theoretical system that regards the human being as the highest end. “The starting point of Marxism: the human being is the highest end, and he fights to overthrow the social relations that oppress him.” [8]8 Adam Schaff, *Marxism and the Human Individual*, p. 71. Although existentialism guarantees individual freedom, it does not realize the full development of individuality. Schaff believed that because the boundary between humanism and anti-humanism is very blurred, individuals often face dilemmas in their choices, especially under conditions where personal interests conflict with social interests. A person cannot choose entirely on the basis of personal interests, so insisting on the absolute freedom of the individual is not necessarily humanist, especially in war. That is to say, the human being cannot make choices detached from social existence; one must emphasize the sociality and historicity of the human being and regard the human being as a real, concrete human individual. “Socialist humanism is not concerned with the abstract human being, but with the human being in real social and historical conditions, and also with the concrete needs and possibilities for development that arise from these specific social conditions.” [9]9 Adam Schaff, *Marxism and the Human Individual*, p. 77. Existentialism did not enter the economic context and could not understand the human being as a real, concrete human individual; the human being it expounded could only be an isolated, abstract human being.

首先，针对波兰当时流行的萨特思想，沙夫批判了存在主义对个体非社会的、非历史的理解。其一，存在主义与马克思主义不仅不同而且是完全对立的。沙夫认为，存在主义与马克思主义分歧的焦点在于“个体概念”。在存在主义的理解中，个体是与世隔绝的、孤独的、悲剧性的存在，而马克思将个体放在社会的、历史的关系中来理解。“正是在青年马克思的观点中，我们可以看到其对存在主义在个体问题观点上的确定的而又坚决的反对意见……这些观点构成了对存在主义的理论基础——主观主义的、非社会的和非历史的(a-historical)个体理论的驳斥”。萨特本人也发现孤立个体缺乏社会性，故而后期又倾向于与马克思主义的结合，但沙夫认为存在主义和马克思主义是不能结合在一起的。因为萨特是在矛盾地表达着自己的立场，如果要坚持历史地、社会地考察个体就必须抛弃存在主义的理论基础。也就是说，存在主义认为，个体在道德冲突的情形下必须作出独立的决定；而马克思主义者认为，个体是根据社会制约条件来作出决定的。“历史唯物主义用社会的制约条件来解释个人行动及其行为的动机，存在主义则在自主自律的自由个体中寻找社会现象的最终根源。这里出现的是两种完全对立的理论，它们不能统一在一起”。其二，存在主义不是真正的人道主义。在沙夫看来，人道主义指的是将人看作最高目的的理论体系。“马克思主义的出发点：人是最高的目的，而且为了推翻压制他的社会关系而战”,存在主义虽然保证了个体自由，但是并没有实现个性的充分发展。沙夫认为，因为人道主义和非人道主义的界限十分模糊，人在选择中经常会面临两难困境，特别是在个人利益与社会利益产生冲突的条件下，一个人并不能完全出于个人利益进行选择，所以坚持个体的绝对自由并不一定就是人道主义的，特别是在战争中。也就是说，人不能脱离社会存在进行选择，必须重视人的社会性、历史性，将人看作现实的、具体的人类个体。“社会主义的人道主义关心的并不是抽象的人，而是在现实的社会和历史条件中的人，还关心从这些具体社会条件生发出来的人的具体需求和发展的可能性”。存在主义没有进入经济学语境，不能将人理解为现实的、具体的人类个体，其所阐释的人只能是孤立的、抽象的人。

Second, the theoretical tendency in the 1930s that focused on an ethical-humanist interpretation of Marx based solely on his early works excluded the content of scientific socialism. People like Landshut, Mayer, Marcuse, and De Man [10]10 Landshut (Siegfried Landshut), Mayer (not further identified; likely a reference to a figure in the early Marx reception), Marcuse (Herbert Marcuse), and De Man (Hendrik de Man) were Western scholars who in the 1930s argued that the young Marx’s humanist writings represented the “true” Marx, in opposition to the allegedly dogmatic later works. went from one extreme to the other: they described the young Marx as the true Marx and the mature Marx as the dogmatic Marx, thereby completely negating the thought of the mature Marx. Schaff did not agree with the practice of negating the later Marx by means of the young Marx, but he did agree with the view that the young Marx’s works are important for understanding the later Marx’s works. Schaff believed that Marx’s works form an organic whole, and to understand the wholeness of Marx’s thought, one must understand that it has always been a human-centered anthropology; from his early to his late period, Marx consistently sought human emancipation. “Anthropology explains Marx’s later interest in numerous issues such as economics; it also provides a key to understanding the humanist significance of later scientific socialist theses such as class struggle or the dictatorship of the proletariat.” [11]11 Adam Schaff, *Marxism and the Human Individual*, p. 57. Schaff believed that the misreading of Marx’s anthropology arose because later Marxism demoted anthropological questions from the most important position to a hidden one, drawing the individual into society through classes and groups. Marx initially viewed the human individual in terms of his relations with other individuals; later, he explained the human individual as a social individual on the basis of the totality of social relations. A shift occurred from viewing the human individual socially to holding that the human individual is a social individual. It was precisely this shift that caused Soviet Marxism to focus its attention on mass movements, obscuring the individual with the group, and gradually moving toward a mechanical understanding of the human being. Schaff believed that although the theoretical perspective from which Marx studied problems changed, anthropology always remained the core of his thought, in which the individual has an ontological status. In Marx’s later thought, “economic research is not an end in itself but only a means to an end; thus, efforts to solve economic problems and efforts to solve political problems are closely linked to them, serving only as a means to a certain end—the emancipation of the human being.” [12]12 Adam Schaff, *Marxism and the Human Individual*, p. 58.

其次，20世纪30年代专注于依据马克思早期著作对马克思进行伦理—人道解读的理论倾向排除了科学社会主义的内容。兰茨胡特、迈耶、马尔库塞和德曼这些人从一个极端走向另一个极端，他们把青年马克思描述为真正的马克思，把成熟时期的马克思描述为教条的马克思，从而彻底地否定了成熟时期的马克思思想。沙夫不认同以青年马克思否定晚年马克思的做法，但是赞同青年马克思著作对于理解晚年马克思著作具有重要性的观点。沙夫认为，马克思的作品是一个有机整体，而要理解马克思思想的整体性就要理解其一直是以人为中心的人本学，从早期到晚期马克思一直寻求人类的解放。“人本学解释了马克思晚期对于诸如经济这样的众多问题的兴趣；它也为理解晚期的如阶级斗争或者无产阶级专政这样的科学社会主义论断的人道主义意义提供了一把钥匙”。沙夫认为，之所以产生对马克思人本学的误读，在于后来的马克思主义将人本学问题从最重要的位置降格到隐蔽的位置，通过阶级和群体将个体卷入社会。马克思最初是在与其他个体的关系的意义上来看待人类个体的，后来则根据全部社会关系将人类个体解释为社会个体，发生了从社会地看待人类个体到认为人类个体就是社会个体的转变，也正是这种转变使得苏联马克思主义将关注的焦点转移到群众运动上，以群体掩盖个体，逐渐走向对人的机械理解。沙夫认为，尽管马克思研究问题的理论视角发生变化，但是人本学一直是其思想核心，其中，个体具有本体论地位。在马克思晚期思想中，“经济学研究不是目的本身而只是达到目的的一种手段；这样解决经济问题的努力和解决政治问题的努力与它们紧密相连，只是达到某种目的——人的解放——的一种手段”。

In summary, Marx completed his study of “real individuals” within the economic context. Eastern European Neo-Marxism held that a humanist interpretation of Marx cannot be detached from the economic context. Avoiding economics can neither thoroughly refute the Soviet Marxist mechanical understanding of the human being nor avoid falling into the abstract-level humanist interpretation of Western humanist Marxism; it cannot truly reveal the problem of “real individuals” under new historical conditions.

归结起来，马克思在经济学语境中完成了对“现实的人”的研究，东欧新马克思主义认为对马克思的人道主义解读不能脱离经济学语境，回避经济学既不能彻底驳斥苏联马克思主义对人的机械理解，又会陷入西方人本主义的马克思主义抽象层面的人道主义解读，无法在新的历史条件下真正揭示“现实的人”的问题。

II. Excavating the “Supra-Economic” Character of Marx’s Economic Theory

二、挖掘马克思经济学理论的“超经济学”特征

The Eastern European neo-Marxist humanist interpretation of Marx is not confined to Marx’s philosophical works but delves into his economic writings, revealing the “supra-economic” character of Marx’s economic theory. Here, the “supra-economic” character of economic theory refers to the fact that Marx, through his study of economic theory, conducted a critique of political economy, and this point became the starting point for the Eastern European neo-Marxist exposition of the “supra-economic” character of Marx’s economic theory. At that time, Soviet Marxism placed great emphasis on Marx’s later economic works such as *Capital*, and the concepts central to their understanding of Marx were matter, nature, connection, movement, society, and productive forces. Sartre criticized this Marxism for having an “empty space of the human” [13]13 Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), French existentialist philosopher and Marxist, who criticized Soviet Marxism for neglecting the subjective dimension of human existence, a critique he developed in works such as *Critique of Dialectical Reason*.. While not entirely in agreement with Sartre, the Eastern European neo-Marxists held that, although Soviet Marxism did not discuss a philosophy of the human, it nonetheless presupposed a concept of the human within its ideological system, namely “the human as an economic animal.” This “economic animal” is an abstract understanding of the human, which deviates from Marx’s critique of the “abstract human” in his polemics against the Hegelians and Feuerbach, regressing to the “economic man” hypothesis of classical economics that Marx himself criticized. On this basis, the Eastern European neo-Marxists sought to reinterpret Marx. “One of the fundamental achievements of post-war Yugoslav philosophical development was the discovery of the human, a human who had been excluded as an abstraction by the Stalinist version of Marxist philosophy, whereas in genuine Marxist philosophical thought, the human occupies a central position.” [14]14 Gajo Petrović (1927–1993), a leading Yugoslav philosopher and member of the Praxis School, a current of Eastern European neo-Marxism. By analyzing Marx’s economic works, the Eastern European neo-Marxists concluded that the theories in these economic works—the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, the *Grundrisse*, and *Capital*—all possess a “supra-economic” character. “All three works embody a critique of political economy, and a critique of the economic reality of capitalism and the economic conditions of various class societies. They do not proceed from a purely economic standpoint but are first and foremost philosophical. Moreover, they share a common theoretical foundation, all expressing the aspiration for the realization of a truly human society, a society in which the human is no longer alienated from itself, is no longer an economic animal, but becomes aware of itself as a free and creative practical being.” [15]15 Mihailo Marković (1923–2010), a Serbian philosopher and member of the Praxis School. In his interpretation of the *Grundrisse*, Petrović [16]16 Gajo Petrović. perceived that Marx’s exposition of the ancient view that “the purpose of production is the human” is more elevated than the modern view that “the purpose of production is wealth, and the human’s purpose is production,” because Marx’s economics is first and foremost concerned not with the economy but with the human. The fact that Marx, after discussing economic issues in the *Manuscripts*, invariably concludes with philosophical summaries reveals the ultimate aim of his economic research. In Petrović’s view, although this perspective of “regarding wealth as the all-round development of human capacities” and “production’s purpose as human development” is overly idealistic, it still possesses value superior to the view of “the human as an economic animal,” because Marx looks at antiquity and modernity from the perspective of the future, that is, he views capitalism within a critical horizon.

东欧新马克思主义对马克思的人道主义解读，并不局限于马克思的哲学著作，而是深入马克思的经济学作品，揭示出马克思经济学理论的“超经济学”特征。在这里，经济学理论的“超经济学”特征指的是马克思通过经济学理论的研究进行的是一种经济学批判，这一点成为东欧新马克思主义阐释马克思经济学理论的“超经济学”特征的出发点。当时，苏联马克思主义重视马克思晚期《资本论》等经济学作品，在他们对马克思的理解中处于中心地位的是物质、自然、联系、运动、社会、生产力等概念，萨特批判这种马克思主义出现了人学空场。与萨特观点并不完全一致，东欧新马克思主义认为，虽然苏联马克思主义不讨论人的哲学，但在其思想体系中却预设了人的概念，即“作为经济动物的人”,而“经济动物”是对人的抽象理解，背离了马克思在批判黑格尔派和费尔巴哈时对“抽象的人”的批判，退回到马克思所批判的古典经济学的“经济人”假设，基于此，东欧新马克思主义力图对马克思进行重新阐释。“南斯拉夫战后哲学发展的基本成就之一就是发现了人，这个人是被斯大林主义版本的马克思主义哲学作为抽象物而加以排除的，而在真正的马克思主义哲学思想中，人却居于中心地位”。东欧新马克思主义通过分析马克思的经济学作品，得出《手稿》《大纲》《资本论》这些经济学作品中的理论都具有“超经济学”特征的结论。“三部作品都体现了对政治经济学的批判，及对资本主义经济现实和各个阶级社会的经济状况的批判，都不是从纯粹经济学观点出发的，而首先是哲学的。而且它们都有一个共同的理论基础，都表达了对实现真实人类社会的互换，在这个社会中，人不再同自身相异化，不再是经济动物，而是会意识到自己是自由的和有创造性的实践存在”。彼得洛维奇在对《大纲》的解读中体会到马克思阐释的古代的“生产的目的是人”的观点较现代“生产的目的是财富，人的目的是生产”的观点更为崇高，因为马克思的经济学首先关注的不是经济而是人。从马克思在《手稿》中论述完经济问题总是伴随着哲学的总结就可以看出其经济学研究的落脚点所在。在彼得洛维奇看来，虽然这种“将财富看作人的能力的全面发展”“生产的目的是人的发展”的观点过于理想化，但是仍然具有高于“人是经济动物”的观点的价值，因为马克思是从未来的角度去看古代和现代，也即在批判的视野中看待资本主义。

In the 20th century, Marx’s orthodox successors, based on Marx’s view that “the free, unhindered, progressive and all-round development of productive forces is itself the precondition of society, and hence of social reproduction,” concluded that “economic production (the material means of subsistence) has always been, and will always be, the ultimately determining sphere of social life. In other words, the human is essentially an economic animal.” [17]17 This is a paraphrase of a position attributed to orthodox Marxists by the Eastern European neo-Marxists, not a direct quotation from Marx. Although Engels did not recognize economic factors as the sole determinant of social development, he held that economic factors ultimately determine social development. Labriola, while criticizing the understanding of Marx’s conception of history as the all-encompassing determinative doctrine of economic factors, nonetheless called historical materialism “economic materialism.” Plekhanov despised economic materialism and the ultimately determinative role of economic factors, but the economic factors he understood did not include productive forces. Lenin, in agreement with Plekhanov, held that the determinative force of social development is the productive forces. Stalin went further, affirming that social change and development are always the change and development of the productive forces. [18]18 Antonio Labriola (1843–1904), Italian Marxist philosopher; Georgi Plekhanov (1856–1918), Russian Marxist theorist; Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924), leader of the Bolshevik Revolution; Joseph Stalin (1878–1953), leader of the Soviet Union. The text summarizes their respective positions on the role of economic factors and productive forces in historical development. According to the views of Marx and his orthodox successors, it can be found that, although there are many spheres of social life, “‘the economic sphere’ directly determines the ‘political sphere’ and the ‘legal sphere,’ and indirectly determines all other spheres of ‘social consciousness.’” [19]19 This is a paraphrase of a position attributed to orthodox Marxism by the Eastern European neo-Marxists. From these various understandings of the economy, it can be concluded that Marx’s conception of history is both economic and not economic; the human is not merely an “economic animal,” but is first and foremost an “economic animal.”

20世纪，马克思的正统继承者们根据马克思“生产力的自由的、无阻碍的、不断进步的和全面的发展本身就是社会的前提，因而是社会再生产的前提”的观点得出，“经济生产(维持生活的物质手段)一直以来，还将一直是社会生活的最终决定领域。换句话说，本质上，人就是一种经济动物”。恩格斯虽然不认同经济因素是社会发展的唯一因素，但认为经济因素最终决定社会的发展；拉布里奥拉虽然批判将马克思的历史观理解为经济因素的无所不包的决定性学说，但将历史唯物主义称为“经济唯物主义”;普列汉诺夫鄙视经济唯物主义和经济因素的最终决定性作用，但他理解的经济因素中不包括生产力；列宁同普列汉诺夫一致认为社会发展的决定性力量是生产力；斯大林更是认同社会的变化和发展始终是生产力的变化和发展。根据马克思及其正统继承者们的观点会发现：虽然社会生活领域诸多，但是“‘经济领域’直接决定‘政治领域’和‘法律领域’,间接决定‘社会意识’的所有其他领域”。从诸多对经济的理解中可以得出，马克思的历史观既是经济的又不是经济的，人不只是“经济动物”,但首先是“经济动物”。

Regarding the ultimately determinative role of economic factors as discussed by Marx and his followers above, the Eastern European neo-Marxists engaged in a presuppositional reflection: Is the relationship between the economic sphere of social life and other spheres established on the premise that these other spheres have existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future? If other spheres are not eternal, can this determinative role still serve as a general theory for explaining history and society? Therefore, the determinative role of economic factors is only effective during the prehistory of human society. “‘Economic conditions’ are not the factor determining the entire economic development; in historical development, different factors have different degrees of importance. At the beginning of human history, the ‘economic’ factor first appeared and gradually replaced the ‘biological’ factor, which was then dominant, eventually becoming the decisive factor. Other interacting factors include the ‘political,’ the ‘legal,’ etc. Today, in the era we inhabit, the ‘economic’ factor may be losing its preeminence.” [20]20 This is a paraphrase of a position held by the Eastern European neo-Marxists, not a direct quotation. Capitalist society is split into many mutually independent and conflicting spheres, with the economic sphere occupying a dominant position; it is precisely the dominance of the economic sphere that makes capitalist society a self-alienated society. Petrović further questions: In a future classless society, which factor will replace the economic factor? Through his interpretation of Marx’s communist society that eliminates alienation as the human’s “return from religion, family, state, etc., to its own human existence, i.e., social existence,” Petrović concludes that the elimination of alienation means the elimination of the alienation of all human activities, meaning that the human is a complete, free, and creative practical being. Only by situating oneself within the economic context while simultaneously transcending economics can one understand this exposition of Marx. “To transcend the level of political economy means to understand that, in the full sense, the human is not an economic animal, but a practical, free, universal, creative, and self-creating social being. What distinguishes one individual from others is his unique mode of existence, i.e., practice.” [21]21 Gajo Petrović. That is to say, the human as an “economic animal” is in fact the self-alienated human of capitalist society, which is ultimately to be superseded. Under new historical conditions, by excavating the “supra-economic” character of Marx’s economic theory, the Eastern European neo-Marxists revealed the essence of Marx’s economic research as a critique of political economy, thereby truly confirming the humanist essence of Marx’s thought.

对于上述马克思及其追随者所论述的经济因素的最终决定性作用，东欧新马克思主义进行了前提性反思：社会生活的经济领域与其他领域之间的关系建立在对其他领域过去以及将来一直存在的前提基础上，如果其他领域不是永恒存在的，那么这种决定作用还能成为解释历史和社会的一般理论吗?所以经济因素的决定性作用只是在人类社会的史前时期有效。“‘经济条件’不是决定全部经济发展的因素，而在历史发展中，不同因素具有不同的重要性。在人类历史的开端，‘经济’因素首次出现，并逐步取代当时处于支配地位的‘生物’因素，最终变成决定性因素。相互作用的其他因素还有‘政治的’‘法律的’等。如今，在我们所处的时代中，‘经济’因素可能失去其优越性”。资本主义社会分裂为许多相互独立和冲突的领域，经济领域居于支配地位，正是经济领域的支配地位使得资本主义社会成为自我异化的社会。彼得洛维奇进一步提问：在未来无阶级社会，取代经济因素的是哪个因素?通过对马克思消除异化的共产主义社会是人“从宗教、家庭、国家等等向自己的合乎人性的存在即社会的存在的复归”的解读，彼得洛维奇得出，异化的消除意味着人类各种活动的异化的消除，意味着人是完整的、自由的、有创造性的实践存在。只有置于经济学语境中同时又超越经济学，才能理解马克思的这一论述，“超越政治经济学的水平就意味着理解，在完整的意义上，人不是一种经济动物，而是一种实践的、自由的、普遍的、有创造性且自我创造的社会存在。将某一个体与其他人区分开的就是他独有的存在方式，即实践”。也就是说，作为“经济动物”的人事实上是资本主义社会自我异化的人，是最终要被扬弃的。在新的历史条件下，东欧新马克思主义通过挖掘马克思经济学理论的“超经济学”特征，揭示出马克思经济学研究进行的是经济学批判这一实质，进而真正确证了马克思思想的人道主义本质。

III. Developing Marx’s Critique of the “Economic Man”

三、发展马克思对“经济人”的批判思想

The Eastern European neo-Marxist interpretation of Marx within the economic context is also manifested in their further development of Marx’s critique of the “economic man” under new historical conditions, applying it to critique the economistic views prevalent under the conditions of Eastern European socialism.

东欧新马克思主义在经济学语境中对马克思的解读还表现在：在新的历史条件下进一步发展马克思对“经济人”的批判，运用其对东欧社会主义条件下的经济主义观点进行批判。

In the 19th century, Marx criticized the “economic man” hypothesis of classical political economy, holding that classical political economy, beginning with Adam Smith, expressed economic relations between people through relations of interest, and that people in capitalist society were abstracted into “economic men” who rationally pursued the maximization of their own interests. “The economist expresses this as follows: each pursues his private interest, and only his private interest; and thereby serves the private interest of all, the general interest, without knowing it.” [22]22 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 42 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 50. (Paraphrased from the original German.) Classical political economy regarded the pursuit of interest as man’s natural nature, and on this assumption provided a legitimacy defense for capital’s pursuit of profit. Marx criticized this premise, holding that “private interest is itself already a socially determined interest, and can be attained only within the conditions laid down by society and with the means provided by society; hence it is bound to the reproduction of these conditions and means.” [23]23 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy* (Rough Draft), trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 156. The realization of private interest is determined by social conditions, not the result of the natural development of the “economic man”’s nature. Therefore, the “economic man” is an abstract assumption of classical political economy, an abstract expression of capitalist relations of production, and the root of the problem can be traced back to private property, which creates the “economic man.” The “economic man” is completely different from the “real man”; it is an abstract assumption about man, a non-historical, non-concrete man, while the “real man” is the man engaged in actual material productive activity. The “economic man” is inevitably dominated by economic laws, cannot make value-laden choices in economic development, and lacks subjectivity; the “real man” is the subject engaged in productive activity and creating history.

19世纪，马克思对古典政治经济学的“经济人”假设进行了批判，认为自亚当·斯密开始的古典政治经济学都以利益关系来表现人与人之间的经济关系，资本主义社会的人被抽象为“经济人”,理性地追求自身利益的最大化。“经济学家是这样来表述这一点的：每个人追求自己的私人利益，而且仅仅是自己的私人利益，这样，也就不知不觉地为一切人的私人利益服务，为普遍利益服务”。古典政治经济学将人对利益的追求看作人的自然本性，从而在这种假定的基础上为资本逐利进行合法性辩护。马克思对此进行了前提批判，认为“私人利益本身已经是社会所决定的利益，而且只有在社会所设定的条件下并使用社会所提供的手段，才能达到；也就是说，私人利益是与这些条件和手段的再生产相联系的”。私人利益的实现由社会条件决定，不是“经济人”自然本性发展的结果，所以“经济人”是古典政治经济学的抽象设定，是对资本主义生产关系的抽象表达，问题的根源可以追溯为私有制造就了“经济人”。“经济人”与“现实的人”完全不同，是对人的抽象设定，是非历史的、非具体的人，而“现实的人”则是从事实际物质生产活动的人。“经济人”不可避免地会受经济规律的支配，不能在经济发展中作出有价值的选择，不具有主体性；“现实的人”则是从事生产活动的、创造历史的主体。

In the 20th century, in order to advocate the exertion of human subjectivity in the development of Eastern European socialism and to promote man’s making of value-laden choices in economic life, Eastern European neo-Marxism raised the question of the “economic man” anew, further developing Marx’s critique of the “economic man.” Marković pointed out that in the understanding of the Eastern European socialist economy there was a one-sided attitude that could be called economism, which attempted to rationalize the Eastern European socialist economy through the mechanism of commodity-money relations. “The characteristic of this view, which can be called economism, is that man is essentially an economic being (homo oeconomicus) and a consumer (homo consumens), and that the main motive of production in a socialist society is the attempt to maximize income.” [24]24 Mihailo Marković, *From Affluence to Praxis: Philosophy and Social Criticism* (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1974), p. 45. Eastern European economism understood man as an “economic animal,” meaning that all of man’s activities are dominated by economic laws, and the labor of the dominated “economic man” is naturally also alienated: “the purpose of labor is no longer to satisfy the needs of another person, but to transform labor into the possibility of money—general, impersonal forms of objectified labor.” [25]25 Ibid., p. 47. Marković criticized that economism attempted to exclude the intervention and influence of the socio-political system altogether, yet it created the myth of socialist commodity production, returning to the problem of the “economic man” hypothesis that Marx had criticized. Marković opposed understanding man as an “economic animal,” because defining man as an “economic animal” implies that man can be liberated through economic development alone. The development of capitalism has already falsified this proposition; there is no causal relationship between economic development and human liberation. “A marked improvement in the conditions of individual life does not automatically assume the task of creating a truly human community, in which there exists solidarity, and without which man’s thoroughgoing liberation is impossible.” [26]26 Ibid., p. 52. Marković returned once again to Marx’s line of thought for solving the problem, namely, “the solution is to abolish the relations in which the worker is involved in his labor process, the situation in which he becomes merely a commodity in the reified world of commodities.” [27]27 Ibid., p. 55. In short, the solution is still to transcend reified relations of production. “Society must gradually take certain measures to transcend commodity-money relations.” [28]28 Ibid., p. 56. On this basis, Marković held that, while transcending capitalist commodity-money relations, Eastern European socialism must also strive to “not return to the domination of man with a new social model.” [29]29 Ibid., p. 58. In the process of transcending capitalism, Eastern European socialism must transcend both the concentration of economic power and avoid the concentration of political power, because either kind of concentration will hinder the thorough transformation of human relations.

20世纪，为提倡在东欧社会主义发展中发挥人的主体性，促进人在经济生活中作出有价值的选择，东欧新马克思主义重新提出了“经济人”的问题，进一步发展了马克思对“经济人”的批判理论。马尔科维奇指出，在对东欧社会主义经济的理解中有一种可以被称为经济主义的片面态度，试图通过商品货币关系的机制实现东欧社会主义经济的合理化。“这种可以被称为经济主义的观点的特征是，人在本质上是一种经济存在(经济人，homo oeconomicus)和一个消费者(消费人，homo consuments),社会主义社会中生产的主要动机是试图使收入最大化”。东欧的经济主义将人理解为“经济动物”,这意味着人的一切活动都受经济规律支配，受支配的“经济人”的劳动自然也是异化的，“劳动的目的不再是满足另一个人的需要，而是把劳动转变成货币——一般的、非个人形式的对象化劳动——的可能性”。马尔科维奇批判道，经济主义试图在总体上排除社会政治体制的干预和影响，却制造了社会主义商品生产的神话，回到了马克思所批判的“经济人”假设问题。马尔科维奇反对把人理解为“经济动物”,因为将人定义为“经济动物”意味着凭借经济的发展就能使人得到解放，资本主义的发展已经证伪了这一命题，经济的发展与人的解放之间并不具有因果关系，“个人生活条件的明显改善，不会自动地承担创造一个真正的人的共同体的任务，在这个共同体中，存在着协同性，而离开了这种协同性，人之彻底的解放是不可能的”。马尔科维奇再次回到马克思解决问题的思路，即“解决问题的办法是废除那些工人在其劳动过程中涉及的关系，废除他在物化的商品世界中只是成为一种商品的那种状况”。简言之，解决问题的办法还是超越被物化的生产关系。“社会必须逐步地采取某些措施，超越商品—货币关系”。在此基础上，马尔科维奇认为，在超越资本主义商品货币关系的同时，东欧社会主义还要力争做到“不以新的社会模式再次回到对人的统治”。东欧社会主义在超越资本主义的过程中，既要超越经济权力的集中，也要避免政治权力的集中，因为无论哪种集中都会阻碍人的关系的彻底变革。

In *Dialectics of the Concrete*, Kosík, based on Marx’s understanding that the “economic man” lacks subjectivity, criticized the mode of existence of man as the “economic man” in the pseudo-concrete world. Kosík held that man in the pseudo-concrete world has two modes of existence, namely “man of care” and “economic man.” Both are modes of existence of man under the sway of the economy. The man of care is an unconscious subject, and the “economic man” is the subject as object; neither constitutes real man. First, “the original and basic mode of the existence of the economy for man is care.” [30]30 Karel Kosík, *Dialectics of the Concrete: A Study on Problems of Man and World*, trans. Karel Kovanda with James Schmidt (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1976), p. 38. The man of care intervenes in society in ignorance of the objectivity of the social environment, not yet aware of his own subjectivity, and is therefore an unconscious subject. “Care is the actual intervention of the individual in a chaotic set of social relations conceived from the perspective of his own, personal, subjective intervention.” [31]31 Ibid., p. 39. Second, under the conditions of modernity, in the process of consciously intervening in the world, man nevertheless reduces himself to an object, transforming into the “economic man” who has lost his subjectivity. “The economy is a system, a set of laws governing the relations in which man is constantly transformed into an ‘economic man.’ Once he enters the economic realm, man is transformed. He has entered into economic relations, and is dragged into environments and law-like relations independently of his will and consciousness. In this economic relation, he functions as an economic man, and he can exist and realize himself only to the extent that he functions as an economic man.” [32]32 Ibid., p. 40. Man turns the economy into a science, and the economy turns man into an “economic man”; man changes from subject to object, becoming a fully determined element through which the economic system is established and operates. Under the mode of existence of the “man of care,” man is an unconscious subject; under the mode of existence of the economic man, man is reduced to the level of a thing. The root of man’s becoming the “economic man” who has lost his subjectivity lies in the pseudo-concrete world. To restore man’s subjectivity, it is necessary to transcend the pseudo-concrete world and return to the concrete, total world, i.e., the real world. In the concrete, total world, although man is still in economic activity, he is neither the unconscious “man of care” nor the manipulated “economic man,” but the “real man” who can exist as a subject.

科西克在《具体的辩证法》中基于马克思对于“经济人”不具有主体性的理解，批判了伪具体世界中人作为“经济人”的存在模式。科西克认为，伪具体世界中的人具有两种存在模式，即“烦的人”和“经济人”,二者都是经济左右下人的存在模式，烦的人是无意识的主体，“经济人”是客体的主体，都不构成真正的人。首先，“经济对人存在的原初的和基本的模式是烦(care)”,烦的人在对社会环境的客观性一无所知的条件下介入社会，尚未意识到自己的主体性，故而是无意识的主体。“烦是个人在从自身的、个人的、主观介入的角度所设想的一堆杂乱的社会关系中的实际介入”。其次，在现代性条件下，人在有意识地介入世界的过程中却又使自身沦为客体，转变为丧失主体性的“经济人”。“经济是一个系统，是一套支配着人在其中总是不断地被转变成‘经济人’的各种关系的规律。一旦进入经济王国，人就会被改造。他已进入经济关系，就不以他的意志和意识为转移地被拖入环境和规律般的关系中。在这种经济关系中，他作为经济人发挥作用，而且他只能在其发挥经济人的作用的程度上存在并实现自己”。人把经济变成了科学，经济把人变成了“经济人”,人从主体转变为客体，人成为经济系统得以建立和运转的已得到充分规定的要素。在“烦的人”的生存模式下，人是无意识的主体；在经济人的生存模式下，人却被降低到物的层次。人之所以成为丧失主体性的“经济人”的根源在于伪具体的世界，恢复人的主体性就要超越伪具体的世界，回归到具体的、总体的世界，即真实的世界。在具体的、总体的世界，虽然人仍处于经济活动中但并不是无意识的“烦的人”,也不是被操控的“经济人”,而是能够作为主体而存在的“现实的人”。

In summary, in order to emphasize human subjectivity and to exert the subjective role of man in social development, Eastern European neo-Marxism, under the historical conditions of the 20th century, developed Marx’s critique of the “economic man,” criticizing in the economic context the actual situation of the time in which man lost his subjectivity and changed from subject to object.

综上，为强调人的主体性，发挥人在社会发展中的主体作用，东欧新马克思主义在20世纪的历史条件下发展了马克思对“经济人”的批判，在经济学语境中对当时社会历史条件下人丧失主体性，从主体转变为客体的现实状况进行批判。

IV. Further Reflections on Eastern European Neo-Marxism’s Understanding of Marx in the Economic Context

四、对东欧新马克思主义在经济语境中理解马克思的进一步思考

Eastern European neo-Marxism did not limit itself to a humanist interpretation of Marx in the philosophical context, but further delved into the economic context to elucidate Marx’s humanism. On the one hand, this interpretation provided evidence for a continuous understanding of Marx’s thought; on the other hand, its “supra-economic” understanding of economic theory enabled it to further transcend an economic-determinist understanding of Marx, providing theoretical support for the trend of reconstructing Marx’s critique of political economy that emerged in the 1960s, and presenting an Eastern European perspective on understanding Marx in the 20th century.

东欧新马克思主义并没有局限于在哲学语境中对马克思进行人道主义解读，而是进一步深入经济学语境阐释马克思的人道主义。一方面，这种解读为对马克思思想进行连续性理解提供了论据；另一方面，对经济学理论的“超经济学”理解又使其进一步超越了对马克思的经济决定论理解，为20世纪60年代涌现的重构马克思的政治经济学批判理论趋向提供了理论支撑，呈现了20世纪理解马克思的东欧视角。

(I) Excavating Philosophical Implications in Economic Theory, Constructing a Continuous Understanding of Marx’s Thought

(一)在经济学理论中挖掘哲学意蕴，构建马克思思想的连续性理解

Eastern European neo-Marxism is known for its humanist interpretation of Marx. Under the influence of Western Marxism, it emphasizes the philosophical-critical dimension of Marx and delves deeply into concepts in Marx’s early thought—such as the essence of man, the question of human needs, and the concept of practice—that were neglected by Soviet Marxism. In excavating Marx’s early philosophical thought, they do not endorse a discontinuous understanding of Marx, stressing instead the continuity between Marx’s early and later thought, and in particular that Marx’s early philosophical thought does not contradict his later economic theory. This understanding of the continuity of Marx’s thought prompted Eastern European neo-Marxism to return to Marx’s economic works to explore the humanist essence of Marx’s thought. The publication of the *Manuscripts* in 1932 and the *Grundrisse* between 1939 and 1941 had a major impact on Eastern European neo-Marxism, especially the *Grundrisse*. This economic work, neglected in the study of Marx’s thought, was seen by Eastern European neo-Marxism as the key to understanding Marx’s thought, linking the *Manuscripts* and *Capital* and containing the thread of continuity in the development of Marx’s thought.[33]33 The *Grundrisse* (Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, *Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy*) is a series of seven notebooks Marx wrote between 1857 and 1858, often seen as a preparatory draft for *Capital*. Schaff argued that Althusser’s discontinuous reading of Marx was precisely because he had not read the *Grundrisse*: “The *Grundrisse* not only discusses the problem of alienation in detail but also clarifies its theoretical and methodological application in Marx’s *Capital* system. In this work, Marx frequently uses the concepts and language of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, thereby refuting the claim that there are two Marxes. On the contrary, the vitality of the theory of alienation in this mature work of Marx is no weaker than in his early works; the *Grundrisse* clearly shows that the theory of alienation permeates the entire intellectual structure of *Capital*.”[34]34 Adam Schaff (1913–2006), a Polish Marxist philosopher and a leading figure of the Polish school of neo-Marxism. Thus, Eastern European neo-Marxism understood the three economic works that generate the most ambiguity in understanding Marx’s thought—the *Manuscripts*, the *Grundrisse*, and *Capital*—as a coherent theoretical system, opening up an economic dimension on the basis of a humanist interpretation of Marx’s philosophical dimension. Eastern European neo-Marxism holds that Marx’s economics and philosophy are inseparable: economics requires philosophical analysis, and philosophy requires empirical confirmation from economics; economic critique is, in a certain sense, a form of philosophy. Markus said: “If *Capital* means a clear materialist use of certain insights from Hegel’s *Logic*—the dialectic of totality in process—then the *Paris Manuscripts* are clearly characterized by an attempt at a radical materialist transformation, employing certain methods from Hegel’s *Phenomenology* understood as the theoretical reproduction of the concrete content of history.”[35]35 György Márkus (1934–2016), a Hungarian Marxist philosopher and member of the Budapest School of neo-Marxism. Kosík’s study of *Capital* also holds this view, distinguishing between the method of inquiry and the method of presentation in *Capital*. *Capital* begins its presentation with the commodity, which is the starting point of presentation chosen by Marx on the basis of the research result that “the commodity is a cell of capitalist society; as an abstract starting point, its revelation will reproduce the entire internal structure of capitalist society.” What *Capital* studies is the “Odyssey” of the commodity as subject, “describing the (economic) structure of the capitalist world as constituted by the real movement of this subject.”[36]36 Karel Kosík (1926–2003), a Czech Marxist philosopher, author of *Dialectics of the Concrete*. Marx’s *Capital* does not describe capital but is a theoretical critique of capital; economic categories are merely the surface, behind which lie substantive social problems. “The economy is not only the production of material products but also the production of social relations, the production of the environment for the production of material products.”[37]37 This is a paraphrase of a core argument in Kosík’s *Dialectics of the Concrete*. That is, Marx uses the commodity to reveal the objective world of social relations hidden behind the movement of commodities. Excavating philosophical thought from the perspective of Marx’s economics gradually became the mainstream tendency in understanding *Capital* in the mid-to-late 20th century. Eastern European neo-Marxism’s continuous reading of Marx’s thought played an important role in understanding Marx’s thought throughout the 20th century.

东欧新马克思主义以对马克思的人道主义解读著称，在西方马克思主义的影响下，重视马克思的哲学批判维度，对马克思早期思想中的人的本质概念、人的需要问题、实践概念这些为苏联马克思主义所忽视的哲学思想进行深入挖掘。在挖掘马克思早期哲学思想的过程中，他们并不赞同对马克思的断裂式理解，强调马克思前后期思想具有连续性，特别是马克思早期哲学思想与晚期的经济学理论并不矛盾。对马克思思想的连续性理解促使东欧新马克思主义重新回归到马克思的经济学作品中探索马克思思想的人道主义本质。1932年《手稿》的出版和1939—1941年间《大纲》的出版对东欧新马克思主义产生了重大影响，尤其是《大纲》,这部在马克思思想研究中不被重视的经济学作品在东欧新马克思主义看来却是理解马克思思想的关键，其连接了《手稿》和《资本论》,并且蕴含了马克思思想发展的连续性线索2。沙夫认为，阿尔都塞之所以对马克思进行了断裂式的解读就是因为没有读到《大纲》。“《政治经济学批判大纲》不仅详尽地论述了异化问题，同时也使其在马克思《资本论》体系中的理论和方法上的应用明朗化。马克思在这部著作中经常使用《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的概念和语言，因此也驳斥了存在两个马克思的论调。与此相反，异化理论在这部成熟马克思的著作中的活力与其早期著作相比并未减弱，《政治经济学批判大纲》清楚地表明异化理论渗透在《资本论》的整个知识结构当中”。于是，东欧新马克思主义将在理解马克思思想上产生歧义最多的三部经济学作品《手稿》《大纲》《资本论》作为一个连贯的理论体系加以理解，在对马克思哲学维度的人道主义解读基础上开辟经济学维度。东欧新马克思主义认为，马克思的经济学与哲学密不可分，经济学需要哲学分析，哲学也需要经济学的经验证实，经济学批判在某种程度上就是一种哲学。马尔库什说：“如果《资本论》意味着明确地从唯物主义的角度利用黑格尔《逻辑学》这一关于过程中的总体性的辩证法中的某些见解，那么《巴黎手稿》则显然以尝试激进的唯物主义的转变为特征，并且运用黑格尔《现象学》中的某些被理解为理论再现历史之具体内涵的方法。”附录154科西克对《资本论》的研究也持这种观点，区分了《资本论》的研究方法与叙述方法，《资本论》从商品开始叙述，商品是马克思对于“商品是资本主义社会的一个细胞，作为一个抽象的起点，对它的揭示将再生产整个资本主义社会的内部结构”研究结果基础之上选择的叙述起点，而《资本论》研究的是作为主体的商品的“奥德赛之旅”,“把资本主义世界的(它的经济)结构描述为由这一主体的现实运动构成的”。马克思的《资本论》不是在描述资本而是对资本的理论批判，经济范畴只是外表，其背后隐藏着实质性的社会问题。“经济不仅是物质产品的生产，也是社会关系的生产，是物质产品生产环境的生产”。也就是说，马克思用商品揭示的是商品运动背后隐藏的社会关系的客观世界。在马克思经济学视域中挖掘哲学思想在20世纪中后期逐渐成为理解《资本论》的主流倾向。东欧新马克思主义对于马克思思想的连续性解读，在整个20世纪对理解马克思思想发挥了重要作用。

(II) Transcending the Economic-Determinist Understanding of Marx in the Interpretation of Marx’s Economic Theory

(二)在对马克思经济学理论的解读中超越对马克思的经济决定论理解

In interpreting Marx, Eastern European neo-Marxism supplements the economic dimension, emphasizing, on the basis of a humanist interpretation of Marx’s thought, the need to return to the economic context for a deeper understanding of Marx. First, Eastern European neo-Marxism opposes deriving all social relations from economic relations in a reductionist manner. In the view of Eastern European neo-Marxism, relations of production are the most basic social relations, but social relations are not equivalent to relations of production; not all relations can be derived from economic relations, and therefore society as a whole cannot be understood solely from the perspective of economic theory. As Vajda put it: “Although political power relations are intertwined with economic relations in many ways, under capitalist conditions they are still not identical with economic relations; they cannot be derived from economic relations, nor do they constitute the superstructure of economic relations.”[38]38 Mihály Vajda (1935–2023), a Hungarian Marxist philosopher and member of the Budapest School. Second, Marx’s historical determinism differs from economic determinism; historical determinism does not negate the role of human beings but rather emphasizes that history is created by human beings. Economic determinism understands Marx’s critique of political economy as an economic science, which equates to understanding human beings at the abstract level of economic science, deducing the trend of human and historical development through abstract formulas. Within economic laws, human beings lack subjectivity and are objects to be dominated; understanding human beings and society according to economic determinism inevitably leads to the problem Marx criticized: “production appears as the purpose of man.”[39]39 This phrase echoes Marx’s critique in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* of the inversion of means and ends under capitalism. Eastern European neo-Marxism holds that economic determinism is fundamentally different from Marx’s historical determinism. Marx’s historical determinism means: “For each generation, there exists a definite range of action determined by the objective conditions inherited from their lives, a range of developmental possibilities and a range of choices (these ranges are more or less dependent on the characteristics of the aforementioned conditions), and human beings themselves, in practical activity (consciously or unconsciously), ‘choose’ from among these possibilities. Which of these possibilities is realized is determined by the totality of concrete human activities (a totality formed consciously or unconsciously).”[40]40 This formulation reflects the neo-Marxist emphasis on human agency within objective constraints, drawing on Marx’s *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*. By returning to the economic context, Eastern European neo-Marxism confirms that Marx does not negate human subjectivity in social development, thoroughly refuting the economic-determinist understanding of Marx. This reinterpretation of Marx from the economic perspective is a supplement to the philosophical perspective of interpreting Marx.

东欧新马克思主义在解读马克思的过程中补充了经济学维度，在对马克思思想的人道主义解读基础上，强调要回归经济学语境来深入理解马克思。首先，东欧新马克思主义反对以还原论的方式从经济关系中推导一切社会关系。在东欧新马克思主义看来，生产关系是最基本的社会关系，但社会关系并不等同于生产关系，从经济关系中不能推导出一切关系，故而不能单纯从经济理论出发来理解整个社会。如瓦伊达所言：“政治权力关系尽管以多种方式与经济关系交织在一起，在资本主义条件下仍然与经济关系不一致，不能从经济关系中获得，也不能构成经济关系的上层建筑。”其次，马克思的历史决定论不同于经济决定论，历史决定论不否定人的作用反而强调历史是人所创造的。经济决定论将马克思的政治经济学批判理解为经济科学，这样等同于将人放在经济科学的抽象层面去理解，通过抽象的公式来推演人及历史发展的趋势，人在经济规律中不具有主体性，是被支配的对象，按照经济决定论来理解人和社会必然会造成马克思所批判的“生产表现为人的目的”的问题。东欧新马克思主义认为，经济决定论与马克思的历史决定论具有本质差异，马克思的历史决定论意味着：“对于每一代人来说，存在着一个由他们生活的继承而来的客观条件所限定的既定的确定的行动范围，存在着一个发展可能性的范围和一个可选择的范围(这些范围或多或少地依赖于上述条件的特性),而人本身在实践活动中(有意识或无意识地)从这些可能性中作出‘选择’。这些可能性中的哪一个得以实现，由具体的人类活动总体(这个总体是有意识或无意识地结成的)所决定。”东欧新马克思主义回到经济学语境中确证了马克思并不否定人在社会发展中的主体性，彻底驳斥了对马克思经济决定论理解。在经济学视域中对马克思的重新解读是对马克思的哲学视域解读的一种补充。

From the interpretations of Marx by Eastern European neo-Marxist theorists, it can be found that they did not evade economics because of the Soviet Marxist and Western humanist schools’ understandings of Marx. They chose to confront Marx’s economics directly, clarifying their own humanist understanding of Marx’s thought within the economic context. On the basis of interpreting Marx’s thought, Eastern European neo-Marxism applied this understanding to the analysis of Eastern European socialism, pointing out that although Eastern European socialism had transcended the capitalist system, it had not yet transcended the existential state where “the purpose of man is production,” nor had it transcended the influence of economic determinism. Confining people to the abstract level of economic science would obscure the subjective role of human beings in the development of social history, so it was necessary to promote the humanization of Eastern European socialism by re-clarifying Marx’s thought. As the inaugural statement of the journal *Praxis* [41]41 *Praxis* was a Marxist humanist journal founded in 1964 by a group of Yugoslav philosophers and social theorists, associated with the so-called Praxis School, which sought to develop a critical and humanist Marxism distinct from Soviet orthodoxy. put it: “Without reviving and developing Marx’s philosophical thought, without thoroughly studying the works of all important Marxists, without adopting a Marxist, non-dogmatic, and critical attitude toward the unresolved problems of our time, a genuine, human socialist development is impossible.” Within the economic context, Eastern European neo-Marxism re-elaborated the view that “man appears as the purpose of production” rather than “production appears as the purpose of man” under new historical conditions, applied Marx’s economic theory to the analysis of real society under new historical conditions, and developed the Marxist social critique theory. Re-analyzing existing society through a reinterpretation of Marx’s thought has already become an important paradigm in the study of Marxist theory abroad. Under whatever historical conditions, only by starting from Marx’s thought and returning to the theoretical soul of Marx can the problems of existing society be profoundly revealed.

从东欧新马克思主义理论家对于马克思的阐释中可以发现，他们并没有因为当时苏联马克思主义和西方人本主义流派对马克思的理解而回避经济学，他们选择直面马克思的经济学，在经济学的语境中明确自身对马克思思想的人道主义理解。在解读马克思思想的基础上，东欧新马克思主义将这种理解应用到对东欧社会主义的分析中，指出东欧社会主义虽然超越了资本主义制度但是却并没有超越“人的目的是生产”的存在状态，并没有超越经济决定论的影响，将人局限在经济科学的抽象层面会遮蔽人在社会历史发展中的主体性作用，所以有必要通过重新澄清马克思思想促进东欧社会主义的人道化。正如《实践》杂志的发刊词所说的那样：“不使马克思哲学思想复活起来，加以发展，不透彻研究一切重要的马克思主义者们的著作，不对我们时代尚未解决的问题采取马克思主义的、非教条的、批判的态度，真正的、人道的社会主义发展是不可能的。”在经济学语境中，东欧新马克思主义在新的历史条件下重新阐发了“人表现为生产的目的”而不是“生产表现为人的目的”的观点，在新的历史条件下将马克思的经济学理论运用于现实社会的分析中，发展了马克思主义的社会批判理论。通过重新解读马克思的思想来分析现存社会已经是国外马克思主义理论研究的重要范式，无论在何种历史条件下，只有从马克思的思想出发，回到马克思的理论灵魂，才能深刻揭示出现存社会的问题所在。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心