Du Hongyan: Returning to the Economic Context: Eastern European Neo-Marxism's Supplement to the Humanist Interpretive Perspective of Marx

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 toward the critique of political economy—advancing from the conceptual study of the human essence toward the study of "real individuals" within production. In particular, proceeding from the relationship between humanity and production, Marx’s economic research reaffirmed Kant's ethical proposition that "man is an end." 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 interpreted one-sidedly as economic determinism or subjected to an abstract humanist interpretation. It was not until the 1920s and 30s that a new surge in studies of Capital again brought the problem of the relationship between philosophical and political-economic critique into the horizons of theorists. By the 1960s, a trend developed toward reconstructing the tradition of Marx's critique of political economy; for instance, the "New Reading of Marx" project initiated by Alfred Schmidt and others reintroduced political economy into social critique. During this period, East European Neo-Marxism made its own contribution. These thinkers criticized Soviet Marxism for neglecting the humanist elements in Marx's economic works, and they criticized certain Western Marxists for their negation and avoidance of Marx’s economic thought. Using the fundamental thesis that "man appears as the aim of production," they conveyed the humanist values contained within Marx's economic ideas.

Among them, Gajo Petrović entered the context of economics while translating the Grundrisse into Serbo-Croatian, analyzing the viewpoint of man as a "praxis" being contained in three economic works from different periods: the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (hereafter "the Manuscripts"), the Grundrisse (full title: Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy), and Capital. In Dialectics of the Concrete, Karel Kosík proposed that the key to understanding Marx's Capital lay in clarifying the relationship between economics and philosophy therein, concluding that "the commodity... is first of all a sensuous-practical thing, a creation and an expression of social labor in a specific historical form." Adam Schaff argued for the continuity of Marx's thought through the concepts of alienation and the human individual that run through Capital, the Grundrisse, and the Manuscripts. György Márkus’s research materials on Marx's human essence also primarily referenced economic works such as the Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, Capital, and Theories of Surplus Value. On one hand, the East European Neo-Marxist humanist interpretation of Marx within the context of economics demonstrates the difference between their approach and the abstract humanist interpretations of Marx by Western humanist schools; on the other hand, it refutes the erroneous perception among researchers that East European Neo-Marxism lacked studies in political economy.

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

During the developmental trajectory of 20th-century Marxism, the research that combined Marx's philosophical critique with his critique of political economy was gradually polarized. Soviet Marxism used Marx the economist to critique Marx the philosopher, thereby obscuring the humanist ideas in Marx’s thought. Meanwhile, Western humanist Marxist trends sought to reveal the humanist dimension of Marx’s thought and criticized the perceived "regression" of Marx’s thought from philosophy to economics, yet they themselves fell into conceptual discussions at the level of philosophical abstraction. The reason so many divergent opinions emerged in the interpretation of Marx is primarily due to the failure to clarify the close link between Marx’s philosophical critique and his critique of political economy. Marx’s philosophical theory was further verified and completed by the critique of political economy; specifically, it was within economics that Marx completed his study of "real individuals." Therefore, building upon the humanist interpretations of Marx by Western humanist Marxist schools, it is necessary to return to the context of economics to confirm the humanist essence of Marx’s thought.

(1) Marx Completed the Study of "Real Individuals" within Economics

Aided by the theoretical mediation of Feuerbach, Marx’s study of man moved from the "abstract man" toward "real individuals" ^[1], and further transcended Feuerbach's anthropology with the thesis that "the human essence is the ensemble of social relations." This definition of the human essence prompted Marx to clarify the necessity of economic research, because the relations of production are the most fundamental social relations, and these are in turn the economic relations within material production. Without entering the field of economics, one remains at the level of metaphysical conceptual analysis and cannot complete the study of "real individuals." It was precisely within the context of economics that Marx completed this study. In this context, Marx analyzed the alienated relationship between man and production as the product of specific social relations, thereby conducting a thorough critique of capitalist private property.

In his critique of alienated labor, Marx discovered that under conditions of low productive forces and before the establishment of private property, human production was aimed at obtaining the use-value of objects; thus, the quantity of man’s direct needs constituted the limit of his production. The emergence of private property caused a change in production centered on needs; human production was no longer for the sake of obtaining use-value, but for exchange value. This resulted in the limits of production no longer being set by the quantity of needs, but rather being constrained by wealth. Marx stated in the Manuscripts: "In the first case, need is the measure of production; in the second, the production of products—or rather the appropriation of products—is the measure of the extent to which needs can be satisfied." Private property changed the purpose of production from satisfying human needs to the appropriation of wealth. However, once the purpose of production is not the satisfaction of human needs, alienation occurs. In the activity of objectification, man's essential powers are not confirmed but are instead dominated by wealth, leading to production for the sake of acquiring wealth.

In the Grundrisse, Marx critiqued more deeply the problem of the human aim shifting toward production in capitalist society: "The ancient view, in which the human being... appears as the aim of production, regardless of his limited national, religious, or political character, seems very lofty when compared to the modern world, where production appears as the aim of mankind and wealth as the aim of production." When the relationship between production and exchange is inverted such that exchange determines production, and the aim of production shifts from obtaining use-value to the production of value, "man as the aim of production" is transformed into "production as the aim of man" and "wealth as the aim of production." In Capital, Marx summarized the problem of alienation under capitalist conditions as "the laborer exists for the process of production, and not the process of production for the laborer." It is evident that in Marx's economic works, although he conducts economic research in the surface structure, he reveals the humanistic core beneath the economic shell in the deep structure, critiquing the alienation of the relationship between man and production under the conditions of private property. At the same time, through the exposition of the relationship between man and production in the economic context, the subject of Marx’s research is not the concept of man at an abstract level, but the problem of "real individuals" within production. It can be said that Marx completed the deep-level study of "real individuals" through economics.

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

In the mid-20th century, Western humanist Marxist trends were popular in East European society. Early Western Marxism and Sartre's Existentialist Marxism both exerted a huge influence on East European Neo-Marxism. However, East European Neo-Marxists did not limit themselves to the romanticist interpretations of Marx found in Western humanist schools; rather, they sought to restore Marx's study of "real individuals" and further entered the economic context to conduct a humanist interpretation of Marx. The famous Polish Marxist Adam Schaff analyzed two theoretical trends that emerged under these historical conditions: one was Existentialism, which attempted to fill the "anthropological vacuum" in Marxism but, because it was divorced from man's social and historical nature, understood man as an abstract, generalized being; the other was a trend of ethical-humanist interpretation that proceeded purely from Marx's early thought and, due to its obsession with the early Marx, excluded "everything known as scientific socialism." In the view of East European Neo-Marxism, both trends were divorced from the economic context and failed to truly understand Marx.

First, targeting the then-popular thought of Sartre in Poland, Schaff criticized the Existentialist understanding of the individual as non-social and non-historical. For one, Existentialism and Marxism are not only different but completely antithetical. Schaff believed the focus of the divergence between Existentialism and Marxism lay in the "concept of the individual." In the Existentialist understanding, the individual is an isolated, lonely, and tragic being, whereas Marx understood the individual within social and historical relations. "It is precisely in the views of the young Marx that we can see a definite and resolute opposition to the Existentialist view on the individual... These views constitute a refutation of the theoretical foundation of Existentialism—the subjective, non-social, and a-historical theory of the individual." Sartre himself discovered that the isolated individual lacked sociality and later leaned toward a combination with Marxism, but Schaff believed that Existentialism and Marxism could not be combined. This is because Sartre was expressing his position with contradictions; if one insists on examining the individual historically and socially, one must abandon the theoretical foundations of Existentialism. That is to say, Existentialism holds that an individual must make independent decisions in situations of moral conflict, whereas Marxists hold that the individual makes decisions based on social conditioning. "Historical materialism explains individual actions and the motives for behavior through social conditioning, while Existentialism seeks the ultimate roots of social phenomena within the autonomous and self-legislating free individual. What appears here are two completely antithetical theories that cannot be unified."

Secondly, Existentialism is not true humanism. In Schaff's view, humanism refers to a theoretical system that regards man as the highest end. "The starting point of Marxism: man is the highest end, and one fights to overthrow the social relations that oppress him." Although Existentialism guarantees individual freedom, it does not achieve the full development of personality. Schaff argued that because the boundary between humanism and non-humanism is very blurred, people often face dilemmas in choosing, particularly under conditions where individual interests conflict with social interests; a person cannot choose entirely out of individual interest. Therefore, insisting on the absolute freedom of the individual is not necessarily humanist, especially in war. That is, man cannot make choices in isolation from social existence; one must emphasize man's social and historical nature and view man as a real, concrete human individual. "Socialist humanism is not concerned with the abstract man, but with man in real social and historical conditions, and with the concrete needs and possibilities for development that grow out of these specific social conditions." Existentialism failed to enter the economic context and could not understand man as a real, concrete human individual; the man it elucidated could only be an isolated, abstract man.

Secondly, the theoretical tendency in the 1930s that focused on an ethico-humanist interpretation of Marx based on his early writings excluded the content of scientific socialism. Figures such as Landshut, Mayer, Marcuse, and De Man went from one extreme to the other; by describing the young Marx as the "true" Marx and the Marx of the mature period as "dogmatic," they utterly rejected the thought of the mature Marx. Adam Schaff ^[7] did not agree with the practice of using the young Marx to negate the later Marx, but he did endorse the view that the young Marx’s works are of vital importance for understanding the later works. Schaff argued that Marx’s oeuvre is an organic whole, and to understand the integrity of Marx’s thought, one must understand that it has always been an anthropocentric humanism; from the early to the late periods, Marx consistently sought human liberation. "Anthropology explains Marx's later interest in numerous problems such as economics; it also provides a key to understanding the humanist significance of later scientific socialist theses, such as the class struggle or the dictatorship of the proletariat." Schaff believed that the reason for the misinterpretation of Marx's anthropology was that subsequent Marxism demoted anthropological questions from their position of primary importance to a concealed one, submerging the individual into society through classes and groups. Marx initially viewed the human individual in terms of relations with other individuals, but later interpreted the human individual as a social individual according to the sum of all social relations. A transition occurred from viewing the human individual socially to believing the human individual is the social individual. It was precisely this transition that caused Soviet Marxism to shift its focus to mass movements, obscuring the individual with the collective and gradually moving toward a mechanical understanding of man. Schaff maintained that although the theoretical perspective of Marx’s research changed, anthropology remained the core of his thought, within which the individual holds an ontological status. In Marx’s later thought, "economic research was 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, being merely a means to achieve a certain end—human liberation."

In summary, Marx completed his research on "real human beings" within an economic context. New Marxism in Eastern Europe ^[8] held that a humanist interpretation of Marx cannot be divorced from the economic context. Evading economics neither thoroughly refutes the Soviet Marxist mechanical understanding of man, nor avoids falling into the abstract humanist interpretations of Western Marxism ^[9]; it fails to truly reveal the problem of "real human beings" under new historical conditions.

II. Excavating the "Ultra-Economic" Characteristics of Marx’s Economic Theory

The Eastern European New Marxist humanist interpretation of Marx is not limited to Marx’s philosophical works but delves deep into his economic writings to reveal the "ultra-economic" characteristics of his economic theory. Here, "ultra-economic" refers to the fact that Marx used economic theory to conduct a "critique of political economy." This point became the point of departure for Eastern European New Marxism in elucidating these characteristics. At the time, Soviet Marxism emphasized Marx’s later economic works such as Capital; concepts like matter, nature, connection, motion, society, and productive forces occupied the central position in their understanding of Marx. Sartre criticized this Marxism for its "anthropological void." Not entirely in agreement with Sartre, Eastern European New Marxists argued that although Soviet Marxism did not discuss the philosophy of man, it presupposed a concept of man within its ideological system—namely, "man as homo economicus" ^[10]. This "economic animal" is an abstract understanding of man that deviates from Marx’s critique of "abstract man" directed at the Hegelians and Feuerbach, falling back into the "economic man" assumption of the classical economics Marx criticized. Based on this, Eastern European New Marxism sought to re-interpret Marx. "One of the basic achievements of the development of post-war philosophy in Yugoslavia was the discovery of man—the man who was excluded as an abstraction by the Stalinist version of Marxist philosophy, but who occupies the central position in true Marxist philosophical thought."

Through analyzing Marx’s economic works, Eastern European New Marxism concluded that the theories in the Manuscripts ^[11], the Grundrisse, and Capital all possess "ultra-economic" characteristics. "All three works embody a critique of political economy, a critique of capitalist economic reality, and the economic conditions of various class societies. None of them proceeds from a purely economic viewpoint, but primarily from a philosophical one. Furthermore, they share a common theoretical foundation: they all express a yearning for the realization of a true human society in which man is no longer alienated from himself, is no longer an economic animal, but becomes conscious of himself as a free and creative praxis-being." In his reading of the Grundrisse, Gajo Petrović ^[12] perceived that the ancient view elucidated by Marx—that "the purpose of production is man"—was more sublime than the modern view that "the purpose of production is wealth, and the purpose of man is production," because Marx’s economics is primarily concerned not with the economy, but with man. The ultimate aim of his economic research can be seen in the way his discussions of economic issues in the Manuscripts are always accompanied by philosophical summaries. In Petrović’s view, although the perspective of "regarding wealth as the all-round development of human capacities" and "the purpose of production is human development" is idealized, it remains more valuable than the view of "man as an economic animal," because Marx viewed the ancient and the modern from the perspective of the future—that is, he viewed capitalism within a critical horizon.

In the 20th century, Marx’s orthodox successors concluded from his view—that "the free, unobstructed, progressive, and all-round development of the productive forces is itself the prerequisite of society and therefore of social reproduction"—that "economic production (the material means of subsistence) has always been, and will continue to be, the ultimate determining realm of social life. In other words, in essence, man is an economic animal." Although Engels did not agree that the economic factor was the sole factor in social development, he believed it was the ultimate determinant. Although Labriola criticized interpreting Marx’s conception of history as an all-encompassing determinist doctrine of economic factors, he labeled historical materialism "economic materialism." Plekhanov despised economic materialism and the ultimate determinacy of economic factors, yet his understanding of economic factors did not include the productive forces. Lenin agreed with Plekhanov that the determining force of social development is the productive forces; Stalin further agreed that the change and development of society is always the change and development of the productive forces. According to the views of Marx and his orthodox successors, one finds that although there are many realms of social life, "the 'economic realm' directly determines the 'political realm' and the 'legal realm,' and indirectly determines all other realms of 'social consciousness.'" From these various understandings of the economy, it follows that Marx’s conception of history is both economic and non-economic; man is not merely an "economic animal," but he is primarily an "economic animal."

Regarding the ultimate determinacy of the economic factor discussed by Marx and his followers, Eastern European New Marxism conducted a foundational reflection: the relationship between the economic realm and other realms of social life is built on the premise that these other realms have always existed and will continue to exist. If these other realms are not eternal, can this determinacy still serve as a general theory for explaining history and society? Therefore, the determining role of economic factors is valid only during the "pre-history" of human society. "'Economic conditions' are not factors determining all economic development; rather, 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 then-dominant 'biological' factor, eventually becoming the decisive factor. Other interacting factors include 'political' and 'legal' ones. Today, in the age we inhabit, the 'economic' factor may lose its superiority." Capitalist society is split into many mutually independent and conflicting realms, with the economic realm occupying the dominant position. It is precisely this dominance that makes capitalist society a self-alienated society. Petrović further asked: in the future classless society, which factor will replace the economic one? Through interpreting Marx’s view that the communism which eliminates alienation is "the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social existence," Petrović concluded that the elimination of alienation means the elimination of the alienation of all human activities, meaning man becomes a complete, free, and creative praxis-being. This statement can only be understood by being situated within an economic context while simultaneously transcending it. "Transcending the level of political economy means understanding that, in a complete sense, man 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, namely, praxis." That is to say, man as an "economic animal" is in fact man in a state of self-alienation in capitalist society, who must ultimately be sublated. Under new historical conditions, by excavating the "ultra-economic" characteristics of Marx’s economic theory, Eastern European New Marxism revealed the essence of Marx’s economic research as a critique of political economy, thereby truly confirming the humanist essence of Marx’s thought.

III. Developing Marx’s Critique of "Economic Man"

The Eastern European New Marxist interpretation of Marx within an economic context is also manifested in further developing Marx’s critique of "economic man" under new historical conditions and applying it to criticize economistic views under Eastern European socialist conditions.

In the 19th century, Marx critiqued the "economic man" assumption of classical political economy. He argued that since Adam Smith, classical political economy represented economic relations between people as relations of interest; individuals in capitalist society were abstracted into "economic man," rationally pursuing the maximization of their own interests. "The economists express this as follows: each person pursues his private interest and only his private interest; and thereby, without knowing it, serves the private interests of all, the general interest." Classical political economy regarded the pursuit of interest as natural human essence, thereby providing a legitimizing defense for capital’s pursuit of profit based on this assumption. Marx conducted a foundational critique of this, arguing that "private interest is itself already a socially determined interest, which can be achieved only within the conditions laid down by society and with the means provided by society; that is, it is connected to the reproduction of these conditions and means." The realization of private interest is determined by social conditions and is not the result of the development of the "natural essence" of "economic man." Therefore, "economic man" is an abstract construct of classical political economy and an abstract expression of capitalist relations of production; the root of the problem can be traced back to private property creating "economic man." "Economic man" is entirely different from "real human beings"; it is an abstract, ahistorical, and non-concrete setting, while "real human beings" are those engaged in actual material production. "Economic man" is inevitably governed by economic laws, cannot make value-based choices in economic development, and lacks subjectivity. "Real human beings" are the subjects who engage in productive activities and create history.

In the 20th century, in order to advocate for the exertion of human subjectivity within the development of Eastern European socialism and to encourage humans to make value-oriented choices in economic life, Eastern European Neo-Marxism re-posed the question of "economic man" [homo oeconomicus], further developing Marx’s critical theory of this concept. Marković pointed out that in the understanding of Eastern European socialist economies, there existed a one-sided attitude that could be termed "economism," which attempted to rationalize the socialist economy through the mechanisms of commodity-money relations. He noted, "the characteristic of this view, which can be called economism, is that man is essentially an economic being (homo oeconomicus) and a consumer (homo consumentis), and the primary motive for production in socialist society is the attempt to maximize income." Eastern European economism understood man as an "economic animal," implying that all human activities are governed by economic laws. The labor of the governed "economic man" is naturally alienated: "The purpose of labor is no longer to satisfy the needs of another person, but the possibility of transforming labor into money—objectified labor in its general, impersonal form." Marković criticized economism for attempting to exclude the intervention and influence of the socio-political system in its entirety, thereby creating a myth of socialist commodity production and returning to the "economic man" assumption criticized by Marx. Marković opposed defining man as an "economic animal" because such a definition implies that human liberation can be achieved simply through economic development. Capitalist development has already falsified this proposition; there is no causal relationship between economic development and human liberation: "The obvious improvement of individual living conditions will not automatically undertake the task of creating a true human community in which synergy exists; without this synergy, the radical liberation of man is impossible." Marković returned once again to Marx’s approach to solving the problem: "the solution is the abolition of those relations in which the worker is involved during his labor process, the abolition of that condition in which he becomes merely a commodity in the reified world of commodities." Briefly put, the solution remains the transcendence of reified relations of production. "Society must gradually take certain measures to transcend commodity-money relations." On this basis, Marković argued that while transcending capitalist commodity-money relations, Eastern European socialism must also strive "not to return to the rule over man through a new social model." In the process of transcending capitalism, Eastern European socialism must transcend both the concentration of economic power and the concentration of political power, as either form of concentration obstructs the radical transformation of human relations.

In Dialectics of the Concrete, Kosík used Marx’s understanding of "economic man" as lacking subjectivity to criticize the mode of existence of man as "economic man" within the "world of pseudoconcreteness" ^[13]. Kosík argued that man in the world of pseudoconcreteness has two modes of existence: "man of care" ^[14] and "economic man." Both are modes of existence under the sway of the economy; the man of care is an unconscious subject, while "economic man" is a subject-turned-object—neither constitutes a true human being. First, "the original and basic mode of economic existence for man is care." The man of care intervenes in society under conditions of complete ignorance regarding the objectivity of the social environment, having not yet realized his own subjectivity; he is thus an unconscious subject. "Care is the practical involvement of the individual in a tangled mass of social relations as conceived from the perspective of his own personal, subjective involvement." Second, under the conditions of modernity, man reduces himself to an object even as he consciously intervenes in the world, transforming into an "economic man" who has lost subjectivity. "The economy is a system, a set of laws governing various relations in which man is constantly being transformed into ‘economic man.’ Once he enters the kingdom of the economy, man is refashioned. Having entered economic relations, he is dragged into environmental and law-like relations independently of his will and consciousness. In these economic relations, he functions as economic man, and he can only exist and realize himself to the extent that he performs the role of economic man." Man turns the economy into a science, and the economy turns man into "economic man"; man transforms from subject to object, becoming a fully stipulated element necessary for the establishment and operation of the economic system. In the "man of care" mode of survival, man is an unconscious subject; in the "economic man" mode, man is reduced to the level of a thing. The root cause of man becoming a "heavy" economic man devoid of subjectivity lies in the world of pseudoconcreteness. To restore human subjectivity, one must transcend the world of pseudoconcreteness and return to the concrete, total world—the real world. In the concrete, total world, although man remains within economic activities, he is no longer the unconscious "man of care" nor the manipulated "economic man," but rather the "real man" ^[15] who can exist as a subject.

In summary, to emphasize human subjectivity and manifest its role in social development, Eastern European Neo-Marxists developed Marx’s critique of "economic man" under 20th-century historical conditions. Within an economic context, they critiqued the reality of the loss of subjectivity—the transformation from subject to object—under the socio-historical conditions of the time.

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

Eastern European Neo-Marxism did not limit itself to a humanistic reading of Marx within a philosophical context but delved deeper into the economic context to explicate Marx's humanism. On 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 allowed it to transcend an economic-determinist interpretation of Marx. This provided theoretical support for the trend of reconstructing Marx's critique of political economy that emerged in the 1960s, presenting a specifically Eastern European perspective on understanding Marx in the 20th century.

(1) Excavating Philosophical Significance within Economic Theory to Construct a Continuous Understanding of Marx’s Thought

Eastern European Neo-Marxism is renowned for its humanistic reading of Marx. Influenced by Western Marxism, it emphasized the dimension of philosophical critique, deeply excavating philosophical ideas such as the essence of man, human needs, and the concept of praxis—ideas in Marx's early works that had been neglected by Soviet Marxism. While uncovering Marx’s early philosophical thought, they did not subscribe to a "break" ^[16] in the understanding of Marx; instead, they emphasized the continuity between his early and late periods, asserting that his early philosophical thought was not contradictory to his later economic theory. This continuous understanding prompted Eastern European Neo-Marxists to return to Marx’s economic works to explore the humanistic essence of his thought. The publication of the Manuscripts in 1932 and the Grundrisse between 1939 and 1941 had a major impact on Eastern European Neo-Marxism. The Grundrisse, in particular—an economic work previously overlooked in Marx studies—was seen by Eastern European Neo-Marxists as the key to understanding his thought. It connected the Manuscripts and Capital and contained the continuous thread of Marx’s intellectual development. Schaff argued that Althusser arrived at a "rupture" reading of Marx 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 within the system of Marx’s Capital. In this work, Marx frequently uses the concepts and language of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, thereby refuting any talk of 'two Marxs.' On the contrary, the vitality of the theory of alienation in this mature work of Marx is undiminished compared to his early writings; the Grundrisse clearly shows that the theory of alienation permeates the entire intellectual structure of Capital." Consequently, Eastern European Neo-Marxists treated the three economic works that had generated the most interpretative ambiguity—the Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, and Capital—as a coherent theoretical system, opening an economic dimension on the foundation of their philosophical humanistic reading. Eastern European Neo-Marxism held that Marx's economics and philosophy were inseparable: economics requires philosophical analysis, and philosophy requires the empirical verification of economics; the critique of political economy is, in a sense, a form of philosophy. Márkus stated: "If Capital means explicitly utilizing from a materialist perspective 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 a theoretical representation of the concrete content of history." Kosík also held this view in his study of Capital, distinguishing between its method of inquiry and method of presentation. Capital begins its presentation with the commodity; the commodity is chosen as the starting point because Marx revealed it to be the "cell of capitalist society, acting as an abstract starting point whose disclosure reproduces the internal structure of the entire capitalist society." However, Capital researches the "Odyssey" of the commodity as a subject, "describing the structure of the capitalist world (its economy) as constituted by the actual movement of this subject." Marx’s Capital is not a description of capital but a theoretical critique of it; economic categories are merely the appearance, behind which substantial social problems are hidden. "The economy is not only the production of material products, but also the production of social relations and the production of the environment for material production." That is to say, Marx used the commodity to reveal the objective world of social relations hidden behind the movement of commodities. Excavating philosophical thought within the horizon of Marxian economics became the mainstream trend for understanding Capital in the mid-to-late 20th century. The continuous interpretation of Marx’s thought by Eastern European Neo-Marxism played a crucial role in the understanding of Marx throughout the 20th century.

(2) Transcending Economic-Determinist Interpretations through the Reading of Marx’s Economic Theory

In the process of interpreting Marx, Eastern European Neo-Marxism supplemented the philosophical dimension with an economic one, emphasizing a return to the economic context for a deeper understanding. First, Eastern European Neo-Marxists opposed the reductionist method of deriving all social relations from economic relations. In their view, while the relations of production are the most fundamental social relations, social relations are not identical to relations of production. One cannot derive all relations from economic relations; therefore, one cannot understand society as a whole solely from economic theory. As Vajda said: "Political power relations, although intertwined with economic relations in many ways, remain inconsistent with economic relations under capitalist conditions; they cannot be derived from economic relations, nor do they constitute a superstructure of economic relations." Second, Marx’s historical determinism is distinct from economic determinism. Historical determinism does not negate the role of human beings; on the contrary, it emphasizes that history is created by humans. Economic determinism understands Marx’s critique of political economy as "economic science," which is equivalent to understanding humans at an abstract level of economic science, deducing human and historical development through abstract formulas. In such a view, humans lack subjectivity within economic laws and are merely objects of domination. Understanding man and society according to economic determinism inevitably leads to the problem criticized by Marx, where "production appears as the aim of mankind." Eastern European Neo-Marxism argued that economic determinism and Marx’s historical determinism are essentially different. Marx’s historical determinism means: "For every generation, there exists a given, determined range of action limited by the objective conditions inherited from their lives—a range of possibilities for development and a range of choices... and man himself, in his practical activity (consciously or unconsciously), makes 'choices' from these possibilities. Which of these possibilities is realized is decided by the totality of concrete human activity." By returning to the economic context, Eastern European Neo-Marxism confirmed that Marx did not negate human subjectivity in social development, thereby thoroughly refuting the economic-determinist interpretation. This re-interpretation of Marx within the economic horizon serves as a necessary supplement to the interpretation within the philosophical horizon.

It can be discerned from the interpretations of Marx offered by the East European Neo-Marxist theorists that they did not evade economics due to the understandings of Marx held by Soviet Marxism or Western Humanist schools at the time; instead, they chose to confront Marx’s economics directly, clarifying their own humanitarian understanding of Marx’s thought within the economic context. On the basis of interpreting Marx's thought, East European Neo-Marxism applied this understanding to the analysis of East European socialism. They pointed out that although East European socialism had transcended the capitalist system, it had not transcended the existential state where "the purpose of man is production," nor had it transcended the influence of economic determinism. Confining man to the abstract level of economic science obscures the subjective role of man ^[17] in social and historical development; therefore, it is necessary to promote the humanization of East European socialism by re-clarifying Marx’s thought. As the inaugural editorial of the journal Praxis ^[18] stated: "Without reviving and developing Marx’s philosophical thought, without a thorough study of the works of all important Marxists, and without adopting a Marxist, non-dogmatic, and critical attitude toward the unresolved problems of our time, the development of a true, humanistic socialism is impossible." Within the economic context, East European Neo-Marxism re-elucidated the viewpoint that "man appears as the purpose of production" rather than "production appears as the purpose of man" under new historical conditions. By applying Marx’s economic theories to the analysis of real-world society under these new conditions, they developed the social critical theory of Marxism. Analyzing existing society through a re-interpretation of Marx’s thought has already become an important paradigm in the study of foreign Marxist theory. Regardless of the historical conditions, it is only by proceeding from Marx’s thought and returning to the theoretical soul of Marx that the problems of existing society can be profoundly revealed.