Marxism Research Network
Unofficial English Translation

Ren Ping: Humanities Economics Research: A Major Agenda for the Theoretical Innovation of Marxism's Sinicization and Modernization

Xi Jinping Thought (New Era)

Chinese Communists shoulder the sacred mission of advancing the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. In recent years, research into Humanistic Economics has become a major agenda for the academic community in advancing Marxist theoretical innovation. On March 5, 2023, while participating in a deliberation with the Jiangsu delegation at the first session of the 14th National People's Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping set a research topic: "As the saying goes, 'Heaven is above, and Suzhou and Hangzhou are below.' Both Suzhou and Hangzhou are cities at the forefront of economic development. Places with highly developed cultures are likewise at the front of the pack economically. We can conduct some research into the Humanistic Economics found therein." On July 6 of the same year, during an inspection of Suzhou, Jiangsu, General Secretary Xi Jinping delivered a speech pointing out the distinct characteristics of the "Suzhou model" of development and indicating that the future of Suzhou is also the future of China: "Suzhou has done well in combining tradition and modernity; it has not only the inheritance of history and culture but also high-tech innovation and high-quality development, representing the direction of future development."

General Secretary Xi Jinping's new thesis on Humanistic Economics proposes a major new proposition for contemporary Chinese Marxist theoretical innovation: humanistic economy and Humanistic Economics (Humanomics). In recent years, Chinese scholars have focused closely on the theme of Humanistic Economics, exerting effort from various disciplines, perspectives, and dimensions to conduct "problem-breaking" research and interpretation regarding its profound background, significance, core tenets, and the principles of its systematic and academic construction. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s new thesis reveals a new relationship and archetype for the integrated development of humanity and economy, highlights the people-centered development philosophy, unlocks the "humanistic code" of high-quality development, and deepens the humanistic logic of Chinese-path modernization's "coordination between material and spiritual civilizations." Representing the direction of the future, it holds extremely important significance for the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Centering on this brand-new proposition, and in order to further deepen our understanding of the significance of Humanistic Economics research, we should anchor ourselves to the following focal points: First, with methodological consciousness, to profoundly recognize the original contribution made by General Secretary Xi Jinping’s new thesis on Humanistic Economics to the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Second, how Humanistic Economics becomes the humanistic logic that scientifically reflects and expresses the inherent requirements and future development direction of Chinese-path modernization. Third, to fully reveal and systematically elucidate the intellectual resources and theoretical lineage of Humanistic Economics. Fourth, to accurately grasp the core tenets and theoretical system of Humanistic Economics, thereby promoting the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.

I. Humanistic Economics: A Major Proposition and Original Contribution to the Sinicization and Modernization of Marxism

The first focal point in deepening the study of Humanistic Economics is to systematically organize and comprehensively understand the history of the emergence of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s new thesis. This involves the trajectory from the proposal of "cultural economy" in Zhijiang Xinyu [1] to the proposal of "Humanistic Economics" after the 20th CPC National Congress—a logic of theoretical evolution that is both consistent in lineage and advances with the times. It requires understanding the "questions of the times" it addresses and the solutions it provides, systematically summarizing and accurately understanding the core tenets of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s new thesis, and providing the most critical ideological guidance and theoretical basis for constructing an autonomous knowledge system for Humanistic Economics.

The history of texts and literature demonstrates that Humanistic Economics, as a theoretical innovation of original significance for the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, has undergone a complete process of innovation. General Secretary Xi Jinping has long focused on the intersection and interaction between culture and economy. As early as October 30, 2006, in an article titled "'Cultural Economy' Brightens the Zhejiang Economy" published in his Zhijiang Xinyu column in Zhejiang Daily, he proposed the concept of "cultural economy," emphasizing that its "essence lies in the integrated development of culture and economy." In many documents such as Zhijiang Xinyu, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized the relationship between culture and economy. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the integration of culture and economy has been gradually enriched and deepened through the organic combination of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture and Xi Jinping Thought on Economy, until it was distilled into the proposition of Humanistic Economics within the major strategy of comprehensively advancing Chinese-path modernization. This reflects and expresses the essential requirements and future development direction of Chinese-path modernization, constituting a complete discursive logic that advances with the times. Comprehensively sorting through the logic of these literary discourses and profoundly recognizing the new thesis of Humanistic Economics is an inevitable choice for contemporary Chinese Marxist theoretical innovation. It is the theoretical crystallization and consistent advocacy of the organic combination of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture and Xi Jinping Thought on Economy, and an original contribution to Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. To this end, we must focus on understanding it from the following aspects.

First, the new proposition and original contribution are rooted in the "questions of practice." Humanistic Economics is an original theoretical generalization rooted in Chinese soil, drawing from Chinese experience, and reflecting the essential requirements of the Chinese path. Theoretical innovation must be problem-oriented, originating from practice and guiding practice. During his time working in Zhejiang, General Secretary Xi Jinping thought deeply about why Zhejiang, as a pioneer of China's reform and opening up, saw such success in the "Zhejiang people's economy." Germinating from this question, he focused on the important role of the "interaction and intersection of culture and economy" in driving Zhejiang's development, and subsequently used "cultural economy" as a theme to elucidate the important idea of the integrated development of culture and economy. Starting from a comprehensive observation of the reality of Zhejiang's development, he deeply analyzed and summarized the historical experience of Zhejiang, emphasizing that Zhejiang people are both "adept at excavating economic elements and commercial opportunities within cultural traditions" and skillful at "driving economic development through the power of culture." The "cultural economy" brightened the Zhejiang economy. It is evident that this new thesis is rooted in Chinese soil and supported by rich practical samples; it is "China-thought" [2] highly refined and sublimated from reality.

Second, the new proposition and original contribution are manifested in the "newness" of the research object and essential content, requiring us to "grasp the root of the matter" for thorough reflection and theoretical sublimation. Research into a brand-new proposition requires theoretical thoroughness. Marx said: "To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself." The discussions in the Zhijiang Xinyu literature penetrate perceptual practical experience with a thorough spirit of "grasping the root of the matter," using original discourse to accurately express the basic connotation of "cultural economy": "The so-called cultural economy is a collective term for the 'economization' of culture and the 'culturalization' of the economy; its essence is the intersection, interaction, and integrated development of culture and economy." This classic summary of "cultural economy" breaks through the malady of "commodity fetishism" in Western economics. It uses the basic principles of the "determination and counter-reaction" [3] of historical materialism to clarify the relationship between economy and culture, while innovatively expanding the new relationship of their intersection and interaction, elucidating the two-way transformation mechanism of "cultural economization and economic culturalization." Furthermore, this summary emphasizes the dialectical relationship that "economy is the flesh and blood, culture is the soul" in the development of human society.

Third, the new proposition and original contribution are manifested in the "newness" of the theoretical answer. One must stand at the height of adhering to the principles of historical materialism to provide an innovative answer to the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, elucidating the mechanism of "cultural empowerment" in an all-around way: "Culture endows economic development with profound humanistic value." First is establishing the person through culture (以文立人); culture makes human economic activity a subjective behavior, allowing it to escape "reification" [4] and enabling free and well-rounded development. Second is prospering industry through culture (以文兴业); the combination of advanced culture and human factors improves the quality of the labor force, greatly expands the space for labor, and causes the ability and quantity of wealth creation to grow exponentially. Third is cultivating harmony through culture (以文化育和谐); this promotes mutual communication, enhances social cohesion and competitiveness, promotes political and social harmony, and uses culture to augment community functions to resolve social contradictions and optimize the development environment. This comprehensive explanation fully reveals the scientific mechanism by which culture provides a soul for the economy and drives the interaction of culture and economy into a "cultural economy," writing a major chapter rooted in Chinese soil on pioneering the development of the cultural economy.

Fourth, the new proposition and original contribution are manifested in the "newness" of the research horizon, necessitating the expansion of theoretical innovation. The literature profoundly elucidates that "the essence of 'cultural economy' lies in the integrated development of culture and economy, which, in the final analysis, must highlight the word 'person' (人)." The "Zhejiang people's economy" has the "person as its foothold; it is more of a cultural concept." In advancing the development of China’s urban and rural undertakings, "the core is the person, and the destination is the person." "People increase their own value by creating more economic value." "Culture is 'humanization' (人化); the cultural undertaking is an undertaking that nourishes the mind and cultivates the temperament. Man is, in essence, a cultural being, not a 'reified' being; he is an active, well-rounded being, not a rigid, 'one-dimensional' being. Humanity pursues not only material conditions and economic indicators but also a 'happiness index'; not only the harmony of the natural ecosystem but also the harmony of the 'spiritual ecosystem'; not only efficiency and equity but also the harmony of interpersonal relationships, the enrichment of spiritual life, and the meaning of life."

In summary, this discussion of original texts profoundly elucidates the essential connotation and primary functions of "cultural economy," emphasizing that culture is the soul sustaining the economy and that the root of the cultural economy lies in the person themselves. It outlines a theoretical map of "cultural economy," laying a solid ideological foundation for us to further understand and accurately grasp the development from "cultural economy" to the new thesis of Humanistic Economics, which has progressed with the times to become a brand-new proposition of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and an original contribution to Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the comprehensive proposal of the new thesis of Humanistic Economics represents a continuous deepening of research into "cultural economy" within the horizon of the organic combination of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture and Xi Jinping Thought on Economy. More importantly, it is an innovative answer to the "question of practice" regarding how to comprehensively advance the development of Chinese-path modernization at this historical juncture of the New Era and the new journey. Regarding culture, General Secretary Xi Jinping’s assertions that "culture is an important fulcrum for promoting high-quality development" and "culture is an important factor in meeting the people's growing needs for a better life" fully demonstrate that the integrated development of culture and economy is an inevitable choice that obeys objective laws on the new journey in the New Era. It is the specific expression of the 20th CPC National Congress report's point that "Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of the coordination between material and spiritual civilizations." While providing a comprehensive exposition of cultural thought in series of speeches on continuing the Chinese cultural lineage, strengthening cultural confidence and innovation, and endowing Chinese-path modernization with profound substance through Chinese civilization, General Secretary Xi Jinping also proposed strategies in the reports of the 19th and 20th CPC National Congresses to drive economic development through major cultural innovations, highlighting the important content of empowering socio-economic development through culture. From this, it can be seen that as an important proposition of the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism—from its germination in the thematic reflection on the "cultural economy" behind the "Zhejiang experience" to a theoretical advocacy grasping the overall strategic situation of Chinese-path modernization—Humanistic Economics has finally made its brilliant debut.

II. Practical Consciousness and "People-Centeredness": The Logic Reflecting and Expressing the Essential Requirements and Future Development Direction of Chinese-path Modernization

The second focal point for deepening the understanding of theoretical innovation is to persist in combining the basic principles of Marxism with China's specific realities, and to comprehensively elucidate that Humanistic Economics is a logic of "humanistic return" that reflects and expresses the essential requirements and future development direction of Chinese-path modernization.

The era is the mother of thought; practice is the source of theory. As a brand-new proposition in the theoretical innovation of 21st-century Chinese Marxism, the proposal of "Humanistic Economics" [5] and its new theoretical assertions are intrinsic requirements of Chinese-path modernization and represent the future direction of development. The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) solemnly declared: "From this day forward, the central task of the CPC will be to lead the Chinese people of all ethnic groups in a concerted effort to realize the Second Centenary Goal of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects and to advance the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through Chinese-path modernization." For Chinese-path modernization to dispel the historical myth of Western modernization and form its "Chinese characteristics" and essential "newness," it must objectively and simultaneously break the discourse hegemony of Western economics—which reflects and expresses Western modernization—and construct an independent knowledge system of Humanistic Economics.

Humanistic Economics effectively resolves the series of defects in Western economics, such as the "absence of humanity" and the "humanistic paradox." It deepens the humanistic logic of Chinese-path modernization—which is "people-centered," pursues the road of "common prosperity," and seeks "coordination between material and spiritual civilizations" [6]. It emphasizes the integrated symbiosis of humanistic prosperity and economic development and deciphers the "humanistic code" of high-quality development in Chinese-path modernization. In doing so, it provides a solid material foundation and majestic spiritual strength for advancing Chinese-path modernization and creating a new form of human civilization. This represents a practical consciousness rooted in combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities, aiming to promote the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Its significance is fully reflected in the following aspects:

First, Humanistic Economics reflects and expresses the essential requirement of Chinese-path modernization to address and transcend the series of defects inherent in Western modernization. A major mission of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism lies in profoundly exposing the inevitability of the series of collapses caused by the profit-seeking nature of Western capital and its fundamental contradictions. It must also profoundly clarify the inevitability of Chinese-path modernization transcending these defects through a "people-centered" pursuit. The inevitability of the "absence of humanity" in Western modernization leading to a series of collapses is manifested in six ways:

  1. The "logic of reification" in the feast of capital seriously hinders the development of technological innovation and industrial revolution; meanwhile, the pursuit of capital appreciation leads to comprehensive conflict with the fundamental interests of the masses, deepening social divides and causing economic collapse through constant crises.
  2. The logic of capital causes "market failure," cyclical economic crises, and the comprehensive alienation and antagonism of economic and social relations, leading to total social collapse.
  3. False democracy leads to "government failure," national division, and political collapse.
  4. The prioritization of "egoistic" values promoted by capital's profit-seeking leads to social fragmentation and cultural crisis, causing the collapse of humanistic value systems.
  5. The profit-driven impulse of capital causes comprehensive conflict and rupture in the relationship between man and nature, leading to the total collapse of the natural conditions and metabolic functions required for human survival.
  6. Western countries, led by the United States, advocate unilateralism, hegemonism, imperialism, and neo-imperialism, throwing the world into turmoil and leading to the collapse of the global governance system.

The root cause of these six major collapses lies in the fundamental contradictions, comprehensive alienation, and humanistic crises caused by the profit-seeking nature of capital. The fundamental divergence between humanistic values and the "rational man" [7] assumption extolled by the logic of capital serves as the primary expression of this contradiction. Resolving these defects and puzzles becomes the necessity for the emergence of the "newness" of the path and essence of Chinese-path modernization.

Chinese-path modernization adheres to the people-centered development philosophy and the basic socialist economic system. It uses Humanistic Economics to stimulate vitality and promote high-quality development to resolve the Western crisis in technological innovation and productive forces. It adopts the "people-centered" approach of Humanistic Economics as its fundamental value orientation, advocating a path of modernization toward common prosperity for all people to resolve the social crises of capitalism. It employs modernization characterized by harmony between humanity and nature to resolve ecological crises. Finally, it uses a modernization that follows the path of peaceful development and creates a new form of human civilization to improve the global governance system and resolve the crisis of civilizations. By reversing the trends of the aforementioned six collapses, it achieves a transcendence of Western modernization. With the successful practice of "the modernization of man," Chinese-path modernization has broken the hegemonic monopoly held by the Western model of "the modernization of things" [8] over modernization practices. This signals the practical bankruptcy of the unilinear view of history inherent in Western modernization. However, transforming practical success into the success of economic theoretical discourse requires the further dismantling of the discourse hegemony of Western economics—with its inherent "absence of humanity" and "humanistic paradox"—and the construction of a Humanistic Economics oriented toward the "people-centered" essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization.

Second, Humanistic Economics represents a transcendence of the "humanistic paradox" caused by the "rational man" assumption in mainstream Western economics, which reflects the demands of the logic of capital. Adam Smith, the founder of Western economics, defined the subject in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations as the "rational man" filled with profit-seeking nature in the economic sphere—that is, "capital personified." Paradoxically, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, he viewed man as a cultural subject in social life, believing human social nature to be rich in moral emotion and humanistic aspiration. However, viewing the economic and social spheres as "two parallel worlds" separated by rigid barriers—splitting the "rational man" from the "moral man" and excluding humanistic elements from the field of economics—is the theoretical pathology that has prevented Western economics from escaping the "humanistic paradox." This defect was termed the "Smithian Dilemma" or "The Adam Smith Problem" by Rosa Luxemburg in her History of Political Economy. Essentially, it is a "humanistic paradox" or "absence of humanity" caused by the rupture between the humanistic and the economic. Max Weber attempted to bridge this divide in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but his method was merely to reduce the Protestant ethic to the spirit of "capitalist personification." In the 20th century, the great split between "humanism" and "instrumental rationality" directly tore apart these two foundations of Western modernity, leading to the desolation of Western modern culture into "late modernity." Daniel Bell illustrated this scene of cultural contradiction and social fragmentation in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. The crisis of Western modernity eventually led toward postmodernity amidst the "death of man" and the "collapse of reason." Every global economic crisis of the 20th century has signaled the "market failure" of the "rational man" assumption in its pursuit of economic equilibrium. The international financial crisis of 2008 once again signaled the "total collapse" of the attempt to regenerate a "market-oriented" system through the logic of capital innovation.

Humanistic Economics upholds the fundamental "people-centered" stance and the essential requirement of common prosperity in Chinese-path modernization. It creates a new people-centered economics that transcends the barriers of private-interest orientation and capital fetishism inherent in the "rational man" assumption of Western economics. It is in this sense that Humanistic Economics is the economic expression of the essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization; it is the innovation and development of the people-centered development thought of historical materialism in the New Era. In the new stage of comprehensively advancing Chinese-path modernization, this connotation has been further innovated and developed into the "philosophy of people-centered modernization." This maintains that the development of Chinese-path modernization is for the people, relies on the people, and its fruits are shared by the people. It ensures that the achievements of modernization benefit all people more extensively and fairly, following the path of "common prosperity" where "the entire population shares the fruits of modernization." This is the essential requirement of Chinese-path modernization and, moreover, the fundamental purpose of the "humanistic return" of Humanistic Economics. It can be said that Humanistic Economics in the New Era is the humanistic logic guiding high-quality development.

Third, Humanistic Economics deciphers the "humanistic code" of high-quality development and constitutes the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. This judgment is made for several reasons. First, developing new quality productive forces is an intrinsic requirement and key focus for promoting high-quality development. Historical materialism points out that productive forces are the fundamental driving force of human social development. New quality productive forces are the primary kinetic energy for high-quality development. Promoting high-quality development requires not only seizing the major opportunities of the new round of technological revolution to drive industrial revolution through disruptive technologies but also requires innovative humanistic empowerment. This means being supported by profound humanistic foundations, guided by new humanistic goals, and guaranteed by new humanistic tracks and rules. Innovation is essentially an undertaking that is people-oriented and people-centered. Humans are both the initiators of innovation and the practitioners of technological application; they are the most active and decisive agents in forming new quality productive forces. Without individuals imbued with the spirit of "valuing culture and exquisite craftsmanship" [9], and without talent possessing innovative qualities, there can be no subjects to invent or master new quality productive forces. In such a scenario, all high-quality development would become "water without a source or a tree without roots." One establishes the person through culture and prospers the industry through culture; "in promoting high-quality development, culture is an important fulcrum."

Second, the dominance of humanistic new kinetic energy is an inevitable requirement of the law of evolution of Total Factor Productivity (TFP). TFP refers to the additional production efficiency achieved under given levels of various factor inputs. This extra efficiency mainly comes from improvements in factor quality or resource allocation efficiency. While other inputs remain relatively stable, resources, management, capital, technological innovation, and humanistics can all become dominant factors driving resource allocation variables. New quality productive forces, as dominant factors, represent a new form and stage in the evolution of TFP. However, on a global scale, the dominant driving factors in TFP vary across different stages of development. In the first stage of TFP improvement, the driving factor is primarily resources, forming the primary industry and a resource-led economy. In the second stage, the driving factor is primarily capital, forming a capital-led economy that dominates diversified industries. The profit-seeking orientation inherent in a capital-led economy inevitably enters into sharp conflict with the public's goal of common prosperity; thus, it must inevitably exit the stage. The third stage arrives with the technological revolution bringing about industrial revolution and the emergence of new quality productive forces, forming a pattern led by innovation with resources and capital factors as subordinates. This is the inevitable choice in the era of accelerated innovation of the fourth industrial revolution in the 21st century. Technological revolution and new quality productive forces must break away from the simple "efficiency-first" trend of "capitalism + technological revolution"—which is advocated by Western right-wing "accelerationism" and is anti-human and anti-democratic. We must use humanistic new kinetic energy to effectively respond to this directional and strategic challenge, using Humanistic Economics to seize the initiative in leading the technological revolution. Therefore, humanistic new kinetic energy will inevitably become the dominant factor in the fourth stage of TFP development.

Third, only by establishing new humanistic goals can we correctly guide the future direction of high-quality development and create new humanistic forms—namely, a humanistic economic formation. In the West, the entire chain of technological and industrial revolution is under the control of capital. From strategic R&D layouts to industrial promotion plans, everything serves the profit-seeking of capital, acting as the latest sharp tool for exploiting the masses. To ensure that China's high-quality development does not deviate in direction, suffer strategic failures, or encounter major setbacks in its overall process, we need the directional guidance of "people-centered" new humanistic goals. Centering closely on the goal of meeting the people's needs for a better life, we must correctly guide the technological revolution, drive the strategic layout of the industrial revolution, and promote the transition of the dominant new kinetic energy of TFP toward a new stage of humanistic empowerment factors. This is the new humanistic form advocated by Humanistic Economics.

Fourth, Humanistic Economics is the humanistic logic of the "coordination between material and spiritual civilizations" in Chinese-path modernization. The fundamental reasons for this are threefold. First, Chinese-path modernization pursues a humanistic return. By using the "newness of the path" and "newness of essence," it breaks the rupture between material and spiritual civilizations—an inevitable result of Western modernization's obsession with "the modernization of things" driven by the profit-seeking nature of capital logic. This is an inevitable requirement for moving toward the new goal of "the modernization of man." Second, "culture is an important factor in meeting the people's growing needs for a better life." Constantly meeting the people's aspirations for a better life is the fundamental purpose of Chinese-path modernization. A better life for the people requires not only material abundance but also spiritual wealth. Therefore, enriching the people's spiritual world and achieving common prosperity for all people are essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization. Material civilization is based on "the modernization of things," providing the foundation for the prosperity and development of the spiritual civilization contained within "the modernization of man." Conversely, "the modernization of man" appeals to spiritual civilization to elevate the realm and quality of material civilization. Third, "culture is an important fulcrum for promoting high-quality development." Culture comprehensively elevates the realm and quality of economic development and, moreover, infiltrates the soul of high-quality economic development. By establishing the person through culture, we comprehensively improve the quality of the human subject—the most active and critical element of the productive forces—thereby elevating the realm of high-quality development in Chinese-path modernization.

III. "Cultural Combination" and Intellectual Resources: The Theoretical Context for Constructing an Independent Knowledge System of Humanistic Economics in the New Era

The third focal point for deepening our understanding of theoretical innovation is the comprehensive sorting of theoretical lineages and intellectual resources required to construct an autonomous knowledge system for New Era humanistic economics. This involves innovation primarily across three important dimensions:

First, humanistic economics possesses a Marxist "soul-line" (hunmai). It is necessary to provide a theoretical positioning for humanistic economics within the systematization and academic formalization of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. The reflexive critique within humanistic economics regarding the "loss of the human" in Western economics originates from Marx’s critique of political economy and the basic theories of historical materialism. We must "Return to Marx" and trace the intellectual trajectory of critical reflection on Western economics, from the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (hereafter referred to as the Manuscripts) to Capital.

Second, we must comprehensively sort the "root-line" (genmai) of fine traditional Chinese culture to open a new field of inquiry for humanistic economics through the "Second Combination"—the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture [10].

Third, we must combine firm cultural self-confidence with an open spirit to open paths for dialogue between the theories and practices of humanistic economics in China and other countries. This involves breaking through the intellectual barriers of Western economics and absorbing the rational experiences and intellectual resources of humanistic economics from all nations with a global vision, thereby constructing a Chinese discourse and narrative system for New Era humanistic economics.

New Era humanistic economics continues the essence of the "soul-line" of the basic principles of Marxist political economy and historical materialism. This is the fundamental ideological prerequisite for accurately understanding and grasping the essential meaning of New Era humanistic economics. Marx’s Manuscripts served as the inaugural work exploring Marxist humanistic economics, setting an intellectual precedent and providing several important theoretical fulcrums and contemporary inspirations for founding New Era humanistic economics through the critique of political economy and historical materialism.

First, by reflexively critiquing Western economics within an economic context, Marx set an academic precedent for New Era humanistic economics to critique and transcend the "human absence" inherent in Western economics. Without entering the context of economics and without reflecting on and critiquing the defects of Western economics, Marx could not have uncovered the secrets of civil society and the logic of capital. Similarly, if contemporary Marxism does not enter the context of 21st-century economics to reflect on and critique its defects, it cannot found New Era humanistic economics. As the inaugural work on Marx's path toward founding historical materialism, the Manuscripts utilized a firm "problematic of reflection" and a rigorous critical discourse on national economy [11] to explicitly point out the "human absence" and "human paradox" in Western economics, thereby transcending the horizons of Feuerbach, Hess, and others who limited their critiques of capitalism to moralization. A major mission in constructing the discourse of New Era humanistic economics is to continue and develop this intellectual tradition—to retrace Marx’s path of inquiry and promote the grand emergence of a new form of New Era humanistic economics by doubly transcending the "human absence" and narrow intellectual barriers of Western economics.

Second, while critically studying the works on national economy by Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Say, Skarbek, List, and others, Marx pointed out with piercing accuracy that the fundamental flaw of their theories lay in their "indifference toward man." Their core defect was causing the total loss of the "species-essence" status of man as a laborer. Marx reached this conclusion with high theoretical confidence: "It is hardly necessary to assure the reader conversant with political economy that my conclusions have been arrived at by means of a wholly empirical analysis based on a conscientious critical study of political economy." Starting from this empirical analysis and the reflection on the "human absence" in Western economics, Marx opened the path for a critique of political economy leading to historical materialism, and consequently, the path for constructing New Era humanistic economics.

Third, the Manuscripts further attributed the fundamental cause of the "disregard for man"—the "human absence" and "human paradox" in Western economics—to "alienated labor," which leads to the separation and opposition between human existence and essence. Marx critiqued national economy because, while starting from private property, it could not rationally explain the fundamental "anti-human" fact: "The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range." This is a state where "objectification appears as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation." As a concentrated expression of the rupture and opposition in the relations between laboring subjects, the "rational man" of profit-seeking nature and the "original man" are, in essence, products of "alienated labor." Marx summarized the fourfold definitions of alienated labor: the alienation of the worker from the product of labor (Alienated Labor I); the alienation of labor itself (Alienated Labor II); the alienation of man’s species-essence, namely labor and life (III); and the comprehensive inversion and alienation of the relationship between man and man (IV). Alienated labor creates the separation and opposition between human essence and existence; private property is actually the resulting form of alienated labor. The result of alienated labor makes the laborer a "being who has lost himself," while correspondingly, "capital is man who has completely lost himself"—this is what humanistic economics describes as "human absence" and the "human paradox." Therefore, this essential revelation defined the field for humanistic economics to resolve the "human paradox" and pointed the way forward.

Fourth, the Manuscripts for the first time used humanist dialectics to deeply reflect on and interpret the logic of alienation and its sublation [12] from an economic-philosophical perspective, proposing the mission of a "humanistic return." In Marx’s view, sublating alienated labor meant removing the separation and alienation between human essence and existence and moving toward the restoration of human essence, thus pointing the way for humanistic economics to seek the path of "humanistic return."

Following the Manuscripts, Marx further deepened his philosophical revolution. Although his intellectual process shifted from abstract humanist dialectics to historical materialism, he did not abandon his thinking on the two key focal points of humanistic economics (the critical reflection on "human absence" and the exploration of the "humanistic return"). Instead, he used historical materialism to deepen the critique of the logic of capital and the deep-seated defects of Western economics, scientifically discovering the path to achieve a "humanistic return." Starting from the London Notes and the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858 (Grundrisse), Marx used historical materialism to analyze and interpret the profound causes of alienated labor, revealing the reified logic of the capitalist mode of production and the reproduction of relations of production. He pointed out that "human absence" is the inevitable result of alienated labor and the manifestation of the reification of living labor, capital fetishism, and the personification of capital. Furthermore, in Capital, Marx stood at the height of historical materialism to provide deep, scientific answers to the key questions regarding humanistic economics raised in the Manuscripts from four aspects, thereby providing scientific theoretical guidance for the construction of Marxist humanistic economics.

First, through the critique of political economy, he throroughly completed the philosophical revolution. He abandoned the humanist dialectical logic of achieving a "return of species-essence" through the sublation of alienation by a transcendental "abstract man." This provided the solidest theoretical foundation of historical materialism for scientifically exposing the roots of "human absence" caused by the logic of capital and for seeking the real-world path to "humanistic return."

Second, he moved from the critique of political economy as a "copy" (fùběn) to a critique of the logic of capital as the "original" (zhèngběn) of the socio-economic formation. Marx discovered that British and French classical political economy was the economic expression of the logic of capital, and thus existed in the form of a "copy." While critiquing the "copy" cleared the horizon for entering the critique of the "original," it could not entirely replace it. Therefore, Marx changed his original intention and titled his work Capital to mark the theme, with the research subject being "the capitalist mode of production and the relations of production and forms of intercourse corresponding to it," while using "A Critique of Political Economy" as the subtitle, indicating the primary-secondary relationship between the two. Furthermore, he revealed that the deep reality-based root of the "absence of man"—the "original"—is the logic of capital, while the defects of the "rational man" hypothesis are merely the "copy" expressed in classical economic discourse. Thus, tracing the real source of "human absence" through the critique of the "original" logic of capital revealed the objective laws of "humanistic return" and opened a scientific path toward the goals of humanistic economics.

Third, using the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value, he comprehensively and profoundly dissected why the "objective reality" of the "reified logic" of commodity, money, and capital fetishism (alienated labor) appears. This is not merely due to the "intuition" of classical economics, but at a deeper level because, in commodity production, the social relations between people "assume the fantastic form of a relation between things." This fetishism is inseparable from commodity production and "arises from the peculiar social character of the labor that produces commodities." The mechanism of capital fetishism is the same. Once labor power as a commodity enters the production process under the domination of capital, and once the product of labor becomes a capitalized commodity, both "living labor" and "objectified labor" become objects of the "reification" of capital. "Real people"—whether laborers or capitalists—cease to be "human" and are instead reified as enslaved objects or the "personification of capital," thus uncovering the true root of the defects of the personification of capital and "human absence."

Fourth, by profoundly exposing the secrets of capital exploitation, he revealed the law of "iron necessity"—the exit of the logic of capital and the inevitable emergence of socialism—thereby pointing out the real path toward the "emancipation of the proletariat and humanity" and the "humanistic return." Clearly, Marx’s critique of political economy and historical materialism provides key theoretical fulcrums for the founding of New Era humanistic economics.

Constructing an autonomous knowledge system for New Era humanistic economics requires a comprehensive sorting of the "root-line" of fine traditional Chinese culture inherent in this field, opening a new domain for humanistic economics through the "Second Combination." In the five-thousand-year history of Chinese civilization, the rich tradition of humanistic economics is not only recorded in the vast classics of Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Mohism over millennia, but is also embedded in the long-standing practice of humanistic industry and commerce. If the original economics of Ancient Greece primarily referred to the wisdom of managing profit and utility within "householding" (oikonomia), then the fine traditional Chinese humanistic economic tradition is markedly different: it advocates a "Hehe" (harmony-and-convergence) economics [13] defined by the principles: "Rise and illuminate it, sufficient to manage the world and benefit the people" (jingji) and "Observe the humanistic patterns to transform and complete the world." The concept of "economics" (jingji) in Hehe economics means jingshi jimin—managing the world and benefiting the people. Jingshi jimin was the standard of conduct for ancient sages, aiming for social prosperity and the peaceful settlement of the common people; this is the inherent meaning of "transforming the world through humanism." This grand ambition aims to practice the "Gentleman’s way of enriching life" (housheng) to "establish a mission for the people" [14], carrying the great righteousness of universal abundance, social prosperity, and the well-being of the populace.

Hehe economics rejects "profit-seeking as the sole aim" and instead advocates the principles of "righteousness before profit" and "balancing righteousness and profit." It emphasizes building a "unity of heaven and man" business environment supported by profound humanistic foundations such as "great virtue carries all things" (houde zaizhuo). It aims to build a development community with a world-encompassing spirit, characterized by concepts like "the world belongs to the public," "the benevolent man loves others," "respecting heaven and protecting the people," "mutual love and mutual benefit," and "all within the four seas are brothers." The business purpose of Hehe economics is to pursue polite deference and value harmony, because "harmony brings wealth" and "harmony leads to symbiotic coexistence." The cognitive leap from Hehe economics to New Era humanistic economics still requires the baptism of creative transformation and innovative development. It necessitates holistic inheritance, historical sorting, and reflexive critique, and even more so, it requires the ideological guidance of Marxism.

The exploration of humanomics is a world-historical undertaking. Looking out upon the world with firm cultural confidence and a spirit of openness, and actively absorbing the rational practices and intellectual resources from the humanomics explorations of various countries for our own use, is a necessary path for constructing an independent knowledge system of humanomics in the New Era and promoting the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. To bridge "Smith’s Dilemma," heterodox Western economics has also proposed and advocated for "Humanomics," yet defines it through other semantic lenses. First, it is defined as the economics of cultural industries. Although this definition advances into the realm of non-material production, it has not fundamentally escaped the domination of the "rational man" [15] rooted in the profit-seeking nature of capital. Second, it refers to "rhetoric," as Deirdre McCloskey points out: letting Western economics speak "sweet talk." Third, it refers to abstract humanistic economics, dedicated to discussing how to leap across or bridge the gap between the "two parallel worlds" of the humanities and economics. Although this school of economics also advocates "putting people first" and emphasizes reflecting on and criticizing the shortcomings of Western mainstream economics in its disregard for human beings, this understanding does not subvert the premise of the "rational man" hypothesis. Instead, it merely emphasizes moral corrections to behavioral outcomes within its analysis of economic behavior. Vernon Smith and Bart Wilson point out in Humanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century that to escape and transcend selfish utility maximization, one should start from the prediction and explanation of human behavior to explore how people, in their choice of actions, move from maximizing utility itself toward considerations of the background and meaning of those choices, thereby moving toward humanomics. In this sense, the "humanomics" advocated by the West is a corrective program for the consequences of the "humanistic deficit" without repudiating the logic of capital and the "rational man" hypothesis. It is a theoretical modification and moral expression of a "conscious capitalism." While it contains certain rational ideas that can be absorbed, as a whole, it is unable to fundamentally resolve the defects of the "humanistic deficit."

IV. Innovative Interpretation: The Core Essentials and Independent Knowledge System of Humanomics in the New Era

The fourth focus for deepening the understanding of theoretical innovation is the innovative interpretation of the core essentials and independent knowledge system of humanomics in the New Era. The reason why "innovative interpretation" is required is that although humanomics is supported by the "soul-vein" [16] and "root-vein" [17], it remains a brand-new proposition ranging from its target domains to its core essentials. Only through innovation can it be interpreted; this is an important mission of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. The so-called core essentials refer to the essential connotations, main characteristics, basic functions, and internal laws of humanomics in the New Era, as well as the basic principles for constructing its independent knowledge system. To this end, we must innovatively interpret the core essentials and independent knowledge system of humanomics in the New Era, writing a new chapter in the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.

First, innovative interpretation must begin with an accurate grasp of the essential connotations and main characteristics of the "humanistic economy" and "humanomics." The so-called "humanistic economy" is a benign mode of development in which humanistic culture and the economy interact, integrate, and advance together as a whole. It is a developed form where the "economization of culture" and the "culturalization of the economy"—with humanistic values as the soul—are bi-directionally connected and integrated. "Humanomics," then, is the study of the "humanistic economy," an independent knowledge system aiming to clarify its essential connotations, basic features, primary functions, and internal laws. Here, to further deepen the understanding and innovative interpretation of the core essentials of humanomics in the New Era, we need to follow an interpretative principle consisting of five levels, moving from the surface to the interior: 1. The original meaning of the "humanistic economy" is a realistic expression of the "dual-strength" phenomenon, where "places with highly developed culture likewise lead the way in economic development," representing a miracle of common prosperity. Situations where both culture and economy are weak, or where there is "one strong and one weak," clearly do not constitute a humanistic economic form. 2. Humanomics indicates that the "dual strengths" are not isolated but present an integrated relationship of symbiotic fusion, interaction, and integrated development. This creates a new humanistic economic form—a new development paradigm representing the future direction of Chinese-path modernization. 3. Within this relationship of integrated development, humanomics places greater emphasis on how humanistic heritage supports the economy, how humanistic elements permeate the economy, how humanistic values guide the economy, and how humanistic rules safeguard the economy. 4. Humanomics more profoundly reveals that the foundation of this integrated development lies in the bi-directional transformation mechanism of "the culturalization of the economy and the economization of culture." 5. The fundamental purpose of humanomics lies in adhering to the people-centered development philosophy and moving toward the new goal of "the modernization of man."

Second, innovative interpretation must focus on and grasp the primary functions of humanomics. The "humanistic economy" possesses functions that have attracted a high degree of attention: using humanistic heritage to support economic platforms, the guiding function of humanistic values, the orienting function of new humanistic goals, the leading and activating function of humanism, the function of setting new humanistic "racing tracks" [18], the function of planning and formulating new humanistic rules, and the function of creating new humanistic modalities. Specifically: 1. The supportive role of deep humanistic value heritage for the economic environment and platforms is manifested in culture endowing the economy with profound humanistic value. This is achieved through the penetration of superior culture into enterprises, markets, governments, and society to realize interconnected cooperation, resolve institutional contradictions, and promote harmonious symbiosis, ultimately transforming a harmonious cultural environment into a modern economic advantage. 2. Cultural creativity and cultural realms function to enhance economic quality and provide value spillovers. 3. New humanistic goals have an orienting function for economic development, autonomously guiding the economy toward optimized development focused on humanistic economic targets. 4. New humanistic kinetic energy highlights the leading role of humanistic elements in the fourth development stage of total factor productivity. 5. The layout function of new humanistic racing tracks addresses the defects of tracks dominated by the traditional "law of the jungle," creating new paradigms for corporate governance, market operations, government public governance, and international engagement. 6. The safeguarding function of new humanistic rules allows the economic form to operate on a new track of regulations, ensuring the smooth operation of new humanistic racing tracks through institutional guarantees. 7. The innovative function of new humanistic modalities makes the future form of the humanistic economy even better. In short, humanomics emphasizes "cultivating people through culture" (yǐ wén huà rén), "prospering industry through culture" (yǐ wén xìng yè), and "empowering through culture" (wén huà fù néng), expanding an open public space for economic development; meanwhile, it utilizes the transformative role of economic development to enrich cultural connotations and promote the comprehensive development of a new form of human civilization.

Third, innovative interpretation requires a profound grasp of the internal laws of humanomics. Scientifically understanding these internal laws to effectively guide the practice of humanomics is an inherent requirement for the theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. The internal laws of a healthy humanistic economic form lie primarily in the optimization, normalization, and standardization of the mechanisms of bi-directional transformation, interaction, and integrated development between humanism and the economy; otherwise, the form would disintegrate from within. The state of the humanistic economy depends on the support of the "dual-strength" status of economy and culture, but even more so on the optimization of the fusion and transformation mechanisms between these two strong factors. The latter two develop isomorphically, isostatically, and synchronously with the state of the humanistic economy, reinforcing each other and advancing or retreating in tandem. In short, developing a humanistic economy requires grasping its internal laws.

Fourth, innovative interpretation requires a deep grasp of the basic principles of constructing humanomics. Writing new theories for humanomics requires original generalizations that differ from the basic principles of Western economics, focusing on systematized and academic construction. Research indicates that the basic principles of humanomics may include: the principle of the precedence of humanistic-historical heritage; the principle of the rationality of comprehensive social value exchange; the principle of humanistic soul-endowment and orientation; the principle of humanistic empowerment within the law of advancing total factor productivity; the principle of designing "racing tracks" for humanistic-created harmonious development; the principle of universal rules created by humanism; the principle of creating new humanistic economic modalities, and so on. Due to space constraints, this article cannot detail them and requires separate exposition. Here, we must emphasize two points: First, each principle is precisely targeted at and transcends the traditional principles of Western economics that produce "humanistic deficit" defects. They all strive to become key theoretical fulcrums for the academic construction of the independent knowledge system of humanomics from an important perspective. For example, the first principle—the "precedence of humanistic-historical heritage"—aims to break the ahistorical nature of the "rational man" assumption in Western economic precedence principles, emphasizing a certain humanistic-historical heritage as the prerequisite for the emergence of a modern economy; only then can the possibility and uniqueness of that economic emergence be judged. Second, these principles constitute a programmatic organic whole. We must rely on these basic principles to "pull the lead string to open the net" [19] and construct the independent knowledge system of humanomics.

(Author's affiliation: Center for Research on Urbanization with Chinese Characteristics, Soochow University)
Source: Marxism Studies, Vol. 6, 2025.