An Exploration of the Question of “Historical Initiative” from the Perspective of Marxism

Historical initiative refers to the active role that the practical subject plays in the process of social history; it involves not only the subjective will of individuals or groups but also the dynamic mechanism of social change. Viewed from its theoretical origins, the question of historical initiative is embodied in Marx and Engels’ assessment of the proletariat of their era. Previous studies have mostly drawn on these assessments to explore the practical significance of the spirit of historical initiative from the perspective of the socialist movement. Yet such studies find it difficult to reveal the logic of how this question arises, and consequently cannot grasp the philosophical implications behind it. Historical initiative is not pure subjective initiative; rather, it points to a process of historical creation grounded in practice, involving how the practical subject stimulates initiative under specific social conditions, how it changes reality through direct action to realize that initiative, and how it always maintains initiative amid complex historical processes. Studying the question of historical initiative from the concept of practice not only reveals its essence but also more clearly explains how the practical subject plays a leading role in the process of social change, thereby deepening the understanding of the Marxist conception of social revolution.

历史主动是指实践主体在社会历史进程中发挥能动作用，它不仅涉及个体或群体的主观意志，还关涉社会变迁的动力机制。从理论渊源来看，历史主动问题体现在马克思恩格斯对其所处时代无产阶级的评判中。以往研究多基于这些评判，从社会主义运动角度出发探讨历史主动精神的现实意义。然其难以揭示这一问题的生成逻辑，进而无法把握其背后的哲理意蕴。历史主动并非纯粹的主观能动性，而是指向以实践为基础的历史创造过程，涉及实践主体如何在具体的社会条件下激发主动性，如何通过直接行动改变现实以践行主动性以及如何在复杂的历史进程中始终保持主动性。从实践概念出发研究历史主动问题，不仅能够揭示其本质，还能更清晰地说明实践主体在社会变迁的过程中如何发挥主导作用，进而深化对马克思主义社会革命的理解。

I. The Logic of the Emergence of the Question of Historical Initiative

一、历史主动问题的生成逻辑

Marx pointed out that “all social life is essentially practical.” [n1] Marxism is precisely a theory built around the practical social life of human beings. It takes human activity as its object, enters the realm of reality, and attends to concrete, heterogeneous dimensions. Through the concept of practice, the logic of the emergence of the question of historical initiative can be revealed, and it can be understood why this question has become a crucial issue in Marxist theory.

马克思指出，“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的”。马克思主义便是以人的社会实践生活为核心建立起来的理论。它以人的活动为对象切入现实领域，关照具体的异质性维度。借由实践概念可以揭示历史主动问题的生成逻辑，理解其何以成为马克思主义理论中的至关重要的问题。

One of the questions with which Marxist theory is most concerned is “what practice is.” In the “Theses on Feuerbach,” Marx equates practice with “sensuous human activity.” [n2] What Marx understands by “sensuous” is reality as opposed to thought and ideas. When Marx points out the sensuous character of practice, he has already separated practical activity from the realm of human ideas and established a fixed connection between it and reality. This connection makes practice a real activity of human beings. But not all real activities can be called practice. Marx emphasizes: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” [n3] Interpreting the world is the way human beings operate on the objective world in thought; changing the world is the predicate with which Marx truly endows the authentic meaning of practice. For Marx, strictly speaking, practice refers to the special real activity of changing the world. Marx calls this special activity “revolutionary practice.” [n4] The breakthrough of the Marxist category of practice in the history of philosophy lies in its thorough sublation of the traditional philosophical misinterpretation of practice as either empirical or ideal, establishing it as a self-renewing, negating activity, as any real activity that changes the existing world.

马克思主义理论最为关切的一个问题就是“实践”之所是。在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中，马克思把实践等同于“感性的人的活动”。马克思所理解的“感性”是与思维观念相对的现实。当马克思指明实践的感性属性时就已经将实践活动与人的观念领域分离开来，而建立起其与现实之间的固定联系。这种联系使得实践成为人的现实活动。但并非所有的现实活动都可以称作实践。马克思强调：“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，而问题在于改变世界。”解释世界是人在思维中对客观世界的运作方式，改变世界才是马克思真正赋予实践本真含义的谓词。在马克思那里，从严格意义上说，实践是指改变世界这种特殊的现实活动。马克思称这种特殊活动为“革命的实践”。马克思主义实践范畴在哲学史上的突破，在于其彻底扬弃了传统哲学对实践的经验化或观念化误读，将其确立为自我更新的否定性活动，确立为任何改变既有世界的现实活动。

Defining practice as “the activity of human beings changing the world” logically leads to the inference that the world changed by human beings has a historical dimension — human beings bring about change in the world. While this is certainly the essential meaning of practice, it also reveals that the world is no longer a fixed, static metaphysical concept, but a changing, moving historical one. The world is not an immutable existence; rather, under the effect of human practice, it constantly changes and develops, displaying its own historical dynamics. This idea is elaborated in depth in Marxism, which transcends the static worldview of traditional metaphysics and understands the world as a historical process shaped by practice, constantly generating and evolving. The “history” of the world is different from the “history” of historiography, and also different from the “history” of the philosophy of history. The former tends to focus on concrete historical events, figures, and causal relationships, studied through empirical methods; the latter regards history as the process of the self-unfolding of the absolute idea in the realm of concepts. From the perspective of Marxism, history is not a mere movement of concepts, but a developmental process truly driven by human practical activity. In this process, human subjectivity is established, human practical capacity is manifested, and history becomes the product of human activity, rather than a simple natural evolution or the unfolding of ideas.

将实践界定为“人改变世界的活动”,在逻辑上得出的推论便是人所改变的世界具有历史维度——人使世界发生改变。这一点固然是实践的本真要义，但也揭示出世界不再是固定的、静止的形而上学观念，而是变化的、运动的历史概念。世界并非一成不变的存在，而是在人的实践作用下不断变化、发展，展现出自身的历史动态。这一观念在马克思主义中得到深入阐释，它超越了传统形而上学的静态世界观，将世界理解为一个被实践所塑造、不断生成和演化的历史过程。世界的“历史”不同于历史编纂中的“历史”,也不同于历史哲学中的“历史”。前者往往关注具体的历史事件、人物和因果关系，以实证的方法加以阐释研究，后者则将历史看作观念领域绝对理念自我展开的过程。在马克思主义视阈下，历史并非单纯的概念运动，而是真正由人的实践活动所推动的发展过程。在这一过程中，人的主体性得以确立，人的实践能力得以展现，历史成为人的活动的产物，而非单纯的自然演变或理念展开。

In the exploration of the concept of practice, history emerges as an important category, and consequently historical initiative emerges as an important question. Practice is the activity of human beings changing the world. When the world undergoes change, a certain historical dimension naturally takes shape, so history becomes a category that cannot be ignored in the inquiry into what practice is. But practice, after all, refers to the changing of the world by “human beings,” not the intentional or unintentional interference of God or some other being. Therefore, when inquiring into what practice is, the focus of the discussion can be shifted from the “world” side to the “human” side, redefining practice from the perspective of the relationship between human beings and history. In this way, practice can be defined as “the activity through which human beings create world history by means of practice.” The “history” created by human beings is both the result of practical activity and is contained within the historical development of the world. But how do human beings create history? In this questioning, the question of historical initiative comes to the fore. Regarding the mode of historical creation, several explanatory models can theoretically be given. From Plato’s creation of the world in the *Timaeus* to the Christian doctrine of creation, philosophy and religion have provided conceptual explanations of this question. Marx gave his own answer: “Men make their own history.” [n5] Engels further stated that people “make their history with complete consciousness” [n6] and gave the sole condition under which historical creation becomes possible, namely, that “the objective, alien forces that have hitherto dominated history” come “under the control of men themselves.” [n7] The profound meaning of the question of historical initiative is contained in the above statements of Marx and Engels. The “their own” emphasized by Marx in his statement indicates that people must personally and actively participate in the activity of historical creation. Engels’ phrase “under the control of men themselves” further indicates that through some kind of negating, free activity, history is actively brought under the control of its creators. So-called “historical initiative” is nothing other than making history the history of its creators, giving history a certain “belonging-to-self” character. History is not a developmental process independent of human beings, nor are human beings passive existences that merely adapt to the external environment. For human beings as practitioners, they cannot wait for history to develop on its own; instead, they must treat history itself as the object of some kind of human activity. This activity is none other than the “practice” that changes the world. Because in the definition of Marx and Engels, only revolutionary practical activity is an effective negation of reality, can sublate the forces opposed to human beings, and thus truly realize the change of the world and the creation of history.

在实践概念的探讨中，历史作为一个重要范畴出现，进而历史主动作为一个重要问题出场。实践是人改变世界的活动。世界有了变化，自然就形成了某种历史维度，于是历史成为探讨实践之所是过程中不可忽视的范畴。但实践毕竟指的是由“人”来改变世界，并非上帝或其他存在者对世界的有意或无意的干涉。因而在探讨实践之所是时，可以将论述的重心从“世界”的一端转向“人”的一端，由人与历史关系的角度重新定义实践。这样一来，实践就可以被规定为“人通过实践以创造世界历史的活动”。人所创造的“历史”既是实践活动带来的结果，也是蕴含在世界的历史发展过程中的。但是人如何创造历史呢?在这个追问中，历史主动问题凸显出来。对于历史创造的方式，理论上可以给出若干版本的解释模型。从柏拉图《蒂迈欧》中的世界创造再到基督教创世论，哲学和宗教对这一问题给出了观念上的阐释。马克思则是给出了自己的答案：“人们自己创造自己的历史”。恩格斯也进一步谈到，人们“完全自觉地自己创造自己的历史”,并给出了历史创造得以可能的唯一条件，即“至今一直统治着历史的客观的异己的力量”“处于人们自己的控制之下”。历史主动问题的奥义就蕴含在马克思恩格斯的上述论断中。马克思在其论断中强调的“自己”表明人们必须亲自主动地参与历史创造活动。恩格斯所说的处于“自己的控制之下”则进一步表明主动地通过某种否定性的自由活动使历史受到创造者控制。所谓“历史主动”无非就是要让历史变为创造者的历史，使历史获得某种“属己性”。历史并非独立于人之外的发展进程，人也不是被动适应外部环境的被动存在者。对于作为实践者的人而言，不能等待历史自行发展，而是要将历史本身当作人的某种活动的对象。这种活动并非其他，而只能是改变世界的“实践”。因为在马克思恩格斯的定义中，只有革命的实践活动才是对现实的有效否定，才能扬弃与人对立的力量，从而真正实现世界的改变、历史的创造。

For the question of historical initiative, what Marx truly emphasizes is not practice itself, but “to practice.” Human practice is not an adaptation to the existing world, but an act of actively shaping the world and actively creating history through a negating force. As Lenin said: “The world does not satisfy man and man decides to change it by his own action.” [n8] It is precisely in the transition from static “satisfaction” to dynamic “action,” precisely in the realization of practical activity, that history truly becomes the history written by human activity, truly acquires a belonging-to-self character, and becomes the “own history” of its creators. Practical activity is the necessary means for making history one’s own history; historical initiative itself contains the real commitment “to practice.”

对历史主动问题来说，马克思真正要强调的不是实践本身，而是“去实践”。人的实践不是对既有世界的适应，而是一种以否定性力量主动塑造世界、主动创造历史的行为。正如列宁所言：“世界不会满足人，人决心以自己的行动来改变世界。”正是从静态“满足”到动态“行动”的转变中，正是在实践活动的实现中，历史才真正成为人的活动所书写的历史，才真正具有属己性，成为创造者“自己的历史”。实践活动是使历史变成自己的历史的必要手段，历史主动本身包含“去实践”的现实承诺。

II. The Specific Basis for Marx and Engels’ Assessment of Historical Initiative

二、马克思恩格斯评判历史主动的具体依据

Historical initiative is a concrete question. Historical initiative itself means “to practice.” Whether it is creating history or changing the world, the object of practice seems already indicated. But practice is not an abstract action, nor is the practitioner an abstract human being. Practice involves the change of concrete social forms by human beings in society. In this regard, historical initiative is a question concerning concrete practical activity, and it ultimately points to the transformation of the entire social form. Only by understanding this can one understand the objective assessment of historical initiative made by Marx and Engels.

历史主动是个具体的问题。历史主动本身就意味着“去实践”。无论是创造历史还是改变世界，似乎都已经指明了实践的对象。但是实践并非抽象的行动，实践者也不是抽象的人。实践涉及的是社会中的人对具体社会形式的改变。就此而言，历史主动是一个关涉具体实践活动的问题，它最终指向整个社会的形态变革。只有理解这一点，才可理解马克思恩格斯对历史主动性作出的客观评判。

The practical activity of human beings in changing the world is concretely manifested as the revolutionary transformation of social formations; the “history” of the world presents itself as the history of the evolution of social formations. Since the world can be changed by human beings, what exactly has changed in the world? Practical activity emphasizes human beings’ transformation of the world, but the subject of this transformation is not abstract human beings, but rather human beings within society, who “in its actuality is the ensemble of the social relations.”[n9] Therefore, the world that human beings change can only refer to change at the social level, and the world thereby also acquires a social dimension. The world upon which practice acts is neither the Kantian “thing-in-itself” beyond the phenomenal world, nor the object of sensuous intuition in Feuerbach’s sense, but rather a real field woven from social relations. Marx reveals: “Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.”[n10] This assertion completely dissolves the substantive illusion of the “world”: the “world” transformed by practice is essentially the total structure of a social formation. The social nature of human beings causes the change of the world to point toward change at the social level; because the world can be changed, the historical change of the world is essentially manifested as the continuous succession of social formations. Human practical activity brings about change in the world, but the social nature of human beings determines that this change does not merely remain at the natural level, but rather points toward the transformation of social structure, social relations, and social systems. The succession of social formations is manifested as a historical process driven by the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production. Productive forces are the ultimate determining force of social development, while relations of production are their concrete social expression. When relations of production are compatible with the level of development of the productive forces, society is relatively stable; when the contradiction between the two intensifies and relations of production become fetters on the further development of the productive forces, revolution becomes an inevitable historical necessity, thereby driving the succession of social formations. Therefore, the change of the world is not merely a change in material form, but also a reshaping of social structure and a transformation of social formation; its essence is a logic of socio-historical development.

人改变世界的实践活动具体体现为社会形态的革命性转变，世界的“历史”呈现为社会形态的演变史。既然世界是可以被人改变的，那么世界到底发生了什么变化呢?实践活动强调人对世界的改变，但这种改变的主体并非抽象的人，而是社会之中的人，“在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”。因而人改变的世界只能是指社会层面的改变，世界也因此具有社会向度。实践所作用的世界既非康德式“物自体”之彼岸，亦非费尔巴哈意义上的感性直观对象，而是由社会关系编织的现实场域。马克思揭示：“社会不是由个人构成，而是表示这些个人彼此发生的那些联系和关系的总和。”这一论断彻底消解了“世界”的实体性幻觉：被实践改造的“世界”本质上是社会形态的总体性结构。人的社会性使得世界的改变指向社会层面的改变；世界得以改变，由此世界的历史变化在本质上表现为社会形态不断更迭。人的实践活动使世界发生变化，但人的社会性决定了这种变化并非仅仅停留在自然层面，而是指向社会结构、社会关系以及社会制度的变革。社会形态的更迭表现为生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动所推动的历史进程。生产力是社会发展的最终决定力量，而生产关系则是其具体的社会体现。当生产关系与生产力发展水平相适应时，社会相对稳定；当二者矛盾激化，生产关系成为生产力进一步发展的桎梏时，革命便成为不可避免的历史必然，由此推动社会形态的更迭。因此，世界的变化不仅仅是物质形式的改变，更是社会结构的重塑和社会形态的转换，其本质是一种社会历史发展逻辑。

The question of historical initiative concerns concrete social transformation. Practice points toward the change of the world. The change of the world is not merely movement at the material level, but also a socio-historical process, manifested as the continuous succession of social formations. This succession is both a necessity of historical development and the fundamental embodiment of human beings creating history and acting upon the world. In this process, human historical initiative is revealed and continuously drives historical progress in the long river of social development. The development of human society is the result of the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, and the unfolding of this contradiction is ultimately embodied in the practice of social revolution. Human activity in creating history is not a simple technical transformation, but a complex practical process closely linked to social structure and class struggle. Revolution is not only the result of the intensification of social contradictions, but also a practical action in which people actively seize control of their own destiny under given historical conditions. Only through revolutionary social practice can people regain control of their own history and realize genuine historical initiative.

历史主动问题关涉具体的社会变革。实践指向世界的改变。世界的变化不仅是物质层面的运动，更是社会历史的进程，表现为社会形态的不断更迭。这种更迭既是历史发展的必然，也是人创造历史、作用于世界的根本体现。在这一过程中，人的历史主动得以展现，并在社会发展的长河中不断推动历史进步。人类社会的发展是生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的结果，而这一矛盾的展开最终体现在社会革命的实践之中。人的历史创造活动并非简单的技术性改造，而是与社会结构、阶级斗争紧密相关的复杂实践过程。革命不仅是社会矛盾激化的结果，更是人们在历史条件下主动把握自身命运的实践行动。只有通过革命性的社会实践，人们才可以重新夺回对自身历史的掌控权，实现真正的历史主动。

That historical initiative becomes a concrete question means it points toward human activity in promoting socio-historical development through active practice. In this way, the criterion for judging historical initiative must be sought from the concrete social level, investigating the concrete social situation in history. It is precisely at this level that Marx and Engels explored the question of whether the proletariat possesses historical initiative.

历史主动成为一个具体问题，意味着它指向人通过主动的实践推动社会历史发展的活动。这样一来，评判历史主动的标准就要从具体的社会层面寻求，探究历史中具体的社会处境。马克思恩格斯恰恰是在这个层面探讨了无产阶级是否具有历史主动性问题。

Marx and Engels’ judgment of historical initiative came from two aspects. The first is the critique of texts, exploring whether the concrete propositions concerning social development contained within them possess a certain potential historical initiative. In the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels point out that although in the “critical-utopian socialist and communist systems,” in the theoretical systems of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen’s utopian socialism, class antagonisms can be seen, “they do not see any historical initiative on the part of the proletariat.”[n11] Although Marx and Engels praised the utopian socialists for revealing the irrationality of the capitalist system and the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, they did not truly understand the role of the proletariat as a practical subject, instead placing their hopes on reforms by the ruling class or relying on individual moral appeal to drive social change. Therefore, Marx and Engels pointed out that their propositions lacked historical initiative. Here, “historical initiative” is actually in a state of potentiality. What Marx and Engels sought to criticize was the “absence of action.” These utopian socialist and communist theories did not endow the proletariat with the identity of a practitioner, did not advocate for the proletariat “to practice,” and did not allow the proletariat to initiate a distinctive political movement. Here, whether to carry out a distinctive political movement became the concrete expression of “going to practice” and also became the concrete criterion for Marx and Engels to judge whether historical initiative existed or not. The second is the judgment of events, judging whether a concrete action possesses historical initiative by observing recent major events. On March 28, 1871, the Paris Commune was established, and the first proletarian regime in human history was born. Just half a month later, Marx, in judging this historical event, praised the “Paris party members” for possessing “what historical initiative!”[n12] The reason Marx praised them was that they conformed to Marx’s plan for revolutionary practice. As early as *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, Marx had charted a path for the future revolutionary practice of France, pointing out that the prerequisite for revolution was the complete smashing of the bureaucratic-military machine, and the establishment of the Paris Commune undoubtedly made progress in this regard. Marx emphasized that the Paris Commune “smashed the old state machine” and pointed out that the proletariat could not simply inherit the state institutions of the bourgeoisie, but must create new political forms suitable for its own rule. In Marx’s view, the significance of the Paris Commune lay not only in the revolutionary action itself, but also in its demonstration that the proletariat could establish a new social form through its own strength. The movement to establish the Paris Commune can be called a practice that changed the world and created history. And the reason this event occurred was precisely because the Paris party members actively “went to practice.” Although the Paris Commune later failed, exposing the inadequacies of the proletariat in organization and strategy, its historical initiative is beyond doubt. Marx’s judgment shows that historical initiative is concretely embodied in whether it truly breaks the old system and establishes new social relations.

马克思恩格斯对历史主动性的评判来自两方面。其一是文献批判，探究其中蕴含的关于社会发展的具体主张是否具有某种可能的历史主动性。在《共产党宣言》中，马克思恩格斯指明，尽管在“本来意义的社会主义和共产主义的体系”那里，在圣西门、傅立叶、欧文空想社会主义理论体系那里能看到阶级对立，但“看不到无产阶级方面的任何历史主动性”。马克思恩格斯虽然称赞空想社会主义者揭示了资本主义制度的不合理性以及资产阶级和无产阶级的对立，但他们并未真正理解无产阶级作为实践主体的作用，而是寄希望于统治阶级的改良或者依靠个人道德感召来推动社会变革。因此，马克思恩格斯指出他们的主张缺乏历史主动性。这里的“历史主动性”实际上处于一种可能状态。马克思恩格斯所要批判的是“行动的缺位”。这些空想的社会主义和共产主义理论没有赋予无产阶级以实践者身份，没有倡导无产阶级“去实践”,没有让无产阶级开启特有的政治运动。在这里，是否进行特有的政治运动成为“去实践”的具体化表达，也成为马克思恩格斯评判历史主动与否的具体标准。其二是事件评判，通过观察近来发生的重大事件，评判某个具体行动是否具有历史主动性。1871年3月28日，巴黎公社成立，人类第一个无产阶级政权诞生。仅仅半个月之后，马克思就在评判这一历史事件时盛赞“巴黎党内人士”具有“何等的历史主动性”。马克思之所以称赞他们，是因为他们符合马克思对革命实践的规划。早在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中，马克思就曾为法国未来的革命实践规划了路径，指出革命的先决条件是彻底打碎官僚军事机器，而巴黎公社的成立无疑是在这方面取得了进展。马克思强调巴黎公社“摧毁了旧的国家机器”,并指出无产阶级不能简单地继承资产阶级的国家机构，而必须创造新的、适合自身统治的政治形式。在马克思看来，巴黎公社的意义不仅在于其革命行动本身，更在于它表明无产阶级可以通过自身的力量建立新的社会形态。成立巴黎公社的运动可以称得上改变世界、创造历史的实践。而这个事件之所以发生，恰恰是因为巴黎党内人士主动“去实践”。尽管后来巴黎公社失败了，暴露了无产阶级在组织和策略上的不足，但它具有的历史主动性却是不容置疑的。马克思的论断表明，历史主动性具体体现在它是否真正打破旧制度、建立新的社会关系。

Whether in the critique of texts or the judgment of events, Marx and Engels concretely delimited the subject of historical initiative to the working class. In their critique of the theoretical systems of utopian socialism, Marx and Engels clearly pointed out that what they were judging was the historical initiative “on the part of the proletariat.” And in their judgment of the Paris Commune movement, the “Paris party members” Marx referred to were the members of the International Workingmen’s Association (the First International) in Paris, headed by Eugène Varlin, whose members represented French workers, artisans, and petty-bourgeois intellectuals. But in Marx’s view, the petty bourgeoisie “oscillates between proletariat and bourgeoisie,” and its members “are constantly hurled into the proletariat by the action of competition.”[n13] In the revolutionary tide, the petty bourgeoisie always lacked autonomy and ultimately became a tool of the counter-revolutionary forces. That is to say, under special social conditions, only the proletariat as the working class could possibly possess historical initiative. As Lenin stated, what Marx “valued most was that the working class heroically, self-sacrificingly, and actively creates world history.”[n14] The historical initiative of the proletariat is not a pure concept, but a practical question tested in real struggle. Marx criticized the German Social Democratic Party’s illusions about the state, emphasizing that the proletariat cannot rely on the bourgeois state machine, but must achieve liberation through its own revolutionary action. This precisely shows that one of the core criteria of historical initiative is whether the proletariat can create new revolutionary forms independently of the bourgeois political system.

无论是对文献的批判，还是对事件的评判，马克思恩格斯都将历史主动的主体具体限定为工人阶级。在对空想社会主义理论体系的批判中，马克思恩格斯明确指出其评判的是“无产阶级方面”的历史主动性。而对巴黎公社运动的评判，马克思所说的“巴黎党内人士”是指以欧仁·瓦尔兰为首的国际工人协会(第一国际)在巴黎的成员，其成员代表的是法国工人、手工业者和小资产阶级知识分子。但在马克思看来，小资产阶级“摇摆于无产阶级和资产阶级之间”,其成员“经常被竞争抛到无产阶级队伍里去”。在革命浪潮中小资产阶级始终缺乏自主性，最终沦为反革命势力的工具。也就是说，在特殊社会条件下，只有无产者的工人阶级才可能具有历史主动性。诚如列宁所言，马克思“最重视的是工人阶级英勇地奋不顾身地积极地创造世界历史”。无产阶级的历史主动并不是一个纯粹的概念，而是在现实斗争中得以检验的实践问题。马克思批评德国社会民主党对国家的幻想，强调无产阶级不能依赖资产阶级的国家机器，而必须通过自身的革命行动来实现解放。这恰恰表明，历史主动性的核心标准之一就是无产阶级是否能够独立于资产阶级的政治体系，创造出新的革命形式。

It can be said that historical initiative concerns a specific social-historical context and examines whether the working class can create history and change the world; its criterion lies precisely in whether the working class “goes to practice.” Only the proletariat can truly assume the responsibility for advancing history, and the historical initiative of the proletariat can be genuinely realized only in the process of destroying old social relations and creating a new social formation. Historical initiative is not a passive waiting for historical change to arrive, but a real action that pushes history forward through practice. Therefore, historical initiative must be embodied through the active implementation of revolutionary practice under concrete social-historical conditions.

可以说，历史主动关切具体的社会历史语境，探讨工人阶级能否创造历史、改变世界，其标准也就在于工人阶级是否“去实践”。只有无产阶级才能真正承担起推动历史前进的责任，而无产阶级的历史主动只有在摧毁旧的社会关系、创造新的社会形态的过程中才能得到真正的实现。历史主动不是被动等待历史变革的到来，而是以实践推动历史前进的现实行动。因此，历史主动要在具体的社会历史条件下，通过主动实施革命实践加以体现。

III. The General Forms of Historical Initiative in the Process of Changing the World

三、改变世界进程中历史主动的一般形式

Historical initiative is also a general question. This generality does not mean that historical initiative is a purely theoretical issue; rather, it means that in practice historical initiative possesses certain universal forms. Although Marx and Engels did not directly study “historical initiative” as a general abstract topic, in their predictions and reflections on the proletarian social revolution they summarized three forms of historical initiative.

历史主动也是个一般问题。这种一般并不意味着历史主动是一个纯粹的理论问题，而是说在实践中历史主动具有某种普遍形式。马克思恩格斯虽然没有直接将“历史主动”作为一个一般的抽象论题来研究，但在其对无产阶级社会革命的预见与反思中，总结出历史主动的三种形式。

(1) Stimulating Historical Initiative through the Creation of Conditions

(一)以条件创造激发历史主动

Historical initiative does not arise out of nothing; it is rooted in concrete social conditions. Marx believed that people make their own history, but “they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” [15]15 Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in Marx and Engels, *Selected Works* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012), vol. 1, p. 669. Historical conditions become the objective premises that limit practice and the constraints under which the practical subject creates history. However, historical objective conditions are not immutable either; they can also be created by people in reality. When understanding historical initiative, one must proceed from social reality and grasp how to create historical conditions to stimulate historical initiative.

历史主动并非凭空产生，而是根植于具体的社会条件。马克思认为人们创造历史，但“并不是随心所欲地创造，并不是在他们自己选定的条件下创造，而是在直接碰到的、既定的、从过去承继下来的条件下创造”。历史条件成为限定实践的客观前提，成为实践主体创造历史的制约所在。但是历史的客观条件也并非一成不变的，而是也可由人在现实中创造的。在理解历史主动时，必须从社会现实出发，把握如何创造历史条件激发历史主动。

The objective conditions of history are first embodied in the material sphere. In social production, people enter into definite, necessary relations of production that are independent of their will, and these relations of production correspond to a given stage of development of the material productive forces. Historical initiative is first stimulated by the real conditions of social production. At lower stages of social development of the productive forces, the space for action of individuals and classes is relatively limited; but when the productive forces reach a certain height and come into contradiction with the old relations of production, the possibility of change appears, and the initiative of the practical subject is thereby awakened. It is precisely on the basis of the high development of the productive forces in capitalist society that the proletariat becomes the subject of change, and its historical initiative acquires a real possibility.

历史的客观条件首先体现在物质层面。在社会生产中，人们形成了一定的、必然的、不以他们的意志为转移的生产关系，这些生产关系同物质生产力的发展阶段相适应。历史主动首先是由社会生产的现实条件所激发的。在生产力较低的社会阶段，个体和阶级的行动空间相对有限，而当生产力达到一定高度，与旧的生产关系发生矛盾时，变革的可能性就会出现，实践主体的主动性也由此被唤醒。资本主义社会正是在生产力高度发展的基础上，使无产阶级成为变革的主体，使其历史主动性获得现实可能。

Historical conditions also manifest themselves as the structural constraints of class relations. Marx and Engels emphasized: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” [16]16 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Marx and Engels, *Selected Works* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012), vol. 1, p. 400. The movement of history is not driven by abstract ideas but is determined by real class contradictions. The historical initiative of the proletariat does not originate from some spontaneous awakening; it is engendered under capitalist conditions by the exploitation and oppression of the bourgeoisie. The capitalist mode of production not only creates inequality in wealth but also accumulates forces of opposition within the proletariat. When capitalism develops to a certain stage, class contradictions intensify, the conditions for revolution mature, and historical initiative manifests itself in the form of real struggle. Therefore, the practical subject is not external to historical conditions but is deeply embedded in them, and its initiative is gradually stimulated through the deepening of social contradictions.

历史条件也表现为阶级关系的结构性制约。马克思恩格斯强调：“至今一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史。”历史的运动并不是由抽象的理念所驱动，而由现实的阶级矛盾所决定。无产阶级的历史主动性并非源于某种自发的觉醒，而是在资本主义条件下，由资产阶级的剥削和压迫所催生的。资本主义生产方式不仅制造了财富的不平等，也在无产阶级内部积累起对抗的力量。当资本主义发展到一定阶段，阶级矛盾激化，革命的条件成熟时，历史主动便以现实斗争的方式表现出来。因此，实践主体并非外在于历史条件，而是深深嵌入其中，并通过社会矛盾的深化而逐步激发其主动性。

Historical conditions are also manifested in the superstructure. The ideology of the ruling class occupies a dominant position in society, maintaining its rule through means such as law, religion, and education, and suppressing the awakening of the oppressed class. However, in the process of social change, the ideology of the oppressed class also undergoes transformation as material conditions change. The course of history shows that on the eve of every social change, there is a new movement of ideological emancipation; this ideological emancipation is not merely a critique of the old system but also an exploration of new social possibilities. Therefore, the initiative of the practical subject is manifested not only in material struggle but also in ideological and other aspects.

历史条件还表现在上层建筑方面。统治阶级的意识形态在社会中占据主导地位，通过法律、宗教、教育等手段维持自身的统治，压制被压迫阶级的觉醒。然而，在社会变革的过程中，被压迫阶级的意识形态也会随着物质条件的变化而发生转变。历史进程表明，每一次社会变革的前夕，都伴随着新的思想解放运动，这种思想的解放不仅仅是对旧制度的批判，更是对新的社会可能性的探索。因此，实践主体的主动性不仅体现在物质斗争上，也体现在意识形态等方面。

Historical initiative is stimulated by objective social conditions. Human consciousness is not a priori; it is formed in real social relations. As Marx said: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” [17]17 Karl Marx, “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” in Marx and Engels, *Selected Works* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012), vol. 2, p. 2. The reason the proletariat can become the subject of historical change is not that it naturally possesses revolutionary consciousness, but that the capitalist mode of production, in its own development, continuously creates the material basis for its awakening. Under the capitalist system, with the concentration of production, the working class is organized and gradually comes to recognize its own collective power in the production process, so that its historical initiative can be stimulated. That is to say, although human action is constrained by social conditions, this constraint does not mean passive adaptation by people; rather, it means that the practical subject seeks and creates the possibility of change within these conditions. The objective conditions in history not only provide the opportunity for change but also shape the consciousness of the subject, enabling it to possess the agency to advance history.

历史主动是由客观的社会条件激发的。人的意识并非先验的，而是在现实社会关系中形成的。正如马克思所言：“不是人们的意识决定人们的存在，相反，是人们的社会存在决定人们的意识。”无产阶级之所以能够成为历史变革的主体，并非因为他们天然地具有革命意识，而是因为资本主义生产方式在其自身发展中不断创造出使其觉醒的物质基础。在资本主义体系下，随着生产的集中化，工人阶级被组织起来，并在生产过程中逐渐认识到自身的集体力量，这使得他们的历史主动得以被激发。也就是说，人的行动虽然受到社会条件的制约，但这种制约并不意味着人的消极适应，而意味着实践主体在其中寻找并创造变革的可能性。历史中的客观条件不仅提供了变革的契机，也塑造了主体的意识，使其具备推动历史的能动性。

Historical conditions can be created by people, and it is precisely through the creation of historical conditions that historical initiative is stimulated. From the perspective of material conditions, the level of economic development directly affects the possibility of social change. When the growth of new productive forces exceeds the framework of the old relations of production, a contradiction and conflict arises between the two. Only when the development of the material productive forces comes into irreconcilable contradiction with the old system does revolutionary change inevitably appear on the agenda; and people can create objective conditions for social change by consciously developing the productive forces and creating advanced material conditions. Once the development of the productive forces is fettered by the old relations of production, the outbreak of revolution becomes the necessary path to liberate the productive forces, and historical initiative is thereby stimulated. At the level of class relations, whenever the principal contradiction of society evolves into a sharp antagonism between the ruling class and the oppressed class, the impetus for change is nurtured in this antagonism. By cultivating and strengthening the forces of the oppressed class (for example, by promoting the organization and unity of the proletariat), society lays the class foundation for stimulating historical initiative. Once conditions are ripe, this class can actively assume the mission of changing history and promote a revolutionary leap in society. At the ideological level, creating new historical conditions is manifested in the formation of new revolutionary ideas and social consciousness. When the economic base undergoes change, the old ideology inevitably wavers, and new ideas emerge accordingly. The revolutionary class needs to arm itself with advanced theory, break the old ruling ideas, and thereby gain spiritual initiative. Once revolutionary theory is grasped by the masses, it is transformed into a powerful practical force and becomes a key factor in stimulating historical initiative. In the proletarian revolution, the spread of socialist ideas and the awakening of the working class are precisely the means by which forces are consolidated through the creation of entirely new ideological conditions, thereby triggering profound changes in social practice.

历史条件是可以被人创造的，而且恰恰通过创造历史条件才得以激发历史主动。从物质条件层面看，经济发展的水平直接影响社会变革的可能性。当新的生产力增长超出旧有生产关系的框架时，二者之间就会发生矛盾冲突。只有当物质生产力的发展与旧制度产生不可调和的矛盾时，革命性变革才不可避免地被提上日程，而人们可以通过有意识地发展生产力、创造先进的物质条件，为社会变革创造客观条件。一旦生产力的发展受到旧生产关系的束缚，革命的爆发就成为解放生产力的必然途径，历史主动性也因此被激发出来。在阶级关系层面，每当社会的主要矛盾演化为统治阶级和被压迫阶级之间的尖锐对立，变革的动力就孕育于这种对抗之中。通过培育和壮大被压迫阶级的力量(例如推动无产阶级的组织和联合),社会为激发历史主动性奠定了阶级基础。一旦条件成熟，这个阶级就能够主动承担起改变历史的使命，推动社会实现革命性的飞跃。在意识形态层面，创造新的历史条件体现为新的革命思想和社会意识的形成。当经济基础发生变革时，旧的意识形态必然动摇，新思想也就应运而生。革命阶级需要用先进理论来武装自己，打破旧有的统治思想，从而获得精神上的主动性。一旦革命理论为广大群众所掌握，就转化为强大的实践力量，成为激发历史主动的关键因素。在无产阶级革命中，社会主义思想的传播和工人阶级的觉醒，正是通过创造崭新的意识形态条件来凝聚力量，进而引发社会实践的深刻变革。

(2) Practicing Historical Initiative through Direct Action

(二)以直接行动践行历史主动

Historical initiative is not only the awakening of consciousness; it is also the reality of practitioners promoting social change through direct action. The course of history does not unfold passively, nor does it occur naturally through waiting; it is determined by the active action of the subject in practice. Even if one possesses rich revolutionary theory and high revolutionary passion, if action is lacking, historical initiative can only remain at the level of abstract concepts, becoming a theoretical conception that cannot truly act on reality. Therefore, practitioners must promote social development and historical progress through direct practical action.

历史主动不仅仅是意识的觉醒，更是实践者通过直接行动推动社会变革的现实。历史的进程不是被动展开的，也不会在等待中自然发生，而是由主体在实践中的主动作为所决定的。即便拥有丰富的革命理论和高昂的革命激情，但如果缺乏行动，历史主动就只能停留在抽象的概念层面，成为理论上的设想而无法真正作用于现实。因此，实践者必须通过直接的实践行动，推动社会发展和历史的进步。

Historical initiative does not rely solely on the awakening of individual consciousness; it also requires the direct action of the subject. The proletariat cannot wait for the “natural” collapse of capitalism but must push history forward through its own direct action. This practice is not economic struggle, such as strikes, boycotts, and other forms of resistance, but rather political direct action — organization and the implementation of specific strategies. History is created by human practice, not a simple unfolding of objective laws. Historical initiative is embodied both in the development of social contradictions and in the concrete deployment of revolutionary strategies. Historical crisis inevitably gives rise to revolutionary practice, and the unfolding of this practice is the true realization of historical initiative. Historical progress is not a matter of pure theoretical deduction; it must be achieved through actual class struggle. The initiative of the proletariat in action is not an abstract concept but a core issue concerning the entire transformation of society.

历史主动并不仅仅依赖个体观念的觉醒，也需要主体的直接行动。无产阶级不能等待资本主义的“自然”崩溃，而必须通过自身直接行动推动历史前进。这种实践并非经济上的抗争，如罢工、抵制等形式的斗争，而是政治上的直接行动——组织化以及具体策略的实施。历史是人的实践创造的，而不是客观规律的简单展开。历史主动体现在社会矛盾的发展过程中，也体现在人的革命策略的具体施展中。历史危机必然催生革命实践，这一实践的展开正是历史主动的真正实现。历史的进步不是单纯的理论推导，而是需要通过现实的阶级斗争来实现的。无产阶级的行动主动性不是一个抽象的概念，而是关系到整个社会变革的核心问题。

Class struggle is precisely the real expression of direct action. Social progress is not a process of peaceful evolution but the result of the intensification of class contradictions and the struggle they drive. The historical initiative of the proletariat is gradually formed in its confrontation with the bourgeoisie. In the course of capitalist development, the proletariat initially only passively submits to exploitation by capital, but as class contradictions deepen and capitalism’s own crises intensify, the proletariat gradually forms its own class consciousness through the practice of struggle and begins to organize resistance against the rule of the bourgeoisie. This process shows that historical change does not occur spontaneously; it requires the subject to continuously temper and develop its own practical capacity in struggle. Historical initiative can only be truly realized under conditions of organization. The initiative in action of the practical subject is not scattered individual effort but the gathering of class forces, organized historical action. The revolutionary action of the proletariat is not merely the inevitable product of real economic contradictions; it is also a revolt against the ideological rule of the ruling class. The ruling class not only holds economic power but also maintains its rule through ideology. The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. [18]18 Reference to Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*: “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” The historical initiative of the proletariat requires breaking the ideological rule of the bourgeoisie in the realm of ideology, so that its own class consciousness can be widely disseminated. In this process, the dissemination of Marxist theory plays a key role, transforming the proletariat’s struggle from localized, fragmented resistance into a united movement with a clear historical direction.

阶级斗争正是直接行动的现实表达。社会的前进不是和平演变的过程，而是阶级矛盾的激化和斗争推动的结果。无产阶级的历史主动性正是在与资产阶级的对抗中逐步形成的。在资本主义发展过程中，无产阶级最初只是被动地服从资本的剥削，但随着阶级矛盾的加深，资本主义自身的危机加剧，无产阶级在斗争实践中逐步形成了自身的阶级意识，并开始有组织地反抗资本主义的统治。这一过程表明，历史变革不是自发发生的，而是需要主体在斗争中不断锻炼和发展自身的实践能力。历史主动只有在组织化的条件下才能得到真正实现。实践主体的行动主动性并不是零散的个人努力，而是阶级力量的集合，是有组织的历史行动。无产阶级的革命行动不仅仅是现实经济矛盾的必然产物，同时也是对统治阶级意识形态统治的反抗。统治阶级不仅掌握着经济权利，还通过意识形态维持其统治。统治阶级的思想在每一时代都是占统治地位的思想，无产阶级的历史主动性需要在意识形态领域打破资产阶级的思想统治，使自己的阶级意识得到广泛传播。在此过程中，马克思主义理论的传播起到了关键作用，它使无产阶级的斗争不再停留在局部的、零散的反抗，而是成为联合起来的、具有明确历史方向的运动。

The unfolding of class struggle is not only the inevitable result of the development of social contradictions but also the active choice of a particular class in the historical process. Historical initiative does not mean passively waiting for objective conditions to mature; rather, in the process of social crisis and the intensification of contradictions, the revolutionary subject promotes change through direct action, making itself the decisive force for historical progress. The forms of direct action are not limited to traditional economic struggle; they must also form organized forces at the political level to promote fundamental changes in the social structure. If one remains only at the level of partial economic demands, it is impossible to truly break through the ruling system of the ruling class. Only through the unification of forces within the class, forming a political confrontation, can one truly grasp the initiative in history. Historical opportunities do not come naturally; they are formed through the accumulation of struggle. Only by acting decisively when the revolutionary moment is ripe can social change become a reality.

阶级斗争的展开不仅是社会矛盾发展的必然结果，更是某个阶级在历史进程中的主动选择。历史主动并不是被动地等待客观条件的成熟，而是在社会危机和矛盾激化的过程中，革命主体通过直接行动推动变革，使自身成为历史进步的决定性力量。直接行动的形式不限于传统的经济抗争，还必须在政治层面形成有组织的力量，推动社会结构的根本性变革。如果仅停留在局部的经济诉求上，就无法真正突破统治阶级的统治体系，而唯有通过阶级内部力量的联合，形成政治上的对抗，才能真正掌握历史的主动权。历史的机遇不是自然到来的，而是在斗争的积累中形成的，只有在革命时机成熟时果断行动，才能使社会变革成为现实。

(3) Maintaining Historical Initiative through Flexible Strategy

(三)以灵活策略保持历史主动

The process of historical change unfolds amid complex social contradictions and struggles. The practical subject may also experience setbacks in the process of promoting social change, even temporarily losing the initiative in action. Therefore, how to always maintain historical initiative becomes a decisive factor in whether historical change can succeed. From the perspective of Marxism, to always maintain historical initiative, it is necessary to adopt flexible practical strategies. In their analysis of capitalist society and their exposition of proletarian revolution, Marx and Engels always emphasized that the practical subject must adopt flexible strategies to adapt to changes in the historical process and maintain the revolutionary initiative. For the proletariat to fulfill its historical mission, it must not only stimulate initiative in social contradictions and practice initiative in struggle, but also maintain initiative under complex historical conditions, so that historical practice can continue to advance without being interrupted by partial failures or temporary difficulties.

历史变革的过程是在复杂的社会矛盾和斗争中展开的。实践主体在推动社会变革的过程中也会经历挫折，甚至暂时失去行动的主动权。因此，如何始终保持历史主动，就成为历史变革能否成功的决定性因素。在马克思主义视阈下，要想始终保持历史主动，就必须采取灵活的实践策略。马克思恩格斯在对资本主义社会的分析以及对无产阶级革命的论述中，始终强调实践者主体必须采取灵活的策略，以适应历史进程的变化，保持革命的主动地位。无产阶级要完成自身的历史使命，不仅需要在社会矛盾中激发主动性、在斗争中践行主动性，更需要在复杂的历史条件下保持主动性，使历史实践能够持续推进，而不因局部失败或暂时困难而中断。

Marx and Engels pointed out that the proletarian revolution differs from previous social changes; it must rely on its own strength to overthrow the entire old system and establish new social relations. This process is not accomplished overnight but is gradually realized in the course of prolonged struggle. The historical initiative of the proletariat is not only reflected in the moment of launching the revolution but must run through the entire process of transformation. Whether the initiative of the practical subject can be sustained depends on whether it can adopt correct strategies amid the complex movement of social contradictions, enabling its own historical practice to continuously adapt to new situations and seek new possibilities in adverse environments. Therefore, the flexibility of historical practical strategy is not arbitrary change but timely and active adjustment based on changes in objective conditions. In analyzing the reasons for the failure of the French Revolution of 1848, Marx pointed out that because the proletariat did not fully recognize the changes in the balance of class forces and lacked a sustained strategy, it ultimately led to a counterattack by the bourgeoisie, causing the loss of revolutionary gains. [19]19 Reference to Marx’s analysis of the French Revolution of 1848, particularly in *The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850* and *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*. This historical experience shows that if the proletariat promotes revolution based solely on momentary passion while neglecting the complexity of the historical process, it may fall into passivity after a brief victory. Therefore, historical initiative is not only reflected in how to launch the struggle but also in how to maintain the continuity of the struggle under complex circumstances, enabling the revolution to overcome temporary setbacks and ultimately achieve its goals.

马克思恩格斯指出，无产阶级革命不同于以往的社会变革，它必须依靠自身的力量，推翻整个旧制度，并建立新的社会关系。这一过程并非一蹴而就，而是在长期斗争中逐步实现的。无产阶级的历史主动性并不仅仅体现在发动革命的时刻，而是要贯穿于整个变革过程之中。实践主体的主动性能否持续，取决于其能否在复杂的社会矛盾运动中采取正确的策略，使自身的历史实践不断适应新的形势，并在不利环境中寻求新的可能性。因此，历史实践策略的灵活性不是随意的变动，而是根据客观条件的变化而作出的及时且主动的调整。马克思分析法国1848年革命的失败原因时指出，无产阶级由于没有充分认识到阶级力量对比的变化，缺乏持久的策略，最终导致了资产阶级的反扑，使革命成果丧失。这一历史经验表明，无产阶级如果仅凭一时的激情推动革命，而忽视历史进程的复杂性，就可能在短暂的胜利之后陷入被动。因此，历史主动不仅体现在斗争的如何发动上，更体现在如何在复杂形势下保持斗争的延续性，使革命能够克服暂时的挫折，最终达到自身的目标。

The flexible initiative of practical strategy is not only a question of strategy before the revolution but also a key task after the victory of the revolution. Marx further elucidated the protracted nature of the proletarian revolution, pointing out the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat and emphasizing that the establishment of a socialist society is a historical process, not a transformation accomplished in an instant. For the proletariat to maintain historical initiative, it cannot fantasize about completely changing the social structure through a single revolutionary action; rather, it must continue to promote social change after seizing political power. The practical subject must maintain sensitivity to real conditions after victory and respond to new situations and new circumstances through new practical strategies; otherwise, the fruits of the revolution may be gradually consumed in new difficulties. Historical practice is not a mechanical repetition but a process of constant development and change. Therefore, historical initiative can only be truly maintained through flexible practical strategies, ultimately driving social development toward the goals pursued by the proletariat.

实践策略的灵活主动不仅仅是革命前的策略问题，更是革命胜利后的关键任务。马克思进一步阐明了无产阶级革命的长期性，指出无产阶级专政的必要性，并强调社会主义社会的建立是一个历史过程，而不是一场瞬间完成的变革。无产阶级要想保持历史主动，就不能幻想通过一次革命行动彻底改变社会结构，而是要在夺取政权后继续推进社会变革。实践主体必须在胜利后继续保持对现实条件的敏感性，通过新的实践策略应对新局面、新状况，否则，革命的成果就可能在新的困境逐步消耗掉。历史的实践也不是机械的重复，而是不断发展变化的过程，因此，历史主动只有通过灵活的实践策略才能真正保持，并最终推动社会发展走向无产阶级所追求的目标。

It can be said that historical initiative is not the free play of subjective will but the ability of the subject, in the process of the development of real social contradictions, to continuously adjust its own practice so that it adapts to the concrete course of history. In promoting social change, the practical subject cannot simply rely on existing experience but must flexibly adjust strategies according to real conditions, keeping its own historical practice in an active position. This flexibility of strategy is precisely the key to maintaining historical initiative. The Marxist theory of revolution not only emphasizes the decisiveness and capacity for action of the proletariat in revolution but also emphasizes the necessity of maintaining initiative in the long historical process. This is precisely the profound philosophy of historical initiative revealed by Marxism.

可以说，历史主动不是主观意志的自由发挥，而是在现实社会矛盾的发展过程中，主体能够不断调整自身实践，使其适应历史的具体进程。实践主体在推动社会变革的过程中不能简单依赖既有经验，而要根据现实情况灵活调整策略，使自身的历史实践始终处于主动地位。这种策略的灵活性正是保持历史主动性的关键。马克思主义的革命理论不仅强调无产阶级在革命中的决断力和行动力，同时也强调其在长期历史过程中保持主动性的必要性，这正是马克思主义所揭示的历史主动的深厚哲理。

Historical initiative, as an important issue within Marxism, has as its essence the fact that human beings change the world and create history through practice. The elucidation of historical initiative can break free from the shackles of historical determinism, enabling people to truly become the subjects and creators of historical development. It is precisely through conscious practical activity that humanity opens up a free and open space for historical development. Clarifying the philosophical foundations behind the issue of historical initiative can not only deepen theoretical understanding of the relationship between historical initiative and practice, enriching and developing the content of Marxism, but also holds significant value in reality. Under new historical conditions, on the new journey of the New Era, only by more consciously strengthening the spirit of historical initiative and enhancing the determination, courage, and perseverance to change the world can we better carry forward the spirit of historical initiative and promote the continuous advancement of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

历史主动作为马克思主义中的重要问题，其实质在于人通过实践改变世界、创造历史。历史主动的阐释能够摆脱历史决定论的束缚，使人真正成为历史发展的主体与创造者。正是通过自觉的实践活动，人类开辟了自由开放的历史发展空间。阐明历史主动问题背后的哲学底蕴不仅可以在理论上深化对历史主动与实践关系的理解，丰富和发展马克思主义的内涵，而且在现实中具有重要价值。在新的历史条件下，在新时代新征程中，只有更加自觉地增强历史主动精神，增强改变世界的决心、勇气和毅力，才能更好地发扬历史主动精神，推动中国特色社会主义事业不断向前发展。

(Fund: Interim results of the National Social Science Fund Youth Project “A Study of Marx’s Theory of Spiritual Production and the Construction of Mainstream Ideology in the All-Media Era” [Project No. 19CKS003])

（基金：国家社科基金青年项目“马克思精神生产理论与全媒体时代主流意识形态的建构研究”(项目编号：19CKS003)的阶段性成果）

(Author’s biography: Mei Lan, female, Doctor of Philosophy, Assistant Researcher at the Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; research direction: Marxist philosophy)

（作者简介：梅岚，女，哲学博士，中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院助理研究员，研究方向为马克思主义哲学）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心