Marx’s Critique of Religion and the Formation of Historical Materialism

Historical materialism is one of Marx’s two major theoretical contributions to the history of human thought, and its formation is marked by *The German Ideology*, co-authored by Marx and Engels. The basic viewpoint of historical materialism is: the mode of human material production and intercourse constitutes the economic base of social life, which determines the political superstructure, such as the state and law, as well as the ideological superstructure, such as religion and art; the process of contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, and between economic base and superstructure, is also the process of human society developing from lower to higher forms. Historical materialism, which uses a materialist standpoint and method to reveal the essence and laws of social life, was formed by Marx in the process of criticizing religion and the Prussian kingdom it upheld, and therefore has an endogenous relationship with his critique of religion. This is a key link in understanding the formation and development of Marx’s thought, yet this important issue has not received the attention it deserves from domestic academia. This article intends to systematically review Marx’s major works and content from his youth, expounding the special role and implications of his critique of religion in the formation of historical materialism.

唯物史观是马克思对人类思想史的两大理论贡献之一,以马克思恩格斯合著的《德意志意识形态》为形成标志。唯物史观的基本观点是：人类物质生产与交往方式是社会生活的经济基础，决定着国家、法律等政治上层建筑以及宗教、艺术等思想上层建筑；生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑之间的矛盾运动过程，也是人类社会从低级形式向高级形式发展的过程。用唯物主义立场与方法揭示社会生活本质及规律的唯物史观，是马克思在批判宗教及其所维护的普鲁士王国的过程中形成的，因而与其宗教批判之间具有内生性关系。这是理解马克思思想形成与发展脉络的关键环节，但这一重要议题没有得到国内学界应有的关注。本文拟系统梳理马克思青年时期的主要论著及内容，阐述其宗教批判在唯物史观形成过程中的特殊作用及其启示。

I. Marx’s Major Works in His Youth and the Formation of Historical Materialism

一、马克思青年时期的主要论著与唯物史观的形成

The gestation, germination, and formation of Marx’s historical materialism roughly went through the period of his doctoral dissertation (1839–1841), the period of the *Rheinische Zeitung* and the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* (1842–1844), and the stage of writing works such as the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and *The German Ideology* (1844–1846). In his youth, Marx devoted himself to criticizing religion and the Prussian state and legal system it upheld. In the process of delving into the essence and causes of religion, law, and the state, Marx completed the transformation from a follower of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach’s humanism to the founder of historical materialism.

马克思唯物史观的孕育、萌芽与形成，大致经历了博士论文时期(1839-1841)、《莱茵报》和《德法年鉴》时期(1842-1844)以及撰写《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《德意志意识形态》等论著(1844-1846)阶段。马克思青年时期致力于批判宗教及其所维护的普鲁士国家和法律制度，在深究宗教、法律及国家本质和成因等问题的过程中，马克思完成了从青年黑格尔派和费尔巴哈人本学的拥趸到唯物史观创立者的转变。

1. Major Works from the Period of the Doctoral Dissertation and the Gestation of Historical Materialism (1836–1841)

1.博士论文时期的主要论著及唯物史观的孕育(1836-1841)

From 1836 to 1841, while studying at the University of Berlin, Marx joined the “Doctor’s Club” [1]1 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 190. formed by members of the Young Hegelians. The Young Hegelians’ method of pure speculative philosophy, their political stance of pursuing democracy and freedom and opposing the feudal autocratic system, and their theoretical interest in the critique of religion had a great influence on the young Marx. Taking the history of European liberal thought and the religion that served the Prussian feudal autocratic system as his research targets, Marx wrote his doctoral dissertation, *The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature*. By comparing the similarities and differences between Democritus’s and Epicurus’s atomism, this work affirmed the idea of autonomy, contingency, and initiative in the movement of things implied in Epicurus’s theory of the swerve of atoms, as well as the atheistic thought derived from it, which contained the principle of freedom and the negation of fatalism and teleology. On the issue of religion, Marx expressed the following ideas in his doctoral dissertation: First, borrowing the view of Prometheus, he wrote, “I hate all the gods,” [2]2 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 154. clearly expressing his atheistic stance. Second, on the essence and causes of religion, Marx believed that religion is a product of the lack of human reason and self-consciousness. He pointed out, “Whoever finds the world rational, and hence himself irrational, for him the gods exist. In other words, irrationality is the existence of the gods.” [3]3 Ibid., p. 41. Third, Marx believed that although religion is absurd, it is still a real social force. He pointed out, “Did not the ancient Moloch once rule? Was not the Delphic Apollo a real power in the life of the Greeks?” [4]4 Ibid., p. 57. In summary, Marx regarded reason and self-consciousness as the essence of the world, the symbol of freedom, and the driving force of history, and believed that the greatest harm of religion lies in its denial of human self-consciousness and its supremacy. This shows that Marx’s political stance and theory and method of religious critique at this period did not, on the whole, go beyond the scope of the Young Hegelians. However, the difference is that Marx’s critique of religion tended to explain human religious ideas from this-worldly existence, rather than from the other-worldly realm spoken of by religion, reflecting his concern for reality and providing a possibility for the formation of historical materialism.

1836-1841年，马克思在柏林大学学习期间，参加了青年黑格尔派成员组建的“博士俱乐部”。青年黑格尔派纯粹思辨哲学的分析方法，追求民主自由、反对封建专制制度的政治立场，及其宗教批判的理论旨趣，对青年马克思产生了极大影响。马克思将欧洲自由思想史以及为普鲁士封建专制制度服务的宗教作为研究目标，撰写了《德谟克利特的自然哲学和伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学的差别》的博士论文。该文通过对比德谟克利特与伊壁鸠鲁原子论的异同，肯定了伊壁鸠鲁关于原子运动偏斜理论所蕴含的事物运动的自主性、偶然性和能动性这一思想，以及由此引生出来的自由原则、否定命定论与目的论的无神论思想。在宗教问题上，马克思在博士论文中表述了下述思想：第一，借用普罗米修斯的观点写到“我痛恨所有的神”,明确表达了自己的无神论立场。第二，在宗教的本质及成因问题上，马克思认为宗教是人的理性、自我意识缺失的产物。他指出“谁觉得世界是理性的，因而谁本身也是无理性的，对他来说神就存在。换句话说，无理性就是神的存在。”第三，马克思认为宗教虽然荒谬，但仍是一种现实的社会力量。他指出“古代的摩洛赫不是曾经主宰一切吗?德尔斐的阿波罗不是曾经是希腊人生活中的一种真正力量吗?”综上，马克思将理性、自我意识视为世界的本质、自由的象征和历史的动力，认为宗教的最大危害在于否认人的自我意识及其至上性。这表明，这一时期马克思的政治立场及宗教批判理论与方法总体上没有超出青年黑格尔派的范围，但不同的是，马克思的宗教批判力图从此岸世界，而不是宗教言说的彼岸世界来解释人的宗教观念的倾向，体现了他对现实的关注，为唯物史观的形成提供了可能。

2. Major Works from the Period of the *Rheinische Zeitung* and the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* and the Germination of Historical Materialism (1842–1844)

2.《莱茵报》《德法年鉴》时期的主要论著及唯物史观的萌芽(1842-1844)

From 1842 to 1844, Marx worked successively for the *Rheinische Zeitung* and the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*. During his work at the *Rheinische Zeitung* (1842–1843), due to the needs of news reporting, Marx began to shift from the pure speculative philosophy of his doctoral dissertation period to focusing on real social problems, and began to think about the root causes of social elements such as the state, law, and the religion that defended them. He successively published a series of commentaries and essays, including “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction,” “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood,” and “The Defense of the Moselle Correspondent.” [5]5 Ibid., p. 53. In the process of criticizing the Prussian state’s censorship system and the system of forest ownership, and reporting on the poverty of the peasants in the Moselle valley, Marx discovered that different interest groups held completely different positions on state laws or the same social phenomenon. From this, Marx concluded that the state and law are not, as Hegel said, the embodiment of the absolute Idea and its eternity and absolute universality in human life, but rather the embodiment of the will of the propertied class and vested interests; that is, both the state and law have a real basis in interests. Regarding the understanding of the root of religion, Marx believed that, first, “religion itself is without content, its roots are not in heaven but on earth, and with the abolition of the distorted reality of which religion is the theory, religion will also disappear of itself,” [6]6 Ibid., p. 56. indicating that Marx began to seek the roots of the emergence and disappearance of religion from real social life, rather than from reason or self-consciousness. On this basis, Marx further proposed the political basis for the emergence and disappearance of religion: “It was not the downfall of the ancient religions that caused the downfall of the ancient states, but, on the contrary, the downfall of the ancient states that caused the downfall of the ancient religions,” [7]7 Ibid., p. 56. meaning that Marx began to seek the roots of the survival and disappearance of religion from the secular state and political life. Second, Marx discovered the relationship between the Prussian kingdom and religion. He pointed out, “Religion should support the secular power, but the secular power should not be dominated by religion,” [8]8 Ibid., p. 56. and that the rulers use religion to maintain an unjust reality; for them, “religion is also the universal affirmation of the real world.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 56. This shows that Marx had already recognized the stance of the Prussian government in using religion to maintain its rule. Third, Marx advocated “criticizing religion more in connection with the critique of the political situation than in connection with the critique of religion,” [10]10 Ibid., p. 56. opposing the erroneous practice of criticizing religion in isolation from social and political reality. In summary, during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx mainly focused on the real social foundations of the state, law, and religion. In particular, Marx’s relevant expositions on the function of religion in the feudal autocratic state and the social and political basis on which it depended bid farewell to the purely speculative view of the doctoral dissertation period that “religion is irrationality,” clearly proposed the social and political basis for the emergence of religion, and deepened his thinking on the real foundations of the emergence of religion and the state.

1842年至1844年，马克思先后在《莱茵报》《德法年鉴》工作。在《莱茵报》工作期间(1842-1843),由于新闻报道工作的需要，马克思开始从博士论文时期的纯粹思辨哲学转向关注社会现实问题，开始思考国家、法律以及为之辩护的宗教等社会要素产生的根源问题，先后发表《评普鲁士最近的书报检查令》《第六届莱茵省议会的辩论》《摩塞尔记者的辩护》等系列时评和杂文。马克思在批判普鲁士国家的书报检查制度、林木占有制度，报道摩塞尔河谷农民贫困现状的过程中发现，对国家法律或同一社会现象，不同的利益群体持有完全不同的立场。马克思由此得出结论，国家、法律并非如黑格尔所说，是绝对理念及其永恒性、绝对普遍性在人类生活中的体现，而是有产阶级和既得利益者意志的体现，即国家与法律都有现实的利益基础。关于宗教根源问题的认识，马克思认为，其一，“宗教本身是没有内容的，它的根源不是在天上，而是在人间，随着以宗教为理论的被歪曲了的现实的消灭，宗教也将自行消灭”,表明马克思开始从社会现实生活，而非理性或自我意识中寻找宗教产生和消亡的根源。在此基础上，马克思进一步提出宗教产生与消亡的政治基础，“不是古代宗教的灭亡引起古代国家的毁灭，相反，是古代国家的灭亡引起了古代宗教的毁灭”,即马克思开始从世俗国家及政治生活中寻找宗教存亡的根源。其二，马克思发现了普鲁士王国与宗教之间的关系，他指出“宗教应当支持世俗的政权，但是世俗的政权可不要受宗教支配”,统治者利用宗教维护不合理的现实，对他们来说，“宗教也是现实世界的普遍肯定”。这表明，马克思已认识到普鲁士政府利用宗教来维护其统治的立场。其三，马克思主张“更多地联系着对政治状况的批判来批判宗教，而不是联系着宗教的批判来批判政治状况”,反对脱离社会政治现实来批判宗教的错误做法。综上，在《莱茵报》时期，马克思主要关注国家、法律及宗教产生的社会现实根基问题。特别是马克思关于宗教在封建专制国家中的功能及赖以生存的社会政治基础的相关论述，告别了博士论文时期关于“宗教即是无理性”的纯粹思辨主义观点，明确提出宗教产生的社会政治基础，深化了关于宗教、国家产生的现实根基问题的思考。

During the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period (1843–1844), Marx devoted himself to criticizing religion and the Prussian feudal autocratic system it upheld, hoping “to discover the new world through the critique of the old world.” [11]11 Ibid., Thesis 8. In the only published issue of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* (February 1844), Marx published two famous works, “On the Jewish Question” and “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s *Philosophy of Right*: Introduction.” In the process of criticizing various erroneous “critiques of religion,” Marx’s historical materialism began to germinate.

在《德法年鉴》时期(1843-1844),马克思致力于批判宗教及其维护的普鲁士封建专制制度，希望“在批判旧世界中发现新世界”。马克思在仅发刊一期的《德法年鉴》(1844.2)上发表《论犹太人问题》和《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》两篇著名论著，在批判各种错误的“宗教批判”过程中，马克思的唯物史观开始萌发。

In *On the Jewish Question*, responding to Bruno Bauer’s erroneous view that religious emancipation is the prerequisite for the political emancipation of Jews, Marx, following the line of thought from his *Rheinische Zeitung* period of explaining religion from history and reality rather than from reason or self-consciousness, elaborated the relationship between religious emancipation and political emancipation. He proposed: “We do not say to the Jews: you cannot be emancipated politically without radically emancipating yourselves from Judaism. We say rather: it is because you can be politically emancipated without completely and absolutely renouncing Judaism that political emancipation itself is not human emancipation. If you, Jews, want to be politically emancipated without emancipating yourselves humanly, the half-heartedness and contradiction lies not only in you, it lies in the essence and category of political emancipation. If you find yourselves within this category, you share in a general limitation. Just as the state evangelizes when, although it is a state, it adopts a Christian attitude towards the Jews, so the Jew acts politically when, although a Jew, he claims civic rights.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 190. Marx regarded the abolition of secular fetters as the prerequisite for abolishing religious fetters, holding that the root of religion can only be sought in the nature of the state itself. At the same time, Marx began to understand the secular foundation of Judaism from the perspective of economic activity: in the eyes of Jews, money has a “omnipotent” effect in secular society, and thus is also the omnipotent god in the Jewish worldview. He pointed out: “A social organization that would abolish the presuppositions of huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would dissolve like a stale mist in the actual, vital air of society.” [2]2 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 154. This passage by Marx proposed the economic prerequisites and the path of realization for the disappearance of Judaism (religion). Compared with the understanding during the period of his doctoral dissertation and the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, in *On the Jewish Question* Marx not only revealed the political roots of religion’s existence but also began to pay attention to the foundational role of secular economic activity for Judaism (religion), although this understanding was still in its initial stage.

在《论犹太人问题》中，针对布鲁诺·鲍威尔将宗教解放视为实现犹太人政治解放前提的错误观点,马克思沿着《莱茵报》时期从历史与现实，而非理性或自我意识中解释宗教的思路，阐述了宗教解放与政治解放的关系。他提出“我们并不认为：公民要消灭他们的桎梏，必须首先克服他们的宗教狭隘性。我们认为，他们只有消灭了世俗桎梏，才能克服宗教狭隘性。我们不把世俗问题化为神学问题。我们要把神学问题化为世俗问题。在相当长的时期以来，人们一直用迷信来说明历史，而我们现在是用历史来说明迷信。”马克思将消灭世俗桎梏视为消灭宗教桎梏的前提，认为宗教的根源只能从国家自身的本质中去寻找。与此同时，马克思开始从经济活动中理解犹太教的世俗根基问题：在犹太人看来，金钱在世俗社会中具有“万能”功效，因而也是犹太人思想观念中无所不能的神。他指出“一种社会组织如果能够消除做生意的前提，从而能够消除做生意的可能性，那么这种社会组织也就能够使犹太人不可能产生。他的宗教意识就会像烟雾一样，在社会的现实的、蓬勃的空气当中自行消灭。”马克思的这段论述提出了犹太教(宗教)消亡的经济前提与实现路径。与博士论文时期、《莱茵报》时期的认识相比，马克思在《论犹太人问题》中不仅揭示了宗教生存的政治根源，而且开始关注世俗的经济活动对犹太教(宗教)的基础性作用，尽管这一认识尚处于初始阶段。

*A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction* aims to analyze the social situation in Germany at the time and to critique the religion that defended the Prussian kingdom. The article begins by stating the progress and necessity of the work of religious critique in German intellectual circles: “For Germany, the critique of religion is in the main complete, and the critique of religion is the prerequisite of every critique.” [3]3 Ibid., p. 41. Marx’s view of religion in the *Introduction* can be summarized as follows: First, it reaffirms the atheist position that religion is a human creation, not a divine creation, holding that “man makes religion, religion does not make man.” [4]4 Ibid., p. 57. Second, it reveals the essence of religion, holding that “religion is the self-consciousness and self-feeling of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again.” [5]5 Ibid., p. 53. Third, it reveals the social nature of man and the social roots of religion’s emergence, holding that “man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 56. Fourth, it reveals the social function of religion, holding that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” [7]7 Ibid., p. 56. Fifth, it elaborates that the purpose of critiquing religion lies in critiquing the state, law, and political system that religion defends, thereby turning “the criticism of heaven into the criticism of earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 56. In summary, *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction* once again expressed the view that the root of religion lies in the human world, in the irrational political system, interpreting the causes, functions, and path of disappearance of religion from the perspective of the socio-political system. It is noteworthy that in the *Introduction*, Marx’s understanding of the essence of religion contains the following two different ideological tendencies: one is to regard religion as “the self-consciousness and self-feeling of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again”; the other is to reduce religion to “the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 56. The first view sees religion as a product of man’s lack of self-consciousness, bearing the traces of the Young Hegelian school; the second view sees religion as a product of man’s self-alienation, where man is the supreme being for man, reflecting Feuerbach’s humanist materialist position. The simultaneous presence of these two different ideological tendencies in the *Introduction* indicates that in the theory and method of religious critique, Marx’s thought during this period was simultaneously influenced by the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach, possessing the dual character of pure speculative philosophy and humanist materialism.

《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》旨在分析德国当时的社会现状，批判为普鲁士王国辩护的宗教。该文开端便陈述了宗教批判工作在德国思想理论界的进展情况及必要性：“就德国来说，对宗教的批判基本上已经结束；而对宗教的批判是其他一切批判的前提。”《导言》中马克思的宗教观概述如下：其一，重申了宗教人造说，而非神创论的无神论立场，认为“人创造了宗教，而不是宗教创造了人”。其二，揭示了宗教的本质，认为“宗教是还没有获得自身或已经再度丧失自身的人的自我意识和自我感觉”。其三，揭示了人的社会属性以及宗教产生的社会根源，认为“人不是抽象的蛰居于世界之外的存在物。人就是人的世界，就是国家、社会。这个国家、这个社会产生了宗教，一种颠倒的世界意识，因为它们就是颠倒的世界”。其四，揭示了宗教的社会功能，认为“宗教是被压迫生灵的叹息，是无情世界的情感，正像它是无精神活力的制度的精神一样。宗教是人民的鸦片。”其五，阐述了批判宗教的目的在于批判宗教所维护的国家、法律及政治制度，藉此将“对天国的批判就变成对尘世的批判，对宗教的批判就变成对法的批判，对神学的批判就变成对政治的批判。”综上，《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》再次表达了宗教的根源在人间、在不合理的政治制度的观点，从社会政治制度视角诠释宗教的成因、功能及消亡路径。值得关注的是，《导言》中马克思对宗教本质问题的认识，存在以下两种不同的思想倾向，一是将宗教作为“那些还没有获得自己或是再度丧失了自己的人的自我意识和自我感觉”,二是将宗教“归结为人是人的最高本质这样一个学说”。第一种观点将宗教视为人的自我意识缺乏的产物，具有青年黑格尔派的思想痕迹；第二种观点将宗教视为人的自我异化的产物，人是人的最高本质，体现了费尔巴哈人本学唯物论的立场。两种不同的思想倾向同时出现在《导言》中，表明在宗教批判的理论与方法上，这一时期马克思的思想同时受到青年黑格尔派与费尔巴哈的影响,具有纯粹思辨哲学与人本学唯物论的双重色彩。

In summary, during the *Rheinische Zeitung* and *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* periods, Marx’s approach and understanding in conducting religious critique underwent significant changes: First, the logical starting point and research path for exploring the essence and roots of religion shifted from reason and self-consciousness in the doctoral dissertation period to a focus on actual society; second, he sought to reveal the roots of religion’s emergence and disappearance from the perspective of the political life of the state, rather than from the realm of ideas and concepts; third, he began to become aware of the relationship between the economic activities of Jews and the formation and disappearance of Judaism, marking the extension of his perspective on religious critique into the socio-economic sphere, and the initial emergence of historical materialism.

概言之，在《莱茵报》《德法年鉴》时期，马克思进行宗教批判的思路与认识出现较大变化：其一，探究宗教本质及根源的逻辑起点与研究路径，从博士论文时期的理性和自我意识转变为关注现实社会；其二，力图从国家政治生活，而非思想观念层面揭示宗教产生和消亡的根源；其三，开始意识到犹太人的经济活动与犹太教形成与消亡的关系问题，标志其宗教批判的视域开始延伸至社会经济领域，唯物史观已初现端倪。

3. The Writing of Works such as *The German Ideology* and the Establishment of Historical Materialism (1844-1846)

3.《德意志意识形态》等论著的撰写及唯物史观的创立(1844-1846)

From 1844 to 1846, Marx wrote the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, *Theses on Feuerbach*, and co-authored with Engels *The Holy Family* and *The German Ideology*, among other works. In the process of critiquing the religious theories and methods of the main members of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach, he drew clear boundaries with them and gradually formed the basic viewpoints of historical materialism.

1844年至1846年，马克思撰写《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》,以及与恩格斯合著《神圣家族》《德意志意识形态》等论著，在批判青年黑格尔派主要成员和费尔巴哈宗教理论及方法过程中，划清与他们之间的界限，逐步形成了唯物史观的基本观点。

Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* aimed to delve deeply into the issue of the relationship between state law and individual interests, which arose from the debate on the theft of wood during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, and the issue of Judaism and its economic foundation from the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, in order to clarify the real relationship between economic activity and the ideological concepts of state, politics, law, religion, philosophy, and morality. The *Manuscripts* does not discuss the issue of religion separately but treats it as part of ideology. Starting from the theory of alienated labor, Marx focused on elaborating the relationship of determination and domination between the socio-economic base and the political superstructure and ideology. Marx believed that “religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production and fall under its general law... The religious alienation as such occurs only in the realm of consciousness, in the inner world of man, but economic alienation is that of real life; its supersession therefore embraces both aspects.” [10]10 Ibid., p. 56. Here, Marx regards religion as a special form derived from the process of material production, proposing the view that “religion is the product of alienated labor,” revealing the derivative and symbiotic relationship between the phenomenon of economic alienation and the phenomenon of religious alienation, indicating that Marx had already discovered the secret of the determining role of material production over social elements such as religion, state, law, and morality. Furthermore, the *Manuscripts* put forward the view that “the entire so-called world history is nothing but the creation of man through human labor,” [11]11 Ibid., Thesis 8. explaining human history and its developmental process for the first time from material production, rather than from reason, self-consciousness, or the alienation of the “species-being.” This is the basic stance and analytical method of historical materialism for explaining human history, and it is the mark of Marx’s transcendence of old philosophy and his entry into the stage of establishing historical materialism.

马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》旨在深入研究《莱茵报》时期因林木盗窃案而引发的关于国家法律与个人利益的关系问题，以及《德法年鉴》时期关于犹太教及其经济基础问题，以澄清经济活动与国家政治法律制度、宗教哲学道德等思想观念之间的真实关系。《手稿》没有单独探讨宗教问题，而是将之作为思想意识形态的一部分。马克思从异化劳动理论出发，侧重阐述了社会经济基础与政治上层建筑、思想意识形态之间决定与被决定、支配与被支配的关系。马克思认为，“宗教、家庭、国家、法、道德、科学、艺术等等，都不过是生产的一些特殊的方式，并且受生产的普遍规律的支配……宗教的异化本身只是发生在意识形态领域、人的内心领域，而经济的异化是现实生活的异化，——因此异化的扬弃包括两个方面。”在此，马克思将宗教视为物质生产过程中衍生的一种特殊形式，提出“宗教是异化劳动的产物”观点，揭示了经济异化现象与宗教异化现象之间的派生性与共生性关系，表明马克思已经发现物质生产对宗教、国家、法律、道德等社会要素的决定性作用这一秘密。此外，《手稿》提出“整个所谓世界历史不外是人通过人的劳动而诞生的过程”这一观点，首次从物质生产，而非从理性、自我意识或“类”的异化出发解释人类历史及其发展过程，这是唯物史观解释人类历史的基本立场和分析方法，是马克思超越旧哲学、进入唯物史观创立阶段的标志。

The *Holy Family*, co-authored by Marx and Engels in 1844, began to apply materialist theory and method to the analysis of human history, to critique the erroneous views of history and religion held by the Young Hegelians and their method of purely speculative philosophy, and to eliminate their negative influence on the European workers’ movement of the time. In response to the erroneous practice of Bruno Bauer and others, who “only know the religious essence of the Jewish spirit, but do not know the secular, real basis of this religious essence … [who] do not use the real Jew to explain the secret of Judaism, but use Judaism to explain the real Jew,”[1]1 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 190. Marx and Engels further elaborated the materialist view of religion set forth in *On the Jewish Question*, holding that “the religious Judaism is continually produced by the present-day civil life and has attained a high development in the monetary system,” and that “the task of overcoming the Jewish essence is actually the task of eliminating the Judaism of civil society, the task of eliminating the inhumanity in the practice of modern life, the highest expression of which is the monetary system.”[2]2 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 154. This exposition by Marx and Engels explicitly links Judaism (religion) with industry and commerce, the monetary system, and civil life, striving to reveal the roots of the emergence and development of Judaism from socio-economic relations, thereby further deepening the understanding in *On the Jewish Question* that the economic activities of Jews determine their religious beliefs. The above content indicates that *The Holy Family* is a work that seeks to explain historical and religious phenomena from a materialist standpoint, thereby drawing a clear ideological line of demarcation with the Young Hegelians. The view put forward in the text, such as “for an idea to be realized, people who apply practical force are needed,”[3]3 Ibid., p. 41. laid the groundwork for Marx’s subsequent elaboration of the concept of practice and his transcendence of Feuerbach’s old materialism.

马克思、恩格斯1844年合著的《神圣家族》开始运用唯物主义理论与方法分析人类历史，批判青年黑格尔派错误的历史观、宗教观及其纯粹思辨哲学的方法，肃清其对当时欧洲工人运动的负面影响。针对布·鲍威尔等人“只了解犹太精神的宗教本质，但不了解这一宗教本质的世俗的现实的基础……不是用现实的犹太人去解释犹太教的秘密，而是用犹太教去解释现实的犹太人”这一错误做法，马克思、恩格斯进一步阐述了《论犹太人问题》中的唯物主义宗教观，认为“宗教的犹太精神，是由现今的市民生活所不断地产生出来的，并且在货币制度中获得了高度的发展”,“克服犹太本质的任务实际上就是消灭市民社会中犹太精神的任务，消灭现代生活实践中的非人性的任务，这种非人性的最高表现就是货币制度。”马克思、恩格斯这段论述明确地将犹太教(宗教)与工商业、货币制度、市民生活联系起来，力图从社会经济关系中揭示犹太教产生和发展的根源，进一步深化了《论犹太人问题》中关于犹太人的经济活动决定其宗教信仰的认识。上述内容表明，《神圣家族》是一部力图从唯物主义立场解释历史与宗教现象，以此与青年黑格尔派划清思想界限的论著。文中提出的“为了实现思想，就要有使用实践力量的人”等观点，为随后马克思阐述实践观、超越费尔巴哈旧唯物主义思想埋下了伏笔。

Marx’s *Theses on Feuerbach*, written in 1845, aims to critique Feuerbach’s view of religion and his humanist materialist methodology, and to draw a clear line of demarcation with Feuerbach’s humanist materialism. In works such as *The Essence of Christianity*, Feuerbach put forward views like “God is the product of the alienation of man’s essence,” striving to reduce God to man on the level of thought and theory. This materialist standpoint and method opened a window for the young Marx into the treasure house of materialist thought. However, Feuerbach failed to reveal from social practice and material productive labor the reasons or conditions for “why man’s essence is alienated into God,” and failed to see the objective material basis of the political superstructure and ideological forms; hence he was a “half-way materialist,”[4]4 Ibid., p. 57. i.e., adhering to materialism in the view of nature but falling into idealism in the view of history. In the *Theses*, Marx summarily critiques Feuerbach’s view of religion and his old materialist standpoint, and elaborates the dialectical materialist concept of practice and the corresponding view of history and view of religion. The main content of the *Theses* is as follows: First, it points out the defects of Feuerbach’s method of religious critique and expresses the standpoint and method of historical materialism. Theses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose that the main shortcoming of Feuerbach’s humanist materialism and his method of religious critique is the neglect of practice, i.e., the social material activity of humans consciously understanding and transforming the world. This is manifested concretely as: (1) “The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the *object* or of *contemplation*, but not as *sensuous human activity*, *practice*, not subjectively.”[5]5 Ibid., p. 53. Although Feuerbach put forward the correct view of “tracing the religious world back to its secular basis,” he also failed to reveal the essence and social roots of religious phenomena from “the self-cleavage and self-contradiction of this secular basis.”[6]6 Ibid., p. 56. (2) In *The Essence of Christianity*, Feuerbach merely regards the critique of religion as a purely “theoretical activity,” and therefore does not understand the social revolutionary and practical significance of the critique of religion. Second, it reveals the defects of Feuerbach’s theory of religious critique and expresses the core viewpoints of historical materialism. Theses 6, 7, and 8 propose: (1) Feuerbach “resolves the religious essence into the *human essence*,” while the human “essence can only be comprehended as ‘*species*’, as an inner, mute, general character which unites the many individuals in a natural way.”[7]7 Ibid., p. 56. He only sees the naturalness common to different individuals (humans), abstractly comprehending it as “species,” while neglecting the social nature of humans and the social relations of each individual; thus he finds it difficult to understand the question of “why man is alienated into God.” Marx proposes that man is “the ensemble of the social relations,”[8]8 Ibid., p. 56. a core viewpoint of historical materialism. (2) On the question of the causes of religion, Feuerbach did not recognize that the individual “belongs to a particular form of society,”[9]9 Ibid., p. 56. and “does not see that the ‘religious sentiment’ is itself a *social product*,”[10]10 Ibid., p. 56. and therefore could not possibly reveal the social roots of the emergence of religion. (3) Because Feuerbach’s theory of religious critique is divorced from social practice, it fails to find an effective path to solve the religious problem. Marx proposes that “all mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.”[11]11 Ibid., Thesis 8. The above content of the *Theses* shows that, in the process of critiquing Feuerbach’s religious theory and method, Marx, through the category of “practice,” drew a clear line of demarcation with Feuerbach’s philosophy, and briefly and accurately expressed the basic standpoint and core viewpoints of historical materialism. It is noteworthy that Thesis 11 proposes the view that “the philosophers have only *interpreted* the world, in various ways; the point is to *change* it.”[12]12 Ibid., Thesis 11. Unlike the view in the *Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction* that “the critique of religion is the prerequisite of every critique,”[13]13 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” in *Collected Works*, Vol. 3, p. 175. the *Theses* emphasizes “changing the world,” while the *Introduction* focuses on theoretical critique. This indicates that the goal of Marx’s critique of religion had already undergone a significant change, i.e., from theoretical critique to social critique. This is an important marker of Marx’s transformation from a supporter of Feuerbach’s philosophy into the founder of historical materialism and a communist.

马克思于1845年撰写的《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》,旨在批判费尔巴哈宗教观及其人本学唯物主义方法论，划清其与费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义的界限。费尔巴哈在《基督教的本质》等论著中提出“上帝是人的本质异化的产物”等观点,力图从思想理论层面把神还原为人。这种唯物主义立场与方法为青年马克思打开了通向唯物主义思想宝库的窗户。但是，费尔巴哈未能从社会实践及物质生产劳动中揭示“人的本质为何异化为神”的原因或条件，未能看到政治上层建筑、思想观念形态的客观物质基础，因而是“半截子的唯物主义”,即在自然观上坚持唯物主义，却在历史观上陷于唯心主义。马克思在《提纲》中概要地批判了费尔巴哈宗教观及其旧唯物主义立场，阐述了辩证唯物主义实践观以及与之对应的历史观、宗教观。《提纲》的主要内容如下：第一，指出了费尔巴哈宗教批判方法的缺陷，表达了唯物史观的立场与方法。《提纲》第一、二、三、四、五条提出，费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义及宗教批判方法的主要缺点是忽略实践，即人类有目的地认识与改造世界的社会物质活动，具体表现为：其一，“对对象、现实、感性，只是从客体的或者直观的形式去理解，而不是把它们当做感性的人的活动，当做实践去理解……”,费尔巴哈虽然提出“把宗教世界归结于它的世俗基础”这一正确观点，也没能从“这个世俗基础的自我分离和自我矛盾”中揭示宗教现象的本质及社会根源。其二，费尔巴哈在《基督教的本质》一书中仅仅将宗教批判视为纯粹“理论的活动”,因而不了解宗教批判具有的社会革命及实践意义。第二，揭示了费尔巴哈宗教批判理论的缺陷，表述了唯物史观的核心观点。《提纲》第六、七、八条提出：其一，费尔巴哈“把宗教的本质归结于人的本质”,而人的“本质只能被理解为“类”,理解为一种内在的、无声的、把许多个人自然地联系起来的普遍性”,只是看到了不同个体(人)共有的自然性，将之抽象地理解为“类”,而忽略人的社会性及每一个体具有的社会关系，因而难以理解“人为什么异化为神”的问题。马克思提出人是“一切社会关系的总和”这一唯物史观的核心观点。其二，在宗教成因问题上，费尔巴哈没有认识到个人“是属于一定的社会形式的”,“没有看到，‘宗教感情’本身是社会的产物”,也就不可能揭示宗教产生的社会根由。其三，由于费尔巴哈的宗教批判理论脱离社会实践，因而未能找到解决宗教问题的有效路径。马克思提出“凡是把理论引向神秘主义的神秘东西，都能在人的实践中以及对这种实践的理解中得到合理的解决。”《提纲》的上述内容表明，马克思在批判费尔巴哈宗教理论与方法的过程中，通过“实践”范畴划清了与费尔巴哈哲学之间的界限，简要、准确地表述了唯物史观的基本立场和核心观点。值得关注的是，《提纲》第十一条提出“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，问题在于改变世界”的观点，与《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中提出的“对宗教的批判是其他一切批判的前提”这一观点不同，《提纲》强调“改变世界”,《导言》注重理论批判，表明马克思宗教批判的目标已经发生显著变化，即从理论批判转向社会批判，这是马克思从费尔巴哈哲学的拥护者转变为唯物史观创立者和共产主义者的重要标志。

*The German Ideology*, co-authored by Marx and Engels in 1845-1846, consists of two volumes. Volume One, “Critique of Modern German Philosophy as Represented by Feuerbach and Stirner,” aims to critique the erroneous theories and methods of religious critique of Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians, and to systematically expound the basic viewpoints of historical materialism. Its main content is as follows:

马克思恩格斯1845-1846年合著的《德意志意识形态》共两卷,第一卷“对费尔巴哈和施蒂纳所代表的现代德国哲学的批判”,旨在批判费尔巴哈和青年黑格尔派错误的宗教批判理论及方法，系统阐述唯物史观的基本观点，其主要内容如下：

First, it reveals the defects of the theories and methods of religious critique of Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians.

第一，揭示费尔巴哈和青年黑格尔派宗教批判理论及方法的缺陷。

Marx and Engels pointed out that the error of Feuerbach’s theory of the critique of religion lay in his understanding of different individuals (human beings) as a “species” united through love and friendship rather than through actual social relations, and from this he deduced a new religion—the religion of “love.” The cause of this erroneous theory was that, “when he deals with history, he is by no means a materialist.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 190. This stance and method prevented Feuerbach from understanding that the sensuous world is “the product of the activity of a succession of generations, each standing on the shoulders of the preceding one, developing its industry and its intercourse, and modifying its social system according to the changed needs,” [2]2 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 154. from knowing “any other ‘human relations’ ‘of man to man,’” [3]3 Ibid., p. 41. and from understanding the decisive role of practice and of the mode of social production and intercourse in human society. Naturally, he could not grasp the sociality of individuals (human beings) nor the social roots of why human beings could be alienated into “God.” The errors in the theory and method of the critique of religion of representative figures of the Young Hegelians, such as Strauss and Stirner, were: first, their understanding of “what religious consciousness and what religious conceptions are” was internally contradictory; second, Bauer, Stirner, and others sacralized the dominant philosophy, politics, state, law, and morality, and these things “were gradually proclaimed to be religious relations and were turned into superstition—superstition of law, superstition of the state, etc.,” [4]4 Ibid., p. 57. advocating the transformation of the feudal autocratic system of 19th-century Germany through the reform of law and the state. Marx and Engels pointed out that the error in the theory of Stirner and others lay in their not knowing that to enter the “human kingdom” from the “divine kingdom,” one must seek the path in actual social relations of intercourse. Because they could not find the key to understanding the “divine kingdom” from earthly relations and did not understand the actual path from the “divine kingdom” to the “human kingdom,” Strauss, Stirner, and others could only advocate, at the level of ideas and concepts, replacing “God” with the new superstition of law and the state to achieve social change, rather than transforming society through the means of social revolution.

马克思、恩格斯指出费尔巴哈宗教批判理论的错误在于，他将不同个体(人)理解为通过爱和友情，而非现实社会关系连成一体的“类”,并由此推出一种新宗教——“爱”的宗教；而导致其错误理论的原因在于，费尔巴哈在“探讨历史的时候，他绝不是一个唯物主义者”,这一立场与方法使费尔巴哈不能了解感性世界是“世世代代活动的结果，其中每一代都在前一代所达到的基础上继续发展前一代的工业和交往方式，并随着需要的改变而改变它的社会制度”,“不知道‘人与人之间’还有什么其他的‘人的关系’”,不了解实践及社会生产和交往方式在人类社会中的决定作用，当然也就不可能理解个体(人)的社会性，以及人为什么能够异化为“上帝”的社会根源。施特劳斯、施蒂纳等青年黑格尔派代表人物的宗教批判理论及方法的错误在于：一是他们对“什么是宗教意识，什么是宗教观念”的认识存在前后矛盾；二是鲍威尔、施蒂纳等人将占统治地位的哲学、政治、国家、法律、道德神圣化，而这些东西“逐渐地都被宣布为宗教的关系，继而被转化为迷信——对法的迷信，对国家的迷信等等”,主张通过法律、国家的革新，改变19世纪德国封建专制制度。马克思、恩格斯指出，施蒂纳等人理论错误的原因在于他们不知道从“神的王国”进入“人的王国”,必须从现实的社会交往方式中寻找路径。由于不能从尘世关系中寻找理解“神的王国”的钥匙，不了解从“神的王国”进入“人的王国”的现实路径，施特劳斯、施蒂纳等人只能在思想观念层面主张用法、国家这一新迷信取代“上帝”实现社会变革，而不是通过社会革命方式变革社会。

Second, they completely and systematically expounded the basic viewpoints of historical materialism.

第二，完整、系统地阐述唯物史观的基本观点。

In the process of revealing the defects in the theory and method of the critique of religion of Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians, Marx and Engels relatively completely and accurately expounded their entirely new conception of history, namely, “to set out from the material production of immediate life, to conceive the real process of production in connection with the form of intercourse engendered by this mode of production and brought forth by it—i.e., civil society in its various stages—as the basis of all history; and then to describe the activities of civil society within the sphere of state life, and at the same time to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, such as religion, philosophy, morality, etc., etc., and to trace their process of coming into being on this basis.” [5]5 Ibid., p. 53. On this basis, Marx and Engels summarily expounded the main content of historical materialism: material production and the mode of intercourse constitute the material basis necessary for the continuation of human life and the development of history; the emergence and disappearance of political superstructures such as the state and law, as well as ideas, concepts, and ideologies, depend on the mode of material production and intercourse and their level of development; the contradictory movement of the mode of material production and intercourse fundamentally determines the process of human historical development, manifested as the evolutionary process of social formations from tribal ownership → ancient communal and state ownership → feudal hierarchical ownership → capitalist ownership, etc.

在揭示费尔巴哈和青年黑格尔派宗教批判理论及方法缺陷的过程中，马克思、恩格斯较完整准确地阐述了他们全新的历史观，即“从直接生活的物质生产出发来考察现实的生产过程，并把与该生产方式相联系的、它所产生的交往形式，即各个不同阶段上的市民社会，理解为整个历史的基础；然后必然在国家生活的范围内描述市民社会的活动，同时从市民社会出发来阐明各种不同的理论产物和意识形态，如宗教、哲学、道德等等，并在这个基础上追溯它们产生的过程。”在此基础上，马克思、恩格斯概括地阐述了唯物史观的主要内容：物质生产与交往方式是人类生命延续及历史发展所必需的物质基础；国家、法律等政治上层建筑，以及思想观念和意识形态的产生与消亡，取决于物质生产与交往方式及其发展水平；物质生产与交往方式的矛盾运动过程，从根本上决定着人类历史的发展过程，表现为从部落所有制→古代公社及国家所有制→封建等级所有制→资本主义所有制等社会形态的演进过程。

Third, they comprehensively and systematically expounded the Marxist view of religion.

第三，全面、系统地阐述了马克思主义宗教观。

On the question of the essence and causes of religion, Marx and Engels proposed that the error in the theory and method of the critique of religion of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach was that the former “explained” religion “by ‘self-consciousness’ and suchlike nonsense,” [6]6 Ibid., p. 56. while the latter “sought this essence in ‘the essence of man,’ in the predicates of God.” [7]7 Ibid., p. 56. Although the paths and methods of their critique of religion differed, their error was the same: neither “explained” religion “by the mode of production and intercourse that has always existed,” [8]8 Ibid., p. 56. so it was necessary “to seek this essence in the existing material world of each stage of religion’s development.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 56. On the question of the conditions for the extinction of religion, Marx and Engels held that “all forms and products of consciousness” including religion “cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into ‘self-consciousness’ or by transformation into ‘apparitions,’ ‘spectres,’ ‘fancies,’ etc., but can only be dissolved by the actual overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to these idealistic humbugs.” [10]10 Ibid., p. 56. That is, only by overthrowing the irrational actual social relations can the religion and old ideologies standing upon them be finally eliminated. In summary, *The German Ideology* for the first time systematically expounded the basic viewpoints and main content of historical materialism, and is therefore regarded by the academic community as the sign of the birth of historical materialism.

在宗教的本质及成因问题上，马克思、恩格斯提出青年黑格尔派和费尔巴哈宗教批判理论与方法的错误在于，前者“用‘自我意识’以及诸如此类的胡言乱语来解释”宗教，后者“在‘人的本质’中，在上帝的宾词中去寻找这个本质”。虽然两者的宗教批判路径与方法各异，但其错误是相同的，即都没有“用一向存在的生产和交往的方式来解释”宗教,所以“只有到宗教的每个发展阶段的现成物质世界中去寻找这个本质”;在宗教消亡条件问题上，马克思、恩格斯认为包括宗教在内的“意识的一切形式和产物不是可以用精神的批判来消灭的，也不是可以通过把它们消融在‘自我意识’中或化为‘幽灵’、‘怪影’、‘怪想’等等来消灭的，而只有实际地推翻这一切唯心主义谬论所由产生的现实的社会关系，才能把它们消灭”。即只有推翻不合理的现实社会关系，才能最终消灭耸立其上的宗教及旧的思想意识形态。综上，《德意志意识形态》首次系统地阐述了唯物史观的基本观点与主要内容，因而被学界视为唯物史观诞生的标志。

The major works written between 1844 and 1846 and their content show that Marx achieved a qualitative leap at the level of thought and theory. Specifically, following a research approach and perspective of integrating theory with practice, he deeply investigated the relationship between elements such as religion, the state, and law and socio-economic life, and from this discovered the secret of the foundational status and dynamic mechanism of material production and relations of intercourse in human social life, revealing the objective material basis for the formation of political-legal systems and ideological forms, including religious belief. The theory and method of historical materialism were mainly formed in the process of Marx’s critique of religion, his critique of the erroneous theories and methods of the critique of religion of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach, and his critique of various conceptions of the state.

1844-1846年间撰写的主要论著及其内容表明，马克思在思想理论层面实现了质的飞跃。具体而言，他沿着理论联系实际的研究思路与视角，深入探究宗教、国家、法律等要素与社会经济生活的关系，并从中发现了物质生产与交往关系在人类社会生活中的基础性地位及动力机制这一秘密，揭示了政治法律制度和思想观念形态，包括宗教信仰之所以形成的客观物质基础。唯物史观的理论与方法主要是在马克思批判宗教、批判青年黑格尔派和费尔巴哈错误的宗教批判理论及方法，以及各类国家观的过程中形成的。

II. The Role of Marx’s Critique of Religion in the Formation of Historical Materialism

二、马克思宗教批判在唯物史观形成过程中的作用

A systematic review of the content of Marx’s major works from his youth reveals the internal relationship between his critique of religion and the creation of historical materialism. The question that needs to be asked is: why did Marx attach importance to the critique of religion? What role did the critique of religion play in the process of the formation of Marx’s historical materialism?

系统梳理马克思青年时期主要论著的内容，可以发现其宗教批判与创立唯物史观之间的内在关系。需要追问的是，马克思为什么重视宗教批判?宗教批判在马克思唯物史观形成过程中发挥怎样的作用呢?

First, the critique of religion was an important entry point for Marx’s creation of historical materialism.

第一，宗教批判是马克思创立唯物史观的重要切入点。

The doctoral dissertation was the inaugural work of Marx’s critique of religion. Its call for freedom and its open declaration of war against religious authority not only reflected Marx’s value stance and problem consciousness in his youth but also had an important influence on his subsequent intellectual journey and the focus of his theoretical research. Criticizing religion and criticizing various erroneous “theories of the critique of religion” and their methods became the main work to which Marx devoted himself in his youth. The basic viewpoints of historical materialism concerning the grounding of ideological forms and political superstructures in the mode of material production and intercourse, the contradictory relationship between social existence and social consciousness, and important theoretical propositions such as the laws of human historical development, were gradually formed precisely in the process of Marx’s investigation of relatively concrete social phenomena such as religion, the state, and law and their secular roots. Taking the critique of religion as his entry point, Marx continuously advanced his relevant understanding around the question of the “earthly” roots of the emergence of religion. In the period of the doctoral dissertation, he attributed the emergence of religion to the lack of human reason or self-consciousness, holding that religion was the product of irrationality; in the period of the *Rheinische Zeitung* and the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, Marx mainly revealed the roots of the emergence of religion from socio-political life and began to pay attention to the economic activities of the Jews, i.e., the question of the determining role of the economic base on Judaism, a form of thought and consciousness; in the period of writing the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and *The German Ideology*, i.e., the stage of creating historical materialism, Marx discovered the internal relationship between the alienation of labor and the alienation of religion, and the secret of human history that material production and the mode of intercourse determine ideology and the political superstructure, thereby creating an entirely new philosophy of history. Therefore, the inquiry into the essence of religion and its secular roots was the entry point for Marx’s creation of historical materialism.

博士论文是马克思宗教批判工作的开端之作。该文对自由的呼唤以及对宗教权威的公开宣战，不仅体现了马克思青年时期的价值立场与问题意识，也对其以后的心路历程与理论研究重点具有重要影响。批判宗教、批判各种错误的“宗教批判理论”及方法，成为马克思青年时期致力的主要工作。唯物史观关于思想意识形式、政治上层建筑建基于物质生产及交往方式的基本观点，社会存在与社会意识之间的矛盾关系，以及人类历史发展规律等重要理论命题，正是在马克思探究相对具体的宗教、国家、法律等社会现象及其世俗根源问题过程中逐步形成的。马克思以宗教批判为切入点，围绕宗教产生的“尘世”根源问题，不断推进相关认识。在博士论文时期，他将宗教的产生归于人的理性或自我意识的缺失，认为宗教是无理性的产物；在《莱茵报》和《德法年鉴》时期，马克思主要从社会政治生活中揭示宗教产生的根源，并开始关注犹太人的经济活动，即经济基础对犹太教即思想观念的决定作用问题；在撰写《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《德意志意识形态》时即创立唯物史观阶段，马克思发现劳动异化与宗教异化之间的内在关系，以及物质生产、交往方式决定思想意识形态、政治上层建筑这一人类历史的秘密，由此创立一种崭新的历史哲学。所以说，对宗教的本质及其世俗根源的追问，是马克思创立唯物史观的切入点。

The reason Marx attached such great importance to the critique of religion and to the critique of the various “theories of religious criticism” then prevalent in Germany has profound subjective and objective causes. In the 18th and 19th centuries, social movements overthrowing feudal autocratic systems erupted successively in many European countries. The Enlightenment, which opposed religious obscurantism, became the “ideational revolutionary vanguard” of this democratic movement. Following the 17th-century English bourgeois revolution and the 18th-century French Enlightenment, German intellectual circles in the late 18th and first half of the 19th centuries also raised a wave of thought criticizing the feudal autocratic system. As Marx himself said, because in the Prussian kingdom “the confusion of political principles with Christian religious principles had become the official mark of faith,”[1]1 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 190. the ideational revolution against religion became the primary task of the struggle against the feudal autocratic system, and the critique of religion therefore became a hot topic in German theoretical circles in the first half of the 19th century. The wave of religious criticism in German theoretical circles in the first half of the 19th century provided a relatively adequate ideational preparation for the political movement against the Prussian feudal autocratic system. This political and ideational environment exerted a tremendous influence on the young Marx. He actively participated in the various activities of the Young Hegelians and also established the critique of religion and the critique of society as his own working objectives. As his research deepened, Marx discovered the defects in the theories and methods of religious criticism of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach, namely, that they did not see the material foundation on which religion and the state that maintains it depend, overlooked the principal position of the masses of the people in material production and the process of social development, and, even more, failed to discover the real force advancing social revolution—the proletariat. Marx continuously revised the theories and methods of religious criticism and social criticism, gradually detaching himself from the ideological camp of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach, and began to move in the direction of founding historical materialism.

马克思之所以高度重视批判宗教、批判当时流行于德国的各种“宗教批判理论”,有其深刻的主客观原因。18-19世纪，欧洲多国先后爆发推翻封建专制制度的社会运动。反对宗教蒙昧主义的启蒙运动，成为这场民主主义运动的“思想革命先导”。继17世纪英国资产阶级革命、18世纪法国启蒙运动之后，德国思想界在18世纪后期、19世纪上半叶也掀起批判封建专制制度的思想浪潮。正如马克思所言，由于普鲁士王国的“政治原则和基督教宗教原则的混淆已成为了官方的信仰标志”,反对宗教的思想革命成为反对封建专制制度的首要任务，宗教批判因此成为19世纪上半叶德国思想理论领域的热点。19世纪上半叶德国理论界的宗教批判浪潮，为反对普鲁士封建专制制度的政治运动做了较充分的思想铺垫。这种政治与思想环境对青年马克思产生了巨大影响。他积极投入青年黑格尔派的各种活动，也将宗教批判和社会批判确立为自己的工作目标。随着研究的不断深入，马克思发现青年黑格尔派和费尔巴哈宗教批判理论与方法的缺陷，即没有看到宗教及其维护的国家赖以存在的物质基础，忽略了人民群众在物质生产与社会发展过程中的主体地位，更没能发现推进社会革命的现实力量——无产阶级。马克思不断修正宗教批判和社会批判的理论与方法，使自己逐渐脱离青年黑格尔派和费尔巴哈的思想阵营，开始朝着创立历史唯物主义的方向迈进。

Second, the critique of religion was an important driving force for Marx’s creation of historical materialism.

第二，宗教批判是马克思创立唯物史观的重要动力源。

The formation of Marx’s historical materialism went through stages such as gestation, germination, and formation. The understandings and methods of each stage are both sequentially linked and each has its own emphasis, thereby constituting the rich facets of the formation process of historical materialism. What is meant by “sequentially linked” is that the various stages of the creation of historical materialism share common contents or elements. For example, the research objective of exploring the earthly foundations of religion, the state, and law runs through all stages of the formation of historical materialism. What is meant by “each has its own emphasis” is the differences among the different stages of the formation process of historical materialism in terms of theoretical focus, depth of understanding, and research methods. For example, Marx’s understanding of the essence and roots of religion roughly went through a developmental process from ideational determinism → political determinism → economic determinism, and the focus of his religious criticism correspondingly passed through stages from ideological criticism → political criticism → economic criticism. Furthermore, Marx’s methodology for criticizing religion and criticizing various “theories of religious criticism” also had stages, namely, undergoing an evolutionary process from pure speculative philosophy → Feuerbachian humanist materialism → historical materialism. In the process of creating historical materialism, Marx had both a consistent theoretical perspective and research objective and continuously deepened his understanding and research means, embodying the dialectical unity of change and constancy.

马克思唯物史观的形成，经历了孕育、萌芽与形成等阶段。其中每一阶段的认识及方法，既前后相联，又各有侧重，由此构成唯物史观形成过程的丰富面向。所谓前后相联，是指在唯物史观创立的各个阶段具有共同的内容或要素。例如，探寻宗教、国家及法律的尘世根基，这一研究目标贯穿于唯物史观形成的各个阶段；所谓各有侧重，即唯物史观形成过程的不同阶段在理论关注重点、认识深度及研究方法的差异性。例如，马克思对宗教本质及根源问题的认识，大致经历了从观念决定论→政治决定论→经济决定论等发展过程，其宗教批判的焦点也先后呈现出从思想批判→政治批判→经济批判等阶段。此外，马克思批判宗教、批判各种“宗教批判理论”的方法论也有阶段性，即经历了从纯粹思辨哲学→费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义→历史唯物主义的演变过程。马克思在创立唯物史观过程中，既有一以贯之的理论视角和研究目标，也在不断深化认识和研究手段，体现了变与不变的辩证统一。

The reason Marx was able to create historical materialism is inseparable from his critique of religion and his critique of erroneous “theories of religious criticism.” The work of criticizing religion and criticizing erroneous “theories of religious criticism” and their methods impelled Marx to focus his objectives and delve deeper layer by layer, gradually achieving a revolutionary leap in his conception of history through exploration. The content of Marx’s major youthful writings records the process of his continuously probing the essence and roots of social phenomena such as religion and the state, and presents the trajectory of historical materialism’s gradual perfection within this process from non-existence to existence, from vagueness to clarity, from fragmentation to systematization. The formation and development of historical materialism were realized in the course of Marx’s work of criticizing religion and criticizing erroneous “theories of religious criticism” and their methods. Specifically, the view proposed in Marx’s doctoral dissertation that religion originates from a lack of reason, along with his atheist stance and his research perspective of exploring the essence and roots of religion from human and human social life rather than from the otherworldly realm as Christianity claims, prefigured the possibility for the formation of historical materialism. During the period of the *Rheinische Zeitung* and the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, in order to oppose Bruno Bauer’s view that “religious emancipation is the prerequisite for political emancipation,” Marx put forward the view that “we do not turn secular questions into theological ones. We turn theological questions into secular ones,”[2]2 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 154. regarding political emancipation as the prerequisite for religious emancipation, and began to realize the important role of the Jews’ economic activities in the emergence and disappearance of Judaism, indicating that historical materialism had already begun to germinate. The systematic exposition and relatively complete theoretical form of historical materialism were also completed in the process of writing *The German Ideology*, which Marx and Engels wrote precisely to comprehensively settle accounts with the defects of the Young Hegelian and Feuerbachian theories and methods of religious criticism. Marx’s critique of religion played an indispensable role in the gestation, germination, and formation of historical materialism; it was precisely the critique of religion that impelled Marx to complete the revolutionary turn in theory and method. To set aside Marx’s youthful work of religious criticism would make it impossible to accurately grasp the dynamic mechanism and ideational path of the formation of Marx’s historical materialism.

马克思之所以能够创立唯物史观，与其批判宗教、批判错误的“宗教批判理论”密不可分。批判宗教、批判错误的“宗教批判”理论与方法工作，促使马克思聚焦目标、层层深入，在探索中逐渐实现其历史观的革命性飞跃。马克思青年时期主要论著的内容记录了马克思不断深究宗教、国家等社会现象的本质与根源问题的过程，呈现了唯物史观在这一过程之中从无到有、从模糊到清晰、从零散到系统的逐渐完善轨迹。唯物史观的形成与发展，是在马克思批判宗教、批判错误的“宗教批判”理论与方法的工作中实现的。具体来说，马克思在博士论文中提出的宗教源于理性匮乏的观点及无神论立场，以及从人、人类社会生活中，而非基督教所说的从彼岸世界中探究宗教本质及根源的研究视角，为唯物史观的形成预设了可能性；在《莱茵报》《德法年鉴》时期，为反对布鲁诺·鲍威尔关于“宗教解放是政治解放的前提”等观点，马克思提出“我们不把世俗问题化为神学问题。我们要把神学问题化为世俗问题”的观点，将政治解放视为宗教解放的前提，并开始意识到犹太人的经济活动对犹太教产生与消亡的重要作用，表明唯物史观已开始萌发。唯物史观的系统表述及相对完整的理论形态，也是马克思、恩格斯为了全面清算青年黑格尔派和费尔巴哈宗教批判理论与方法的缺陷，所撰写的《德意志意识形态》过程中完成的。马克思的宗教批判在唯物史观的孕育、萌发与形成过程中，发挥了不可或缺的作用，正是宗教批判推动马克思完成了理论与方法的革命性转向。撇开马克思青年时期的宗教批判工作，就无法准确把握马克思唯物史观形成的动力机制和思想进路。

III. The Significance of Studying Marx’s Critique of Religion and Its Contemporary Implications

三、研究马克思宗教批判问题的意义及其当代启示

Since the end of the 19th century, the history of the development of Marx’s thought has become a specialized field of research. Because the thought of the young Marx is the starting point of the process by which the Marxist theoretical system went from non-existence to existence and from immaturity to maturity, occupying a foundational position, it has received much attention. Today, systematically reviewing the major writings of the young Marx and their content, and from this exploring the internal relationship between his critique of religion and the formation of historical materialism, still possesses great theoretical value and practical significance, and from it we can obtain beneficial insights.

19世纪末以来，马克思思想发展史开始成为一个专门的研究领域。由于马克思青年时期的思想是马克思主义理论体系从无到有、从不成熟到成熟过程的起点，具有奠基性的地位，因而备受关注。今天，我们系统梳理马克思青年时代的主要论著及其内容，从中探讨其宗教批判与唯物史观形成的内在关系问题，仍然具有重大的理论价值和现实意义，并从中获得有益的启示。

First, deeply studying the internal relationship between Marx’s work of religious criticism and the formation of historical materialism helps to accurately grasp the developmental thread of Marx’s thought and the internal logic of his theoretical system. The critique of religion was not only the entry point for Marx’s creation of historical materialism; its problem-consciousness and research methods also, to a certain extent, determined the important content and direction of Marx’s thought, becoming an important node in the formation of his theoretical system. Marx conducted research centered on the “earthly” root causes of religion, discovering from it the core position of material production and the forms of intercourse determined by it in social life, and used this new discovery to analyze the industrial mode of production under capitalist historical conditions, especially the study of the commodity of labor-power and the capitalist production process, which are decisive for the capitalist mode of production, gradually revealing the mystery of the generation of surplus value, and thereby revealing the economic roots of the antagonism between the two major classes of capitalist society. The focus of Marx’s theoretical research also began to shift from the field of philosophy to the fields of socialist theory and economics, laying the theoretical foundation for the formation of scientific socialism and political economy. The historical materialism gradually formed in the critique of religion became the fundamental method for Marx to analyze the internal contradictions of capitalism and to reveal the rationality and inevitability of communism. Therefore, a complete and accurate understanding of the formation and development process of the scientific theoretical system of Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism cannot set aside the study of Marx’s youthful texts on the critique of religion and their content. However, currently, domestic theoretical circles lack due attention to the important role of Marx’s critique of religion in the construction of his theoretical system, especially the endogenous relationship between it and the formation of historical materialism. This situation can easily lead to misunderstandings, making it difficult for people to accurately understand the complete thread of the development of Marx’s thought and the close relationships among the various parts of his theoretical system. To deepen the study of the history of the development of Marx’s thought and his theoretical system, research on the important role of Marx’s critique of religion in the formation process of his theoretical system must be strengthened.

第一，深入研究马克思宗教批判工作与唯物史观形成的内在关系，有助于准确把握马克思思想发展脉络及其理论体系的内在逻辑。宗教批判不仅是马克思创立唯物史观的切入点，其问题意识、研究方法也在一定程度上决定了马克思思想的重要内容及走向，成为其思想理论体系形成的重要节点。马克思围绕宗教的“尘世”根由问题开展研究，从中发现物质生产及其所决定的交往方式在社会生活中的核心地位，并运用这一新发现分析资本主义历史条件下的工业化生产方式，特别是对资本主义生产方式具有决定意义的劳动力商品与资本主义生产过程的研究，逐步揭示了剩余价值产生的奥秘，从而揭示了资本主义社会两大阶级对立的经济根源。马克思理论研究的重点也开始从哲学领域转向社会主义理论和经济学领域，为科学社会主义与政治经济学的形成奠定了理论基础。在宗教批判中逐渐形成的唯物史观，成为马克思分析资本主义内在矛盾、揭示共产主义合理性与必然性的根本方法。因此，完整、准确地认识马克思主义哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义这一科学理论体系的形成与发展过程，无法撇开对马克思青年时期的宗教批判文本及其内容的研究。但目前国内理论界对马克思宗教批判在其思想理论体系建构过程中的重要作用问题，特别是对其与唯物史观形成之间的内生性关系问题，缺乏应有的重视。这种状况容易导致认识误区，使人们难以准确理解马克思思想发展的完整脉络及其理论体系中各部分之间的密切关系。为了深化对马克思思想发展史与理论体系的研究，必须加强对马克思宗教批判在其思想理论体系形成过程中重要作用问题的研究。

Second, an in-depth study of Marx’s texts on the critique of religion and the evolution of his thought helps to fully and accurately grasp the ideological implications and methods of Marx’s critique of religion, to enhance the ability to distinguish Marxist theories of religion, and to avoid religious policies that are either “Left” or Right as a result of a one-sided understanding of Marx’s religious thought. Historical materialism is a completely new social-historical philosophy that Marx created in the process of criticizing religion, the Young Hegelians, and Feuerbach’s theories and methods of religion. Unlike the theories and methods of the old philosophers, this social-historical philosophy neither regards religion as a product of the lack of reason or self-consciousness, nor as a product of human alienation, but rather as a product of a certain mode of material production, mode of intercourse, and social relations. In understanding the various religions that actually exist or in dealing with religious issues, Marx believed that restoring human self-consciousness or reshaping human dignity is not an effective path to eliminating religion. This is because, in Marx’s view, “all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into ‘self-consciousness’ or by transformation into ‘apparitions’, ‘spectres’, ‘fancies’, etc., but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which give rise to these idealistic humbugs.” [14]14 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-46). The English translation follows the standard edition; the Chinese text cites the original passage. In other words, it is necessary first to eliminate the cognitive and social conditions on which religion depends for its survival, to raise the level of human cognitive ability and science and technology to the point where “man proposes, and man also disposes,” and to fully guarantee the equality and autonomy of every member of society, so that they are spared from the control of alien forces from nature and human society, and to eliminate the various fears and feelings of helplessness that arise from this. Only when there is no longer a psychological need to pray for the protection of deities can religion be finally eliminated. Marx’s view of religion reveals a basic principle for the religious work of the Chinese government: in how to view and handle religious issues, on the one hand, it is necessary to proceed from the actual conditions of China’s current economic and social development, as well as the people’s way of life and level of cognition, to establish and improve legal systems, policies, and management methods that guide religion to adapt to socialism with Chinese characteristics, to strive to overcome “Left” adventurism or Right conservative positions in the field of religious work, and to overcome erroneous practices that are either impatient for success or adhere to old ways divorced from actual social conditions; on the other hand, in the new stage of comprehensive modernization, it is necessary to continuously promote the development of education and cultural undertakings, gradually raise the people’s level of science and culture; continuously improve the income distribution system, promote common prosperity, gradually overcome the phenomenon of polarization between rich and poor, and effectively strengthen the people’s sense of gain and sense of being masters of the country, so as to gradually eliminate the cognitive conditions and economic and social conditions on which religion in China depends for its survival. Only then can the influence of religion be continuously reduced, and even move towards its final extinction.

第二，深入研究马克思宗教批判文本及其思想演进过程，有助于完整、准确地理解马克思宗教批判的思想意蕴与方法，提升对马克思主义宗教理论的辨析能力，避免因片面理解马克思宗教思想及由此导致的或“左”或右的宗教政策。唯物史观是马克思在批判宗教、批判青年黑格尔派和费尔巴哈宗教理论与方法过程中创立的全新社会历史哲学。与旧哲学家们的理论与方法不同，这种社会历史哲学既不是将宗教视为理性或自我意识缺失的产物，也不将之视为人的异化的产物，而是将其视为一定物质生产方式、交往方式及社会关系的产物。在认识现实存在的各种宗教或处理宗教问题的方式上，马克思认为恢复人的自我意识或重塑人的尊严，不是消灭宗教的有效路径。因为在马克思看来“意识的一切形式和产物不是可以用精神的批判来消灭的，也不是可以通过把它们消融在‘自我意识’中或化为‘幽灵’、‘怪影’、‘怪想’等等来消灭的，而只有实际地推翻这一切唯心主义谬论所由产生的现实的社会关系，才能把它们消灭”。换言之，必须首先消除宗教赖以生存的认知和社会条件，将人类认知能力及科技水平提升到“谋事在人，成事也在人”的水平，且充分保障每一位社会成员的平等与自主权利，使他们免于遭受来自自然界和人类社会异己力量的控制，消除由此产生的各种恐惧、无助感，不再存在祈求神祇庇护的心理需求时，才能最终消灭宗教。马克思的宗教观为我国政府宗教工作昭示了一个基本原则：在如何看待和处理宗教问题上，一方面，必须从我国现有经济、社会发展的实际状况，以及民众的生活方式与认知水平出发，建立健全引导宗教与中国特色社会主义相适应的法律制度、政策及管理办法，努力克服宗教工作领域的“左”倾冒进或右倾保守立场，克服脱离社会现实条件的或急于求成、或因循守旧的错误做法；另一方面，在当前全面现代化建设新阶段，不断推进教育文化事业发展，逐步提升民众科学文化水平；不断完善收入分配制度、推进共同富裕，逐步克服贫富分化现象，切实增强人民群众的获得感和主人翁意识，才能逐步消除我国宗教赖以生存的认知条件和经济社会条件，宗教的影响方能不断缩小、乃至走向最终消亡。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心