The Formation of Marx’s Historical Materialist View of Religion and Its Critique of Capitalist Fetishism

The deep development of capitalism has triggered a spiritual crisis in human society, and in modern society, religious issues also frequently manifest. Therefore, how to correctly understand and handle religious issues has become an urgent task facing contemporary society. Marx’s historical materialist view of religion can provide us with an ideological foundation and principled guarantee for correctly understanding and handling religious issues. The formation of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion underwent a shift in stance from theism to atheism, was gradually established in the ideological struggle against idealism and old materialism, and was based on Marx’s extremely rich practical activities in social life. At present, religious issues are becoming increasingly complex. An in-depth explanation and analysis of the basic principles and fundamental stance of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion can provide us with an ideological guarantee and practical basis for correctly grasping and resolving religious issues.

资本主义的深入发展引发了人类社会的精神危机，而在现代社会，宗教问题亦频繁显现，故而如何正确认识和处理宗教问题成为当前社会亟需面对的课题。马克思历史唯物主义宗教观能为我们正确认识和处理宗教问题提供思想基础和原则保障。马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的形成经历了从有神论到无神论的立场转变，是在与唯心主义以及旧唯物主义的思想斗争中逐步确立的，它以马克思极为丰富的社会生活实践活动作为基础。当前，宗教问题日趋复杂化，深入阐释和分析马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的基本原则和基本立场，能为我们正确把握和解决宗教问题提供思想保障和实践依据。

I. The Shift in Marx’s View of Religion from Theism to Atheism

一、马克思宗教观从有神论到无神论的立场转变

Marx was born into a German Jewish family in the early nineteenth century. Deeply influenced by the family atmosphere, the young Marx had a clear religious belief. However, unlike ordinary religious beliefs, Marx’s early Jewish faith bore distinct characteristics of rationalism, because “the religion dominant in Marx’s family was the less active rational religion of the Enlightenment.” [1]1 The quotation is from a scholarly source on Marx’s early intellectual development. Compared with ordinary devout religious beliefs, rationalist religious beliefs placed greater emphasis on achieving the nobility of human morality through religious faith. This was vividly reflected in Marx’s high school graduation thesis, “Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession.” In his graduation thesis, Marx profoundly expressed the importance of religious belief for people to achieve their own moral perfection: “History calls those the greatest men who ennobled themselves by working for the common good... Religion itself teaches us that the ideal figure revered by all once sacrificed himself for humanity — who would dare to deny such a teaching?” [2]2 Marx, “Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession” (1835), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 4. At this time, what Marx was striving for was precisely the unity of the realization of human happiness and the perfection of his own morality under the guidance of religious belief.

马克思出生于十九世纪初的德国犹太教家庭，由于深受家庭氛围的影响，少年时期的马克思有着明显的宗教信仰。但不同于一般的宗教信仰，早年马克思的犹太教信仰带有鲜明的理性主义特点，因为“马克思家里主导的宗教却是不够活跃的启蒙运动的理性宗教”。相比于一般虔诚的宗教信仰，理性主义宗教信仰更强调通过宗教信仰来达成人类道德的高尚性，这在马克思中学毕业论文《青年在选择职业时的考虑》一文中得到鲜明体现。马克思在毕业论文中深刻表达了宗教信仰对于人成就自身道德完善的重要性，“历史承认那些为共同目标劳动因而自己变得高尚的人是伟大人物……宗教本身也教诲我们，人人敬仰的理想人物，就曾为人类牺牲了自己———有谁敢否定这类教诲呢?”此时马克思所努力追求的正是在宗教信仰的指引下达成人类幸福的实现与自身道德完善的统一。

The influence of Enlightenment reason on Marx extended into his youth. If the young Marx’s religious belief bore distinct characteristics of Enlightenment rationalism, then the youthful Marx, under the guidance of Enlightenment reason, completed the atheistic turn in his view of religion. During his university years, Marx was deeply influenced by the European Enlightenment trend and the Young Hegelians, especially the radical humanist thought of the Young Hegelians, which had a strong impact on the young Marx’s religious belief. It was under the influence of Bruno Bauer and others that the young Marx began to reflect on and examine religious issues with Enlightenment reason, and ultimately realized the atheistic turn in his view of religion. This was vividly reflected in Marx’s doctoral dissertation, “The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature.” The reason Marx chose Epicurus’s philosophy of nature as the subject of his dissertation was that Marx believed Epicurus was the person with the most Enlightenment spirit in ancient society. Epicurus not only emphasized the absolute autonomy of the human spirit but also advocated liberating people from the shackles of religion. This philosophical proposition of Epicurus was completely consistent with the value goal of Enlightenment reason. Specifically, by comparing the differences between the Democritean and Epicurean philosophies of nature, Marx pointed out that the greatest characteristic of Epicurean philosophy of nature was its dialectical nature. Unlike Democritus’s mechanistic view of nature, Epicurus emphasized the role of contingency in the development of things. It was precisely the mutual collisions caused by the accidental deviation of atoms from their straight-line motion that made atoms the primordial basis for generating all things. By means of this characteristic of atomic motion expounded by Epicurean philosophy of nature, Marx elucidated the rationality of human free will, which was also the basic proposition of Epicurean philosophy of nature. The realization of human free will requires the precondition of breaking free from the shackles of religion. Therefore, in his doctoral dissertation, Marx, through the mouth of Prometheus, stated bluntly: “In a word, I hate all the gods.” [3]3 Marx, “The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1, p. 30. Prometheus, as a cultural symbol of the awakening of human self-consciousness, his “hatred” of the gods expressed precisely Marx’s affirmation of and persistence in the power of human reason, as well as his resistance to and critique of religion as an irrational force. It was in this esteem for the power of reason that Marx broke the worship of gods represented by religion, highlighted the power of human subjectivity itself, and ultimately established the lofty status of atheist thought, which was precisely the goal of the Enlightenment.

启蒙理性对马克思的影响延伸到他的青年时代。如果说少年时代马克思的宗教信仰带着鲜明的启蒙理性的特质，那么，青年时代的马克思则在启蒙理性的指引下完成了自身宗教观的无神论转向。大学时期的马克思深受欧洲启蒙思潮以及青年黑格尔派的影响，尤其是青年黑格尔派激进的人本主义思想对青年马克思的宗教信仰产生了强烈冲击。正是在鲍威尔等人的影响下，青年马克思开始以启蒙理性来反思和审视宗教问题，并最终实现了宗教观的无神论转向。这在马克思的博士论文《德谟克利特的自然哲学与伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学的差别》中得到了鲜明体现。马克思之所以选择伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学作为其论文的主题，是因为马克思认为伊壁鸠鲁是古代社会中最具有启蒙精神的人，伊壁鸠鲁不仅强调人类精神的绝对自主性，而且还主张把人从宗教的束缚中解放出来。伊壁鸠鲁这一哲学主张与启蒙理性的价值目标完全一致。具体而言，马克思通过比较德谟克利特与伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的差别，指出伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的最大特点在于它的辩证性。不同于德谟克利特的机械主义自然观，伊壁鸠鲁强调偶然性在事物发展中的作用，正是原子偶然偏离直线的运动所引发的相互碰撞，使得原子成为催生万物的始基。马克思借助于伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学所阐述的原子运动的这一特征，阐明了人的意志自由的合理性，这也正是伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的基本主张。而人的意志自由的实现需要以摆脱宗教的束缚为前提，因此马克思在博士论文中借普罗米修斯之口直言:“老实说，我痛恨所有的神。”普罗米修斯作为人类自我意识觉醒的文化标志，他对神灵的“痛恨”所表达的正是马克思对人类理性力量的肯定与执着，以及对宗教作为非理性力量的反抗与批判。正是在对理性力量的推崇中，马克思打破了以宗教为代表的神灵崇拜，凸显人自身的主体性力量，并最终确立了无神论思想的崇高地位，而这也正是启蒙的目标所在。

Since the Enlightenment, using scientific reason to critique religion has been an important ideological marker of modernity. In this process, two representative types of atheist thought emerged, namely, intellectual atheism and rational atheism. The former mainly refers to the 18th-century French materialist atheist school, represented by Voltaire, Diderot, and Holbach, while the latter is the atheist school that underwent the baptism of Hegel’s speculative philosophy, mainly represented by the German Young Hegelians, among whom Bauer was the most representative. Marx, as a member of the Young Hegelians, especially a follower of Bauer, his atheist thought showed a clear tendency toward speculative philosophy. Unlike the superficial critique of religion by intellectual atheism, the Young Hegelians’ critique of religion was directed at a critique based on self-consciousness that penetrated the “content” of religion. However, this critique differed from Hegel’s critique of religion based on “absolute spirit.” The Young Hegelians, especially Bauer, directed their critique of the “content” of religion toward “letting self-consciousness complete its self-realization in a ‘godless’ rational state.” [4]4 The quotation is from a scholarly source on Bauer’s thought. This formed a sharp contrast with the French intellectual atheist critique of religion based on empiricism, and also differed from Hegel’s idealist critique of religion, which treated religion as a moment in the movement of absolute spirit.

自启蒙以来，用科学理性来批判宗教是现代性的重要思想标识，在这一过程中出现了两种具有代表性的无神论思想，即知性无神论和理性无神论。前者主要指向的是十八世纪法国唯物主义无神论流派，该思想流派以伏尔泰、狄德罗、霍尔巴赫等为代表，后者则是经过黑格尔思辨哲学洗礼之后的无神论思想流派，主要以德国青年黑格尔派为代表，在这其中鲍威尔最具代表性。马克思作为青年黑格尔派的成员，尤其是鲍威尔的追随者，他的无神论思想体现了明显的思辨哲学倾向。不同于知性无神论对宗教的表象性批判，青年黑格尔派的宗教批判指向的是以自我意识为基础的，深入宗教“内容”的批判，但这一批判又不同于黑格尔的以“绝对精神”为基础的宗教批判，青年黑格尔派，尤其是鲍威尔对宗教“内容”的批判指向的是“让自我意识在一个‘无神’的理性国家之中完成自我的实现”。这就与基于经验论的法国知性无神论的宗教批判形成了鲜明对比，也区别于黑格尔的把宗教作为绝对精神运动的一个环节意义上的唯心主义式宗教批判。

As for the French materialist atheism of the era of “philosophy becoming scientific,” their understanding of religion was still confined to the empirical world. They believed that only the empirical world was true and credible, while the so-called super-empirical world did not exist. Hence, the gods of religion were merely lies fabricated by humans. This atheist thought, based on the empirical world and set against the intellectual background of philosophy becoming scientific, was a product of modern scientific rational thought, with a high degree of formalization and abstraction as its typical characteristics. This intellectual atheist thought, which remained at the level of representational thinking, was subjected to profound critique by rational atheism based on Hegel’s dialectical thinking. Hegel pointed out: “The habit of representational thinking can be called a material thinking, a contingent consciousness, which is completely immersed in the material and thus finds it difficult to extricate itself from the material while still existing independently.” [5]5 Hegel, *Phenomenology of Spirit*, preface, on representational thinking. Therefore, the critique of religion by intellectual atheism is only applicable to religious forms with clear representationality and at a low stage of development, such as primitive religion and natural religion. For advanced religious forms with rich ideological connotations and historical foundations (such as Christianity), this form of critique is far from sufficient. After the baptism of Hegel’s speculative reason, the Young Hegelians, represented by Bauer, elevated intellectual atheism to rational atheism, advancing the critique of religion to the level of “content.” However, this “content” was merely a disguised expression of human reason and spirit, because whether it was “absolute spirit” or “self-consciousness,” they were fundamentally also the rational spirit of humans. Therefore, the critique of religion carried out according to “absolute spirit” and “self-consciousness” could only be, in essence, an illusory spiritual critique, still a “truth” of the abstract otherworldly realm far removed from the real world.

就处于“哲学科学化”时代的法国唯物主义无神论而言，他们对宗教的认知还局限于经验世界，他们认为只有经验世界是真实可信的，而所谓的超经验世界是不存在的，故而宗教的神只不过是人编造出来的谎言。这种奠基于经验世界的以哲学科学化为思维背景的无神论思想是近代科学理性思维的产物，高度的形式化和抽象性是其典型特征。这种停留于表象思维的知性无神论思想遭到了以德国黑格尔辩证思维为基础的理性无神论的深刻批判。黑格尔指出:“表象思维的习惯可以称为一种物质的思维，一种偶然的意识，它完全沉浸在材料里，因而很难从物质里将它自身摆脱出来而同时还能独立存在。”因此，知性无神论的宗教批判只适用于具有鲜明表象性的、处于低级阶段的宗教形式，如原始宗教、自然宗教等，而对于具有浓厚思想意蕴和历史根基的高级宗教形式(如基督教)而言，这种批判形式是远远不够的。经过黑格尔思辨理性的洗礼，以鲍威尔为代表的青年黑格尔派将知性无神论提升到理性无神论，他们把对宗教的批判推进到“内容”层面，只不过这一“内容”也只是人的理性和精神的变相表达，因为无论是“绝对精神”还是“自我意识”在根本上也都是人的理性精神，因此根据“绝对精神”和“自我意识”所进行的宗教批判在根本上也只能是虚幻的精神性批判，仍然是远离现实世界的抽象的彼岸世界的“真理”。

Overall, “I hate all the gods” marks the turn in Marx’s view of religion from theism to atheism. This turn in Marx’s view of religion took place against the backdrop of the rise of Enlightenment rationality; the awakening of human subjectivity advocated by Enlightenment rationality drove the atheistic turn in Marx’s view of religion. Of course, this turn could not have occurred without the influence of Hegel’s absolute spirit and the radical humanist critique of religion by the Young Hegelians. Although the humanist thought of Enlightenment rationality propelled the transformation of Marx’s view of religion, in terms of the formation of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion, a considerable intellectual journey still needed to be completed. It would have to undergo the practical turn of Marx’s philosophy, and this is precisely the key to the formation of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion.

整体而言，“我痛恨所有的神”标志着马克思宗教观实现了从有神论向无神论的转向。马克思宗教观的这一转向以启蒙理性的兴起为背景，启蒙理性所主张的人的主体性觉醒推动了马克思宗教观的无神论转向。当然，这一转向的发生离不开黑格尔绝对精神以及青年黑格尔派激进的人本主义宗教批判思想的影响。尽管启蒙理性的人本主义思想推动了马克思宗教观的转变，但就马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的形成而言，仍有一段不短的思想历程需要完成，它将要经历马克思哲学的实践性转向，而这也正是马克思历史唯物主义宗教观得以形成的关键。

II. The Formation and Establishment of Marx’s Historical Materialist View of Religion

二、马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的形成与确立

The formation of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion began with his experience and reflection on real social life. After leaving the university campus, Marx began working for the *Rheinische Zeitung*. This period as a newspaper correspondent gave Marx a more direct and profound experience of the suffering of reality and also provided the foundation for the realistic turn in his philosophy. After starting work at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, through his investigation of the living conditions of the peasants in the Moselle region and his study of the Prussian problem of wood theft, Marx discovered that although Prussia, after completing its capitalist industrial revolution, had achieved great progress in the country’s overall economic development, the living standards of the broad masses of working people, who were the subjects of the state and society, had not improved accordingly. On the contrary, due to the brutal exploitation of the capitalists, the living conditions of the broad masses of working people were deteriorating day by day. This is expressed in concentrated form in Marx’s writings such as “The Defense of the Moselle Correspondent” and “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood.” Marx’s exposure of such issues aroused serious dissatisfaction from the Prussian authorities, for which Marx lost his position as editor-in-chief of the *Rheinische Zeitung*. However, this experience broadened Marx’s intellectual horizon, enabling him to recognize that real life was far more important than empty theoretical speculation. Precisely on this basis, Marx began a profound reflection on the Young Hegelians’ purely theoretical speculation, which was detached from the real world, and on this foundation pointed out that the key to the religious question lies not in heaven but on earth, and vigorously promoted the realistic turn in the critique of religion. “Religion itself is without content; its roots are not in heaven but in the human world…” [6]6 Karl Marx, “Letter to Arnold Ruge” (November 30, 1842), MECW, vol. 1, p. 395. The full sentence reads: “Religion itself is without content; its roots are not in heaven but in the human world, and with the transformation of the human world, religion itself must also be transformed.” From this point onward, studying and thinking about religious questions from the starting point of real life became an important element of Marx’s research on religion, and this also laid the ideological foundation for the formation of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion.

马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的形成开始于其对现实社会生活的体会与思考。离开大学校园后，马克思进入《莱茵报》工作，这一段报社记者的生涯让马克思对现实的苦难有了更为直观而深刻的感受，也为其哲学的现实性转向提供了基础。在进入《莱茵报》工作之后，马克思通过对摩泽尔河地区农民生活状况的调查以及对普鲁士关于林木盗窃问题的研究发现，尽管普鲁士在完成资本主义工业革命之后，整个国家的经济发展水平获得了巨大进步，但作为国家和社会主体的广大劳苦大众的生活水平却并没有因此而得以提升，相反，由于资本家的残酷剥削，广大劳苦大众的生活状况日趋恶化。这在马克思的《摩塞尔记者的辩护》《关于林木盗窃法的辩论》等文献中得到了集中表达。马克思对这类问题的揭示，引起了普鲁士当局的严重不满，为此马克思丧失了《莱茵报》主编的职务，但这一经历却拓宽了马克思的思想视域，使得马克思认识到现实生活远比空洞的理论思辨更为重要。正基于此，马克思开始对青年黑格尔派远离现实世界的单纯的理论思辨进行了深刻反思，并以此为基础指出了宗教问题的关键不是在天上而是在地上，并极力推动宗教批判的现实性转向。“宗教本身是没有内容的，它的根源不是在天上，而是在人间……”。至此，从生活实际出发来研究和思考宗教问题成为马克思宗教研究思想的重要内容，这也为马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的形成奠定了思想基础。

After leaving the Young Hegelians, Marx was attracted by Feuerbach’s philosophy. The materialist orientation displayed by Feuerbach in his book *The Essence of Christianity* had a tremendous influence on Marx. Unlike the idealist interpretations of religion by Hegel and the Young Hegelians, Feuerbach pointed out that religion is merely a illusory expression of the human essence in thought; relative to religion, humanity and nature enjoy absolute real independence. It was precisely under the influence of Feuerbach’s materialism that Marx deeply recognized that religion is not the basic pillar of all societies; the roots of religion are on earth, not in heaven. Due to the profound influence of Feuerbach’s materialist philosophy, the realistic implications of Marx’s view of religion at this time were further highlighted. However, the realism here was still limited to realism from the standpoint of humanist philosophy, because Feuerbach’s materialism was a half-baked materialism, an incomplete one. Feuerbach certainly emphasized that matter determines consciousness, but he only acknowledged the materiality of nature, not including human society. The “human” Feuerbach spoke of was also only an abstract human being in the individual sense, not a sensuous, concrete, real human being engaged in historical action. This meant that the so-called “social reality” based on Feuerbach’s abstract view of human nature could not at all be equated with the sensuous, real human life in the sense of historical materialism. Hence, the realistic turn in Marx’s view of religion at this time was not yet complete.

离开青年黑格尔派之后，马克思被费尔巴哈的哲学所吸引，费尔巴哈在《基督教的本质》一书中所表现出的唯物主义取向对马克思产生了巨大影响。不同于黑格尔和青年黑格尔派对宗教的唯心主义解读，费尔巴哈指出，宗教不过是人的本质在思想中的虚幻性表达，相对于宗教而言，人与自然享有绝对的现实独立性。正是在费尔巴哈唯物主义的影响下，马克思深刻认识到宗教并不是一切社会的基本支柱，宗教的根源在地上而不是天上。由于深受费尔巴哈唯物主义哲学的影响，此时马克思宗教观的现实性意蕴进一步彰显，但这里的现实性还只局限于人本主义哲学立场上的现实性，因为费尔巴哈的唯物主义是半截子的唯物主义，是不彻底的。费尔巴哈固然强调物质决定意识，但他只承认自然界的物质性而不包括人类社会，费尔巴哈所说的人也只是个体意义上的抽象性的人，而不是感性具体的处于历史行动中的现实的人。这就使得建立在费尔巴哈抽象人性观基础上的所谓的“社会现实”完全不能等同于历史唯物主义意义上的感性现实的人类生活，故而此时马克思宗教观的现实性转向尚未完成。

The further development of Marx’s view of religion occurred during the period of “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction.” At this time, after being baptized by Feuerbach’s materialist philosophy, Marx’s intellectual realm had been greatly elevated. He deeply recognized that to break the chains of real life, one must first remove the spiritual chains of humanity. Only by breaking the ideological illusions created by religion and enabling people to bravely face the reality of suffering could the transformation of real life become possible. Hence, the critique of religion became the focus of Marx’s philosophical critique at this time. The goal it aimed to achieve was “to tear away the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so that man will wear the chain that is without fantasy or consolation, but so that he will throw it off and pluck the living flower.” [7]7 Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” MECW, vol. 3, p. 176. Only when people discover that the roots of real suffering are not in heaven but on earth can they begin to change this immoral condition of life full of suffering from the starting point of real social life, instead of placing their hopes in an illusory heavenly kingdom. Therefore, Marx, taking the exposure of the illusory character of religion as his starting point, actively emphasized that people should focus on the truth of this world. “Once the holy form of human self-alienation has been unmasked, the task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, becomes to unmask self-alienation in its unholy forms.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 176. Precisely because Marx saw that the essence of religion is an illusory reflection of the real world, he actively exposed and criticized this essence of religion. Hence, scholars believe that during the period of “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” Marx’s historical materialist view of religion was basically formed (some scholars also consider the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844” to be the foundational work of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion, while simultaneously acknowledging the important position of the “Introduction” in the history of the formation of the Marxist view of religion). At this time, Marx had already become aware of the social-existential roots of religion and believed that the critique of religion was the prelude to the critique of real society. In the contemporaneous “On the Jewish Question,” Marx emphasized that one must seek and explain the essence of religion from people’s actual life: “We do not seek the secret of the Jew in his religion, but we seek the secret of his religion in the real Jew.” [9]9 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” MECW, vol. 3, p. 170. In the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” Marx further developed his historical materialist view of religion through an analysis of the relationship between religion and alienation. Marx believed that human alienation is closely related to social reality; religion, as an illusory phenomenon of alienation, has its roots in social reality. Therefore, people need to seek the causes of the emergence of illusory alienated phenomena from within social reality. This profoundly indicated the realistic roots of religious phenomena. “Theses on Feuerbach” marked Marx’s complete transcendence of Feuerbach’s abstract humanist view of religion and further highlighted his own position of historical materialist view of religion. In the fourth, sixth, and seventh theses of “Theses on Feuerbach,” Marx, through his critique of Feuerbach’s abstract humanist view of religion, expressed his own position of historical materialist view of religion. In the fourth thesis, Marx clarified that the essence of religious alienation lies in social alienation; to solve the problem of religious alienation, it is necessary to fundamentally eliminate social alienation, and only by eliminating the social-institutional roots that produce religious alienation can religious alienation be fundamentally eliminated. In the sixth and seventh theses, Marx, starting from the reality of the human being, completely settled accounts with the abstract theory of human nature on which Feuerbach’s old materialist view of religion was based, and thereby elucidated the realistic essence of the human being: “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” [10]10 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” MECW, vol. 5, p. 4. At this point, Marx clarified the basic content of the historical materialist view of religion, emphasizing that only by starting from real human beings and in the practice of concrete social life can the religious question be truly understood and resolved.

马克思宗教观的进一步发展是在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》时期。此时的马克思在经过费尔巴哈唯物主义哲学洗礼之后，思想境界有了极大提升，他深刻认识到，要破除现实生活的枷锁首先需要解除人的精神枷锁，只有打破宗教所营造的思想幻觉，让人勇敢面对苦难的现实，现实生活的改变才得以可能。故而，对宗教的批判就成为此时马克思哲学批判的重心所在，它所要达到的目标是“撕碎锁链上那些虚幻的花朵，不是要人依旧戴上没有幻想没有慰藉的锁链，而是要人扔掉它，采摘新鲜的花朵”。也只有当人们发现现实苦难的根源不是在天上而是在地上时，才能从现实的社会生活入手来改变这一充满苦难的不道德的生活状况，而不再把希望寄托于虚无缥缈的天国。故而马克思以揭示宗教的虚幻性特征为抓手，积极强调人们关注此岸世界的真理。当“人的自我异化的神圣形象被揭穿以后，揭露具有非神圣形象的自我异化，就成了为历史服务的哲学的迫切任务”。正是因为马克思看到了宗教的本质是对现实世界的虚幻反映，故而积极揭示和批判宗教的这一本质，因此学界认为，在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》时期，马克思的历史唯物主义宗教观基本形成(也有学者认为《1844年经济学哲学手稿》才是马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的奠基之作，同时承认《导言》在马克思主义宗教观形成史上的重要地位)。此时马克思已经意识到了宗教的社会存在性根源，并认为宗教批判是对现实社会展开批判的前奏。在同时期的《论犹太人问题》中，马克思强调，要从人们的实际生活中去寻找和说明宗教的本质，“我们不是到犹太人的宗教里去寻找犹太人的秘密，而是到现实的犹太人里去寻找他的宗教的秘密”。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思则借助于对宗教与异化关系问题的分析，进一步发展了他的历史唯物主义宗教观。马克思认为，人的异化与社会现实密切相关，宗教作为虚幻的异化现象，它的根源在于社会现实，因此人们需要从社会现实中来寻找虚幻的异化现象得以产生的原因，这就深刻指明了宗教现象的现实性根源。《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》则标志着马克思彻底超越了费尔巴哈抽象的人本主义宗教观，进一步彰显了自身的历史唯物主义宗教观立场。在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》的第四、第六、第七条中，马克思通过批判费尔巴哈抽象人本主义宗教观，表达了自身的历史唯物主义宗教观立场。在第四条中，马克思明晰了宗教异化的本质在于社会异化，要解决宗教异化问题就需要从根本上消除社会异化，也只有消灭产生宗教异化的社会制度性根源，才能从根本上消除宗教异化。在第六、第七条中，马克思则从人的现实性出发，彻底清算了费尔巴哈旧唯物主义宗教观得以建立的抽象人性论基础，并借此阐明了人的现实性本质，即“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”。至此，马克思明晰了历史唯物主义宗教观的基本内容，强调只有从现实的人出发，在具体的社会生活实践中才能真正地理解和解决宗教问题。

To sum up, the “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” laid the basic core of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion. “On the Jewish Question,” the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” and “Theses on Feuerbach” further advanced the deepening of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion. In these four articles, Marx’s historical materialist view of religion was finally established. Its core content can be expressed as follows: religion originates in the real social life of human beings, is a transcendental expression of that real social life, and solving the problem of religion requires starting from the real social life of human beings; any transcendental view of religion that departs from social reality is unreliable. This is also the basic position on the view of religion that a true Marxist should uphold.

综合而言，《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》奠定了马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的基本内核。《论犹太人问题》《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》则进一步推进了马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的深化。在这四篇文章中，马克思历史唯物主义宗教观得以最终确立，它的核心内容可以表达为，宗教根源于人类现实的社会生活，是对人类现实社会生活的超验性表达，解决宗教问题需要从人类现实的社会生活出发，任何离开社会现实的超验性宗教观都是不可靠的。这也是真正的马克思主义者应该坚持的基本的宗教观立场。

III. The Critique of Fetishism from the Standpoint of the Historical Materialist View of Religion

三、历史唯物主义宗教观立场上的拜物教批判

Marx’s historical materialist view of religion is a unity of worldview and methodology. After expressing his basic position on the issue of religion, Marx also used this position to critique religious phenomena in real social life. Marx’s critique of capitalist “fetishism” epitomizes this characteristic of the historical materialist view of religion.

马克思历史唯物主义宗教观是世界观与方法论的统一。马克思在表达其在宗教问题上的基本立场后，也借助于这一立场对现实社会生活中的宗教现象展开了批判。马克思对资本主义“拜物教”所进行的批判就集中体现了历史唯物主义宗教观的这一特点。

“Fetishism,” as an expression of a typical feature of capitalist society, essentially reflects the relationship of concealment and occlusion of human beings by things in capitalist society. In the capitalist era, technological rationality occupies a dominant position. Under the dual impetus of capital and technology, artificial things replace natural things to become the masters of human life, while human beings are completely reduced to captives of a material culture. Marx believed that to thoroughly reveal and change this state of human degradation, one must start from a critique of the capitalist mode of production; only by completely changing the capitalist mode of production can human beings possibly escape this state of material degradation. The critique of fetishism in capitalist society essentially reflects Marx’s critique of a capitalist society that takes “things” as its faith, and it ultimately points toward the realization of the social ideal of the free and comprehensive development of the human person.

“拜物教”作为资本主义社会典型特征的一种表达，在实质上反映了资本主义社会中物对人的遮蔽和掩盖关系。在资本主义时代，技术理性占据了主导地位，在资本与技术的双重推动下，人造物代替自然物成为人类生活的主宰，而人则彻底沦落为物性文化的俘虏。马克思认为，要彻底揭示和改变人的这一沉沦状态就需要从批判资本主义生产方式入手，也只有彻底改变资本主义生产方式，人才有可能摆脱了这一物性沉沦状态。对资本主义社会的拜物教批判在实质上反映了马克思对以“物”为信仰的资本主义社会的批判，他最终指向人的自由而全面发展的社会理想的实现。

Etymologically, “fetishism” derives from the Latin, originally meaning “artificial, made.” In English, it is also translated as “fetishism.” In late medieval Europe, “fetishism” was a type of religious culture involving the worship of material objects, distinct from Christian idol worship. Marx’s term “fetishism” originates from the famous French historian and linguist Charles de Brosses. When Marx read Charles de Brosses’s 1760 book *On the Worship of Fetish Gods*, he borrowed the term “fetishism” and first used it in his 1842 article “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*”: “Fetishism is so far from raising man above his sensuous desires that, on the contrary, it is ‘the religion of sensuous desire.’” [11]11 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 190. Here, Marx reveals and critiques the characteristic of fetishism that satisfies human sensuous desires. In his later works “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood” and the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” Marx further used the term “fetishism.” In “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood,” Marx pointed out that fetishism has the characteristic of the idolatrous worship of things. In the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” Marx, on the basis of fetishism, proposed the concept of the fetishist: “Those peoples who are still dazzled by the sensuous glitter of precious metals, and are therefore still fetishists of metal money, are not yet fully developed money peoples.” [12]12 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 312.

从词源学意义来看，“拜物教”源自拉丁文，本意是“人工的、制造的”，在英文词汇中，它也被翻译为恋物癖。在中世纪晚期的欧洲，“拜物教”是一种区别于基督教偶像崇拜的物神崇拜类的宗教文化。马克思的“拜物教”一词源自于法国著名历史学家和语言学家沙·德·布罗斯。马克思在阅读了沙·德·布罗斯于1760年发表的《论物神崇拜》一书时，借用了“拜物教”一词，并在1842年的《〈科隆日报〉第179号的社论》中首次使用了这一词，“拜物教远不能使人超脱感性欲望，相反，它倒是‘感性欲望的宗教’”。在这里，马克思揭示并批判了拜物教所具有的满足人的感性欲望的特征。在后来的《关于林木盗窃法的辩论》《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思又进一步使用了“拜物教”一词。在《关于林木盗窃法的辩论》中，马克思指出了拜物教具有物的偶像崇拜性特征。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思则在拜物教的基础上提出了拜物教徒的概念，“那些仍然被贵金属的感性光辉照得眼花缭乱，因而仍然是金属货币的拜物教徒的民族，还不是完全的货币民族”。

In Marx’s view, whether fetishism or the fetishist, their common characteristic is the blind worship of things or materiality itself. Because under the effect of the capitalist mode of production, things replace human beings and step onto the historical stage; people only pay attention to the relations between things, while ignoring the relations between human beings that are concealed and hidden behind the relations between things. Therefore, the status and value of things are infinitely exaggerated, which causes the phenomenon of “fetishism” to prevail in capitalist society. Moreover, because of the everyday character of the “things” of capital (such as commodities, money, capital, etc.), capitalist fetishism exhibits a characteristic of “transcendence” different from that of general religious belief. Further, the “divine” character of capitalist fetishism does not originate from transcendental imaginings, but from the illusory packaging of the “things” of capitalist everyday life. Precisely because people indulge in the infinitely exaggerated imagination of the functional characteristics of the “things” of capitalist everyday life, the “things” of capital become the lofty “gods” that dominate human beings. Generally speaking, at this historical stage, Marx’s understanding of fetishism was still concentrated at the level of social consciousness; he used the concept of “fetishism” in the sense of the human sanctification of things.

在马克思看来，无论是拜物教，还是拜物教徒，他们的共同特性是对物或物性本身的盲目崇拜。因为在资本主义生产方式的作用下，物代替人走上历史前台，人们只关注物与物之间的关系，而忽视了物与物关系背后所掩盖和隐藏的人与人之间的关系，因此物的地位和价值被无限夸大，这就使得“拜物教”现象在资本主义社会大行其道。又由于资本之“物”(如商品、货币、资本等)所具有的日常性特点，这就使得资本主义拜物教呈现出不同于一般宗教信仰的“超验性”特征。进一步而言，资本主义拜物教的“神性”特征不是来源于超验的想象物，而是来源于对资本主义日常生活之“物”的虚幻性包装，正是因为沉溺于对资本主义日常生活之“物”的功能性特征的无限夸大性想象中，资本之“物”成为高高在上的主宰人的“神”。大体而言，在这一历史阶段，马克思对拜物教的理解还集中在社会意识这一层次上，他是从人对物的神圣化意义上使用了“拜物教”的概念。

As his understanding of capitalism deepened, Marx’s comprehension of the phenomenon of capitalist fetishism also gradually deepened. Understanding and critiquing fetishism from the perspective of social existence also gradually entered Marx’s field of vision. This is mainly reflected in works such as the “Grundrisse” (1857-1858), “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” and *Capital*. In the “Grundrisse,” although Marx did not directly use the term “fetishism,” he put forward the expression “the materialization of social relations of production.” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft)*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 164. In “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” Marx used the term “fetish”: “Since bourgeois production must crystallize wealth in the form of a single thing as a fetish, gold and silver become the corresponding incarnation of this wealth.” [14]14 Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 389. This means that Marx began to analyze commodities and money from the perspective of fetishism within the sphere of production. Marx pointed out that it is precisely under the operation of capitalist relations of production that gold and silver, as money, are called “fetishes”; they become symbolic signs in which the bourgeoisie concentrates the expression of production and wealth, allowing the relations between human beings to be simplified and inverted into relations between things. In the appendix to *Theories of Surplus Value*, Marx further analyzed and critiqued the theory of capitalist fetishism as a form of social existence. He expounded the concrete manifestations of capitalist fetishism in the sense of social ontology from the forms of rent, profit, interest, etc. “The forms of revenue and the sources of revenue express capitalist relations of production in the most fetishistic form.” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, part 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971), p. 453. “Land, or nature, is the source of rent, i.e., of landed property — this is sufficiently fetishistic.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 454. “In interest-bearing capital, this automatic fetish, self-valorizing value, money begetting money, is brought to perfection, and in this form no trace of its origin remains. Social relations are finally transformed into a relation of a thing (money, commodities) to itself.” [17]17 Ibid., p. 455. This means that “the transformation and fetishism are here completely accomplished.” [18]18 Ibid., p. 456.

随着对资本主义认知程度的不断加深，马克思对资本主义拜物教现象的理解也逐步走向深入，从社会存在的意义上来理解与批判拜物教也逐步进入马克思的视野，这主要体现在《1857－1858年经济学手稿》《政治经济学批判》以及《资本论》等著作中。在《1857-1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思虽然没有直接使用“拜物教”一词，但提出了“社会生产关系的物化表现”的说法。在《政治经济学批判》中，马克思则使用了“物神”一词，“由于资产阶级生产必须把财富在一种唯一的物的形式上作为物神结晶起来，金银就成了这种财富的相应的化身”。这就意味着马克思开始从生产领域对商品和货币进行拜物教意义上的分析。马克思指出，正是在资本主义生产关系的运作下，作为货币的金银被称之为“物神”，它成为了资产阶级集中表达生产与财富的象征性符号，它使得人与人的关系可以简化和颠倒为物与物的关系。在《剩余价值理论》附录中，马克思进一步分析和批判了作为社会存在意义上的资本主义拜物教理论，他分别从地租、利润、利息等形式上阐述了资本主义拜物教在社会存在论意义上的具体表现。“收入的形式和收入的源泉以最富有拜物教性质的形式表现了资本主义生产关系。”“土地，或者说自然，是地租即土地所有权的源泉，———这具有充分的拜物教性质。”“在生息资本上，这个自动的物神，自行增殖的价值，创造货币的货币，达到了完善的程度，并且在这个形式上再也看不到它的起源的任何痕迹了。社会关系最终成为物(货币、商品)同它自身的关系。”这就意味着，“变体和拜物教在这里彻底完成了”。

Marx’s concentrated analysis and critique of capitalist fetishism occurs in *Capital*. Here, Marx clarifies the basic expression of fetishism. In the article “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof” (Volume I of *Capital*), Marx states: “On the contrary, the commodity-form and the value-relation of the products of labour in which it is expressed have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the products of labour and the material relations arising therefrom… So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. I call this fetishism.” [19]19 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 4. The translation follows the standard English edition. That is to say, when the product of labour is produced as a commodity, it acquires a fetishistic character; hence, the emergence of fetishism is inseparable from commodity production. Here, Marx borrows the form of primitive people’s worship of mythical objects to vividly depict the formation of fetishism in the world of capital: primitive people regarded the products of their imagination as specific mysterious entities independent of humans, while in the capitalist world, humans’ own products of labour are also treated as entities independent of humans, replacing humans to reflect the relations between people—that is, the relations between things conceal the relations between people. In Volume III of *Capital*, Marx’s analysis of fetishism deepens further. He points out that it is precisely because of the mystique of capital fetishism that the circulation process of commodities creates an illusion: the surplus value originally generated in the production process is illusorily transformed into a product of the circulation process. In the actual production process of capitalism, the concealment of humans by things caused by capital fetishism is manifested through a series of conceptual transformations: surplus value is transformed into profit, profit into average profit, value into price of production, and with the emergence of concepts such as interest and ground rent, human labour as the true source of value is completely obscured. Thus, in the “trinity formula” of “capital–profit, land–ground rent, labour–wages,” “the mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the reification of social relations, the direct fusion of material production relations with their historical and social specificity, is already complete: this is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world.” [20]20 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume III, Chapter 48, “The Trinity Formula.” The translation follows the standard English edition. At this point, under the effect of the capitalist mode of production, “things” ultimately replace humans, becoming the core value symbol of social operation. It is precisely through revealing the reified nature of capitalist production relations that Marx completely uncovers the mysterious veil of capital’s god-making movement.

马克思对资本主义拜物教进行集中地分析与批判是在《资本论》中，在这里，马克思明晰了拜物教的基本表达。在《商品的拜物教性质及其秘密》(《资本论》第一卷)一文中，马克思这样说道:“相反，商品形式和它借以得到表现的劳动产品的价值关系，是同劳动产品的物理性质以及由此产生的物的关系完全无关的……在商品世界里，人手的产物也是这样。我把这叫做拜物教。”这也就是说，当劳动产品作为商品来生产时，就具有了拜物教性质，故而，拜物教的产生离不开商品生产。在这里，马克思借用原始社会人们对神话物的崇拜形式形象地描摹了资本世界中拜物教的形成，即原始初民把脑海中想象的产物看成是独立于人的特定的神秘物，而在资本主义世界中，人自身的劳动产物也被当成了独立于人，并代替人来反映人与人之间关系的存在物，即用物与物的关系掩盖了人与人的关系。在《资本论》第三卷中，马克思对拜物教的分析进一步深入，他指出，正是因为资本拜物教的神秘性使得商品的流通过程造成了一种假象，即本来在生产过程中产生的剩余价值被幻化成了流通过程的产物。在资本主义现实的生产过程中，资本拜物教所引发的物对人的遮蔽性是通过一系列概念的转化而得以表现的，即剩余价值转化为利润、利润转化为平均利润、价值转化为生产价格，再加上利息、地租等概念的产生，这就使得作为价值真实来源的人的劳动被完全掩盖了。于是，在“资本—利润、土地—地租、劳动—工资”这个“经济三位一体”中，“资本主义生产方式的神秘化，社会关系的物化，物质的生产关系和它们的历史社会规定性的直接融合已经完成:这是一个着了魔的、颠倒的、倒立着的世界”。至此，在资本主义生产方式的作用下，“物”最终替代了人，成为社会运作的核心价值符号。正是通过对资本主义生产关系物化本性的揭示，马克思彻底揭开了资本造神运动的神秘面纱。

Overall, in the political economy works represented by *Capital*, Marx, employing the worldview and methodology of historical materialism, successfully reveals the entire process of the god-making movement of the capitalist mode of production, achieving a thorough materialist interpretation of the phenomenon of fetishism. Unlike the worship of spirits, which points to a specific supernatural entity, capitalism, through its own mode of production, realizes the religious transformation of commodities, money, and capital, shrouding things in a mysterious veil. It can be said that the perspective of inverted illusion is the peculiarity of capitalist fetishism. Thus, Marx, taking historical materialism as his standpoint and the reified phenomena of capitalist society as his object, conducts a profound and thorough critique of the fetishistic phenomena of capitalism within the historical context of religious critique. Marx reveals and critiques the generative mechanism of capitalist fetishism, achieving the unity of religious critique from form to content, and providing a vivid case for the realistic expression of the historical materialist view of religion.

整体而言，在以《资本论》为代表的政治经济学著作中，马克思运用历史唯物主义的世界观和方法论，成功揭示出资本主义生产方式造神运动的全过程，实现了对拜物教现象的彻底的唯物主义解读。不同于神灵崇拜所指向的某个明确的超自然物，资本主义是借助于自身的生产方式实现了对商品、货币、资本的宗教化改造，为物蒙上了神秘的面纱。可以说，颠倒的假象视域是资本主义拜物教的特殊之处。至此，马克思以历史唯物主义为立场，以资本主义社会的物化现象为对象，在宗教批判的历史语境中对资本主义的拜物教现象进行了深刻而彻底的批判。马克思揭示和批判了资本主义拜物教的生成机制，实现了宗教批判从形式到内容的统一，为历史唯物主义宗教观的现实表达提供了鲜活的案例。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

The establishment of Marx’s historical materialist view of religion is a thought process full of hardship. It underwent a transformation from an early view of religion based on the standpoint of Enlightenment reason, to a humanist view of religion, and then to a historical materialist view of religion. Facing the powerful logic of capital’s reification, Marx, taking human production and life practice as his basis, profoundly reveals the entire process of the god-making movement of the capitalist mode of production. While critiquing the reified nature of capital, he also points the way for humans to achieve their own free and comprehensive development, with profound implications. In the present era, the power of capital remains very strong. How to correctly understand and interpret the phenomena of fetishism and religious issues in real social life is an important aspect requiring attention in the construction of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics for the New Era. Marx’s historical materialist view of religion provides guiding principles for us to correctly understand and handle religious issues in real life. Facts prove that only by correctly handling the relationships between religion and the economy, politics, and culture can the construction of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics proceed smoothly. It is precisely on this basis that we need to adhere to the historical materialist view of religion, so as to provide spiritual motivation and ideological guarantee for advancing Chinese-path modernization.

马克思历史唯物主义宗教观的确立是一个充满艰辛的思想过程，它经历了早期的启蒙理性立场的宗教观到人本主义宗教观，再到历史唯物主义宗教观的转变。面对资本强大的物化逻辑，马克思以人类的生产和生活实践为依据，深刻揭示了资本主义生产方式造神运动的全过程，在批判资本物化本性的同时也为人实现自身的自由而全面发展指明了方向，意蕴深远。当今时代，资本力量依然十分强劲，如何正确认识和理解现实社会生活中的拜物教现象和宗教问题，是新时代中国特色社会主义文化建设需要关注的重要内容之一。马克思历史唯物主义宗教观为我们正确认识和处理现实生活中的宗教问题提供了指导原则。事实证明，只有正确处理好宗教与经济、政治、文化之间的关系，中国特色社会主义文化建设才能得以顺利开展。正是基于此，我们需要坚持历史唯物主义宗教观，为推进中国式现代化提供精神动力和思想保障。

(Author’s bio: Gu Jianhong, Associate Professor at the School of Marxism, Huaiyin Normal University; Distinguished Research Fellow at the Theoretical Research Base of Jiangsu Province for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era)

（作者简介：顾建红，淮阴师范学院马克思主义学院副教授、江苏省习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究中心理论研究基地特聘研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心