Marx’s Philosophy Establishes the Scientific Concept of Practice

Practice, as an important concept in Marx’s philosophy, is the pivot by which Marx broke free from the tradition of idealist philosophy, and it is crucial for grasping the scientific system of Marxist philosophy. *The German Ideology* (hereinafter referred to as *The German Ideology*) is a foundational work in which Marx elaborates the importance of the concept of practice. Taking as its starting point the historical materialist principle that social being determines social consciousness, it demonstrates that the study of the activities of real individuals and their material conditions of life is the premise of a scientific view of history. It points out that historical materialism does not proceed from ideas to explain practice, but rather from material practice to reveal various ideological forms, thereby further demonstrating the decisive role of material production in the development of human history. Through *The German Ideology*, Marx’s view of practice achieved a logical evolution from the abstract to the concrete, and thus became the pivotal category through which Marx constructed the new world outlook of historical materialism. As an important concept in Marx’s philosophy, the understanding of practice is essentially one of the prerequisites for whether one can truly achieve a coherent and comprehensive understanding of Marx’s thought, and it also concerns whether Marx’s theory can correctly perform its function of interpreting and guiding the real mode of existence of modern humanity and the dilemmas of modern social development.

实践作为马克思哲学的重要概念，是马克思摆脱观念论哲学传统的枢轴，对于把握马克思主义哲学的科学体系至关重要。《德意志意识形态》（以下简称《形态》）是马克思阐述实践概念的重要性奠基之作，其以社会存在决定社会意识这一唯物史观为出发点，论证了研究现实的人的活动和他们的物质生活条件是科学的历史观的前提，指出唯物史观不是从观念出发来解释实践，而是从物质实践出发来揭示各种观念形态，从而进一步论证了物质生产在人类历史发展中的决定性作用。通过《形态》，马克思实践观实现了从抽象上升到具体的逻辑演进，进而成为马克思构建历史唯物主义新世界观的枢纽性范畴。实践作为马克思哲学的重要概念，对其理解在本质上关涉是否能够真正实现对马克思思想连贯性和总体性理解的先决条件之一，也关涉能够正确发挥马克思理论对现代人类真实存在样态以及现代社会发展困境的阐释和指引功能。

Practice: From the Abstract to the Concrete

实践：从抽象到具体

The material nature of reality is merely the prior premise of human history; it does not spontaneously generate human social history. It is precisely practice as sensuous activity that enables material nature to break free from its existing material order and transform into the premise of human history, enabling humanity to transcend natural existence and become the foundational link of social-historical existence. Scientific practice was established by Marx in *Theses on Feuerbach* (hereinafter referred to as *Theses*) and *The German Ideology* through a non-reifying [1]1 “Non-reifying” translates the Chinese term *fei wu xiang hua* (非物相化), meaning to avoid treating objects or relations as fixed, thing-like entities, a key move in Marx’s critique of Feuerbach’s materialism. analysis of sensuously intuited objects. Since the formation of Marx’s scientific world outlook stems from the elaboration of the concept of practice, a full understanding of the mature view of practice in the period of *The German Ideology* necessarily requires tracing back to the thought on practice in *Theses*. As the first document containing “the germ of the new world outlook,” *Theses* is an important benchmark for the revolutionary turn in Marx’s philosophical thought. It criticizes old materialism for being divorced from practice, for understanding “objects, reality, sensuousness only in the form of the object or of contemplation,” confined within pure speculation, and for failing to grasp reality “as sensuous human activity, as practice.” Therefore, Marx took the view of practice as the original point of the Marxist philosophical system, making it the essential mark distinguishing the new philosophy from the old. In *Theses*, Marx achieved a critique and transcendence of Feuerbach’s humanism, reinterpreting the essence of man, identifying the subject of practice as human beings situated within social relations, taking human sensuous activity as the logical starting point of the concept of practice, establishing a new materialism based on practice that enters into relation with the objective world, and proposing that the historical mission and fundamental task of this new materialism is scientific practice, thereby forming a new doctrine of practice that reveals an emphasis on the relational dimension behind human object-oriented activity. Marx points out: “Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” The foundation of practice at this point turns toward social life itself. “All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.” “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” From this point on, Marx drew a clear line of demarcation from German idealism and Feuerbach’s old materialism, taking practice as the basis for understanding the human world and as the fundamental hallmark of his own philosophical thought. Although Marx’s thought on practice underwent a complex process of transformation, once the view of practice was formed, his thought consistently adhered to this basic position, repeatedly emphasizing that revolutionary practice is the driving force of all history and ideological development. It can be said that the practice of productive labor is Marx’s further deepening of the thought on practice in *Theses* within *The German Ideology*, constructing the basic framework of the concept of practice and realizing the transformation from the abstraction of “object-oriented activity” to the concreteness of “activity of material production.” However, it is worth noting that in *The German Ideology*, the concept of “practice” appears in an absent manner, emerging through “sensuous activity” and its more concrete forms such as “industry and commerce” and “industry and social conditions.” Thus, the exposition of practice in *The German Ideology* necessarily involves a deep connection with *Theses*.

实在的物性自然只是人类历史的先在性前提，并不会自然而然地生成出人类社会历史。正是作为感性活动的实践才使物性自然摆脱既有物相有序性而转化为人类史的前提，使人类超拔出自然存在成为社会历史存在的基始性环节。科学的实践是马克思在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》（以下简称《提纲》）和《形态》中通过对感性直观对象的非物相化透视而确立的。既然马克思科学世界观的形成源于对实践概念的阐释，那么充分理解《形态》时期的成熟实践观有必要追溯《提纲》中的实践思想。作为“包含新世界观的天才萌芽”的第一个文件，《提纲》是马克思哲学思想发生革命性转向的重要标准，批判旧唯物主义脱离实践，对“对象、现实、感性的理解只是以客体或直观的形式”，局限在纯粹思辨之中，未能将现实“当作感性的人的活动，当作实践去理解”。因此，马克思将实践观作为马克思主义哲学体系的原初点，成为区别新旧哲学的本质性标志。在《提纲》中，马克思实现了对费尔巴哈人本主义的批判和超越，重新阐释人的本质，将实践主体确定为处于社会关系中的人，将人的感性活动作为实践概念的逻辑起点，确立以实践为基础，同客观世界发生关系的新唯物主义，并提出新唯物主义的历史使命和根本任务就是科学实践，从而形成实践的新学说，显现出对于人的对象性活动背后的关系维度的重视。马克思指出：“费尔巴哈把宗教的本质归于人的本质。但是，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。”实践的根基在此时转向社会生活本身。“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的。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个实践的理解中得到合理的解决。”“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，问题在于改变世界。”自此，马克思与德国唯心主义和费尔巴哈的旧唯物主义彻底划清界限，将实践作为理解属人世界的基础且作为自己哲学思想的根本标志。虽然马克思的实践思想经历复杂的转变过程，但实践观形成后，其思想始终贯彻这一基本立场，一再强调革命实践才是历史和一切意识形态发展的动力，可以说，生产劳动实践是马克思在《形态》中对《提纲》中实践思想的进一步深化，搭建了实践概念的基本框架，实现了从“对象性的活动”的抽象到“物质生产的活动”的具体的转变。但值得说明的是，在《形态》中，“实践”概念是以不在场的方式出场的，是以“感性活动”及其更为具象的“工业和商业”“工业和社会状况”等出场的，由此，对《形态》中的实践阐述会必然关涉与《提纲》的深层关联。

Social Practice Based on Material Production

以物质生产为基础的社会实践

Human practical activity takes many forms, but in the view of Marx as a revolutionary, revolutionary practice is the important practice for transforming the existing world. However, this practice cannot be initiated arbitrarily; it depends primarily on the practical form of productive labor. *The German Ideology* states: “This activity, this continuous sensuous labor and creation, this production, is the very deep foundation of the entire existing sensuous world, so that if it were to stop for even a single year, Feuerbach would see that not only would enormous changes occur in nature, but this human world, and even his (Feuerbach’s) own intuitive ability, and indeed his very existence, would cease to be.” [2]2 This is a paraphrase of a passage from Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846). The exact wording in the standard English edition (MECW, vol. 5, p. 40) is: “This activity, this continuous sensuous labour and creation, this production, is the foundation of the whole sensuous world as it now exists, so that if it were interrupted only for a year, Feuerbach would not only find that the natural world had undergone enormous changes, but would also very soon find that the whole world of men and his own perceptive faculty, nay his own existence, were missing.” Hence Marx situates practice within concrete history, analyzing through practice the formation and developmental causes of social history, thereby pointing more deeply to the core issues of historical materialism, and in constant inquiry drives practice toward the deeper and more concrete objective foundations of social history itself. Marx takes the “five forms of production” that constitute historical activity as the main forms of practice, thereby endowing practice with the connotation of “productive practice.” The five forms of production include: production of material means of subsistence, reproduction of material means of subsistence, production of human beings themselves, production of social relations, and production of social consciousness. Among these, the production of material means of subsistence, the reproduction of material means of subsistence, and the production of human beings themselves are the three aspects that constitute social activity; they are basic production and also the three “elements” constituting social activity, occupying a position of historical origin, generative primordiality, and foundational determinacy. Accordingly, in response to the abstract view of history held by Feuerbach and others, Marx clearly states in *The German Ideology*: “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature.” [3]3 This is a paraphrase of Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (MECW, vol. 5, p. 31). The standard English text reads: “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature.” Therefore, the first historical act is the production of the means to satisfy these needs, i.e., the production of material life itself. This undoubtedly reconfirms that the natural life attributes of human beings determine that they must first engage in material production to satisfy basic life needs, and thereby transform objective nature into the needs of the subjective human being, thus truly endowing “abstract” concepts with concrete, real content. If the qualitative difference distinguishing human history from natural history lies in material production, then the true unfolding and generation of human history lies in the constantly renewed needs that arise after basic needs are satisfied. Hence Marx further emphasizes in *The German Ideology*: “The second point is that the satisfaction of the first need, the activity of satisfying and the instrument of satisfaction which has been acquired, leads to new needs; and this creation of new needs is the first historical act.” [4]4 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (MECW, vol. 5, p. 42). That is to say, the activity of satisfying needs and the instruments of production generate new needs; these needs are themselves the result of material generation, not purely subjective, and they point toward higher-level needs. In this way, material production and reproduction play a decisive role at a more micro level in the historical mode of human existence and the overall structure of society, causing relations of production to constitute, according to different configurations, the objective relational scene of human social existence, concretely manifested through the production of human beings themselves and the production of social relations. Marx points out: “The third relation which enters into historical development from the very beginning is that men, who daily re-create their own life, begin to create other men.” [5]5 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (MECW, vol. 5, p. 43). “Thus the production of life, both of one’s own in labor and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a twofold relation: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relation.” [6]6 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (MECW, vol. 5, p. 43). This shows that the production of life, i.e., what Marx calls “procreation,” does not occur through simple division as in some plants and animals to form new life, but requires joint gestation and reproduction, giving rise to family relations centered on the relationship between husband and wife and between parents and children, which is also the natural form of individual life. Regarding the meaning of social relations, Marx refers to the common activity of many individuals, not an externally constraining objective relation, but something constructed in the moment through people’s common activity; this mode of common activity is itself a productive force, and the sum of these productive forces determines the social condition, constituting the basic scene of human social existence. The production of social consciousness is a derivative of the first four forms of production and interweaves with them to constitute the entirety of social historical activity. That is to say, generative practice also includes the formation of individual consciousness and the formation of class consciousness. Marx summarizes: “Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all.” [7]7 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (MECW, vol. 5, p. 44). “The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life.” [8]8 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (MECW, vol. 5, p. 36). It can be seen that the formation of individual consciousness depends precisely on the individual’s real material productive activity; without the material production and material intercourse of real people, one cannot grasp or understand the basis of individual consciousness, and moreover, the single individual inevitably constructs certain social relations of intercourse with others engaged in productive activity, shaping a common consciousness, which in a class society necessarily manifests as a certain class consciousness.

人的实践活动具有多种形式，但在作为革命者的马克思看来，革命实践才是改造现存世界的重要实践，但这种实践不是任意可发动的，其主要取决于生产劳动的实践形式。《形态》中提道：“这种活动、这种连续不断的感性劳动和创造、这种生产，是整个现存感性世界的非常深刻的基础，只要它哪怕只停留一年，费尔巴哈就会看到，不仅在自然界将发生巨大的变化，而且这个人类世界以及他（费尔巴哈）的直观能力，甚至他本身的存在也就没有了。”故马克思将实践置于具体历史中，透过实践分析社会历史的形成及发展原因，更深层次地指向历史唯物主义的核心问题，并在不断追问中使实践走向社会历史本身的更深层具体的客观基础。马克思将构成历史活动的“五种生产”作为实践的主要形态，从而赋予实践以“生产实践”的内涵。五种生产包括：物质资料的生产、物质资料的再生产、人自身的生产、社会关系的生产和社会意识的生产。其中物质资料的生产、物质资料的再生产以及人自身的生产是构成社会活动的三个方面，是基本的生产，也是构成社会活动的三个“要素”，处于历史起点、生成的始源性和基础决定性地位。据此，针对费尔巴哈等人的抽象历史观，马克思在《形态》中明确指出：“一切人类生产的第一个前提，也就是一切历史的第一个前提，这个前提是人们为了能够‘创造历史’，必须能够生活。但是为了生活，首先就需要吃喝住穿以及其他一切东西。”因此，第一个历史活动就是生产满足这些需要的资料，即生产物质生活本身。这无疑再度确认人类的自然生命属性决定了人类首先从事物质生产来满足基本的生命需要，并进而将对象性的自然转化为主体性的人的需要，从而真正赋予“抽象性”概念以具体的现实内涵。如果人类史区别于自然史的质性差异在于物质生产，那么人类史的真正展开和生成在于满足基本需要后的不断更新的需要。进而马克思在《形态》中进一步强调：“第二个事实是，已经得到满足的第一个需要本身、满足需要的活动和已经获得的为满足需要而用的工具又引起新的需要，而这种新的需要的产生是第一个历史活动。”也就是说，满足需要的活动和生产工具会产生新的需要，这种需要本身就是物质生成的结果，而非纯粹主观，且会指向更高级的需要。这样，物质生产与再生产在更加微观的层面上对人的历史存在方式和社会总体结构起到决定性作用，使生产关系依据不同构式构成人类社会存在的客观关系场景，具体以人自身的生产和社会关系的生产所呈现。马克思指出，“一开始就进入历史发展过程的第三种关系是：每日都在重新生产自己生命的人们开始生产另外一些人”，“这样，生命的生产，无论是通过劳动而生产自己的生命，还是通过生育而生产他人的生命，就立即表现为双重关系，一方面是自然关系，另一方面是社会关系”。由此表明，生产生命，也就是马克思提到的“繁殖”，人类本身不能像某些动植物一样通过简易的分裂就形成新的生命，而是需要一起孕育繁殖，这就出现了以夫妻关系和父母子女关系为核心的家庭关系，也是个人生命的自然形式。针对社会关系的含义，马克思则是指许多个人的共同活动，并非外在的客观制约关系，而是人们在共同活动中当下建构的，这种共同活动方式本身就是生产力，并且这种生产力的总和决定着社会状况，构成了人们基本社会存在场景。社会意识的生产则是前四种生产的衍生物，并与前四种生产相互交织构成了全部社会历史的活动。也就是说，生成实践还包含个人意识的形成与阶级意识的形成。马克思总结道：“意识一开始就是社会的产物，而且只要人们存在着，它就仍然是这种产物”，“思想、观念、意识的生产最初是直接与人们的物质活动，与人们的物质交往，与现实生活的语言交织在一起的”。可见，个人意识之所以形成正是依凭个人现实的物质生产活动，脱离现实的人的物质生产和物质交往活动，无法把握和理解个人意识产生的基础，并且单个人势必会与从事生产活动的他人建构起一定的社会交往关系，形塑一种共同意识，这种共同意识在阶级社会中就必然会呈现为一定的阶级意识。

The Starting Point of Marx’s Philosophy

马克思哲学的出发点

In the history of the development of Marxist thought, *The German Ideology* is undoubtedly a landmark work. In this work, Marx and Engels further explain from the dimension of productive practice that the subject of practice is “real individuals.” Standing on the position of the materialist conception of history, they criticize the German ideology represented by “philosophy after Hegel,” revealing the philosophical critical path “from earth to heaven.” At the same time, from the two levels of human modes of activity and social relations, they discover the general laws of the movement of human history, scientifically explain from the starting point of productive practice the real basis and inherent trends of the historical development of human society, positively expound the new historical conception of historical materialism, supplement the theoretical gap of “abstract” practice from the period of the *Theses on Feuerbach*, and penetrate into the reality of social history to grasp concrete links. Needless to say, practice is the starting point of Marxist philosophy, and the establishment of the scientific concept of practice marks the essential distinction between the new materialist philosophy founded by Marx and the old materialist philosophy represented by Feuerbach. Practice is the core content of the universal principles of Marxism; only by fully understanding, inheriting, and developing Marx’s scientific concept of practice can it be integrated with China’s actual conditions and effectively resolve the difficulties and challenges encountered in practice.

在马克思主义思想发展史上，《形态》无疑是一部里程碑式的重要著作。马克思恩格斯在《形态》中从生产实践的维度进一步解释了实践的主体是“现实的个人”，站在唯物主义历史观的立场上批判以“黑格尔以后的哲学”为代表的德意志意识形态，揭示“从人间到天堂”的哲学批判路径，同时从人的活动方式与社会关系两个层面，发现了人类历史运动的一般规律，从生产实践出发科学阐释了人类社会历史发展的现实基础及内在趋势，正面阐述历史唯物主义的新历史观，补足了《提纲》时期的实践“抽象”的理论缺环，深入到社会历史的现实之中把握具体环节。毋庸讳言，实践是马克思主义哲学的起点，科学实践观的提出则标志着马克思创立的新唯物主义哲学与费尔巴哈为代表的旧唯物主义哲学有了本质区别。实践是马克思主义普遍原理的核心内容，只有充分理解、继承和发展马克思的科学实践观，才能将其同中国实际相结合，有效解决实践中遇到的困境与挑战。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗