Historical Materialism Is a Transcendence of Feuerbach’s Philosophy

In the history of Marxist development, Feuerbach’s philosophy is an unavoidable link. It provided an important opportunity for Marx to establish historical materialism and served as an intellectual resource in the history of Marxist development. A thorough exploration of the inner connection between Feuerbach’s philosophy and historical materialism, as well as the process by which historical materialism emerged under the specific historical conditions of Germany, is of profound significance for accurately grasping the essential characteristics and developmental trajectory of Marxist philosophy.

在马克思主义发展史上，费尔巴哈哲学是绕不开的一个环节，它为马克思创立历史唯物主义提供了重要契机，是马克思主义发展史的思想资源。深入探究费尔巴哈哲学与历史唯物主义的内在联系，以及历史唯物主义在德国那样一种特定的历史背景下的产生过程，对于精准把握马克思主义哲学的本质特征与发展脉络意义深远。

I. The Historical Background of the Birth of Historical Materialism

一、历史唯物主义诞生的时代背景

In the early 19th century, Germany embarked on the path of capitalist development, and society was in a critical period of rapid transformation. This special social condition laid a deep foundation for the emergence of Marxist philosophy.

19世纪初，德国走上资本主义发展道路，社会处于急剧转型的关键时期，这种特殊的社会状况为马克思主义哲学的产生奠定了深厚基础。

After nearly thirty years of accumulation, Germany launched an industrial revolution in the 1830s, and capitalism developed rapidly. The Ruhr region, relying on its abundant coal resources, became an important area for German capitalist development. From 1830 to 1850, coal output in the Ruhr grew from approximately 1 million tons to nearly 6 million tons. The coal mining industry flourished, providing sufficient energy for the steel industry and promoting its vigorous development. The number of factories increased substantially, and the factory system was widely implemented. Companies like Krupp in Essen not only produced steel but also extended into machinery manufacturing, military industry, and other fields, becoming a symbol of German industrial strength. The coal and steel industries were linked to a series of downstream industries and had a strong driving capacity, thus becoming a powerful impetus for urbanization. Cities such as Essen and Dortmund rose rapidly and increasingly became major industrial centers in Germany. The Saxony region was famous worldwide for its textile industry. Textile factories clustered in Leipzig, Dresden, and other places, and their exports occupied a significant share of the international market, thereby accumulating large amounts of capital and promoting the development of commerce and financial services. The Rhineland-Palatinate region, adjacent to France, had a developed chemical and machinery manufacturing industry. The Baden Aniline and Soda Factory (BASF) in Mannheim gradually became a world-renowned chemical enterprise. But at the same time, the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production unavoidably came to the fore, and the contradiction between the socialization of production and the private ownership of the means of production became increasingly acute. When the economic crisis broke out in 1847, the German economy suffered a severe blow. A large number of factories closed (some data indicate as high as 30%), workers lost their jobs, social production was severely damaged, workers’ wages fell by an average of as much as 40%, and the gap between rich and poor widened sharply. The working class lived in hardship, working more than 12 hours a day, yet their wages could hardly meet basic living needs. This economic predicament intensified the opposition between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, providing social soil for the gestation of new ideas.

经过近三十年积累，19世纪30年代德国掀起工业革命，资本主义迅速发展。鲁尔区凭借丰富的煤炭资源，成为德国资本主义发展的重要区域。1830—1850年鲁尔区煤炭产量从约100万吨增长到近600万吨，煤炭开采业蓬勃发展，为钢铁工业提供充足能源，促进钢铁工业蓬勃发展，工厂数量大幅增加，广泛推行工厂制度，像埃森的克虏伯公司不仅生产钢铁，还延伸到机械制造、军工等领域，成为德国工业实力的象征。煤炭和钢铁工业关联一系列下游产业，具有很强的带动能力，因而成为城市化进程的有力推手，使得埃森、多特蒙德等城市迅速崛起，日益成为德国工业重镇。萨克森地区以纺织业闻名于世，莱比锡、德累斯顿等地纺织厂云集，出口品在国际市场上占据重要份额，从而积累起大量资本，推动了商业和金融服务业的发展。莱茵兰—普法尔茨地区毗邻法国，化工、机械制造业发达，曼海姆的巴登苯胺和苏打厂(巴斯夫)也逐渐成为世界知名的化工企业。但与此同时，资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾也不可克服地凸显出来，生产的社会化与生产资料私人占有之间的矛盾日益尖锐。1847年经济危机爆发，德国经济遭受重创，大量工厂倒闭(有数据表明高达30%),工人失业，社会生产遭到严重破坏，工人工资平均下降40%之巨，贫富差距急剧扩大。工人阶级生活困苦，每日工作时长超过12小时，工资却难以维持基本生活需要。这种经济困境加剧了无产阶级与资产阶级的对立，为新思想的孕育提供了社会土壤。

In terms of the political landscape, Germany was still in a state of feudal fragmentation, composed of numerous states and lacking a unified political center of power. The feudal rule of states such as Prussia and Austria was stable, the feudal forces were strong, and the feudal aristocracy firmly held political power. Although the emerging bourgeoisie had begun to make its mark economically, it was heavily suppressed by feudal forces and had no political voice whatsoever. The proletariat suffered dual oppression, both economic and political, exploited not only by the capitalists but also suppressed by feudal forces. In Prussia, the working class could not even secure the most basic political rights. This political landscape led to a severe lack of social fairness and justice. The proletariat urgently needed a scientific theory to guide its struggle and change the situation. Marxist philosophy inherently carried such a political demand.

在政治格局上，德国仍处于封建割据状态，由众多邦国组成，缺乏统一的政治权力中心。普鲁士和奥地利等邦国的封建统治稳固，封建势力强大，封建贵族牢牢掌握政治权力。新兴资产阶级虽在经济上有所崭露头角，但受到封建势力的重重压制，在政治上毫无话语权。无产阶级更是遭受经济和政治的双重压迫，不仅受资本家的剥削，还受封建势力的压制。在普鲁士，工人阶级连最基本的政治权利都得不到保障。这种政治格局导致社会公平正义严重缺失，无产阶级迫切需要科学理论来指导斗争，改变现状，马克思主义哲学内在地有着这样的政治诉求。

In the realm of ideology and culture, German classical philosophy occupied an important position in the German intellectual world of the 19th century, and the influence of Hegel’s philosophy was particularly widespread. Hegel (1770–1831), with “absolute spirit” as his core concept, constructed a rigorous and vast philosophical system, using dialectics to expound the process of development of things from the lower to the higher, from the abstract to the concrete, and engaged in profound reflection on fields such as religion, history, and society. In *The Philosophy of History*, Hegel described history as “the unfolding process of absolute spirit,” emphasizing that historical development has inherent laws: “Every stage of world history maintains a necessary link in the idea of absolute spirit.” Shortly after Hegel’s death, a split and differentiation occurred within his school. The Old Hegelians emphasized the conservative aspects of Hegel’s philosophy, combining it with the political and religious systems of the Prussian state to uphold the traditional order and authority; the Young Hegelians were more radical, inheriting Hegel’s dialectical thought and attempting to criticize the existing religious and political systems. Of course, most of the Young Hegelians were still confined to Hegel’s idealist system, seriously out of touch with real society, and their thought became increasingly extreme, falling into abstract theoretical critique. Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), a leader of the Young Hegelians, in works such as *Critique of the Gospel History of the Synoptics*, absolutized self-consciousness, asserting that “self-consciousness is the sole driving force of historical development,” ignoring the social material base and the role of the masses.

思想文化领域，德国古典哲学在19世纪的德国思想界占据重要地位，黑格尔哲学的影响尤为广泛。黑格尔(1770—1831年)以“绝对精神”为核心理念，构建起严密而庞大的哲学体系，运用辩证法阐述了事物从低级到高级、从抽象到具体的发展过程，对宗教、历史和社会等领域进行了深刻反思。在《历史哲学》中，黑格尔将历史描述为“绝对精神的展开过程”,强调历史发展具有内在规律性，“世界历史的每一个阶段，都保持着绝对精神的理念的一个必然环节”。黑格尔逝世后不久，其学派内部就出现了分裂和分化。老年黑格尔派强调黑格尔哲学的保守方面，将其与普鲁士国家的政治和宗教制度相结合，维护传统秩序和权威；青年黑格尔派则较为激进，继承黑格尔辩证法思想，试图批判当时的宗教和政治制度。当然，青年黑格尔派大多还是囿于黑格尔唯心主义体系，与现实社会严重脱节，其思想日益偏激，陷入抽象的理论批判。青年黑格尔派领袖布鲁诺·鲍威尔(1809—1882年)在《对观福音书作者的福音史批判》等著作中，将自我意识绝对化，认为“自我意识是历史发展的唯一动力”,无视社会物质基础和人民群众的作用。

At the same time, utopian socialist thought also spread in Germany and exerted a certain influence. Utopian socialists such as Saint-Simon (1760–1825), Fourier (1768–1830), and Owen (1771–1858) profoundly criticized the exploitative nature of capitalism and proposed visions of establishing fair and harmonious societies, which activated people’s thinking. However, these propositions lacked a deep understanding of the actual laws of social development, remaining only at the level of moral critique and rational propaganda, and were unable to find the real forces and correct paths for achieving social change. These currents of thought and their theoretical challenges provided rich intellectual nourishment for the birth of Marxist philosophy.

与此同时，空想社会主义思潮也在德国传播开来并产生了一定影响。圣西门(1760—1825年)、傅立叶(1768—1830年)和欧文(1771—1858年)等空想社会主义者深刻批判资本主义的剥削本质，提出建立公平、和谐社会的愿景，激活了人们的思想。然而，这些主张缺乏对现实社会发展规律的深刻认识，仅停留在道德批判和理性宣传层面，无法找到实现社会变革的现实力量和正确路径。这些思潮及其理论挑战为马克思主义哲学的诞生提供了丰富的思想素养。

Against the backdrop of an era interwoven with old and new forces, turbulence, and instability, German society urgently needed a completely new theory to resolve social contradictions and guide the direction of the times. Marxist philosophy emerged as the times required. It absorbed the essence of German classical philosophy, utopian socialism, and other ideas, combined them with the actual conditions of German society, deeply explored the laws of social development, and provided scientific theoretical guidance for the proletarian revolution. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, “Marxism is a practical theory that guides the people’s action in transforming the world.” [1]1 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Commemoration of the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Marx” (May 4, 2018).

在新旧力量交织、动荡不安的时代背景下，德国社会急需一种全新的理论来解答社会矛盾、指引时代发展的方向。马克思主义哲学应运而生，它汲取了德国古典哲学、空想社会主义等思想的精华，结合德国社会的现实状况，深入探索社会发展的规律，为无产阶级革命提供了科学的理论指导。正如习近平总书记所指出的，“马克思主义是实践的理论，指引着人民改造世界的行动”。

II. The Interaction and Divergence between Feuerbach’s Philosophy and the Development of Marx’s Thought

二、费尔巴哈哲学与马克思思想发展的互动及分歧

From the late 1830s to the early 1840s, Feuerbach (1804–1872) stepped onto the German philosophical stage, and his humanist materialism exerted a tremendous influence on the German intellectual world. Feuerbach emphasized that humans are perceptual, natural beings, and criticized Hegel’s idealist view that regarded absolute spirit as the origin of the world. In his book *The Essence of Christianity*, he pointed out, “Religion is the alienation of the human essence. Humans created God in their own image, but in turn worship God, leading to the alienation of the human essence.” This view provided a new perspective, powerfully impacted the dominant position of Hegelian idealism and religious theology, and prompted people to re-examine the position and role of humans in the world.

19世纪30年代末至40年代初，费尔巴哈(1804—1872年)登上德国哲学舞台，其人本学唯物主义在德国思想界产生了巨大影响。费尔巴哈强调人是感性的、自然的存在物，批判黑格尔将绝对精神视为世界本原的唯心主义观点。在《基督教的本质》一书中，他指出，“宗教是人的本质的异化，人按照自己的形象创造了上帝，却反过来(要)对上帝顶礼膜拜，导致人的本质被异化”。这一观点为人们提供了新的视角，有力地冲击了黑格尔唯心主义和宗教神学的统治地位，促使人们重新审视人在世界中的地位和作用。

During his studies at the University of Berlin (1836–1841), the young Marx was deeply influenced by Hegel’s dialectical thought and delved into philosophy and law. Marx once pointed out, “Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectics, but only after it is stripped of its mystical form, and this is precisely my method.” He actively participated in the academic activities of the Young Hegelians, attempting to use Hegel’s dialectic to analyze and solve practical problems. The emergence of Feuerbach’s philosophy led Marx to begin rethinking Hegel’s philosophy and the relationship between philosophy and reality. Marx deeply studied Feuerbach’s works, and Feuerbach’s thought had an important enlightening effect on Marx.

青年马克思在柏林大学学习期间(1836—1841年),深受黑格尔辩证法思想的熏陶，深入钻研哲学、法学。马克思曾指出，“黑格尔的辩证法是一切辩证法的基本形式，但是，只有在剥去它的神秘的形式之后才是这样，而这恰好就是我的方法”。他积极参与青年黑格尔派的学术活动，试图运用黑格尔的辩证法分析和解决现实问题。费尔巴哈哲学的出现，使马克思开始重新思考黑格尔哲学以及哲学与现实的关系。马克思深入研究费尔巴哈的著作，费尔巴哈的思想对马克思产生了重要启发。

During his period at the *Rheinische Zeitung* (1842–1843), Marx began to focus on real social problems, especially the issue of material interests. In a series of commentary articles published in the *Rheinische Zeitung*, he sharply criticized the policies implemented by the Prussian government, such as the law on the theft of wood and the poverty of fruit farmers in the Moselle region. Marx later recalled, “I studied law, which I pursued, however, only as a subordinate subject alongside philosophy and history. In the years 1842–43, as editor of the *Rheinische Zeitung*, I first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to express views on so-called material interests.” [2]2 Karl Marx, “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 262. At this time, Marx discovered that Hegel’s speculative philosophy proved utterly powerless in the face of reality, especially before the Prussian autocratic regime, because opposite conclusions could also be drawn from Hegel’s speculative philosophy, resulting in a situation like the left hand wrestling with the right hand. Feuerbach’s materialist thought offered a new perspective. Marx gradually came to realize that understanding society must start from real human beings and their material conditions of life.

马克思在莱茵报时期(1842—1843年)开始关注社会现实问题，尤其是物质利益问题。他在《莱茵报》上发表的一系列评论文章，对普鲁士政府推行的政策提出严厉批评，如林木盗窃法、摩塞尔地区果农贫困问题等。马克思曾回忆道，“我学的专业本来是法律，但我只是把它排在哲学和历史之次当作辅助学科来研究。1842—1843年间，我作为《莱茵报》的编辑，第一次遇到要对所谓物质利益发表意见的难事”。马克思此时发现，黑格尔的思辨哲学在现实面前，尤其面对普鲁士专制政权时竟然如此软弱无力，因为相反的结论也是从黑格尔思辨哲学中得出的，结果就成了左手和右手扳手腕，而费尔巴哈的唯物主义思想提供了另外新的视角。马克思逐渐认识到，理解社会需从现实的人及其物质生活条件出发。

In 1844, Marx’s ties with Feuerbach grew closer. Marx once solicited a contribution from Feuerbach, inviting him to write for the German-language journal *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, co-edited by Marx and Arnold Ruge and published in Paris, in order to criticize the Prussian court philosopher Schelling (1775–1854). Marx believed that Feuerbach’s humanist materialism was a powerful weapon for criticizing Schelling’s transcendentalist idealism. On October 3, 1843, Marx wrote to Feuerbach, saying, “You are precisely the most suitable person for this task, because you are Schelling’s antithesis.” Feuerbach replied on October 25, fully agreeing with Marx’s political assessment of Schelling’s philosophy, but declined the invitation on the grounds of being busy with other creative projects, and did not contribute to the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*. On August 11, 1844, Marx again wrote to Feuerbach to express his respect, praising Feuerbach’s works *Principles of the Philosophy of the Future* and *The Essence of Christianity* for providing a philosophical foundation for socialism. How strongly Feuerbach influenced Marx is not difficult to see from *The Holy Family*. Engels was also inspired by Feuerbach, even more intensely, and thereby turned from Hegelian idealism to materialism. Engels later recalled the publication of *The Essence of Christianity*, saying, “One must have experienced the liberating effect of this book for oneself to get an idea of it. Enthusiasm was general; we all became Feuerbachians at once.” The reason was that “it placed materialism on the throne again without further ado, and this at once removed the contradiction.” [3]3 Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990), p. 364. In his correspondence with Marx, Engels frequently cited ideas from Feuerbach’s works, and they jointly explored how to combine Feuerbach’s materialism with Hegel’s dialectics to form a more rigorous and scientific philosophical system.

1844年，马克思与费尔巴哈的联系进一步密切。马克思曾向费尔巴哈约稿，邀请他为自己和阿尔诺德·卢格共同主编并在巴黎出版的德文刊物《德法年鉴》撰稿以批判普鲁士御用哲学家谢林(1775—1854年),马克思认为费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义是批判谢林先验论唯心主义的有力武器。1843年10月3日，马克思致信费尔巴哈，称“您正是最适合做这件事情的人，因为您是谢林的对立面”。费尔巴哈在10月25日回信表示完全同意马克思对谢林哲学的政治评价，同时以忙于其他创作计划为由谢绝邀请，没有给《德法年鉴》供稿。1844年8月11日，马克思再次致信费尔巴哈以示敬意，称赞费尔巴哈著作《未来哲学原理》和《基督教的本质》给社会主义提供了哲学基础。费尔巴哈如何强烈地影响了马克思，从《神圣家族》中就不难看出来。恩格斯同样受到费尔巴哈的鼓舞，甚至表现得更为强烈，由此也从黑格尔唯心主义转向了唯物主义。恩格斯曾回忆《基督教的本质》出版时的情景，称“这部书的解放作用，只有亲身体验过的人才能想象得到。那时大家都很兴奋：我们一时都成为费尔巴哈派了”,原因就在于“它直截了当地使唯物主义重新登上王座，这就一下子消除了这个矛盾”。恩格斯在与马克思的通信中，曾多次引用费尔巴哈著作中的思想，他们共同探讨如何将费尔巴哈的唯物主义与黑格尔的辩证法相结合，以形成更加严密科学的哲学体系。

As Marx’s research into social reality deepened, the rift between him and Feuerbach grew ever larger. Although Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* still bore traces of Feuerbachian humanism, it had already integrated the study of political economy and delved more deeply into issues such as the essence of humanity and alienation. Marx pointed out, “The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 271. Marx had already recognized that it was far from sufficient to understand human beings solely from their natural attributes and perceptual existence; it was necessary to extensively and deeply engage with social and economic relations to reveal the essence of humanity and the laws of social development.

随着马克思对社会现实研究的不断深入，他与费尔巴哈之间裂隙越来越大。马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》虽还残留费尔巴哈式人本主义痕迹，但已经结合了政治经济学研究，对人的本质、异化等问题进行了更深入的探讨。马克思指出，“工人生产的财富越多，他的产品的力量和数量越大，他就越贫穷。工人创造的商品越多，他就越变成廉价的商品。物的世界的增值同人的世界的贬值成正比”。马克思已经认识到，仅从人的自然属性和感性存在来理解人是远远不够的，必须广泛深入社会经济关系揭示人的本质和社会发展规律。

In contrast, Feuerbach’s thought and influence increasingly declined. His secluded rural lifestyle and relatively closed environment caused him to become severely detached from the vigorously unfolding social changes and academic frontiers of the time. Unable to keep up with fresh ideas and scientific achievements, he lost his sensitivity and was soon surpassed by later thinkers. Of course, his earlier critique of religion and Hegelian idealism remained only at the theoretical level, lacking deep reflection on and concrete action for real social change. Feuerbach’s understanding of humanity focused mainly on natural attributes, neglecting human sociality and historicity, and failing to recognize the formation and development of the essence of humanity in the practice of social production. Feuerbach’s philosophy lacked in-depth analysis of real social problems, could not provide practical theoretical guidance for the proletarian revolution, and gradually became distant from the actual needs of the masses.

相形之下，费尔巴哈的思想和影响力日趋衰落。蛰居乡间的生活方式和相对封闭的环境使得他严重脱离当时蓬勃开展的社会变革和学术前沿，不能及时接触到新鲜的思想观念和科学成果，丧失了敏感性，很快被后来者所超越。当然，他从前批判宗教和黑格尔的唯心主义，也只是停留在理论层面，缺乏对现实社会变革的深入思考和具体行动。费尔巴哈对人的理解主要侧重于自然属性，忽视了人的社会性和历史性，未认识到人的本质在社会生产实践中的形成和发展。费尔巴哈哲学缺乏对社会现实问题的深入分析，无法为无产阶级革命提供切实可行的理论指导，逐渐远离了人民大众的实际需求。

Marx’s *Theses on Feuerbach* (hereinafter referred to as the *Theses*), written in 1845, became the clearest sign of his break with Feuerbach’s thought. In this *Theses*, which contains “the germ of the new world outlook,” [5]5 Friedrich Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 364. Marx explicitly pointed out that “the chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism (that of Feuerbach included)” is that “the object, reality, sensuousness is conceived only in the form of the *object* or of *contemplation*, but not as *sensuous human activity*, *practice*, not subjectively.” [6]6 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 3. Marx emphasized that practice is the foundation for understanding and transforming the world, and proposed that “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.” [7]7 Ibid., p. 4. This was directed precisely against Feuerbach’s “abstract man divorced from social relations,” who attempted to define the essence of humanity through “species-essence” (such as universal human qualities like love and reason), thereby completely sublating Feuerbach.

马克思于1845年撰写的《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》(以下简称《提纲》)成为他与费尔巴哈思想决裂的最明确的标志。马克思在这份“包含着新世界观的天才萌芽”的《提纲》中明确指出，“从前的一切唯物主义(包括费尔巴哈的唯物主义)的主要缺点”在于“对对象、现实、感性只是从客体的或者直观的形式去理解，而不是把它们当作感性的人的活动，当作实践去理解，不是从主体方面去理解”。马克思强调实践是认识世界和改造世界的基础，提出“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物”,其所针对的就是费尔巴哈“脱离社会关系的抽象人”,试图通过“类本质”(如爱、理性等普遍人性)规定人的本质，从而完全扬弃了费尔巴哈。

Subsequently, Marx and Engels further elucidated the basic principles of historical materialism in *The German Ideology* (1846), offering a more comprehensive critique of Feuerbach’s old materialism. They pointed out that Feuerbach did not regard human beings as social and historical beings engaged in practical activity, and did not understand that social being determines social consciousness. Marx and Engels emphasized that the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, is the internal driving force of social development, and that the masses play a decisive role in historical development. Through their critique of Feuerbach, Marx and Engels constructed the theoretical edifice of historical materialism, brought about a great transformation in the history of philosophy, and completed the intellectual shift from Hegelian idealism to historical materialism. The key to this shift lay in Marx’s emphasis on practice and his in-depth study of social and economic relations, which broke free from the shackles of old philosophy and provided scientific theoretical guidance for the proletarian revolution.

随后，马克思和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》(1846年)中进一步阐明历史唯物主义的基本原理，对费尔巴哈旧唯物主义进行更为全面的批判。他们指出，费尔巴哈没有把人看作是从事实践活动的社会历史的人，不理解社会存在决定社会意识。马克思和恩格斯强调，生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑的矛盾运动是社会发展的内在动力，人民群众在历史发展中起着决定性的作用。通过对费尔巴哈的批判，马克思和恩格斯构建起历史唯物主义的理论大厦，实现了哲学史上的伟大变革，完成了从黑格尔唯心主义向历史唯物主义的思想转变。这一转变的关键在于马克思对实践的重视以及对社会经济关系的深入研究，摆脱了旧哲学的束缚，为无产阶级革命提供了科学的理论指导。

III. The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and the Intellectual Inheritance from Feuerbach

三、《1844年经济学哲学手稿》与费尔巴哈的思想传承关系

The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manuscripts*) occupy an important position in the development of Marx’s thought. Feuerbach’s ideas played a significant role in them, while at the same time Marx achieved a transcendence of Feuerbach’s thought in many respects.

《1844年经济学哲学手稿》(以下简称《手稿》)在马克思思想发展进程中具有重要地位，费尔巴哈的思想在其中起到了重要作用，同时马克思也在诸多方面实现了对费尔巴哈思想的超越。

Feuerbach criticized Hegel’s idealism, emphasized the primacy of matter, and regarded human beings as sensuous, natural beings, thereby providing an important theoretical foundation for Marx. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx drew on these views, abandoned Hegel’s speculative path starting from absolute spirit, and analyzed social phenomena from the perspective of real human beings and their material productive activities. When exploring the problem of alienated labor, Marx treated labor as the essential activity of human beings, and considered human beings first and foremost as natural, living individuals, which reflects the influence of Feuerbach’s materialism on Marx. Marx pointed out, “Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers — he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities, as impulses. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous, objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 336. Thus, when reflecting on the essence of humanity, Marx simultaneously absorbed Feuerbach’s view of human beings as natural beings.

费尔巴哈批判黑格尔的唯心主义，强调物质第一性，人是感性的、自然的存在物，从而为马克思提供了重要的理论基础。在《手稿》中，马克思借鉴这些观点，摒弃了黑格尔从绝对精神出发的思辨路径，从现实的人及其物质生产活动出发分析社会现象。马克思在探讨劳动异化问题时，将劳动看作是人的本质活动，而人首先是自然的、有生命的个体，这体现了费尔巴哈唯物主义对马克思的影响。马克思指出，“人直接地是自然存在物。人作为自然存在物，而且作为有生命的自然存在物，一方面具有自然力、生命力，是能动的自然存在物；这些力量作为天赋和才能、作为欲望存在于人身上；另一方面，人作为自然的、肉体的、感性的、对象性的存在物，和动植物一样，是受动的、受制约的和受限制的存在物”。可见，马克思在思考人的本质时，同时吸收了费尔巴哈关于人是自然存在物的观点。

Feuerbach proposed that religion is the alienation of man’s essence: man creates God but in turn is ruled by God. Inspired by this, Marx introduced the concept of alienation into his analysis of capitalist society and put forward the theory of alienated labor. Under the capitalist system, workers create wealth but cannot possess it; instead, they are dominated by it, just as the religion created by man in turn rules over man. The two are similar in the logic of alienation. Marx held that “the object produced by labor, its product, now stands opposed to it as an alien being, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor which has been congealed in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor. Labor’s realization is its objectification. In the condition dealt with by political economy, this realization of labor appears as loss of reality for the workers; objectification as loss of and bondage to the object; and appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959), p. 29. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard MECW edition.] This makes abundantly clear the connection (at least the common origin) between Marx’s theory of alienated labor and Feuerbach’s idea of religious alienation.

费尔巴哈提出宗教是人的本质的异化，人创造了上帝却反过来受上帝的统治。马克思受此启发，将异化概念引入对资本主义社会的分析中，提出劳动异化理论。在资本主义制度下，工人创造了财富，却不能占有财富，反而受其支配，就如同人创造的宗教反过来统治人一样，二者在异化逻辑上具有相似性。马克思认为，“劳动所生产的对象，即劳动的产品，作为一种异己的存在物，作为不依赖于生产者的力量，同劳动相对立。劳动的产品就是固定在某个对象中、物化为对象的劳动，这就是劳动的对象化。劳动的实现就是劳动的对象化。在被国民经济学作为前提的那种状态下，劳动的这种实现表现为工人的失去现实性，对象化表现为对象的丧失和被对象奴役，占有表现为异化、外化。”这再清楚不过地表明了马克思劳动异化理论与费尔巴哈宗教异化思想的联系(至少具有同源性)。

Feuerbach took man as the core of philosophical inquiry and focused on man’s essence. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx likewise attached importance to the exploration of man’s essence, holding that man’s essence is free and conscious activity, but that in capitalist society the alienation of labor distorts man’s essence. This direction of thought is closely related to Feuerbach’s concern with man; however, Marx further deepened his understanding of man’s essence from the perspective of socio-economic relations. Marx pointed out that “the species-character of man is precisely free, conscious activity. Life itself appears only as a means to life. The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life activity. Man makes his life activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life activity.” At the same time, through his analysis of the socio-economic relations of capitalist society, Marx revealed the impact of alienated labor on man’s essence, thereby transcending Feuerbach’s abstract understanding of man’s essence.

费尔巴哈把人作为哲学研究的核心，关注人的本质。马克思在《手稿》中也同样重视对人的本质的探讨，认为人的本质是自由自觉的活动，但在资本主义社会中，劳动的异化使人的本质被扭曲。这一思考方向与费尔巴哈对人的关注密切相关，不过马克思进一步从社会经济关系的角度深化了对人的本质的理解。马克思指出，“人的类特性恰恰就是自由的有意识的活动。生活本身仅仅表现为生活的手段。动物和自己的生命活动是直接同一的。动物不把自己同自己的生命活动区别开来。它就是自己的生命活动。人则使自己的生命活动本身变成自己意志的和自己意识的对象。他具有有意识的生命活动”。同时，马克思通过对资本主义社会经济关系的分析，揭示了劳动异化对人的本质的影响，超越了费尔巴哈对人的本质的抽象理解。

Feuerbach’s research was mainly confined to the fields of philosophy and religious criticism, whereas in the *Manuscripts* Marx combined it with the study of political economy and delved into the interior of the capitalist economy. By analyzing economic categories such as wages, profit, and rent, he revealed the concrete manifestations and roots of alienated labor in the operation of the capitalist economy, making the critique of alienation more practically targeted and profound. In analyzing wages, Marx pointed out that “wages are a direct consequence of alienated labor, and alienated labor is the direct cause of private property. Therefore, with the decline of the one, the other must necessarily decline as well.” Marx closely linked alienated labor with the capitalist economic system, deepening the understanding of the contradictions of capitalist society.

费尔巴哈的研究主要集中在哲学和宗教批判领域，而马克思在《手稿》中结合政治经济学研究，深入到资本主义经济内部。他通过分析工资、利润、地租等经济范畴，揭示了劳动异化在资本主义经济运行中的具体表现和根源，使对异化的批判更具现实针对性和深刻性。马克思在分析工资时指出，“工资是异化劳动的直接结果，而异化劳动是私有财产的直接原因。因此，随着一方衰亡，另一方也必然衰亡”。马克思将劳动异化与资本主义经济制度紧密联系起来，深化了对资本主义社会矛盾的认识。

Feuerbach’s materialism was intuitive, neglecting man’s subjective initiative and the role of practice in understanding and transforming the world. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx emphasized the importance of labor practice, holding that alienation arises in the process of human productive practice and can only be overcome through practice. He pointed out that under the capitalist mode of production, the alienation of labor leads to the alienation of man’s essence, and that changing this situation requires transforming the actual relations of production. Marx held that “to supersede the idea of private property, communism in thought is entirely sufficient. But to supersede actual private property, actual communist action is required. History will bring about that communist action, and the movement that we already recognize in thought as a self-superseding one will in fact undergo a very difficult and protracted process.” This reflects Marx’s emphasis on the role of practice and his thinking about transforming reality.

费尔巴哈的唯物主义具有直观性，忽视了人的主观能动性和实践在认识世界、改造世界中的作用。马克思在《手稿》中强调劳动实践的重要性，认为异化是在人类生产实践过程中产生的，也只有通过实践才能克服异化。他指出资本主义生产方式下劳动的异化导致了人的本质的异化，而改变这种状况需要变革现实的生产关系。马克思认为，“要扬弃私有财产的思想，有思想上的共产主义就完全够了。而要扬弃现实的私有财产，则必须有现实的共产主义行动。历史将会带来这种共产主义行动，而我们在思想中已经认识到的那个正在进行自我扬弃的运动，实际上将经历一个极其艰难而漫长的过程。”体现了马克思对实践作用的重视以及对变革现实的思考。

As for Feuerbach’s view of social history, it always explained history from abstract human nature and moral concepts, never departing from idealism. Marx, by contrast, turned to thinking from the standpoint that social being determines social consciousness. Through his analysis of capitalist society, he revealed the objective laws and contradictory movements of social development. In discussing alienated labor, Marx analyzed the impact of private property on alienated labor, displaying a line of thought that understands historical development from the level of the socio-economic base, thereby laying the foundation for the formation of historical materialism. Marx pointed out that “the movement of private property — production and consumption — is the sensuous manifestation of the movement of all production up to now, that is, the realization or reality of man. Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production and fall under its general law.” Clearly, Marx had already started from the socio-economic base to understand all levels of society, breaking through the limitations of Feuerbach’s idealist view of history.

至于费尔巴哈的社会历史观，始终都是从抽象的人性、道德观念出发来解释历史，丝毫没有脱离唯心主义。马克思则转向从社会存在决定社会意识的角度思考问题，通过对资本主义社会的分析，揭示了社会发展的客观规律与矛盾运动。在探讨异化劳动时，马克思分析了私有制对劳动异化的影响，展现出从社会经济基础层面理解历史发展的思路，为历史唯物主义的形成奠定了基础。马克思指出，“私有财产的运动——生产和消费——是迄今为止全部生产的运动的感性展现，就是说，是人的实现或人的现实。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”。显然，马克思已经从社会经济基础出发理解社会的各个层面，突破了费尔巴哈的唯心史观局限。

IV. Comparison and Connection between *Theses on Feuerbach* and *The German Ideology: The Chapter on Feuerbach*

四、《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》与《德意志意识形态·费尔巴哈章》的比较与关联

Marx arrived in Brussels, the capital of Belgium, on February 3, 1845. By this time, Marx had already conducted more in-depth research on Feuerbach’s materialism and, through ideological confrontation with the Young Hegelians, gradually clarified his own philosophical direction. At that time, social contradictions throughout Western Europe, including Germany, were extremely acute, and the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was intensifying. Marx deeply felt the urgency of constructing a new philosophical system — a theory that could truly guide social transformation. In the spring of that year, Marx wrote *Theses on Feuerbach*, which is the most important sign of Marx’s philosophical elevation beyond all old materialism (including Feuerbach’s materialism) and laid the foundation for the subsequent systematic exposition of historical materialism.

马克思1845年2月3日到达比利时首都布鲁塞尔，这个时候马克思对费尔巴哈的唯物主义已经有了更为深入的研究，并在与青年黑格尔派的思想交锋中，逐渐明确了自己的哲学方向。当时，包括德国在内整个西欧的社会矛盾都十分尖锐，无产阶级与资产阶级的对立日益加剧，马克思深感构建新哲学体系的迫切性，需要一种能够真正指导社会变革的理论。就在这年春，马克思创作了《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》,这是马克思超越一切旧唯物主义(包括费尔巴哈的唯物主义)实现哲学升华最重要的标志，为后续历史唯物主义的系统阐述奠定了基础。

*The German Ideology*, written later in 1845–1846, was jointly completed by Marx and Engels in Brussels, with the main work undertaken by Marx. During this period, although Marxist philosophy had been initially established, it had not yet been systematically expounded and further perfected. Writing *The German Ideology* provided such an opportunity. Marx and Engels not only gained a more comprehensive understanding of Feuerbach’s philosophy but also deeply criticized the ideas of other representatives of the Young Hegelians, such as Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner (1806–1856). [10]10 Max Stirner (1806–1856) was a German philosopher and a leading figure of the Young Hegelians, best known for his work *The Ego and Its Own* (1844), which advocated a radical individualism that Marx and Engels criticized in *The German Ideology*. At that time, the workers’ movement in Europe was developing vigorously, and the proletariat had become an important political force urgently in need of guidance by scientific theory. *The German Ideology* aimed to systematically expound the basic principles of historical materialism, criticize various erroneous trends of thought, and provide a solid theoretical support for the proletarian revolution.

之后于1845—1846年创作的《德意志意识形态》,是由马克思和恩格斯在布鲁塞尔共同完成的，当然主要工作由马克思承担。这一时期，马克思主义哲学虽已初步建立，但还未及系统阐述并作进一步完善，而撰写《德意志意识形态》就提供了这样一次机会，马克思和恩格斯不仅对费尔巴哈哲学有了更全面的认识，还深入批判了青年黑格尔派其他代表人物，如布鲁诺·鲍威尔、麦克斯·施蒂纳(1806—1856年)等人的思想。当时欧洲的工人运动蓬勃发展，无产阶级已经成为重要的政治力量，迫切需要科学理论指引。《德意志意识形态》旨在系统阐述历史唯物主义基本原理，批判各种错误思潮，为无产阶级革命提供坚实的理论支撑。

Although short in length, *Theses* contains profound philosophical insights, revolving around the critique of Feuerbach’s philosophy and the preliminary exposition of the Marxist new world outlook. Marx for the first time put forward the concept of practice and used it as a powerful weapon to criticize the intuitive character of Feuerbach’s materialism. He emphatically stressed that practice is the basis for understanding and transforming the world, criticizing Feuerbach for failing to understand the revolutionary significance of practice and thus being unable to correctly grasp the relationship between man and nature and between man and society. Marx pointed out that “Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. Hence, in *The Essence of Christianity*, he regards only the theoretical attitude as the genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearance.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx/Engels Selected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 13. The phrase “dirty-Jewish form of appearance” reflects the anti-Semitic language common in 19th-century German intellectual discourse; Marx uses it here to characterize Feuerbach’s narrow, utilitarian view of practice. Marx clearly indicated that Feuerbach’s understanding of practice was biased: he merely regarded man as an object of sensuous intuition, ignoring man’s transformation of nature through practical activity and nature’s reaction upon human practice.

《提纲》篇幅虽短，却蕴含着深刻的哲理，围绕对费尔巴哈哲学的批判和马克思主义新世界观的初步阐述展开。马克思在其中首次提出实践的观点，并将其作为批判费尔巴哈唯物主义直观性的有力武器。他着重强调实践是认识世界和改造世界的基础，批判费尔巴哈未能理解实践的革命意义，进而无法正确认识人与自然、人与社会的关系。马克思指出，“费尔巴哈想要研究跟思想客体确实不同的感性客体：但是他没有把人的活动本身理解为对象性的活动。因此，他在《基督教的本质》中仅仅把理论的活动看作是真正人的活动，而对于实践则只是从它的卑污的犹太人的表现形式去理解和确定”。马克思明确地指出费尔巴哈对实践的理解存在偏差，仅仅把人视为感性直观的对象，忽略了人通过实践活动对自然进行改造，以及自然对人类实践的反作用。

At the same time, the *Theses* [on Feuerbach] redefined the essence of man, creatively proposing that man’s essence “in its reality is the ensemble of the social relations.” This viewpoint became an important cornerstone of historical materialism, fundamentally distinguishing it from Feuerbach’s isolated and abstract view of man, and laying a solid theoretical foundation for further in-depth study of social history. This thesis broke through Feuerbach’s limitation of understanding man only from natural attributes, emphasizing that man’s essence is formed and developed within concrete social relations, and that different social relations shape distinct essential characteristics of man. *The German Ideology: The Chapter on Feuerbach* (hereinafter referred to as *The Chapter on Feuerbach*) then more systematically and comprehensively criticized Feuerbach’s old materialism and elaborated in depth on the basic principles of historical materialism. Marx and Engels not only criticized Feuerbach’s erroneous understanding of man’s essence, but also constructed the theoretical system of historical materialism from multiple dimensions, such as social being determining social consciousness, the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, and the interaction between the economic base and the superstructure. They clearly pointed out that Feuerbach did not regard man as a social-historical being engaged in practical activity, did not understand the key point that social being determines social consciousness, and merely explained history from abstract human nature and moral concepts, seriously neglecting the decisive role of the social mode of material production in historical development. Marx and Engels emphatically stressed that the development of productive forces is the fundamental driving force of social change, that the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production drives the succession of social formations, and that the economic base determines the superstructure, while the superstructure in turn reacts upon the economic base. They pointed out that “all conflicts in history have their origin in the contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse,”[12]12 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 74. thereby indicating that the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production is the internal driving force of historical development; when the relations of production can no longer adapt to the development of the productive forces, social change is triggered.

与此同时，《提纲》对人的本质重新作了界定，创造性地提出人的本质“在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”。这一观点成为历史唯物主义的重要基石，它从根本上有别于费尔巴哈将人孤立、抽象看待的观点，为继续深入研究社会历史奠定了坚实的理论基础。该论断突破了费尔巴哈仅从自然属性理解人的局限，强调人的本质在具体社会关系中形成和发展，不同的社会关系塑造了各异的人的本质特征。《德意志意识形态·费尔巴哈章》(以下简称《费尔巴哈章》)则更为系统、全面地批判了费尔巴哈的旧唯物主义，并深入阐述了历史唯物主义的基本原理。马克思和恩格斯不仅批判了费尔巴哈对人的本质的错误理解，还从社会存在决定社会意识、生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动、经济基础与上层建筑的相互作用等多个维度，构建了历史唯物主义的理论体系。他们明确指出，费尔巴哈没有将人看作是从事实践活动的社会历史的人，不理解社会存在决定社会意识这一关键要点，仅仅从抽象的人性、道德观念出发去解释历史，严重忽视了社会物质生产方式在历史发展中的决定性作用。马克思和恩格斯着重强调，生产力的发展是社会变革的根本动力，生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动推动着社会形态的更替，经济基础决定上层建筑，上层建筑又反作用于经济基础。他们指出，“一切历史冲突都根源于生产力和交往形式之间的矛盾”,从而表明生产力与生产关系的矛盾是推动历史发展的内在动力，当生产关系无法适应生产力发展时，就会引发社会变革。

Furthermore, *The Chapter on Feuerbach* also criticized other erroneous ideas of the Young Hegelians, further clarifying the essential distinction between Marxist philosophy and these erroneous trends of thought, and providing the proletariat with clear and distinct theoretical guidance. Marx and Engels criticized the idealist conception of history held by Bauer and others, emphasizing that historical development is driven by material production and the practice of the masses of the people, rather than by spiritual factors such as self-consciousness.

此外，《费尔巴哈章》还对青年黑格尔派的其他错误思想进行了批判，进一步阐明马克思主义哲学与这些错误思潮的本质区别，为无产阶级提供了清晰明了的理论指引。马克思和恩格斯批判鲍威尔等人的唯心主义历史观，强调历史的发展是由物质生产和人民群众的实践推动的，而不是由自我意识等精神因素决定的。

From a philosophical perspective, the *Theses* marks a qualitative leap in Marx’s transition from Feuerbach’s old materialism to a new philosophy. In the *Theses*, Marx initially established the viewpoint of practice and, on this basis, launched a critique of Feuerbach’s philosophy, clearly revealing the essential difference between Marxist philosophy and old philosophy. Marx no longer confined himself to abstract discussions of philosophical theory, but introduced practice into the core category of philosophical research, emphasizing that philosophy must closely focus on the transformation of the real world. However, at this time, the theoretical system of Marxist philosophy was not yet fully mature; some viewpoints were still in the stage of preliminary elaboration and exploration. Although Marx emphasized the importance of practice, issues such as the specific mechanism of practice’s role in various stages of social-historical development and how to achieve social change through practice still required further in-depth research and elaboration.

从哲学层面来看，《提纲》标志着马克思从费尔巴哈的旧唯物主义向新哲学转变的质的飞跃。在《提纲》中，马克思初步确立了实践的观点，并以此为基础对费尔巴哈的哲学展开了批判，清晰地展现出马克思主义哲学与旧哲学的本质差异。马克思不再局限于对哲学理论的抽象探讨，而是将实践引入哲学研究的核心范畴，强调哲学要紧密关注现实世界的变革。然而，此时马克思主义哲学的理论体系尚未完全成熟，一些观点仍处于初步阐述和探索的阶段。马克思虽强调了实践的重要性，但对于实践在社会历史发展各个阶段的具体作用机制，以及如何通过实践实现社会变革等问题，还需进一步深入研究和阐述。

In contrast, *The Chapter on Feuerbach* shows that historical materialism had already taken root. Marx and Engels systematically expounded the basic principles of historical materialism, fully integrating the viewpoint of practice throughout the study of social history, and profoundly revealing the objective laws of the development of human society. The scientific, systematic, and revolutionary character of historical materialism is fully demonstrated in *The Chapter on Feuerbach*. Through an in-depth analysis of social history, Marx and Engels revealed the internal contradictions and inevitable tendencies of capitalist society, providing a solid and reliable theoretical basis for the proletarian revolution. Among other things, Marx and Engels analyzed the contradiction between the development of productive forces and the relations of production in capitalist society, pointing out that this contradiction inevitably leads capitalism to crisis and extinction, and indicating the direction of revolution for the proletariat. At this point, historical materialism had developed into a mature theoretical system, capable of comprehensively and scientifically explaining social phenomena, guiding people in understanding and changing the world, and providing a powerful ideological weapon for the liberation cause of the proletariat and all humanity.

而《费尔巴哈章》表明历史唯物主义已经落地生根。马克思和恩格斯系统地阐述了历史唯物主义的基本原理，将实践观点全面贯穿于对社会历史的研究之中，深刻揭示了人类社会发展的客观规律。历史唯物主义的科学性、系统性和革命性在《费尔巴哈章》中得到充分彰显。马克思和恩格斯通过对社会历史的深入剖析，揭示了资本主义社会的内在矛盾和必然趋势，为无产阶级革命提供了坚实可靠的理论依据。其中，马克思和恩格斯分析了资本主义社会中生产力的发展与生产关系的矛盾，指出这种矛盾必然导致资本主义走向危机和灭亡，为无产阶级指明了革命的方向。此时的历史唯物主义已发展成为一个成熟的理论体系，能够全面、科学地解释社会现象，指导人们认识世界和改造世界，为无产阶级和全人类的解放事业提供了强大的思想武器。

From *Theses on Feuerbach* to *The German Ideology: The Chapter on Feuerbach*, Marx and Engels’ critique of Feuerbach’s philosophy continuously deepened, and the theoretical system of historical materialism gradually improved. This process fully embodies the critical, inherited, and innovative nature of historical materialism. It is not a wholesale negation of previous thought, but rather, on the basis of critical inheritance, continuous exploration and innovation in combination with social reality, providing a powerful theoretical weapon for the proletarian revolution and the progress of human society. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, “Marxist theory is not a dogma but a guide to action; it must develop as practice changes,”[13]13 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Ceremony Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Marx” (4 May 2018). reflecting the theoretical quality of Marxist theory to keep pace with the times and continuously develop.

从《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》到《德意志意识形态·费尔巴哈章》,马克思和恩格斯对费尔巴哈哲学的批判不断深化，历史唯物主义的理论体系也逐渐完善。这一历程充分体现了历史唯物主义的批判性、继承性和创新性，它不是对以往思想的全盘否定，而是在批判继承的基础上，结合社会现实不断探索和创新，为无产阶级革命和人类社会的进步提供强大的理论武器。习近平总书记指出，“马克思主义理论不是教条，而是行动指南，必须随着实践的变化而发展”,体现了马克思主义理论与时俱进、不断发展的理论品质。

V. Conclusion: The Deep Connection Between Feuerbach’s Philosophy and the Birth of Historical Materialism

五、结语：费尔巴哈哲学与历史唯物主义诞生的深度关联

Historical materialism was established under the specific historical conditions of Germany, as the result of the combined action of multiple factors. There is a close and complex internal connection between Feuerbach’s humanist materialism and historical materialism. The connection between the two and the formation of historical materialism are not only key links in the development of philosophical thought, but also have far-reaching significance for understanding the laws of social development and promoting social change.

历史唯物主义在德国特定的历史环境下得以确立，是多种因素共同作用的结果。费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义与历史唯物主义之间存在着紧密而复杂的内在关联，二者的关联及历史唯物主义的形成，不仅是哲学思想发展的关键环节，更对理解社会发展规律和推动社会变革具有深远意义。

Feuerbach’s humanist materialism provided a direct theoretical premise for the creation of historical materialism. Feuerbach’s critique of Hegelian idealism enabled Marx and Engels to recognize the foundational status of the material world, emphasizing the need to understand social history starting from actual material production and people’s real life. Feuerbach’s focus on man inspired Marx to further consider the question of man’s essence and the subject of social history. Although Marx later transcended Feuerbach’s limitation of viewing man merely as a natural being, this perspective of focusing on man provided a starting point for Marx’s thinking. Feuerbach emphasized that man is a sensuous, natural being, which prompted Marx to consider the relationship between man’s real existence and social history, providing initial inspiration for Marx to understand man’s essence from the perspective of social relations. Feuerbach’s emphasis on man’s natural attributes made Marx realize that man does not exist in isolation but has countless connections with the surrounding world, which in turn prompted Marx to explore the socio-economic roots behind these connections, laying the groundwork for the scientific thesis that “the essence of man is the ensemble of the social relations.”

费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义为历史唯物主义的创立提供了直接的理论前提。费尔巴哈对黑格尔唯心主义的批判，使马克思和恩格斯认识到物质世界的基础性地位，强调从现实的物质生产和人的实际生活出发去理解社会历史。费尔巴哈对人的关注，启发马克思进一步思考人的本质和社会历史主体的问题，尽管马克思后来超越了费尔巴哈将人单纯视为自然存在的局限，但这种关注人的研究视角为马克思的思考提供了起点。费尔巴哈强调人是感性的、自然的存在物，这促使马克思思考人的现实存在与社会历史的关系，为马克思从社会关系角度理解人的本质提供了最初的启发。费尔巴哈对人的自然属性的强调，让马克思意识到人并非孤立存在，而是与周围世界有着千丝万缕的联系，进而促使马克思去探究这些联系背后的社会经济根源，为“人的本质是一切社会关系的总和”这一科学论断的提出埋下伏笔。

Historical materialism achieved a critique and transcendence of Feuerbach’s philosophy. In ontology, Feuerbach’s materialism is intuitive, regarding man as a sensuous object and neglecting the crucial role of man’s practical activity in understanding and changing the world. In contrast, historical materialism emphasizes that practice is the bridge connecting man and nature, man and society, and is the fundamental driving force of social development. Marx pointed out in the *Theses*, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”[14]14 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 5. Practice occupies a core position in Marxist philosophy; practice is not only the basis of cognition but also the source of power for social change. As General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized, “The viewpoint of practice is the core viewpoint of Marxist philosophy. Practice determines cognition; it is the source and driving force of cognition, and also the purpose and destination of cognition.”[15]15 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the First Phase of the Seminar on the Study and Implementation of the Spirit of the 18th CPC National Congress” (17 November 2012), in *Xi Jinping: The Governance of China*, Vol. 1 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2014), p. 44. In capitalist society, the proletariat creates enormous material wealth through productive practice, yet suffers exploitation and oppression. Only through revolutionary practice, overthrowing the capitalist system, can it achieve its own liberation and social progress. This stands in stark contrast to Feuerbach’s intuitive materialism that neglects practice. Through this contrast, one can better grasp the important position of practice in Marxist philosophy, and it further illustrates the key point of historical materialism’s transcendence of Feuerbach’s philosophy.

历史唯物主义实现了对费尔巴哈哲学的批判与超越。在本体论上，费尔巴哈的唯物主义具有直观性，把人看作是感性的对象，忽视了人的实践活动对认识和改造世界的关键作用。而历史唯物主义强调实践是连接人与自然、人与社会的桥梁，是推动社会发展的根本动力。马克思在《提纲》中指出，“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，而问题在于改变世界”,实践在马克思主义哲学中居于核心地位，实践不仅是认识的基础，更是推动社会变革的力量源泉。正如习近平总书记强调的，“实践观点是马克思主义哲学的核心观点。实践决定认识，是认识的源泉和动力，也是认识的目的和归宿”。在资本主义社会中，无产阶级通过生产实践创造了巨大的物质财富，但却遭受剥削和压迫，只有通过革命实践，推翻资本主义制度，才能实现自身的解放和社会的进步。这与费尔巴哈忽视实践的直观唯物主义形成鲜明对比，通过对比更能领会实践在马克思主义哲学中的重要地位，也进一步说明历史唯物主义对费尔巴哈哲学超越的关键所在。

In the view of social history, Feuerbach explained history from the perspective of abstract human nature and moral concepts, falling into idealism; historical materialism, on the other hand, proceeds from the social mode of material production, scientifically reveals the laws of social development, and holds that social being determines social consciousness, and that the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, and of the economic base and the superstructure, drives social change. When explaining social change, Feuerbach merely attributed it to changes in people’s ideas and concepts, whereas historical materialism delves into the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production to find the root cause. Marx and Engels pointed out in *The German Ideology* that “the mode of production of material life conditions the whole process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” When the productive forces develop to a certain stage and the original relations of production can no longer adapt to them, social change is triggered, pushing society to develop to a higher stage—this is an objective law independent of human will.

在社会历史观方面，费尔巴哈从抽象的人性、道德观念出发解释历史，陷入唯心主义；历史唯物主义则从社会物质生产方式出发，科学揭示社会发展规律，认为社会存在决定社会意识，生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑的矛盾运动推动社会变革。在解释社会变革时，费尔巴哈只是将其归因于人的思想观念变化，而历史唯物主义则深入到生产力与生产关系的矛盾中寻找根源。马克思和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中指出，“物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程。不是人们的意识决定人们的存在，相反，是人们的社会存在决定人们的意识。”当生产力发展到一定阶段，原有的生产关系无法与之相适应时，就会引发社会变革，推动社会向更高阶段发展，这是不以人的意志为转移的客观规律。

It cannot be denied that Feuerbach’s philosophy played a transitional role in the formation of historical materialism and was an indispensable and important link; it broke the shackles of Hegelian idealism and opened up a new direction of thought for Marx and Engels. Although Feuerbach’s philosophy had limitations, it was precisely these limitations that prompted Marx and Engels to continuously explore, and on the basis of critical inheritance, to establish historical materialism, achieving a great revolution in the history of philosophy and providing scientific theoretical guidance for the proletarian revolution and the cause of human liberation. Marx and Engels critically inherited the basic kernel of Feuerbach’s materialism, while overcoming its intuitiveness and incompleteness, carried materialism through to the realm of social history, founded historical materialism, and raised people’s understanding of social history to a new height.

不可否认，费尔巴哈哲学在历史唯物主义的形成过程起到了过渡作用，是不可缺少的重要环节，它打破了黑格尔唯心主义的禁锢，为马克思和恩格斯开辟了新的思考方向。尽管费尔巴哈哲学存在局限性，但正是这些局限促使马克思和恩格斯不断探索，在批判继承的基础上创立了历史唯物主义，实现了哲学史上的伟大变革，为无产阶级革命和人类解放事业提供了科学的理论指导。马克思和恩格斯批判地继承了费尔巴哈唯物主义的基本内核，同时克服了其直观性和不彻底性，将唯物主义贯彻到社会历史领域，创立了历史唯物主义，使人们对社会历史的认识达到了一个新的高度。

In short, the establishment of historical materialism in the specific environment of Germany involved a complex and profound process of fermentation, and was the result of the interaction of multiple factors. Classical German philosophy provided rich intellectual resources for the birth of historical materialism. The dialectical thought in Hegel’s dialectics concerning the development of things—although its system was idealist—contained rational kernels concerning contradiction, negation of the negation, and so on, which were critically inherited by Marx and Engels. In the postface to *Capital*, Marx mentioned that the rational form of Hegel’s dialectics had an important enlightening effect on his study of the economic laws of capitalism: “The dialectic is mystified in Hegel, but this does not prevent him from being the first to present its general forms of motion in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.” Drawing on Hegel’s dialectical idea that contradiction is the driving force of the development of things, Marx revealed the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, in capitalist society, thereby demonstrating the historical tendency of capitalism to inevitably perish. Feuerbach’s humanistic materialism broke the long-standing dominance of Hegelian idealism, emphasized the primacy of matter and the perceptual existence of human beings, provided an opportunity for Marx and Engels to re-examine the relationship between matter and spirit, prompted them to think about philosophical questions starting from real human beings, and laid the materialist foundation for historical materialism.

总之，历史唯物主义在德国特定环境下的确立，有一个复杂且深刻的发酵过程，是多种因素相互作用的结果。德国古典哲学为历史唯物主义的诞生提供了丰富的思想资源。黑格尔辩证法中关于事物发展的辩证思想，尽管其体系是唯心主义的，但其中蕴含的关于矛盾、否定之否定等合理内核，被马克思和恩格斯批判地继承了下来。马克思在《资本论·跋》中提到黑格尔辩证法的合理形态对他研究资本主义经济规律有着重要的启发作用，“辩证法在黑格尔手中神秘化了，但这决不妨碍他第一个全面地有意识地叙述了辩证法的一般运动形式。在他那里，辩证法是倒立着的。必须把它倒过来，以便发现神秘外壳中的合理内核”。马克思借鉴黑格尔辩证法中关于矛盾是事物发展动力的思想，揭示了资本主义社会中生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑之间的矛盾运动，从而论证了资本主义必然走向灭亡的历史趋势。费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义打破了黑格尔唯心主义的长期统治，强调物质第一性和人的感性存在，为马克思和恩格斯重新审视物质与精神的关系提供了契机，促使他们从现实的人出发去思考哲学问题，为历史唯物主义奠定了唯物主义基础。

The special social reality of 19th-century Germany was the fundamental driving force for the establishment of historical materialism. Problems such as economic crises and the sharpening of class contradictions brought about by the development of German capitalism made Marx and Engels deeply aware of the urgency of social change. They conducted in-depth research on the laws of capitalist economic operation, analyzed social structure and class relations, and discovered that the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, is the internal driving force of social development. Through his study of the dual character of commodities and surplus value in the capitalist mode of production, Marx revealed that the root of capitalist economic crises lies in the contradiction between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of the means of production, and further recognized that this contradiction inevitably drives social change. The periodic outbreak of economic crises (not only the economic crisis of 1847) continuously intensified the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which prompted Marx and Engels to seek the fundamental way to resolve social contradictions, thereby promoting the formation of historical materialism.

19世纪德国特殊的社会现实是历史唯物主义确立的根本动力。德国资本主义发展带来的经济危机、阶级矛盾尖锐化等问题，使马克思和恩格斯深刻认识到社会变革的紧迫性。他们深入研究资本主义经济运行规律，剖析社会结构和阶级关系，发现生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑之间的矛盾运动是社会发展的内在动力。马克思通过对资本主义生产方式中商品二重性、剩余价值等问题的研究，揭示了资本主义经济危机的根源在于生产的社会化与生产资料的私人占有之间的矛盾，进而认识到这种矛盾必然推动社会变革。经济危机的周期性爆发(不是只有1847年这一次经济危机)使得无产阶级与资产阶级的矛盾不断激化，这促使马克思和恩格斯去寻找解决社会矛盾的根本途径，从而推动了历史唯物主义的形成。

Marx and Engels’ own theoretical explorations and practical activities were the key to the establishment of historical materialism. In their ideological confrontation with the Young Hegelians, they continuously clarified their philosophical positions and broke free from the shackles of old philosophy. Marx’s attention to and reflection on practical issues during his time at the *Rheinische Zeitung* prompted him to delve deeply into political economy and to understand social phenomena starting from material production practice. Engels’ field investigation of the condition of the working class in England provided rich empirical material for their theory. The series of works they co-authored, such as *The German Ideology* and *The Communist Manifesto*, systematically expounded the basic principles of historical materialism, marking the formal establishment of historical materialism. Through his study of political economy, Marx revealed the internal laws of the capitalist economy; Engels’ field investigation allowed them to better understand the living conditions and struggle demands of the proletariat. The combination of the two gave historical materialism a solid theoretical and practical foundation.

马克思和恩格斯自身的理论探索与实践活动是历史唯物主义确立的关键。他们在与青年黑格尔派的思想交锋中，不断澄清自己的哲学立场，摆脱旧哲学的束缚。马克思在莱茵报时期对现实问题的关注和思考，促使他深入研究政治经济学，从物质生产实践出发去理解社会现象。恩格斯对英国工人阶级状况的实地考察，为他们的理论提供了丰富的现实素材。他们共同撰写的《德意志意识形态》《共产党宣言》等一系列著作，系统阐述了历史唯物主义的基本原理，标志着历史唯物主义的正式确立。马克思通过对政治经济学的研究，揭示了资本主义经济的内在规律，恩格斯的实地考察则让他们更加了解无产阶级的生活状况和斗争需求，二者的结合使得历史唯物主义有了坚实的理论和现实基础。

(Fund: Phased result of the National Social Science Fund Key Project “Research on Marxist Classical Works” [12AKS001])

（基金：国家社会科学基金重点项目“马克思主义经典著作研究”(12AKS001)的阶段性成果）

(Author’s biography: Heng Lin, Doctor of Economics, Professor at the School of Marxism, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Researcher at the Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Doctoral Supervisor)

（作者简介：桁林，经济学博士，中国社会科学院大学马克思主义学院教授、中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院研究员、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心