Huang Jinhui and Min Li: Marx's Critique of Religion and the Formation of the Historical Materialism
Historical materialism is one of Marx's two great theoretical contributions to the history of human thought, marked by the publication of The German Ideology, co-authored with Engels. Its fundamental tenets hold that the mode of human material production and exchange constitutes the economic base of social life, which determines the political superstructure (such as the state and law) and the ideological superstructure (such as religion and art). The process of contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, is also the process through which human society develops from lower to higher forms. Historical materialism—which uses a materialistic standpoint and method to reveal the essence and laws of social life—was formed during Marx’s critique of religion and the Prussian Kingdom it upheld; it therefore maintains an endogenous relationship with his critique of religion. This is a crucial link for understanding the formation and development of Marx's thought, yet this important topic has not received due attention from the domestic academic community. This article intends to systematically comb through the main works and contents of Marx’s youth to elucidate the specific role and Enlightenment implications of his critique of religion in the formation of historical materialism.
I. Major Works of Marx’s Youth and the Formation of Historical Materialism
The gestation, budding, and formation of Marx’s historical materialism roughly underwent the stages of his doctoral dissertation period (1839–1841), the Rheinische Zeitung and Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher [1] period (1842–1844), and the writing of works such as the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and The German Ideology (1844–1846). In his youth, Marx was committed to critiquing religion and the Prussian state and legal system it protected. In the process of deeply investigating the essence and causes of religion, law, and the state, Marx completed his transformation from a follower of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbachian humanism to the founder of historical materialism.
1. Major Works of the Doctoral Dissertation Period and the Gestation of Historical Materialism (1836–1841)
From 1836 to 1841, during his studies at the University of Berlin, Marx participated in the "Doctors' Club" [2] formed by members of the Young Hegelians. The analytical methods of pure speculative philosophy, the political stance of pursuing democracy and freedom while opposing feudal autocracy, and the theoretical interest in religious critique shared by the Young Hegelians had a great influence on the young Marx. Targeting the history of European liberal thought and the religion that served the Prussian feudal autocratic system, Marx wrote his doctoral dissertation, The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. By comparing the similarities and differences between the atomism of Democritus and Epicurus, this paper affirmed Epicurus's theory of atomic "swerve," which contained ideas of autonomy, contingency, and the subjective activity of the movement of things, as well as the principles of freedom and atheistic thought that deny determinism and teleology derived therefrom. Regarding religion, Marx expressed the following ideas in his dissertation: First, borrowing the view of Prometheus, he wrote, "In a word, I hate all gods," clearly expressing his atheistic position. Second, on the essence and causes of religion, Marx believed that religion is the product of a lack of human reason and self-consciousness. He pointed out, "To whom the world is irrational, and who is therefore himself irrational, for him God exists. In other words, irrationality is the existence of God." Third, Marx believed that although religion is absurd, it is still a real social force. He noted, "Did not the ancient Moloch reign? Was not the Delphic Apollo a real power in the life of the Greeks?" In summary, Marx regarded reason and self-consciousness as the essence of the world, the symbol of freedom, and the motive force of history, believing that the greatest danger of religion lies in its denial of human self-consciousness and its supremacy. This indicates that while Marx's political stance and religious critique during this period generally did not exceed the scope of the Young Hegelians, the difference was that his critique sought to explain religious ideas from the "this-worldly" realm rather than the "beyond" spoken of by religion. This reflected his concern for reality and provided the possibility for the formation of historical materialism.
2. Major Works of the Rheinische Zeitung and Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher Period and the Budding of Historical Materialism (1842–1844)
From 1842 to 1844, Marx worked successively for the Rheinische Zeitung and the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. During his time at the Rheinische Zeitung (1842–1843), due to the needs of journalistic reporting, Marx began to shift from the pure speculative philosophy of his doctoral period to focusing on social reality. He began to reflect on the roots of social elements such as the state, law, and the religion that defended them. He published a series of current affairs commentaries and essays, including "Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction," "Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly," and "Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel." In the process of critiquing the Prussian state’s censorship system and the law on the theft of wood, and reporting on the poverty of the peasants in the Mosel valley, Marx discovered that different interest groups held completely different positions regarding state laws or the same social phenomena. From this, Marx concluded that the state and law were not, as Hegel claimed, the manifestation of the Absolute Idea and its eternity and absolute universality in human life, but rather the manifestation of the will of the propertied classes and vested interests—that is, both the state and law have a real basis in interest. Regarding the roots of religion, Marx believed, first, that "religion itself has no content; its roots are not in heaven but on earth. With the elimination of the distorted reality for which religion is the theory, religion will disappear of itself." This showed that Marx began to look for the roots of the emergence and disappearance of religion in real social life rather than in reason or self-consciousness. On this basis, Marx further proposed the political basis for the emergence and disappearance of religion: "It is not the destruction of ancient religion that caused the collapse of ancient states, but rather the collapse of ancient states that caused the destruction of ancient religion." That is, Marx began to seek the roots of the survival of religion in the secular state and political life. Second, Marx discovered the relationship between the Prussian Kingdom and religion, noting, "Religion should support the secular power, but the secular power must not be dominated by religion." Rulers use religion to maintain an unreasonable reality; for them, "religion is also the universal affirmation of the real world." This indicates that Marx had recognized the position of the Prussian government in utilizing religion to safeguard its rule. Third, Marx advocated "criticizing religion more in connection with a critique of political conditions than criticizing political conditions in connection with a critique of religion," opposing the erroneous practice of critiquing religion in isolation from social and political reality. In summary, during the Rheinische Zeitung period, Marx primarily focused on the real social foundations of the state, law, and religion. In particular, his discourse on the function of religion in a feudal autocratic state and the socio-political basis upon which it depends signaled a departure from the purely speculative view of "religion as irrationality" from his doctoral period. He explicitly proposed the socio-political basis of religion, deepening his reflection on the real foundations of both religion and the state.
During the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher period (1843–1844), Marx committed himself to critiquing religion and the Prussian feudal autocratic system it upheld, hoping to "find the new world through the critique of the old." In the only issue of the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher ever published (February 1844), Marx published two famous works: "On the Jewish Question" and "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction." Through the process of critiquing various erroneous forms of "religious critique," Marx's historical materialism began to bud.
In "On the Jewish Question," addressing Bruno Bauer's erroneous view that religious emancipation was the prerequisite for the political emancipation of the Jews, Marx followed the line of thought from the Rheinische Zeitung period—explaining religion from history and reality rather than from reason or self-consciousness—to elucidate the relationship between religious and political emancipation. He proposed: "We do not say to the citizens: you cannot be emancipated from your fetters without first being emancipated from your religious narrow-mindedness. We say: you will be emancipated from your religious narrow-mindedness as soon as you are emancipated from your secular fetters. We do not turn secular questions into theological ones. We turn theological questions into secular ones. History has long enough been resolved into superstition, but now we resolve superstition into history." Marx regarded the abolition of secular fetters as the prerequisite for the abolition of religious fetters, believing that the roots of religion can only be found in the essence of the state itself. At the same time, Marx began to understand the secular basis of Judaism through economic activity: in the eyes of Jews, money possesses an "almighty" efficacy in secular society, and is therefore the omnipotent god in the Jewish conceptual world. He pointed out: "An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for haggling, and therefore the possibility of haggling, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like thin mist in the real, vital air of society." This passage from Marx proposed the economic prerequisites and the path to the disappearance of Judaism (religion). Compared to his understanding during the doctoral and Rheinische Zeitung periods, in "On the Jewish Question," Marx not only revealed the political roots of religious existence but also began to pay attention to the foundational role of secular economic activity for Judaism (religion), even though this understanding was still in its initial stages.
The "Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right" aimed to analyze the social status of Germany at the time and critique the religion that defended the Prussian Kingdom. The article begins by stating the progress and necessity of the work of religious critique in German intellectual circles: "For Germany, the critique of religion has been essentially completed, and the critique of religion is the prerequisite of all critique." Marx’s view of religion in the "Introduction" is summarized as follows: First, he reiterated the atheistic position that religion is a human creation rather than a divine creation, believing that "man makes religion, religion does not make man." Second, he revealed the essence of religion, believing that "religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again." Third, he revealed the social attributes of man and the social roots of religion, believing that "man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world." Fourth, he revealed the social function of religion, believing that "religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Fifth, he elucidated that the purpose of critiquing religion is to critique the state, law, and political system that religion upholds, whereby "the critique of heaven turns into the critique of earth, the critique of religion into the critique of law, and the critique of theology into the critique of politics." In summary, the "Introduction" again expressed the view that the roots of religion lie in the world and in unreasonable political systems, interpreting the causes, functions, and path to the disappearance of religion from a socio-political perspective. Notably, in Marx’s understanding of the essence of religion in the "Introduction," two different intellectual tendencies existed: one was treating religion as "the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has not yet won through to himself or has lost himself again," and the other was "reducing religion to the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man." The first view treats religion as the product of a lack of human self-consciousness, bearing the traces of Young Hegelian thought; the second view treats religion as the product of human self-alienation and holds that man is the supreme essence for man, reflecting the position of Feuerbachian humanistic materialism. The simultaneous appearance of these two tendencies in the "Introduction" indicates that in the theory and method of religious critique, Marx’s thought during this period was simultaneously influenced by the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach, possessing the dual colors of pure speculative philosophy and humanistic materialism.
In short, during the Rheinische Zeitung and Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher period, Marx’s thinking and understanding of religious critique underwent significant changes: First, the logical starting point and research path for exploring the essence and roots of religion shifted from the reason and self-consciousness of the doctoral period to a focus on real society. Second, he sought to reveal the roots of the emergence and disappearance of religion from the political life of the state rather than from the level of ideological concepts. Third, he began to realize the relationship between the economic activities of Jews and the formation and disappearance of Judaism, marking the extension of his horizon of religious critique into the socio-economic field, where historical materialism began to emerge in its initial form.
3. The Writing of The German Ideology and Other Works and the Founding of Historical Materialism (1844–1846)
From 1844 to 1846, Marx composed the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, the Theses on Feuerbach, and co-authored The Holy Family and The German Ideology with Engels. In the process of critiquing the religious theories and methods of the principal Young Hegelians and Feuerbach, Marx demarcated himself from them and progressively formulated the fundamental tenets of historical materialism.
Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 sought to investigate deeply the relationship between state law and individual interests—an issue triggered by the "Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood" [3] during his tenure at the Rheinische Zeitung—as well as the question of Judaism and its economic foundations addressed during the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher period. His goal was to clarify the actual relationship between economic activity and the state’s political and legal systems, as well as ideological conceptions such as religion, philosophy, and morality. The Manuscripts do not explore religion as an isolated issue but treat it as a constituent part of ideology. Starting from the theory of alienated labor, Marx emphasized the relationship of determination and dominance between the social economic base and the political superstructure and ideology. Marx argued: "Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law... Religious alienation as such occurs only in the realm of consciousness, of man’s inner life, but economic alienation is that of real life; its transcendence therefore embraces both aspects." Here, Marx regarded religion as a specific form derived from the process of material production, proposing the view that "religion is the product of alienated labor." This revealed the derivative and symbiotic relationship between economic alienation and religious alienation, indicating that Marx had discovered the "secret" of the decisive role played by material production over social elements such as religion, the state, law, and morality. Furthermore, the Manuscripts posit that "the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labor." For the first time, Marx explained human history and its developmental process starting from material production rather than from Reason, self-consciousness, or the alienation of the "species-essence" [4]. This constitutes the fundamental standpoint and analytical method of historical materialism in explaining human history; it marks Marx’s transcendence of the old philosophy and his entry into the stage of founding historical materialism.
The Holy Family, co-authored by Marx and Engels in 1844, began to employ materialist theory and method to analyze human history, critiquing the erroneous historical and religious views of the Young Hegelians and their purely speculative philosophical methods, thereby purging their negative influence on the European workers' movement of the time. Targeting the erroneous approach of Bruno Bauer and others—who "understood only the religious essence of the Jewish spirit, but not the secular, real basis of this religious essence... trying to explain the secret of Judaism via Judaism instead of explaining Judaism via the real Jew"—Marx and Engels further elaborated the materialist view of religion found in "On the Jewish Question." They argued that "the religious spirit of Judaism is constantly produced by present-day civil life and finds its highest development in the money system," and that "the task of overcoming the Jewish essence is in fact the task of abolishing the Jewish spirit in civil society, of abolishing the inhumanity of modern life practice, the highest expression of which is the money system." This discourse explicitly links Judaism (religion) with industry, commerce, the money system, and civil life, striving to reveal the roots of the emergence and development of Judaism within socio-economic relations. It further deepened the understanding from "On the Jewish Question" that the economic activity of the Jews determines their religious beliefs. The aforementioned content demonstrates that The Holy Family is a work that strives to explain historical and religious phenomena from a materialist standpoint, thereby drawing a clear ideological line against the Young Hegelians. Propositions such as "In order to realize ideas, men are needed who can exert practical force" laid the groundwork for Marx’s subsequent elaboration of the concept of practice and his transcendence of Feuerbach’s old materialism.
Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, written in 1845, aimed to critique Feuerbach’s religious views and his anthropological materialist methodology, demarcating Marx from the latter. In works such as The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach proposed that "God is the product of the alienation of human essence," attempting to reduce the divine to the human at the level of thought and theory. This materialist stance and method opened a window to the treasury of materialist thought for the young Marx. However, Feuerbach failed to reveal the causes or conditions of "why human essence is alienated into God" through social practice and material productive labor. He failed to see the objective material basis of the political superstructure and ideological forms. Consequently, he remained a "half-hearted materialist"—that is, he adhered to materialism in his view of nature but relapsed into idealism in his view of history. In the Theses, Marx summarily critiqued Feuerbach's religious views and his old materialist standpoint, elucidating the dialectical materialist concept of practice and the corresponding views of history and religion. The main contents of the Theses are as follows: First, it points out the flaws in Feuerbach’s method of religious criticism and expresses the standpoint and method of historical materialism. The first through fifth theses argue that the main defect of Feuerbach’s anthropological materialism and religious criticism is the neglect of practice—the social material activity through which humanity purposefully understands and transforms the world. This is specifically manifested as follows: (1) "Reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice..." Although Feuerbach proposed the correct view of "resolving the religious world into its secular basis," he failed to reveal the essence and social roots of religious phenomena from the "self-cleavage and self-contradictoriness of this secular basis." (2) In The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach treated religious criticism merely as a purely "theoretical activity," and thus failed to understand the social-revolutionary and practical significance of religious criticism. Second, it reveals the defects in Feuerbach’s theory of religious criticism and formulates the core tenets of historical materialism. The sixth through eighth theses propose: (1) Feuerbach "resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man," yet human "essence can be understood only as 'species,' as an internal, dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals." He saw only the natural qualities shared by different individuals, abstractly understanding them as a "species," while ignoring the sociality of man and the social relations possessed by every individual. Thus, he found it difficult to understand the problem of "why man is alienated into God." Marx put forward the core historical materialist thesis that man is "the ensemble of the social relations." (2) On the origins of religion, Feuerbach failed to recognize that the individual "belongs to a particular form of society" and "did not see that 'religious sentiment' is itself a social product," thereby making it impossible to reveal the social causes of religion. (3) Because Feuerbach’s theory of religious criticism was divorced from social practice, he failed to find an effective path to resolve religious problems. Marx proposed: "All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice." The above content indicates that in the process of critiquing Feuerbach’s religious theory and method, Marx demarcated the boundary with Feuerbachian philosophy through the category of "practice," briefly and accurately formulating the basic standpoint and core views of historical materialism. It is noteworthy that the eleventh thesis—"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it"—differs from the view in the "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right" that "the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism." The Theses emphasize "changing the world" while the "Introduction" focuses on theoretical criticism. This signifies a major shift in the goal of Marx's religious criticism: from theoretical criticism to social criticism. This is a vital marker of Marx’s transformation from an adherent of Feuerbachian philosophy into the founder of historical materialism and a communist.
The two-volume The German Ideology, co-authored by Marx and Engels in 1845–1846, specifically in Volume I, "Critique of Modern German Philosophy as Represented by Feuerbach and Stirner," aimed to critique the erroneous religious theories and methods of Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians and systematically expound the basic views of historical materialism. Its main contents are as follows:
First, it reveals the defects in the religious criticism theories and methods of Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians. Marx and Engels pointed out that the error of Feuerbach’s religious criticism lay in his understanding of individuals as a "species" united by love and friendship rather than real social relations, from which he derived a new religion—the "religion of love." The cause of this erroneous theory was that when Feuerbach "explores history, he is by no means a materialist." This standpoint and method prevented Feuerbach from understanding that the sensuous world is "the product of the activity of a whole succession of generations, each standing on the shoulders of the preceding one, developing its industry and its intercourse, and modifying its social system according to the changed needs." He "knows no other 'human relations' 'of man to man' than love and friendship," and did not understand the decisive role of practice and the modes of social production and intercourse in human society. Naturally, he could not understand the sociality of the individual, nor the social roots of why man could be alienated into "God." The errors in the religious criticism of Young Hegelian figures like Strauss and Stirner were: (1) contradictions in their understanding of "what is religious consciousness and what are religious ideas"; (2) Bauer, Stirner, and others sanctified the dominant philosophy, politics, state, law, and morality, which "were gradually declared to be religious relations and then transformed into superstitions—superstition in the law, superstition in the state, etc." They advocated changing the nineteenth-century German feudal-autocratic system through the reform of law and the state. Marx and Engels pointed out that the cause of Stirner’s and others' theoretical errors was their ignorance of how to move from the "kingdom of God" to the "kingdom of man"; the path must be sought in the real mode of social intercourse. Because they could not find the key to understanding the "kingdom of God" within earthly relations and did not understand the real path to the "kingdom of man," Strauss, Stirner, and others could only advocate replacing "God" with new superstitions like the law and the state at the level of ideas to achieve social change, rather than transforming society through social revolution.
Second, it provides a complete and systematic exposition of the basic views of historical materialism. In the process of revealing the defects of Feuerbach’s and the Young Hegelians’ religious criticism, Marx and Engels accurately expounded their brand-new conception of history. That is, "starting from the material production of life itself to examine the actual process of production, and understanding the form of intercourse connected with this mode of production—namely, civil society at its various stages—as the basis of all history; then describing the action of civil society in the realm of state life, while also explaining all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, such as religion, philosophy, ethics, etc., and tracing their origins on this basis." On this foundation, Marx and Engels summarized the main contents of historical materialism: material production and the mode of intercourse are the material bases necessary for the continuation of human life and historical development; the emergence and disappearance of the political superstructure (state, law, etc.) as well as ideas and ideologies depend on material production, the mode of intercourse, and their level of development; the process of the contradictory movement between material production and modes of intercourse fundamentally determines the developmental process of human history, manifested in the evolution of social forms from tribal ownership → ancient communal and state ownership → feudal estate ownership → capitalist ownership.
Third, it comprehensively and systematically expounded the Marxist view of religion.
Regarding the essence and causes of religion, Marx and Engels argued that the error in the Young Hegelians’ and Feuerbach’s theories and methods of religious criticism lay in the former "explaining it by ‘self-consciousness’ and similar nonsense" and the latter "seeking this essence in ‘human essence’ or in the predicates of God." Although the paths and methods of their religious criticism differed, their error was identical: neither had "explained religion by the mode of production and intercourse that has existed at all times." Consequently, one must "seek this essence only in the existing material world of each developmental stage of religion." On the question of the conditions for the disappearance of religion, Marx and Engels believed that "all forms and products of consciousness," including religion, cannot be eliminated by "mental criticism," nor by "dissolving them into ‘self-consciousness’ or transforming them into ‘ghosts,’ ‘specters,’ ‘fancies,’ etc." Rather, they can be eliminated "only by the practical overthrow of the real social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug." That is to say, only by overthrowing irrational real social relations can religion and its upright superstructure of old ideologies be ultimately eliminated. In summary, The German Ideology systematically expounded the basic viewpoints and main contents of historical materialism for the first time, and is thus regarded by the academic community as the mark of birth for historical materialism.
The major works written between 1844 and 1846 and their contents demonstrate that Marx achieved a qualitative leap at the ideological and theoretical level. Specifically, following a research approach and perspective that integrated theory with practice, he deeply explored the relationship between such elements as religion, the state, and law and socio-economic life. From this, he discovered the "secret" of the foundational status and dynamic mechanisms of material production and relations of intercourse in human social life, revealing the objective material basis upon which political-legal systems and forms of ideological concepts—including religious belief—are formed. The theories and methods of historical materialism were primarily formed through Marx’s process of criticizing religion, criticizing the erroneous religious-critical theories and methods of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach, and criticizing various views of the state.
II. The Role of Marx’s Religious Criticism in the Formation of Historical Materialism
A systematic review of the contents of Marx’s major youthful works reveals the internal relationship between his religious criticism and the creation of historical materialism. The questions that must be asked are: Why did Marx attach such importance to religious criticism? And what role did religious criticism play in the formation of Marx’s historical materialism?
First, religious criticism served as an important entry point for Marx’s creation of historical materialism.
The doctoral dissertation [5] was the opening act of Marx’s work in religious criticism. The call for freedom and the open declaration of war against religious authority in that text not only reflected the value stance and problem-consciousness of the young Marx but also had an important influence on his subsequent mental journey and theoretical research focus. Criticizing religion and criticizing various erroneous "theories of religious criticism" and methods became the primary work to which the young Marx was dedicated. Important theoretical propositions of historical materialism—such as the basic view that forms of consciousness and the political superstructure are built upon the mode of material production and intercourse, the contradictory relationship between social existence and social consciousness, and the laws of development of human history—were gradually formed precisely in the process of Marx’s investigation of relatively specific social phenomena like religion, the state, and law, and their secular roots.
Taking religious criticism as an entry point, Marx continuously advanced his understanding around the problem of the "earthly" roots of religious generation. During the period of his doctoral dissertation, he attributed the emergence of religion to a lack of human reason or self-consciousness, regarding religion as a product of irrationality. During the period of the Rheinische Zeitung [6] and the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher [7], Marx primarily revealed the roots of religious generation from within socio-political life and began to focus on the economic activities of the Jewish people—that is, the question of the determining role of the economic base as it relates to Judaism as an ideological concept. While writing the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and The German Ideology—the stage of creating historical materialism—Marx discovered the internal relationship between alienated labor and religious alienation, as well as the "secret" of human history: that material production and modes of intercourse determine ideological forms and the political superstructure. He thereby created a brand-new philosophy of history. Thus, the inquiry into the essence and secular roots of religion was the entry point for Marx’s creation of historical materialism.
There were profound objective and subjective reasons why Marx attached such high importance to the criticism of religion and the various "theories of religious criticism" then popular in Germany. In the 18th and 19th centuries, social movements to overthrow feudal autocracy broke out successively in many European countries. The Enlightenment, which opposed religious obscurantism, became the "ideological revolutionary vanguard" of this democratic movement. Following the 17th-century English Bourgeois Revolution and the 18th-century French Enlightenment, the German intellectual world in the late 18th and first half of the 19th century also stirred up a wave of thought criticizing the feudal autocratic system. As Marx noted, because the "confusion of political principles with Christian religious principles had become the official hallmark of faith" in the Kingdom of Prussia, the ideological revolution against religion became the primary task in the struggle against feudal autocracy. Religious criticism thus became a hotspot in the German intellectual and theoretical sphere in the first half of the 19th century. This wave of religious criticism provided sufficient ideological preparation for the political movement against Prussian feudal autocracy. This political and intellectual environment had a tremendous impact on the young Marx. He actively participated in various activities of the Young Hegelians and established religious and social criticism as his own work objectives. As his research deepened, Marx discovered the flaws in the religious-critical theories and methods of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach—namely, that they failed to see the material basis upon which religion and the state it maintained relied for existence, ignored the subjective position of the masses in the process of material production and social development, and, more importantly, failed to discover the real force for advancing social revolution: the proletariat. Marx continuously corrected his theories and methods of religious and social criticism, causing him to gradually depart from the intellectual camps of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach and begin moving toward the creation of historical materialism.
Second, religious criticism was an important source of momentum for Marx’s creation of historical materialism.
The formation of Marx’s historical materialism underwent stages of gestation, germination, and maturation. The understanding and methods of each stage were both interconnected and uniquely emphasized, thereby constituting the rich dimensions of the formation process of historical materialism. By "interconnected," it is meant that the various stages of the creation of historical materialism possessed common contents or elements. For example, the research goal of searching for the earthly foundations of religion, the state, and law ran through every stage of the formation of historical materialism. By "uniquely emphasized," it is meant that the different stages of the formation process of historical materialism differed in their theoretical focus, depth of understanding, and research methods. For example, Marx’s understanding of the essence and roots of religion roughly underwent a developmental process from conceptual determinism → political determinism → economic determinism; the focus of his religious criticism also successively presented stages of ideological criticism → political criticism → economic criticism. Furthermore, the methodology of Marx’s criticism of religion and various "theories of religious criticism" also had a staged character, evolving from pure speculative philosophy to Feuerbachian anthropological materialism and finally to historical materialism. In the process of creating historical materialism, Marx maintained consistent theoretical perspectives and research goals while simultaneously deepening his understanding and research means, embodying the dialectical unity of "change and constancy."
That Marx was able to create historical materialism is inseparable from his criticism of religion and erroneous "theories of religious criticism." The work of criticizing religion and erroneous theories and methods of "religious criticism" prompted Marx to focus his goals and penetrate deeper through various layers, gradually achieving a revolutionary leap in his conception of history through exploration. The contents of Marx’s major youthful works record the process of his continuous deep inquiry into the essence and roots of social phenomena like religion and the state, presenting the trajectory of historical materialism as it evolved from non-existence to existence, from vagueness to clarity, and from fragmentation to systematic refinement. The formation and development of historical materialism were achieved through Marx’s work in criticizing religion and erroneous theories and methods of "religious criticism." Specifically, the view that religion originates from a lack of rationality and the atheistic stance proposed in his doctoral dissertation—as well as the research perspective of investigating the essence and roots of religion from the perspective of humans and human social life rather than the "beyond" (Jenseits) of Christianity—preset the possibility for the formation of historical materialism. During the period of the Rheinische Zeitung and the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, in opposition to Bruno Bauer’s views such as "religious emancipation is the prerequisite for political emancipation," Marx proposed the view that "we do not turn secular questions into theological ones; we turn theological questions into secular ones." He regarded political emancipation as the prerequisite for religious emancipation and began to realize the important role of the economic activities of the Jewish people in the emergence and disappearance of Judaism, indicating that historical materialism had begun to germinate. The systematic expression and relatively complete theoretical form of historical materialism were also completed in the process of writing The German Ideology, which Marx and Engels wrote to comprehensively settle accounts with the flaws in the religious-critical theories and methods of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach. Marx’s religious criticism played an indispensable role in the gestation, germination, and formation of historical materialism; it was precisely religious criticism that pushed Marx to complete a revolutionary turn in theory and method. Without the work of religious criticism in the young Marx’s career, one cannot accurately grasp the dynamic mechanism and intellectual path of the formation of historical materialism.
III. The Significance of Studying Marx’s Religious Criticism and Its Contemporary Enlightenment
Since the end of the 19th century, the history of the development of Marx’s thought has become a specialized field of research. Because the thought of the young Marx is the starting point of the process whereby the theoretical system of Marxism went from non-existence to existence and from immaturity to maturity, it possesses a foundational status and has thus received great attention. Today, as we systematically review the major works of the young Marx and their contents to explore the internal relationship between his religious criticism and the formation of historical materialism, it still holds great theoretical value and practical significance, offering us beneficial enlightenment.
First, deeply studying the internal relationship between Marx’s work in religious criticism and the formation of historical materialism helps us accurately grasp the trajectory of Marx’s intellectual development and the internal logic of his theoretical system. Religious criticism was not only the entry point for Marx’s creation of historical materialism; its problem-consciousness and research methods also determined, to a certain extent, the important content and direction of Marx’s thought, becoming a vital node in the formation of his theoretical system. Marx conducted research around the "earthly" causes of religion, discovered the core status of material production and the modes of intercourse it determines in social life, and applied this new discovery to analyze the industrial mode of production under capitalist historical conditions. In particular, through his study of labor-power as a commodity and the capitalist production process—which are of decisive significance to the capitalist mode of production—he gradually revealed the secret of the generation of surplus value, thereby revealing the economic roots of the opposition between the two great classes of capitalist society. The focus of Marx’s theoretical research also began to shift from the field of philosophy to the fields of socialist theory and economics, laying the theoretical foundation for the formation of scientific socialism and political economy. Historical materialism, which gradually formed during his religious criticism, became the fundamental method Marx used to analyze the internal contradictions of capitalism and reveal the rationality and necessity of communism. Therefore, to have a complete and accurate understanding of the formation and development of the scientific theoretical system comprising Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism, one cannot ignore the study of the religious-critical texts and contents of the young Marx. However, at present, the domestic theoretical community [in China] lacks sufficient attention to the important role of Marx’s religious criticism in the construction of his theoretical system, especially concerning the endogenous relationship between it and the formation of historical materialism. This situation easily leads to misunderstandings, making it difficult for people to accurately understand the complete trajectory of Marx’s intellectual development and the close relationship between the various parts of his theoretical system. To deepen the study of the history of Marx’s intellectual development and theoretical system, it is necessary to strengthen research on the important role of Marx’s religious criticism in the formation of his theoretical system.
Second, the in-depth study of Marx's texts on the critique of religion and the evolutionary process of his thought helps us to understand the ideological significance and methods of Marxist religious critique completely and accurately. It enhances our ability to analyze and differentiate Marxist religious theory, thereby avoiding one-sided understandings of Marx's religious thought and the resulting "Left" or Right deviations in religious policy. Historical materialism is a brand-new social and historical philosophy that Marx founded through the process of critiquing religion and the religious theories and methods of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach. Unlike the theories and methods of the old philosophers, this social and historical philosophy views religion neither as a product of a lack of reason or self-consciousness nor as a product of human alienation, but rather as the product of specific modes of material production, modes of intercourse [8], and social relations. Regarding the understanding of various existing religions or the methods for handling religious issues, Marx believed that restoring human self-consciousness or reshaping human dignity was not an effective path for eliminating religion. This is because, in Marx’s view, "all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into 'self-consciousness' or transformation into 'apparitions,' 'spectres,' 'fancies,' etc., but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug." In other words, one must first eliminate the cognitive and social conditions upon which religion depends for its survival. This involves raising human cognitive capacity and scientific and technological levels to the point where "planning lies with man, and success also lies with man," [9] and fully guaranteeing the equality and autonomous rights of every member of society. Only when they are freed from the control of alien forces originating from nature and human society, eliminating the resulting feelings of fear and helplessness so that the psychological need to pray for divine protection no longer exists, can religion finally be eliminated.
Marx's view of religion illuminates a basic principle for our government’s religious work: on the question of how to view and handle religious issues, we must, on the one hand, proceed from the actual conditions of our country's current economic and social development, as well as the lifestyles and cognitive levels of the masses. We must establish and improve legal systems, policies, and management methods that guide religion to adapt to socialism with Chinese characteristics, striving to overcome "Leftist" adventurism [10] or Rightist conservative positions in the field of religious work, and overcoming erroneous practices that are divorced from social reality—whether they be characterized by "eagerness for quick success" [11] or by "following the old tracks." [12] On the other hand, in the current new stage of comprehensive modernization, we must continuously promote the development of education and culture to gradually raise the scientific and cultural level of the masses. We must continuously improve the income distribution system, promote common prosperity, and gradually overcome the phenomenon of wealth polarization. By effectively enhancing the people's sense of gain [13] and their sense of being masters of their own affairs, we can gradually eliminate the cognitive, economic, and social conditions upon which religion in our country depends for its survival. Only then can the influence of religion continuously diminish and eventually move toward its final disappearance.