Any kind of understanding of Marx is carried out in a certain historical context, and the effectiveness of its interpretation must be "historic". At present, when philosophers try to take the criticism of traditional textbooks as the "starting point" to re-understand Marx, can it be said that it promotes our understanding of Marxist philosophy, but it also inevitably shares the historical limitations of traditional textbooks? Once you have this kind of conscious research consciousness, there will inevitably be the following warning: the concept of no time must be reduced to the tombstone of dogmatism by "history itself" In this way, in order to get rid of the danger of not being petrified, historical materialism, as a kind of historical reality endowed with the characteristics of the times, was born in the19th century, and how to bridge the gap between theory and practice. We know that how theory really speaks for heterogeneous social facts has long been a "stubborn" philosophical event and a "philosophical shame" in the history of philosophy. As the abstraction of social reality, theory will inevitably lose the rich connotation of social facts. Using this theory without many social facts to guide the changed social reality will inevitably lead to the dislocation of practice. This further determines that historical materialism should be transformed from the discussion in the "philosophical context" to the basic theoretical basis of how to truly speak for social reality.

First of all, in the dilemma of "development of capital" and "non-development of capital", we need to use historical materialism to locate the future of China. In the process of globalization and modernization, China has embarked on the road of socialist market economy development due to its own historical conditions. However, the development of China is still at a low level, so how to explore the development of capital becomes the first methodological principle. At the same time, due to the introduction of capital, it will inevitably enter the logical time and space of capital. On the one hand, capital has "great civilized function". "One aspect of capital civilization is that the methods and conditions for extracting surplus labor force are more conducive to the development of productive forces and social relations and the creation of various elements in new and advanced forms than previous forms such as slavery and serfdom." It is the logic of the constant "appreciation" of capital that makes it "more and greater than all the productive forces created by previous generations." However, capital logic has its own "self-contradiction", that is, "the more wealth a worker produces, the greater the number of his products, and the poorer he is." The more goods a worker creates, the cheaper he becomes. The appreciation of the material world is directly proportional to the depreciation of the human world. "At the same time, the social value distortion, environmental problems and social problems caused by capital logic. In other words, when developing the socialist market economy, what kind of attitude should we take to face capital? At least, China's reality is polarized, and society is increasingly concerned about fairness, justice and sharing the fruits of reform. We must treat capital from the standpoint of historical materialism. Especially in the practical problems faced by society, it shows the due height of historical materialism. The standpoint of historical materialism is to abandon the rationality of the existence of capital in today's China, which is pushed by China people to the permanence of capital rule, and even pushed by all mankind to the permanence of capital rule, and we should clearly realize that "the real boundary of capital production is capital itself".

Secondly, the realistic political problems in contemporary China urgently need a theoretical response from historical materialism. In the historical pedigree of contemporary political philosophy, there are three main directions of political philosophy: liberal political philosophy, class politics of historical materialism and radical democratic politics of postmodernism. Liberal political philosophy usually opposes the collective resistance of historical materialism with the logic of individual rights subject, and strictly limits the appeal of democracy and freedom to the political field unrelated to economy, that is, politics is just a "political phenomenon". In this way, liberalism escapes the "political problem" in the "economic field", that is, historical materialism reveals that oppression in the political field is in a secondary position compared with that in the economic field, which should be understood as "property rights suppress democratic individual rights". Based on this, it is impossible to realize real freedom in modern liberal politics. Facing the social reality of "post-revolution", postmodernism should redraw the left-wing road map within the framework of democratic politics. One of the basic logics lies in tearing the character of "economy-politics" and establishing the thinking mode of "political ontology". In this respect, postmodern political philosophy and liberal political philosophy are similar, and together they deviate from the basic judgment of historical materialism on political philosophy, because in Marx's view, philosophy must be realized in "politics".

After judging this basic historical materialism political philosophy, it reveals another feature of it, that is, it is a constructive political philosophy facing reality and constantly relying on historical subjects. The real height of his theory lies in that the modern state itself is based on the modern civil society, and the completion of the idealism of the modern state is also the completion of the materialism of the civil society, which can be obtained from the transcendental relationship between Marx and Hegel. If the foundation of modern civil society cannot be changed, it is impossible for a political country to solve the problems arising on this basis, and freedom, equality and justice in political life will always be abstract and formal. Under the guidance of this logic, the paradigm shift of historical materialism research should not only criticize liberal political philosophy and post-Marxist political philosophy in theory and establish the right to speak, but also make Marxism's due "response" to contemporary political issues such as justice, democracy, civil society and public sphere in China's social and political reality. Finally, China's social construction practice must be able to blaze a trail for China's development in the historical context, that is, in the framework of "ancient and modern" and "Chinese and western", relying on historical materialism. On this road, the methodological height of historical materialism lies in that we can neither forget the ideal in the embrace of real capital nor completely deny the current social reality road according to the ideal. In fact, both of them are just a kind of thinking logic, forgetting the plasticity and timeliness of historical materialism. Then, for the present post-developed countries, the mission of national rejuvenation can only be realized by temporarily retiring from the "ideal". However, the warning of historical materialism is that any retreat is based on a thorough review of the development status of modernity, and its real significance lies not in the realization of modernity, but in the real liberation of human beings. Historical materialism does not regard history as a process of self-generation, nor is it a process of self-generation without stipulation, but a dialectics of subject and object and a process of "construction". China's social practice can only seek a possible opportunity to "construct" the future in such a contradiction between subject and object, which requires a theoretical exploration of the interaction between historical materialism and China's reality, thus truly becoming the "essence of the spirit of the times".