First, Marxism is a huge comprehensive theoretical system. From the perspective of production, life and source, Marxism is a great achievement of comprehensive and critical research combining theory with practice, which absorbs the existing advanced ideas of mankind (especially German classical philosophy, British classical economics and French utopian socialism) and faces social practice. Marx established his own ideological system with the practice and problems of social development as the center, not with the discipline as the center. In his view, the "three components" are integrated and guide each other. Therefore, it is not a single philosophical system, nor is it based on a single philosophy. If its spiritual essence and ideological basis are reduced to a single philosophical system, it will lead to the overall separation in the "process" of theoretical formation, ignore the reasonable way to refine its ideological essence from reality, and replace the living ideological process with abstract "conceptual balance" and "logical conjecture", which in itself violates the theoretical principle of Marxism that it should be clarified in their historical or logical formation [4]. Second, Marxism is a strict whole. There is no "foundation-application" relationship between his philosophy and other theoretical fields. Although the various components of Marxism can also be abstractly distinguished, sorted and expounded respectively, there is objectively no such order as "there is a Marxist philosophy first, and then it is popularized and applied to the society, thus producing Marx's political economy and scientific socialism", whether in the time of birth or in the logic of theoretical content. In this case, if we decide that the basic principles of Marxism must be in the Principles of Philosophy without specific analysis, we may only pay attention to those "philosophical discourses" with general abstract forms, and separate them from some specific social and economic analysis, thus "seeing the trees but not the forest" for some viewpoints will lead to one-sidedness and absoluteness. This is doomed to fail to truly understand the overall outlook and spiritual essence of Marxism. Third, Marxism occupies a particularly important position in human history with its distinctive personality and contribution. But it is not a simple matter to show its theoretical personality from philosophy. Because philosophy is the mother of all sciences, and it is the oldest and richest discipline. In the discipline of philosophy, it needs a very comprehensive and profound investigation and comparison to distinguish the individuality and * * * of various theoretical systems. Marxist philosophy did not suddenly appear in isolation, but absorbed and inherited all the existing reasonable achievements in a large number and made its own major breakthroughs and innovations. Then, on the basis of his theory, is it necessary, possible and how to distinguish what belongs to the founder of Marxism and what belongs to others or predecessors (for example, general materialism comes from Feuerbach and dialectics comes from Hegel)? It should be said that the mark that distinguishes Marxist philosophy from other philosophies is not the general content that those people know, but the "frontier and high-end" problem with the most characteristics of the times in theory and practice. In this case, if the understanding of "Basic Principles of Marxist Philosophy" only refers to "primitive" and the most basic ideological achievements, then the deeper the theoretical pursuit, the more likely it is to trace back to the achievements before Marx, and the more unable it is to grasp its unique core and essence. If "pre-Marxism" is regarded as Marxism, the farther it is from Marxism. Fourth, Marxism is developing constantly, and so is Marxist philosophy. Practice has proved that most of the previous attempts to formulate the basic principle system according to that idea were unsuccessful. For example, the philosophy textbook system of the former Soviet Union, because it did not fully reflect Marxism–Leninism, led to deviations and failures in theory and practice, and was suspected to be "Stalinism" rather than Marxism. Another example is that one of our neighboring countries also uses a set of philosophical concepts to explain their understanding of the basic principles of Marxism [5], but the theory and logic of this "subject thought" itself, especially its performance and effect in practice, makes people more confused about what Marxism is. ..... Many facts have proved that the idea of trying to express the basic principles of Marxism by formulating concise philosophical principles is indeed problematic and not necessarily appropriate. Because: first, it is doubtful whether this conforms to the historical logical relationship between Marxist philosophy and Marxism, at least it has not been seriously considered and demonstrated; Second, the systematic arrangement and accurate grasp of Marxist philosophy need a rigorous process. In the past, it did not reach its due level, but replaced Marxism with many non-Marxist contents; Third, when doing this in the past, it was also mixed with utilitarian intentions that were too closely related to the political and ideological needs at that time. This will not only damage the scientific maturity of theoretical expression, but also form a theoretical superstition: I believe that there must be a single correspondence between some philosophical views and some political views. This superstition has a destructive influence on philosophy and politics. According to this idea, supplemented by strong indoctrination, it is precisely not to strengthen but weaken the scientific nature of Marxism, not to maintain but to damage the image of Marxism.