First of all, Habermas re-examined the foundation of Marxist historical materialism from the perspective of epistemological criticism. He believes that the mistake of historical materialism lies in the lack of normative basis of epistemology. Although Marx's concept of social labor can distinguish primitive people from animals, it is still not enough to represent the reproduction of human unique lifestyle, nor can it successfully distinguish modern people from primitive people. Nor can it be the basis of historical materialism. He believes that only the communicative behavior between subjects based on language symbols can truly represent the reproduction of human unique lifestyle. To this end, he replaced labor with communicative behavior and became the starting point of his historical view. We must see that Habermas' communicative behavior is not an objective material activity. It is a subjective language communication activity. Habermas's mistake lies in not seeing that the real foundation of historical materialism lies in practice, although labor or production practice is the most basic form of practice. But obviously, labor cannot be equated with practice. Marxism holds that only practice is the way of human existence. There are three ways of practice: production practice, practical activities dealing with interpersonal relationships and scientific experiments. Moreover, production practice does not simply express the relationship between subject and object. It is always carried out in a certain social relationship and cannot be separated from a certain social relationship. In other words, the practice of dealing with social relations is determined by production practice. At the same time, it in turn restricts production practice. Of course, the practice of dealing with social relations is not a simple relationship between subjects, but an objective material activity. Marxist view of practice not only shows the relationship between subject and object, but also reflects the relationship between subjects, which is actually the relationship between subjects with object as the intermediary layer. Habermas regards the communicative relationship between subjects based on language and symbols as the basis of historical materialism. In fact, the foundation of historical materialism is based on subjectivity. In a word, Habermas' communicative behavior highlights subjectivity, while Marxist view of practice highlights objectivity. Secondly, Habermas also gave a negative answer to two basic laws of historical materialism. (1) The principle that relations of production must be suitable for the development of productive forces is a pseudo-law. The fundamental driving force of social development is not productivity, but internal learning mechanism. He distinguished two different learning mechanisms. "I want to answer that human beings not only play a decisive role in the development of productive forces, but also can apply knowledge in technology. Learning, but also in the moral field-practical consciousness, it plays a decisive role in the interactive structure. " In fact, Habermas believes that only the internal learning mechanism is the driving force of social evolution, with special emphasis on learning in the field of moral practice. It plays the role of pacemaker in social evolution. Habermas also reinterpreted the standard of historical materialism to measure social progress. He thinks: "Marx does not evaluate the development of a society according to the increase of its complexity, but according to the development of productive forces and the maturity of social interaction." The development of productive forces depends on the use of technically applicable knowledge; The basic facilities and systems of a society embody moral and practical knowledge. " Habermas is actually replacing Marx's productivity standard with the dualism of historical evolution. In fact, Marx used the productivity standard in his final analysis. Marx never understood social progress only as the development of productive forces and the maturity of production relations, whether it was an explanation of the Paris Commune or an idea of a future communist society. Marx has always regarded social progress as the development of productive forces and the all-round promotion of people's freedom and liberation, and there is no mistake of productivity-only theory and technology supremacy mentioned by Habermas. (2) The superstructure must conform to the laws of the economic base, and it is not omnipotent. It is just a one-sided theory that adapts to the free capitalist society. "The dependence of the superstructure on the foundation is first for the crisis stage of a society's transition to a new level of development, not for any kind of ontological state of society, but for the leading role played by the economic structure in social evolution." Habermas believes that only in a free capitalist society can the economic system exercise control over the means of production, thus indirectly regulating the distribution of social wealth; In primitive society, it was the blood system that exercised this function; In a highly developed society, it is the dominant system that exercises this function. "The theory of post-capitalist society even predicts such a social situation that the priority of evolution will shift from the economic system to the educational and scientific system." Therefore, the law that the superstructure must adapt to the economic base is not a universal law of social development, but only a partial theory suitable for the stage of free capitalism. Thirdly, Habermas believes that the concept of mode of production, as a standard for dividing social forms, is "not abstract enough to accurately express the universality of social development level". According to the viewpoint of domination, possession and non-possession of the means of production, society can only be divided into a society with class structure and a society without class structure. According to the degree of private ownership and the form of exploitation-the exploitation of rural communities by the state, the further difference between slavery and wage labor is too inaccurate to make a clear comparison. Nevertheless, Habermas did not give up the analysis of "mode of production", but generalized and abstractly polished it. "The direction of this trend of thought is to further summarize its point of view, that is, to develop highly abstract social organization principles. Habermas believes that it is almost impossible to serialize the external components of the system from the perspective of development logic. According to the characteristics of evolution, it is more promising to directly classify the forms of social integration stipulated by the principles of social organization. Habermas further distinguished the forms of social integration: (1) general behavior structure (2) world outlook structure (3) institutionalized legal structure and binding moral concept structure. According to this distinction, Habermas divided the general process of social development into four stages: Neolithic society, early highly cultural society, highly developed cultural society and modern society. Habermas believes that any social form is a form of social integration, not a simple mode of production. The so-called social integration is "the guarantee of the unity of values and norms in the world of social life". The inheritance of society is not the inheritance of simple productive forces, but the inheritance of the whole life world. In this way, Habermas will divide the society.