本文主要探讨的是马克思《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》（以下简称《提纲》）中“实践”概念在早期俄国马克思主义和早期意大利马克主义传统中的演变过程。 本文认为，在“普列汉诺夫—列宁”这一思想传统中，存在着两种模式的唯物主义，二者分别具有的主体性和客体性倾向构成了一种内在的矛盾，这种矛盾决定了“实践”概念的演变。在普列汉诺夫那里，客体性占据支配地位，这使得“实践”概念的主体性并没有彰显出来，“实践”主要是指作为认识活动的实践以及被客观规律所支配的实践。在列宁早期思想中，这两种唯物主义分别体现在其政治立场和哲学理论之中，两种话语的分离决定了在他的哲学文本《唯批》中“实践”概念只能获得一种哲学认识论上的表达，而“革命的实践”则处于缺席状态。在《哲学笔记》中，列宁通过辩证法调和了主体性和客体性之间的矛盾，使“实践”概念的双重内涵都获得了一定程度的表达，但对“实践”的认识论解读（强调的是客体性）仍然是一条主导线索。 在“拉布里奥拉—葛兰西”这一思想传统中，对《提纲》“实践”概念的阐释与意大利黑格尔主义有着密切关系。拉布里奥拉认为“实践”规定了人和历史的本质，它在某种意义上等同于“生活”，即历史诸因素的一种总体性表达，由此他认为革命的主体意识应当从无产阶级的生活实践中自发产生。克罗齐和金蒂莱作为意大利新黑格尔主义的代表，他们一方面受到拉布里奥拉的影响而研究马克思主义，另一方面又从方法和思想上对葛兰西产生了重大影响。葛兰西吸收了以上三人思想中的某些因素，把“实践”阐释为一种文化的斗争。 《提纲》“实践”概念的内涵在“普列汉诺夫—列宁”的传统中发生了偏向认识论、客体性的位移。与此相反，在从拉布里奥拉到葛兰西的阐释中，这一概念的内涵则转向了意识形态、主体性的维度。这两种阐释路径对于随后的马克思主义哲学产生了深远的影响，但又具有各自的不足。要想走出片面强调主体或客体的二难困境，就要对“实践”概念进行一种超出主客二分的解读。

The research is focused on the early evolution of “practice” in Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach in the two traditions of Russian Marxism and Italian Marxism. In the “Plekhanov-Lenin” tradition are two modes of materialism and they emphasize respectively subjectivity and objectivity between which there is a contradiction. This contradiction is the fundamental cause determining the evolution of the conception “practice”. In Plekhanov’s theory, the domination of objectivity suppresses the subjectivity and “practice” is only interpreted as cognitive activity and activity controlled by objective law. In Lenin’s early thought, the subjectivity and objectivity of two mode of materialism exist separately in his political views and philosophical theory, which determines that the conception “practice” is only interpreted in the field of epistemology in his Materialism and Empirio-criticism and the “revolutionary practice” is in absence. In his later Philosophical Notebooks the contradiction is reconciled by dialectics and therefore the subjectivity of practice is expressed in philosophical discourse, however, the epistemological (objective) interpretation is still a dominant clue. In the “Labriola-Gramsci” tradition the evolution of “practice” is closely related to Italian Hegelianism. Labriola holds the idea that “practice” determines the essence of humanity (or the human being) and history and it can also be regarded as “life”, which is an expression of the totality of historical elements. So he thinks the subject awareness of the proletariat comes from the daily political practice and life. Croce and Gentile, as the representatives of Neo-Hegelianism, are influenced by the Labriola to research Marxism and they both make methodical and ideological influences on Gramsci. Gramsci, in some sense, absorbs the elements of the above three’s thought and interprets “practice” as a kind of cultural struggle. It is shown that the meaning of “practice” deviates from its original meaning to the objective aspect in the interpretation from Plekhanov to Lenin. On the contrary, it deviates to the subjective aspect in the interpretation from Labriola to Gramsci. Both the two kinds of interpretation have a great influence on the later development of Marxism， however they are both one-sided. It is necessary to propose a mode of interpretation, which is beyond both subjectivity and objectivity, if we want to get rid of the two types of one-sidedness.