Abstract: It is difficult to define the real connotations of post-Marxist and post-Marxist. Some scholars in China accept the view of J. Geras and Wood. Concerning this view, we should return to the methodology of “criticizing the premise of theoretical thinking” and then to reflect on such three questions: Should we give priority to the standards of “historical materialism” or the regression to the “democratic” context? How can we define the operation platform and the methodological limits of “post-modernism”? Post-Marxism has no theoretical contribution or we should “reasonably evaluate” its contribution to the innovation in the research paradigm of historical materialism? Obviously, after clarifying all the above-mentioned questions, we will find theoretical flaws in current study of “post-Marxism”. It is necessary to rethink the reasonability of the research paradigm of post-Marxism so as to promote the research on post-Marxism of Laclau and Mouffe.