Marx and Engels on the Global Time Lag in Capitalist Development

Just as Hegel’s *Philosophy of History* must first examine “the geographical basis of history” and takes global geographic space as the stage for the history of spirit, Marx and Engels’ materialist conception of history also inherently contains a geographical dimension, taking global intercourse and the world market as the stage for modern capitalism, paying attention to the uneven development of different countries, and seeking the opportunity for communist revolution. As for their materialist conception of history, its basic principles are well known, but its geographical content has yet to be fully elucidated. From the perspective of understanding the current changes in globalization, what is extremely enlightening is their thought on the time lag in capitalist development. Since they themselves never gave a specialized exposition of these ideas, this article intends to provide a scholarly summary of them through a review of the literature and a linking of their arguments.

正如黑格尔的《历史哲学》要事先考察“历史的地理基础”，并把全球地理空间作为精神发展史的舞台一样，马克思恩格斯的唯物主义历史观也内在包含着地理维度，并把全球交往、世界市场作为现代资本主义的舞台，关注不同国家的不平衡发展，探寻共产主义革命的契机。就二人的唯物史观来说，其基本原理已众所周知，但其地理内涵却尚未得到充分阐发。从理解当今全球化变局出发，极具启发意义的是他们关于资本主义发展时差的思想。由于他们本人并未对这些思想作过专门阐释，本文拟通过文献梳理和论点串联来对之作一学理性概括。

I. Engels’ Exposition on the Global Time Lag in Capitalist Development

一、恩格斯关于资本主义发展全球时差的论述

Marx and Engels both noticed the phenomenon of the time lag in capitalist development at the very beginning of the germination of their respective materialist conceptions of history. However, Engels’ relevant exposition is slightly earlier than Marx’s. In November 1842, Engels went to England to participate in managing his family’s factory. He initially thought that England was more backward than the European continent, but soon completely changed his view, believing that England was far more advanced than the European continent. The key reason for this change was his witnessing of the immense power of capitalist development.

马克思和恩格斯在各自唯物史观思想萌芽之初就注意到了资本主义发展的时差现象。不过恩格斯的有关论述略早于马克思。1842年11月，恩格斯赴英国参与经营自家工厂。他一开始认为英国比欧洲大陆落后，不久后却完全改变了看法，认为英国要比欧洲大陆先进很多，造成这一变化的关键原因就是他目睹了资本主义发展的巨大力量。

(A) Engels’ Initial Understanding of the Time Lag in Capitalist Development

（一）恩格斯对资本主义发展时差的最初认识

In his earliest article introducing the situation in England (written at the end of November 1842), Engels had believed that the British completely failed to understand the principle that material interests must serve historical progress, a truth that was self-evident to Germans. Based on this, he concluded:

恩格斯在介绍英国情况的最初的文章（写于1842年11月底）中曾认为，不列颠人完全不懂得物质利益要服务于历史进步的原则，而这个道理对德国人来说是不言而喻的。据此，他得出结论：

It is impossible that a country like England, which, through political exclusiveness and self-complacency, has at last become centuries behind the continent, a country which regards liberty as the right to do as one pleases, and is completely immersed in the Middle Ages, should not finally come into conflict with the development of the spirit which has by then advanced ahead.

像英国这样一个由于政治上的排他性和故步自封而终于比大陆落后了几个世纪的国家，一个认为自由就是任意而为，完全沉浸在中世纪里的国家，要是最终不和当时已经走在前面的精神发展发生冲突，那是不可能的。

Here, Engels’ criterion of judgment is the philosophical principle he brought with him from Germany to England. He believed that the conflict between interest and principle was inevitable in England, and its essence lay in the need for England’s material interests to catch up with the level of spiritual development on the continent. Moreover, in the same article, Engels also thought: “Almost all the lower-grade goods manufactured in the factories of Germany and France are better and cheaper than those of England; in the production of many other goods, England also lags behind the continent.” That is to say, the international time lag Engels first saw was that Germany and France were the advanced countries, England was the backward country, and the development gap between them was several centuries.

在这里，恩格斯的判断标准是他从德国带到英国的哲学原则。他认为，利益和原则的冲突在英国是不可避免的，其实质在于英国的物质利益要跟上大陆的精神发展的水平。不仅如此，恩格斯在同一篇文章中还认为：“德国和法国的工厂制造的几乎所有的低级商品都比英国的好而且便宜；在其他许多商品的生产方面，英国也落后于大陆。”也就是说，恩格斯最早看到的国际时差是，德国和法国是先进国家，英国是落后国家，它们之间的发展差距达几个世纪。

(B) The Reversal of Engels’ View on the Time Lag in Capitalist Development

（二）恩格斯对资本主义发展时差看法的反转

Half a year later, Engels began to appreciate the British characteristic of “proceeding from experience and from verifiable or intuitively observable facts,” believing that “the English socialists are more principled and more practical than the French socialists.” In the following months, Engels paid attention to the international connection between the English factory towns and the “semi-barbarous” Irish workers, compared England’s recent liberal economics with Germany’s Listian mercantilist economics, and acknowledged that German communists “still have much to learn from the English socialists,” and that “in everything concerning practice, concerning the actual state of existing society, we find that the English socialists are far ahead of us.”

半年之后，恩格斯开始赞赏英国人“从经验和可证实的或直观的事实出发”的特点，认为“英国的社会主义者比法国的社会主义者更有原则和更为实际”。在随后几个月中，恩格斯关注过英格兰工厂城市与“半开化”的爱尔兰工人的国际性联系，比较过英国新近的自由主义经济学和德国李斯特的重商主义经济学，承认德国共产主义者“还要多多向英国社会主义者学习”，“在有关实践、有关影响现存社会的实际状况方面所做的一切，我们发现，英国社会主义者远远超过了我们”。

In *The Condition of England. The Eighteenth Century* (written from early January to early February 1844), Engels put forward what might be called the “triple revolution” thesis of the French political revolution, the German philosophical revolution, and the English social revolution, and clearly ranked the English social revolution as the most advanced. He said:

在《英国状况十八世纪》（写于1844年1月初至2月初）中，恩格斯提出了法国的政治革命、德国的哲学革命和英国的社会革命这一可称为“三元革命”的说法，并明确将英国的社会革命排在最先进的位置。他说：

England has, since the middle of the last century, undergone a transformation more significant than any other country has undergone; the more silently this transformation has been carried out, the greater its influence; therefore, this transformation is likely to reach its goal in practice more quickly than the French political revolution or the German philosophical revolution. The English revolution is a social revolution, and therefore more extensive and far-reaching than any other revolution… The social revolution is the true revolution; the political and philosophical revolutions must lead to the social revolution; this social revolution has been going on in England for seventy or eighty years and is now rapidly approaching its decisive crisis.

英国自上一世纪中叶以来经历了一次比其他任何国家经历的变革意义更重大的变革；这种变革越是不声不响地进行，它的影响也就越大；因此，这种变革很可能会比法国的政治革命或德国的哲学革命在实践上更快地达到目的。英国的革命是社会革命，因此比任何其他一种革命都更广泛，更有深远影响……社会革命才是真正的革命，政治的和哲学的革命必定通向社会革命；这场社会革命在英国已经进行了七八十年，目前正在向着自己的决定性关头快步迈进。

Here, Engels points out that the English social revolution has been going on for seventy or eighty years, which is clearly calculated from the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, he also points out that the political and philosophical revolutions must lead to the social revolution, which is tantamount to admitting that France and Germany are both significantly behind England. At this point, Engels’ positioning of the development time lag among England, France, and Germany had turned to the opposite of his positioning of the relationship between England and the continent just over a year earlier.

在这里，恩格斯指出英国社会革命已进行七八十年，这显然是从工业革命起算的。并且，他还指出，政治的和哲学的革命必定通向社会革命，这等于承认法国和德国都明显落后于英国。至此，恩格斯对英、法、德三国发展时差的定位走到了他一年多前对英国和大陆关系定位的反面。

Engels confirmed England as the most advanced country based on the actual state of its industrialization. He said: “This revolutionising of English industry is the foundation of all modern English relations, the motive force of the whole social movement.” That is to say, the English social revolution was based on and driven by the Industrial Revolution. Moreover, it also produced a result, namely that interest replaced principle as the ruler of people.

恩格斯确认英国为最先进的国家，是基于该国工业化的实际状况。他说：“英国工业的这一次革命化是现代英国各种关系的基础，是整个社会的运动的动力。”也就是说，英国的社会革命是以工业革命为基础和动力的。不仅如此，它还造成了一个结果，即利益代替原则成为人们的统治者。

Regarding the overall situation of English industry and society, Engels provided many descriptions in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*. Among them, he pointed out that the capital of England alone had a population of 2.5 million, and there were many huge industrial cities, where about two-thirds of the population were engaged in industry, using machine production, and supplying their products to the whole world. The process by which England completed this transformation from a backward country into an advanced country took 60–80 years. On this basis, he emphasized the nature of the English revolution as an industrial revolution. He said: “The significance of the industrial revolution for England is the same as that of the political revolution for France and the philosophical revolution for Germany.” It is worth noting that Engels here changed the earlier “triple” of “social revolution – political revolution – philosophical revolution” into the “triple” of “industrial revolution – political revolution – philosophical revolution.”

关于英国工业和社会的总体情况，恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中有许多描述。其中，他指出，英国仅首都居民人口就高达250万，还有许多巨大的工业城市，它们中大约2/3人口从事工业，采用机器生产，其产品供给全世界。英国完成这一从落后国家发展为先进国家的过程花费了60—80年。在此基础上，他强调了英国革命的产业革命性质。他说：“工业革命对英国的意义，就像政治革命对法国，哲学革命对德国一样。”值得注意的是，恩格斯在这里把此前“社会革命—政治革命—哲学革命”的“三元”改成了“产业革命—政治革命—哲学革命”的“三元”。

Immediately afterwards, Engels compared the development time lag between England and France. He said: “The difference between England in 1760 and England in 1844 is at least as great as the difference between France under the *ancien régime* and France after the July Revolution. But the most important product of this industrial transformation is the English proletariat.”

紧接着，恩格斯对英、法两国的发展时差作了对比。他说：“1760年的英国和1844年的英国之间的差别，至少像旧制度下的法国和七月革命的法国之间的差别一样大。但这种工业变革的最重要的产物是英国无产阶级。”

Here, Engels particularly highlights the importance of the “industrial revolution,” seeing it as the foundation of the social revolution, although he does not specifically explore the relationship between the two. As for the proletariat specifically mentioned here, Engels cited a figure in a slightly earlier article: “England … has 15 million workers.” As early as 1824, English workers had won the legal right to free association, and had formed trade unions in all sectors; the workers’ movement was also surging, and even a national People’s Charter movement occurred. In contrast, “in Germany, no trade unions or strikes have yet been discovered.” It was not until June 4, 1844, when the “Silesian Weavers’ Uprising” [1]1 Karl Marx, “The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 8 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), p. 161. The original phrase is “mehr als ein halbes Jahrhundert hinter der Zeit zurück.” broke out, that Germany had a workers’ movement.

在这里，恩格斯特别突出了“产业（工业）革命”的重要性，将其看作社会革命的基础，尽管他没有专门探讨二者的关系。至于此处特别提到的无产阶级，恩格斯在稍早一篇文章中引用过一个数据：“英国……拥有1500万工人。”早在1824年，英国工人就争取到了合法的自由结社权，并在所有部门中成立了工联即工会，工人运动也风起云涌，甚至发生了全国性的人民宪章运动。与之相对照的是，“德国还没有发现工联和罢工事件”。直到1844年6月4日，“西里西亚骚乱”爆发，德国才有了工人运动。

Engels not only pointed out that England’s industrial and social revolutions were more advanced than France’s political revolution and Germany’s philosophical revolution, but also pointed out that in terms of political revolution, England was also earlier than France. His general conclusion was: “The English Revolution of the seventeenth century is precisely the precursor of the French Revolution of 1789.” The English Revolution of the seventeenth century Engels refers to here is the revolution that broke out in 1640, which occurred a century and a half earlier than the French Revolution; this is the time lag in political revolution between England and France. Furthermore, he specifically pointed out the similarities between the English Long Parliament and the French Constituent Assembly and their evolutionary stages, as well as the similarities in the structure of parties and the relationships between characters during the revolutions of the two countries, and revealed their common limitations as political revolutions – the English Revolution had occurred two centuries earlier, the French Revolution half a century earlier, but their actual effects were “quite pitiful.”

恩格斯不仅指出了英国的工业革命和社会革命比法国的政治革命和德国的哲学革命先进，而且指出了在政治革命上英国也早于法国。他的总论断是：“17世纪英国革命恰恰是1789年法国革命的先声。”恩格斯在这里所说的17世纪英国革命是指1640年爆发的那场革命，它比法国革命早发生一个半世纪，这是英、法两国之间在政治革命上的时差。此外，他还具体指陈了英国长期国会和法国制宪议会及其演化阶段之间的相似性，以及两国革命期间党派结构和人物角色关系之间的相似性，并揭示了它们作为政治革命的共同局限性——英国革命已发生两个世纪，法国革命已发生半个世纪，但实际效果都“相当可怜”。

The above quotations suffice to show that, before collaborating with Marx in expounding historical materialism, Engels had already perceived the time lag in social development between Britain and continental European countries such as France and Germany: Britain was at least half a century ahead of continental Europe. This means that, in Engels’s view, Britain’s present was Europe’s future.

以上引述足以表明，在同马克思合作阐发唯物史观之前，恩格斯已经洞见到了英国同法国以及德国等欧陆国家之间的社会发展时差：英国至少领先欧陆半个世纪以上。这就意味着，在恩格斯看来，英国的现在就是欧陆的未来。

(3) Engels’s Understanding of the Time Lag in Capitalist Development in His Later Years

（三）恩格斯晚年对资本主义发展时差的认识

After Marx’s death, Engels observed the disparities in the level of commercial development among European countries, and it is worth comparing these observations with his earlier similar ones.

在马克思去世之后，恩格斯曾对欧洲各国商业发展水平的差距作过观察，这里值得拿来同他早年的类似观察作一对比。

In the “Appendix to the American Edition of *The Condition of the Working Class in England*” (written on February 25, 1886), Engels said: “The more capitalist production develops, the less it can afford to adopt the petty tricks and frauds that characterized its early stages.” He then compared the differences in commercial morality among Poles, Germans, and Englishmen. At that time, Polish Jews represented the lowest stage of European commercial morality, accustomed to petty cheating and cunning tricks; yet compared with the merchants of Hamburg or Berlin, their tricks and methods appeared outdated and unsuitable. Similarly, although the merchants of Hamburg or Berlin had improved upon the methods and wiles of the Polish Jews, their cunning being regarded as the pinnacle of wisdom, once they arrived at the Manchester Exchange they would find that these cunning tricks were no longer worthwhile in the big market, because there “time is money,” and commercial morality had developed to a level where time and labor had to be saved. A few years later, in the “Preface to the German Second Edition of *The Condition of the Working Class in England*” (written on July 21, 1892), Engels repeated these words. There is no doubt that the time lag in the development of capitalist commercial morality that Engels perceived, in his authoritative capacity as both theorist and eyewitness, was very clear and objective.

在《〈英国工人阶级状况〉美国版附录》（写于1886年2月25日）中，恩格斯说：“资本主义生产愈发展，它就愈不能采用作为它早期阶段的特征的那些琐细的哄骗和欺诈手段。”随后，他比较了波兰人、德国人和英国人在商业道德上的差别。当时，波兰犹太人代表欧洲商业道德水平的最低阶段，他们惯用琐细的骗人伎俩和狡猾手段，但与汉堡或柏林的商人相比，他们的伎俩和手段就显得陈旧过时、不合用了；同样，汉堡或柏林的商人虽然改进了波兰犹太人的手段和手腕，其狡猾性被看作智慧的顶峰，但一到曼彻斯特交易所就会发现，这些狡猾手腕在大市场上已经不合算了，因为在那里“时间就是金钱”，商业道德已发展到必须节约时间和劳动的水平。几年之后，在《〈英国工人阶级状况〉1892年德文第二版序言》（写于1892年7月21日）中，恩格斯又重复了这些话。毫无疑问，恩格斯以他作为理论家兼见证人的权威身份所看到的这种资本主义商业道德在发展上的时差是十分清晰和客观的。

Besides the time lag shown in commercial morality, Engels also gave a precise account of the time-lag relationship between Britain and France, Germany, and the United States in terms of industrial and capitalist development. He said:

除了商业道德上显示出来的上述时差，恩格斯还确切地说明了英国同法国、德国、美国之间在工业和资本主义发展上的时差关系。他说：

England has now passed through the youth of capitalist exploitation that I described, while other countries are just entering this period. France, Germany, and especially America — these formidable rivals — are, as I foresaw in 1844, increasingly destroying England’s industrial monopoly. Their industries are younger than England’s, but their growth is much more rapid, and they have now reached roughly the same stage of development as English industry in 1844.

英国现在已经度过了我所描写的这个资本主义剥削的青年时期，而其他国家则刚刚进入这个时期。法国、德国，尤其是美国，这些可怕的对手，它们如同我在1844年所预见的那样，正在日益摧毁英国的工业垄断地位。它们的工业比英国的工业年轻，但是其成长却迅速得多，现在已经达到与1844年英国工业大致相同的发展阶段。

Engels believed that the condition of the English working class he had described over forty years earlier reflected the youth of English industry and capitalist exploitation, and that France, Germany, and America were now entering this period. That is, the time lag between England and the other three countries was roughly equivalent to the time span between the original German edition of *The Condition of the Working Class in England* and the English translation of the American edition.

恩格斯认为，他在40多年前所描述的英国工人阶级状况反映的是英国工业和资本主义剥削的青年时期，而今法国、德国和美国正进入这个时期。也就是说，英国与其他三个国家的发展时差大致相当于《英国工人阶级状况》德文原版和美国版英译本之间的时间跨度。

Thus it can be seen that throughout his life Engels was concerned with the time lag in capitalist development among different countries, including time lags in different spheres such as the economic, political, and moral, and he provided a materialist interpretation of them.

由此可见，恩格斯毕生都在关注资本主义发展在不同国家间的时差，包括在经济、政治、道德等不同领域的时差，并且对之加以唯物主义阐释。

II. Marx’s Exposition of the Time Lag in Development

二、马克思对发展时差的论述

If Engels’s insight into historical materialism derived directly from his transnational commercial practice, then Marx’s insight came mainly from his philosophical acumen. Regarding the study of the global time lag in capitalist development, unlike Engels, who excelled in observation, description, and drawing conclusions, Marx’s research was characterized by its theoretical nature, employing systematic analysis to reveal the global time lag in capitalist development from the perspectives of elements, the whole, and essence.

如果说恩格斯对唯物史观的觉悟直接源于其跨国商业实践的话，那么马克思的觉悟主要来自其哲学洞见。就研究资本主义发展的全球时差而言，同恩格斯长于观察、描述和作出论断不同，马克思的研究以理论性为特色，借助系统性分析，从要素、整体和本质等方面揭示了资本主义发展的全球时差。

(1) Time Lag in Structural Elements

（一）结构要素的发展时差

Marx first discussed this time lag in development in the “Introduction to *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*,” where his core point involved a distinction between two kinds of “contemporaries.” Marx said:

马克思最早是在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中论述了这种发展时差，其核心观点涉及两种“同时代人”的区分。马克思说：

Just as ancient peoples experienced their prehistory in imagination, in mythology, so we Germans have experienced our future history in thought, in philosophy. We are the philosophical contemporaries of the present age, without being its historical contemporaries. German philosophy is the ideal continuation of German history.

正像古代各民族是在想象中、在神话中经历了自己的史前时期一样，我们德国人在思想中、在哲学中经历了自己的未来的历史。我们是当代的哲学同时代人，而不是当代的历史同时代人。德国的哲学是德国历史在观念上的延续。

Here, Marx perceived a time lag among Germans in different aspects of life — that is, their real world and their world of ideas were not synchronized in development, meaning the historical epoch and the philosophical epoch were inconsistent, the former lagging behind the latter. The measure Marx used for this internal time lag was the external geographical time lag, namely the developmental gap between Germany and England and France. On this basis, he argued that Germans were only the philosophical contemporaries of the English and French, not their historical contemporaries. In this judgment, the most definite content is that Germany lagged behind England and France, where “lagging behind” mainly refers to backwardness in political development — that is, England and France had already established modern state systems in reality, while Germany’s state system remained in a pre-modern state, only reaching a modern level in Hegel’s philosophy of right.

在这里，马克思洞察到了当时德国人在不同生活内容方面的时差，即他们的现实世界和观念世界在发展进度上不一致，也就是历史时代和哲学时代不一致，前者落后于后者。马克思用来衡量这种内在时差的尺度是地理上的外在时差，即德国同英、法两国的发展差距。他据此认为，德国人跟英国人和法国人只是当时的哲学同时代人，而不是当时的历史同时代人。在这个论断中，最确定的内容是德国落后于英国和法国，这里的落后主要指政治发展上的落后，即英、法两国已经在现实中确立了现代国家制度，而德国的国家制度还停留在前现代状态，仅在黑格尔法哲学中才达到现代水平。

The theoretical characteristic of Marx’s view lies in revealing the unevenness in the process of modernization among different structural elements of the same society — that is, the existence of a time lag between elements. For example, within the whole of German society at that time, the element of philosophy had reached an advanced level for the era, but the element of politics lagged behind the times. This time lag both explains the reasons for the many internal contradictions within German society and clarifies the crux of the many external conflicts between Germany and advanced countries such as England and France.

马克思这个观点的理论特质在于，揭示了同一社会的不同结构要素在现代化发展过程中的不平衡性，即要素之间存在发展时差。比如，在当时德国社会这个整体中，哲学要素的发展达到了时代先进水平，但政治要素的发展落后于时代，这种时差既解释了德国社会存在诸多内部矛盾的原因，也说明了德国跟英、法等先进国家存在诸多外部冲突的症结。

The theoretical significance of Marx’s view lies in the fact that it can be used not only to understand Germany at that time but also to understand the situation of other late-developing countries, and is especially applicable to understanding the phenomenon of enlightenment in which thought precedes practice during the process of modernization.

马克思这个观点的理论意义在于，不仅可以用来理解当时的德国，也可以用来理解其他后发国家的情况，尤其适用于理解现代化过程中思想先于实践的启蒙现象。

(2) Time Lag in the Social Whole

（二）社会整体的发展时差

By the time of the revolutions of 1848, Marx had comprehensively revealed the time lag in development between Germany and England and France. He first pointed out the holistic nature of these two revolutions. He said:

到了1848年革命期间，马克思对德国同英、法两国的发展时差作了全面的揭示。他首先指出了这两场革命的整体性。他说：

The revolution of 1648 and the revolution of 1789 were not English and French revolutions, but European revolutions. They were not the victory of a particular class of society over the old political system; they proclaimed the political system of the new European society.

1648年革命和1789年革命，并不是英国的革命和法国的革命，而是欧洲的革命。它们不是社会中某一阶级对旧政治制度的胜利；它们宣告了欧洲新社会的政治制度。

That is to say, these two revolutions were not revolutions of elements of society, but revolutions of the social whole; they were the complete victory of the bourgeoisie, and what they formed was a new society.

也就是说，这两场革命不是社会的要素革命，而是社会的整体革命，是资产阶级的全面胜利，其所形成的是一种新社会。

Regarding the victory of the new bourgeois social system, Marx enumerated nine specific aspects of its content, including: (1) the victory of bourgeois property over feudal property; (2) the victory of the nation over localism; (3) the victory of competition over the guild system; (4) the victory of the division of estates over primogeniture; (5) the victory of the landowner’s domination of the land over the landowner’s subordination to the land; (6) the victory of enlightenment over superstition; (7) the victory of the family over the clan; (8) the victory of industry over idleness; (9) the victory of bourgeois right over medieval privilege.

关于资产阶级新社会制度的胜利，马克思列举了九个方面的具体内涵，包括：（1）资产阶级所有制对封建所有制的胜利；（2）民族对地方主义的胜利；（3）竞争对行会制度的胜利；（4）遗产分割制对长子继承制的胜利；（5）土地所有者支配土地对土地所有者隶属于土地的胜利；（6）启蒙运动对迷信的胜利；（7）家庭对宗族的胜利；（8）勤劳对游手好闲的胜利；（9）资产阶级权利对中世纪特权的胜利。

On this basis, Marx pointed out the time lag between the English and French revolutions and their common world-historical significance. He said:

在此基础上，马克思指出了英国革命和法国革命的时差及其共同的世界历史意义。他说：

The revolution of 1648 was the victory of the 17th century over the 16th, the revolution of 1789 was the victory of the 18th century over the 17th. These two revolutions reflected not only the demands of the regions where they occurred, namely England and France, but even more so the demands of the whole world at that time.

1648年革命是17世纪对16世纪的胜利，1789年革命是18世纪对17世纪的胜利。这两次革命不仅反映了发生革命的地区即英法两国的要求，而且在更大程度上反映了当时整个世界的要求。

Here, on the one hand, Marx points out that the two revolutions were separated by a century and a half, reflecting the relationship of the earlier and later development of capitalism between England and France; on the other hand, he regards the entire era represented by England and France from the 16th century, through the 17th, to the 18th century as a whole — an era of European revolution that reflected “the demands of the whole world” and had universal significance. In this way, Marx elevated ordinary historical narrative to the level of a philosophical conception of history, and the nine aspects of victory listed above became the nine hallmarks of the victory of the bourgeois revolution.

在这里，一方面，马克思指出两场革命相隔一个半世纪，反映了英国与法国在资本主义发展上的先发后进关系；另一方面，他把从16世纪起、经17世纪至18世纪由英、法两国所代表的整个时代看作一个整体，这是一个欧洲革命的时代，反映了“整个世界的要求”，具有普遍意义。这样一来，马克思就把普通历史叙事提升到了哲学历史观的高度，上述九个方面的胜利就成了资产阶级革命胜利的九个标志。

Marx’s theory of the time lag in overall societal development is a development and integration of his theory of the time lag in the development of elements. On this basis, by comparing the February Revolution of 1848 in France, he provided a dual historical and geographical positioning of the March Revolution in Prussia. He said:

马克思的社会整体发展时差论是对要素发展时差论的发展和整合。以此为据，他通过对比1848年的法国二月革命，对普鲁士三月革命进行了历史和地理的双重定位。他说：

The February Revolution in fact abolished constitutional monarchy, and in thought abolished the rule of the bourgeoisie. The March Revolution in Prussia, however, was to establish constitutional monarchy in thought, and in fact to establish the rule of the bourgeoisie. The March Revolution was by no means a European revolution; it was merely the faint echo of a European revolution in a backward country. It not only failed to surpass its own century, but lagged behind its own century by more than half a century.

二月革命在事实上消灭了立宪君主制，在思想上消灭了资产阶级统治。普鲁士的三月革命却要在思想上确立立宪君主制，在事实上确立资产阶级统治。三月革命决不是欧洲的革命，它不过是欧洲革命在一个落后国家里的微弱的回声。它不仅没有超过自己的世纪，反而比自己的世纪落后了半个世纪以上。

Here, Marx once again points out Germany’s backwardness relative to England and France, and specifies the time lag as half a century. He believes that the German revolution of March 1848 was still doing what the French revolution of 1789 had done, while the French revolution of February 1848 had already transcended to a new stage, namely, negating constitutional monarchy in fact and negating the rule of the bourgeoisie in thought.

在这里，马克思再一次指出了德国相较于英、法两国的落后，并且明确了落后的时间是半个世纪。他认为，1848年3月的德国革命还在做1789年法国革命的事情，而法国1848年2月的革命已经超越到新的阶段了，即在事实上否定了君主立宪，在思想上否定了资产阶级统治。

It is noteworthy that Marx’s mention here of the French February Revolution having abolished the rule of the bourgeoisie in thought actually adds a new scale to the aforementioned international time lag table of capitalist development, indicating that the proletarian revolution had henceforth been placed on the agenda. In this way, after confirming the backwardness of Germany’s capitalist development as a whole, Marx, by identifying the proletarian component in the French revolution, prepared a key reason for continuing to maintain the contemporaneity of German philosophy.

值得注意的是，马克思此处提到法国二月革命在思想上消灭了资产阶级统治，实际上是在前述资本主义发展的国际时差表上加上了一个新的刻度，表示无产阶级革命从此被提上了议事日程。这样一来，在从整体上确认了德国资本主义发展的落后性后，马克思通过指认法国革命中的无产阶级成分而为继续保有德国的哲学同时代性预备了一个关键理由。

(3) The Economic Essence of the Time Lag in the Development of Various Countries

（三）各国发展时差的经济本质

If in 1843 Marx only saw the time lag in political development between Germany and England and France, and in 1848 mainly emphasized the time lag in overall societal transformation, then by the time he published the first volume of *Capital* in 1867, he had clearly revealed the economic essence of this developmental time lag. In the preface to the first edition of this work, Marx said: “What I have to examine in this work is the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it. Up to the present time, the classic ground of this mode of production is England.” That is to say, the essence of capitalism is its mode of production, and England was at that time the country in the world that most typically embodied this essence; in this respect, it is the 0° meridian landmark of the global time lag of capitalist development.

如果说马克思在1843年只是看到了德国跟英、法两国之间政治发展的时差，在1848年主要强调社会整体转型的时差的话，那么到了1867年出版《资本论》第一卷时，他就明确揭示了这种发展时差的经济本质。在该书第一版序言中，马克思说：“我要在本书研究的，是资本主义生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系。到现在为止，这种生产方式的典型地点是英国。”也就是说，资本主义的本质是其生产方式，而英国是当时世界上最典型地体现该本质的国家，就此而言，它是资本主义发展的全球时差的0°经线地标。

Taking this as a benchmark, Marx formulated the theoretical principles and methods for measuring the global time lag of capitalist development, using the developmental time lag between Germany and England as an example. He said:

以此为基准，马克思以德国和英国的发展时差为例，制定了衡量资本主义发展的全球时差的理论原则和方法。他说：

If the German reader shrugs his shoulders hypocritically at the condition of the English industrial and agricultural workers, or optimistically consoles himself that in Germany things are not nearly so bad, I must tell him plainly: *De te fabula narratur!* [It is of you that the story is told!]

如果德国读者看到英国工农业工人所处的境况而伪善地耸耸肩膀，或者以德国的情况远不是那样坏而乐观地自我安慰，那我就要大声地对他说：这正是说的阁下的事情！

The question itself is not about the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. The question is about these laws themselves, about these tendencies which are working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.

问题本身并不在于资本主义生产的自然规律所引起的社会对抗的发展程度的高低。问题在于这些规律本身，在于这些以铁的必然性发生作用并且正在实现的趋势。工业较发达的国家向工业较不发达的国家所显示的，只是后者未来的景象。

If Engels initially only directly observed the time lag in economic and social development between England and other countries, and Marx initially only inferred from a philosophical level the time lag in political and overall societal development between Germany and England and France, then here, Marx makes a scientific judgment on the developmental time lag between England and Germany and other backward countries with a theoretical attitude akin to that of natural science. In his view, this time lag is caused by the natural laws and iron necessity of capitalist production, and this necessity determines that the social antagonisms appearing in industrially advanced countries will also appear in industrially backward countries in the future. This also means that those countries without the English type of class antagonism are not so because they have any superiority, but because they are backward and have not yet encountered these problems. As for the “less industrially developed countries” Marx refers to here, besides Germany, they undoubtedly also refer to other backward countries in the world.

如果说恩格斯最初只是直接观察到了英国与其他国家之间在经济和社会方面的发展时差，马克思最初只是从哲学层面推知了德国同英、法两国在政治和社会整体上的发展时差，那么在这里，马克思则是以一种自然科学的理论态度对英国和德国以及其他后进国家的发展时差作出了科学论断。在他看来，这种时差是由资本主义生产的自然规律和铁的必然性造成的，这种必然性决定了在工业先进国家中出现的社会对抗未来也会在工业落后国家出现。这也就意味着，那些没有英国式阶级对抗的国家并不是因为自己有什么优越性，而是因为自己落后，尚未遭遇到这些问题。至于马克思在这里所说的“工业较不发达的国家”，除了指德国外，无疑也指世界上其他落后国家。

Of course, this view in *Capital* did not originate only when writing this work; it had been consistently present since Marx formed the basic viewpoints of historical materialism. It is the main yardstick Marx used for theoretically positioning various countries around the world and for determining the nature of various international events in reality.

当然，《资本论》中的这种观点不是到写作这部著作时才有的，而是自马克思形成了唯物史观的基本观点后就一以贯之存在的，它是马克思对世界各国进行理论定位、对各种国际事件进行现实定性时依据的主要标尺。

3. Global Developmental Time Lag and Geographical Gradient

三、全球发展时差与地理梯度

After the completion of the bourgeois revolution in England, especially after the Industrial Revolution, an asymmetric process of interaction based on the time lag of capitalist development began among countries across the globe. “The big industry of developed countries also influences those countries which are more or less non-industrial,” and this generated a world pattern with a clear geographical gradient.

在英国完成资产阶级革命，特别是实现工业革命后，全球范围内各国之间就开始了一种基于资本主义发展时差的非对称的相互作用过程，“大工业发达的国家也影响着那些或多或少是非工业性质的国家”，并由此生成了具有明显地理梯度的世界格局。

The preliminary framework of Marx and Engels’ view on the time lag of development was formed in the late 1840s. The above viewpoints constitute the basic content of their newly created historical materialism in the geographical dimension. Relevant representative works include *The German Ideology*, *Principles of Communism*, and the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*. Entering the 1850s, Marx and Engels discovered the special historical role of Russia. In *Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany* (1851–1852), Engels pointed out sharply that the backing of Pan-Slavism was the Russian Empire, a force that was “anti-historical.” In 1853, Marx also calculated the account of Russia’s territorial expansion. He said: “The territory Russia has acquired in the last sixty years, in terms of area and importance, equals the entire European part of the Russian Empire before this period.” After clarifying the positioning of Russia, their view on the time lag of development took shape.

马克思恩格斯发展时差观的初步框架形成于19世纪40年代后期，上述观点构成了他们初创的唯物史观在地理维度方面的基本内容，相关代表性著作包括《德意志意识形态》《共产主义原理》和《共产党宣言》。进入19世纪50年代后，马克思恩格斯发现了俄国的特殊历史作用。在1851—1852年的《德国的革命和反革命》中，恩格斯一针见血地指出了泛斯拉夫主义的后台就是俄罗斯帝国，它们是一股“反历史”的力量。1853年，马克思还替俄国的领土扩张算了一笔账。他说：“俄国最近60年来所获得的领土，从面积和重要性来看，等于俄罗斯帝国在此以前的整个欧洲部分。”在明确了俄国的定位后，他们的发展时差观就成型了。

The aforementioned series of works delineate six descending geographical gradients for the global development of capitalism: (1) England – the most advanced capitalist country; (2) the United States, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. – second only to England, can be regarded as semi-capitalist countries; (3) Germany – a step lower, a country where capitalism had achieved preliminary development; (4) Russia – capitalist development had not yet started, yet it was the only country of that era with the strength to both resist capitalist countries and conquer other non-capitalist countries; (5) other non-capitalist countries in Europe besides Russia, among which Hungary, Poland, etc., were still at a medieval level of development; (6) all other countries on the remaining continents of the world except the United States, including India and China, which were “barbarian and semi-barbarian countries” that capitalism had already conquered or was in the process of conquering during its global expansion.

上述一系列著作为资本主义的全球发展刻画出了六个递降的地理梯度：（1）英国——最先进的资本主义国家；（2）美国、法国、荷兰、比利时等国——仅次于英国，可被视为半资本主义国家；（3）德国——又次一等，是资本主义已获得初步发展的国家；（4）俄国——资本主义发展尚未起步，却是那个时代唯一有实力既抗衡资本主义国家又征服其他非资本主义国家的国家；（5）俄国之外的欧洲其他非资本主义国家，其中，匈牙利、波兰等国尚处于中世纪发展水平；（6）世界上其余各大洲除美国之外的所有国家，包括印度和中国，它们是资本主义在全球扩张过程中已经征服或正在征服的“未开化和半开化的国家”。

The developmental time lag between these six gradients is divided into three tiers, with decades, centuries, and millennia as the units of time measurement. The first three gradients belong to the first tier. Although the developmental time lags among the countries in this tier varied historically in length, by the era of Marx and Engels, as they repeatedly assessed, they could be roughly measured in decades. Based on this reasoning, Marx and Engels regarded England, the United States, France, Germany, and other countries as “the ruling nations” and “civilized nations.” The countries of the fourth and fifth gradients belong to the second tier. Marx and Engels positioned these countries in the Middle Ages, and their developmental time lag relative to the countries of the first tier was measured in centuries. As long as one recalls that Engels initially positioned England in the Middle Ages, believing it “lagged behind the continent by several centuries,” one will not be surprised by this centennial scale on their yardstick. The countries of the sixth gradient belong to the third tier. In the eyes of Marx and Engels, these countries were in a barbarian or semi-barbarian state, and their developmental time lag relative to the countries of the first tier was undoubtedly measured in millennia. If one recalls Hegel’s statement that although China has five thousand years of historical records, it is “an empire without history,” this millennial scale of Marx and Engels is equally unsurprising.

这六个梯度之间的发展时差分三个档次，分别以十年、百年和千年为计时单位。前三个梯度属第一档次，其中各国的发展时差虽然在历史上各有长短，但到马克思恩格斯的时代，正如前述他们反复评估的那样，大致能以十年计。基于这样的理由，马克思恩格斯才将英、美、法、德等国都视为“占统治地位的各民族”和“文明国家”。第四、五梯度的国家属第二档次，它们被马克思恩格斯定位在中世纪，同第一档次国家的发展时差要以百年计。只要回想一下恩格斯一开始把英国定位到中世纪，认为它“比大陆落后了几个世纪”，就不会对他们标尺上的这种百年刻度感到诧异。第六梯度中的国家为第三档次，这些国家在马克思恩格斯眼中处于未开化和半开化状态，同第一档次国家的发展时差无疑要以千年计。如果联想到黑格尔所说的中国虽有五千年历史记述却“是一个没有历史的帝国”，马克思恩格斯的这个千年刻度也同样不足为奇。

Marx and Engels included the countries of the first three gradients in the first tier based on the following specific considerations.

马克思恩格斯把前三个梯度中的国家纳入第一档次，出于如下具体考量。

According to the aforementioned views of Marx in *The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution* on the revolutions in England and France, although the developmental gap between these two countries had once been as long as a century and a half, by the mid-19th century their societies as a whole had completed the bourgeois revolution in nine aspects and had successively entered a new society. Close to them were the small Western European countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as the United States, which had achieved national independence either earlier or later and developed into countries dominated by the bourgeoisie. In this regard, the developmental time lag among these several countries was roughly about half a century, and it is perfectly logical to place them in the same tier.

按照前引马克思在《资产阶级和反革命》中对英法革命的看法，这两个国家之间的发展差距虽然曾经达一个半世纪之久，但到19世纪中叶其社会整体都已经完成了九个方面的资产阶级革命，先后进入了新社会。与之接近的是荷兰、比利时等西欧小国和美国，它们或先或后实现了民族独立，并发展为资产阶级主导的国家。就此而言，这几个国家之间的发展时差大概在半个世纪左右，被纳入同一档次是顺理成章的。

In comparison, Germany’s inclusion in this tier is quite forced. Marx explicitly stated that Germany “is more than half a century behind the times.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 8 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), p. 161. The original phrase is “mehr als ein halbes Jahrhundert hinter der Zeit zurück.” Engels also said that the social revolution in England “has been going on for seventy or eighty years,” that “only England has a social history,” and that the French and Germans “have no social history yet.” [2]2 Friedrich Engels, “The Condition of England. Past and Present by Thomas Carlyle,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 444. Interestingly, when calculating the time lag, Marx placed France and England together in comparison with Germany, while Engels placed Germany and France together in comparison with England. If France is set aside and only Germany and England are compared, the developmental time lag between them would probably exceed seventy or eighty years and approach a full century. It can be seen that Germany was a laggard among the countries of the second gradient, and the time lag scale applicable to it could be either that of the first tier or that of the second tier. Nevertheless, both Engels and Marx, being Germans themselves, relied on Germany’s developmental advantage in philosophy to allow their homeland to be included in the first tier. As mentioned earlier, Engels believed that although Germany had not undergone a social revolution or a political revolution, it had undergone a philosophical revolution; Marx believed that although the Germans were not contemporaries of history, they were contemporaries of philosophy, not to mention that the two of them were the theoretical spokesmen of the proletarian revolution.

相比之下，德国被纳入这一档次十分勉强。马克思明确说过德国“比自己的世纪落后了半个世纪以上”。恩格斯也说过，英国社会革命“已经进行七八十年”，“只有英国才有一部社会的历史”，法国人和德国人“还没有社会的历史”。有意思的是，在计算时差时，马克思把法国和英国并列在一起同德国比较，而恩格斯则把德国和法国并列在一起同英国比较，如果撇开法国而仅仅比较德国和英国，它们之间的发展时差恐怕就要超过七八十年而接近一个世纪。可见，德国在第二梯度国家中是拖后腿的，其适用的时差刻度既可以是第一档次，也可以是第二档次。不过，不论是恩格斯还是马克思，身为德国人，他们都依据德国在哲学上的发展优势，让自己的祖国跻身第一档次。如前所述，恩格斯认为，德国虽然没有发生社会革命和政治革命，但发生了哲学革命；马克思则认为，德国人虽然不是历史的同时代人，却是哲学的同时代人，更何况他们二人还是无产阶级革命的理论代言人。

The second tier consists of countries of the fourth and fifth gradients, and the situation is also complex. The other countries of Europe, including several old empires such as Spain, Portugal, Austria, and Russia, had neither a social revolution, nor a political revolution, nor a philosophical revolution. It is also justifiable to classify them into the same tier. In these countries, capitalism either ceased to develop after its initial stirrings, as in Spain and Portugal, or started haltingly under external shocks, as in Austria and Russia; the situation in the remaining European countries roughly falls between these two types. The Ottoman Turkish Empire, straddling Europe and Asia, also partially belongs to this tier.

第二档次由第四、五梯度国家组成，情况也很复杂。欧洲的其他国家，包括几个老牌帝国，如西班牙、葡萄牙、奥地利和俄国，都既无社会革命，也无政治革命，更无哲学革命，把它们归为同一个档次也无可厚非。在这些国家，资本主义或者在萌动之后停止发育，如西班牙、葡萄牙；或者在外部冲击下蹒跚起步，如奥地利、俄国；其余欧洲国家的情况大致介于这两种情况之间。土耳其奥斯曼帝国由于地跨欧亚，也部分属于这个档次。

The complexity of the second tier lies mainly in the particularity of Russia, which belongs to the fourth gradient. After the failure of the European revolutions of 1848, [3]3 The Revolutions of 1848 were a series of republican revolts against European monarchies, which swept across much of Europe but were ultimately suppressed by conservative forces, with Russia playing a key role in crushing the Hungarian uprising. Marx and Engels noticed that although Russia was a country at a medieval level of development, it possessed the formidable strength to take the lead in suppressing the European revolutions. Moreover, Russia was the only non-capitalist country capable of competing with the capitalist powers for global hegemony and successfully expanding its sphere of influence. It is precisely for this reason that Marx and Engels regarded it differently and distinguished it from the countries of the fifth gradient. Later, Russia even gained Marx’s favor through this particularity, to the extent that in his later years he even considered the possibility of Russia bypassing the “Caudine Forks” of capitalism [4]4 The “Caudine Forks” (German: *kaukasische Furt* or *Caudinischer Joch*) is a metaphor used by Marx, referring to the narrow pass where the Samnites forced the Roman army to surrender in 321 BCE. Marx used it to mean a painful but necessary historical passage through capitalism, which he later suggested Russia might avoid. and directly achieving communism.

第二档次的复杂性主要在于第四梯度的俄国的特殊性。欧洲1848年革命失败后，马克思恩格斯就注意到，俄国虽然是处于中世纪发展水平的国家，却具有带头镇压欧洲革命的强大实力。不仅如此，俄国是唯一能够同资本主义列强在全球范围内争夺霸权并成功扩张势力范围的非资本主义国家。正因为如此，马克思恩格斯才对它另眼相看，把它同第五梯度国家区别开来。再往后，俄国甚至靠这种特殊性获得了马克思的青睐，以至于他在晚年甚至考虑过俄国不经过资本主义的“卡夫丁峡谷”而直接实现共产主义的可能性。

Marx and Engels also made fine distinctions among the countries of the sixth gradient. For instance, in *The Communist Manifesto*, they distinguished between “barbarian” countries and “semi-barbarian” countries, with China and India belonging to the latter. [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), where they describe the bourgeoisie as “drawing even the most barbarian nations into civilization” and distinguish between “barbarian” and “semi-barbarian” countries. Another example is that before his death, Engels was quite shaken by Japan’s defeat of its Asian neighbor China in the First Sino-Japanese War, [6]6 The First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) was a conflict between Qing China and Meiji Japan over influence in Korea, resulting in a decisive Japanese victory that shocked Western observers and signaled Japan’s emergence as a modern imperialist power. and he had already seen the differentiation within this gradient.

马克思恩格斯对于第六梯度国家也进行过细分。比如，他们在《共产党宣言》中区分过“未开化”国家和“半开化”国家，中国和印度属于后者。又如，恩格斯在去世前对日本在甲午战争中打败其亚洲近邻中国颇感震动，已经看到了这个梯度的分化。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

In the view of Marx and Engels, the uneven development of capitalism leads to a global time lag, thereby forming a world structure composed of six gradients, within which all international relations unfold. The expansionist tendency of capitalism inevitably gives rise to asymmetric interactions among countries of different gradients. Among these, Marx and Engels’ emphasis lies on the global impact of capitalism and its world-historical significance. While adhering to the general direction of history, Marx and Engels also paid attention to the particularities of countries in each gradient, embodying the spirit of historical dialectics.

在马克思恩格斯看来，资本主义的不平衡发展导致全球时差，从而形成由六个梯度所构成的世界格局，所有的国际关系都在其中展开。资本主义的扩张趋势使各梯度国家间必然发生非对称的相互作用。其中，马克思恩格斯的侧重面在于资本主义的全球性影响及其世界历史意义。马克思恩格斯在坚持历史大方向的同时，也注意到各梯度国家的特殊性，彰显了历史辩证法的精神。

To sum up, Marx and Engels had a systematic view of the global time lag of capitalist development. These views constitute the specific content of the geographical dimension of historical materialism and are of extremely important theoretical guiding significance for our understanding of history and our grasp of reality. The guiding principle is that only when the capitalist countries of the first three gradients have fully capitalized the world will the communist revolution have the objective material conditions for success. Under this premise, if Russia of the fourth gradient could leap over the “Caudine Forks” of capitalism, or if China of the sixth gradient, due to its defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, experienced the complete collapse of its traditional economy, these could become external triggers for the communist revolution of the European proletariat—their expectations for the countries of the latter three gradients mainly lie in this.

综上所述，马克思恩格斯对于资本主义发展的全球时差有着系统的看法，这些看法构成了唯物史观地理维度的具体内容，对于我们理解历史和认清现实都具有极为重要的理论指导意义。其指导性原则是，只有前三个梯度的资本主义国家使世界全部资本主义化，共产主义革命才有成功的客观物质条件。在此前提下，第四梯度的俄国若能跨越资本主义“卡夫丁峡谷”，或第六梯度的中国因甲午战争失败而导致传统经济完全崩溃，也会成为欧洲无产阶级的共产主义革命的外部诱因——他们对后三个梯度国家的期待主要在于此。

Web Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗