Capitalism and the Grand Narrative of Early Modern World History

In an era when historical periods were demarcated by socio-economic formations, capitalism was a frequently used concept, particularly as it encapsulated a distinct socio-economic formation that occupied an epoch in world history. People believed that modern world history primarily reflected the developmental course of capitalism’s emergence, growth, and decline. However, times have changed, and past understandings are now outdated. In current historical narratives, capitalism’s position in modern history is no longer what it once was. Not only does world history no longer possess a historical era labeled as capitalism, but for some historians, the very concept of capitalism itself seems to have become problematic. Yet capitalism is a fundamental fact of the world historical process over the past five centuries, exerting a significant influence on the direction of world history and on real life. We cannot ignore the existence of capitalism in history and reality. If the concept of capitalism is marginalized, it not only overlooks a basic and important fact but also deprives historians of a useful tool for historical analysis. Admittedly, academia still lacks a standard definition of capitalism, but this should not affect our objective understanding and grasp of it.

在以社会经济形态划分历史时期的年代，资本主义是一个使用率很高的概念，特别是它概括了一种独特的社会经济形态而占据世界历史中的一个时代，人们以为世界近代史主要体现资本主义的产生、发展和衰落的发展历程。不过，时过境迁，以往的认识已经过时。现在的历史叙事中，资本主义在近代史上的地位不再如从前，世界历史不仅不再有一个被标识为资本主义的历史时代，而且，对一些历史学者来说，资本主义这个概念似乎也已成为问题。但是，资本主义是过去五个世纪世界历史进程中的一个基本事实，对世界历史走向和现实生活都产生了重要的影响，我们无法忽视资本主义在历史和现实中的存在。如果边缘化资本主义概念，不仅忽视一个基本的和重要的事实，而且也使历史学者失去一个有用的历史分析工具。诚然，学术界对资本主义还缺乏一个标准概念，但这不应影响我们对资本主义的客观认识和把握。

I. The Tendency to Downplay Capitalism in the Narrative of Early Modern World History

一 近代早期世界史叙事淡化资本主义的倾向

For a long period, capitalism was a common term in historiography. Because the stage of capitalist development was seen as a prerequisite for achieving socialism, it was assigned to the “modern period” [jindai], linked to the subsequent “contemporary period” [xiandai], and became an important phase in human history. The “modern period” in world history corresponded to the era of capitalism, while the “contemporary period” belonged to the era of socialism. Historical research on capitalism was once highly valued. Among this, research on the origins of capitalism and research on the highest stage of capitalism (imperialism or monopoly capitalism)—these “two ends”—were two important topics for historians studying the history of capitalism. Abroad, since the mid-20th century, research on the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe (also called the study of the origins of capitalism or the rise of the West) has been enduring. Domestically, research on the “sprouts of capitalism” in China also lasted for decades; this research was once hailed as one of the “Five Golden Flowers” of Chinese historiography.[1]1 Karl Marx, "Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Selected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), vol. 1, p. 504. This illustrates the importance that historical research on capitalism once held in historiography both domestically and internationally. However, with the adjustment and shift of research priorities in Chinese historiography, and the impact of postmodernist thought abroad on modern historiography, grand narratives began to decline. At the same time, some historians in Europe and America loudly opposed Eurocentrism, and capitalism, as an important concept once applicable to grand historical narratives, was considered tinged with Eurocentrism and thus fell out of favor.

在很长时期里，资本主义是历史学中的常用词。由于把资本主义发展阶段看成实现社会主义的前提条件，它被划分到“近代”，与继之而来的“现代”相联系，成为人类历史中的一个重要阶段。世界历史上的“近代”相当于资本主义时代，“现代”则属于社会主义时代。对资本主义的历史研究在过去受到高度重视，其中，对资本主义起源的研究和对资本主义最高阶段（帝国主义或垄断资本主义）的研究，这“一头一尾”是历史学者研究资本主义史的两个重要课题。在国外，自20世纪中叶以来，欧洲从封建主义向资本主义过渡的研究（或称为资本主义起源、西方兴起的研究）经久不衰。在国内，对中国资本主义萌芽的研究也历经数十年，这一研究曾经被誉为中国历史学的“五朵金花”之一。由此可见对资本主义的历史研究曾经在国内外历史学中的重要性。但是，随着中国历史学研究重心的调整和转移，以及国外后现代主义思潮对现代历史学的冲击，宏大叙事开始衰退。同时，欧美国家的一些历史学者，高调反对欧洲中心论，资本主义作为曾经适用于宏大历史叙事的一个重要概念，以及被认为具有欧洲中心主义色彩而遭到冷落。

In contemporary Chinese historical discourse, “modern period” [jindai] still exists as a historical stage, but the attributes of the “modern period” are filled with seemingly more neutral terms, such as the history of modernization, the history of globalization, holistic history, the history of civilization, and concepts like marketization (market economy). The “modern period” corresponds to the earlier phase of these historical processes. That is to say, the “modern period” and the “contemporary period” together share the earlier and later stages of historical processes known as the history of modernization, the history of globalization, or the development from fragmentation to integration. In these various types of historical narratives, the history of capitalist development, which once served as the main thread of modern world history, has essentially faded from the mainstream narrative of modern world history. The narration of capitalism appears intermittently; people only allocate some text to capitalism in appropriate places. For example, in the early modern period, the rise of capitalism remains an important historical content, but the relationship between the rise of capitalism and other historical content lacks further elaboration.

如今的中国历史学话语中依然存在着作为一个历史阶段的“近代”，但“近代”的属性充满了各种看上去比较中性的词汇，例如，现代化史、全球化史、整体史、文明史，以及市场化（市场经济）等概念，“近代”则相当于这些历史进程中比较早的一个时期，也就是说，“近代”与“现代”一起，分享了被称为现代化史、全球化史、从分散到整体的发展等历史过程的前、后两个阶段。在上述各种名目的历史叙述中，曾经作为世界近代史主线的资本主义发展史，基本上淡出近代世界史的叙事主流。对资本主义的叙述时隐时现，人们只是在适当的地方为资本主义安排一部分文字，比如在近代早期，资本主义的兴起依然是重要的历史内容，但资本主义兴起与其他历史内容之间的关系，则缺少进一步的阐述。

Abroad, starting from the second half of the 20th century, some historians explicitly expressed the need to break away from the paradigm of historical writing centered on the nation-state and advocated for global (transnational) history writing. Within this trend, past research on the origins of capitalism or the rise of the Western world was suspected of being Eurocentric and came under criticism. At the same time, the critique and deconstruction of grand narratives by postmodernist historiographical thought led to a decline in holistic history studies. The fashion in historiography shifted towards case studies represented by microhistory and the history of everyday life. Under circumstances where grand narratives were deconstructed, holistic history declined, the “economic base” was undermined, linear progress in history was denied, and historical laws were questioned, the term capitalism, once commonly used by Western historians, was consequently marginalized.

在国外，自20世纪下半叶开始，一些历史学家明确表示要突破以民族国家为中心的历史写作范式，提倡全球史（跨国史）书写。在这个趋势中，过去关于资本主义起源或西方世界的兴起的研究，被疑为欧洲中心主义而受到批评。与此同时，后现代主义史学思想对宏大叙事的批评和解构，使得整体史研究出现退潮，史学风尚趋向于以微观史、日常生活史为代表的个案研究。在宏大叙事被解构、整体史衰落、“经济基础”遭到破坏、线性进步的历史被否定、历史规律受到质疑的情况下，西方历史学者曾经常用的术语——资本主义，随之也就被边缘化了。

Since the 21st century, in discussions among Chinese and foreign historians about the Great Divergence between Eastern and Western history, capitalism has had almost no place. The so-called Great Divergence discussion is, in fact, a 21st-century version of the old questions of why Europe rose or why China’s development stagnated, pursued by some historians after setting aside capitalism. This discussion originated with the American “California School,” represented by Andre Gunder Frank’s book *ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age* and Kenneth Pomeranz’s book *The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy* (hereafter *The Great Divergence*).

21世纪以来，在中外历史学者关于东西方历史大分流的讨论中，资本主义几乎没有地位。所谓大分流讨论，实际上是一些历史学者在按下资本主义以后，对于欧洲为什么兴起或中国发展为什么停滞这样的老问题在21世纪的讨论版。这个讨论肇始于美国“加州学派”，以贡德·弗兰克的著作《白银资本》和彭慕兰的著作《大分流：欧洲、中国及现代世界经济的发展》（以下简称《大分流》）为代表。

The intentions of these two books are very clear.

这两本书的意图很明确。

*ReOrient* strongly opposes Eurocentrism. The view that treats early modern Europe as the center of the world economy, discovering its “uniqueness” from within Europe, and thereby seeking the reasons for Europe’s rise, is considered a typical example of Eurocentrism. Frank boldly declares: “From Marx and Weber to Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee, and then since World War II, almost all of Western social science and history, especially in the United States, has defended so-called Western exceptionalism.” According to Frank, historians from Marx onwards have been “obsessed” with the “capitalist mode of production,” setting 1500 as a break point with the past and the beginning of a new era—a notion implying European “exceptionalism.” He believes that “the whole discussion about the ‘mode of production’ is not only meaningless chatter but also diverts attention from the real issues.” Therefore, “it is best to completely abandon the ‘capitalist’ dead end.” Frank’s statement represents the most vehement opposition within the “California School” towards Marxist theory and the study of the origins of capitalism.

《白银资本》强烈反对欧洲中心论，那种把近代早期的欧洲当作世界经济的中心，从欧洲内部发现其“独特性”，进而寻找欧洲兴起的原因，被认为是欧洲中心论的典型。弗兰克大胆宣言：“从马克思和韦伯到奥斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒和阿诺德·汤因比，再到第二次世界大战以来，尤其是美国的全部西方社会科学和历史学，几乎都捍卫所谓的西方特殊论”。照弗兰克的说法，从马克思以来的历史学者们“执迷”于“资本主义生产方式”，把1500年定为与过去断裂的节点和新时代的开端，这种观念意味着欧洲的“特殊性”。他认为，“关于‘生产方式’的整个讨论不仅仅是毫无意义的闲扯，而且也转移了人们对真正问题的关注”。因此，“最好是彻底抛弃‘资本主义’这个死结”。弗兰克的说法是目前“加州学派”的历史学者对待马克思理论和资本主义起源研究最为激烈的一种反对态度。

*The Great Divergence*, on the other hand, frequently discusses the concept of capitalism. Pomeranz indeed does not negate this concept, evidently because the topic of the Great Divergence cannot bypass the substantial research previously conducted by historians on capitalism. After all, the emergence and development of capitalism were the core issues for earlier theorists and historians in understanding why Eastern and Western histories took different paths. For Pomeranz to elaborate on the Great Divergence, he must first discuss the role capitalism played in history, in order to pave the way for further elaboration of his views on the Great Divergence. Pomeranz also discusses capitalism as “a problem related to Eurocentrism.” After repeatedly comparing various conditions related to capitalist development in Europe and other parts of the world, he finds that favorable conditions for capitalist development also existed elsewhere, and in many respects, conditions were even better than in Europe. This strategically denies the importance of the growth of European capitalism for Europe’s rise, and denies that Europe possessed a unique “capitalist form of production” to explain the Great Divergence that occurred in the 19th century. He “places less emphasis on the ability of specific relations of production to determine economic outcomes; rather than seeing specific capitalist institutions as necessary conditions for development, he focuses on how different institutional combinations could achieve the same results.” Thus, Pomeranz does not deny the existence of capitalism in European history, but argues that the Great Divergence was unrelated to the development of capitalism. The causes of the Great Divergence, he contends, were Britain’s abundant domestic coal reserves and its vast overseas colonies. However, he does not further question why Britain acquired colonies so early, or why Britain’s coal resources, which had existed for tens of millions of years, only came into extensive and widespread use in the 19th century, playing the role he attributes to them in causing the Great Divergence.

《大分流》倒是经常讲到资本主义概念。彭慕兰的确没有否定这个概念，显然是因为大分流这个话题绕不过历史学家在此之前对资本主义进行过的大量研究。毕竟，资本主义的产生和发展是以前的理论家和历史学家们理解东西方历史为什么走向不同道路的核心问题。彭慕兰要阐述大分流，必先对资本主义在历史上所起的作用作一番讨论，以便为进一步阐述他的大分流观点作铺垫。彭慕兰也是把资本主义作为“与欧洲中心论相关的问题”来讨论的，在他反复比较欧洲与世界其他地方和资本主义发展相关的各种情况后发现，其他地方也存在着有利于资本主义发展的诸多条件，并且在很多方面甚至比欧洲有更好的条件。这就策略性地否认了欧洲资本主义的成长对于欧洲兴起的重要性，否认欧洲有一个独特的“生产的资本主义形态”来解释19世纪发生的大分流。他“更少强调明确的生产关系决定经济结果的能力；不是把具体的资本主义制度看作必要的发展条件，而是注重不同制度组合可能取得相同的结果”。可见彭慕兰并不否认欧洲历史上有资本主义，但大分流与资本主义的发展无关。导致大分流的原因是英国在国内拥有丰富的煤炭和在海外拥有大量殖民地。但他没有进一步追问：为什么英国很早就拥有殖民地和为什么存在了几千万年的英国煤炭资源，它们都要到19世纪才得到大量和广泛使用，发挥他所说的大分流的作用。

*The Great Divergence* is a work of considerable influence in recent years among historians both domestic and international studying early modern history. Since its publication over two decades ago, related discussions have remained enduringly lively. However, the issues set forth and the line of argumentation in *The Great Divergence* seem to have prescribed the direction of debate on the great divergence. Those joining the discussion on this topic have produced a great many articles focusing on specific historical questions raised by Kenneth Pomeranz, but they show no inclination to link the great divergence with the development of European capitalism for discussion. People no longer clearly and boldly employ the concept of capitalism, replacing it with terms such as market economy, market and marketization, commodity economy, industrious revolution, Smithian growth, and Kuznetsian growth, as if these terms had nothing to do with capitalism.

《大分流》是近年来国内外史学界关于近代早期史研究中影响较大的一本著作，问世二十多年来，相关的讨论经久不衰。然而，《大分流》设置的议题和论述的思路，似乎规定了大分流问题讨论的方向。加入该主题讨论的人们围绕彭慕兰提出的一些具体的历史问题，做了大量的文章，但人们无意于把大分流与欧洲资本主义的发展联系起来进行讨论，人们不再明确、大胆地使用资本主义概念，代之以市场经济、市场和市场化、商品经济、勤勉革命、斯密型增长、库兹涅茨增长等说法,仿佛这些词汇都与资本主义无关了。

A comparison with the works of R. Bin Wong, another important figure of the "California School," is very revealing.

比较一下“加州学派”另一位重要人物王国斌所发表的著作很能说明问题。

Around the time of the publication of *The Great Divergence* (English edition 2000, Chinese edition 2003), R. Bin Wong published two influential monographs: *China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience* (1997 edition, hereafter *China Transformed*) and *Before and Beyond Divergence: The Politics of Economic Change in China and Europe* (co-authored, 2011 edition). In *China Transformed*, Wong explicitly states, "The two hallmarks of modernity that this book focuses on are capitalist development and the formation of the nation-state," which are "the most obvious characteristics of the modern world." He further argues that "the global political expansion of Western countries, and the economic changes brought about by the capitalist system originating in Europe, are the most powerful forces driving world history over the past two hundred years. Today, it is difficult to imagine European history apart from the two processes of nation-state formation and capitalist development." He then asserts, "Capitalism and the formation of European states are very important processes in explaining the turning points of historical change in the West." However, in *Before and Beyond Divergence: The Politics of Economic Change in China and Europe*, co-authored by Wong and Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, the term "capitalism" is essentially nowhere to be found. The authors argue, "The decisive factor enabling Europe to take the lead in entering the modern economy was not economic in itself, but political. The different political systems of Europe and China unexpectedly created Europe's economic advantage." These two books by Wong address the same theme and both employ a method of comparing China and Europe, with their publication dates falling just before and after the appearance of *The Great Divergence*. Yet the discursive style of *Before and Beyond Divergence* differs markedly from the earlier *China Transformed*. Although in the later book Wong discusses a large number of topics that could have been categorized under the rubric of capitalism in the earlier book—such as markets, specialization, commercialization, and credit—the author no longer uses the concept of capitalism to discuss the commodity economies of early modern Europe and China. Instead, he employs terms like "Smithian growth" and "Smithian dynamics." His academic shift is quite evident.

在《大分流》（2000年英文版，2003年中文版）一书出版前后，王国斌分别发表了两部有影响的专著：《转变的中国——历史变迁与欧洲经验的局限》（1997年版，以下简称《转变的中国》）和《大分流之外：中国和欧洲经济变迁的政治》（合著，2011年版）。在《转变的中国》一书中，王国斌明确讲到，“本书所着重讨论的资本主义发展和民族国家的形成这两个近代化的标志”，它们是“近代世界最明显的特征”，并且认为“西方国家的全球性政治扩张，以及起源于欧洲的资本主义制度所导致的经济变革，是推动近200年来世界历史发展的最强大的力量。在今天，如果离开民族国家的形成与资本主义的发展这两大进程，就很难去想象欧洲的历史”，他进而认为，“资本主义与欧洲国家的形成，在解释西方历史变迁的转折点时是很重要的过程”。但是，在王国斌和罗森塔尔所著的《大分流之外：中国和欧洲经济变迁的政治》一书中，“资本主义”一词基本上难觅踪影。作者认为，“欧洲率先跻身于近代经济之列，其决定性因素并不在于经济本身，而是在于政治。欧洲与中国不同的政治体制，意外地造就了其经济上的优势”。王国斌的这两本著作讨论的是同一个主题，所用的方法都是将中国与欧洲进行比较，出版的时间正好在《大分流》问世的一前一后，但《大分流之外：中国和欧洲经济变迁的政治》的话语风格已大不同于此前发表的《转变的中国》。尽管王国斌在后一本书中讨论了大量在前一本书中可以被归在资本主义名下的话题，比如市场、专业化、商品化、信贷等，但作者不再使用资本主义概念讨论近代早期欧洲和中国的商品经济，而是使用了“斯密型增长” “斯密型动力”这样的术语，他的学术转变是很明显的。

Domestic historians have been deeply influenced by *ReOrient* and *The Great Divergence*. Li Bozhong believes that previous research on the "sprouts of capitalism" in China exhibited a Eurocentric tendency, and that the belief in "sprouts of capitalism" is a kind of "complex" that should be shed, replacing it with terms such as "industrious labor," "Smithian growth," and "Kuznetsian growth." Smithian growth has nothing to do with capitalism, whether in England or in China's Jiangnan region. The former "theoretical framework of 'capitalist' development built on the 'Smith-Marx model' holds little significance for the study of Jiangnan economic history."

国内历史学者深受《白银资本》和《大分流》的影响。李伯重认为，以前关于中国资本主义萌芽的研究具有欧洲中心论倾向，对“资本主义萌芽”的信念是一种“情结”而应该摆脱，用“勤奋劳动”“斯密型成长”“库兹涅茨成长”等词汇取而代之。斯密型成长与资本主义无关，无论在英国，还是在中国江南都是如此，过去的那种“建立在‘斯密—马克思模式’基础之上的‘资本主义’发展理论构架，对于江南经济史研究来说并无很大意义”。

The marginalization of capitalism in historiography should not have occurred, because it not only overlooks the basic fact of the rise of modern capitalism in Europe and ignores the profound impact of capitalist development on early modern world history—including, of course, its impact on the great divergence—but also deprives historians of an effective tool for analyzing history and reduces their capacity for historical critique. The German historian Jürgen Kocka once stated that capitalism is a core concept for understanding modernity. Capitalism summarizes epochal changes in the economic, social, cultural, and political spheres. It is an unparalleled comprehensive historical concept, serving both as an instrument of academic insight and a means of social critique. The author deeply agrees.

历史学中边缘化资本主义的情况是不应该发生的，因为这不仅忽视了现代资本主义在欧洲兴起的基本事实，无视了资本主义发展对于近代早期世界历史的深刻影响，当然也包括对大分流的影响，而且还使历史学者失去了一个对历史进行分析的有效工具，降低了研究者进行历史批判的能力。德国历史学家于尔根·科卡曾说过，资本主义是理解现代性的核心概念，资本主义总结了经济、社会、文化以及政治等领域的时代变迁，是一个无与伦比的综合性历史概念，它既是学术洞察的工具，也是社会批判的手段。笔者深以为然。

II. Capitalism as a Mode of Production

二 作为一种生产方式的资本主义

Capitalism possesses the capacity to create abundant material wealth, but also the power to destroy society and the natural environment. Its developmental process is considered a series of "relentless revolutions." The concept of capitalism is complex in connotation and blurred in boundaries; it is indeed a contested concept, and it is understandable that many scholars avoid using it. The concept of capitalism is very difficult to define. Nevertheless, according to Marxist theory, some core elements of the concept of capitalism are still easy to grasp, and the essential characteristics of capitalism are clear.

资本主义有创造丰富的物质财富的能力，也有对社会和自然环境的破坏力，它的发展过程被认为是一系列“无情的革命”。资本主义概念内涵复杂，界限模糊，的确是一个有争议的概念，许多学者避免使用它，这不难理解。资本主义概念很难界定，不过，根据马克思主义理论，资本主义概念的一些核心因素仍容易把握，资本主义的本质特征是清晰的。

Research shows that the term "capitalism" appeared relatively late. In its early stages, capitalism was merely "some scattered modes of behavior," neither a system nor a formed concept. The concept of capitalism only began to emerge in the late 19th century. Marx did not define the concept of capitalism, and he rarely even used the noun "capitalism." When he spoke of capitalism, he usually used the adjective "capitalist," which was combined with nouns such as "mode of production" and "production" to form phrases like "capitalist mode of production" or "capitalist production." Some researchers have pointed out that one can understand capitalism in Marx's thought based on his extensive use of the phrase "capitalist mode of production" and within specific contexts.

研究表明，资本主义一词出现较晚。在初期，资本主义仅仅“是一些零散的行为方式”，既不是一种制度，也没有形成概念。资本主义概念到19世纪晚期才开始出现。马克思没有界定过资本主义概念，甚至很少使用名词“资本主义”，当他讲到资本主义时，通常使用形容词“资本主义的”，该形容词与“生产方式”“生产”等名词联系在一起，组合成“资本主义生产方式”或“资本主义生产”等词语。有研究者指出，可以根据马克思大量使用“资本主义生产方式”组词，在具体语境中理解马克思思想中的资本主义。

Marx divided periods of human history according to the mode of production. He said: "In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society." [1]1 Karl Marx, "Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Selected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), vol. 1, p. 504. If we do not quibble over terms like "capitalism," "bourgeois," or "capitalist," but instead understand Marx based on his exposition of the capitalist mode of production, then the essential points of Marx's theory of capitalism are still quite clear. He said: "The capitalist mode of production is characterized from the outset by two features. First, it produces its products as commodities. What distinguishes it from other modes of production is not the production of commodities, but the fact that being a commodity is the dominant and determining character of its products. This implies, first and foremost, that the worker himself appears only as a seller of commodities, and hence as a free wage-labourer, so that labour appears as wage-labour. ... The second feature of the capitalist mode of production is that the production of surplus-value is the direct aim and determining motive of production." [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *Marx/Engels Collected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1998), vol. 37, p. 879. In another place, he said: "Capitalist production is a social mode of production in which the process of production is subordinated to capital, or, in other words, this mode of production is based on the relationship between capital and wage-labour, and this relationship is the determining, dominant mode of production." [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 2, in *Marx/Engels Collected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1997), vol. 36, p. 38. Marx's exposition provides us with a guide for clarifying what capitalism is. Combining Marx's relevant elaborations in other texts, we can sort out some elements of the Marxist concept of capitalism.

马克思根据生产方式来划分人类历史时期，他说：“大体说来，亚细亚的、古希腊罗马的、封建的和现代资产阶级的生产方式可以看做是经济的社会形态演进的几个时代。”倘若我们不是抠“资本主义”“资产阶级的”或“资本主义的”等字眼，而是根据马克思关于资本主义生产方式的论述来理解，那么，马克思关于资本主义的理论要义还是很清楚的。他说：“资本主义生产方式一开始就有两个特征。第一，它生产的产品是商品。使它和其他生产方式相区别的不在于生产商品，而在于，成为商品是它的产品的占统治地位的决定的性质。这首先意味着，工人自己也只是表现为商品的出售者，因而表现为自由的雇佣工人，这样，劳动就表现为雇佣劳动。……资本主义生产方式的第二个特征是，剩余价值的生产是生产的直接目的和决定动机”。在另一个地方，他说：“资本主义的生产是这样一种社会生产方式，在这种生产方式下，生产过程从属于资本，或者说，这种生产方式以资本和雇佣劳动的关系为基础，而且这种关系是起决定作用的、占支配地位的生产方式”。马克思的论述为我们搞清什么是资本主义提供了指南，结合马克思在其他文论中的相关阐述，我们梳理一下马克思主义关于资本主义概念的一些要素。

First, concerning wage-labour.

第一，关于雇佣劳动。

Wage-labour is the fundamental characteristic that distinguishes the capitalist mode of production from other modes of production. It is of great significance for the capitalist mode of production and is the key to understanding Marx's theory of capitalism.

雇佣劳动是资本主义生产方式区别于其他生产方式的根本特征，对于资本主义生产方式具有重要的意义，是理解马克思资本主义理论的关键。

Wage labor existed very early on; "wage labor, which contains the germ of the entire capitalist mode of production, is very ancient; it existed sporadically and scattered alongside the slave system for hundreds of years. But only when the historical preconditions were present could this germ develop into the capitalist mode of production." The "historical preconditions" of which Marx spoke took shape in the early modern period; this is the "primitive accumulation" of capital that served as the starting point of the capitalist mode of production, of which the typical example is the English enclosure movement. The enclosure movement brought about a large-scale process of separation of the laborers from the means of production, providing the basic conditions for carrying out capitalist production, namely, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat who possess nothing but their labor-power. Once the two sides are combined in the production process, the capitalist mode of production is formed. And once capitalist production gains a firm foothold, it not only maintains this separation but reproduces it on an ever-expanding scale.

雇佣劳动很早就有，“包含着整个资本主义生产方式的萌芽的雇佣劳动是很古老的；它个别地和分散地同奴隶制度并存了几百年。但是，只有在历史前提已经具备时，这一萌芽才能发展为资本主义生产方式”。马克思所说的“历史前提”是在近代早期形成的，这就是充当资本主义生产方式起点的资本“原始积累”，其中典型的事例就是英国的圈地运动。圈地运动造成了劳动者与生产资料的大规模分离过程，提供了进行资本主义生产的基本条件，即资产者与除了劳动能力一无所有的无产者。一旦双方在生产过程中结合起来，就形成资本主义的生产方式。而资本主义生产一旦站稳脚跟，它就不仅保持这种分离，而且以不断扩大的规模再生产这种分离。

Wage labor means the combination of capital and the proletarian in the production process; because of wage labor, the capitalist mode of production becomes a form of social production, and the bourgeois and the laborer form a social relation in the production process. In this way, capitalist production is not merely an economic activity; it also constitutes a social relation.

雇佣劳动意味着资本与无产者在生产过程中的结合，由于雇佣劳动，资本主义的生产方式成为一种社会生产，资产者与劳动者在生产过程中形成一种社会关系。这样，资本主义生产就不仅仅是一种经济活动，也构成一种社会关系。

Second, concerning commodity production.

第二，关于商品生产。

Capitalist commodity production is a distinctive kind of commodity production, built on the basis that labor-power itself also becomes a commodity.

资本主义的商品生产是建立在劳动力也成为商品的基础上的、独特的商品生产。

Before capitalism, commodity production also existed, but most products were not produced as commodities. At the same time, most products entering production were not commodities; products neither entered the production process entirely as articles of trade nor left the production process entirely as articles of trade. Only on the basis of capitalist production do commodities become the general form of the product. Moreover, the more capitalist production develops, the more all components of production enter the production process as commodities.

在资本主义以前，也有商品生产存在，但大部分产品不是作为商品来生产的。同时，进入生产的大部分产品不是商品，产品既没有整个地作为交易品进入生产过程，也没有整个地作为交易品走出生产过程。只有在资本主义生产的基础上，商品才成为产品的一般形式。而且，资本主义生产越发展，一切生产的组成部分也就越是作为商品进入生产过程。

The key point here is the position and status of the laborer. According to Marx, only when the laborer is no longer a part of the conditions of production, as in slavery and serfdom, does commodity production necessarily lead to capitalist production, "namely, from the moment when labor-power itself becomes universally a commodity." Capitalist commodity production has a special significance. Marx pointed out that the commodity produced from capitalist production differs in its determinations from the commodity that is an element of capitalist production and the commodity that is a precondition of capitalist production. This distinguishes the two kinds of commodity production. Small producers can also engage in commodity production, but this differs from capitalist commodity production. Because labor-power is a commodity that the bourgeois purchases from the market, the entire system of capitalist production is built on the worker's selling of his labor-power as a commodity. "Only on the basis of capitalist production does commodity production appear as the standard, dominant character of production"; "only from this point does commodity production become universalized and become the typical form; only from this point does every product from the very beginning exist for the purpose of being sold, and all wealth produced passes through circulation. Only when wage labor becomes the basis of commodity production is commodity production imposed upon the whole of society." Thus it can be seen that capitalist commodity production is a distinctive kind of commodity production, and the market economy becomes a thoroughgoing market economy only under capitalist conditions.

这里的关键是劳动者的地位和身份，按照马克思的说法，只有在劳动者不再是生产条件的一部分，如奴隶制和农奴制，商品生产才必然导致资本主义生产，“就是从劳动力本身普遍地成为商品的时刻起”。资本主义的商品生产具有特别的意义，马克思指出，从资本主义生产中产生的商品与作为资本主义生产元素的商品，作为资本主义生产的前提的商品是有不同的规定的。这就把两种商品生产区别开来了，小生产者也可以从事商品生产，但与资本主义的商品生产是不同的，由于劳动力是资产者从市场购买来的商品，资本主义生产的整个体系，建立在工人把自己的劳动力当作商品出卖的基础上，“只有在资本主义生产的基础上，商品生产才表现为生产的标准的，占统治地位的性质”，“只有从这时起，商品生产才普遍化，才成为典型的形式；只有从这时起，每一个产品才一开始就是为卖而生产，而生产出来的一切财富都要经过流通。只有当雇佣劳动成为商品生产的基础时，商品生产才强加于整个社会”。可见，资本主义商品生产是一种独特的商品生产，市场经济也只有在资本主义条件下才成为彻底的市场经济。

Third, concerning the continuous accumulation of capital.

第三，关于不断的资本积累。

The continuous accumulation of capital is the purpose of capitalist production.

资本的不断积累是资本主义生产的目的。

Marx said: "The motive and determining purpose of the capitalist production process is the self-expansion of capital as much as possible." Unlike other historical modes of production, capitalist production is not production for the producer's own consumption, nor is it production in which the producer sells surplus products after satisfying his own consumption needs; it is a production of production–sale–reproduction–resale, in a continuous cycle, carried out for the purpose of expanding capital. Making accumulation continuously increase is the purpose of capitalist production, and the bourgeois is the personification of capital. For the individual bourgeois, accumulation or production on an expanded scale is a means by which the production of surplus value continuously expands, and thus the capitalist enriches himself. Later, "due to the development of capitalist production, it becomes a necessity for any individual capitalist. The continuous expansion of his capital becomes the condition for preserving his capital." The development of capitalist production makes it necessary for capital invested in industrial enterprises to grow continuously; competition compels him to continuously expand his capital in order to maintain his capital, and he can expand his capital only through progressive accumulation. Therefore, from the perspective of capitalist production, "the capitalist mode of production cannot possibly remain stable and unchanged; it must grow and expand, otherwise it must die... the necessity of continuous expansion is the foundation of the existence of the capitalist mode of production."

马克思说：“资本主义生产过程的动机和决定目的，是资本尽可能多地自行增殖”。与历史上其他的生产方式不同，资本主义不是为了生产者自我消费而进行的生产，也不是生产者在满足自己的消费需要以后，出售多余产品的生产，这是一种生产—销售—再生产—再销售，不断循环，为了增殖资本而进行的生产。使积累不断增加，是资本主义生产的目的，资产者则是资本的人格化。从资产者个人来说，积累或规模扩大的生产，是剩余价值生产不断扩大，从而资本家发财致富的手段。后来，“由于资本主义生产的发展，它对于任何单个资本家都成为一种必要。他的资本的不断扩大，成为保存他的资本的条件”。资本主义生产的发展，使投入工业企业的资本有不断增长的必要，竞争迫使他不断扩大自己的资本来维持自己的资本，而他扩大资本只能靠累进的积累。所以，从资本主义生产的角度来说，“资本主义生产方式是不可能稳定不变的，它必须增长和扩大，否则必定死亡……必须持续扩大是资本主义生产存在的基础”。

Fourth, concerning the driving force of capitalist development.

第四，关于资本主义发展的动力。

The nature and tendency of the unlimited accumulation of capital give rise to an inexhaustible driving force in the capitalist mode of production.

资本无限积累的本性和趋势，使资本主义生产方式产生了不竭的动力。

Marx said: "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conversely, the preservation of the old mode of production in unaltered form was the primary condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones."

马克思说：“资产阶级除非对生产工具，从而对生产关系，从而对全部社会关系不断地进行革命，否则就不能生存下去。反之，原封不动地保持旧的生产方式，却是过去的一切工业阶级生存的首要条件。生产的不断变革，一切社会状况不停的动荡，永远的不安定和变动，这就是资产阶级时代不同于过去一切时代的地方。”

Recognizing that capital has the unchanging nature of unlimited accumulation and that capitalist development has an inexhaustible driving force, we can understand the process by which capitalism was able to grow and develop continuously in the world history of the past five centuries, as well as the stage-by-stage changes that world history has presented in the process of capitalism's continuously expanding influence. The modern and contemporary world history since the 16th century cannot be reduced to the history of capitalism, but the development of capitalism has by and large determined the main thread and rhythm of the development of world history.

认识到资本有无限积累的不变本性和资本主义发展有不竭的动力，我们就可以理解在过去五个世纪的世界历史中资本主义能够不断成长和发展的过程，以及在资本主义不断扩大影响的过程中，世界历史呈现出来的阶段性变化。16世纪以来的近现代世界历史不能被简化为资本主义的历史，但资本主义的发展，大体上决定了世界历史的发展脉络和节奏。

Fifth, concerning the world market.

第五，关于世界市场。

The world market is the foundation of the capitalist mode of production.

世界市场是资本主义生产方式的基础。

Marx said: "If, in the 16th century, and partly still in the 17th, the sudden expansion of commerce and the formation of a new world market had an overwhelming influence on the decline of the old mode of production and the rise of the capitalist mode of production, this conversely took place on the basis of the already formed capitalist mode of production. The world market itself forms the foundation of this mode of production. On the other hand, the inherent necessity of this mode of production to produce on an ever-increasing scale impels the continuous expansion of the world market, so that here it is not commerce that revolutionizes industry, but industry that constantly revolutionizes commerce."

马克思说：“如果说在16世纪，部分地说直到17世纪，商业的突然扩大和新世界市场的形成，对旧生产方式的衰落和资本主义生产方式的勃兴，产生过压倒一切的影响，那么，这种情况反过来是在已经形成的资本主义生产方式的基础上发生的。世界市场本身形成这个生产方式的基础。另一方面，这个生产方式所固有的以越来越大的规模进行生产的必要性，促使世界市场不断扩大，所以，在这里不是商业使工业发生革命，而是工业不断使商业发生革命。”

Why is the relationship between capitalism and the world market inseparable? Marx also explained this: the more capital develops, the more the market expands; "the capitalist mode of production presupposes production on a large scale, and likewise presupposes sale on a large scale"; "for industrial production, the continuous expansion of the market is its condition of life. Continuously expanding mass production will glut the existing market, and therefore it continuously expands this market, breaking through its limits. What limits this mass production is not commerce (insofar as commerce merely reflects existing demand), but the magnitude of the capital employed and the level of development of labor productivity. The industrial capitalist always faces the world market." Therefore, "the tendency to create the world market is already directly contained in the concept of capital itself."

为什么资本主义与世界市场的关系不可分割？马克思也作了阐述：资本越发展，市场越扩大，“资本主义生产方式以大规模的生产为前提，同样也必须以大规模的出售为前提”，“对工业生产来说，市场的不断扩大则是它的生活条件。不断扩大的大量生产，会使现有市场商品充斥，因此，它不断扩大这个市场，突破它的界限。限制这种大量生产的，不是商业（就它仅仅反映现有需求而言），而是执行资本的量和劳动生产力的发展水平。产业资本家总是面对世界市场”。所以说，“创造世界市场的趋势已经直接包含在资本的概念本身中”。

In this way, the understanding of the capitalist mode of production must necessarily include the world market. Marx indeed said this: "Generally speaking, the world market is the foundation and living environment of the capitalist mode of production"; "in the development of the capitalist mode of production, due to the inner necessity of this mode of production, due to its requirement for the continuous expansion of the market, it becomes the product of this mode of production itself."

这样说来，对资本主义生产方式的理解，必然要包括世界市场。马克思确实这样说过：“一般说来，世界市场是资本主义生产方式的基础和生活环境”，“在资本主义生产方式的发展中，由于这种生产方式的内在必然性，由于这种生产方式要求不断扩大市场，它成为这种生产方式本身的产物”。

Sixth, concerning the decisive role and dominant position of the capitalist mode of production.

第六，关于资本主义生产方式起决定作用和占统治地位。

This is a process that can be divided into two stages: first, the early modern period; second, the period after the Industrial Revolution.

这是一个可以分为两个阶段的过程：一是近代早期；二是工业革命以后。

The subordination of the production process to capital is something that occurred when capitalism developed from commercial capitalism to the era of industrial capitalism. During the period of manufacture, the power of capital was still growing. Insofar as this kind of production could export its products, manufacture was entirely dependent on the state of commerce, and its reaction on commerce was relatively small. Until the eighteenth century, both manufacturers and merchants still sought the protection of the state. However, from the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century onward, world trade and the world market began to take shape, and with such a foundation, the capitalist mode of production "was bound to become more and more the mode of production holding absolute dominance." That is to say, although the capitalist mode of production had not yet achieved dominance in the early modern period, the tendency toward dominance had already taken shape in the commercial capitalist stage of the early modern era.

生产过程从属于资本，是资本主义从商业资本主义发展到工业资本主义时代的事情。在工场手工业时期，资本的力量正在成长。就这种生产能够输出自己的产品来说，工场手工业完全依赖于商业的形势，而它对商业的反作用相对来说也较小。直到18世纪，工场手工业者和商人都还在寻求国家的保护。但是，从15世纪末和16世纪初起，世界贸易和世界市场开始形成，有了这样的基础，资本主义生产方式“必然要越来越成为占绝对支配地位的生产方式”。这就是说，资本主义生产方式虽然在近代早期还没有占据支配地位，但占据支配地位的趋势，已经在近代早期的商业资本主义阶段形成。

Indeed, by the time of the Industrial Revolution, the capitalist mode of production was established, and the real subsumption of labor under capital occurred. The factory system displayed the typical form of the capitalist mode of production, in which capital and wage labor were combined and entered into the production process. Once industrial capital gained a firm foothold, it became the decisive and dominant mode of production, and its influence on the social economy burst forth. Thus, large-scale industry controlled commerce, turned all capital into industrial capital, and thereby accelerated circulation (with the development of the monetary system) and concentrated capital in large-scale industry. Marx said this: industrial capital determines the capitalist character of production, and as industrial capital comes to dominate social production, the social organization of technology and the labor process is transformed, and thereby the socio-economic historical type of society is also transformed. Those forms of capital that existed before industrial capital, in past or declining states of social production, not only had to subordinate themselves to industrial capital but also had to change their functional mechanisms to adapt to it. Capitalist commodity production transforms the entire economic structure of society and incomparably surpasses all earlier periods; the more capitalist commodity production develops, the more it destroys and dissolves every old form of production that mainly directly satisfies one's own needs and converts only surplus products into commodities, and it destroys all forms of commodity production based on the producer's own labor or selling only surplus products as commodities. It first universalizes commodity production, then gradually transforms all commodity production into capitalist commodity production.

果然，到工业革命时期，资本主义生产方式建立起来，劳动对资本的实际上的从属就发生了。工厂制度展示了资本主义生产方式的典型形态，在这里，资本与雇佣劳动结合起来进入生产过程。产业资本一旦站稳脚跟，它就成为具有决定性的和占支配地位的生产方式，对社会经济的影响力爆发出来。所以，大工业控制了商业，把所有的资本都变为工业资本，从而使流通加速（货币制度得到发展）、资本集中于大工业。马克思这样说：产业资本决定了生产的资本主义性质，随着产业资本支配社会的生产，技术和劳动过程的社会组织就会发生变革，从而社会的经济历史类型也会发生变革。那几种在产业资本以前，在已成过去的或正在衰落的社会生产状态中就已出现的资本，不仅要从属于产业资本，而且要改变其职能机制来和产业资本相适应。资本主义商品生产，使社会的整个经济结构发生变革，并且不可比拟地超越了以前的一切时期，资本主义商品生产越发展，它对主要是直接满足自己需要而只把多余产品转化为的每一种旧生产形式，就越发生破坏和解体的作用，就会把一切以生产者本人劳动为基础或只把多余产品当作商品出售的商品生产形式尽行破坏。它首先是使商品生产普遍化，然后使一切商品生产逐步转化为资本主义的商品生产。

Seventh, on the beginning of the capitalist era.

第七，关于资本主义时代的开始。

The capitalist era began in the sixteenth century.

资本主义时代开始于16世纪。

As we have touched on above, since ancient times, the seeds of capitalism have appeared in various parts of the world. However, the growth of capitalism is different from the seeds of capitalism. Only when capitalism grew up did world history begin a new era. Marx said: "Although in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, scattered along the coasts of the Mediterranean, there appeared the first seeds of capitalist production, the capitalist era begins only in the sixteenth century."

我们在前面已有所涉及，自古以来，资本主义萌芽在世界各地都有出现。但是，资本主义的成长与资本主义萌芽是不同的。资本主义成长起来，世界历史才开始一个新的时代。马克思说：“虽然在14和15世纪，在地中海沿岸的某些城市已经稀疏地出现了资本主义生产的最初萌芽，但是资本主义时代是从16世纪开始的”。

Why does the history of modern capitalism begin in the sixteenth century? Marx provides us with the answer. He said: "The prelude to the transformation that laid the foundations of the capitalist mode of production was played out in the last three decades of the fifteenth century and the first decades of the sixteenth." The "prelude to the transformation" refers to the English enclosure movement that separated the producers from the means of production. He then continued: "In England, and especially in Flanders, the prosperity of the woolen manufacture, and the consequent rise in the price of wool, directly promoted this matter (referring to the enclosure movement — author's note)." Thus, the arrival of the capitalist era was directly related to the development of industry and commerce at that time. However, the commerce and trade Marx spoke of were not ordinary commercial activities; he clearly distinguished between the trade that existed in the pre-capitalist era and the circulation of commodities in the capitalist era, the latter being based on the world market. For example, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Italian cities had already seen the seeds of capitalism, but world trade had not yet occurred at that time, the world market had not yet formed, and the capitalist era had not yet arrived. Marx spoke of three main facts of capitalist production, one of which was "the formation of the world market." He said: "World trade and the world market in the sixteenth century opened the modern life-history of capital," and "in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the great revolution in commerce, occasioned by geographical discoveries and rapidly promoting the development of merchant capital, was a major factor in the transition from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of production. The sudden expansion of the world market, the multiplication of the kinds of commodities in circulation, the competitive zeal of European nations to possess Asian products and American treasures, the colonial system — all of this played a major role in breaking the feudal fetters on production."

为什么现代资本主义的历史要从16世纪开始？马克思给我们提供了答案。他说：“为资本主义生产方式奠定基础的变革的序幕，是在15世纪最后30多年和16世纪最初几十年演出的”。“变革的序幕”是指造成生产者与生产资料分离的英国圈地运动。他接着又说：“在英国，特别是佛兰德毛纺织工场手工业的繁荣，以及由此引起的羊毛价格的上涨，对这件事（指圈地运动——笔者注）起了直接的推动作用”。可见，资本主义时代的到来与当时工商业的发展有直接关系。不过，马克思所说的商业贸易并非一般的商业贸易活动，他明确区分了前资本主义时代已经存在的贸易与资本主义时代商品流通，后者是以世界市场为基础的。例如，在14、15世纪，意大利城市已经出现资本主义萌芽，但世界贸易在那时还没有发生，世界市场还没有形成，资本主义的时代还没有到来。马克思讲到资本主义生产有三个主要事实，其中之一就是“世界市场的形成”。他说，“世界贸易和世界市场在16世纪揭开了资本的现代生活史”，“在16世纪和17世纪，由于地理上的发现而在商业上发生的并迅速促进了商人资本发展的大革命，是促进封建生产方式向资本主义生产方式过渡的一个主要因素。世界市场的突然扩大，流通商品种类的倍增，欧洲各国竭力想占有亚洲产品和美洲宝藏的竞争热，殖民制度，——所有这一切对打破生产的封建束缚起了重大的作用”。

The above discussion of seven aspects reveals the basic characteristics of modern capitalism, all of which are distinctive. They are of important guiding significance for us in distinguishing, within the capitalism growing in early modern Europe, the differences from simple commodity production based on small-scale production, from the commodity economy relying on regional and domestic markets, and from capitalism that was merely in a "seed" state and had not yet grown up; they provide us with a line of thought for understanding why world history went from fragmentation to integration, why global connections became ever closer, and why modernization based on industrialization later developed extensively; and they provide us with a basis for confirming why the great divergence between Europe and other parts of the world had already begun in the sixteenth century, rather than having to wait until after 1800. Of course, they also establish a preliminary theoretical framework for our argument that full recognition of the development of capitalism is of great importance for understanding early modern, and indeed the entire modern and contemporary, world history.

以上七个方面的讨论揭示了现代资本主义的基本特征，它们都是独特的，对于我们辨识在近代早期的欧洲正在成长中的资本主义生产方式，与以小生产为基础的简单商品生产、以区域市场和国内市场为依托的商品经济，以及仅仅处在“萌芽”状态而尚未成长起来的资本主义的差别，具有重要的指导意义；为我们理解世界历史为什么从分散到整体、全球联系为什么越来越紧密、以工业化为基础的现代化为什么在后来广泛地发展起来，提供了思路；也为我们确认为什么欧洲与世界其他地区的大分流从16世纪开始就已经发生，而不是要等到1800年以后才发生分流，提供了依据。当然，也为我们主张要充分认识资本主义发展对于理解近代早期，乃至整个近现代时期的世界历史的重要性，建立了初步的理论框架。

III. The Two Faces of Capitalism

三 资本主义的两个面向

The growth and development of capitalism, and its major and far-reaching influence on European and world history, is the basic fact of world history over the past five centuries, but this fact has two faces, namely the creativity and the destructiveness of capitalism.

资本主义成长和发展、资本主义的发展对欧洲和世界历史产生重大而深远的影响，是过去五个世纪世界历史的基本事实，但这个事实具有两面性,即资本主义的创造性和破坏性。

Unlike seemingly neutral terms such as market economy, Smithian growth, modernization, and globalization, the concept of capitalism has a distinct character. On the one hand, the positive and affirmative significance of capitalism is highly prominent—for instance, in developing the productive forces, Marx said: “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. … What earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces were slumbering in the lap of social labor?” This assessment remains applicable to this day. The rapid development of the productive forces—including what capitalism has manifested at different stages of its development, such as so-called Smithian growth, the modernization “take-off,” Kuznets growth, and the “creative destruction” type of growth proposed by Schumpeter—can all be observed in the different stages of capitalist development. In sociopolitical terms, Marx also offered high praise, saying: “The bourgeoisie has played a most revolutionary part in history”; large-scale industry created the modern world market and, for the first time, opened up world history. In terms of ideas and concepts, those things we today regard as modern Western values—such as democracy, freedom, and human rights—all emerged and spread with the development of capitalism, and played a very positive role in opposing feudalism and despotism. In short, the historical progressiveness of capitalism is rich in content, and capitalism itself is in a state of continuous development and progress. However, on the other hand, the problems capitalism has brought are also evident—such as the widening gap between rich and poor, intensifying social inequality, and global tensions caused by hegemonic expansion—and the impulse of capital to “disembed” itself by overriding the social order has always existed. The trend of global ecological deterioration is even more pronounced, and the capitalist mode of production, which aims at unlimited accumulation, is unsustainable. While affirming the historical progressiveness of capitalism in the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx had already arranged for the bourgeoisie its “gravedigger,” which refers to the internal social contradictions of capitalism. From the perspective of natural conditions, capitalism likewise cannot achieve unlimited accumulation within a finite material world.

与市场经济、斯密型增长、现代化、全球化等看似中性的词汇不同，资本主义概念具有鲜明的个性，一方面，资本主义的积极和正面意义十分突出，比如发展生产力方面，马克思说：“资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大，……过去哪一个世纪料想到在社会劳动里蕴藏有这样的生产力呢？”这个评说至今仍然适用。生产力的飞速发展，包括资本主义在不同的发展阶段所表现出来的所谓的斯密型增长、现代化“起飞”、库兹涅茨增长，以及熊彼特提出的“创造性破坏”式的增长，等等，我们都可以在资本主义发展的不同阶段里观察到。在社会政治方面，马克思也作过高度的评价，他说：“资产阶级在历史上曾经起过非常革命的作用”；大工业创造了现代的世界市场，也首次开创了世界历史。在思想观念方面，我们今天视为现代西方价值观的那些东西，如民主、自由、人权等，都是随资本主义发展而出现和传播的，在反对封建主义和专制主义方面起过非常积极的作用。总之，资本主义的历史进步性的内涵非常丰富，资本主义本身就处在不断的发展和进步之中。不过，另一方面，资本主义带来的问题也是明显的，如贫富差别扩大，社会不平等加剧，霸权扩张引起全球紧张关系，等等，资本欲凌驾于社会秩序之上的“脱嵌”冲动始终存在。全球生态环境恶化的趋势更加明显，以无限积累为目的的资本主义生产方式是不可持续的。马克思在《共产党宣言》里肯定资本主义历史进步性的同时，也已经为资产阶级安排好了它的“掘墓人”，这是就资本主义内在的社会矛盾而言。从自然条件来看，资本主义也无法在有限的物质世界里实现无限的积累。

These two facets of the capitalist mode of production make the concept of capitalism an effective analytical tool for our historical narration, especially in explaining certain “destructive” aspects of history; using the concept of capitalism is more appropriate than using concepts such as market economy, modernization, or globalization. For example, in explaining colonial plunder, conquest, and war, global history research uses “interaction” as its core concept to illustrate the various exchanges and contacts between different civilizations and ethnic groups in history, and war is one of the forms of “interaction” that global historians refer to. Here a difficulty arises: interaction, literally speaking, should refer to mutual relations occurring between two or more parties on an equal basis. However, predatory wars in the early modern period could not be conducted or concluded in an equal manner. Therefore, as the core concept of global history, “interaction” has obvious limitations in explaining the history of modern colonialism. Using “interaction” to explain colonial plunder and war would almost overturn people’s view of history and their values. Likewise, if the concept of “interaction” were used to comment on the Opium Wars and the First Sino-Japanese War, we could not accept it morally, emotionally, or cognitively. However, the concept of capitalism resolves the above problem well. In Marx’s theory, colonial plunder, conquest, and the fate of the Indians belong to the historical content of the “primitive accumulation” period of capital. Marx said that when capital comes into the world, from head to toe, from every pore, blood and filth drip from it. It is evident that when historians use the concept of capitalism to view certain historical problems, they have grasped a useful analytical and critical tool.

资本主义生产方式的这两个面向，使资本主义概念成为我们进行历史叙事的一个有效的分析工具，特别是在解释历史上的一些“破坏性”方面的内容，使用资本主义概念比用市场经济、现代化、全球化等概念更加合适，比如解释殖民掠夺、征服和战争，全球史研究使用“互动”为核心概念来说明历史上不同文明、不同族群之间的各种交流和接触，战争就是全球史学者所说的“互动”形式之一。这里就出现了一个困难：互动，从字面上说，应该是指双方或各方在平等的基础上发生的相互关系。但是，近代早期的掠夺性战争是不可能以平等的方式进行和结束的。所以，“互动”作为全球史的核心概念，它在解释近代殖民主义历史方面的局限性十分明显。用“互动”来解释殖民掠夺和战争，简直要颠覆人们的历史观和价值观。同样，如果用“互动”概念来评说鸦片战争和甲午战争，我们无论在道德、感情和认知上都是不能接受的。但是，资本主义概念很好地解决了上述问题，在马克思的理论里，殖民掠夺、征服和印第安人的命运，属于资本“原始积累”时期的历史内容。马克思称资本来到人世间，从头到脚每一个毛孔里都滴着血和肮脏的东西。可见，历史学者运用资本主义概念来看待一些历史问题，就是掌握了一个有用的分析和批判工具。

Let us turn from social problems to environmental problems. Ecological and environmental problems are closely related to capitalism. Marx said, “The capitalist mode of production presupposes the domination of nature by man.” Since the early modern period, changes in the global ecological environment have almost kept pace with the rhythm of capitalist development. Although ecological and environmental changes have many complex causes, capitalism is the main cause of global ecological and environmental changes since the early modern period.

我们再从社会问题转到环境问题。生态环境问题与资本主义关系甚大，马克思说，“资本主义生产方式以人对自然的支配为前提”。近代早期以来，全球生态环境的变迁几乎和着资本主义发展的节奏。尽管生态环境的变迁有很多复杂的原因，但资本主义是近代早期以来全球生态环境变迁的主要原因。

There are two basic facts worth noting.

有两个基本的事实值得注意。

First, the capitalist mode of production is based on the world market, and the formation of the world market provided the geographical space for the emergence of global ecological and environmental problems.

一是资本主义生产方式以世界市场为基础，世界市场的形成为全球生态环境问题的出现提供了地理空间。

From the time of the Age of Discovery and the opening of new sea routes, the flow of people, goods, and diseases began to circulate globally, and later generations used the term “Columbian Exchange” to summarize the changes in the world’s ecological environment in the early modern period. Taking changes in the distribution of human races as an example, due to colonial conquest and the prevalence of diseases brought from the Old World on the American continent, the indigenous population declined sharply; while the demand for labor on colonial plantations gave rise to the slave trade that lasted for two to three centuries, with a total of 11 million Black people trafficked to the Americas as slaves by Europeans, changing the stable global distribution of races that had existed for tens of thousands of years. The development of the plantation economy itself also changed the local environment; sugarcane and cotton were not native products of the Americas, and large-scale cultivation changed the ecological conditions of the Caribbean region and North America, also causing damage to the soil environment; in Southeast Asia, because of the need for the spice trade, Dutch colonists once cleared large areas of local vegetation and replaced it with spice cultivation; after rubber became a major industrial raw material, in order to meet market demand, Europeans transplanted rubber trees from the Americas to Southeast Asia for large-scale cultivation; while the primeval forests of the Amazon basin in the Americas were wantonly felled and transported to all parts of the world. There are many such things and related studies concerning the ecological environment, too numerous to enumerate. In short, when a product or commodity is supplied to the world market, the resource consumption required to produce that commodity is extremely large. Large-scale sales are conditioned on large-scale production, and large-scale production requires a large supply of raw materials; the cyclical repetition of large-scale commodity production means continuous extraction of ecological resources, and capitalism continuously expands its frontier in nature. In short, “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization.”

从地理大发现和新航路开辟之时起，人流、物流、疾病等就开始全球性流动，后人用“哥伦布大交换”一词来概括近代早期的世界在生态环境方面的变化。以人种分布的变化来说，由于殖民征服和从旧大陆带去的疾病流行于美洲大陆，土著居民人口急剧下降；而殖民地种植园对劳动力的需求，引起持续时间长达两三个世纪的奴隶贸易，一共有1100万黑人被欧洲人贩卖到美洲为奴，改变了千万年来人种在全球稳定分布的局面。种植园经济的发展本身也改变了当地的环境，甘蔗和棉花都不是美洲本土的物产，大规模的种植改变了加勒比地区和北美的生态条件，也对土壤环境造成破坏；在东南亚，因为香料贸易的需要，荷兰殖民者曾经大片清除当地植物，改种香料；橡胶成为主要的工业原料后，为了满足市场需要，欧洲人把橡胶树从美洲移植到东南亚进行大规模种植；美洲亚马孙流域的原始森林则被大肆砍伐运输到世界各地。在生态环境方面所发生的此类事情及相关的研究很多，不一而足。总之，当一种产品或商品供应给世界市场的时候，为生产这种商品的资源消耗量是极大的。大规模销售以大规模生产为条件，而大规模生产需要原材料的大量供应，大规模的商品生产循环往复，意味着对生态资源的不断索取，资本主义在自然界中不断扩张它的前沿。总之，“资产阶级，由于开拓了世界市场，使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了”。

However, this is only one aspect of the matter; the production of commodities to supply the global market also entailed enormous energy consumption. For a long period, owing to the local character of markets, human demand for energy typically depended on the supply of organic matter grown locally. But now, the old energy supply could no longer keep pace with the needs of large-scale production for the world market. Hence coal and other mineral energy sources were developed. The British historian E. A. Wrigley calls this the transition from an organic economy to an economy based on mineral energy. Kenneth Pomeranz says that one important reason for the Great Divergence was that England had abundant, easily accessible coal. This claim sounds plausible. But coal had existed beneath England and across Europe for tens of millions of years, and people had long known of coal and had continuously used it as fuel, whether in production or for heating; it simply had never been mined on a large scale. Only when the capitalist mode of production developed further and the demand of the world market expanded could the vast quantities of coal buried beneath England for tens of millions of years see the light of day. Marx said: “Favorable natural conditions always provide only the possibility of surplus labor, and thus only the possibility of surplus value or surplus product, not its reality.” That coal could provide the reality of surplus labor was realized under capitalist conditions. Historians of the “California School” ignore the role of capitalist development and make much of the importance of coal; their argument seems reasonable, yet the reasoning is all too superficial. The other factor they discuss in relation to the Great Divergence—how important it was that England possessed overseas colonies—is marked by the same superficiality as their view of coal. In short, whatever the scale of commodity production, there will be a corresponding scale of resource consumption and a corresponding volume of waste and exhaust emissions. With accumulation as its goal, large-scale production and large-scale consumption, environmental degradation and ecological destruction, are all intertwined yet inversely proportional problems. When Marx discusses the relationship between labor productivity and natural conditions, he points out that the fertility of some natural conditions tends to decline correspondingly as productivity, determined by social conditions, rises.

然而，这还只是事情的一个方面，为了生产供应全球市场的商品，能源的消耗也极大。在很长时期内，由于市场的地方性质，人类对能源的需求通常依赖于当地生长的有机物供给。但是现在，过去的能源供应跟不上为世界市场进行大规模生产的需要。于是，煤炭及其他矿物能源就被开发出来。英国历史学家里格利称之为从有机物经济到以矿物能源为基础的经济的转变。彭慕兰说，大分流的一个重要原因是英格兰有丰富的、可以方便利用的煤炭。这个说法听起来有道理。但煤炭在英国和欧洲各地存在了千万年，人们也早已知道煤炭并且一直在使用煤炭作为燃料，或用于生产，或用于取暖，只是一直没有大规模开采。等到资本主义生产方式进一步发展，世界市场的需求扩大，埋在英格兰地下千万年的大量煤炭才能重见天日。马克思说：“良好的自然条件始终只提供剩余劳动的可能性，从而只提供剩余价值或剩余产品的可能性，而就不能提供它的现实性”，煤炭能够提供剩余劳动的现实性，是在资本主义条件下实现的。“加州学派”的历史学家无视资本主义发展的作用而大谈煤炭的重要性，似乎有理但道理又太过浅显。他们谈大分流的另一个因素，即英国拥有海外殖民地是如何的重要，其认识的浅表性如同对煤炭的看法一样。总之，有多大规模的商品生产，就会有多大程度的资源消耗，就会有多少废物和废气排放。以积累为目的，大规模生产与大规模消费、环境的退化与生态的破坏，都是交织在一起但成反比的问题。马克思讲劳动生产率和自然条件的关系时指出，有些自然条件的丰饶度往往随着社会条件所决定的生产率的提高而相应地减低。

Second, the tendency of capital toward unlimited accumulation possesses a destructive force for the ecological environment that is difficult to restrain.

二是资本无限积累的趋势，对生态环境具有难以抑制的破坏力。

Production aimed at the accumulation of capital, while creating unprecedented productive forces, also creates unprecedented destructive forces. Schumpeter proposed the theory of “creative destruction,” which strikes at the vital point of the capitalist mode of production. Schumpeter’s theory is mainly concerned with the innovation and destruction of old economic structures and the creation of new ones. Applied to the analysis of ecological and environmental problems, it can still yield profound insights—for example, destroying the pristine natural environment and on that basis establishing a new “natural” environment suited to commodity production; the constant upgrading and replacement of consumer goods and the excessive packaging of commodities to expand their market can all be understood as “creative destruction.” “Creative destruction” in the ecological and environmental sphere is undoubtedly immoral, but from the standpoint of capital accumulation, “creative destruction” is precisely what serves the needs of accumulation. Accumulation for the sake of accumulation, production for the sake of production—this was the historical mission of the bourgeois epoch; “the method by which capital attains this end is to determine the volume of production by the scale of production, and not the reverse.” [7]7 Marx, Capital, vol. 1, ch. 24, section 3: “Accumulation of Capital and the Reproduction of the Capitalist Relation.” The phrase describes the method by which capital pursues accumulation. As long as capital accumulation becomes the purpose of the capitalist mode of production, everything else becomes a means. In the conduct of commodity trade, what is considered is the gain of profit; the same applies to natural resources.

以资本积累为目的的生产，在它创造出前所未有的生产力的同时，也造成了前所未有的破坏力。熊彼特提出“创造性破坏”的理论，击中了资本主义生产方式的要害。熊彼特的理论主要涉及旧的经济结构的革新和破坏，并创造新的结构。把他的理论用在生态环境问题的分析上，依然可以产生深刻的洞见，例如，破坏原生态的自然环境，并在此基础上建立一种与商品生产相适应的新的“自然”环境；消费品不断更新换代和为了扩大商品销路而对商品进行过度包装，都可以作“创造性破坏”的理解。生态环境方面的“创造性破坏”无疑是不道德的，但从资本积累的角度看，“创造性破坏”正是服务于资本积累的需要。为积累而积累，为生产而生产这是资产阶级时期的历史使命，“资本达到这个目的所用的方法，是按照生产的规模来决定生产量，而不是相反”。只要资本积累成为资本主义生产方式的目的，其他便都成了手段。在进行商品贸易时，考虑的是获得利润，在自然资源方面，也是这样。

IV. Understanding Early Modern World History from the Perspective of Capitalism

四 从资本主义视角理解近代早期世界史

Once one has clarified the Marxist theory of the capitalist mode of production and the two faces of capitalism, many problems in examining early modern world history are not difficult to unravel, and some existing understandings can be deepened.

弄清了马克思主义关于资本主义生产方式的理论，以及资本主义的两个面向，再来审视近代早期的世界历史，很多问题不难解开，并且能够深化一些已有认识。

Regarding the relationship between the development of commercial trade and the growth of capitalism, there is a frequent misunderstanding: that the vigorous development of a commodity economy will lead to capitalism, and that this view is thought to come from Marx. Yet according to the experience of Chinese history, this understanding has already fallen into crisis. This is, of course, a misreading of Marx, for Marx never said any such thing.

商业贸易的发展与资本主义成长之间的关系，经常存在着一种误解，以为商品经济的蓬勃发展就会导致资本主义，而且认为这个认识来自马克思，而根据中国历史的经验，这种认识已经发生了危机。这当然是对马克思的误解，因为马克思从来没有这么说过。

Capital takes many forms, including usurer’s capital, commercial capital, industrial capital, and financial capital. The first two were the dominant forms of capital in the early modern period. Marx calls them “antediluvian forms,” indicating that they are both very ancient, that they do not belong to the modern history of capital, nor to the actual system of production governed by capital, but rather to the “historical premises of capital.” Existing research shows that the earliest germs of capitalism were born in long-distance trade in antiquity and were scattered across the world; these studies all corroborate Marx’s claim. The relationship between commercial trade and the growth of capitalism is so close that people often take the development of commercial trade as something capitalist, or assume that the development of commercial trade will necessarily lead to the development of capitalism. From the perspective of Marxist theory, these claims are all misreadings of Marx. Marx says that the independent development of merchant’s capital is inversely proportional to the degree of development of capitalist production; “the development of merchant’s capital in itself is not sufficient to bring about or explain the transition from one mode of production to another.” [8]8 Marx, Capital, vol. 3, ch. 20: “Historical Facts about Merchant’s Capital.” Marx argues that the independent development of merchant’s capital is inversely proportional to the degree of development of capitalist production. Marx repeatedly stated that the development of commercial trade is the condition and premise of the development of the capitalist mode of production; for capital to form and to be able to dominate production, commerce must have reached a certain stage, and therefore commodity circulation and hence commodity production must have reached a certain stage. But the entire system of capitalist production is founded on the worker’s sale of his labor-power as a commodity. Only when laborers sell their labor-power as a commodity does commodity production become universalized. And only on the basis of capitalist production does commodity production appear as the standard, dominant character of production. This makes perfectly clear the relationship between commercial trade and the development of the commodity economy, on the one hand, and the capitalist mode of production, on the other, as commonly understood.

资本包括高利贷资本、商业资本、工业资本、金融资本等多种形式。前两种资本是近代早期占主要地位的资本形式，马克思称它们是“洪水期前的形态”，说明它们都很古老，不属于资本的现代史，不属于受资本统治的生产方式的实际体系，而属于“资本的历史前提”。现有研究表明，最早的资本主义萌芽诞生于古代的长途贸易之中，遍及世界各地，这些研究都为马克思的说法提供了印证。商业贸易与资本主义成长的关系密切，以致人们往往把商业贸易的发展看成资本主义的东西，或者，以为商业贸易的发展必然会引起资本主义的发展。从马克思主义理论来看，这些说法都是对马克思的误解。马克思说，商人资本的独立发展与资本主义生产的发展程度成反比，“商人资本的发展就它本身来说，还不足以促成和说明一个生产方式到另一个生产方式的过渡”。马克思反复说过，商业贸易的发展是资本主义生产方式发展的条件和前提，要使资本能够形成并且能够支配生产，需要商业发展到一定的阶段，因此也需要商品流通从而商品生产发展到一定的阶段。但是，资本主义生产的整个体系，是建立在工人把自己的劳动力当作商品出卖的基础上的。只有劳动者把自己的劳动力作为商品出卖，商品生产才普遍化。也只有在资本主义生产的基础上，商品生产才表现为生产的标准的、占统治地位的性质。这就把一般所见的商业贸易和商品经济发展与资本主义生产方式之间的关系说得明明白白。

In recent years, some scholars have favored the use of various “technical” terms—Smithian growth, Kuznets growth, Schumpeterian growth are common expressions. Viewed within the long-term development of the modern economy, such or such types of growth mainly reflect the dominant modes of development of capitalism at different historical stages. For example, Smithian growth emphasizes the division of labor, commercial trade, and labor productivity; this mode of growth is especially suited to describing the form of economic development during the stage of commercial capitalism in early modern Europe. But when the term Smithian growth is applied to the development of the commodity economy in Jiangnan during the Ming and Qing dynasties, it means that people treat the development of the commodity economy in Jiangnan as homogeneous with the mode of economic development of early modern Western Europe; people see the similarities between the commodity economies of the two regions but overlook their important differences. During the Ming and Qing dynasties (especially before the Opium War), the development of the commodity economy in Jiangnan was mainly a regional or interregional commodity economy; even if a nationwide trading network had already formed, it remained a “domestic-trade-type” commodity economy, with little connection to the world market. This differs importantly from the commercial capitalism of Europe, which developed on the platform of the world market at the same time. If Europe entered the “capitalist era” from the sixteenth century, with commercial capitalism representing the beginning of a new historical stage, then the commodity economy of Jiangnan during the Ming and Qing dynasties still remained in the “embryonic” state of capitalism. To discuss China’s commercial trade and commodity economy in isolation from the capitalist world, and to classify the commodity economy or market economy of Jiangnan as Smithian growth, is to see only a superficial market and to obscure the distinctive background of European Smithian growth: Smithian growth was the growth of the commodity economy as Europe entered the capitalist era based on the world market, as Marx described it, whereas the economy of Jiangnan belonged to the state of a pre-capitalist commodity economy; the two cannot be conflated.

近年来，一些学者偏好使用各种“技术性”术语，斯密型增长、库兹涅茨增长、熊彼特式增长等是常用词。放在现代经济长时段发展过程中看，这样或那样的增长类型主要体现了资本主义在不同历史阶段占主导地位的发展方式。例如，斯密型增长强调劳动分工、商业贸易和劳动生产率，这种增长方式特别适合描述近代早期欧洲商业资本主义阶段的经济发展形态。但是，斯密型增长这个术语运用到明清时期中国江南的商品经济发展状况中，就意味着人们将江南的商品经济发展和西欧近代早期的经济发展方式同质化对待了，人们看到了两地商品经济的相似性，但忽略了它们之间的重要差别。明清时期（特别是鸦片战争以前）江南的商品经济发展，主要是区域性的或区域间的商品经济，即使已经形成了全国性的贸易网络，也仍然是“内贸型”的商品经济，与世界市场的关联度小，这与欧洲当时以世界市场为平台发展起来的商业资本主义是有重要差别的。如果说欧洲从16世纪开始进入了“资本主义时代”，商业资本主义代表了一个新的历史阶段的开始，那么，明清时期江南的商品经济仍然停留在资本主义的“萌芽”状态。脱离了资本主义的世界性讨论中国的商业贸易和商品经济，并将江南的商品经济或市场经济归之于斯密型增长，看到的是一个表象的市场，掩盖了欧洲斯密型增长的独特背景：斯密型增长是欧洲进入马克思所说的以世界市场为基础的资本主义时代的商品经济增长，江南的经济则属于前资本主义时代的商品经济状态，两者是不可以混为一谈的。

A market economy necessarily presupposes the existence of markets, but the existence of markets does not necessarily mean a market economy. Only the capitalist economy can be called a thoroughgoing market economy, that is, one based on wage labor on a large scale and on the world market. In its original sense, a market is simply a place where people engage in the exchange of commodities; such markets have always existed. When people sell the surplus products left over after their own consumption, when specialized handicraft workers sell their products on the market in order to buy other commodities they cannot produce themselves, when professional merchants transport goods not produced locally from elsewhere and sell them on the local market—in all these cases, a market already exists. Such markets have existed since antiquity, and long-distance trade supplying them was by no means rare. But these were markets based on small-scale production, not markets in the sense of a market economy, not the early modern markets we are concerned with. What interests us is the market connected with modern capitalism, the market under the conditions of a market economy. Marx said that the world market itself forms the basis of the capitalist mode of production, and the necessity, inherent in this mode of production, of producing on an ever-expanding scale in turn impels the continuous expansion of the world market. Therefore, the so-called market economy—that is, the market economy in the sense of the capitalist mode of production—is always bound up with the world market, and the two promote each other. The principal role of the world market for the capitalist mode of production is to drive capitalist production to expand its scale continuously so as to meet the needs of the world market, and in this process capitalist production increasingly becomes the dominant mode of production.

市场经济必定有市场存在，但有市场不一定就是市场经济。只有资本主义经济才称得上彻底的市场经济，即以大规模的雇佣劳动和世界市场为基础。市场就其原初意义来说，就是人们从事商品交换的地方，这样的市场从来就有，当人们把自己消费以后剩余的产品拿到市场上出售，当专业的手工业者在市场上出售自己的产品，以便买回自己无法生产的其他商品，当一些职业商人从其他地方贩运一些本地没有出产的产品，在本地市场上出售时，市场就已经存在了。这样的市场自古就有，为这种市场提供商品的长途贸易也不少见。但是，它们仅仅是以小生产为基础的市场，还不是市场经济意义上的市场，不是我们要关注的近代早期的市场，我们感兴趣的是与现代资本主义相联系的市场，是市场经济条件下的市场。马克思说过，世界市场本身形成资本主义生产方式的基础，而这个生产方式所固有的以越来越大的规模进行生产的必要性，又促使世界市场不断扩大。因此，所谓市场经济，即资本主义生产方式意义上的市场经济，总是与世界市场联系在一起，并且相互促进。世界市场对资本主义生产方式的主要作用就是推动资本主义生产不断扩大规模，以适应世界市场的需要，资本主义生产在这个过程中越来越成为占主导地位的生产方式。

At the same time, the capitalist mode of production becomes a thoroughgoing market economy because of the commodification of labor power. We usually notice the dependence of the capitalist economy on the market, since "on the one hand, the formative elements of productive capital must come from the commodity market and be constantly renewed from this market, bought in as commodities; on the other hand, the product of the labor process emerges from it as a commodity and must be constantly sold anew as a commodity." It is easy to see the market-economy character of the capitalist mode of production. However, this is only an appearance. Marx said: "In actual fact, capitalist production is commodity production as the general form of production; but it is so, and becomes increasingly so in its development, only because here labor itself appears as a commodity." Labor itself becoming a commodity—that is, wage labor—may have existed only sporadically before, but under the capitalist mode of production, labor becoming a commodity is a universal form. Thus, on the one hand, capitalism is necessarily a market economy, a market economy connected with world trade and the world market; on the other hand, the fact that labor becomes a commodity makes the capitalist mode of production a thoroughgoing market economy. If one speaks of a market economy outside this specific sense of the capitalist mode of production, strips away the capitalist character, and applies the general concept of a market economy indiscriminately to the early modern European economy and to the development of the commodity economy in the Jiangnan region of China, it becomes impossible to discover Europe's distinctiveness.

同时，资本主义生产方式因为劳动力的商品化而成为彻底的市场经济。通常，我们会注意到资本主义经济对市场的依赖，因为“一方面，生产资本的形成要素必须来自商品市场，并且不断从这个市场得到更新，作为商品买进来；另一方面，劳动过程的产品则作为商品从劳动过程产生出来，并且必须不断作为商品重新卖出去”。人们很容易看到资本主义生产方式的市场经济特征。不过，这也只是一个表象，马克思说过：“实际上，资本主义生产是作为生产的普遍形式的商品生产，但是，它之所以如此，在它的发展中之所以越来越如此，只是因为在这里，劳动本身表现为商品”。劳动本身成为商品，亦即雇佣劳动，这在以前可能只有零星的存在，但在资本主义生产方式之下，劳动成为商品已是一种普遍的形态。所以，一方面，资本主义必然是市场经济，是与世界贸易和世界市场相联系的市场经济；另一方面，劳动成为商品使资本主义生产方式成为彻底的市场经济。如果不在资本主义生产方式这个特定的意义上讲市场经济，抽掉了资本主义特征，把一般的市场经济概念无差别地运用到近代早期的欧洲经济和中国江南商品经济发展状况中，就难以发现欧洲的独特性。

The various types of economic growth reflect the stage-specific features that capitalism exhibits in the course of its development. To speak of stage-specific features does not mean that they constitute a linear process of successive replacement, but only that at a particular stage of capitalist development, one type of growth becomes the mainstream, while earlier types of growth may retreat to a secondary position—without, however, meaning that the previously dominant economic type disappears. For example, Smithian growth has been a very important mode of economic growth over the past five centuries. It was dominant in the early modern period; in the course of industrial capitalism and subsequent capitalist development, Smithian growth withdrew from the mainstream of the capitalist market economy, but it never disappeared.

各种经济增长类型反映了资本主义在发展过程中呈现出来的阶段性特征。说阶段性特征，并不意味着它们是一个前后取代的线性发展过程，而只是表示：在资本主义发展的某一个阶段，某一种发展类型成为主流，而以前的发展类型可能退居次要地位，但并不意味着以前占主导地位的经济类型的消失。例如，斯密型增长在过去五个世纪里一直是很重要的经济增长方式，它在近代早期占主导地位，在工业资本主义及以后的资本主义发展过程中，斯密型增长退出资本主义市场经济的主流，但始终不曾消失。

Once European history entered the capitalist era, the influence of capitalist development and change on all aspects of European economic and social life grew ever greater. This is the individuality of European historical development—or, one might say, the particularity of European history—and we cannot evade or ignore this distinctiveness. Some historians, out of the lofty aim of opposing Eurocentrism, deliberately play down capitalism, thereby avoiding the fact that capitalism, which grew up in European history, exerted a profound influence on the history of Europe and the world. This severely constrains their capacity to understand and analyze history.

欧洲历史进入资本主义时代以后，欧洲经济和社会生活各个方面受到资本主义发展变化的影响就越来越大，这是欧洲历史发展的个性，或者说，就是欧洲历史的特殊性，我们无法回避和忽视这种独特性。一些历史学家出于反对欧洲中心论的崇高目的而刻意淡化资本主义，从而回避欧洲历史上成长起来的资本主义对欧洲和世界历史产生深远影响的事实，严重制约了他们对历史的理解和分析能力。

It was precisely on the basis of the growth of European capitalism, at a time when capitalism had developed to a new historical stage, that England's coal and overseas colonies became increasingly important. Marx said: "The market kept ever widening, demand kept ever increasing. Even manufacture could no longer satisfy it. Then steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. Modern large-scale industry replaced manufacture." It was at this point that large quantities of coal found their use. Pomeranz and related scholars have stripped away this fundamental cause of capitalist development, contenting themselves with classifying and narrating the surface phenomena of the development of the commodity economy—telling us what happened, but not why it happened.

正是在欧洲资本主义成长起来的基础上，在资本主义发展到一个新的历史阶段的时候，英格兰的煤炭和海外殖民地的作用才变得越来越重要。马克思说：“市场总是在扩大，需求总是在增加。甚至工场手工业也不再能满足需要了。于是，蒸汽和机器引起了工业生产的革命。现代大工业代替了工场手工业。”到这个时期，大量煤炭便有了用武之地。彭慕兰及相关学者抽掉了资本主义发展这个根本性原因，满足于对商品经济发展的表象进行分类和叙述，只言其然，而不言其所以然。

The same applies to the understanding of colonies. Marx proposed that before the accumulation of the capitalist mode of production there is a primitive accumulation of capital, which serves as the starting point of the capitalist mode of production. He said: "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the indigenous population of that continent, the beginning of the conquest and plunder of the East Indies, and the turning of Africa into a preserve for the commercial hunting of Blackskins—these marked the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production." If we bring the colonies into the process of capitalist development for consideration, we find that as early as the period of primitive accumulation of capital, the value and significance of the colonies for England had already become apparent: the colonies could relieve population pressure at home, and were even more so a source of raw materials and a market for the sale of products for domestic industry, a site for the accumulation of capital. At the same time, however, Spain and Portugal, the two earliest colonial empires, had once possessed the largest colonies in the world. But the significance of the colonies for these two countries was very different from their significance for England. There are many reasons for this, but the different conditions of capitalist development are undoubtedly the fundamental one. What role the colonies play is closely related to the level of capitalist development of the metropolitan country; it is not the case that having colonies will produce a Great Divergence.

对殖民地的认识也是如此。马克思提出在资本主义生产方式积累之前，有一种资本的原始积累，作为资本主义生产方式的起点。他说：“美洲金银产地的发现，土著居民的被剿灭、被奴役和被埋葬于矿井，对东印度开始进行的征服和掠夺，非洲变成商业性地掠获黑人的场所——这一切标志着资本主义生产时代的曙光。”把殖民地纳入资本主义发展过程来考量，我们便可发现，早在资本原始积累时期，殖民地对于英国的价值和意义已经显现，殖民地既可以缓解本国人口压力，更是本国工业生产的原料来源和产品销售市场，是资本积累的场所。不过在同时，西班牙和葡萄牙这两个最早的殖民帝国，也曾经拥有世界上最大的殖民地。但是，殖民地对于这两个国家的意义，与对英国的意义是大不一样的。原因有很多，但资本主义发展的不同状况无疑是根本性的原因。殖民地起什么样的作用，与宗主国资本主义的发展水平关系极大，而不是有了殖民地，就会出现大分流。

The above discussion has analyzed only some issues in the "California School's" understanding of early modern world history, with the aim of pointing out that if capitalism is removed, the understanding of early modern world history will result in an insufficiency of the researcher's cognitive capacity. Yet capitalist development is an important and basic fact in the historical process of the early modern world, and its influence on the overall course of human history continuously expanded and deepened. Only by understanding early modern world history from the perspective of capitalism can its scholarly value and significance be fully revealed.

以上的讨论仅仅就“加州学派”对近代早期世界史的一些认识问题进行了分析，意在指出，如果抽去资本主义，对近代早期世界历史的认识，就会造成研究者认识能力的不足。然而，资本主义发展是近代早期世界历史进程中的一个重要和基本的事实，对人类历史整体进程的影响不断扩大和加深，从资本主义的视角来理解近代早期的世界历史，其学术价值和意义才能得到充分显现。

Conclusion

结语

The growth and development of the capitalist mode of production is a basic fact of early modern world history.

资本主义生产方式的成长和发展是近代早期世界历史的基本事实。

Although capitalism takes different forms at different stages of its development, some of its basic features have never changed: capital accumulation, wage labor, and a worldwide market economy. The thread of capitalist historical development is clear and complete, and the various recognizable forms of development, such as Smithian growth and Kuznets growth, are inseparable from capitalist development. Detached from the environment of capitalist development, applying these concepts indiscriminately to pre-capitalist commodity economies easily breeds confusion and misunderstanding. In this regard, whether one denies the uniqueness of capitalism's growth in Europe or attempts to prove the similarity of economic development between East and West in the early modern period, both indicate that the scholars concerned have an insufficient understanding of capitalism. As for those like Frank who claim to abandon capitalism when discussing early modern Eastern and Western history, this can only produce a sensationalist effect. If there was a great divergence between Eastern and Western history, it happened long ago, namely: in Europe, modern capitalism not only sprouted but also grew to maturity. This is the uniqueness of European history. Elsewhere, capitalism always remained in a state of sprouting, and the sprouts of capitalism, like wild grass, grew everywhere around the world; the sprouting of capitalism carried no special significance. This understanding has nothing to do with Eurocentrism; it concerns only the facts. As for why capitalism was able to grow to maturity in Europe, that is another major question in world history. During its growth, capitalism's influence on European society and on other parts of the world emerged gradually, and this influence involves a history of the world. In short, the industrialization, urbanization, modernization, and globalization that appeared in modern history are all phenomena and results brought about by capitalist development. When we regard capitalism as a socio-economic formation, we are seeing the characteristics of capitalism in the sense of society as a whole, and the content encompassed by capitalist development and the influence it exerted on every aspect of world history is extremely rich. Marx said that the bourgeoisie creates a world in its own image. This assertion deserves our attention.

尽管资本主义在不同的发展阶段有不同的表现形式，但一些基本特征从来没有改变，这就是资本积累、雇佣劳动、世界性的市场经济。资本主义历史发展的脉络清晰完整，可以辨认的各种发展形式，比如斯密型增长、库兹涅茨增长等，也都离不开资本主义发展。脱离了资本主义发展环境，把这些概念不加区分地运用到前资本主义性质的商品经济，就容易产生混淆和误会。就此而言，无论是否认资本主义在欧洲成长的独特性，还是试图证明近代早期东西方经济发展的相似性，都说明有关论者对资本主义认识不足。至于像弗兰克那样声称要抛弃资本主义谈近代早期的东西方历史，只能造成哗众取宠的效果。如果东西方的历史有大分流，那是早就发生了的事情，那就是：在欧洲，现代资本主义不仅萌芽，而且成长起来了。这是欧洲历史的独特之处。其他地方的资本主义始终处在萌芽状态，而资本主义的萌芽如野草一样在世界各地到处生长，资本主义的萌芽并没有特殊的意义。这一认识无关于欧洲中心主义，而只是关乎事实。至于资本主义在欧洲为什么能够成长起来，那是世界史上的另一个重大问题。资本主义在成长过程中，对欧洲社会和对世界其他地方的影响是逐渐显现，这种影响涉及一部世界史。简单地说，近代历史上出现的工业化、城市化、现代化、全球化，都是资本主义发展所引起的现象和结果。我们把资本主义看作一种社会经济形态，就是看到了社会总体意义上的资本主义特征，资本主义发展以及由此引起的对世界历史方方面面的影响，它所包含的内容是非常丰富的。马克思讲到资产阶级能够按照自己的面貌创造一个世界。这个断言值得我们重视。

Historical research needs the concept of capitalism; it is our analytical and critical tool for conducting historical research.

历史研究需要资本主义概念，这是我们进行历史研究的分析和批判工具。

Capitalism's progressive role in history is remarkable, but its problems are equally obvious. Capitalist production takes capital accumulation as its goal and possesses an impulse that defies all restraint. On the good side, it is creative; on the other side, its destructive power is by no means small. Schumpeter put forward the view of "creative destruction," and Polanyi proposed the theories of "embeddedness" and "disembeddedness," both referring to the "wildness" of capitalism, whose revolutionary/creative/destructive force has been fully manifested in history. This enables historians who employ the concept of capitalism to see both its historical progressiveness and positive significance and to grasp a tool for criticizing capitalism. Although concepts such as Smithian growth and the market economy help explain economic growth, they cannot replace the concept of capitalism.

资本主义的历史进步作用显著，但问题也一目了然。资本主义生产以资本积累为目的，具有不顾一切的冲动，从好的方面来说，它具有创造性；从另一个方面来看，它的破坏力也不小。熊彼特提出了“创造性破坏”的观点，波兰尼则提出了“嵌入”和“脱嵌”理论，都意指资本主义的“野性”，这种野性的力量所造成的革命性/创造性/破坏性在历史上已经得到充分显现。这就使得运用资本主义概念的历史学家，既能够看到它的历史进步性和积极意义，也掌握了批判资本主义的工具。斯密型增长和市场经济等概念虽然有助于说明经济增长，但都不能替代资本主义概念。

Historiography needs grand narratives, and capitalism is suited to serve as the narrative framework for early modern world history.

历史学需要宏大叙事，资本主义适合充当近代早期世界史的叙事框架。

Humanity needs diverse historical knowledge products, and the responsibility of historians is to provide these products and meet society's needs. The grand narrative of history is precisely such a product; its function is to provide people with a basic structure and line of thought for understanding the overall development of history, and it is the foundation of other forms of historical narrative. Times are changing, and people's understanding is changing. From the viewpoint that all history is contemporary history, historians of the New Era have the responsibility to provide society with new products of grand narrative. Marxist theory is broad and profound. Marx's theory of the capitalist mode of production goes far beyond an exposition of class and class relations; its rich connotations and profound thought need to be excavated in depth and can serve as the theoretical foundation for our new grand historical narrative. The growth of capitalism is suited to serve as the narrative theme of early modern world history.

人类需要多样化的历史知识产品，历史学者的责任就是提供这些产品，满足社会的需要。历史的宏大叙事就是这样一种产品，它的作用就是为人们理解历史整体发展提供一个基本的结构和思路，它是其他形式的历史叙事的基础。时代在变迁，人们的认识在发生变化，从一切历史都是当代史的观点来看，新时代的历史学者有责任为社会提供宏大叙事的新产品。马克思主义理论博大精深，马克思关于资本主义生产方式的理论，远不止于对阶级和阶级关系的阐述，其丰富的内涵和深刻的思想需要深入挖掘，可以成为我们进行新的宏大历史叙事的理论基础，资本主义的成长适合作为近代早期世界历史的叙事主题。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗