The Path of Historical Materialism toward “Universal World History”

Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era has put forward major new categories and propositions in world-history theory, such as “the common values of all humanity,” “a new form of human civilization,” and “a community with a shared future for mankind,” marking a theoretical self-awareness that grasps world history as a whole. The concept of “universal world history” (universal history) was first proposed by Kant, but subsequent philosophers endowed it with different connotations. For Kant, so-called “universal world history” was a “federation of peoples” achieved by various nation-states; for Hegel, “universal world history” existed only as “thought in the form of universality,” that is, the world-historicalization of absolute spirit (God) and the absolute spiritualization of world history: “World history is the necessary development, out of the concept of spirit’s freedom, of the moments of reason and hence of spirit’s self-consciousness and freedom. This development is the interpretation and actualization of the universal spirit.” [1]1 The quotation is from Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, Introduction. For Marx, on the other hand, the whole of world history formed on the basis of “universal intercourse” [2]2 “Universal intercourse” (普遍交往) is Marx and Engels’s term in The German Ideology for the globalized interaction of individuals and nations under developed capitalism, which creates the material precondition for communism. through the sublation of the subjective particular interests of individual nation-states and the transcendence of civilizational barriers between them—namely, communism—constitutes “universal world history” in the sense of historical materialism. Studying Marx’s question of “universal world history” can provide theoretical support, from the perspective of philosophy of history, for a profound grasp of the new categories and propositions of 21st-century Marxist world-history theory.

习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想提出了“全人类共同价值”“人类文明新形态”“人类命运共同体”等重大世界历史理论的新范畴和新命题，标志着对世界历史加以整体性把握的理论自觉。“普遍的世界历史”（universal history）这一概念首先是由康德提出的，但此后的哲学家赋予了这一概念不同的内涵。康德认为，所谓“普遍的世界历史”是各个民族国家所达成的“各民族的联盟”；在黑格尔那里，“普遍的世界历史”只是作为“普遍性形式的思想”，即绝对精神（上帝）的世界历史化和世界历史的绝对精神化，“世界历史是理性各环节光从精神的自由的概念中引出的必然发展，从而也是精神的自我意识和自由的必然发展。这种发展就是普遍精神的解释和实现”。而在马克思看来，基于“普遍交往”，扬弃单个民族国家之间主观特殊利益之争和超越各民族之间的文明隔阂后所形成的世界历史整体——共产主义，构成了唯物史观意义上的“普遍的世界历史”。对马克思“普遍的世界历史”问题的研究，能够从历史哲学的角度为深刻把握21世纪马克思主义世界历史理论的新范畴和新命题提供理论支撑。

I. “Universal World History”: From Kant and Hegel to Marx

一、“普遍的世界历史”：从康德、黑格尔到马克思

Philosophers trace the question of the essence of the human being and the meaning of human life back to a series of ultimate questions: “Who am I?”, “Where do I come from?”, and “Where am I going?” Following this line of thought, the philosophy of history asks, in an ontological sense, the ultimate questions: “Where does the world come from?”, “Where is the world going?”, and “Where is humanity going?” In this inquiry, the philosopher’s goal is to discover “universal world history” from within the appearances of world history, thereby grasping the developmental trends and laws of world history, as well as the ultimate value of all world history for humanity.

哲学家把对人的本质和人生意义问题追溯到“我是谁”“我从哪里来”和“要到哪里去”这一系列终极性问题。循此思路，历史哲学在本体论意义上追问的是“世界从哪里来”“世界向何处去”和“人类向何处去”的终极性问题。在这一追问中，哲学家的目标是从世界历史的表象中发现“普遍的世界历史”，从而把握世界历史的发展趋势和发展规律，以及全部世界历史对于人类来说的终极价值。

1. Kant’s Ultimate Concern for “Universal World History” Based on Contract Theory

1.康德基于契约论对“普遍的世界历史”的终极关切

The inquiry into “universal world history” is the ultimate question of world-history theory, and this is equally true for the three philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Marx. Yet their approaches to this inquiry differ, and so the same concept is endowed by them with different theoretical connotations. Kant hoped to establish a universally applicable “cosmopolitan law,” so that, within the framework of contract theory, the various nation-states of the world could reach consensus and form a “federation of peoples,” thereby securing the unity of world history constituted by those nation-states and achieving perpetual peace for humanity. Hence, Kant’s “universal world history” is a contract-theoretical approach based on a cosmopolitan constitution, whose substantive destination is the establishment of a “federation of peoples.” In this, the value concern that Kant assigns to “universal world history” is humanity’s “perpetual peace.” That is to say, in order to guide humanity toward “perpetual peace” and away from war and conflict, Kant put forward a contract-theoretical conception of “how universal world history is possible.”

追问“普遍的世界历史”是世界历史理论的终极性问题，这在康德、黑格尔和马克思三位哲学家那里均是如此。但他们追问“普遍的世界历史”的思路是不同的，因而这同一个概念被他们赋予了不同的理论内涵。康德希望通过建立一套普遍适用的“世界公民法”，在契约论的框架下使世界各民族国家达成共识，形成“各民族的联盟”，从而保证由各民族国家构成的世界历史的统一性，以实现人类的永久和平。因此，康德的“普遍的世界历史”是建立在世界公民宪法基础上的契约论思路，其实体性的归宿是建立“各民族的联盟”。这其中，康德赋予“普遍的世界历史”的价值关切就是人类的“永久和平”。也就是说，康德为了引导人类通往“永久和平”而摆脱战争冲突，提出了“普遍的世界历史何以可能”的契约论构想。

However, as is well known, Kant was a dualist philosopher, which is manifested in the dual thread of “human studies” and “theology” running through his theory of world history. On the one hand, proceeding from the theological thread, Kant attempted to establish a universal purpose for world history. In his essay “Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View,” he states: “A philosophical attempt to work out a universal world history according to a plan of nature that aims at the perfect civil union of the human species must be regarded as possible and even as furthering this aim of nature itself.” [3]3 The quotation is from Kant’s “Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View” (1784), Proposition Eight. It was Kant who first proposed, in accordance with a universal purpose—the perfect civil union of the human species—to transcend the appearances of particular, contingent events in world history, thereby revealing the immanent necessary trajectory of world history and its highest value for humanity, and to take this approach as the paradigm for writing philosophy of history. Yet, according to the results of Kant’s epistemological investigation in the Critique of Pure Reason, the purpose of world history, as a supersensible object, cannot be grasped by sensible intuition; hence, human beings, by virtue of their reason, cannot make “synthetic a priori judgments” about it. This means that humanity cannot form objective knowledge of the ultimate purpose of world history. Thus, the task he set himself of writing a “universal world history” remained for him only a subjective wish; his denial of metaphysical knowledge prevented him from constructing a system of philosophy of history with “universal world history” as its thread. This grand idea, however, was fully taken up by Hegel, who completed Kant’s theological attempt. Hegel, entirely according to the principle of a universal purpose of world history, wrote his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, carrying the theological thread through to its conclusion. Yet this universal purpose of world history was not Kant’s “perfect civil union of the human species”; it was endowed with a new content.

然而，众所周知，康德是二元论哲学家，这表现在他在世界历史理论中贯穿着“人学”和“神学”的双重思路。一方面，从神学思路出发，康德试图为世界历史确立一个普遍的目的，他在《世界公民观点之下的普遍历史观念》一文中指出：“把普遍的世界历史按照一场以人类物种的完美的公民结合状态为其宗旨的大自然计划来加以处理的这一哲学尝试，必须看作是可能的，并且甚至还是这一大自然的目标所需要的。”按照一个普遍的目的——人类物种的完美的公民结合状态——超越世界历史特殊杂多事件表象，从而呈现世界历史行进的内在必然轨迹及其对于人类来说的最高价值，并把这一思路作为历史哲学的书写范式，这首先是由康德提出来的。但是，根据康德在《纯粹理性批判》中的认识论考察结果，世界历史的目的作为超感性对象不能被感性直观所把握，因而人类凭借他的理性无法对其进行“先天综合判断”，这就意味着人类无法形成关于世界历史终极目的的客观知识。这样，他所提出的关于“普遍的世界历史”的书写任务对他自己来说就只是一种主观愿望，他对形而上学知识的否定使他无法建构一部以“普遍的世界历史”为线索的历史哲学体系。而这一宏阔的想法却在黑格尔那里得到了充分的继承，黑格尔完成了康德的这一神学路径的思想尝试，他完全按照一个普遍的世界历史目的原则撰写了《历史哲学》，把神学路径最终贯彻到底。但是，这一普遍的世界历史目的却不是康德所说的“人类物种的完美的公民结合状态”，而是被赋予了新的内涵。

On the other hand, proceeding from the thread of human studies, Kant began to explore the possibility of a universal cosmopolitan constitution. In his view, the “universal purpose” proposed by the theological thread must be concretely realized in the thread of human studies—that is, transformed into the actual existential order of the human species. To this end, in resolving the question of “universal world history,” Kant paid more attention to whether a cosmopolitan constitution could be established. This constituted his human-studies approach to “how universal world history is possible”: that humanity, through its own efforts, could reach a contract, construct a cosmopolitan constitution, and ultimately achieve perpetual peace. Yet this vision has not been realized to this day. In short, Kant’s task of constructing “universal world history” by means of contract theory was ultimately not accomplished, because Kant merely deduced the articles of perpetual peace from his transcendental philosophy, without starting from “real human individuals.” [4]4 “Real human individuals” (现实的人) is a key Marxian term from The German Ideology, contrasting with the abstract, isolated individual of classical German philosophy.

另一方面，康德又从人学思路出发，开始致力于探索一部普遍的世界公民宪法的可能。在他看来，由神学思路提出的“普遍的目的”必须具体地落实在人学思路之中，即把它转变为人类物种的现实生存秩序。为此，对于“普遍的世界历史”问题的解决，康德更多关注的是能否建成世界公民宪法，这构成了他探讨“普遍的世界历史何以可能”的人学路径，即人类通过自己的努力来达成契约，建构一部世界公民宪法，最终实现永久和平。然而，这一设想迄今没有实现。总之，康德以契约论的方式建构“普遍的世界历史”的任务最终没有实现，因为康德只是从他的先验哲学中演绎出了永久和平的条款，而没有从“现实的人”出发。

2. Hegel’s Ontological Concern for “Universal World History” Based on Theodicy

2.黑格尔基于神正论对“普遍的世界历史”的本体论关切

For Hegel, absolute spirit (God) is the “substance” [5]5 “Substance” (本体) here translates the Chinese term for Hegel’s ontological ground; in Hegel’s own terminology it is “the Absolute” or “absolute spirit.” of the world. In his Philosophical Notebooks, Lenin held that Hegel achieved the “identity of the three”—logic, dialectics, and epistemology. [6]6 Lenin’s Philosophical Notebooks (1914–1915) contain his reading notes on Hegel’s Science of Logic, where he comments on the unity of logic, dialectics, and epistemology. The ultimate aim of this “identity of the three” is his ontology of absolute spirit. Hegel writes history from beyond the scope of humanity itself—what Marx called “history always written according to a standard lying outside it” [7]7 The quotation is from Marx and Engels, The German Ideology (1845–1846), Part I, on the critique of German ideology.—and this standard outside history is “absolute spirit.” Taking absolute spirit as the substance of world history, Hegel endows “universal world history” with the following content: the world-historicalization of absolute spirit and the absolute spiritualization of world history. Specifically, Hegel holds that, in order to realize the theological purpose of absolute spirit returning to itself, each nation-state should compete to become the representative of “world spirit” by fulfilling this task, and each nation-state must, within its own “national spirit,” strive to attain “universal world history.” The result is that world history appears as a successive process of replacement among different nation-states in their advance toward “universal world history.” Or, in other words, it is the process of absolute spirit returning to itself that Hegel established in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right and Lectures on the Philosophy of World History: the four moments of the Oriental world, the Greek world, the Roman world, and the Germanic world. [8]8 This four-stage schema of world history is laid out in Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, Part II: The Oriental World, The Greek World, The Roman World, The Germanic World. Thus, “universal world history” is finally established in the Germanic world; with this, world history completes its entire mission, and at the same time humanity completes the world-historical mission assigned to it by God.

对黑格尔来说，绝对精神（上帝）就是世界的“本体”。列宁在《哲学笔记》中认为，黑格尔实现了逻辑学、辩证法、认识论的“三者一致”。而“三者一致”所指向的最终目的便是他的绝对精神本体论。黑格尔超出人类自身的范围书写历史，即马克思所说的“历史总是遵照在它之外的某种尺度来编写的”，这种历史之外的尺度便是“绝对精神”。黑格尔以绝对精神作为世界历史的本体，“普遍的世界历史”便被赋予如下内涵：绝对精神的世界历史化和世界历史的绝对精神化。具体来说，黑格尔认为，为实现绝对精神返回其自身这一神学目的，各个民族国家应该竞相为完成此项任务而力争成为“世界精神”的代表，每个民族国家都要在它自己的“民族精神”中致力于通达“普遍的世界历史”。其结果是，世界历史表现为不同民族国家在通往“普遍的世界历史”进程中先后相继的更替过程。或者说，就是他在《法哲学原理》和《历史哲学》中所建立起来的绝对精神返回自身的过程：东方世界—希腊世界—罗马世界—日耳曼世界四个环节。因此，“普遍的世界历史”最终在日耳曼世界中被确立起来，至此世界历史完成了它的全部使命，同时人类也完成了上帝赋予的世界历史使命。

Clearly, Hegel’s original intention in seeking “universal world history” was to write the history of the circular, spiraling movement of absolute spirit as it externalizes itself in the human world and then returns to itself. In the final link of this circular movement of absolute spirit, it is in the Germanic nation that “the freedom of the whole is known.” As for other nation-states, the Oriental world is the “beginning” of this circle, the Greek world and the Roman world are respectively two “nodes” on the circle, and the Germanic world is the “end” of the circle. Because, in his view, the Oriental world merely provides the beginning for world history to realize “the freedom of the whole is known”; “world history travels from the East to the West, for Europe is absolutely the end of history, Asia the beginning.” Here, Hegel’s writing of the world historical process as a dialectical logical sequence “from East to West” is evidently subjective. At the same time, he uses the degree of development of absolute spirit to “metaphorically” indicate the degree of development of Eastern and Western civilizations, i.e., Eastern civilization is relatively backward while Western civilization is relatively advanced. Clearly, this is Hegel’s subjective “compilation” of objective world history, and this is also the focus of Marx’s critique of Hegel’s philosophy of history.

显然，黑格尔寻求“普遍的世界历史”的初衷是书写绝对精神在人世间自我外化、又返回自身的螺旋式上升的圆圈运动史。在这一绝对精神圆圈运动的最后环节，便是在日耳曼民族实现了“知道全体的自由”。至于其他民族国家，东方世界是这一圆圈的“开端”，希腊世界和罗马世界分别是圆圈上的两个“节点”，而日耳曼世界则是圆圈的“终点”。因为，在他看来，东方世界就仅仅为世界历史实现“知道全体的自由”提供了开端，“世界历史从‘东方’到‘西方’，因为欧洲绝对地是历史的终点，亚洲是起点”。这里黑格尔把世界历史进程书写为“从东方到西方”的辩证逻辑顺序显然具有主观性。同时，他用绝对精神的发展程度来“隐喻”东西方文明的发展程度，亦即东方文明是相对落后的而西方文明是相对先进的。显然，这是黑格尔对客观的世界历史进行的主观性“编纂”，这也是马克思批判黑格尔历史哲学的重点。

In short, whether it is Kant’s path of contract theory or Hegel’s path of theodicy, in Marx’s view, neither of the two paths toward “universal world history” can actually produce the effect of human freedom and liberation; moreover, they represent a false universality of world history, because Hegel, rather, only provides the “thought of the form of universality” concerning “universal world history.” This point is just as Marx’s overall judgment of Hegel’s dialectics: “But this did not prevent him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner,” yet the substantive content of dialectics was neglected by Hegel; he did not base dialectics on real world history, hence it is an “inverted” dialectics. Since it is a false universality of world history, it cannot obtain genuine recognition from human life activities, and the meaning of humanity’s own life activities fails to receive an ultimate answer. For this reason, Marx criticized the idealist conception of “universal world history” and explored another path toward “universal world history”—the path of historical materialism.

总之，无论是康德的契约论路径还是黑格尔的神正论路径，在马克思看来，两条通往“普遍的世界历史”的道路均不能实际地产生人类的自由和解放效果，并且还是一种虚假的世界历史普遍性，因为黑格尔毋宁说只是提供了关于“普遍的世界历史”的“普遍性形式的思想”。这一点正如马克思对黑格尔辩证法的总体性论断，“但这决没有妨碍他第一个全面地有意识地叙述了辩证法的一般运动形式”，而辩证法的实体性内容却被黑格尔忽略了，他没有把辩证法立足于现实的世界历史，因而是“倒立着”的辩证法。既然是虚假的世界历史普遍性，就无法得到人类生存行动的真正认可，人类自己的生命活动的意义就没有获得终极性答案。为此，马克思批判了唯心论的“普遍的世界历史”观念，探索了通往“普遍的世界历史”的另外一条道路——唯物史观的道路。

3. Marx’s Ultimate Concern for “Universal World History” Based on Historical Materialism

3.马克思基于唯物史观对“普遍的世界历史”的终极关切

Sublating the “domination-subordination” world relations of production and realizing human freedom and liberation is the axiological destination that historical materialism endows to “universal world history.” Why are people so devoted to exploring “universal world history”? In Marx’s view, it is because world history, composed of various nation-states, is always filled with contradictions, conflicts, and wars. As Marx and Engels pointed out in the *Communist Manifesto*, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Since history has fully transformed into world history, the entire world history still manifests as conflicts and wars among nation-states. Although objectively, nation-states inevitably engage in intercourse with one another—this being the objective condition created by capital expansion that breaks the mutual isolation of each nation-state, thereby forming the conditions for “universal world history”—at the same time, nation-states have not transcended the subjectivity of individual nation-states’ respective interests to achieve objectivity; they merely remain within the “domination-subordination” world relations of production dominated by the logic of capital. The axiological result of this “domination-subordination” world relations of production is that one part of the nation-states elevates its own interests above those of other nation-states, while another part of the nation-states loses its freedom of existence.

扬弃“支配－从属”的世界生产关系，实现人类的自由和解放，是唯物史观赋予“普遍的世界历史”的价值论归宿。人们为什么倾情于探索“普遍的世界历史”？在马克思看来，乃是因为由各民族国家构成的世界历史中总是充满了矛盾、冲突和战争。正如马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所指出的，“至今一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史”。历史完全转变为世界历史以来，整个世界历史依然表现为各民族国家之间的冲突和战争。尽管在客观上各民族国家不可避免地发生了交往，这是资本扩张所导致的各个民族国家打破彼此封闭状态，为形成“普遍的世界历史”所创造的客观条件；但同时，各民族国家并没有超出单个民族国家在各自利益上的主观性而达到客观性，只是停留在由资本逻辑主导的“支配－从属”的世界生产关系之中。而这一“支配－从属”的世界生产关系的价值论结果便是一部分民族国家把自己的利益凌驾于其他民族国家的利益之上，而另一部分民族国家失去了生存自由。

“How is liberation possible?” is Marx’s ultimate concern for “universal world history.” So-called human freedom and liberation aim to break this “domination-subordination” world relations of production and bring humanity into the realm of freedom. As long as the subjectivity of individual nation-states’ interests cannot be transcended to achieve objectivity, it means that conflicts among nation-states will never cease, which clearly does not conform to the natural right of the human species to permanent existence. It is precisely because of this that philosophers, in their systems of philosophy of history, inevitably take “how is universal world history possible?” as an ultimate课题 to explore. This ultimate concern distinctly begins with Kant, passes through Hegel, and reaches Marx.

“解放何以可能”是马克思对“普遍的世界历史”的终极关切。所谓人类的自由和解放，旨在打破这一“支配－从属”的世界生产关系，把人类带入自由王国。而只要不能超出单个民族国家利益的主观性而达到客观性，就意味着各民族国家之间的冲突永远不会终止，这显然不符合人类这一物种永久性生存的自然法权。正是因为这一点，哲学家们在他们的历史哲学体系中必然把“普遍的世界历史何以可能”作为一项终极性课题加以探讨，这一终极关切鲜明地开始于康德，经由黑格尔一直到马克思。

According to the principles of historical materialism, Marx entrusts “universal world history” to “universal relations of intercourse”; “universal relations of intercourse” are the real foundation of “universal world history.” That nation-states engage in struggle and conflict, in Marx’s view, is because humanity has not yet established “universal relations of intercourse”; these relations of intercourse divide humanity into “two great hostile classes”; and as long as relations of intercourse still serve the “particular interests” of a particular class, they will inevitably exist within the “domination-subordination” relationship, thereby undermining the freedom and liberation of humanity as a whole. Therefore, so-called “universal world history” means that individual nation-states must sublate their own particular histories (relations of production that merely safeguard their own particular interests) and, through “universal relations of intercourse” aimed at universal interests, attain “universal world history.” Only in this way can humanity eliminate conflict and realize freedom and liberation.

按照唯物史观的原则，马克思把“普遍的世界历史”寄托于“普遍的交往关系”，“普遍的交往关系”是“普遍的世界历史”的现实基础。各民族国家发生斗争和冲突，在马克思看来乃是因为迄今人类没有建立起“普遍的交往关系”，这种交往关系把人类区分为“两大敌对阶级”；而只要交往关系还是为了某一特殊阶级的“特殊利益”，就必然存在于“支配－从属”的关系当中，进而破坏人类整体的自由和解放。因此，所谓“普遍的世界历史”就是要实现单个民族国家扬弃自己特殊的历史（仅仅维护自己特殊利益的生产关系），通过以普遍利益为目的的“普遍的交往关系”通达“普遍的世界历史”。唯有如此，人类才能消除冲突而实现自由和解放。

II. Marx’s Critique of the Idealist Conception of “Universal World History”

二、马克思对唯心论“普遍的世界历史”观念的批判

Marx’s conception of “universal world history” was formed in the process of criticizing the German classical philosophy’s conception of “universal world history.” He overcame the idealism of Kant’s and Hegel’s conceptions of “universal world history” and formed a conception of “universal world history” in the sense of historical materialism.

马克思的“普遍的世界历史”观念是在对德国古典哲学关于“普遍的世界历史”观念的批判中形成的，他克服了康德和黑格尔“普遍的世界历史”观念的唯心论，形成了唯物史观意义上的“普遍的世界历史”观念。

1. The Deduction of the Conception of “Universal World History” in Historical Materialism

1.唯物史观关于“普遍的世界历史”构想的推论

Marx and Engels expounded the general principles of historical materialism in *The German Ideology*. However, the discovery of these principles was a conclusion drawn by Marx and Engels based on an investigation of the specific conditions of the developed capitalist countries of Western Europe. Yet Marx and Engels also clearly pointed out that these “general principles” transcend regionality, because communism must be worldwide. Thus, the general principles of historical materialism are not merely the general principles of the social development and progress of a particular nation-state, but also the general principles of the development and progress of the entire world history. Although historical materialism may manifest differently in the concrete realities of each nation-state, the general principles of historical materialism are universally valid, and this validity is centrally embodied in their grasp of the objective laws of “universal world history.”

马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中论述了唯物史观的一般原理。但这一原理的发现是马克思恩格斯基于西欧发达资本主义国家具体情况考察得出的结论。但是，马克思恩格斯也明确地指出，这一“一般原理”是超越地域性的，因为共产主义一定是世界性的。这样，唯物史观的一般原理就不仅仅是某一个民族国家社会发展进步的一般原理，同时也是整个世界历史发展进步的一般原理。尽管唯物史观在每个民族国家的具体实际中会有不同的表现，但唯物史观的一般原理却是普遍有效的，这一有效性集中体现在它把握了“普遍的世界历史”的客观规律。

The general principles of historical materialism indicate that the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production is not merely a contradiction within a particular nation-state, but also a contradiction in the relations among various nation-states. “The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labor and internal intercourse. This principle is universally acknowledged. However, not only the relation of one nation to others, but also the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the stage of development reached by its production and its internal and external intercourse.” That is to say, the principle of productive forces and relations of production among various nation-states is consistent with the principle of productive forces and relations of production within a single regional state. Consequently, the exploration of “universal world history” likewise follows the general principles of historical materialism.

唯物史观的一般原理表明，生产力与生产关系的矛盾问题不仅仅是某一个民族国家内部的矛盾问题，同时也是各个民族国家之间关系的矛盾问题。“各民族之间的相互关系取决于每一个民族的生产力、分工和内部交往的发展程度。这个原理是公认的。然而不仅一个民族与其他民族的关系，而且这个民族本身的整个内部结构也取决于自己的生产以及自己内部和外部的交往的发展程度。”也就是说，各个民族国家之间的生产力和生产关系原理是和地域性的单个国家的生产力和生产关系原理相一致的。因而，对“普遍的世界历史”的探讨，就同样服从唯物史观的一般原理。

When history is fully transformed into world history, the general principles of historical materialism are simultaneously extended into the basic principles of world-historical theory. Correspondingly, the question of how to build a community within a single nation-state is elevated to the question of how to build a “universal world history” among nation-states, and the community question of the individual nation-state is subordinated to the question of the world-historical community. In the past, within regional nations, class conflicts arising from the division of interests were ultimately checked in the form of the “state,” and the state was thus used as an instrument to safeguard the interests of a particular class. Now, because capital expansion has drawn all nation-states into the capital system, the community question has been upgraded to the question of the “world relations of production” among nation-states, with nation-states as the units. In Marx’s work, this question is concentratedly expressed as: do we need an “increasingly hostile two camps,” or do we need an “association of free individuals”? Do we need a world relation of production of “domination-subordination,” or do we need “universal relations of intercourse”? Under these circumstances, the construction of a “universal world history” is placed on the agenda.

在历史完全转变为世界历史的情况下，唯物史观的一般原理便同时被拓展为世界历史理论的基本原理。与此相应，关于在单个国家内如何建成共同体的问题便上升为如何在各民族国家之间建成“普遍的世界历史”问题，且单个民族国家的共同体问题从属于世界历史共同体问题。以往在地域性民族中，由于利益分化而形成的阶级冲突最终以“国家”的形式得到制止，国家便被作为维护特殊阶级利益的工具。现在，由于资本扩张而使一切民族国家被卷入资本体系当中，共同体的问题便升级为以民族国家为单位而形成的民族国家之间的“世界生产关系”问题。这一问题在马克思这里集中表现为：我们需要一个“日益敌对的两大阵营”，还是需要“自由人的联合体”？我们需要一个“支配－从属”的世界生产关系，还是需要一个“普遍的交往关系”？在这种情况下，建构“普遍的世界历史”便被提到了日程。

The practical pertinence of seeking a “universal world history” lies in the fact that Western capitalist civilization understands the relations between states only as a principle of subjectivity and particularity; hence conflicts and wars arising from the subjective interests of each state are unavoidable. Therefore, if every nation-state stubbornly clings to its own national interests without respecting the interests of other nation-states, humanity can in no way enter a peaceful world. And to move toward a world-historical situation in which all nation-states coexist harmoniously, each nation-state must assume an obligation to move toward a “universal world history.” However, in the Western capitalist conception of world history, it is usually one particular nation-state that “represents” its own interests as the “universal interests” of all the world’s nation-states. For example, the “world empire” wages wars of conquest in the name of pursuing the universal interests of all nation-states; the world history achieved in this way can only be a false “universal world history.”

寻求“普遍的世界历史”的现实针对性在于，西方资本主义文明把国家与国家之间的关系仅仅理解为一种主观性和特殊性的原则，因此各个国家之间从主观利益出发而发生冲突和战争是不可避免的。所以，如果每个民族国家都固执于自己民族国家的利益而不尊重其他民族国家的利益，那人类无论如何都无法进入一个和平世界。而为了通向一个各民族国家和谐共生的世界历史局面，每个民族国家就必须承担一项通往“普遍的世界历史”的义务。然而，在西方资本主义的世界历史观念中，通常是某一个民族国家把自己的利益“说成”是世界各民族国家的“普遍利益”，比如“世界帝国”便是以追求各民族国家普遍利益的名义而发动征服世界的战争，这种情况下所成就的世界历史就只能是虚假的“普遍的世界历史”。

The original false community of the “state,” under the condition that history has been transformed into world history, expands into false relations among the various nation-states. Hence Marx’s principle of the false community of the “state” can be directly applied to the domain of “universal world history,” and the situation is as follows: those who pose as spokespersons for a “universal world history” “represent” the particular interests of their own nation-state as universal interests, which leads to the ideology they name “universal values” also becoming a false ideology, and they strive to force other nation-states to submit to the domination and rule of this “universal value.” It can be seen that Marx’s critique of the false community of the capitalist state, and the critique of false “thought in the form of universality” [18]18 “Thought in the form of universality” (普遍性形式的思想) is Marx and Engels’s term in *The German Ideology* for the way a ruling class presents its particular interests as universal, thereby giving its ideas the appearance of universal validity. determined by it, still apply in the contemporary domain of world history. Therefore, exploring the path toward a “universal world history” in the 21st century from these critiques of Marx—for example, the exploration of common values for all humanity, the exploration of a new form of human civilization, the exploration of a community with a shared future for mankind, etc.—constitutes a major课题 of 21st-century Marxist world-historical theory.

原初作为“国家”的虚假共同体在历史转变为世界历史的条件下，扩展为各个民族国家之间的虚假关系，因而可以把马克思关于“国家”的虚假共同体的原理直接应用在“普遍的世界历史”领域，于是情形如下：那些冒充为“普遍的世界历史”的代言人，把自己民族国家的特殊利益“说成”是普遍利益，这便导致其以“普世价值”命名的意识形态也成为虚假的意识形态，并力图迫使其他民族国家也受制于这一“普世价值”的支配和统治。可见，马克思对资本主义国家的虚假共同体的批判，以及由此决定的对虚假的“普遍性形式的思想”的批判，在当代世界历史领域仍然适用。因此，从马克思的这些批判中探索21世纪通往“普遍的世界历史”的道路，比如对全人类共同价值的探讨、对人类文明新形态的探讨、对人类命运共同体的探讨等，构成了21世纪马克思主义世界历史理论的重大课题。

2. Marx’s Revelation of the Falsity of “Universal World History” in Speculative Philosophy

2.马克思对思辨哲学中“普遍的世界历史”虚假性的揭示

The pursuit of “universal world history” is always rooted in the life-nature of the human species. Philosophers generally call philosophy the intellectual activity of seeking “the foundation for settling down and getting on with one’s life.” [19]19 “Settling down and getting on with one’s life” (安身立命之本) is a classical Chinese philosophical expression referring to the ultimate foundation of human existence and spiritual belonging. From Marx’s humanist standpoint, “where is the world going” is not a metaphysical ontology, but rather the foundation for humanity’s “settling down and getting on with one’s life.” This is the distinctive life-nature of the human species. Since the effort to seek “universal world history” is rooted in the natural tendency of the life-nature of the human species, this ultimate effort of philosophy of history is not an optional, contingent choice, but rather a necessary choice arising from the life-nature of humanity. However, there are different paths on the road to pursuing this “universal world history,” among which the idealist path was epitomized by Hegel, and thereafter the idealist path was inherited by the Young Hegelians. Marx and Engels concentratedly exposed the error of this path in *The German Ideology* and pointed out a path of historical materialism toward a “universal world history.”

追求“普遍的世界历史”总是根植于人类物种的生命本性。哲学家们一般把哲学称为寻求“安身立命之本”的思想活动。从马克思的人学立场来看，“世界向何处去”不是形而上学的本体论，而是对于人类来说的“安身立命”之本。这是人类这一物种特有的生命本性。既然寻求“普遍的世界历史”的努力根植于人类物种的生命本性的自然倾向，因而这一历史哲学的终极性努力就不是可有可无的偶然选择，毋宁说是出于人类生命本性的必然选择。然而，在追求这一“普遍的世界历史”的道路上存在不同的路径，其中唯心论路径的集大成者无疑是黑格尔，此后唯心论路径又在青年黑格尔派中得到了传承。马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中集中揭露了这一路径的错误，并指明了一种通向“普遍的世界历史”的唯物史观道路。

Speculative philosophy also wants to seek a foundation of unity for world history, but this foundation is the “absolute spirit” in Hegel’s sense, which Marx calls “thought in the form of universality.” According to the principles of historical materialism, the world is unified in matter, not in spirit; human freedom and emancipation cannot be realized through “thought in the form of universality,” but can only find answers in the real domain of material production. This is because “thought in the form of universality” is essentially an abstract metaphysical official ideology. World history cannot establish its own unity in Hegel’s “spirit derived from spirit.” Therefore, the speculative philosophical path of constructing a “universal world history” is impassable. “The ruling ideas will be increasingly abstract ideas, i.e., ideas which increasingly take on the form of universality. For each new class which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to achieve its own aims, to represent its own interests as the common interests of all members of society, i.e., expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.” [20]20 This quotation is from Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–46), where they analyze how each new ruling class must represent its own interests as the common interests of all.

思辨哲学也想要为世界历史寻求统一性基础，但是，这一基础就是黑格尔意义上的“绝对精神”，马克思称之为“普遍性形式的思想”。按照唯物史观的原理，世界统一于物质而非统一于精神，人类的自由和解放不能借助于“普遍性形式的思想”来实现，而只能从现实的物质生产领域中寻找答案。因为，“普遍性形式的思想”本质上是一种抽象的形而上学的官方意识形态。世界历史不可能在黑格尔的“源于精神的精神”中确立自身的统一性。所以，建构“普遍的世界历史”的思辨哲学道路是走不通的。“占统治地位的将是越来越抽象的思想，即越来越具有普遍性形式的思想。因为每一个企图取代旧统治阶级的新阶级，为了达到自己的目的不得不把自己的利益说成是社会全体成员的共同利益，就是说，这在观念上的表达就是：赋予自己的思想以普遍性的形式，把它们描绘成唯一合乎理性的、有普遍意义的思想。”

From this it can be seen that when idealism discusses “universal world history,” it starts from “thought in the form of universality.” Marx used the concept of “the form of universality” to define the idealist “universal world history,” meaning that this “universal world history” possesses only the “form” of universality, not the “substance” of universality. For idealism, the absolute spirit is the highest “universal value” for humanity; a nation can obtain the ontological foundation of a nation-state only by being responsible to the absolute spirit; otherwise, the existence of that nation is utterly meaningless. Therefore, in idealism, “universal world history” is merely a false unity formed by infusing “universal value” into the practical existence of each nation-state.

由此可知，唯心论在探讨“普遍的世界历史”的时候，是从“普遍性形式的思想”开始的。马克思使用了“普遍性形式”这一概念来界定唯心论的“普遍的世界历史”，意思是说，这一“普遍的世界历史”只具有普遍性的“形式”，而不具有普遍性的“实质”。而对于唯心论来说，绝对精神才是人类最高的“普世价值”，一个民族只有对绝对精神负责，才能获得一个民族国家的存在论基础，否则，该民族的存在就是毫无意义的。所以，在唯心论中“普遍的世界历史”不过是把“普世价值”灌注到各个民族国家的生存实践当中而形成的虚假的统一性。

However, within the real relations of production of world history, the nation-states that possess “thought in the form of universality” are merely pursuing their own interests. This situation continues to this day. An obvious fact is that these nation-states pursue their own interests through means such as “zero-sum games,” “unilateralism,” and “deglobalization.” They merely use “universal value”—this “thought in the form of universality” in Marx’s sense—as a fig leaf. As “thought in the form of universality,” it is essentially only abstract value words. Which nation-state does not pursue fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom? The problem is that only on the basis of genuine “universal relations of intercourse” can these abstract thought-forms of value words be endowed with real “content.” Otherwise, within the mode of thinking of the “zero-sum game,” what is actually being pursued is the particular interests of one’s own nation-state; therefore, the aim of this “thought in the form of universality” is to defend the world relations of production of “domination-subordination” dominated by capital. This is both a illusory “thought in the form of universality” (“universal value”) and an illusory “universal world history.” It can be seen that Marx’s critique of the idealist false “thought in the form of universality” today manifests as a critique of “universal value.” This is the inevitable contemporary outcome of “thought in the form of universality” under the dominance of the logic of capital; although its appellation has changed, its essence has not changed at all.

然而，在世界历史的现实生产关系当中，掌握“普遍性形式的思想”的民族国家只是在追求自身利益。这种情况一直持续到今天。一个显而易见的事实是，这些民族国家采取“零和博弈”“单边主义”“逆全球化”等方式追求自身利益，他们只是把“普世价值”这一马克思意义上的“普遍性形式的思想”作为遮羞布，作为“普遍性形式的思想”，本质上只是抽象的价值语词。哪个民族国家不追求公平正义民主自由呢？问题是只有在真正的“普遍的交往关系”基础之上，才能赋予这些价值语词的抽象思想形式以真实的“内涵”。否则，在“零和博弈”的思维方式中，实际上从事着的却是对自己民族国家特殊利益的追求，因此这一“普遍性形式的思想”的目的旨在捍卫由资本主导的“支配－从属”的世界生产关系，这既是虚幻的“普遍性形式的思想”（“普世价值”），同时也是虚幻的“普遍的世界历史”。可见，马克思对唯心论虚假的“普遍性形式的思想”的批判，在今天便表现为对“普世价值”的批判，这是在资本逻辑主导下“普遍性形式的思想”在当代面临的必然结果，其称谓虽有变化，但其实质却没有任何改变。

3. Marx’s Critique of the “Logic of Capital” as the Ruler of World History

3.马克思对“资本逻辑”作为世界历史支配者的批判

In Kant’s view, the hidden director behind world history is the “secret plan of nature,” which contains Kant’s theological stance. Nature is like an “invisible hand” manipulating human destiny. Hegel, by contrast, pointedly asserted that absolute spirit (God), as the “substance” of the world, is the director of world history; the direction of world history is God’s purpose, and humanity cannot control its own destiny. In Marx’s view, however, both of these idealist accounts of the director of world history are untenable. Discovering the true director of world history is the precondition for humanity to change the world and take charge of its own destiny. To this end, Marx descended from the “kingdom of heaven” to the “earthly world” and discovered the true director of world history within capitalist relations of production. Only by breaking the dominant position of this director of world history can humanity restore its subjectivity in controlling world history and thereby achieve a “universal world history.”

在康德看来，世界历史的幕后支配者是“大自然的隐蔽计划”，这里包含着康德的神学立场。大自然仿佛是一只“看不见的手”在操控着人类的命运。黑格尔则鲜明地指出，绝对精神（上帝）作为世界的“本体”是世界历史的支配者，世界历史趋向何方是上帝的目的，而人类自己无法主宰自己的命运。而在马克思看来，这两种关于世界历史支配者的唯心论观点是不成立的。发现世界历史的真正支配者，是人类改变世界并主宰自己命运的前提。为此，马克思从“天国”回到“尘世”，在资本主义生产关系中发现了世界历史的真正支配者。只有破除这一世界历史的支配者的支配地位，才能恢复人类掌控世界历史的主体性，进而成就“普遍的世界历史”。

From the idealist perspective, “thought in the form of universality” is the absolute director of world history. How, then, does this “thought in the form of universality” arise? What is its secret? Why is “thought in the form of universality” “false”? In Marx’s view, as long as world history has not formed “universal relations of intercourse,” every nation-state remains subject to the domination of relations of production in which particular interests “masquerade” as universal interests. Marx pointed out that idealism entrusts the director of world history to the “thought in the form of universality” of absolute spirit, but in truth, the director of world history is rather the relations of production constituted by capitalist private ownership. Therefore, the task of criticizing the falsity of “thought in the form of universality” is concretized as the critique of real-world relations of production. The domination and enslavement of human existence by this world production relations dominated by private ownership is the general root of humanity’s loss of freedom. The idealist path evades this real foundation and instead naively hopes to promote the formation of a “universal world history” through “thought in the form of universality.” This is clearly a deceptive maneuver, and the problem of human freedom and emancipation cannot be genuinely resolved.

在唯心论看来，“普遍性形式的思想”是世界历史的绝对支配者。那么，这一“普遍性形式的思想”是如何产生的？其奥秘是什么？“普遍性形式的思想”为什么是“虚假的”？在马克思看来，世界历史只要没有形成“普遍的交往关系”，就意味着每个民族国家都受制于这种以特殊利益“冒充”普遍利益的生产关系的支配。马克思指出，唯心论把世界历史的支配者交给了绝对精神的“普遍性形式的思想”，但真正说来，世界历史的支配者毋宁说是由资本主义私有制组建的生产关系。因此，批判“普遍性形式的思想”的虚假性这一任务便落实为批判现实的世界生产关系。这一私有制主导的世界生产关系对人类生存的支配和奴役，乃是人类失去自由的总根源。而唯心论路径回避这一现实基础，却单纯寄希望于通过“普遍性形式的思想”来推动形成“普遍的世界历史”，这显然是遮人耳目的做法，人类的自由和解放问题也无法得到真正的解决。

This “domination-subordination” relation of production originates in the replacement of the naturally formed world order by a world order formed under the domination of capital. Marx and Engels pointed out: “It has destroyed all naturally grown relations, insofar as these have not been brought within the sphere of labor, and it has turned all naturally grown relations into money relations.” [21]21 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 77. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard MECW version.] Initially, each nation-state existed in a state of mutual closure, at most forming “naturally grown” world production relations. However, it was only after the emergence of capital, especially commercial capital, that the situation of “history becoming world history” truly took shape. Commercial capital is the first capital form in the modern sense that turned history into world history. On this, Marx and Engels noted: “The first step beyond the naturally grown estate capital was taken by the appearance of merchants, whose capital from the outset was active, and, if one considers the conditions of the time, can be described as capital in the modern sense.” [22]22 Ibid., p. 67.

这种“支配－从属”的生产关系根源于由资本支配下所形成的世界秩序取代了自然形成的世界秩序。马克思恩格斯指出：“它把自然形成的性质一概消灭掉（只要在劳动的范围内有可能做到这一点），它还把所有自然形成的关系变成货币的关系。”起初，各民族国家处在彼此封闭的状态，至多是“自然形成”的世界生产关系。然而，当资本出现后，特别是商业资本出现以后，才真正形成“历史转变为世界历史”的局面。商业资本是历史转变为世界历史的现代意义上的第一资本形态。对此，马克思恩格斯指出：“越过自然形成的等级资本而向前迈出的第一步，是由商人的出现所促成的，商人的资本一开始就是活动的，如果针对当时的情况来讲，可以说是现代意义上的资本。”

How, then, did commercial capital emerge? According to Marx and Engels’ analysis in *The German Ideology*, it was the emergence of manufacture in the late feudal period that led to the appearance of commercial capital. In this sense, manufacture is the starting point of history turning into world history. “With the emergence of manufacture, the nations entered into competitive relations and waged commercial struggles, which were carried on through wars, protective tariffs, and prohibitions, whereas previously, whenever nations had contact with each other, they engaged in peaceful exchange. From then on, commerce acquired a political significance.” [23]23 Ibid., p. 67.

那么，商业资本是如何出现的？根据马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中的分析，是在封建社会后期工场手工业的出现导致了商业资本的出现。在这个意义上，工场手工业是历史转变为世界历史的开端。“随着工场手工业的出现，各国进入竞争的关系，展开了商业斗争，这种斗争是通过战争、保护关税和各种禁令来进行的，而在过去，各国只要彼此有了联系，就互相进行和平的交易。从此以后商业便具有了政治意义。”

III. The Principle of Historical Materialism for “Universal World History”

三、“普遍的世界历史”的唯物史观原理

According to Marx’s view, world history is the process of the extinction of private property, that is, the process of the disappearance of the division of labor, classes, the state, and nations. When individual nation-states are no longer subject to the naturally formed division of labor, nor to the division of labor forced upon them by the logic of capital, a “universal world history” will truly take shape.

按照马克思的看法，世界历史是私有制灭亡的过程，也就是分工、阶级、国家和民族消亡的过程。当单个民族国家之间不再受制于自然形成的分工，也不受制于由资本逻辑所被迫造成的分工的时候，“普遍的世界历史”将真正地形成。

1. “Universal World History” Is Conditioned by the Formation of a “Universal Class”

1.“普遍的世界历史”以“普遍阶级”的形成为条件

The historical mission of bringing the world into a “universal world history” must necessarily be borne by a historical subject with universality, and this historical subject with universality historically falls upon the “proletariat.” Thus, the proletariat becomes the “universal class” that undertakes the achievement of “universal world history.” A universal world history needs to be established on the basis of the formation of a “universal class”; the proletariat, as this “universal class,” constitutes the creative subject of “universal world history.” “In general, large industry created everywhere the same relations between the classes of society, and thus destroyed the peculiar individuality of the various nationalities. Finally, while the bourgeoisie of each nation still retained separate national interests, large industry created a class, which in all nations has the same interest and with which nationality is already dead; a class which is really rid of all the old world and at the same time stands pitted against it. Large industry not only makes the relation of the worker to the capitalist, but makes labor itself, unbearable for the worker.” [24]24 Ibid., p. 73. With the formation of world history, the “universal class,” i.e., the proletariat, as the subject that promotes the establishment of “universal relations of intercourse” and initiates “universal world history,” is truly born.

把世界带入“普遍的世界历史”这一历史使命必然由具有普遍性的历史主体来承担，而这一具有普遍性的历史主体就历史性地落在了“无产阶级”的身上，因而无产阶级便成为担当成就“普遍的世界历史”的“普遍的阶级”。普遍的世界历史需要建立在一个“普遍的阶级”形成基础之上，无产阶级这一“普遍的阶级”就构成了“普遍的世界历史”的创造主体。“一般说来，大工业到处造成了社会各阶级间相同的关系，从而消灭了各民族的特殊性。最后，当每一民族的资产阶级还保持着它的特殊的民族利益的时候，大工业却创造了这样一个阶级，这个阶级在所有的民族中都具有同样的利益，在它那里民族独特性已经消灭，这是一个真正同整个旧世界脱离而同时又与之对立的阶级。大工业不仅使工人对资本家的关系，而且使劳动本身都成为工人不堪忍受的东西。”随着世界历史的形成，“普遍的阶级”，即无产阶级，作为推动建立“普遍的交往关系”和开创“普遍的世界历史”的主体才真正诞生。

Marx pointed out that without the emergence of a “universal class,” human society would forever stagnate in a state of endless struggle and conflict among various particular classes; human destiny would repeat itself in cycles, unable to achieve freedom and emancipation. Although past conceptions of “socialism” were numerous and varied, all attempting to transcend the cyclical state of class antagonism, these conceptions ultimately remained merely “utopian” and never became reality. Human society was always trapped in a recurring “historical cycle” [25]25 “Historical cycle” (历史周期率) refers to the recurring pattern in Chinese dynastic history of rise, peak, decline, and collapse, a concept famously discussed by Mao Zedong in 1945 in conversation with Huang Yanpei. in which one particular class replaced another. Marx and Engels, with their historical science, revealed the fundamental cause of this “historical cycle”: “Whether the revolutionary convulsions which periodically recur in history are strong enough to overthrow the basis of all existing things; if there are not present these material elements of a total revolution, namely, on the one hand, the existing productive forces, and, on the other, the formation of a revolutionary mass, which revolts not only against the separate conditions of the existing society, but against the existing ‘production of life’ itself, the ‘total activity’ on which it is based — then, as the history of communism proves, it is of no importance for practical development that the idea of this revolution has been expressed a hundred times.” [26]26 *The German Ideology*, MECW, vol. 5, p. 54. In short, without the emergence of a “universal class” as the true subject of world history, world history can only cyclically manifest itself as one particular class overcoming another; a “universal world history” cannot be formed. How, then, can one break out of this “historical cycle”? Marx’s answer is: through the development of productive forces, the formation of a “universal class,” and thereby the formation of “universal relations of intercourse” in world history, thus leading humanity toward a “universal world history.”

马克思指出，如果没有“普遍的阶级”的出现，人类社会将永远停滞于各个特殊阶级之间永无休止的斗争和冲突状态之中，人类的命运将周而复始、循环往复而无法实现自由和解放。尽管以往关于“社会主义”的观念林林总总，都试图超越阶级对立的循环往复状态，但这种观念终究仅仅是“空想”而没能变成现实，人类社会始终处在一个特殊阶级取代另一个特殊阶级的周而复始的“历史周期率”当中。而马克思恩格斯以其历史科学揭示了造成这一“历史周期率”的根本原因：“历史上周期性地重演的革命动荡是否强大到足以摧毁现存一切的基础；如果还没有具备这些实行全面变革的物质因素，就是说，一方面还没有一定的生产力，另一方面还没有形成不仅反抗旧社会的个别条件，而且反抗旧的‘生活生产’本身、反抗旧社会所依据的‘总和活动’的革命群众，那么，正如共产主义的历史所证明的，尽管这种变革的观念已经表述过千百次，但这对于实际发展没有任何意义。”概言之，没有作为真正的世界历史主体的“普遍的阶级”的出现，世界历史就只能循环往复地表现为一个特殊阶级战胜另一个特殊阶级，“普遍的世界历史”是无法形成的。那么，如何跳出这一“历史周期率”？马克思给出的答案是：通过发展生产力，形成“普遍的阶级”，进而形成世界历史“普遍的交往关系”，从而把人类带向“普遍的世界历史”。

2. “Universal World History” Presupposes a High Level of Development of Productive Forces

2.“普遍的世界历史”以生产力高度发展为前提

Marx advocated the development of productive forces, but this advocacy is usually only one-sidedly understood as Marx’s attempt to provide a “material foundation” for communism, namely, as pointed out in *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, that “the springs of cooperative wealth flow abundantly” is a condition for communism. However, Marx’s proposition of vigorously developing productive forces is not merely concerned with the growth of material wealth; rather, it is aimed at creating a possible mechanism in productive forces for the formation of a “universal world history.” For the more productive forces develop, the faster the process of history turning into world history, and the higher the degree of universality of world history. And the higher the degree of universality of world history, the more it can lay the foundation for breaking the “domination-subordination” relations of production and the world pattern. The process of world history needs to be built on the continuous elevation of productive forces; otherwise, universal intercourse cannot be formed.

马克思主张发展生产力，但这一主张通常只被片面地理解为马克思试图为共产主义提供“物质基础”，即在《哥达纲领批判》中所指出的，“集体财富的一切源泉都充分涌流”是共产主义的条件。然而，马克思提出大力发展生产力的主张并非只是关注物质财富的增长，毋宁说是为形成“普遍的世界历史”创造生产力上的可能机制。因为生产力越发展，历史转变为世界历史的进程越快，世界历史的普遍性程度也就越高。而世界历史的普遍性程度越高，才能为打破“支配－从属”的生产关系及世界格局奠定基础。世界历史进程需要建立在生产力不断提高的基础之上，否则，无法形成普遍交往。

On the one hand, “only when intercourse becomes world intercourse and is based on large-scale industry, and when all nations are drawn into the competitive struggle, is the preservation of the created productive forces assured.” On the other hand, “this development of productive forces is an absolutely necessary practical premise also because: only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse among human beings established; universal intercourse, on the one hand, produces the phenomenon of a ‘propertyless’ mass in all nations simultaneously (universal competition), making each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others; finally, it replaces local individuals with world-historical, empirically universal individuals. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as something local; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not develop into universal, hence unbearable, forces; they would remain local, ‘superstitious’ conditions; (3) any expansion of intercourse would abolish local communism. Communism is empirically possible only as the ‘simultaneous’ act of the ruling nations, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with them.”

一方面，“只有当交往成为世界交往并且以大工业为基础的时候，只有当一切民族都卷入竞争斗争的时候，保持已创造出来的生产力才有了保障”。另一方面，“生产力的这种发展之所以是绝对必需的实际前提，还因为：只有随着生产力的这种普遍发展，人们的普遍交往才能建立起来；普遍交往，一方面，可以产生一切民族中同时都存在着‘没有财产的’群众这一现象（普遍竞争），使每一民族都依赖于其他民族的变革；最后，地域性的个人为世界历史性的、经验上普遍的个人所代替。不这样，（1）共产主义就只能作为某种地域性的东西而存在；（2）交往的力量本身就不可能发展成为一种普遍的因而是不堪忍受的力量；它们会依然处于地方的、笼罩着迷信气氛的‘状态’；（3）交往的任何扩大都会消灭地域性的共产主义。共产主义只有作为占统治地位的各民族‘一下子’同时发生的行动，在经验上才是可能的，而这是以生产力的普遍发展和与此相联系的世界交往为前提的”。

Thus it can be seen that world history is a process of the evolution of the capital form, concretely manifested as the mode of intercourse developing from handicraft industry to manufacture, then to the emergence of commercial capital and the formation of capitalist private property, and finally to the formation of the world market; history completes its transformation into “world history.” This process is a principle of historical dialectics: the pursuit of particular class interests and the movement to abolish particular class interests are the same process. Marx’s dialectical principle concerning the problem of alienation, “the supersession of self-alienation follows the same road as self-alienation,” can be transformed into another formulation: the expansion of the logic of capital and the supersession of the logic of capital follow the same road; the development of capitalism and the demise of capitalism follow the same road. And the primordial driving force within this is the development of productive forces; only thus is a “universal world history” possible.

由此可见，世界历史是资本形态的演进过程，具体表现为交往方式从手工业发展到工场手工业，再到商业资本的出现和资本主义私有制的形成，一直到世界市场的形成，历史完成了向“世界历史”的转变。这一过程是一个历史辩证法的原理：特殊的阶级利益的追求同消灭特殊阶级利益的运动是同一个过程。马克思关于异化问题的辩证法原理“自我异化的扬弃同自我异化走的是同一条道路”可以转化为另一种表述：资本逻辑的扩张和资本逻辑的扬弃走的是同一条道路；资本主义的发展和资本主义的灭亡走的是同一条道路。而这其中的原始动力便是生产力的发展，唯有如此，“普遍的世界历史”才是可能的。

3. “Universal World History” Aims to Break the “Domination-Subordination” Relations of Production in World History

3.“普遍的世界历史”以打破世界历史“支配－从属”生产关系为目的

What is called human freedom and emancipation is essentially the emancipation of humanity from this “domination-subordination” world relations of production. Within the “domination-subordination” relations of production, a typical case is the “subordination of the countryside to the town” caused by the separation of town and country. To cast off various forms of opposition and conflict and to establish community is the goal of humanity’s pursuit of a “universal world history.” Marx and Engels clarified this: “The contradiction between town and country is the most crass expression of the subjection of the individual under the division of labor, under the definite activity forced upon him—a subjection which makes one man into a restricted town-animal, the other into a restricted country-animal, and daily creates anew the conflict between their interests. Labor is here again the chief thing, the power over individuals; as long as this power exists, private property must exist. The abolition of the contradiction between town and country is one of the first conditions of community.” Here, the subordination relation of the division of labor between town and country is taken only as an example; in fact, other oppositions between later-developing nation-states and developed nation-states, and between East and West, will also disappear with the extinction of private property. Only then will a “universal world history” truly take shape. But this process can by no means be realized within the abstract ideas of Kant and Hegel; it must be built on the basis of the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, and resolving this contradiction depends first of all on the high development of productive forces.

所谓人类的自由和解放，本质上就是使人类从这种“支配－从属”的世界生产关系中解放出来。在“支配－从属”的生产关系中，典型的案例是城乡分离造成的“乡村从属于城市”。摆脱种种形式的对立和冲突并建立共同体是人类追求“普遍的世界历史”的目的，马克思恩格斯对此做了阐明：“城乡之间的对立是个人屈从于分工、屈从于他被迫从事的某种活动的最鲜明的反映，这种屈从把一部分人变为受局限的城市动物，把另一部分人变为受局限的乡村动物，并且每天都重新产生二者利益之间的对立。在这里，劳动仍然是最主要的，是凌驾于个人之上的力量；只要这种力量还存在，私有制也就必然会存在下去。消灭城乡之间的对立，是共同体的首要条件之一”。这里只是以城乡分工的从属关系为例，实际上其他的后发民族国家和发达民族国家之间的对立、东方和西方的对立，也将随着私有制的消亡而消亡，那时“普遍的世界历史”才真正形成。但这一过程绝不是在康德和黑格尔的抽象的观念中就能够实现的，而是要建立在生产力和生产关系的矛盾运动基础之上，而解决这一矛盾首先取决于生产力的高度发展。

Under conditions of public ownership, nation-states have no “particular interests,” and therefore there is no need to represent “particular interests” as “universal interests.” In this situation, “thoughts of the form of universality” will naturally disappear accordingly. This means that the formation of genuine “universal interests,” that is, a “universal world history,” is possible only when it is built on the foundation of “universal relations of intercourse.” At that point, the “semblance” of the rule of “thoughts of the form of universality” will also disappear accordingly. Marx and Engels pointed out: “As soon as class rule has completely ceased to be the form of social organization, that is to say, as soon as it is no longer necessary to represent a particular interest as universal, or the ‘universal’ as ruling, the whole semblance that the rule of a certain class is merely the rule of certain ideas will naturally cease of itself.” This practice of representing particular interests “as” universal interests is the root of the falsity of ideology.

在公有制条件下，各民族国家没有“特殊利益”，因此也就没有把“特殊利益”说成是“普遍利益”的必要，在这种情况下“普遍性形式的思想”也就会随之自然消失。这也就意味着真正的“普遍利益”的形成，亦即“普遍的世界历史”要建立在“普遍的交往关系”这一基础之上才是可能的。此时，作为“普遍性形式的思想”的统治“假象”也就随之消失。马克思恩格斯指出：“只要阶级的统治完全不再是社会制度的形式，也就是说，只要不再有必要把特殊利益说成是普遍利益，或者把‘普遍的东西’说成是占统治地位的东西，那么，一定阶级的统治似乎只是某种思想的统治这整个假象当然就会自行消失。”这种把特殊利益“说成是”普遍利益的做法，是意识形态虚假性的根源。

Thus it can be seen that world history should tend toward each nation-state superseding its own “particular interests” and reconciling its “particular interests” with the “universal interests” of humanity; only then will conflicts among nation-states disappear, and a “universal world history” can truly take shape. Therefore, on the surface, humanity appears to be subject to the domination and rule of “thoughts of the form of universality,” but fundamentally it is subject to the “domination-subordination” relations of production formed among different nation-states under private property. Under capitalist private property, it is not so much that people are subjected to the “abstract rule of ideas” as that they are subjected to the “abstract rule of capital.” As Marx and Engels criticized in the *Communist Manifesto*, capital turns all relations between people into “naked self-interest” and “cash payment.” Capital turns people into instruments of making a living, and merely instruments of making a living. According to this logic, from the perspective of world history, the relations among nation-states are reduced to nothing but naked relations of interest, with no genuine relations of friendship. Those nation-states that occupy a dominant position in the logic of capital become “dominators,” while other nation-states become “subordinates.” Then, how to break this “domination-subordination” world relations of production becomes the new path of historical materialism that Marx explored for a “universal world history.”

可见，世界历史应该趋向于各个民族国家扬弃自己的“特殊利益”，并使自己的“特殊利益”与人类“普遍利益”达成和解，各民族国家之间的冲突才会消失，“普遍的世界历史”才能够真正形成。所以，表面看起来是人类受制于“普遍性形式的思想”的支配和统治，而根本上则是受制于私有制在不同民族国家之间形成的“支配－从属”的生产关系。在资本主义私有制下，与其说是人们受到“观念的抽象统治”，毋宁说是人们受到“资本的抽象统治”。正如马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所批判的，资本把人与人之间的一切关系都变成了“赤裸裸的利害关系”“现金交易”。资本把人变成了谋生的工具，而且只是谋生的工具。按照这一逻辑，在世界历史视域下，各个民族国家之间的关系就仅剩下了赤裸裸的利益关系，而没有真正的朋友关系。那些在资本逻辑中占据统治地位的民族国家成为“支配者”，而其他民族国家成为“从属者”。那么，如何打破这一“支配－从属”的世界生产关系就成为马克思探索“普遍的世界历史”的唯物史观的新道路。

In summary, on the basis of his critique of the German classical philosophical conception of a “universal world history,” Marx explored the path of historical materialism by which humanity can advance toward a “universal world history.” This path indicates the direction for humanity to transcend the particular interests and civilizational barriers of individual nation-states and to establish cooperative and mutually beneficial relations of universal intercourse. This conception of a “universal world history” will also provide rich theoretical resources for understanding the Marxist theory of world history in the twenty-first century, especially for such major world-historical issues as “the common values of all mankind,” “a new form of human civilization,” and “a community with a shared future for mankind.” [32]32 “The common values of all mankind” (全人类共同价值), “a new form of human civilization” (人类文明新形态), and “a community with a shared future for mankind” (人类命运共同体) are key concepts in Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, used to articulate China’s vision for global governance and international relations. One might even say that “building a community with a shared future for mankind” endows the concept of “universal world history” with new theoretical and epochal connotations in twenty-first-century Marxism. The concern for “universal world history” is the intrinsic value appeal and theoretical purport that drives the building of a community with a shared future for mankind. If the nation-states of the world, on the basis of the common values of all mankind, transcend their subjective particular interests as nation-states and establish cooperative and mutually beneficial world relations of production, then humanity can, to a certain extent, break free from the world relations of production characterized by “domination-subordination” that are governed by the logic of capital, and thus advance toward the true “universal world history” that is communism.

综上所述，马克思在批判德国古典哲学“普遍的世界历史”观念的基础上，探索出了人类通向“普遍的世界历史”的唯物史观之路，为人类扬弃单个民族国家的特殊利益和文明隔阂，建立合作共赢的普遍交往关系指明了方向。这一“普遍的世界历史”的观念，也将为理解21世纪马克思主义的世界历史理论，特别是对于“全人类共同价值”“人类文明新形态”“人类命运共同体”等重大世界历史问题，提供了丰富的理论资源。甚至可以说，“构建人类命运共同体”是21世纪马克思主义赋予“普遍的世界历史”这一概念的新的理论内涵和时代内涵。对“普遍的世界历史”的关切，是推动构建人类命运共同体的内在价值诉求和理论旨趣。世界各民族国家之间如果在全人类共同价值的基础上，扬弃民族国家的主观特殊利益而建立起合作共赢的世界生产关系，人类就能够在一定程度上摆脱由资本逻辑主导的“支配－从属”的世界生产关系，从而向着作为共产主义的真正的“普遍的世界历史”前进。

(Author’s biography: Wu Hongzheng, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, School of Marxism, Jilin University)

（作者简介：吴宏政，吉林大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心