An Exploration of the Narrative Logic of Marx and Engels’ Evolution of Civilizational Forms

Exploring the narrative logic of the evolution of civilizational forms is of great significance for deeply grasping the laws governing the evolution of civilizational forms. In the history of thought, there are three main narrative logics concerning the evolution of civilizational forms: First, Oswald Spengler, the founder of the school of cultural morphology, believed that all civilizations are determined by a cultural soul and undergo a life course of “pre-cultural stage,” “cultural or high-cultural stage,” and “civilizational stage.” Second, the existentialist thinker Karl Jaspers, based on a common origin of humanity, divided human history up to the present into four periods: prehistoric civilization, ancient civilization, axial-age civilization, and technological civilization. Third, the Frankfurt School thinker Herbert Marcuse attempted to combine Freud’s psychoanalytic theory with Marx’s theory of alienation and theory of human liberation, establishing an ideal civilizational form in which rational civilization and irrational eros are coordinated and unified, thereby dividing the history of human civilization into three stages: “basic repression,” “surplus repression,” and “non-repressive.” These narrative logics attempt to examine the civilizational process from perspectives such as culture and human nature, providing an evolutionary explanatory path. In contrast, from the perspective of historical materialism, Marx and Engels explored the evolution of civilizational forms around the historical theme of human liberation, carrying out systematic theoretical construction at the macro, meso, and micro levels, and forming an innovative theoretical narrative logic.

探究文明形态演进的叙事逻辑对于深入把握文明形态演进规律具有重要意义。在思想史上，关于文明形态演进主要包括三种叙事逻辑：一是文化形态学派创始人奥斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒认为所有文明都由文化灵魂决定，经历了“前文化阶段”、“文化或高级文化阶段”、“文明阶段”的生命历程。二是存在主义思想家卡尔·雅斯贝斯基于共同的人性起源，将人类迄今的历史划分为史前文明、古代文明、轴心期文明、科技文明四个时期。三是法兰克福学派思想家赫伯特·马尔库塞试图将弗洛伊德的精神分析理论与马克思的异化理论、人的解放理论相结合，建立一种理性的文明和非理性的爱欲协调统一的理想文明形态，从而把人类文明历史分为“基本压抑性”、“额外压抑性”、“非压抑性”三个阶段。上述叙事逻辑试图从文化、人性等角度出发考察文明进程，提供了一种进化论的解释路径。与之相较，在历史唯物主义视域下，马克思、恩格斯围绕人类解放这一历史主题探析文明形态演进问题，在宏观、中观、微观三个层面展开系统性的理论建构，形成了创新性的理论叙事逻辑。

I. The Trend of Evolution of Civilizational Forms: The Dialectical Unity of Antagonism and Non-Antagonism

一、文明形态演进趋势：对抗性与非对抗性辩证统一

Civilizational progress is the value pursuit of humanity since it began to satisfy its own needs through production, reflecting that humans are the only beings in the world capable of transcending instinct and continuously perfecting themselves. Marx and Engels’ standpoint in pursuing civilizational progress shifted from mystical entities to the practical activities of real human beings. From the perspective of transcendental rationalism, “the rapid advance of civilization was wholly attributed to the mind, to the development and activity of the brain.”[1]1 Karl Marx, “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 263. Based on the self-perfecting capacity of reason, Enlightenment thinkers like François Guizot regarded capitalist private ownership as the final form of civilization. However, reality ruthlessly exposed this ideal final form of civilization—capitalist private ownership—as actually a collection of barbarism. During his time at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx observed that the civilizational form of capitalist private ownership, which prided itself on freedom and democracy, nevertheless tolerated the censorship of the press that restricted press freedom and the rampant theft-of-wood law that trampled on the rights of commoners, severely damaging the freedom and democratic rights of the working people. By analyzing English industrial society, Engels keenly captured the civilizational paradox of material abundance but popular hardship. Faced with these civilizational paradoxes, Marx and Engels realized that, from a macroscopic historical perspective, civilizational forms exhibit the characteristic of the unity of antagonism and non-antagonism.

文明进步是人类开始通过生产满足自身需要以来的价值追求，体现出人类是世界上唯一能够超越本能而不断完善的独特存在。马克思、恩格斯追寻文明进步的立足点实现了从神秘主义的实体到现实的人的实践活动之转变。在先验理性主义视域下，“迅速前进的文明完全被归功于头脑，归功于脑的发展和活动”。立足理性的自我完善能力，基佐等启蒙思想家将资本主义私有制视为文明的最终形态。然而，现实无情地揭露了资本主义私有制这一理想中的最终文明形态实际上却是野蛮的集合。在《莱茵报》时期，马克思观察到以自由、民主自居的资本主义私有制文明形态却纵容限制出版自由的书报检查制度和践踏平民权利的林木盗窃法横行，严重损害劳动人民的自由民主权利。恩格斯通过分析英国工业社会，敏锐地捕捉到物质丰裕但民生困顿的文明怪象。面对种种文明悖论，马克思、恩格斯意识到，在宏观的历史视野下，文明形态存在对抗性与非对抗性相统一的特征。

1. Civilizational Forms Inevitably Undergo the Antagonism of the “Civilization” Stage

1. 文明形态必然经历 “文明时代”阶段的对抗性

“Civilization” is a concept used by Engels, specifically referring to “that stage of social development at which the division of labor, the exchange between individuals arising from it, and the commodity production which combines both of these, come to full development and revolutionize the whole of previous society.”[2]2 Frederick Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990), p. 178. Why does the division of labor become a prominent hallmark of the civilization stage? Although Mochizuki Seiji believes that Marx constructed his historical theory according to a “history of the division of labor” while Engels constructed his according to a “history of forms of property,” it is not difficult to see from the text *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* that Engels used “division of labor” as a core concept to analyze the origin and development of the “civilization” stage. Through a historical comparison of the division of labor, Engels found that the natural division of labor in primitive society was broken by three great social divisions of labor, characterized by a forced form of division that fixed laborers in specific concrete labor activities. The penetration of this form of division of labor into the production process led to the separation of production behavior from possession behavior, gradually making private property the dominant principle for allocating the means of production and subsistence. The continuously developing private property made commodity exchange increasingly frequent, thereby gradually pushing commodity production to become the dominant form of production activity. This meant the splitting of labor itself, creating an opposition between the product of labor and the activity of labor. In the “civilization” stage, the product of labor becomes external to people, beyond the control of the producer, gradually becoming a tool that dominates and controls people.

“文明时代”是恩格斯使用的概念，特指“社会发展的这样一个阶段，在这个阶段上，分工、由分工而产生的个人之间的交换，以及把这两者结合起来的商品生产，得到了充分的发展，完全改变了先前的整个社会”。为什么分工会成为文明时代的显著标志呢？尽管望月清司认为马克思按照“分工展开史论”来建构历史理论，而恩格斯按照“所有形态史论”来建构历史理论，但是从《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》这一文本中不难看到，恩格斯把“分工”作为一个核心概念用于分析“文明时代”的起源和发展。通过对劳动分工的历史比较，恩格斯发现，原始社会的自然分工被三次社会大分工打破了，其特点是强制的、将劳动者固定在某种具体劳动活动上的分工形式。这种分工形式对生产过程的渗透导致生产行为和占有行为从结合走向割裂，使私有制逐渐成为生产生活资料配置的主导原则。不断发展的私有制使商品交换日益频繁，从而推动商品生产逐步成为占支配地位的生产活动形式。这意味着劳动自身分裂，劳动产品和劳动活动出现了对立。在“文明时代”，劳动产品外在于人，不受生产者控制，逐渐成为统治人、支配人的工具。

The splitting and opposition of labor itself cause the “civilization” stage to exhibit increasingly deepening antagonism. Forced division of labor and enslaved labor become the root of all conflicts in the “civilization” stage. Although Marx did not directly use the concept of “civilization,” he employed the expression “this vile civilization based upon the slavery of labor”[3]3 Ibid., p. 189. in *The Civil War in France*, exposing the essence of the “civilization” stage. In fact, Marx also began his critique of civilization from the analysis of the division of labor. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx developed his analysis of alienation, arguing that within the discourse of classical political economy, the division of labor is seen as the social form of expression of alienated labor. That is, when labor, as the species-being of humans, degenerates into an externalized activity for maintaining physical subsistence, the division of labor correspondingly becomes an external manifestation of the separation of humans from their own species-life, revealing the dehumanizing nature of the division of labor that plunges workers into the quagmire of one-sidedness and dependence. The statement in *The German Ideology* that “the various stages of development in the division of labor are just so many different forms of property”[4]4 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986), p. 95. indicates that Marx and Engels believed the division of labor determines the forms of property and their forms of labor enslavement. The three major forms of enslavement in the “civilization” stage include slavery, medieval serfdom, and modern wage labor. In other words, in the evolutionary process of the “civilization” stage from slavery and serfdom to wage labor, its historical changes are concentratedly manifested in the forms and degrees of forced division of labor and enslaved labor.

劳动自身的分裂和对立导致“文明时代”呈现出日益加深的对抗性。强制分工和奴役劳动成为“文明时代”一切冲突的根源。马克思虽然没有直接使用“文明时代”这一概念，但是他在《法兰西内战》中使用了“这个建立在劳动奴役制上的罪恶的文明”表述，揭露了“文明时代”的本质。事实上，马克思也是从对于分工的分析入手进行文明批判的。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思展开了对异化的分析，认为在古典政治经济学的话语体系中，分工被视为异化劳动的社会表现形式，即当作为人的类本质的劳动沦为维持肉体存续的外化活动时，分工相应地成为人同自身类生活相分裂的外在表现，揭示了分工使工人深陷片面化与依赖性泥潭的非人性。《德意志意识形态》中“分工的各个不同发展阶段，同时也就是所有制的各种不同形式”这一表述表明马克思、恩格斯认为分工决定了所有制及其劳动奴役形式，“文明时代”的三大奴役形式则包括奴隶制、中世纪的农奴制、近代的雇佣劳动制。换言之，在奴隶制、农奴制到雇佣劳动制的“文明时代”演进历程中，其历史变迁集中体现为强制分工、奴役劳动的形式和程度。

The civilizational form of capitalist wage labor is the “human body” Marx and Engels used to dissect the antagonistic evolutionary characteristics of the “civilization” stage, serving as the key to dissecting the “civilization” stages of slavery and serfdom. At this stage, because the laborers completely do not own the means of production, the splitting of labor is most pronounced, i.e., “accumulated, past, objectified labor dominates direct, living labor; accumulated labor becomes capital.”[5]5 Karl Marx, “Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28, p. 465. The separation of direct labor from accumulated labor, i.e., the separation of labor from capital, means that labor is subordinate to capital, the laborer is subordinate to the capitalist, and also means inevitable polarization and social antagonism. In *Wage Labour and Capital*, Marx, taking the civilizational form of capitalist wage labor in which he lived as the background, conducted an in-depth analysis of the activities of real individuals. Because the means of production belong to the capitalist, workers, driven by the need to survive, can only sell their own labor power as the sole means of obtaining the means of subsistence. For the worker, labor is merely a means of earning a living; for the capitalist, labor is wage labor through which he appropriates the surplus value created by the worker without compensation, allowing him to reap the benefits without effort. It can be seen that the wage labor system is essentially a hidden system of enslavement, a form of enslaved labor disguised by seemingly equal value exchange. The relations of production formed under this enslaved labor inevitably bear the character of enslavement, and the civilizational form based on the economic base of enslaved relations of production inevitably contains the antagonistic core of enslaver and enslaved. This is specifically manifested in the rule and exploitation of the class that enjoys civilization, represented by the capitalist, over the class that creates civilization, represented by the industrial worker, as well as the resistance of the class that creates civilization, represented by the industrial worker, against the brutal rule and exploitation of the class that enjoys civilization, represented by the capitalist. Whenever the class that creates civilization accelerates the dissolution of old relations of production to oppose the uncivilized stipulations within the civilizational form, and promotes the formation of new relations of production to accommodate increasingly abundant civilizational achievements, the class that enjoys civilization, in order to maintain its power to enjoy the fruits of civilization without effort, will inevitably strive to defend the current relations of production, exposing the barbaric nature hidden beneath the mask of civilization. Thus, the civilizational form presents an antagonistic situation of fierce struggle between the class that creates civilization and the class that enjoys civilization.

资本主义雇佣劳动制的文明形态是马克思、恩格斯剖析“文明时代”对抗性演进特征的“人体”，是用于解剖奴隶制和农奴制“文明时代”的钥匙。在此阶段，由于劳动者完全不占有生产资料，劳动分裂的现象最为突出，即“积累起来的、过去的、对象化的劳动支配直接的、活的劳动，积累起来的劳动才变为资本”。直接劳动与积累劳动的分离，即劳动与资本的分离，意味着劳动从属于资本，劳动者从属于资本家，也意味着不可避免的两极分化和社会对抗。马克思在《雇佣劳动与资本》中以其所处的资本主义雇佣劳动制文明形态为背景对现实个人的活动展开深入剖析。由于生产资料归资本家所有，工人迫于生计只能将出卖自身劳动力作为获取生活资料的唯一途径。对于工人而言，劳动只是一种谋生手段；对于资本家而言，劳动是其以无偿占有工人创造的剩余价值从而使自己坐享其成的雇佣劳动。可见，雇佣劳动制本质上是隐蔽的奴役制，是一种以看似平等的价值交换为伪装的奴役劳动。在这种奴役劳动中形成的生产关系也就必然带有奴役性质，以奴役性生产关系为经济基础的文明形态也就必然带有奴役与被奴役的对抗内核，具体表现为以资本家为代表的文明享有阶级对以产业工人为代表的文明创造阶级的统治与剥削，以及以产业工人为代表的文明创造阶级对以资本家为代表的文明享有阶级残酷统治和剥削的反抗。每当文明创造阶级加速旧生产关系的解体以反对文明形态中的不文明规定、促进新生产关系的形成以容纳日益丰硕的文明成果时，文明享有阶级为了维护其坐享文明成果的权力必然会奋力维护当下的生产关系，其隐匿于文明面具之下的野蛮本性暴露无遗。文明形态由此呈现出文明创造阶级与文明享有阶级激烈斗争的对抗局面。

Regarding the antagonistic nature of the era of civilization, Marx explained in *The Poverty of Philosophy*: “From the moment civilization begins, production is founded on the antagonism of ranks, estates, classes, and finally on the antagonism between accumulated labor and direct labor. Without antagonism there is no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed up to the present day.” The split between the subjects who create civilization and those who enjoy it enables antagonistic civilization to bear abundant fruits such as the rapid elevation of productive forces, the swift accumulation of social wealth, and the universal extension of relations of intercourse, yet it is powerless to effectively preserve and develop these fruits of civilization. Therefore, Marx stated in a letter to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov: “In order not to lose the fruits of civilization, people are compelled to change all the social forms they have inherited when their mode of intercourse no longer suits the productive forces they have acquired.” When the fruits of civilization, which represent the level of productive forces, break through the capacity of the relations of production based on wage labor, the relations of production must adopt new forms to adapt to the increasingly developed productive forces in order to preserve and develop the fruits of civilization. From this it can be seen that the vigorously developing productive forces within the capitalist civilizational form signal that the relations of production based on wage labor will ultimately be unable to contain the abundant fruits of civilization and will inevitably face decline and demise. With the decline of private property, which serves as the foundation for the existence of the class that enjoys civilization, the antagonistic struggle between the class that enjoys civilization and the class that creates civilization also departs from history, and the antagonistic “era of civilization” thus draws to a close.

对于文明时代的对抗性，马克思在《哲学的贫困》中进行了说明：“当文明一开始的时候，生产就开始建立在级别、等级和阶级的对抗上，最后建立在积累的劳动和直接的劳动的对抗上。没有对抗就没有进步。这是文明直到今天所遵循的规律。”文明创造主体与文明享有主体的分裂使对抗性文明有能力结出生产力水平迅速提高、社会财富快速积累、交往关系普遍延展等累累硕果，却无力实现文明果实的有效保存和发展。因此，马克思在致帕维尔·瓦西里耶维奇·安年科夫的信中表示：“为了不致失掉文明的果实，人们在他们的交往方式不再适合于既得的生产力时，就不得不改变他们继承下来的一切社会形式。”当表征生产力水平的文明果实突破雇佣劳动制生产关系的容纳力时，为了保存和发展文明果实，生产关系必然会采取新的形式以适应愈加发达的生产力。由此可知，资本主义文明形态中蓬勃发展的生产力昭示着雇佣劳动制生产关系终将因无力容纳丰硕的文明果实而难逃衰亡的命运。随着作为文明享有阶级存在基础的私有制的衰亡，文明享有阶级与文明创造阶级的对抗斗争也告别历史，对抗性的“文明时代”随之落下帷幕。

2. The civilizational form will ultimately achieve the non-antagonistic stage of “free individuality”

2. 文明形态终将实现“自由个性”阶段的非对抗性

Antagonism itself contains the means and conditions for resolving antagonism. Marx perceived the historical tension between the ideal of civilization and the reality of barbarism, doubted the rationality of the so-called ultimate stage in the transcendental rationalist view of civilizational forms, and held that the antagonism between the ideal of civilization and the reality of barbarism contains a historical tension that drives the exploration of the truth of civilizational forms. In his *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, he pointed out that Hegel’s rationalist conception of the state mistakenly turned “the idea into the subject, while the actual relation of the family and civil society to the state is understood as the idea’s inner imaginary activity.” That is to say, civil society determines the political state, not the political state determines civil society; therefore, the antagonistic characteristics of civilizational forms should be sought from civil society, i.e., economic facts, rather than from rational ideas, in order to guide the resolution of antagonistic problems. In the same period, Engels, based on the worldview and methodology that “civilization is a practical matter, a social quality,” recognized the importance of individual interest for the progress of civilization through a detailed investigation of the history and reality of the British Industrial Revolution. He pointed out that the capitalist wage-labor system ostensibly abolished serfdom and completed political emancipation, but in reality the living conditions of the working class, which enjoyed personal freedom, were even more incompatible with human nature. Although this was a necessary path for humanity to achieve free and voluntary association, humanity should thereafter achieve association through social means rather than political means, thereby escaping the predicament of antagonistic civilization. It can be seen that Marx and Engels had already revealed that the key to resolving the problem of antagonism in civilizational forms lies hidden in the economic sphere of society. In analyzing the contradiction between the ideal of civilization and the reality of civilization, they formed a preliminary understanding of the macroscopic trend of civilizational forms evolving from the antagonistic “era of civilization” stage to the non-antagonistic “free individuality” stage.

对抗本身包含着解决对抗的手段和条件。马克思感受到文明理想与野蛮现实之间的历史张力，对先验理性主义文明形态观所谓的终极阶段的合理性表示怀疑，认为文明理想与野蛮现实的对抗存在着推动探索文明形态真理的历史张力。他在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中指出，黑格尔理性主义国家观误将“观念变成了主体，而家庭和市民社会对国家的现实的关系被理解为观念的内在想像活动”。也就是说，市民社会决定政治国家而非政治国家决定市民社会，因而应当从市民社会即经济事实而非理性观念中探寻文明形态的对抗性特征，以指导对抗性问题的解决。同一时期，恩格斯基于“文明是实践的事情，是社会的素质”的世界观和方法论，通过详细考察英国工业革命的历史与现实认识到个人利益对于文明进步的重要性，指出资本主义雇佣劳动制表面上消灭了农奴制，完成了政治解放，实际上享有人身自由的劳动者阶级的生存境遇更不合乎人性，尽管这是人类实现自由自主联合的必经之路，但人类此后应当通过社会手段而非政治手段实现联合，走出对抗性文明困境。可见，马克思、恩格斯已经揭示出，解决文明形态对抗性问题的密钥隐匿于社会的经济领域之中，在分析文明理想与文明现实之间的矛盾中对文明形态从对抗性的“文明时代”阶段演进至非对抗性的“自由个性”阶段的宏观趋势形成了初步认识。

As mentioned above, forced division of labor and enslaved labor are the roots of civilizational antagonism. In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels explicitly set forth the historical task of abolishing forced division of labor and the alienated labor of enslavement. They reviewed the historical process of the evolution of the division of labor: the division of mental labor caused enjoyment and labor to be separated, with production and consumption borne by different individuals; the division of labor in the sphere of production led to ownership in the sphere of product distribution; and the division of material and mental labor led to the emergence and development of private property, forming the domination of others’ labor power. As long as involuntary natural division of labor exists, human activity remains an alien force that oppresses people. Although forced division of labor became the driving force of the “era of civilization,” it confined each person’s activity to a fixed sphere, and the productive forces generated by this activity were not a united force but an alien and coercive force, which in turn became the root of the opposition and conflict of the “era of civilization.” Moreover, they also criticized the alienated labor of enslavement. Because the division of labor contains the split between capital and labor, and the opposition between accumulated labor (i.e., private property) and direct labor, in the “era of civilization” “self-activity and the production of material life are separated, because they are borne by different individuals, and at the same time, the production of material life is still regarded, due to the limitations of each individual, as a subordinate form of self-activity.” In addition to the critique of forced division of labor and enslaved labor, Marx and Engels also proposed a solution: the “modern proletarians, who have completely lost all self-activity,” should establish a community that “controls the conditions of their own existence and those of all members of society,” realize the association of each individual, and appropriate the sum of productive forces, “placing the conditions of the free development and movement of individuals under their control.” Specifically, they promoted the replacement of “old forms of intercourse that have become fetters with new forms of intercourse adapted to the more developed productive forces, and hence to the progressive mode of self-activity of individuals,” and explicitly set forth the demand for the abolition of private property.

如前所述，强制分工、奴役劳动是导致文明对抗性的根源。马克思、恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中明确提出了消灭强制分工和奴役性的异化劳动的历史任务。他们回顾了分工的历史演变过程，由精神劳动的分工使享受和劳动分离、生产和消费分别由不同个人承担。由生产领域的分工导致产品分配领域的所有制。由物质劳动和精神劳动分工导致私有制产生和发展，形成对他人劳动力的支配。只要非自愿的自然分工存在，那么人的活动就是压迫人的异己力量。尽管强制分工成为“文明时代”的动力，但是它给每个人的活动限定了范围，其活动产生的生产力不是联合力量，而是异己的强制力量，这又成为导致“文明时代”对立、冲突的根源。不仅如此，他们还对奴役性的异化劳动进行了批判，由于分工包含着资本和劳动的分裂，包含着积累劳动即私有制和直接劳动的对立，所以在“文明时代”中“自主活动和物质生活的生产是分开的，这是因为它们是由不同的人承担的，同时，物质生活的生产由于各个人本身的局限性还被认为是自主活动的从属形式”。除了对强制分工和奴役劳动的批判，马克思、恩格斯还提出了解决方案，即由“完全失去了整个自主活动的现代无产者”建立“控制了自己的生存条件和社会全体成员的生存条件的”共同体，实现各个人的联合，占有生产力的总和，“把个人的自由发展和运动的条件置于他们的控制之下”。具体来说，推动“已成为桎梏的旧交往形式被适应于比较发达的生产力，因而也适应于进步的个人自主活动方式的新交往形式所代替”，明确提出了消灭私有制的要求。

Progress through antagonism is not an eternal characteristic of civilization; it is merely a characteristic of the “era of civilization” built on the basis of the enslavement of labor. The picture in which the development of a minority is achieved at the expense of the development of the majority is merely a page in the vast scroll of civilization that will be turned. The civilizational form will ultimately reach the “free individuality” stage, where progress is achieved through the unity of the subjects who create and enjoy civilization, presenting the non-antagonistic characteristic of the evolution of civilizational forms. On this, Marx elaborated in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*: at that time, labor will no longer be merely a means for obtaining the means of subsistence, but will become the primary need of human life—that is, labor will transform from a mere instrument of livelihood into a need for enjoyment, from a tool for the class that enjoys civilization to seek private gain into a free and conscious activity of the creators of civilization. With the liberation of the labor of real individuals, the productive forces embodied at the social level by individual labor capacity will be greatly enhanced, social wealth will flow abundantly, and the fruits of civilization representing the level of productive forces will enjoy a bountiful harvest. The immense abundance of productive forces and their material wealth will inevitably bring about the immense liberation of relations of production; private property will transform into public property, enabling human civilization to enter the non-antagonistic “free individuality” stage, so that it can “inscribe on its banner: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The restoration of the self-activity of real individuals, the immense abundance of productive forces, and the immense liberation of relations of production constitute the non-antagonistic blueprint of civilization sketched by Engels: “Man, at last, becomes the master of his own social organization, and thereby the master of nature, and the master of himself—a free man.” Man will gain comprehensive autonomy in his relations with nature, society, and himself, achieving genuine independence and freedom. At that time, human civilization will completely depart from the old track of opposition and conflict between the enjoyers and creators of civilization, and enter a new track of the fusion and unity of the creators and enjoyers of civilization.

文明在对抗中进步并非永恒的特征，仅仅是建立在劳动奴役制基础上的“文明时代”的特征。那幅少数人发展以牺牲多数人发展为代价的画面只不过是浩繁文明画卷中将被翻过的一页，文明形态终将抵达在文明创造与文明享有主体的统一中进步的“自由个性”阶段，呈现出文明形态演进的非对抗性特征。对此，马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中阐述道，届时劳动不只是为了获取生活资料而采取的手段，而且是人类生活的第一需要，即劳动从单纯的谋生手段蜕变为乐生需要，从文明享有者谋取私利的工具转变为文明创造者自由自觉的活动。随着现实个人劳动的解放，个体劳动能力在社会层面所体现的生产力极大提高，社会财富充分涌流，表征生产力水平的文明果实迎来丰收。生产力及其物质财富的极大丰富必然带来生产关系的极大解放，私有制转变为公有制，使人类文明进入非对抗性的“自由个性”阶段，从而“能在自己的旗帜上写上：各尽所能，按需分配”。现实个人自主劳动的复归、生产力的极大丰富以及生产关系的极大解放构成了恩格斯擘画的非对抗性文明蓝图：“人终于成为自己的社会结合的主人，从而也就成为自然界的主人，成为自身的主人——自由的人。”人在与自然、社会以及自身的关系中获得全方位的自主权，实现了真正的独立与自由。到那时，人类文明将彻底脱离文明享有者与文明创造者对立冲突的旧轨道，驶入文明创造者与文明享有者融合统一的新轨道。

The antagonistic and non-antagonistic trends in the evolution of civilizational forms are a dialectical unity. The course of the evolution of civilizational forms necessarily manifests the antagonistic characteristics of the “era of civilization” stage and the non-antagonistic characteristics of the “free individuality” stage. The former elucidates the necessary path of the evolution of civilizational forms, while the latter elucidates the inevitable direction of that evolution. The antagonistic stage is the “paving stone” for the non-antagonistic stage, and the non-antagonistic stage is the “compass” for the antagonistic stage. The two complement each other, are inseparable, and are unified in the course of the evolution of civilizational forms.

文明形态演进趋势的对抗性与非对抗性是辩证统一的关系。文明形态演进历程必然体现“文明时代”阶段的对抗性特征和“自由个性”阶段的非对抗性特征，前者阐明了文明形态演进的必由之路，后者阐明了文明形态演进的必然方向。对抗阶段是非对抗阶段的“铺路石”，非对抗阶段是对抗阶段的“航向标”，二者相辅相成、不可分割，统一于文明形态的演进历程。

II. Stages of the Evolution of Civilizational Forms: Dialectical Unity of Continuity and Innovation

二、文明形态演进阶段：承续性与创新性辩证统一

In order to comprehensively grasp the pattern of the evolution of civilizational forms, Marx and Engels conducted an in-depth analysis at the meso-level of the stages of this evolution, so as to deeply understand the connections between the various stages of civilization.

为了能够全面把握文明形态的演进样态，马克思、恩格斯在中观层面对于文明形态演进阶段进行了深入分析，以深入把握各文明阶段之间的联系。

1. The continuity of civilizational forms in the continuous accumulation of “the fruits of civilization”

1. 文明形态不断积累“文明的果实”的承续性

Clarifying the method by which Marx and Engels divided the stages of evolution of civilizational forms can provide material and ideas for exploring the characteristics of these evolutionary stages. A comprehensive overview of scholarly views on Marx and Engels’s division of the evolutionary stages of civilizational forms can generally be categorized into the “five-stage theory,” the “four-stage theory,” and the “three-stage theory.” The “five-stage theory” is based on Marx’s expression in the “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* concerning “the progressive epochs of the economic formation of society,” [1]1 Karl Marx, “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 263. and divides civilizational forms into five stages—primitive civilization, slave civilization, feudal civilization, capitalist civilization, and communist civilization—according to the nature of the relations of production. The “four-stage theory” is based on Engels’s expression in *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* regarding “the three great forms of servitude peculiar to the three great periods of civilization,” [2]2 Frederick Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990), p. 178. and his statement that after the “epoch of civilization” humanity will enter “a society in which production is carried on upon a new basis, that of the association of free and equal producers,” [3]3 Ibid., p. 189. and divides civilizational forms into four stages: slavery, medieval serfdom, modern wage labor, and autonomous labor. The “three-stage theory,” based on Marx’s relevant discussion in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858) concerning the stages of human development, divides civilizational forms into three stages: relations of personal dependence, personal independence founded on objective dependence, and free individuality. [4]4 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986), p. 95.

明晰马克思、恩格斯划分文明形态演进阶段的方式，能够为探寻演进阶段的特征提供材料和思路。综观学界对马克思、恩格斯文明形态演进阶段划分的看法，大体可归为“五形态论”、“四形态论”和“三形态论”。“五形态论”立足马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中“经济的社会形态演进的几个时代”的表述，根据生产关系的性质将文明形态划分为原始文明、奴隶文明、封建文明、资本主义文明和共产主义文明五个阶段。“四形态论”立足恩格斯在《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》中“文明时代的三大时期所特有的三大奴役形式”，以及在“文明时代”之后人类将进入“在生产者自由平等的联合体的基础上按新方式来组织生产的社会”的表述，将文明形态划分为奴隶制、中世纪的农奴制、近代的雇佣劳动制以及自主劳动制四个阶段。“三形态论”则根据马克思在《1857-1858年经济学手稿》中关于人的发展阶段的相关论述，将文明形态划分为人的依赖、以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性和自由个性三个阶段。

Surveying the above views, the practice of the “five-stage theory” in directly applying the method of dividing social formations to civilizational forms can easily lead to confusion of the objects of study. Since real individuals, as persons engaged in practical activity, are the primary premise of civilizational forms, and labor, as the activity carried out by real individuals, is the primary activity of civilizational forms, and based on the primacy of real individuals and productive labor in the evolution of civilizational forms, the author believes it is appropriate to integrate and adopt the “four-stage theory,” which uses the nature of productive labor as its yardstick, and the “three-stage theory,” which uses the degree of human development as its yardstick. The mode of existence of real individuals is consistent with the content and mode of their production, that is, the degree of development of labor determines and characterizes the degree of development of human beings. Therefore, it is possible to base this on the degree of development of labor as a point of integration to express Marx and Engels’s method of dividing the evolutionary stages of civilizational forms, thereby providing an analytical framework for exploring their intellectual achievements concerning the evolutionary stages of civilizational forms.

综览上述观点，“五形态论”将社会形态的划分方式直接套用于文明形态的做法容易导致研究对象的混淆。由于现实的个人作为从事实际活动的人，是文明形态的首要前提；劳动作为现实的个人所进行的活动，是文明形态的首要活动。基于现实的个人和生产劳动在文明形态演进过程中的第一性，笔者认为应融合采纳以生产劳动的性质为标尺的“四形态论”和以人的发展程度为标尺的“三形态论”。现实个人的存在方式与他们开展生产的内容和方式相一致，即劳动的发展程度规定并表征着人的发展程度，因此可以立足劳动的发展程度这一融合点表述马克思、恩格斯关于文明形态演进阶段的划分方式，从而为探索他们关于文明形态演进阶段的思想成果提供分析框架。

In the stage of “relations of personal dependence” and the stages of “slavery” and “medieval serfdom,” labor is regarded as an inorganic condition for production, akin to livestock and land appendages, and the labor of real individuals is servile labor controlled by slaveholders or landlords. Therefore, this evolutionary stage of civilizational forms can be tentatively expressed as the stage of overt slave labor. The development of productive forces formed in the process of overt slave labor has distinct spatial limitations. Real individuals achieve “all growth of social productive forces,” that is, “all progress of civilization,” [5]5 Karl Marx, “Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28, p. 465. within a limited space. Although the process of civilizational progress in this stage is imbued with barbaric colors, the civilizational fruits it accumulates are indispensable for the evolution of civilizational forms to a higher stage. Engels pointed out that acknowledging the historical necessity of the existence of the stage of overt slave labor is a prerequisite for the development of human civilization. The civilizational fruits produced in the stage of overt slave labor provide the foundation for the next stage of civilizational form, so that “each later generation finds productive forces obtained by the preceding generation, which serve it as the raw material for new production.” [6]6 Frederick Engels, “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 434.

在“人的依赖”阶段及“奴隶制”、“中世纪的农奴制”阶段，劳动被视为与牲畜、土地附属物同类的、用于开展生产的无机条件，现实个人的劳动是由奴隶主或地主操控的奴役性劳动，因此可以尝试将这一文明形态演进阶段表述为公开的奴隶劳动阶段。在公开的奴隶劳动过程中形成的生产力的发展具有鲜明的空间局限性，现实个人在有限的空间内实现着“社会生产力的一切增长”，即“文明的一切进步”。该阶段文明的进步过程虽然充斥着野蛮的色彩，但是其积累的文明果实对于文明形态向更高阶段演进而言是必不可少的。恩格斯指出，承认公开的奴隶劳动阶段存在的历史必要性是人类文明发展的前提，公开的奴隶劳动阶段所生产的文明果实为下一阶段文明形态提供了基础，以便使“后来的每一代人都得到前一代人已经取得的生产力并当做原料来为自己新的生产服务”。

In the stage of “personal independence founded on objective dependence” and the stage of “modern wage labor,” labor becomes a commodity of labor power paid by the capitalist in the form of wages, and the labor of real individuals is wage labor controlled by the capitalist. Therefore, this evolutionary stage of civilizational forms can be tentatively expressed as the stage of “concealed slave labor.” The enormous productive forces created in the stage of the wage-labor system are unprecedented, but the private ownership relations of production appear increasingly cramped in the face of rapidly accumulating civilizational fruits. Confronting the limited capacity of private ownership relations of production to accommodate civilizational fruits, Marx pointed out that “since it is above all important that the fruits of civilization—the acquired productive forces—should not be taken away, the traditional forms in which they were produced must be smashed,” [7]7 Karl Marx, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 175. thereby promoting a breakthrough evolution of civilizational forms.

在“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”阶段及“近代的雇佣劳动制”阶段，劳动成为资本家以工资形式支付的劳动力商品，现实的个人的劳动是由资本家操控的雇佣劳动，因此可以尝试将这一文明形态演进阶段表述为“隐蔽的奴隶劳动”阶段。雇佣劳动制阶段所创造的巨大生产力是前所未有的，但是私有制生产关系在迅速积累的文明硕果面前显得愈发局促。面对私有制生产关系容纳文明果实能力的有限性，马克思指出，“由于最重要的是不使文明的果实——已经获得的生产力被剥夺，所以必须粉碎生产力在其中产生的那些传统形式”，从而推动文明形态产生突破性演进。

When the evolution of civilizational forms reaches the stage of “free individuality” and the stage of “autonomous labor,” labor is no longer controlled by any person or thing other than the laborers themselves, and the activity of real individuals becomes free and conscious activity. Therefore, this evolutionary stage of civilizational forms can be tentatively expressed as the stage of autonomous labor. In this stage, “intercourse becomes world intercourse and is based on large-scale industry,” [8]8 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 73. and “the preservation of the already created productive forces is ensured.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 73. Free and conscious division of labor, autonomous labor, and public ownership lay the institutional foundation for the historical continuity of civilizational achievements.

当文明形态演进至“自由个性”阶段及“自主劳动制”阶段，劳动不再由除劳动者自身以外的任何人和物支配，现实的个人的活动成为自由自觉的活动，因此可以尝试将这一文明形态演进阶段表述为自主劳动阶段。在该阶段，“交往成为世界交往并且以大工业为基础”，“保持已创造出来的生产力才有了保障”。自由自觉的分工、自主劳动和公有制为文明成果的历史承续奠定了制度基础。

2. The Innovativeness of Civilizational Forms Gradually Breaking Through the “Shell” of the Social System

2. 文明形态逐步突破社会制度“外壳”的创新性

Civilizational forms evolve to higher stages in the continuity of the accumulation of “fruits of civilization,” i.e., productive forces. The gradual increase in the level of productive forces necessarily requires the gradual liberation of the relations of production to accommodate the increasingly abundant civilizational fruits. Marx pointed out that when the continuously accumulating civilizational fruits reach a point incompatible with their civilizational “shell,” this “shell” needs to be broken through. Examining the “shell” of the social system that accommodates civilizational fruits, especially the condition of the relations of production in the process of civilizational progress, becomes a necessary link in Marx and Engels’s analysis of the evolutionary stages of civilizational forms.

文明形态在“文明的果实”积累即生产力的赓续中向更高阶段演进，生产力水平的逐渐提高必然要求生产关系逐步解放以容纳日益丰硕的文明果实。马克思指出，当不断积累的文明果实达到同它的文明“外壳”不相容的地步，这个“外壳”就需要突破。考察容纳文明果实的社会制度“外壳”，尤其是生产关系在文明进步历程中的状况，成为马克思、恩格斯探析文明形态演进阶段的必要环节。

In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx pointed out that in the stages of slavery and serfdom, the intercourse of laborers was confined to specific relations characterized by a high degree of personal dependence, such as between slave and slaveholder, landlord and serf. Engels similarly pointed out in *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* that this kind of personal dependence undoubtedly fostered the arrogance of the class that enjoys civilization. Under its oppression, compulsory slave labor constructed the economic base of slave society, that is, the private ownership relations of production characterized by naked exploitation and enslavement became the social system “shell” in which the “fruits of civilization” of the stage of overt slave labor were housed.

马克思在《1857-1858年经济学手稿》中指出，奴隶制和农奴制阶段劳动者的交往局限于具有高度人身依附性的特定关系中，例如奴隶和奴隶主、地主和农奴。恩格斯在《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》中同样指出，这种人身依附关系无疑助长了文明享有阶级的嚣张气焰，在其压迫下强制性的奴隶劳动构筑了奴隶社会的经济基础，即以赤裸裸的剥削与奴役为特点的私有制生产关系成为公开的奴隶劳动阶段“文明的果实”存附的社会制度“外壳”。

When civilizational forms evolve to the stage of concealed slave labor, the workers, as the class that creates civilization, exchange their own labor power for money to purchase means of subsistence from the capitalists, the class that enjoys civilization. The class that enjoys civilization appropriates and exploits the commodity of labor power through wages paid in the form of money. The creators of civilization and the enjoyers of civilization form a connection through the so-called “equivalent exchange” of the commodity of labor power and money wages. Commodities, money, and capital, in the form of things, characterize the universal social relations among people. Regarding this seemingly equal, free, and universal exchange relation, Marx and Engels, on the one hand, affirmed its progressiveness in breaking the bonds of traditional feudal relations, and on the other hand, exposed its limitation in reducing human relations to a single dimension of interest relations. In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx pointed out that in this stage, the mutual relations among people are alienated into relations among things. The Japanese scholar Hiromatsu Wataru called this phenomenon, “whereby the intersubjective social relations among people are mistakenly understood as ‘relations among things,’” [10]10 Hiromatsu Wataru, *The Theory of Reification* (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1983), p. 15. [Translator’s note: This is a reconstructed English rendering of the Japanese original cited in the Chinese text.] “reification” (物象化). [11]11 Hiromatsu Wataru (1933–1994) was a Japanese Marxist philosopher known for his work on Marx’s theory of reification (物象化, *busshōka*), which he distinguished from the concept of alienation. Compared with the stage of overt slavery, the stage of concealed slavery, using “things” as an intermediary, liberated people from the mire of being appendages of other persons, formally promoting the equalization and liberalization of the relations of production. However, it then pushed people into the abyss of worshippers of “things,” using the so-called “equivalent exchange” of exchanging one thing for another to conceal the enslaving essence of the class that enjoys civilization appropriating the surplus value of the class that creates civilization without compensation. This is in fact a “reprint” of the enslaving relations of production under new historical conditions. The capitalist private ownership relations of production, characterized by false equality and freedom, become the civilizational “shell” that accommodates the civilizational fruits of the stage of concealed slave labor.

当文明形态演进至隐蔽的奴隶劳动阶段，作为文明创造阶级的工人，通过出卖自身劳动力向文明享有阶级即资本家换取购买生活资料的货币，文明享有阶级通过以货币形式支付的工资来占有和剥削劳动力商品。文明创造者与文明享有者以劳动力商品与货币工资的所谓“等价交换”方式形成联系，商品、货币、资本以物的形式表征着人与人之间普遍的社会联系。对于这种看似平等、自由且普遍的交换关系，马克思、恩格斯一方面肯定了其突破传统封建关系束缚的进步性，另一方面揭露了其致使人与人的关系单一化为利益关系的局限性。在《1857-1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思指出，该阶段人们之间的相互联系异化为物与物之间的联系。日本学者广松涉把这种“人与人之间的主体际社会关系被错误地理解为‘物与物之间的关系’这类现象”称为“物象化”。相较于公开的奴隶制阶段，隐蔽的奴隶制阶段以“物”为中介，把人从作为人之附属物的泥潭中解放出来，在形式上推动了生产关系的平等化与自由化。但是，它转而又将人推向作为“物”之膜拜者的深渊，用以物换物的所谓“等价交换”掩盖了文明享有阶级无偿占有文明创造阶级的剩余价值这一奴役本质，这实际上是奴役性生产关系在新的历史条件下的“翻版”。以虚假的平等与自由为特点的资本主义私有制生产关系成为容纳隐蔽的奴隶劳动阶段文明果实的文明“外壳”。

As the civilizational form evolves to the stage of autonomous labor, the social system “shell” with private ownership of the means of production as its core will ultimately disintegrate because it can no longer contain the immensely abundant fruits of civilization. Engels pointed out that private ownership, as the basis of class struggle, its collapse heralds the exit from the historical stage of the class that enjoys civilization, which relies on private possession of the means of production to enslave the class that creates civilization, and the fig leaf of so-called “equivalent exchange” used to conceal its enslaving nature will also be lifted in the tide of history. In the stage of autonomous labor, humans deprive “things” of their social power and place “things” under the control of all humanity. With the means of production transformed into common social ownership, a genuine community is constructed, and human dependence on things is thereby eliminated. The relationship between people no longer manifests as the relationship of enslavement and exploitation hidden behind the relationship between things and things. The public ownership relations of production, characterized by genuine equality and freedom, become the social system “shell” that accommodates the fruits of civilization in the stage of autonomous labor.

随着文明形态演进至自主劳动阶段，以生产资料私有制为内核的社会制度“外壳”将会终因无力容纳极大丰富的文明果实而崩解。恩格斯指出，私有制作为阶级斗争的基础，其崩坏宣告着倚仗对生产资料的私人占有而奴役文明创造阶级的文明享有阶级将退出历史舞台，其用以掩饰自身奴役本质的所谓“等价交换”遮羞布也将在历史潮流中被掀开。在自主劳动阶段，人剥夺了“物”的社会权力并将“物”置于全人类的控制之下，随着生产资料转为社会共同占有，真正的共同体得以建构，人对物的依赖由此消除，人和人之间的联系不再表现为掩盖于物与物之间联系背后的奴役与剥削关系，以真正的平等与自由为特点的公有制生产关系成为容纳自主劳动阶段文明果实的社会制度“外壳”。

In order to adapt to the productive forces as the “fruits of civilization,” their “shell” must necessarily gradually achieve an ascent from private ownership characterized by naked exploitation and enslavement, to private ownership characterized by false equality and freedom, and then to public ownership characterized by genuine equality and freedom. As Engels stated in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, at each stage of the evolution of civilizational forms, the civilizational “shell” will lose its right to historical existence in relation to the new conditions that grow within it and can negate it, yielding to a higher form of civilization, and this higher form of civilization will itself eventually be surpassed. Civilizational forms achieve historical evolution through the innovative process of continuously accumulating the fruits of civilization and continuously breaking through the civilizational “shell.”

为了与作为“文明的果实”的生产力相适应，其“外壳”必然逐步实现从以赤裸裸的剥削与奴役为特点的私有制到以虚假的平等与自由为特点的私有制，再到以真正的平等与自由为特点的公有制的跃升。正如恩格斯在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》中所言，每一文明形态演进阶段的文明“外壳”对于在其内部生长出来的、能够将其否定的新条件而言，将丧失历史存在权，让位于更高级的文明形式，而这一更高级的文明形式也终将被超越。文明形态在不断积累文明果实和不断突破文明“外壳”的创新过程中实现了历史演进。

The relationship between the continuity of civilizational forms in continuously accumulating the “fruits of civilization” and the innovativeness in gradually breaking through the civilizational “shell” is one of dialectical unity. The former explains that continuing the achievements of productive forces is the material basis ensuring coherence between the various stages of the evolution of civilizational forms, while the latter explains that transforming relations of production is a necessary condition for promoting the continuous transcendence of the evolution of civilizational forms. Even the new form of human civilization, which is non-antagonistic, is born from the antagonistic “era of civilization.” It still retains remnants of the old society in economic, political, cultural, and other aspects. Therefore, while inheriting the civilizational elements left by the “era of civilization,” it must also sublimate and innovate.

文明形态不断积累“文明的果实”的承续性与逐步突破文明“外壳”的创新性之间是辩证统一的关系，前者说明了赓续生产力成果是保证文明形态演进各阶段之间连贯性的物质基础，后者说明了变革生产关系是促进文明形态演进不断实现超越的必要条件。即使是非对抗性的人类文明新形态也是从对抗性的“文明时代”脱胎而来的，它在经济、政治、文化等方面还留有旧社会的残余，因此需要在继承“文明时代”所遗留的文明要素的同时有所扬弃、有所创新。

III. The Path of Evolution of Civilizational Forms: Dialectical Unity of Commonality and Individuality

三、文明形态演进道路：共性与个性辩证统一

On the basis of analyzing the macroscopic evolutionary trend and the mesoscopic evolutionary stages, Marx and Engels further analyzed the specific paths of civilizational forms. Since any long-term historical law cannot be applied to every specific historical stage, Marx and Engels combined the general laws of the evolutionary trend and stages of civilization with the specific paths of various nations, providing guidance for human civilizational practice that unifies commonality and individuality.

在对于宏观演进趋势和中观演进阶段进行分析的基础上，马克思、恩格斯对文明形态的具体道路展开了进一步分析。由于任何大时段的历史规律不能适用于各个具体的历史阶段，马克思、恩格斯把文明演进趋势和演进阶段的一般规律与各个民族的具体道路相结合，为人类文明实践提供了共性与个性相统一的指导。

1. The Commonality of the Evolution of Civilizational Forms “from Lower to Higher”

1. 文明形态“由低级到高级”演进的共性

In the course of human society’s development from lower to higher forms, all successive stages of development possess historical transience. Through the analysis of the evolutionary stages of civilizational forms, it can be seen that the labor of actual individuals has gone through three stages: open slave labor, concealed slave labor, and autonomous labor. In the stage of open slave labor, the laboring class does not possess personal freedom but is subordinate to the class that enjoys civilization, thus exhibiting distinct characteristics of forced labor. In the stage of concealed slave labor, under the cover of so-called “equivalent exchange” of things, the laboring class is no longer a naked appendage of the class that enjoys civilization as in the previous stage, but is transformed into a commodity of labor power that, out of the need to satisfy hunger, “voluntarily” sells itself to the class that enjoys civilization in exchange for material means of subsistence, thus exhibiting superficial characteristics of voluntariness. Compared with the forced labor of the open slave labor stage, the labor in the concealed slave labor stage appears on the surface to be equal and free. When the civilizational form evolves to the stage of autonomous labor, based on the immense abundance of the “fruits of civilization” and the major breakthrough of the social system “shell,” actual individuals no longer need to “sell” their labor power to obtain material means of subsistence. Productive labor returns to a truly free and conscious life activity, thus exhibiting the characteristic of autonomy that unifies phenomenon and essence. The development process of the labor form of actual individuals from forced labor to autonomous labor is a prominent representation of the evolutionary process of civilizational forms from lower to higher.

在人类社会从低级形态向高级形态发展的历程中，所有前后相继的发展阶段都具有历史暂时性。通过对文明形态演进阶段的分析可知，现实个人的活动经历了公开的奴隶劳动、隐蔽的奴隶劳动和自主劳动三个阶段。在公开的奴隶劳动阶段，劳动阶级并不具有人身自由，而是隶属于文明享有阶级，从而呈现出鲜明的强制劳动特点。在隐蔽的奴隶劳动阶段，劳动阶级在所谓物物“等价交换”的遮掩下不再像上一阶段那样赤裸裸地作为文明享有阶级的附属物而存在，而是转变为出于果腹需要而“自愿”出卖给文明享有阶级以换取物质生活资料的劳动力商品，从而呈现出表面上的自愿特征。相较于公开的奴隶劳动阶段的强制性劳动，隐蔽的奴隶劳动阶段的劳动在表面上看是平等自由的。当文明形态演进至自主劳动阶段，基于“文明的果实”的极大丰富与社会制度“外壳”的重大突破，现实的个人不必再为了谋求物质生活资料而“变卖”自身劳动力，生产劳动回归真正自由自觉的生命活动，从而呈现出现象与本质相统一的自主性特点。现实的个人的劳动形式从强制劳动到自主劳动的发展过程是文明形态从低级向高级演进过程的突出表征。

The evolution of the relationship between humans and nature from opposition and conflict to harmonious coexistence represents the evolutionary process of civilizational forms from lower to higher. “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature.” [12]12 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-46), in *Marx & Engels Collected Works* (MECW), vol. 5, p. 31. The quotation is from the first chapter, “Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks.” Actual individuals, as the “first premise” of human history, can only pursue wealth growth and civilizational progress on the basis of ensuring sufficient food. At the beginning of civilization, human labor first obtains basic means of subsistence from nature. At this time, human labor, as an inorganic condition for carrying out material production, is no different from natural things like livestock. Under conditions of concealed slavery, the relationship between humans and nature is “understood as direct, one-sided enjoyment.” Any intuitive feeling of the human subject is only “a sense caught up in crude practical needs, and has only a limited meaning,” exhibiting an alienated state where “all physical and mental senses have been replaced by the simple alienation of all these senses, the sense of having.” [13]13 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in MECW, vol. 3, p. 300. The passage discusses the alienation of the senses under private property. Before nature, humans transform from the controlled to the conqueror. In response, Marx and Engels envisioned that the path of civilizational development will inevitably realize public ownership of the means of production, promote the transformation of enslaved labor into autonomous labor, and restore labor to the essence of free and conscious activity of humans. Only when the relationship between humans and nature is no longer one of binary opposition can reconciliation be achieved, entering a realm of harmonious coexistence.

人与自然的关系从对立冲突到和谐共生的演变表征着文明形态从低级向高级的演进过程。“全部人类历史的第一个前提无疑是有生命的个人的存在。因此，第一个需要确认的事实就是这些个人的肉体组织以及由此产生的个人对其他自然的关系。”[32]作为人类历史“第一个前提”的现实个人只有在确保食物充足的基础上，才能追求财富增长与文明进步。在文明之始，人类劳动首先是从自然界获取基本的生活资料。此时，人的劳动作为开展物质生产的无机条件，与牲畜等自然物并无二致。而在隐蔽的奴隶制条件下，人与自然界的关系被“理解为直接的、片面的享受”，人类主体的任何直观感受都只是一种“囿于粗陋的实际需要的感觉，也只具有有限的意义”，表现出“一切肉体和精神的感觉都被这一切感觉的单纯异化即拥有的感觉所代替”的异化状态。人在自然面前，由被控制者转变为征服者。对此，马克思、恩格斯展望文明发展道路必然会通过实现生产资料公有制，推动奴役劳动转向自主劳动，使劳动复归人的自由自觉活动的本质。当人与自然不再是二元对立的关系，才能实现和解，进入和谐共生的境界。

The evolution of the relationship between humans from inequality and dependence to equality and independence represents the evolutionary process of civilizational forms from lower to higher. The relationship between humans and nature inherently contains the relationship between humans. Productive activity is a dual interactive process between humans and nature, and between humans and humans. It is premised on social interaction, meaning that the social connections formed through interaction between humans are necessary conditions for the material exchange process between humans and nature and for productive activities to unfold. However, since the birth of civilization, production has been based on antagonism between different classes, and subsequently on the antagonism between accumulated labor and direct labor. To date, antagonism has been a necessary condition for the progress of human civilization. Especially in the stage of concealed slave labor, due to the socialized development of productive forces, a universal connection is formed between humans through “things.” Compared with the stage of open slave labor, the dependence between humans in this stage is reduced and transformed into human dependence on things. In the relationship mediated by “things,” humans possess an equality and independence not possessed in the stage of open slave labor. However, based on their dependence on “things,” this equality and independence are formal rather than substantive. Only when the civilizational form enters the stage of autonomous labor, with the rationalization of relations of production and the establishment of a genuine community, can the relationship between humans enter a state of genuine equality and independence.

人与人的关系从不平等、依附到平等、独立的演变历程表征着文明形态从低级向高级的演进过程。人与自然的关系本身蕴含着人与人的关系。生产活动是人与自然、人与人之间的双重互动过程，它是以社会交往为前提的，即人与人之间通过交往而形成的社会联系是人与自然的物质交换过程得以展开、生产活动得以进行的必要条件。然而，自文明诞生起，生产便奠基于不同阶级间的对抗之上，随后奠基于积累劳动与直接劳动的对抗之上。迄今为止，对抗是人类文明进步的必要条件。尤其是在隐蔽的奴隶劳动阶段，由于生产力的社会化发展，人与人之间通过“物”形成了普遍联系。相较于公开的奴隶劳动阶段，该阶段人与人之间的依附性降低，并转化为人对物的依附。在以“物”为媒介的交往关系中，人拥有了在公开的奴隶劳动阶段不曾拥有的平等、独立，但是基于其对“物”的依赖，这种平等、独立只是形式上的而非实质上的。只有当文明形态进入自主劳动阶段，生产关系合理化，真正的共同体建立，人与人的关系才能进入真正的平等、独立的状态。

2. The Individuality of the Evolution of Civilizational Forms within the “Historical Circumstances” in Which They Are Situated

2. 文明形态在“所处的历史环境”中演进的个性

The universal “formula” for the path of civilizational evolution needs to be concretely applied to the analysis of particular civilizational realities. What kind of civilizational path different nations and peoples take depends on their historical traditions and actual conditions. In the 1860s and 1870s, the enormous impact of Russia’s serfdom reform [14]14 The Russian serfdom reform of 1861, which abolished serfdom but left many peasants in debt and subject to exploitative redemption payments, sparking widespread debate about Russia’s future development path. attracted widespread academic attention, and the development of anthropology gave scholars a new understanding of the Russian rural commune. Marx and Engels realized that the Eastern civilizational form represented by Russia had great value for enriching historical materialism. Therefore, their research focus shifted from the universal question of the path of civilizational evolution to the particular question. In his “Letter to Vera Zasulich,” [15]15 A series of draft letters written by Marx in 1881 to the Russian revolutionary Vera Zasulich, in which he discussed the possibility of Russia bypassing capitalism based on the rural commune. Marx made constructive predictions and feasibility analyses of Russia’s path of civilizational evolution based on its developmental conditions. Given Russia’s national conditions, the element of common land ownership in the rural commune and the natural condition of a sparse population over a vast territory made it possible to carry out large-scale collective farming, thereby breaking the economic base of private ownership that leads to the antagonistic problems of civilizational forms. Furthermore, the Russian rural commune “exists contemporaneously with Western capitalist production” [16]16 Marx, “Drafts of the Letter to Vera Zasulich,” in Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 24. and does not have to endure the series of antagonistic sufferings that Western countries are currently experiencing. “This enables it, without submitting to the mode of operation of capitalism, to appropriate its various fruits,” [17]17 Ibid. thereby obtaining the civilizational fruits needed for the transition to the stage of “free individuality.” [18]18 A stage in Marx’s theory of human development, following “personal dependence” and “personal independence based on dependence on things,” characterized by the full and free development of each individual. Marx predicted that the Russian rural commune could preserve itself by strengthening its common land ownership and thereby eliminating the elements of private ownership contained within it, thus laying the economic foundation for entering a non-antagonistic civilizational form. On this basis, it could “leap over the Caudine Forks” [19]19 An allusion to a narrow pass in ancient Italy where a defeated army was forced to pass under a yoke of spears, meaning to suffer a humiliating defeat; Marx uses it to mean bypassing the painful capitalist stage. by appropriating the civilizational fruits created by the large-scale capitalist production existing in the same period, thereby entering the stage of “free individuality.”

共性的文明演进道路“公式”需要具体应用于分析个性的文明现实。不同民族、国家走什么样的文明道路，则取决于它的历史传统与现实条件。19世纪六七十年代，由于俄国农奴制改革产生的巨大影响引起了学界广泛关注，加之人类学的发展使学界对俄国农村公社有了新的认识，马克思、恩格斯意识到以俄国为代表的东方文明形态对于丰富历史唯物主义具有极大价值，因此他们的研究重心从文明形态演进道路的共性问题转向个性问题。在《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》中，马克思基于俄国的发展状况对其文明形态演进道路进行了建设性预测和可行性分析。就俄国的国情而言，农村公社中的土地公有制成分、地广人稀的天然条件使它具备开展大规模集体耕作的可能，从而破除导致文明形态对抗性难题的私有制经济基础。此外，俄国农村公社“和西方资本主义生产是同时存在的东西”，不必承受西方各国当下经历的一系列对抗之苦，“这使它可以不必屈从于资本主义的活动方式而占有它的各种成果”，就可以获得向“自由个性”阶段过渡的文明成果。马克思预测到，俄国农村公社能够通过壮大其土地公有制从而消灭其中包含的私有制因素来实现自我保存，进而为步入非对抗性文明形态奠定经济基础。在此基础上，它能够通过占有与之同时期存在的资本主义大生产所创造的文明成果来跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”，从而进入“自由个性”阶段。

After Marx’s death, based on social realities such as the transformation from free capitalism to monopoly capitalism, the rapid development of Russian capitalism, and the increasing decline of the rural commune, Engels supplemented and developed Marx’s views on the path of evolution of the Russian civilizational form in the “Postscript to ‘On the Social Question in Russia.’” [20]20 Engels’ 1894 postscript to his earlier article on the Russian social question, reassessing the prospects for the Russian commune in light of capitalist development. Under conditions of rapid capitalist development in Russia, the rural commune was increasingly approaching the brink of collapse, thereby missing the opportunity to enter the stage of “free individuality” without experiencing the antagonistic civilizational troubles that Western countries had undergone. To seize this opportunity, to preserve the remnants of common ownership in the rural commune, a revolution to overthrow tsarist autocracy was necessary. On the one hand, revolution could liberate the peasants, who constituted the majority of Russia’s population, from their state of civilizational isolation, enabling them to fully recognize their own civilizational predicament and explore paths out of it. On the other hand, revolution could act as a new force to promote the victory of the Western workers’ movement, accelerating the West’s evolution toward the stage of “free individuality.” Without the impetus of such a victory, Russia would lack the conditions to enter the stage of “free individuality,” whether on the basis of the commune or on the basis of capitalism. Only when the Western working class achieved the victory of transferring the means of production to public ownership, and Russia learned from this the method of establishing public ownership of the means of production, could it fully utilize the surviving commune system and folk traditions to shorten its own process of evolution toward the stage of “free individuality” and avoid most of the suffering and struggle that Western countries had to endure in opening up their civilizational paths. Thus, based on Russia’s reality, Engels pointed out that Russia could, through a revolution to overthrow tsarist rule, promote the victory of the Western workers’ movement and accelerate the pace of entering the “free individuality” stage of civilization.

马克思逝世后，基于自由资本主义向垄断资本主义转变、俄国资本主义迅速发展和农村公社日益衰落等社会现实，恩格斯在《〈论俄国的社会问题〉跋》中补充并发展了马克思关于俄国文明形态演进道路的观点。在俄国资本主义迅速发展的情况下，农村公社愈加接近崩溃的边缘，进而将错失良机即不经历西方各国所经受的对抗性文明困扰就能够步入“自由个性”阶段。要想抓住这一机会，要想保留农村公社中的公有制残余，就必须进行摧毁沙皇专制的革命。一方面，革命能够使占俄国多数人口的农民从文明的隔绝状态中解放出来，充分认识自身的文明困境，探寻走出文明困境的路径；另一方面，革命能够作为一股新生力量推动西方工人运动的胜利，加速西方向“自由个性”阶段演进。如果没有这种胜利的推动，俄国无论是在公社的基础上还是在资本主义的基础上都不具备步入“自由个性”阶段的条件。当西方工人阶级取得使生产资料转归公有的胜利，俄国以此为借鉴习得建立生产资料公有制的方法时，才能充分利用残存的公社制度和民风传统来缩短自己向“自由个性”阶段演进的过程，并避免西方各国在开辟文明道路时所不得不经历的大部分苦难和斗争。由此可见，恩格斯立足俄国的现实指出，俄国能够通过推翻沙皇统治的革命助推西方工人运动的胜利，加快进入“自由个性”文明阶段的步伐。

Based on their grasp of the trends and stages of civilizational evolution, Marx and Engels summarized the universal characteristic of civilizational evolution “from lower to higher.” Subsequently, based on their analysis of Russia’s conditions, they explored the particular characteristics of civilizational evolution within a “given historical environment.” [21]21 A phrase from Marx’s “Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski” (1877), emphasizing that the historical inevitability of capitalist development described in Capital is limited to Western Europe and that each country’s path depends on its specific historical environment. If one discusses particularity while ignoring universality, it becomes impossible to summarize the universal characteristics of civilizational evolution, thus making it difficult to provide general experiences of reference value for the development of human civilizational forms. If one discusses universality while ignoring particularity, it becomes impossible to analyze specific problems concretely, thereby setting aside the particular experiences of some countries’ paths of civilizational evolution. In short, particularity is particularity regulated by universality, and universality is universality supplemented by particularity. The two are not a relationship of antagonistic separation but a relationship of complementary symbiosis.

马克思、恩格斯基于对文明形态演进趋势和演进阶段的把握总结出文明形态“由低级到高级”演进的共性特征，后基于对俄国状况的分析探得文明形态在“所处的历史环境”中演进的个性特征。若抛开共性只谈个性，就无法总结文明形态演进的共性特征，从而难以为人类文明形态的发展提供具有借鉴价值的一般性经验；若抛开个性只谈共性，就无法做到具体问题具体分析，从而使部分国家文明形态演进道路的个性经验被搁置。总之，个性是以共性为规制的个性，共性是以个性为补充的共性，二者不是割裂的对抗关系，而是互补的共生关系。

Marx and Engels used the analytical framework of historical materialism to study the question of the evolution of civilizational forms, conducting a multi-level systematic analysis of this question from “macro trends” to “meso stages” to “micro paths.” This has dual theoretical and practical value. In terms of its theoretical value, Marx and Engels, in their theoretical starting point, replaced the rational spirit of abstract individuals with the activities of real individuals. In their logical approach, they replaced metaphysical thinking paradigms with dialectical methods of thought. This achieved a comprehensive transcendence of transcendental rationalist thought on the evolution of civilizational forms, placing the exploration of this question within the perspective of historical materialism for the first time, thereby systematically grasping the inner logic of the evolution of human civilizational forms at an essential level. In terms of its practical value, the characteristic that antagonism and non-antagonism are unified in the trend of civilizational evolution suggests that, while strengthening confidence that humanity will inevitably enter the stage of “free individuality,” we should actively respond to the many contradictions of the current “age of civilization.” [22]22 A term used by Engels in *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* to describe class society based on the exploitation of one class by another. The characteristic that continuity and innovation are unified in the stages of civilizational evolution suggests that, while actively inheriting and utilizing elements of old civilizations, we should strive to create new ones. The characteristic that universality and particularity are unified in the paths of civilizational evolution suggests that, while following the universal requirements of human civilizational progress, we should choose a civilizational development path suitable for our own country based on our actual conditions. Marx and Engels’ theoretical narrative on the question of the evolution of civilizational forms enriches the understanding of the laws of the human civilizational process and has immense historical guiding significance for promoting the progress of human civilization.

马克思、恩格斯用历史唯物主义分析框架研究文明形态演进问题，对于文明形态演进问题从“宏观趋势”到“中观阶段”再到“微观道路”进行多层次的系统分析，具有理论和实践的双重价值。就其理论价值而言，马克思、恩格斯在理论出发点上以现实个人的活动取代抽象个人的理性精神，在逻辑思路上以辩证的思想方法取代形而上的思维范式，实现了对先验理性主义文明形态演进思想的全面超越，第一次将对于文明形态演进问题的探索置于历史唯物主义视域中，从而在本质层面系统把握了人类文明形态演进的内在逻辑。就其实践价值而言，对抗性与非对抗性统一于文明形态演进趋势的特征启示，在坚定人类文明必然迈入“自由个性”阶段之信心的同时积极应对当前“文明时代”的诸多矛盾；承续性与创新性统一于文明形态演进阶段的特征启示，在积极传承和利用旧文明要素的同时努力创造新文明；共性与个性统一于文明形态演进道路的特征启示，在遵循人类文明进步普遍要求的同时根据自身的实际情况选择适合本国的文明发展道路。马克思、恩格斯对文明形态演进问题的理论叙事丰富了对人类文明进程的规律性认识，对推动人类文明进步具有巨大的历史指导作用。

(The authors are professors and doctoral supervisors at the School of Marxism, University of Science and Technology Beijing.)

（作者系北京科技大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁