Marx’s Exposition of the Correlation between “History” and “World History”

Marx’s ideas on “history” and “world history” in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* are important theoretical resources for resolving the predicaments of modern social development, and they also provide theoretical support for understanding civilizational interaction in the era of globalization and the direction of human social development. Since the Age of Discovery and the global expansion of capital inaugurated “world history,” how to understand the national narrative of “history” and the overall process of “world history” has become a core issue in philosophical and historical research. Hegel regarded “world history” as the unfolding of spirit in the dimension of time, which implicitly contains a narrative bias of Western-centrism. In the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx, grounding himself in the critique of political economy, redefined the connotations of “history” and “world history,” elucidated the mechanism of their correlation and interaction, thereby breaking through the fetters of nationality and regionality, and constructed a theoretical framework for their dialectical unity.

马克思《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中的“历史”与“世界历史”思想是破解现代社会发展困境的重要理论资源，也为理解全球化时代的文明互动与人类社会发展方向提供了理论支撑。自地理大发现与资本全球性扩张开启“世界历史”以来，如何理解“历史”的民族叙事与“世界历史”的整体进程，成为哲学与史学研究的核心议题。黑格尔将“世界历史”视为精神在时间维度上的展开，其中暗含西方中心主义的叙事偏向。马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中立足政治经济学批判，重新界定了“历史”与“世界历史”的内涵，阐发二者的关联互动机制，从而突破了民族性与地域性的桎梏，构建起二者辩证统一的理论框架。

The Evolution of the Category of “History”

“历史”范畴的嬗变

In the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx points out that “history” is not an abstract passage of time or a simple sequence of facts, but a concrete category based on material production, whose boundaries are continuously expanded with the transformation of the mode of production.

马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中指出，“历史”并非抽象的时间流逝或简单的事实序列，而是以物质生产为基础、随生产方式变革不断拓展边界的具体范畴。

The mode of production in pre-capitalist societies was characterized by a “natural economy,” presenting the closure and regionality of “history.” The purpose of social production was to satisfy the direct consumption of regional communities, not to pursue exchange value. In Marx’s view, labor itself had not yet been examined in its general, abstract form, but was still linked to a specific form of concrete labor. Therefore, the concreteness of labor caused human productive activities to be bound within specific territorial spaces and national cultural boundaries, so that the histories of different nations and regions exhibited a state of “independent development,” lacking universal interaction and connection. “Feudal landed property” further strengthened the regionality of history, as relations of personal dependence prevented the free movement of the laboring population. The guild system, by restricting the spread of technology and market access, hindered the cross-regional allocation of productive factors. At this time, “history” was essentially “history within the nation-state”; even if local commodity exchange existed (such as the Silk Road), it did not change the overall regional character of history.

前资本主义社会的生产方式以“自然经济”为特征，呈现为“历史”的封闭性与地域性，社会生产的目的是满足地域共同体的直接消费，并不追求交换价值。在马克思看来，劳动本身还没有从一般的、抽象的形式上被考察，还是与一种具体劳动的一定形式联系在一起。因此，劳动的具体性导致人类的生产活动被束缚在特定的地域空间与民族文化范围内，不同民族、地域的历史呈现出“各自独立发展”的状态，缺乏普遍的互动与关联。“封建土地所有制”则进一步强化了历史的地域性，人身依附关系导致劳动人口无法自由流动。行会制度则通过限制技术传播与市场准入，阻碍了生产要素的跨地域配置。此时的“历史”本质上是“民族国家内部的历史”，即使存在局部的商品交换（如丝绸之路），也未改变历史整体的地域性特征。

With the rise of the capitalist mode of production, the connotation of “history” underwent a fundamental change, shifting from national-regionality to universal historicity. Marx clearly states that the essence of capital is the infinite movement of pursuing surplus value, which drives capital to continuously break through regional limits and incorporate all nations into the world market system. Colonial expansion since the 16th century, ostensibly the “geographical exploration” of European states, was in essence a territorial expansion by capital to realize its valorization. “Capital, on the one hand, strives to tear down every barrier to intercourse

随着资本主义生产方式的兴起，“历史”的内涵发生根本性变化，从民族地域性转向普遍历史性。马克思明确指出，资本的本质是追求剩余价值的无限运动，它驱动资本不断突破地域限制，将所有民族纳入世界市场体系。16世纪以来的殖民扩张，表面上是欧洲国家的“地理探索”，本质上却是资本为实现增殖而进行的地域拓展。“资本一方面要力求摧毁交往即交换的一切地方限制，征服整个地球作为它的市场，另一方面，它又力求用时间去消灭空间，就是说，把商品从一个地方转移到另一个地方所花费的时间缩减到最低限度。”在资本逻辑的推动下，“历史”的普遍化转向体现为两个维度：一是生产要素的全球化流动，竞争机制凸显。资本为获取廉价劳动力与原材料，打破了民族国家的疆域限制，使劳动力、土地、技术等生产要素在世界范围内重新配置，形成全球性的生产链条。二是历史叙事的普遍化。“各民族自说自话”的历史叙事被打破，资本逻辑使各个民族的历史卷入世界历史的潮流中，使其在世界市场中相互作用、相互塑造，由此，普遍历史性的特征日益凸显。

The Correlation between “History” and “World History”

“历史”与“世界历史”的关联

The nature of capital’s self-expansion is the internal driving force of “world history” and possesses the characteristic of “infinity.” In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx closely links the development of the division of labor with the formation of “world history.” In the pre-capitalist period, the division of labor was primarily “natural division of labor” and “division of labor in manufacture,” confined within nation-states. In the capitalist period, however, “large-scale machine industry” fundamentally transformed the nature of the division of labor, decomposing the production process into a series of simple operations and driving the division of labor toward globalization. Different countries and regions, based on their own resource endowments, could specialize in a particular production link, forming a “global system of the division of labor.” At the same time, the globalization of the division of labor also broke down the barriers between national cultures and promoted the universal development of human civilization.

资本的增殖本性是“世界历史”的内在动力，并具有“无限性”特征。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思将分工的发展与“世界历史”的形成紧密关联，前资本主义时期的分工以“自然分工”与“工场手工业分工”为主，局限于民族国家内部，而资本主义时期的“机器大工业”彻底改变了分工的性质，使生产过程被分解为一系列简单的操作，推动分工向全球化方向发展。不同国家、地区可以根据自身的资源禀赋，专注于某一生产环节，形成“全球性的分工体系”。与此同时，分工的全球化还打破了民族文化的隔阂，推动了人类文明的普遍发展。

In the *Grundrisse*, Marx repositions “history” within the overall framework of “world history.” In pre-capitalist societies, the national and regional character of “history” were identical. But in the era of “world history,” the national character of “history” is no longer closed and isolated; rather, it is part of the overall process of “world history.” The historical development of any single nation cannot be separated from the overall background of “world history.” “History” and “world history” form a dialectical unity: the national narrative of “history” is a partial manifestation of the overall process of “world history,” while “world history” provides the objective conditions for “history” to break through regional limitations. Driven by the logic of capital, the two form an internal correlation of “part and whole” and “means and end.” For example, the modern historical process of China—from the Opium War [1]1 The Opium War (1840–1842) was a military conflict between Britain and Qing China, triggered by disputes over trade and the opium trade, which resulted in China’s defeat and the imposition of unequal treaties. to the Westernization Movement [2]2 The Westernization Movement (c. 1861–1895) was a series of self-strengthening reforms in late Qing China aimed at adopting Western military technology and industrial practices while preserving Confucian values. to the Xinhai Revolution [3]3 The Xinhai Revolution (1911–1912) was a revolution that overthrew the Qing dynasty and established the Republic of China, ending over two thousand years of imperial rule.—appears on the surface to be an internal transformation of Chinese society, but in essence it is the interactive result of capital expansion and the response of the nation-state within the process of “world history.”

马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中将“历史”置于“世界历史”的整体框架中重新定位。在资本主义以前的社会，“历史”的民族性与地域性是同一的，但在“世界历史”时代，“历史”的民族性不再是封闭的、孤立的，而是“世界历史”整体进程的一部分。任何一个民族的历史发展，都无法脱离“世界历史”的整体背景。“历史”与“世界历史”是辩证统一的整体，“历史”的民族性叙事是“世界历史”整体进程的局部呈现，“世界历史”则为“历史”突破地域局限提供客观条件，二者在资本逻辑的推动下，形成“局部与整体”“手段与目的”的内在关联。如近代中国的历史进程，从鸦片战争到洋务运动再到辛亥革命，表面上是中国社会内部的变革，本质上是“世界历史”进程中资本扩张与民族国家回应的互动结果。

At the same time, the national differences of “history” also provide diverse driving forces for the development of “world history.” The cultural traditions, production experiences, and social systems formed by different nations in the course of historical development interact with and learn from each other through the interactive mechanisms of “world history,” enriching the content of “world history” and promoting its overall development. Conversely, “world history” promotes the civilizational upgrading of “history”; the civilizations of various nations collide and merge in interaction. Although Marx criticized the brutality of colonial rule, he also objectively acknowledged the innovative role that “world history” plays in the civilizational upgrading of “history.”

同时，“历史”的民族性差异也为“世界历史”的发展提供了多样性动力。不同民族在历史发展过程中形成的文化传统、生产经验、社会制度，通过“世界历史”的互动机制相互交流与借鉴，丰富了“世界历史”的内涵，促进了“世界历史”的整体发展。反之，“世界历史”又推动了“历史”的文明升级，各民族的文明在互动中相互碰撞与融合。尽管马克思批判了殖民统治的残酷性，但也客观承认“世界历史”在“历史”文明升级中起到的革新作用。

The Contemporary Value of the Thought on the Correlation between “History” and “World History”

“历史”与“世界历史”关联性思想的当代价值

Today, two opposing tendencies of historical cognition have emerged in contemporary Western academia. The first is the “nationalist view of history,” which equates “history” with the history of the nation-state, emphasizes the supremacy of national interests, ignores the overall logic of “world history,” and even gives rise to trends such as trade protectionism and cultural xenophobia. The second is the “globalist view of history,” which one-sidedly negates the national character of “history,” attempts to construct an abstract “supra-national, supra-regional” world history, and ignores the historical differences and development demands of various nations. Marx’s thought provides theoretical guidance for resolving these theoretical dilemmas. He both acknowledges the national character of “history,” emphasizing the uniqueness of each nation’s historical development, and attaches importance to the wholeness of “world history,” explaining that the histories of all nations will ultimately merge into the common process of human development. Marx opposes both the narrow nationalism that places national interests above the overall interests of humanity and the abstract globalism that ignores national differences. This provides us with theoretical insight for constructing a historical cognition that “unifies the national and the universal.”

如今，当代西方学术界出现了两种对立的历史认知倾向：一是“民族主义历史观”，将“历史”等同于民族国家史，强调民族利益至上，忽视“世界历史”的整体逻辑，甚至引发贸易保护主义、文化排外主义等思潮；二是“全球主义历史观”，片面否定“历史”的民族性，试图构建“超民族、超地域”的抽象世界历史，忽视各民族的历史差异与发展诉求。马克思的思想为破解这些理论困境提供了理论指引，他既承认“历史”的民族性，强调各民族历史发展的独特性，又重视“世界历史”的整体性，阐释各民族历史最终会融入人类共同发展的进程。马克思既反对将民族利益凌驾于人类整体利益之上的狭隘民族主义，又批判忽视民族差异的抽象全球主义，这为我们构建“民族性与普遍性相统一”的历史认知提供了理论洞见。

At present, human society faces global problems such as the threat of nuclear war, climate change, poverty and hunger, and public health security. Solving these problems requires transcending the territorial limitations of nation-states and relying on the joint efforts of all humanity. The “holistic consciousness of humanity” contained in Marx’s thought on “world history” is inherently consistent with the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, and can help us see through the “changes unseen in a century in the world.” The concept of a community with a shared future for mankind emphasizes that “the people of all countries should work together to build a community with a shared future for mankind, and build a world of lasting peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness and inclusiveness, clean and beautiful,” seeking common ground while reserving differences in the process of world history. This is precisely a contemporary development of Marx’s thought on “world history.” It respects the history, culture, and development paths of each nation, while advocating that all nations strengthen cooperation under the overall framework of “world history,” share the fruits of development, break through the limitations of nationality and locality, and achieve win-win cooperation among all nation-states and the common progress of humanity. This thought of Marx provides a philosophical basis for the construction of a community with a shared future for mankind, guiding us, in the era of globalization, to both adhere to a national stance and establish a holistic concept of humanity, promoting the process of world history in the unity of national development and the common development of humanity.

当前，人类社会面临核战争威胁、气候变化、贫困饥饿、公共卫生安全等全球性问题，这些问题的解决需要超越民族国家的地域局限，依靠全人类的共同努力。马克思阐发的“世界历史”思想所蕴含的“人类整体意识”，与人类命运共同体理念具有内在的一致性，能助力我们透视“世界百年未有之大变局”。人类命运共同体理念强调“各国人民同心协力，构建人类命运共同体，建设持久和平、普遍安全、共同繁荣、开放包容、清洁美丽的世界”，在世界历史进程中求同存异，这正是对马克思“世界历史”思想的当代发展。它既尊重各民族的历史文化与发展道路，又倡导各民族在“世界历史”的整体框架下加强合作，共享发展成果，突破民族性与地域性的局限，实现所有民族国家的合作共赢与人类的共同进步。马克思这一思想为人类命运共同体的构建提供了哲学依据，指引我们在全球化时代中，既要坚守民族立场，又要树立人类整体观念，在民族发展与人类共同发展的统一中推动世界历史进程。

(The author is a professor at the School of Philosophy, Heilongjiang University)

（作者系黑龙江大学哲学学院教授）

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧