Marx and Engels’s Dual Critique of Capitalist Civilization

“Capitalist civilization is built on the foundation of the capitalist system of exploitation; it cannot overcome or eliminate the barbaric nature hidden beneath civilization.” Xi Jinping’s important assertion points to the hypocritical essence of capitalist civilization and provides a crucial theoretical entry point for our understanding of capitalist civilization in the present era. To comprehend capitalist civilization, it is necessary to profoundly reveal the barbaric nature concealed behind it. As early as the 19th century, Marx and Engels had already completed this task. They launched a profound theoretical critique of capitalist civilization, exposing its barbaric elements. Today, when the future and destiny of all countries are closely interconnected, revisiting the classic texts of Marx and Engels and exploring their many judgments on capitalist civilization not only helps to recognize the deep-seated core behind Western capitalist civilization but also provides important theoretical insights for transcending civilizational estrangement and civilizational conflict.

“资本主义文明是建立在资本主义剥削制度基础上的，它无法克服和消除文明下的野蛮本性。”习近平的这一重要论断指明了资本主义文明的虚伪本质，为我们理解当今时代资本主义文明提供了重要的理论切入点。要理解资本主义文明，就必须深刻揭示资本主义文明背后的野蛮本性。早在19世纪，马克思、恩格斯就已完成了这一工作。他们对资本主义文明展开了深刻的理论批判，揭示了其中的野蛮要素。在各国前途命运紧密相连的今天，回溯马克思、恩格斯的经典文本，探寻其对资本主义文明的诸多评判，不仅有助于认清西方资本主义文明背后的深层内核，还能为超越文明隔阂与文明冲突提供重要理论启示。

I. Distinguishing the Age of Civilization from the Age of Barbarism: Marx and Engels’s Criteria for Judging Civilization

一、从文明时代与野蛮时代的区分看马克思恩格斯对文明的评判标准

To thoroughly elucidate Marx and Engels’s critique of capitalist civilization, it is necessary to clarify what state of human society they considered to be civilization—that is, to clarify the criteria by which Marx and Engels judged civilization versus non-civilization.

要彻底阐明马克思、恩格斯对资本主义文明的批判，就必须明确在他们那里，人类社会的何种状态才可以称得上文明，即必须澄清马克思、恩格斯到底依据什么标准来判断文明与非文明。

The criteria for judging civilization are reflected in Marx and Engels’s assessments of Morgan and related theories. In 1877, Morgan published *Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization*. Engels asserted that Morgan, “in comparing the period of barbarism with the period of civilization,” arrived at the same view as Marx. Both Marx and Engels explored civilization from a holistic perspective and from the standpoint of human developmental history, thereby defining civilization in its most universal sense. However, Marx and Engels did not adopt Morgan’s tripartite framework of “savagery—barbarism—civilization”; instead, they emphasized a certain tension between the two historical epochs of barbarism and civilization.

文明与否的评判标准体现在马克思、恩格斯对摩尔根及其相关学说的评断中。1877年，摩尔根出版了《古代社会，或人类从蒙昧时代经过野蛮时代到文明时代的发展过程的研究》一书。恩格斯断言，摩尔根“在把野蛮时代和文明时代加以对比的时候”得出了和马克思相同的观点。马克思、恩格斯都以某种整体的视角，从人类发展史的角度探讨文明，从而在最普遍的意义上界定了文明。但是，马克思、恩格斯并未采纳摩尔根“蒙昧—野蛮—文明”的三段式论述框架，而是着重突出了野蛮与文明这两个历史时代的某种张力。

Opposing civilization to barbarism is a tradition in the history of Western thought. The term “barbarism” originates from the ancient Greek word “barbaros,” meaning “one who speaks incoherently,” initially used to refer to foreigners who did not speak Greek. This stigmatizing label quickly evolved into a criterion for judging cultural difference, becoming a discursive tool for ancient Greeks to distinguish “self” from “other.” With the rise of the Enlightenment, barbarism acquired pejorative connotations such as irrationality, uncivilizedness, and lack of order, while civilization became a symbol of reason, order, and progress. Marx and Engels refused to understand civilization as the natural unfolding of human reason; instead, they understood it from a social dimension, revealing how a new social form of civilization replaces the social form of the preceding epoch.

将文明与野蛮对立是西方思想史的一种传统。野蛮一词源于古希腊语“barbaros”,本义是“语无伦次之人”,最初用来指不会说希腊语的异族。这一标签化的称号迅速演变为文化差异的判断标准，成为古希腊人区分“自我”与“他者”的话语工具。随着启蒙运动的兴起，野蛮衍生出不理性、未开化、缺乏秩序等贬义色彩，而文明则成为理性、秩序、进步的象征。马克思、恩格斯拒绝将文明理解为人类理性的自然展开，而从社会向度进行理解，揭示了某种新的、文明的社会形态如何取代前一时代的社会形态。

Engels pointed out: “The period of barbarism is the period of learning to rear domestic animals and to cultivate crops, of learning to increase the supply of natural products by human activity. The period of civilization is the period of learning to further process natural products, the period of genuine industry and art.” On this basis, Marx and Engels further specified that the period of barbarism refers to the clan society that had not yet differentiated into class oppression, a natural community bound by blood ties and communal land ownership, where the clan was “the institution common to all barbarians”; the period of civilization, in contrast, emphasizes that “the division of labor, the exchange between individuals arising from it, and the commodity production that combines these two, have developed fully, completely transforming the entire previous society.” With the emergence of the division of labor, the need for exchange arose. It was only with the continuous realization of exchange that humanity formally entered the age of civilization. It can be said that the age of civilization and the age of barbarism represent two fundamentally different relations of production.

恩格斯指出：“野蛮时代是学会畜牧和农耕的时期，是学会靠人的活动来增加天然产物生产的方法的时期。文明时代是学会对天然产物进一步加工的时期，是真正的工业和艺术的时期。”在此基础上，马克思、恩格斯又进一步指明野蛮时代指的是尚未分化出阶级压迫的氏族社会，是以血缘为纽带、土地公有的自然共同体，氏族是“一切野蛮人所共有的制度”;文明时代则强调“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”。随着分工的产生，人们产生了交换的需要。随着交换的不断实现，人们才正式进入文明时代。可以说，文明时代与野蛮时代代表了两种截然不同的生产关系。

In Marx and Engels’s understanding, the difference between the age of barbarism and the age of civilization is not only reflected in historical sequence or differences in cultural refinement or technological level, but also manifests as a difference in the form of human society. Rather, the division between the age of civilization and the age of barbarism is not based on the empirical dimension of humanity as a whole or of any particular nation, but on the social dimension of relations of production. The fundamental characteristic of the age of civilization lies not in cultural elements such as cities, metals, and writing, but in its premise of the division of labor in the sphere of production, establishing social relations on the basis of the exchange of means of production and the products of labor. Although civilization and barbarism are different epochs from a temporal perspective, they are also two different types of society. To call a certain nation, country, or system civilized means not only that it has historically transitioned from the age of barbarism to the age of civilization, but, more importantly, that it has already acquired a civilized social form. In the broadest sense, classifying a society as civilized depends primarily on whether the division of labor, exchange, and commodity production in that society are sufficiently developed; these three elements constitute the general criteria by which Marx and Engels judged whether a social system was civilized.

在马克思、恩格斯的理解中，野蛮时代与文明时代的差别不仅体现在历史的前后次序，以及文化修养或技术水平的差异，而且展现为人类社会形态差异。毋宁说，文明时代与野蛮时代的划分并非建立在人类整体或某个民族的经验维度，而是基于生产关系的社会维度。文明时代的根本特征不在于城市、金属和文字等文化要素，而在于它以生产领域中的分工为前提，将社会关系建立在生产资料和劳动成果的交换的基础上。文明和野蛮固然从时间上看是不同的时代，但它们也是两种不同的社会类型。称某个民族、国家或制度处于文明之中，不仅指其在历史发展的角度上已从野蛮时代进入文明时代，更重要的是其已具有了一种文明的社会形态。就最宽泛的意义而言，将某个社会归为文明的，主要看这个社会的分工、交换、商品生产是否充分发展，这三方面要素构成马克思、恩格斯判断社会制度文明与否的一般标准。

According to this criterion, capitalism is clearly a civilized social form. What Marx and Engels meant by civilization does not lie in the fact that people in capitalist society possess certain special or noble living habits, but rather that the civilized elements of the capitalist society—division of labor, exchange, and commodity production—are fully developed. Compared with previous social forms, capitalist society has pushed all three to an unprecedented height. First, in terms of the division of labor, capitalism broke the natural division of labor based on the household unit in traditional handicraft and agricultural societies, establishing a highly specialized labor system based on large-scale socialized production. The establishment of the factory system refined production into a series of standardized, fragmented operations, with each position forming a complete “assembly line.” Second, in terms of exchange, capitalism liberated commodity exchange from the localized and contingent exchange of feudal society, making it the basic mechanism of social reproduction. Regulated by the capitalist market mechanism, commodities circulate not only freely between city and countryside but also across national borders into the world market. Commodity exchange became the link connecting different occupations and different countries. Third, in terms of commodity production, capitalism established a production system aimed at the pursuit of surplus value. The production activities organized by capitalists are no longer to satisfy self-sufficient needs but are specifically for market consumption and profit-seeking, thereby achieving the universalization and systematization of commodity production. Whether it is labor power, land, or capital, capitalism allocates all as commodities, forming a complete production-circulation-consumption mechanism. It is precisely under the joint impetus of the refinement of the division of labor, the universalization of exchange, and the institutionalization of commodity production that capitalist society acquired the elements of civilization and became the age of civilization as defined by Marx and Engels.

按照这一评判标准，资本主义显然是一种文明的社会形态。马克思、恩格斯所说的文明并不在于资本主义社会中的人具有某些特殊的、高尚的生活习惯，而是说资本主义社会的分工、交换以及商品生产这些文明因素充分发展。与以往社会形态相比，资本主义社会将三者推向了前所未有的高度。第一，在分工方面，资本主义打破了传统手工业和农业社会以家庭为单位的自然分工形式，确立了以社会化大生产为基础的高度专业化的劳动体系。工厂制度的确立使得生产被细化为一系列标准化、片段化的操作，各个岗位形成了一套完备的“流水线”。第二，在交换方面，资本主义将商品交换从封建社会的局部性与偶然性交换中解放出来，使之成为社会再生产的基本机制。在资本主义市场机制调节下，商品不仅在城市与乡村之间自由流通，而且可以跨越国界，进入世界市场。商品交换成为连接不同职业、不同国家的纽带。第三，在商品生产方面，资本主义确立了以追求剩余价值为宗旨的生产体系。资本家组织的生产活动不再是为了满足自给自足的需求，而是专门为市场消费而生产、为谋取利润而生产，从而实现了商品生产的普遍化、体系化。无论是劳动力、土地、还是资本，资本主义都将其作为商品进行配置，形成了完整的生产—流通—消费机制。正是在分工的细化、交换的普遍化和商品生产的制度化三者的共同推动下，资本主义社会具备了文明的要素，成为马克思、恩格斯所定义的文明时代。

It must be pointed out that the capitalist civilization discussed by Marx and Engels is not some abstract concept transcending history, but has a specific historical background, referring specifically to the form of capitalist civilization that arose in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries and expanded through colonial conquest. This capitalist civilization, as Marx and Engels saw and experienced it, does not represent all forms of capitalist civilization, let alone all forms of human civilization. It is precisely within this specific historical context that Marx and Engels examined civilization as an object of critique.

必须指出的是，马克思、恩格斯所论及的资本主义文明，并非某个超越历史的抽象概念，而是具有独特的历史背景，专指18—19世纪在欧洲兴起并通过殖民扩张而形成的资本主义文明形态。这种马克思、恩格斯所见所感的资本主义文明不代表资本主义文明的所有样态，更不代表人类文明的所有形态。正是在特定历史语境中，马克思、恩格斯才把文明作为一个评判对象加以考察。

II. The Expansion of Capitalist Civilization: Marx and Engels’s First Critique of Capitalist Civilization

二、资本主义文明的扩张：马克思恩格斯对资本主义文明的第一重批判

Marx and Engels’s critical attitude toward capitalist civilization is first reflected in their commentary on the expansion of capitalist civilization. Since the Age of Discovery, the world has become increasingly interconnected. Capitalist civilization used this to expand globally from within outward. In the era of Marx and Engels, the outward spread of capitalist civilization was not the result of peaceful exchange but was achieved through violence. In view of this, they keenly recognized that capitalist civilization, from its very inception, constructed its own ruling order through confrontation with and integration of non-capitalist civilizations.

马克思、恩格斯对资本主义文明的批判态度首先体现在对资本主义文明扩张的评述中。地理大发现以来，世界联系日益紧密。资本主义文明借此自内而外地向全球扩张。在马克思、恩格斯所处的时代，资本主义文明的外向传播并非和平交流的结果，而是借助暴力才得以实现。有鉴于此，他们敏锐地意识到，资本主义文明在其形成之初就是在与非资本主义文明的对抗与整合中构建了自身的统治秩序。

Marx and Engels believed that the capitalist civilization of the 19th century was primarily located in Western Europe. Undoubtedly, these regions gradually established capitalist relations of production, not only building an industrial-based social division of labor and exchange mechanism but also establishing the capitalist system in the superstructure. Opposed to Western European capitalist civilization were vast areas such as the Slavic peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, the nomadic tribes of Asia, the tribal societies of Africa, and the empires of South Asia and the Far East. Western European capitalist civilization continuously expanded outward, while non-capitalist civilization regions were passively drawn into the so-called “civilization-promotion” process. As Engels pointed out: “The tendency of the Germans to annex has always been, and still is, one of the most powerful means of spreading Western civilization to Eastern Europe.” [1]1 Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” 1849. Regarding the Americas, Marx noted: “The gold of California flooded America, flooded the Pacific coast of Asia, and dragged even the most stubborn barbarian peoples into world trade, into civilization.” [2]2 Marx, “The British Rule in India,” 1853. It must be said that the people of these non-capitalist civilization regions did not voluntarily come into contact with capitalist civilization; rather, they were often forced into trade with capitalist civilization during the process of capitalist global expansion. In the blueprints drawn up by certain capitalist countries, places such as India, China, Algeria, and Poland became targets for capital import, market expansion, and raw material plunder. Undoubtedly, the expansion of capitalist civilization inevitably had a certain impact on the original systems of these regions. For example, when analyzing British colonial rule in India, Marx sharply pointed out that Britain “destroyed the native communities, ruined the native industries, and leveled all that was great and sublime in native society.” [3]3 Marx, “The Future Results of British Rule in India,” 1853. Thus it can be seen that the external expansion of capitalist civilization is often built upon the erosion of existing systems, cultures, and even entire ways of life.

马克思、恩格斯认为，19世纪的资本主义文明主要是在西欧地区。毋庸置疑，这些地区逐步确立起资本主义生产关系，不仅建立了以工业为主的社会分工和交换机制，而且在上层建筑方面建立起资本主义制度。与西欧的资本主义文明相对的则是中欧与东欧的斯拉夫民族、亚洲的游牧部落、非洲的部落社会以及南亚和远东的帝国等广大地区。西欧资本主义文明不断对外扩张，而非资本主义文明的地区则被动卷入所谓的“文明推进”进程。正如恩格斯所指出的：“德意志人进行并吞的趋势过去一向是，现在也还是西欧文明传播到东欧的最有力的方法之一。”关于美洲地区，马克思则指出：“加利福尼亚的黄金流遍美洲，流遍亚洲的太平洋沿岸地区，甚至把最倔强的野蛮民族也拖进了世界贸易，拖进了文明”。不得不说，这些非资本主义文明地区的人并非自愿与资本主义文明接触，而往往是在资本主义全球扩张过程中被迫与资本主义文明展开贸易往来。在某些资本主义国家所规划的版图中，印度、中国、阿尔及利亚、波兰等地都成为资本输入、市场拓展和原材料掠夺的对象。毋庸置疑，资本主义文明在扩张过程中必然会对这些地区的原有制度造成一定影响。比如，马克思在分析英国对印度的殖民统治时就曾尖锐指出，英国“破坏了本地的公社，摧毁了本地的工业，夷平了本地社会中伟大和崇高的一切”。由此可见，资本主义文明的对外扩张往往是建立在对既有制度、文化甚至整套生活方式的浸染之上。

Marx and Engels recognized the hypocritical nature of capitalist civilization in the process of its expansion, revealing its essence of conquering other regions through violent means. Capitalist countries, under the banner of civilization, claim to bring values such as freedom and equality to humanity, but the expansionary methods they actually employ are extremely cruel and barbaric. The process of spreading civilization itself is often accompanied by barbaric acts such as plunder, destruction, and violence. Marx and Engels stated: “When we turn our gaze from the homeland of bourgeois civilization to the colonies, the extreme hypocrisy and barbaric nature of bourgeois civilization stand naked before us,” [4]4 Marx and Engels, “The British Rule in India,” 1853. and “at home it puts on a decent appearance, but in the colonies it does not even bother to disguise itself.” [5]5 Marx and Engels, “The British Rule in India,” 1853. The situation in India is a powerful proof of this assertion. Marx pointed out that the British were “the first conquerors with a higher degree of civilization than India, and therefore not influenced by Indian civilization,” [6]6 Marx, “The British Rule in India,” 1853. and they did not merge with it but completely destroyed it. Similarly, on the issue of Turkey, Marx revealed how capitalist civilization, in the name of “civilization,” intervened in, divided, and even ruled a country it regarded as “semi-barbaric.” He argued that Turkey was an excuse for the European powers’ “policy of maintaining the status quo,” and “this principle of unanimously insisting on maintaining a fortuitously formed state of affairs is a certificate of the powers’ poverty in ability, proving that they are completely incapable of doing anything for progress or civilization.” [7]7 Marx, “The Turkish Question,” 1853. Civilized states ostensibly claimed to maintain peace, but in reality, they were competing for influence in so-called “barbaric regions.” Marx emphasized: “Contact with Europeans, attempts at civilization, can only weaken and disintegrate the Turks.” [8]8 Marx, “The Turkish Question,” 1853. The civilized states, by denying Turkey’s social foundation and using the pretext of “promoting civilization,” satisfied the needs of the civilized world itself. On the issue of China, Marx also revealed the structural destruction that Britain, in the name of trade, brought to Chinese society. He pointed out that China, “the oldest and most stable empire in the world,” was brought by British bourgeois calico “to the eve of a social revolution that will have extremely important consequences for civilization.” [9]9 Marx, “Trade and the Opium War,” 1858. Behind the façade of cross-border trade lay the colonial empire’s aggression against China. The “disguise” of capitalist civilization is thus clearly visible.

马克思、恩格斯意识到了资本主义文明在扩张过程中的虚伪本质，揭示了其通过暴力手段征服其他地区的实质。资本主义国家打着文明的旗号，自诩为人类带来自由、平等等价值观念，但实际上采取的扩张手段却极其残忍、野蛮。文明传播的过程本身往往伴随掠夺、破坏与暴力等野蛮行径。马克思、恩格斯提出：“当我们把目光从资产阶级文明的故乡转向殖民地的时候，资产阶级文明的极端伪善和它的野蛮本性就赤裸裸地呈现在我们面前”,而且“在故乡还装出一副体面的样子，而在殖民地它就丝毫不加掩饰了”。印度的情况便是这一论断的有力证明。马克思指出，不列颠人是“第一批文明程度高于印度因而不受印度文明影响的征服者”,他们不是与之融合，而是彻底破坏。同样，在土耳其问题上，马克思也揭示了资本主义文明如何以“文明”的名义去干预、分裂甚至统治一个被其视为“半野蛮”的国家。他认为土耳其是欧洲列强“维护现状”策略的借口，“这种一致同意坚决维持偶然形成的状况的原则，是列强在能力上的赤贫证明书，证明它们完全没有能力为进步或文明做任何事情”。文明国家表面宣称维护和平，实则是在争夺在所谓的“野蛮地区”的影响力。马克思强调：“同欧洲人的接触，文明化的尝试，只能使土耳其人衰弱和解体。”文明国家则通过否定土耳其的社会基础并以“推行文明”为借口满足文明世界自身的需要。在中国问题上，马克思也揭示了英国以贸易之名对中国社会带来的结构性破坏。他指出，中国这一“世界上最古老最巩固的帝国”,竟被英国资产阶级的印花布“带到了一场必将对文明产生极其重要结果的社会变革的前夕”。在表面的跨境贸易背后，是殖民帝国对中国的侵略。资本主义文明的“伪装”可见一斑。

So, how does capitalist civilization form and how is it maintained? Objectively speaking, capitalist civilization has never developed self-sufficiently within a closed system; rather, it has been realized by incorporating other countries and regions into its production and exchange system. The expansion of capitalist civilization is accompanied by the process of economic globalization. In the context of political economy, capitalist civilization must establish close ties with other countries and regions to form a global division of labor, and therefore inevitably exploits dependencies or colonies, “functionalizing” these areas and making them part of the profit multiplication mechanism. To be precise, within the logic of capitalist civilization’s development, other countries and regions provide capitalist civilization with elements such as raw materials, labor, and markets.

那么，资本主义文明如何形成又如何维系呢?从客观上讲，资本主义文明从来不是在封闭体系中自足地发展起来的，而是通过将其他国家和地区纳入其生产与交换体系实现的。资本主义文明的扩张伴随着经济全球化过程。在政治经济学语境中，资本主义文明要与其他国家和地区紧密联系以形成全球分工，因此必然会发掘附属地或殖民地，将这些区域“功能化”,使其成为利润增殖机制的一部分。确切地说，在资本主义文明发展的逻辑中，其他国家和地区为资本主义文明提供原材料、劳动力、市场等要素。

Slavery is an indispensable condition for supporting modern industry and is the fundamental prerequisite for the formation of “world trade.” Marx profoundly revealed: “Direct slavery is as much the pivot of our modern industry as machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery, there would be no cotton; without cotton, there would be no modern industry.” [10]10 Marx, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” 1847. Before the slave trade, the colonies “gave few products to the Old World and did not significantly change the face of the world,” but it was slavery that gave value to the colonies, and the colonies in turn “created world trade, and world trade is the indispensable condition for large-scale machine industry.” [11]11 Marx, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” 1847. Thus, these countries and regions became objects of exploitation by capitalist civilization, thereby providing it with a certain degree of material foundation.

奴隶制是支撑现代工业不可或缺的条件，是“世界贸易”得以形成的根本前提。马克思深刻揭示：“直接奴隶制也像机器、信用等等一样，是我们现代工业的枢纽。没有奴隶制，就没有棉花；没有棉花，就没有现代工业。”买卖黑奴以前，殖民地“给予旧大陆的产品很少，没有显著地改变世界的面貌”,而正是奴隶制赋予殖民地以价值，殖民地又反过来“造成了世界贸易，而世界贸易则是机器大工业的必不可少的条件”。由此，这些国家和地区成为资本主义文明压榨的对象，从而为其提供一定程度的物质基础。

In the process of infecting other regions, capitalist civilization formed a barbaric monopoly after external expansion. As Marx sarcastically put it: “Have we not overthrown the barbarism of monopoly? … Yes, all this you have done, but how have you done it! You have destroyed small monopolies so that a great fundamental monopoly, namely property, may act more freely and more unrestrictedly…” [12]12 Marx, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” 1847. Capitalist discourse outwardly claims that civilization can bring progress to other regions, but in reality, it uses advanced systems to further exploit other regions and expand its own sphere of interests. It is also in this sense that Marx and Engels did not regard capitalist civilization as the universal goal of human historical development, because they clearly recognized that capitalist civilization not only expands itself through external military conquest and political intervention, but also incorporates dependencies or colonies into the production logic of modern capitalism through slavery, colonial rule, and other means. The existence of capitalist civilization has always been accompanied by the exploitation of other countries and regions, and the two together constitute the early modern global economic system.

资本主义文明在侵染其他地区的过程中形成了文明外扩后的野蛮垄断。正如马克思所讽刺的：“难道我们没有打倒垄断的野蛮吗……不错，这一切你们都做了，然而你们是怎样做的啊!你们消灭了小的垄断，以便使一个巨大的根本的垄断，即所有权，更自由地、更不受限制地起作用……”资本主义话语对外宣称文明能够为其他地区带去进步，实则是通过先进的制度进一步压榨其他地区，以扩大其自身的利益空间。也是在这个意义上，马克思、恩格斯并未将资本主义文明视为人类历史发展的普遍目标，因为他们清楚地认识到，资本主义文明不仅依靠外部的军事征服与政治干预来扩张自身，更通过奴隶制、殖民统治等方式，将附属地或殖民地纳入现代资本主义的生产逻辑之中。资本主义文明的存在，始终伴随着对其他国家和地区的剥削，两者共同构成早期现代全球经济体系。

It can be said that in their analysis of the expansion of capitalist civilization, Marx and Engels profoundly revealed that the capitalist civilization of their era did not represent universal progress as it claimed, but rather expanded through colonial conquest, the slave trade, and the global market under specific historical conditions. Therefore, capitalist civilization is not a self-sufficient social formation, but one premised on the continuous incorporation, dissolution, and transformation of non-capitalist regions, and its so-called narrative of progress is in fact built upon the negation and oppression of others.

可以说，马克思、恩格斯在对资本主义文明扩张的剖析中，深刻揭示了其所处时代的资本主义文明并非如其本身宣称的那样代表普遍进步，而是在特定历史条件下通过殖民征服、奴隶贸易和全球市场不断扩张。因而，资本主义文明并非一个自足发展的社会形态，而是以不断纳入、消解和改造非资本主义地区为前提，其所谓的进步叙事实则建立在对他者的否定与压迫之上。

III. Barbarism within Capitalist Society: Marx and Engels’ Second Critique of Capitalist Civilization

三、资本主义社会中的野蛮：马克思恩格斯对资本主义文明的第二重批判

Marx and Engels not only criticized the expansion of capitalist civilization from the outside, but also criticized capitalist civilization itself, profoundly revealing the uncivilized consequences brought about by the development of capitalist civilization: the more advanced capitalist civilization becomes, the more impoverished the workers—the laborers—within capitalist society become.

马克思、恩格斯不仅从外部批判资本主义文明的扩张，也批判资本主义文明自身，深刻揭示了资本主义文明的发展带来的非文明后果：资本主义文明愈发进步，资本主义社会中的劳动者——工人就愈发处于贫困状态。

Marx and Engels identified the root of “civilization” in capitalist society. The reason capitalism can be called “civilization” is inseparable from the civilizing of capital, or the civilizing function of capital. The reason capitalism can be crowned with the title of “civilization” is that, through a complete set of rational institutional arrangements, it transforms relations of domination into a legitimate order and internalizes the control of people within the mechanisms of social operation. In the view of Marx and Engels, capitalist civilization not only fails to eliminate oppression but also institutionalizes and conceals it. The victory of capitalist civilization is manifested in its “discovery and promotion of human labor, rather than dead things, as the source of wealth.” [13]13 Karl Marx, “Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986), p. 253. [Translator’s note: The exact phrasing is from Marx’s *Grundrisse*; the English translation in the MECW reads: “discovered and made human labour—instead of the dead thing—the source of wealth.”] Human wealth was once represented by natural objects such as land, gold, and silver, but the emergence of capital incorporated people’s own life activity—labor—into the mechanism of wealth production. This change signifies a fundamental transformation in the mode of rule in capitalist society: capitalist civilization no longer relies on violence to seize natural resources, but instead exploits workers through institutions. Although Marx once cited the assertion that “capital is merely another name for civilization,” he did not regard this assertion as a term of praise. [14]14 The phrase “capital is merely another name for civilization” is a paraphrase by Marx of a view expressed by bourgeois economists; see *Grundrisse* (Penguin, 1973), p. 512. What is called “civilization” in Marx’s view means that capital conceals its appropriation of workers beneath order, legitimizes and routinizes exploitation through the contractual system, and packages it as a certain value to be disseminated. Under the dominance of capital, production both “creates universal industrial labor, i.e., surplus labor” and “creates a system of the universal exploitation of natural and human attributes, a system of universal utility.” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (Penguin, 1973), pp. 409–410. In this system, science, invention, the division of labor, exchange, and even human language itself are no longer things-in-themselves but universally possess utility, becoming tools for the valorization of capital. The cunning of capital lies precisely in its ability to transform everything alien into a part of itself, turning all natural objects and the essential powers of human beings into things with exchange value. It can be said that capitalist civilization incorporates all life practices into a universal system of exchange centered on the multiplication of profit. And the cipher of capitalist civilization is manifested not only in the flourishing development of markets within the universal exchange system but also in the comprehensive reconstruction of human time, space, and values by the logic of capital. Capitalism no longer rules through feudal power, but makes people “voluntarily” sell their labor power while simultaneously ceding their freedom. In this sense, the civilizing of capital does not mean the end of barbarism, but rather packages “barbarism” as “civilization.” Therefore, Marx and Engels’ revelation of the civilizing of capital is not a praise of capital, but a profound analysis of its institutional power.

马克思、恩格斯指明了资本主义社会“文明”的根源。资本主义之所以能够成为“文明”离不开资本的文明化或资本的文明功能。资本主义之所以能够冠以“文明”的名号，是通过一整套理性制度安排，将支配关系转化为合法性秩序，把对人的控制内化于社会运行机制之中。在马克思、恩格斯看来，资本主义文明不仅没有消除压迫，而且使压迫制度化、隐蔽化。资本主义文明的胜利，表现为它“发现并促使人的劳动代替死的物而成为财富的源泉”。人类财富曾以土地、金银等自然物为代表，而资本的出现则将人自身的生命活动——劳动纳入财富的生产机制。这种变化意味着资本主义社会的统治方式发生了根本变革——资本主义文明不再依赖暴力夺取自然资源，而是通过制度来压榨劳动者。马克思虽然曾引用“资本不过是文明的另一名称”的论断，但并不将这一论断视为某种赞美之词。所谓“文明”在马克思这里意味着资本将对劳动者的占有掩盖在秩序之下，使剥削通过契约制度合法化、日常化，并包装为某种价值观传播开来。在资本的主导下，生产既“创造出普遍的产业劳动，即剩余劳动”,也“创造出一个普遍利用自然属性和人的属性的体系，创造出一个普遍有用性的体系”。在这个体系中，科学、发明、分工、交换乃至人类语言本身，都不再是自在的东西，而是普遍具有实用性，成为资本增殖的工具。资本的狡猾之处就在于，它能够将一切异己事物转化为自身的一部分，把所有自然对象和人的本质力量变成具有交换价值的东西。可以说，资本主义文明把一切生活实践纳入以利润增殖为核心的普遍交换体系。而资本主义文明的密码不仅表现为普遍交换体系中市场的繁荣发展，更体现在资本逻辑对人类时间、空间与价值观的全方位重构。资本主义不再靠封建权力统治，而是使人们在“自愿”出卖自身劳动力的同时让渡自己的自由。在这个意义上，资本的文明化并不意味着野蛮的终结，而是把“野蛮”包装成了“文明”。因此，马克思、恩格斯揭示的资本文明化并不是对资本的褒扬，而是对其制度力量的深刻剖析。

Marx and Engels revealed how “civilization” degenerates under the dominance of capital into a new form of appropriation of human beings. The progress of capitalist civilization means the growth of social productive forces, but its hypocrisy is precisely embodied here. Capitalist civilization often boasts of promoting social progress, but through the analysis of Marx and Engels, it can be seen that the “social progress” displayed by capitalist civilization refers to the progress of the capitalist’s domination over labor power. Marx pointed out: “All progress of civilization… such as science, invention, the division and combination of labor, the improvement of means of communication, the opening of the world market, machinery, etc., will not enrich the worker, but only capital; that is, it will only increase the power of domination over labor.” [16]16 Karl Marx, “Wage Labour and Capital,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 9 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), p. 214. The fundamental paradox of the development of capitalist civilization lies in the fact that it does not aim at improving the living conditions of workers, but rather, by continuously strengthening the power of capital, makes workers more thoroughly subordinate to the established production order under the banner of productive forces. It can be said that behind progress lies the deepening of the logic of capital’s rule, “because capital is the antithesis of the worker, the progress of civilization only increases the power of the object that dominates labor.” [17]17 Ibid. Precisely because “capital is the antithesis of the worker,” the progress of civilization under the dominance of capital does not elevate the status of workers, but deepens the capitalist’s exploitation of their abilities, time, and mode of existence. The continuous innovation of industrial technology does not weaken this opposition, but rather, in a more institutionalized way, transforms all the creative achievements of workers into the valorization of capital. “As the level of civilization rises, new needs, new branches of production arise, and this in turn leads to new improvements,” [18]18 Friedrich Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 4 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 469. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text attributes this to Marx and Engels jointly; the English source is from Engels’ work.] and the daily life of workers is thus woven into a “production-consumption” cycle driven by the market and propelled by new demands. Workers are subject to the domination of the logic of capital. The needs of workers “change with the degree of civilization in which they find themselves,” [19]19 Karl Marx, “Wage Labour and Capital,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 9, p. 215. and at the level of values, the definition of happiness in capitalist civilization is no longer based on the satisfaction of actual needs, but turns to a standardized evaluation: “the happy life does not lie in the actual quantity of goods consumed and commanded by the individual, but in the relative quantity… in the share of the individual as a member of society in the total social income.” [20]20 The source of this quotation is not directly identified in the original text; it appears to be a paraphrase or summary of Marx’s argument on relative deprivation in *Wage Labour and Capital* or *Capital*, vol. 1. Consequently, the logic of material distribution in capitalist society conceals the continuously widening class divide, and the differences between rich and poor are explained as the result of market choices and individual consumption. Thus, the fruits of capitalist civilization are no longer shared by all members of society, but become the private property of a minority of capitalists, a necessary condition for the expansion of their power of domination. In other words, every leap in technology and institutions does not liberate workers from exploited labor, but rather their labor is recoded and their existence is further incorporated into the production system. This combination of “capital + civilization” transforms people’s life activities into a calculable, abstract, and replaceable force, causing individuals to gradually lose their sense of existence as human beings and become an organic component of the operation of capital. On the surface, capitalist civilization brings extraordinary social achievements, but these achievements do not promote the free and comprehensive development of human beings; instead, they bring about various negative effects.

马克思、恩格斯揭示了“文明”如何在资本主导下蜕变为对人的新的占有形式。资本主义文明的进步意味着社会生产力的增长，但其虚伪性也恰恰体现在此。资本主义文明往往自诩能够推动社会进步，但通过马克思、恩格斯的分析可以看到，资本主义文明展现出的“社会进步”指的是资本家对劳动力支配的进步。马克思指出：“文明的一切进步……如科学、发明、劳动的分工和结合、交通工具的改善、世界市场的开辟、机器等等所产生的结果，都不会使工人致富，而只会使资本致富；也就是只会使支配劳动的权力更加增大。”资本主义文明发展的根本悖论便在于，它不是以工人生活条件的改善为目标，而是通过不断强化资本的权力，使工人在生产力的标识下更彻底地服从于既定的生产秩序。可以说，进步的背后是资本统治逻辑的深入，“因为资本是工人的对立面，所以文明的进步只会增大支配劳动的客体的权力”。正因为“资本是工人的对立面”,所以在资本主导下的文明进步，并没有提升劳动者的地位，而是加深了资本家对其能力、时间与生存方式的剥削。工业技术的不断革新并没有削弱这种对立，反而以更加制度化的方式，使工人的一切创造性成果转化为资本的增殖。“文明程度一提高，就产生新的需要、新的生产部门，而这样一来又引起新的改进”,工人的日常生活因此被编织进一套由市场牵引、由新需求驱动的“生产—消费”循环中。工人受制于资本逻辑的支配。工人们的需要“随着他所处的文明发展程度而变化”,而在价值观层面，资本主义文明对幸福的定义也不再基于实际的需要被满足，而是转向一种标准化的评价——“幸福生活并不在于单个人所消费和支配的商品的实际数量，而在于相对数量……在于作为社会的一员的单个人的份额在社会总收入中所占的比例”。由此一来，资本主义社会的物质分配逻辑就掩盖了持续扩大的阶级断裂，贫富之间的差异被解释为市场选择和个人消费的结果。于是，资本主义文明的成果不再为全体社会成员共享，而成了少数资本家的私有财产，成为其扩张支配权力的必然条件。毋宁说，技术与制度的每一次跃进都没有将劳动者从被剥削的劳动中解放出来，而是其劳动被重新编码、其生存被进一步纳入生产体系。这种“资本+文明”的组合将人的生命活动转化为一种可计算、可抽象、可替代的力量，使个体逐渐失去作为人的存在感，而成为资本运作中的有机组成部分。表面上看，资本主义文明带来了非凡的社会成果，但这些成果没有推动人的自由全面发展，而是带来种种负面影响。

More importantly, capitalist civilization brings a distinctly “uncivilized” consequence—the brutalization of the worker. Marx points out: “The more the worker objectifies himself in his product, the more he becomes estranged from himself; the more powerful the object he creates, the more powerless he becomes; the more ingenious his labor, the more he becomes a slave of nature.” In capitalist society, technological progress and the capitalization of commodities correspond to the impoverishment of the worker’s living conditions. The immense productive forces of capitalist society do not liberate the worker; instead, they reduce the worker to an alienated appendage of his own product, giving rise to the reality that “man’s objective essence confronts him as something merely external and material, separated from him.” Workers produce refined and complex civilized products, yet they themselves are excluded from the dignity and order that civilization ought to entail, existing only as bearers of an abstract productive force. This state of alienation is also manifested in the comprehensive degradation of sensuous elements. Light, air, and other basic sensuous elements “cease to be needs for him. Man retreats into cave-dwelling, but this cave is now polluted by the foul and pestilential vapors of civilization, and his dwelling is precarious, as if it were an alien power that could leave him any day—if he fails to pay the rent, he could be evicted any day.” After the deprivation of bright dwellings, “filth, this degradation and corruption of man, the sewer of civilization (in the literal sense of the word), becomes the element of the worker’s life.” Here, capitalist civilization not only fails to make human life freer, healthier, and more comfortable, but instead causes the dual degradation of environment and body. It can be said that the barbarism carried by civilization is no longer the crudeness of the natural state, but the inevitable product of institutional oppression—it is “civilization contained within the crude barbarism of need.” Civilization not only fails to eliminate barbarism but also creates new forms of barbarism—the abstracted worker, stripped of bodily autonomy, existing within the sensuous world. “‘The propertyless worker’ as a ‘fundamental principle’ is, rather, merely a product of civilization, and moreover a product of the historical stage of ‘capitalist production.’” For this very reason, their existence is not merely an economic phenomenon in the general sense, but a specific phenomenon within capitalist society. The more complete the institutional framework of capitalist society, the more miserable the worker’s condition becomes. Marx even points out: “The fate of the worst slave on the worst American plantation was positively enviable compared with that of the English worker of the time… The state was early forced to take measures to curb the unscrupulous and frenzied exploitation of the factory owners, because this exploitation trampled underfoot all the demands of civilized society.” This undoubtedly reveals that even though capitalist civilization is cloaked in the garb of rule of law, justice, and freedom, in its actual development it still permits, and even actively creates, a more systematic and more concealed mode of exploitation than slavery. Capitalist civilization, through its institutions, embeds barbarism into every brick and tile of the capitalist edifice, so that it no longer manifests in the form of violence, but is expressed through concealed institutions. In capitalist society, civilization and non-civilization intertwine and coexist in different forms. Although capitalist civilization can be established and developed, it has secretly embedded non-civilized elements within it in a more concealed manner. Capital expands its domination over labor through “civilized” forms, so that the enhancement of productive forces goes hand in hand with the deprivation of the worker’s subjectivity, and technological innovation mirrors the crudeness of sensuous life. In capitalist society, progress and regression, civilization and barbarism, are unified within the production order dominated by capital, constituting a paradox—the more capitalist civilization advances, the more the workers in capitalist society sink into the uncivilized condition of poverty.

更为重要的是，资本主义文明带来一种明显“非文明的”后果——工人的野蛮化。马克思指出：“工人创造的对象越文明，工人自己越野蛮；劳动越有力量，工人越无力；劳动越机巧，工人越愚笨，越成为自然界的奴隶。”在资本主义社会，技术进步与商品的资本化对应的却是劳动者生存处境的贫困。资本主义社会的强大生产力并未解放劳动者，反而使工人成为自身产品的异化附属物，形成所谓“人的对象性本质作为某种仅仅是外在的、物质的东西同人分离”的现实。工人生产出精巧、复杂的文明产品，但他们自身却被排除在文明所应有的尊严、秩序之外，只能作为某种抽象生产力的承担者。这种异化状态也表现在感性要素的全面退化中。光、空气等最基本的感性要素“也不再成其为需要了。人又退回到洞穴中居住，不过这洞穴现在已被文明的污浊毒气所污染，而且他在洞穴中也是朝不保夕，仿佛这洞穴是一个每天都可能离他而去的异己力量，如果他付不起房租，他每天都可能被赶走”,在明亮的居室被剥夺之后，“肮脏，人的这种堕落、腐化，文明的阴沟(就这个词的本义而言),成了工人的生活要素”。在此，资本主义文明不仅未能使人类生活更加自由、健康、舒适，反而使环境与身体双重退化。可以说，文明所裹挟的野蛮不再是自然状态的粗陋，而是制度性压迫的必然产物，是“包容在需要的粗陋野蛮之中的文明”。文明不仅没有抹除野蛮，还制造出新的野蛮形式——抽象化的、失去身体自主性的、处于感性世界中的劳动者。“‘无所有权的劳动者’作为‘基本原则’,倒不如说只是文明的产物，而且是‘资本主义生产’这个历史阶段上的产物。”也正因为如此，他们的存在不仅是一般意义上的经济现象，更是资本主义社会中的特有现象。资本主义社会制度愈加完备，工人处境就愈加凄惨。马克思甚至指出：“最坏的美国种植场里的奴隶的命运，比起当时英国工人的命运来简直是非常美好的……国家很早就不得不采取措施来制止厂主们肆无忌惮的疯狂剥削，因为这种剥削践踏了文明社会的一切要求。”这无疑揭示出：即便资本主义文明披着法治、公正、自由的外衣，但其在实际发展中依然允许，甚至主动制造出比奴隶制更系统、更隐蔽的剥削模式。资本主义文明通过制度把野蛮嵌入资本主义大厦的每一块砖瓦，使其不再以暴力的形式显现，而是以隐蔽的制度表达出来。在资本主义社会中，文明与非文明以不同的形态交织共生。资本主义文明虽然能够建立并发展，但暗中已将非文明要素以一种更隐蔽的方式内嵌其中。资本通过“文明化”的形式扩大对劳动的统治，使生产力之提升与工人主体性之被剥夺并行，使技术的革新与感性的粗陋相映。在资本主义社会中，进步与退化、文明与野蛮统一于资本主导的生产秩序内，构成一种悖论——资本主义文明愈发进步，资本主义社会中的工人就愈陷入贫困的非文明境地。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

Marx and Engels not only expounded the criteria for judging civilization and non-civilization in a general sense, but also profoundly revealed the hypocritical essence of capitalist civilization in their era through a dual critique. On the one hand, capitalist civilization, by means of colonial expansion, the slave trade, and the forced integration of the global market, incorporated violent and oppressive barbaric practices into the process of civilizational expansion, creating an unequal international order while establishing a world market. On the other hand, the development of capitalist society did not realize the free and comprehensive development of human beings; instead, through the mechanism of “civilizing capital,” it institutionalized and concealed relations of domination, plunging laborers into the uncivilized condition of poverty. Thus, Marx and Engels revealed that the capitalist civilization of their era was a unity of civilization and barbarism. Only by recognizing this can one truly understand the core of contemporary capitalist civilization and break the myth that “modernization equals Westernization.” More importantly, the contradictions within capitalist society have not dissipated with the passage of time; instead, they manifest themselves in new forms in contemporary society. The rise of digital capitalism has made algorithms, platforms, and data capital new tools of exploitation, and laborers in the seemingly free information society face more concealed alienation and control. The global ecological crisis highlights the catastrophic consequences of capitalist civilization’s comprehensive control over nature, forming a paradox of continuous civilizational progress alongside the ongoing degradation of the ecological environment. Against the backdrop of economic globalization, capitalist states attempt to implement neocolonialism through technological, financial, and cultural hegemony, continuing the logic of expansion from the 19th century, and under the banner of civilization, incorporating the vast number of developing countries into a new system of dependency. All of this demonstrates that Marx and Engels’ critique of capitalist civilization is not confined to the specific historical context of their time, but also illuminates the path to resolving the contradictions and crises of capitalism in our era. In today’s world of diverse civilizations coexisting, we need to reaffirm the insight of Marx and Engels: civilization does not equal universal progress; the historical prosperity of capitalist civilization conceals elements of non-civilization. Only by recognizing the hypocritical essence of capitalist civilization can we transcend civilizational estrangement through civilizational exchange and mutual learning, resolve civilizational conflicts through equal civilizational dialogue, and promote the true progress of human civilization.

马克思、恩格斯不仅在一般意义上阐释了文明与非文明的评判标准，更通过对其所处时代资本主义文明的双重批判深刻揭示了其虚伪本质。一方面，资本主义文明借助殖民扩张、奴隶贸易与全球市场的强制整合，把暴力与压迫等野蛮行径纳入文明的扩张进程中，在建立世界市场的同时制造出不平等的国际秩序；另一方面，资本主义社会的发展并未实现人的自由全面发展，而是通过“资本文明化”的机制，把支配关系制度化、隐蔽化，使劳动者陷入非文明的贫困处境。由此，马克思、恩格斯揭示了其所处时代的资本主义文明是文明与野蛮的统一体。只有认清这一点，才能真正理解当代资本主义文明的内核，打破“现代化=西方化”的迷思。更为重要的是，资本主义社会中的矛盾并未随着时间流逝而消解，反而在当代社会中以新的形式表现出来。数字资本主义的兴起，使算法、平台和数据资本成为新的剥削工具，劳动者在看似自由的信息社会中却面临更加隐蔽的异化与控制；全球生态危机凸显了资本主义文明对自然的全面控制所带来的灾难性后果，形成了文明不断进步而生态环境持续退化的悖论；在经济全球化大背景下，资本主义国家以技术、金融和文化霸权等手段试图施行新殖民主义，继续19世纪以来的扩张逻辑，打着文明的旗号将广大发展中国家纳入新的依附体系。所有这些都表明，马克思、恩格斯对资本主义文明的批判并非仅停留在历史的具体语境之中，还照亮了解决我们这个时代资本主义矛盾与危机的路径。在全球多元文明并存的今天，我们更需要重申马克思、恩格斯的洞见：文明并不等于普遍的进步，资本主义文明的历史繁荣潜藏着非文明的要素。只有认清资本主义文明的虚伪本质，才能在文明交流互鉴中超越文明隔阂，在文明平等对话中化解文明冲突，推动人类文明走向真正的进步。