Historical Materialism and the Marxist View of Civilization

General Secretary Xi Jinping, proceeding from the overall perspective of the development of the Party and the state, has put forward the proposition of "shouldering the cultural mission of the New Era." This is a profound grasp of the laws governing the development of Chinese civilization and provides a theoretical guide for developing socialist culture with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. Regarding questions such as what civilization is and how to develop socialist culture with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, if one does not study and answer them using the stance, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism, and if one does not master the Marxist view of civilization, one will fail to understand them clearly and will be unable to comprehend the true connotation and significance of General Secretary Xi Jinping's important discourse on shouldering the cultural mission of the New Era.

习近平总书记从党和国家事业发展全局高度出发，提出“担负新时代的文化使命”，这是对中华文明发展规律的深刻把握，为发展新时代中国特色社会主义文化提供了理论指南。对于什么是文明、怎样发展新时代中国特色社会主义文化等问题，如果不运用唯物史观的立场、观点、方法加以研究回答，如果不掌握马克思主义文明观，就会搞不清楚，就不能理解习近平总书记关于担负新时代的文化使命的重要论述的真正内涵和意义。

The classical Marxist writers did not produce specialized works to systematically expound on the issue of social civilization. However, from their classical expositions that touch upon social civilization, one can study, understand, and then extract and summarize the basic stance, viewpoint, and method they upheld, thereby comprehending and sorting out the Marxist view of civilization. Historical materialism is the theoretical basis of the Marxist view of civilization, and the Marxist view of civilization is a component part of historical materialism.

马克思主义经典作家并没有专门著述以集中阐述社会文明问题，但从他们涉及社会文明的经典论述中，可以学习、理解进而提炼概括出他们秉持的基本立场、观点和方法，领悟梳理出马克思主义文明观。唯物史观是马克思主义文明观的理论依据，马克思主义文明观是唯物史观的组成部分。

1. When the classical Marxist writers used terms such as "civilization," "civilized system," "civilized country," "civilized nation," "civilized society," "industrial civilized society," "modern civilization," "civilized peoples," and "European civilization" in specific contexts, generally speaking, the word "civilization" specifically referred to capitalist social civilization and the capitalist "civilized system." They explicitly defined capitalist social civilization as "bourgeois civilization" and "the civilization of capital," focusing on exposing the brutal facts of the exploiting class oppressing and exploiting the exploited classes and nations under "bourgeois civilization" and "the civilization of capital." They used historical materialism to provide the most thorough and historically dialectical exposition, critique, and exposure of capitalist social civilization. They revealed the class nature of civilization in class societies and elucidated that the history of human civilization development since class society is a history of class struggle.

一、马克思主义经典作家在特定语境下使用“文明”“文明制度”“文明国度”“文明国家”“文明社会”“工业的文明的社会”“现代文明”“文明民族”“欧洲文明”等字眼时，一般说来，其“文明”二字特指资本主义社会文明、资本主义的“文明制度”。他们明确把资本主义社会文明界定为“资产阶级文明”“资本的文明”，侧重揭露“资产阶级文明”“资本的文明”的剥削阶级压迫、剥削被剥削阶级和民族的残酷事实，并运用唯物史观对资本主义社会文明进行最彻底的、又最符合历史辩证法的阐述、批判和揭露。他们揭示了阶级社会文明的阶级性，阐明了阶级社会以来人类文明发展史就是阶级斗争的历史。

First, when Marx and Engels analyzed capitalist society, the term "civilization" they used generally referred to capitalist social civilization and the capitalist "civilized system." In the 1848 *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels used the term "civilization." They stated: "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image." [1]1 The “Eighteenth Century” refers to Engels’s 1844 article “The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century,” part of his early writings on English social history. The "civilization" they refer to here is capitalist social civilization, explaining that capitalism draws all nations into the "civilization" of capitalist society and "creates a world after its own image," a capitalist "civilized" world. In his 1880 work *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, Engels, borrowing Fourier's terminology, regarded capitalist society as a "civilized system" and subjected the capitalist "civilized system" to thorough critique, pointing out the capitalist social system attribute of capitalist social civilization.

第一，马克思、恩格斯在剖析资本主义社会时使用的“文明”一词，一般情况下，指的是资本主义社会文明、资本主义的“文明制度”。在1848年《共产党宣言》中，马克思、恩格斯使用了“文明”字眼。他们论述道：“资产阶级，由于一切生产工具的迅速改进，由于交通的极其便利，把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了。它的商品的低廉价格，是它用来摧毁一切万里长城、征服野蛮人最顽强的仇外心理的重炮。它迫使一切民族——如果它们不想灭亡的话——采用资产阶级的生产方式；它迫使它们在自己那里推行所谓的文明，即变成资产者。一句话，它按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界。”他们在这里所讲的“文明”指的就是资本主义社会文明，阐明资本主义将一切民族都卷入资本主义社会“文明”中，“按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个”资本主义的“文明”世界。在1880年《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》中，恩格斯借用傅立叶的用语，认为资本主义社会是一种“文明制度”，并对资本主义“文明制度”进行了彻底批判，点明了资本主义社会文明的资本主义社会制度属性。

Second, Marx, Engels, and Lenin profoundly exposed the class-exploitative essence of capitalist social civilization, pointing out that capitalist social civilization is precisely “bourgeois civilization,” a civilization built on the foundation of class antagonism and class exploitation. In the 1848 *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels pointed out: capitalist social civilization “makes barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on civilized ones, makes peasant nations dependent on bourgeois nations, makes the East dependent on the West.” In his 1853 article “The Future Results of British Rule in India,” Marx explicitly used the term “bourgeois civilization.” He stated: “When we turn our gaze from the homeland of bourgeois civilization to the colonies, bourgeois civilization’s extreme hypocrisy and its barbaric nature stand naked before us, for at home it puts on a respectable appearance, while in the colonies it casts off all pretense.” He indicated that capitalist social civilization is “bourgeois civilization,” a civilization built on the foundation of brutal exploitation and naked plunder of colonies and semi-colonies. In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx pointed out: “The progress of civilization only increases the power of the object over labor.” In Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of *Capital* (1867), Marx used the term “industrial and civilized society.” Citing Adam Smith’s remark that “in every industrial and civilized society this is the condition to which the laboring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall,” Marx noted: “The division of labor in manufacture not only develops the social productive forces for the capitalist rather than for the worker, but also develops them by crippling the individual worker. It produces new conditions for the domination of capital over labor. Therefore, on the one hand, it appears as a historical progress and a necessary developmental factor in the economic formation of society; on the other hand, it appears as a civilized and refined means of exploitation.” The “industrial and civilized society” Marx spoke of refers specifically to capitalist social civilization. He exposed how capitalism uses “civilized and refined means of exploitation” to plunge the poor working masses into a condition of exploitation and oppression. In the 1875 *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Marx used the term “civilized countries.” He explicitly stated: “‘Modern society’ is the capitalist society that exists in all civilized countries, more or less free from medieval admixtures, more or less altered by the particular historical development of each country, and more or less developed. ‘The modern state,’ however, varies with each country’s borders. It is different in the Prussian-German Empire than in Switzerland, different in England than in the United States… But different states in different civilized countries, despite their varied forms, have one thing in common: they are all based on modern bourgeois society, differing only in the degree of capitalist development.” Here, Marx’s “civilized countries” refers to civilized states built on the foundation of modern bourgeois society; he explicitly states that all “civilized countries” of modern society are “based on modern bourgeois society.” In his 1885 preface to Volume 2 of *Capital*, Engels noted: “Why Marx’s theory of surplus value, like a thunderbolt, shook all civilized countries.” Engels’ “civilized countries” here clearly has the same meaning as “civilized countries,” referring still to capitalist social civilization. In the 1892 German second edition preface to *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, Engels used the term “civilized society” while expounding the theory of surplus value. He said: “The value produced by the worker’s additional hours of surplus labor is surplus value. This surplus value costs the capitalist nothing, yet it falls into his pocket. This is the foundation of a system that increasingly splits civilized society into, on the one hand, a handful of Rothschilds and Vanderbilts, who own all the means of production and consumption, and, on the other hand, the vast mass of wage workers, who possess nothing but their own labor power.” He argued that capitalist civilized society is a “civilized society” built on the foundation of class exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie and the antagonism between the two major classes; its civilization is a civilization built on the social system of exploiting the surplus value of the working class. In his 1920 “Draft Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International,” Lenin exposed that the so-called most civilized capitalist countries pursue “militarism, imperialism” and oppress “colonies and small and weak countries.” In his 1918 “Report on the Current Situation,” Lenin pointed out that those capitalist countries that boast of being “civilized society,” “civilized nations,” and “civilized world” are self-proclaimed as “‘civilized,’ ‘cultured’ capitalist world heading toward an unprecedented collapse.” Lenin exposed the class-exploitative essence, hypocrisy, and inevitable tendency toward extinction of capitalist social civilization.

第二，马克思、恩格斯、列宁深刻揭露了资本主义社会文明的阶级剥削本质，指明资本主义社会文明就是“资产阶级文明”，是建立在阶级对立和阶级剥削基础上的文明。在1848年《共产党宣言》中，马克思、恩格斯指出：资本主义社会文明“使未开化和半开化的国家从属于文明的国家，使农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族，使东方从属于西方”。在1853年《不列颠在印度统治的未来结果》中，马克思明确使用了“资产阶级文明”字眼。他指出：“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，它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。”他指明资本主义社会文明就是“资产阶级文明”，是建立在对殖民地、半殖民地残酷剥削和赤裸裸掠夺基础上的文明。在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中，马克思指出：“文明的进步只会增大支配劳动的客体的权力。”在1867年《资本论》第1卷第12章中，马克思使用了“工业的文明的社会”一词。他援引斯密的话，“在每一个工业的文明的社会中，这是劳动贫民即广大人民群众必然陷入的境地”，指出“工场手工业分工不仅只是为资本家而不是为工人发展社会的劳动生产力，而且靠使各个工人畸形化来发展社会的劳动生产力。它生产了资本统治劳动的新条件。因此，一方面，它表现为社会的经济形成过程中的历史进步和必要的发展因素，另一方面，它表现为文明的和精巧的剥削手段”。马克思所讲的“工业的文明的社会”，其文明特指资本主义社会文明。他揭露了资本主义使用“文明的和精巧的剥削手段”，使贫穷的劳动人民群众陷入受剥削、受压迫的境地。在1875年《哥达纲领批判》中，马克思使用了“文明国度”一词。他明确指出，“‘现代社会’就是存在于一切文明国度中的资本主义社会，它或多或少地摆脱了中世纪的杂质，或多或少地由于每个国度的特殊的历史发展而改变了形态，或多或少地有了发展。‘现代国家’却随国境而异。它在普鲁士德意志帝国同在瑞士不一样，在英国同在美国不一样”，“但是，不同的文明国度中的不同的国家，不管它们的形式如何纷繁，却有一个共同点：它们都建立在现代资产阶级社会的基础上，只是这种社会的资本主义发展程度不同罢了”。马克思在这里使用的“文明国度”就是指建立在现代资产阶级社会基础上的文明国家，他明确指出现代社会的一切“文明国度”都是“建立在现代资产阶级社会的基础上”。在1885年《资本论》第2卷序言中，恩格斯指出：“为什么马克思的剩余价值理论，好像晴天霹雳震动了一切文明国家”。恩格斯这里所说的“文明国家”显然与“文明国度”的意思一样，其文明指的仍然是资本主义社会文明。在《英国工人阶级状况》1892年德文第2版序言阐述剩余价值理论中，恩格斯使用了“文明社会”一词。他说：“工人用这个附加的几小时剩余劳动生产出来的价值，就是剩余价值。这个剩余价值不破费资本家一文钱，但仍然落入资本家的腰包。这就是这样一个制度的基础，这个制度使文明社会越来越分裂，一方面是一小撮路特希尔德们和万德比尔特们，他们是全部生产资料和消费资料的所有者，另一方面是广大的雇佣工人，他们除了自己的劳动力之外一无所有。”他认为资本主义文明社会是建立在资产阶级对工人阶级的阶级剥削和两大阶级对立基础上的“文明社会”，其文明就是建立在剥削工人阶级剩余价值的社会制度基础上的文明。在1920年《关于共产国际第二次代表大会的基本任务的提纲》中，列宁揭露：号称最文明的资本主义国家，奉行“军国主义、帝国主义”，“对殖民地和弱小国家”进行压迫。在1918年《关于目前形势的报告》中，列宁指出，那些自诩为“文明社会”“文明民族”“文明世界”的资本主义国家，自我标榜为“‘文明的’、‘有教养的’资本主义世界正在走向空前未有的崩溃”。列宁揭露了资本主义社会文明阶级剥削的本质、虚伪性和必然走向灭亡的趋势。

Third, Marx and Engels elucidated that the history of human civilization since the advent of class society is a history of class struggle; it is precisely class struggle that drives the development and progress of human civilization in class society, revealing the objective laws of the development and progress of human civilization in class society. In the 1847 *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx pointed out: “From the moment civilization begins, production is founded on the antagonism of ranks, estates, and classes, and finally on the antagonism between accumulated labor and immediate labor. Without antagonism there is no progress. This is the law that civilization has followed up to the present day.” In the same work, Marx noted: “Since the most important thing is not to be deprived of the fruits of civilization (the already acquired productive forces), it is necessary to smash the traditional forms in which those productive forces were generated. From then on, the formerly revolutionary class becomes a conservative class.” In his 1846 letter to Annenkov, Marx said: “In order not to lose the fruits of civilization, people are compelled to change all the social forms they have inherited as soon as their mode of commerce [Verkehr] no longer corresponds to the acquired productive forces.” He argued that the class struggle determined by the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production drives the development of civilization in class society. In the 1847 *Principles of Communism*, Engels pointed out: capitalist periodic economic crises “threaten all civilization, plunging not only the proletarians into the abyss of poverty but also ruining many bourgeois”; “Large-scale industry makes the social development of all civilized countries roughly the same, so that in all these countries the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have become the two decisive classes in society, and the struggle between them has become the main struggle of the day.” This necessarily demands the creation of an entirely new social formation. In the 1884 work *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, Engels pointed out: “Since the foundation of the epoch of civilization is the exploitation of one class by another, all its development proceeds in constant contradiction.” Here he used the term “epoch of civilization,” holding that the “epoch of civilization” is an era of class division and class antagonism, an era in which class struggle drives the progress of civilization. Marx and Engels believed that class struggle is the driving force of the development of civilized society; capitalist social civilization creates the contradiction, antagonism, and struggle between the two major classes, the bourgeoisie and the working class; the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie necessarily leads to the birth of a new social formation, that is, the birth of a new and progressive civilization.

第三，马克思、恩格斯阐明阶级社会以来人类文明的发展历史就是阶级斗争的历史，正是阶级斗争推动阶级社会人类文明的发展进步，揭示了阶级社会人类文明发展进步的客观规律。在1847年《哲学的贫困》中，马克思指出：“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。”在同一部著作中，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。从此以后，从前的革命阶级将成为保守阶级。”在1846年致安年科夫的信中，马克思说：“为了不致失掉文明的果实，人们在他们的交往［commerce］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。”他认为，生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动所决定的阶级斗争推动阶级社会文明的发展。在1847年《共产主义原理》中，恩格斯指出：资本主义的周期性经济危机“对全部文明都是一种威胁，它不但把无产者抛入贫困的深渊，而且也使许多资产者破产”，“大工业使所有文明国家的社会发展大致相同，以致在所有这些国家，资产阶级和无产阶级都成了社会上两个起决定作用的阶级，它们之间的斗争成了当前的主要斗争”，这必然要求建立一个全新的社会形态。在1884年《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》一文中，恩格斯指出：“由于文明时代的基础是一个阶级对另一个阶级的剥削，所以它的全部发展都是在经常的矛盾中进行的。”他在这里使用了“文明时代”一词，认为“文明时代”就是阶级分化、阶级对立的时代，就是阶级斗争推动文明进步的时代。马克思、恩格斯认为，阶级斗争是推动文明社会发展的动力，资本主义社会文明造就了资产阶级和工人阶级两大阶级的矛盾、对立和斗争，工人阶级与资产阶级的斗争必然导致新的社会形态的诞生，也就是新的进步文明的诞生。

Fourth, when discussing capitalist social civilization, Marx and Engels, from the perspective of historical dialectics, affirmed the progressive aspect of capitalist social civilization, emphasized “the great civilizing role of capital,” and clearly pointed out that capitalist social civilization is a more progressive civilization than previous social civilizations. In “The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century” (1844), Engels argued that capitalist industrial production itself is “an increase in the level of civilization,” capable of generating new needs, new branches of production, and new improvements. In the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” Marx used the phrase “civilization of capital.” He pointed out, “The victory of the civilization of capital lies precisely in the fact that capital discovers and compels human labor, instead of dead matter, to become the source of wealth.” In “Principles of Communism” (1847), Engels emphasized the historical role of capitalist social civilization, stating: “Large-scale industry, therefore, brings all the peoples of the world into mutual connection, unites all local small markets into a world market, everywhere prepares the way for civilization and progress, and ensures that everything that happens in the civilized countries necessarily affects all other countries.” In the “Grundrisse” (1857–1858), Marx affirmed various phenomena of capitalist civilizational progress: “All the progress of civilization, or in other words every increase in the powers of social production, every increase in the productive powers of labor itself—such as results from science, inventions, the division and combination of labor, improved means of communication, the creation of the world market, machinery, etc.”—these are all fruits of capitalist social civilization. On this basis, Marx explicitly stated that the progress of capitalist society demonstrates “the great civilizing role of capital.” “Hence the great civilizing influence of capital; its production of a stage of society compared with which all earlier stages appear as merely local developments of humanity and as nature-worship.” In Volume 3 of “Capital” (1894), Marx pointed out: “One of the civilizing aspects of capital is that it extorts this surplus labor in a manner and under conditions that are more favorable to the development of productive forces, to the development of social relations, and to the creation of the elements for a new and higher form, than under the earlier forms of slavery, serfdom, etc.” In the preface to the fourth edition of “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (1884), Engels used the term “civilized nations.” He stated: “This rediscovery of the original matrilineal gens as the stage preceding the patrilineal gens of civilized nations has the same significance for primitive history as Darwin’s theory of evolution has for biology and Marx’s theory of surplus value for political economy.” The “civilization” Engels referred to here as “civilized nations” specifically denotes capitalist social civilization, and he likewise affirmed the historical progressiveness of capitalist social civilization. The above summary shows that when the classical Marxist writers used the term “civilization” to discuss capitalist society, their civilization referred precisely to capitalist social civilization. While affirming the historical progressiveness of capitalist social civilization and “the great civilizing role of capital,” they proceeded from the principle that class struggle, determined by the fundamental contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, is the driving force behind the development and progress of class-based social civilization. They profoundly exposed the class-exploitative nature and hypocrisy of capitalist social civilization, arguing that the exploitation of surplus value causes capitalist society to become increasingly split, divided into the owners of capital and wage workers who possess nothing but their labor power, thereby creating two fundamentally opposed classes: “the bourgeoisie or the capitalist class” and “the proletariat or the working class.” The class foundation of capitalist social civilization is precisely this class division and antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the working class, based on the exploitation of surplus value. The capitalists’ exploitation of the workers’ surplus value is the foundation of the capitalist “system of civilization,” and this is the most fundamental characteristic of capitalist social civilization. They clearly revealed that capitalist social civilization is, in its class nature, “bourgeois civilization,” arguing that the capitalist “system of civilization” serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, oppressing the working class and the broad masses of laborers internally, and carrying out imperialist aggression externally.

第四，马克思、恩格斯在论述资本主义社会文明时，从历史辩证法的视野出发肯定了资本主义社会文明的进步性的一面，强调了“资本的伟大的文明作用”，明确指出资本主义社会文明是较之前的社会文明更为进步的文明。在1844年《英国状况·十八世纪》中，恩格斯认为：资本主义工业生产本身是“文明程度的提高”，它能够产生新的需要、新的生产部门、新的改进。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思使用了“资本的文明”的用语。他指出，“资本的文明的胜利恰恰在于，资本发现并促使人的劳动代替死的物而成为财富的源泉”。在1847年《共产主义原理》中，恩格斯强调了资本主义社会文明的历史作用，他指出：“大工业便把世界各国人民互相联系起来，把所有地方性的小市场联合成为一个世界市场，到处为文明和进步做好了准备，使各文明国家里发生的一切必然影响到其余各国。”在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中，马克思肯定了资本主义的各种文明进步现象：“文明的一切进步，或者换句话说，社会生产力的一切增长，也可以说劳动本身的生产力的一切增长，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”，都是资本主义社会文明的果实。基于此，马克思明确地指出，资本主义社会进步显示出“资本的伟大的文明作用”。“由此产生了资本的伟大的文明作用；它创造了这样一个社会阶段，与这个社会阶段相比，一切以前的社会阶段都只表现为人类的地方性发展和对自然的崇拜。”在1894年《资本论》第3卷中，马克思指出：“资本的文明面之一是，它榨取这种剩余劳动的方式和条件，同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比，都更有利于生产力的发展，有利于社会关系的发展，有利于更高级的新形态的各种要素的创造。”在1884年《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》第四版序言中，恩格斯使用了“文明民族”一词。他指出：“确定原始的母权制氏族是文明民族的父权制氏族以前的阶段的这个重新发现，对于原始历史所具有的意义，正如达尔文的进化理论对于生物学和马克思的剩余价值理论对于政治经济学的意义一样。”恩格斯这里讲的“文明民族”，其文明也特指资本主义社会文明，他同样肯定了资本主义社会文明的历史进步性。以上综述表明，马克思主义经典作家在运用“文明”一词论述资本主义社会时，其文明指的就是资本主义社会文明。他们在肯定资本主义社会文明的历史进步性、肯定“资本的伟大的文明作用”的同时，从生产力与生产关系的基本矛盾所决定的阶级斗争是阶级社会文明发展进步的原因出发，深刻地揭露了资本主义社会文明的阶级剥削本质及其虚伪性，认为剩余价值剥削使得资本主义社会越来越分裂，分裂成资本的所有者和除劳动力之外一无所有的雇佣工人，造就了两个根本对立的阶级即“资产者或资产阶级”“无产者或无产阶级”。资本主义社会文明的阶级基础就是建立在剩余价值剥削基础之上的资产阶级和工人阶级的阶级分裂和对立，资本家剥削工人阶级的剩余价值是资本主义社会“文明制度”的基础，这是资本主义社会文明最根本的特征。他们明确揭示资本主义社会文明就是“资产阶级文明”的阶级性质，认为资本主义社会“文明制度”是为资产阶级利益服务的，对内压迫工人阶级及广大劳动力群众，对外进行帝国主义侵略。

II. When analyzing the defects and developmental trends of capitalist social civilization, the classical Marxist writers profoundly recognized that capitalist social civilization inevitably leads to proletarian revolution and the birth of a higher communist social civilization. They clearly pointed out that capitalist social civilization forges the proletariat as the great force for human liberation, that the result of the development of capitalist social civilization must be the outbreak of a proletarian socialist revolution, and that, through the transition of a socialist society under the dictatorship of the proletariat, communist social civilization will inevitably replace capitalist social civilization, thereby indicating the historical developmental trend of future social civilization.

二、马克思主义经典作家在分析资本主义社会文明的弊端和发展趋势时，深刻认识到资本主义社会文明必然导致无产阶级革命，导致更高级的共产主义社会文明的诞生。他们明确指出，资本主义社会文明锻造了无产阶级这一人类解放的伟大力量，资本主义社会文明的发展结果必然是爆发无产阶级社会主义革命，经过无产阶级专政的社会主义社会的过渡，共产主义社会文明必将取代资本主义社会文明，预示了未来社会文明的历史发展趋势。

First, Marx and Engels pointed out that the “old civilization” of capitalism is a “criminal civilization,” and that capitalist social civilization is “the final stage of the old civilization.” In a letter to Ludwig Feuerbach dated August 11, 1844, Marx wrote: “But in any case, history is turning these ‘barbarians’ of our civilized society into the practical factor of human liberation.” He clearly indicated that the proletariat in capitalist civilized society is the great practical force for human liberation. In a letter to Marx dated early October 1844, Engels pointed out that capitalist social civilization is “the final stage of the old civilization”: “In recent years, the workers have already entered the final stage of the old civilization; they are opposing the old social system through rapidly increasing crime, robbery, and murder.” In “The Civil War in France” (1871), Marx stated: “This criminal civilization, based on the enslavement of labor, each time it has bloodily triumphed over the fighters who sacrificed themselves for a new and better society, has drowned the groans of the victims in a clamor of slander that echoes around the world.” “Indeed. Whenever the slaves and oppressed of the bourgeois order rise up against their masters, this civilization and justice of the order reveal their savage face. At such times, this civilization and justice are nothing but naked barbarism and lawless revenge. Each new crisis in the class struggle between the possessors and the producers proves this fact more and more clearly.” Summing up the lessons of the Paris Commune uprising, Marx angrily condemned the bourgeoisie’s brutal bloody suppression of the Communards: “The bourgeoisie and its army, in June 1848, revived the long-abandoned practice of war—shooting unarmed prisoners. Since then, this barbaric practice has been strictly followed to varying degrees wherever popular unrest is suppressed in Europe and India. This proves that it is truly ‘an advance of civilization’!”

第一，马克思、恩格斯指出资本主义的“旧文明”是“罪恶的文明”，资本主义社会文明是“旧文明的最后阶段”。在1844年8月11日致路德维希·费尔巴哈的信中，马克思认为：“但无论怎样，历史正在把我们文明社会的这些‘野蛮人’变成人类解放的实践因素。”他明确指出资本主义文明社会中的无产阶级是人类解放的伟大实践力量。在1844年10月初致马克思的信中，恩格斯指出：资本主义社会文明是“旧文明的最后阶段”，“近几年来，工人们已经处于旧文明的最后阶段，他们通过迅速增多的犯罪、抢劫和凶杀来反对旧的社会制度”。在1871年《法兰西内战》中，马克思指出，“这个建立在劳动奴役制上的罪恶的文明，每次血腥地战胜了为实现美好新社会而献身的斗士时，都要把牺牲者的呻吟淹没于在世界各地都可听到回音的大喊大叫的诽谤声中”，“确实如此。每当资产阶级秩序的奴隶和被压迫者起来反对主人的时候，这种秩序的文明和正义就显示出自己的凶残面目。那时，这种文明和正义就是赤裸裸的野蛮和无法无天的报复。占有者和生产者之间的阶级斗争中的每一次新危机，都越来越明显地证明这一事实”。在总结巴黎公社起义的经验教训时，马克思愤怒地谴责资产阶级对巴黎公社社员的残酷的血腥镇压：“资产阶级及其军队在1848年6月恢复了枪毙没有自卫能力的俘虏这一早已绝迹的战争惯例。自此以后在欧洲和印度，凡是镇压民众动乱的时候，就都不同程度地严格照此野蛮惯例行事了。这证明它真是‘文明的一个进步’！”

Second, Marx, Engels, and Lenin believed that in almost all civilized countries of capitalist society, the development of large-scale industry and the bourgeoisie’s violent suppression of the working class would inevitably lead to the proletariat uniting in socialist revolution, creating the prerequisites for realizing communist social civilization. In 1847’s “The Communists and Karl Heinzen,” Engels pointed out: “In all civilized countries, the inevitable result of democracy is the political rule of the proletariat, and the political rule of the proletariat is the primary prerequisite for the implementation of all communist measures.” In 1847’s “Principles of Communism,” he further stated: “But they also see that in almost all civilized countries the development of the proletariat is suppressed by violence, and that therefore the enemies of the communists are using every means to provoke revolution,” and “Moreover, large-scale industry, by creating the world market, has brought all the peoples of the globe, especially the peoples of civilized countries, into such close connection with each other that each country is influenced by what happens in another… The communist revolution will therefore not be merely a national revolution, but will occur simultaneously in all civilized countries, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. In each of these countries, the communist revolution will develop more quickly or more slowly, depending on whether that country has a more developed industry, greater wealth, and a larger quantity of productive forces. Hence, in Germany the communist revolution will be slowest and most difficult, in England fastest and easiest. The communist revolution will also greatly influence the other countries of the world and will completely change and greatly accelerate their original course of development. It is a world revolution and will therefore have a world arena.” In 1875’s “Critique of the Gotha Program,” Marx pointed out: “‘For its own emancipation, the working class must first operate within the framework of the modern nation-state, while being conscious that the inevitable result of its efforts, which are common to the workers of all civilized countries, will be the international brotherhood of nations.’” In 1858’s “On the Emancipation of the Russian Peasants,” Marx referred to the civilization of exploitative societies as “false civilization” and the future social civilization that would replace it as “true universal civilization,” i.e., communist social civilization. “True universal civilization” would replace the “false civilization” promoted by the exploiting classes in history. The expositions of Marx and Engels show that capitalist social civilization, marked by large-scale industry, created the necessary prerequisites for the proletariat’s socialist revolution and initiated the historical inevitability of communist social civilization replacing capitalist social civilization. Lenin inherited the ideas of Marx and Engels. In 1905’s “On the Eve of Bloody Sunday,” he pointed out: “The proletariat has demonstrated by its actions that it is, and it alone is, the pillar of modern civilization.” In 1920’s “Greeting the International Women’s Day,” he pointed out: “Only the dictatorship of the proletariat, only the socialist state, can achieve and has already achieved a high level of civilization.” In 1923’s “On Our Revolution,” he further pointed out: “Moving toward socialism” is the prerequisite for civilization. In summary, it can be seen that the classical Marxist writers, standing on the position of the proletariat, strongly condemned capitalist social civilization as a “criminal civilization” and “false civilization” that suppresses the proletariat. They clearly pointed out that whenever the proletariat rises up against the bourgeoisie, “the civilization and justice of this order reveal their ferocious face,” thoroughly exposing the ferocious class nature, hypocrisy, and deceitfulness of capitalist social civilization. They clearly stated that capitalist social civilization is “the final stage of the old civilization,” and that this “old civilization” will inevitably be replaced by “true universal civilization,” i.e., communist social civilization. They clearly held that capitalist social civilization created the social conditions for the workers of the world to unite in realizing the proletarian socialist revolution and establishing the political rule of the proletariat, in order to overthrow capitalist society. The proletariat is the material force for creating communist social civilization. Only the dictatorship of the proletariat, only the socialist state, can achieve a “high level of civilization.”

第二，马克思、恩格斯、列宁认为，在几乎所有的资本主义社会文明的国家中，大工业的发展、资产阶级对工人阶级的强力压制，必然引起无产阶级联合起来的社会主义革命，创造实现共产主义社会文明的前提。在1847年《共产主义者和卡尔·海因岑》中，恩格斯指出：“在所有的文明国家，民主主义的必然结果都是无产阶级的政治统治，而无产阶级的政治统治又是实行一切共产主义措施的首要前提。”在1847年《共产主义原理》中，他进一步指出：“但他们也看到，几乎所有文明国家的无产阶级的发展都受到暴力压制，因而是共产主义者的敌人用尽一切力量引起革命”，“单是大工业建立了世界市场这一点，就把全球各国人民，尤其是各文明国家的人民，彼此紧紧地联系起来，以致每一国家的人民都受到另一国家发生的事情的影响……共产主义革命将不是仅仅一个国家的革命，而是将在一切文明国家里，至少在英国、美国、法国、德国同时发生的革命，在这些国家的每一个国家中，共产主义革命发展得较快或较慢，要看这个国家是否有较发达的工业，较多的财富和比较大量的生产力。因此，在德国实现共产主义革命最慢最困难，在英国最快最容易。共产主义革命也会大大影响世界上其他国家，会完全改变并大大加速它们原来的发展进程。它是世界性的革命，所以将有世界性的活动场所”。在1875年《哥达纲领批判》中，马克思指出：“‘工人阶级为了本身的解放，首先是在现代民族国家的范围内进行活动，同时意识到，它的为一切文明国家的工人所共有的那种努力必然产生的结果，将是各民族的国际的兄弟联合。’”在1858年《关于俄国的农民解放》中，马克思把剥削社会文明称为“虚假的文明”，把代替剥削社会文明的未来社会文明称为“真正的普遍的文明”，即共产主义社会文明。“真正的普遍的文明”将代替历史上的剥削阶级所推行的“虚假的文明”。马克思、恩格斯的论述表明，以大工业为标志的资本主义社会文明，创造了无产阶级社会主义革命的必要前提，开启了共产主义社会文明必将代替资本主义社会文明的历史必然走向。列宁继承了马克思、恩格斯的思想。在1905年《流血星期日的前夕》中，他指出：“无产阶级用事实表明，它是而且只有它才是现代文明的支柱”。在1920年《迎接国际劳动妇女节》中，他指出：“只有无产阶级专政，只有社会主义国家才能够达到而且已经达到了高度的文明。”在1923年《论我国革命》中，他进一步指出：“走向社会主义”是文明的前提。综上所述可以看出，马克思主义经典作家站在无产阶级的立场上，强烈谴责资本主义社会文明是镇压无产阶级的“罪恶的文明”“虚假的文明”，明确指出每当无产阶级起来反抗资产阶级的时候，资本主义“这种秩序的文明和正义就显示出自己的凶残面目”，彻底揭露了资本主义社会文明的凶残的阶级本性和虚伪性、欺骗性。他们明确指出，资本主义社会文明是“旧文明的最后阶段”，这种“旧文明”一定会被“真正的普遍的文明”即共产主义社会文明代替。他们明确认为，资本主义社会文明创造了全世界工人联合起来实现无产阶级社会主义革命、建立起无产阶级政治统治，以推翻资本主义社会的社会条件，无产阶级是创造共产主义社会文明的物质力量，只有无产阶级专政，只有社会主义国家才能够达到“高度的文明”。

III. The classical Marxist writers, drawing on Morgan’s periodization of the historical development of human social civilization, used the term “age of civilization,” dividing it into “ancient civilization” and “modern civilization.” By “ancient civilization” they meant the civilization of social formations prior to capitalist social civilization; by “modern civilization” they meant capitalist social civilization. They criticized the idealist view of civilization held by some Western bourgeois politicians and scholars, who regarded social civilization as the result of pure spiritual activity, and clearly pointed out that the formation and progress of social civilization are the results of the development of social productive forces. They summarized the different stages and forms of the evolution and development of human social civilization, revealing the objective laws of the historical development of human social civilization.

三、马克思主义经典作家参照摩尔根对人类社会文明发展历史的分期，使用了“文明时代”一词，把“文明时代”划分为“古代文明”和“现代文明”。他们所讲的“古代文明”是指资本主义社会文明之前的社会形态的文明，所讲的“现代文明”是指资本主义社会文明。他们批判了一些西方资产阶级政治家和学者把社会文明视为纯粹精神运动结果的历史唯心主义文明观，明确指出社会文明的形成和进步是社会生产力发展的结果，概括了人类社会文明演进发展的不同阶段及其不同形式，揭示了人类社会文明历史发展的客观规律。

First, when Marx and Engels used terms such as “ancient civilization,” “Indian civilization,” “semi-civilized system,” and “old civilized countries,” their reference to civilization specifically meant social civilization prior to capitalist social civilization. In 1850’s “The Peasant War in Germany,” Engels pointed out: “The Middle Ages developed entirely out of barbarism. It swept away ancient civilization, ancient philosophy, politics, and jurisprudence, in order to start everything from scratch.” Here, the “ancient civilization” Engels referred to should be understood as social civilization prior to capitalist social civilization. In 1853’s “The Future Results of British Rule in India,” Marx stated: “The British were the first conquerors whose civilization was superior to that of India and who were therefore not influenced by Indian civilization. They destroyed the native communes, ruined the native industry, and leveled everything great and sublime in native society, thus destroying Indian civilization.” The “Indian civilization” he refers to here is the civilization of slave society, and even feudal society; the “civilization” of the “British” is the capitalist social civilization, which is superior in degree to “Indian civilization.” In 1857’s “Persia and China,” Engels pointed out: “In China, the oldest country in the world, the rotten semi-civilized system uses its own means to struggle against the Europeans.” The “semi-civilized system” of China he refers to here, in contrast to the “civilized system” of European capitalism, actually refers to the civilization of Chinese feudal society. In 1872’s “The Housing Question,” Engels pointed out: “The period when an old civilized country makes the transition from manufacture and small-scale production to large-scale industry, and when this transition is accelerated by extremely favorable circumstances, is generally a period of ‘housing shortage.’” The civilization of the “old civilized country” here clearly also refers to social civilization prior to capitalist social civilization.

第一，马克思、恩格斯使用“古代文明”“印度文明”“半文明制度”“老的文明国家”等用语时，其文明特指资本主义社会文明之前的社会文明。在1850年《德国农民战争》中，恩格斯指出：“中世纪完全是从野蛮状态发展而来的。它把古代文明、古代哲学、政治和法学一扫而光，以便一切都从头做起。”在这里，恩格斯所提到的“古代文明”，应当是指资本主义社会文明之前的社会文明。在1853年《不列颠在印度统治的未来结果》中，马克思讲道：“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，从而毁灭了印度的文明。”他在这里讲的“印度的文明”是奴隶社会文明，乃至封建社会文明，“不列颠人”的“文明”，是文明程度高于“印度的文明”的资本主义社会文明。在1857年《波斯和中国》中，恩格斯指出：“在中国，这个世界上最古老国家的腐朽的半文明制度，则用自己的手段与欧洲人进行斗争。”他在这里讲的中国的“半文明制度”相对于欧洲资本主义的“文明制度”而言，实际上指的是中国封建社会文明。在1872年《论住宅问题》一文中，恩格斯指出：“一个老的文明国家像这样从工场手工业和小生产向大工业过渡，并且这个过渡还由于情况极其顺利而加速的时期，多半也就是‘住房短缺’的时期。”这里的“老的文明国家”，其文明显然也是指资本主义社会文明之前的社会文明。

Second, although Marx and Engels sometimes borrowed the term “savage state” used by Westerners to refer to the state of social civilization before capitalist society, they fundamentally differed from the narrow bourgeois historical viewpoint of the West by highly affirming the “ancient civilizations” that preceded capitalist social civilization. Some Western bourgeois politicians and scholars regard the “ancient civilizations” of human society, especially the “ancient civilizations” of Eastern peoples, as a “savage state,” propagating narrow bourgeois idealist historical views such as the “theory of the centrality of Western civilization.” They call “ancient civilizations” “savage” in order to disparage “ancient civilizations,” particularly those of Eastern peoples. This is fundamentally different from the Marxist view of civilization, which, as expressed by Marx and Engels, highly affirms “ancient civilizations,” especially those created by Eastern peoples. As Comrade Mao Zedong pointed out in his 1959 “Talk with Leaders of Some Communist Parties in Latin America,” it is necessary to break with the absurd claims and superstitious notions of Western bourgeois politicians who say “Americans are civilized” and “we are more savage than them,” thereby disparaging Eastern civilization. He firmly opposed the view of some Western bourgeois politicians and scholars “who say we are savage and uncivilized,” arguing that “this should be turned around.” In his 1958 “Talk with the Delegation of Young Africans from Black Africa,” he pointed out: “Because our China has not occupied other countries in the past or present, and will not occupy the United States or Britain as colonies in the future, we have always been a civilized country.” The truly savage countries should be the imperialist bandits who cruelly oppress, exploit, and slaughter the people of colonies and semi-colonies, while the Eastern peoples are civilized countries because they have never occupied or colonized other nations.

第二，马克思、恩格斯虽然在用语上有时借用西方人使用的“野蛮状态”，代指资本主义社会之前的社会文明状态，但与西方狭隘的资产阶级历史观点根本不同，他们高度肯定资本主义社会文明之前的“古代文明”。一些西方资产阶级政治家和学者把人类社会的“古代文明”，特别是东方民族的“古代文明”，视为“野蛮状态”，宣扬“西方文明中心论”等资产阶级狭隘的唯心主义历史观点。他们把“古代文明”称为“野蛮”，是贬损“古代文明”，尤为贬损东方民族的“古代文明”。这与马克思、恩格斯高度肯定“古代文明”特别是东方民族创造的“古代文明”的马克思主义文明观根本不同。正如毛泽东同志在1959年《同拉丁美洲一些国家共产党领导人的谈话》中指出的那样，要破除西方资产阶级政治家所说的“美国人文明”“我们比他们野蛮”的贬损东方文明的荒谬说法和迷信观念。他坚决反对一些西方资产阶级政治家和学者“说我们野蛮、不文明”的观点，认为“这要翻过来”。在1958年《同黑非洲青年代表团的谈话》中，他指出：因为“我们中国过去、现在都没有占领别的国家，将来也不会去占领美国、英国作殖民地，所以我们始终是文明国家”。真正野蛮的国家应当是残酷压迫、剥削、杀戮殖民地半殖民地人民的帝国主义强盗，而东方民族是文明国家，因为它们从不占领、殖民他国。

Third, Engels, applying the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism and in accordance with the doctrine of the “five forms of society” in historical materialism, held that the entire “epoch of civilization” of humanity is divided into two major stages: “ancient civilization” and “modern civilization.” “Ancient civilization” refers to the civilization of several social forms preceding capitalist social civilization, while “modern civilization” refers to capitalist social civilization. This clearly delineates the historical process of development of human social forms of civilization. In *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific* (1880), Engels, borrowing Fourier’s periodization of history, pointed out: “He divides the whole course of social history into four phases: savagery, barbarism, patriarchate, and civilization. The last of these coincides with what is now called bourgeois society, i.e., the social system that developed from the sixteenth century onward, and he shows that ‘the civilized stage raises to a complex, equivocal, deceptive, and hypocritical existence every simple vice of barbarism’; civilization moves in ‘a vicious circle,’ in contradictions which it constantly reproduces and cannot overcome, so that the result it achieves is always the opposite of what it hoped and pretended to achieve.” [7]7 Engels, *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 24, p. 304. The quotation is from Charles Fourier, *Théorie des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales* (1808). By drawing on Fourier’s critique and exposure of capitalist social civilization, Engels profoundly revealed that the “epoch of civilization” of human society moves within the “vicious circle” of class struggle, clearly pointing out the hypocrisy of the capitalist “system of civilization” and the historical inevitability of its eventual reversal. In *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1884), Engels stated: “We can now sum up Morgan’s periods as follows: Savagery — the period in which the appropriation of natural products, ready for use, predominated; the things produced by man were mainly instruments for facilitating this appropriation. Barbarism — the period in which the domestication of animals and the cultivation of plants were learned, and methods of increasing the supply of natural products by human activity were acquired. Civilization — the period in which the further processing of natural products was learned, the period of industry proper and of art.” [8]8 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 178. The quotation is from Lewis Henry Morgan, *Ancient Society* (1877). Here, Engels borrowed Morgan’s formulation that “civilization is the period in which the further processing of natural products was learned, the period of industry proper and of art.” The author believes that what is meant by “the further processing of natural products” is most representatively the processing of natural objects such as stone by humans in primitive society into tools or utensils, such as fishing implements, bows and arrows, and even pottery. This should be the beginning and germination of human civilization, and can also be said to be the germination and origin of the “ancient civilization” of primitive society. Of course, “civilization is the period in which the further processing of natural products was learned, the period of industry proper and of art” refers to the period of slave society civilization, feudal society civilization, and even capitalist social civilization, especially the period of “modern civilization,” i.e., capitalist social civilization. This is the historical process of the mature development of human social civilization. In the same work, Engels pointed out: “Civilization is the stage of social development at which the division of labor, the exchange between individuals arising from it, and the commodity production which combines these two processes, come to full development and revolutionize the whole of previous society.” [9]9 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 178. Here, Engels held that the full development of the division of labor, commodity exchange arising from it, and production truly ushers human society into the “epoch of civilization.” He continued in the same work: “Such, according to the investigation we are able to make of the most civilized and most developed peoples of antiquity, was the origin of monogamy.” [10]10 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 179. The civilization of the “most civilized and most developed peoples of antiquity” clearly refers to the social civilization of the period of the dissolution of primitive society, when patriarchy and monogamy emerged, i.e., when private property and class differentiation began to appear. He then pointed out: “A moment ago we were standing at the cradle of Greco-Roman civilization; now we are standing at its coffin.” [11]11 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 179. The Greco-Roman civilization mentioned here is slave society civilization. “The social classes of the ninth century were formed not in the death throes of a dying civilization but in the birth pangs of a new one.” [12]12 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 179. The “dying civilization” he refers to here is slave society civilization, and the “new civilization” is feudal society civilization. The above analysis shows that although Engels borrowed Morgan’s term “epoch of civilization,” he did not follow Morgan’s historical periodization in calling the period before the “epoch of civilization” the “stage of savagery” and the “stage of barbarism.” Instead, he clearly divided the “epoch of civilization” into two major stages: “ancient civilization” and “modern civilization.” “Ancient civilization” and “modern civilization” together constitute the entire “epoch of civilization” of human society. From Engels’s entire discussion concerning civilization, it can be seen that “the origin of civilization” and “the beginning of the epoch of civilization” are not the same thing, nor do they refer to the same stage of historical development of social civilization. “Ancient civilization” should include the originating civilization of primitive society, as well as slave society civilization and feudal society civilization; “modern civilization” is capitalist social civilization. The “epoch of civilization” refers to slave society civilization, feudal society civilization, and up to capitalist social civilization since primitive society split into class society. The development from the “ancient civilization” of slave society and feudal society to “modern civilization” constitutes the course of development of the “epoch of civilization” of human society. The “epoch of civilization” clearly does not include the originating civilization of primitive society. Fourth, Engels pointed out that all “old civilizations” of class-exploitative society since the dissolution of primitive society’s public ownership are built on the basis of class exploitation and opposition. The emergence of classes and the state is an important marker for judging that human society has entered the “epoch of civilization.” In *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1884), Engels further pointed out: “The stage of commodity production with which civilization begins is economically characterized by: (1) the introduction of metallic money, and with it of money capital, interest, and usury; (2) the appearance of merchants as a middle class between the producers; (3) the appearance of private property in land and of mortgages; and (4) the appearance of slave labor as the dominant form of production. The family form corresponding to civilization and coming to definite supremacy with it is monogamy, the domination of the man over the woman, and the individual family as the economic unit of society. The state is the epitome of civilized society; in all typical periods it is without exception the state of the ruling class, and in all cases it remains essentially a machine for keeping the oppressed, exploited class in subjection. Other characteristics of civilization are: on the one hand, the fixation of the opposition between town and country as the basis of the entire social division of labor; on the other hand, the introduction of testaments, by which the property owner is able to dispose of his property even after his death. This institution, which comes into direct conflict with the ancient gentile constitution, was unknown in Athens until the time of Solon; in Rome it was introduced very early, but we do not know when; among the Germans it was introduced by the priests so that the honest German might be able to leave his legacy to the church without hindrance.” [13]13 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, pp. 179–180. “Civilization accomplished things which the old gentile society was totally unable to achieve on the basis of these fundamental institutions.” [14]14 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 180. “Since civilization is founded on the exploitation of one class by another, its whole development proceeds in a constant contradiction.” [15]15 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 180. Here, it is possible to sort out clearly how Engels analyzed and understood the developmental process of human social civilization from the standpoint of historical materialism. In the same work, he pointed out: “With the appearance of slavery, which attained its fullest development under civilization, came the first great cleavage of society into an exploiting and an exploited class. This cleavage has persisted throughout the whole period of civilization. Slavery is the first form of exploitation, the form peculiar to the ancient world; it is succeeded by serfdom in the Middle Ages, and by wage labor in modern times. These are the three great forms of servitude characteristic of the three great epochs of civilization; open, and, more recently, disguised slavery, always accompanies civilization.” [16]16 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 180. His statement “slavery, which attained its fullest development under civilization” clearly indicates that in slave society the first great cleavage of society into an exploiting and an exploited class occurred, and from then on class differentiation and opposition “persisted throughout the whole period of civilization,” i.e., the entire “epoch of civilization.” He held that the division of labor, commodity exchange and commodity production arising from it, as well as private property and the class differentiation and opposition it caused, are important markers of humanity’s entry into the “epoch of civilization.” He pointed out that “slavery,” “serfdom in the Middle Ages,” and “wage labor in modern times” are the three institutional forms of private ownership of the means of production in slave society, feudal society, and capitalist society, respectively, and are the “three great forms of servitude” characteristic of the three great epochs of the entire “epoch of civilization.” He called “wage labor in modern times,” i.e., capitalist wage labor, “disguised slavery.” Engels’s exposition shows that the so-called “epoch of civilization” includes slave society civilization, feudal society civilization, and capitalist social civilization. He held that the “epoch of civilization” since slave society began with the division of labor and the commodity exchange and production arising from it. Economically, it has four characteristics: the appearance of money capital, interest, and usury; the appearance of a commercial class; the appearance of private property in land and mortgages; and the appearance of slave labor. In terms of family form, it saw the appearance of the individual family characterized by monogamy and the domination of men over women. Politically, its characteristic was the appearance of the state: “The state is the epitome of civilized society,” and “it remains essentially a machine for keeping the oppressed, exploited class in subjection.” He also pointed out other characteristics of the “epoch of civilization”: the appearance of the old division of labor between town and country, and the institution of inheritance of private property. Through his analysis of the characteristics of the “epoch of civilization,” Engels indicated that the “epoch of civilization,” whether “ancient civilization” (i.e., slave society civilization and feudal society civilization) or “modern civilization” (i.e., capitalist social civilization), all possess the characteristics of class exploitation, class oppression, class contradiction, the opposition between town and country, and the old division of labor. He exposed the class-exploitative essence of all previous class societies’ civilizations as “forms of servitude,” revealing the history of development of the entire “epoch of civilization” of class society from “ancient civilization” to “modern civilization.” It should be noted here that the “ancient civilization” Engels spoke of should also include the initial, germinal, originating civilization of primitive society. Because Engels borrowed Morgan’s formulation, “the further processing of natural products was learned,” this statement implies that civilization began with humans learning to process natural products, starting with processing natural objects into tools. In fact, in primitive society, humans learned to process natural objects into tools and articles for daily use, and “ancient civilization” began from this point. Of course, his taking the division of labor, commodity exchange and production arising from it, private property, and the emergence of classes and the state as important markers of the formation of social civilization and humanity’s entry into the “epoch of civilization” does not contradict his agreement with the judgment that the origin of ancient civilization began with the making of tools. And from slave society onward, following the dissolution of primitive society’s public ownership, humanity entered the “epoch of civilization.” The “ancient civilization” that entered the “epoch of civilization” refers to slave society civilization and feudal society civilization. Fifth, Marx and Engels profoundly criticized the idealist view of civilization and, using historical materialism, elucidated the true causes of the emergence, formation, and development of civilization. In *The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century* (1844), Engels pointed out that historical materialism holds that “civilization is a matter of practice, a quality of society.” [17]17 Engels, *The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 469. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx pointed out that civilization is “the object created by the worker.” [18]18 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 272. In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), he further pointed out: “All progress of civilization, or in other words,” is “every increase in the forces of social production.” [19]19 Marx, *Grundrisse*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28, p. 495. In the essay “The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man” (published 1896), Engels pointed out that the bourgeoisie attributes “rapidly advancing civilization” entirely “to the head, to the development and activity of the brain,” [20]20 Engels, “The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25, p. 459. criticizing the idealist view of civilization that reduces civilization to a product of the mind. Marx and Engels emphasized that civilization is the result of “every increase in the forces of social production,” is “a matter of practice,” and is “the object created by the worker.” Using historical materialism, they fully explained the true causes and real driving forces of the emergence of social civilization.

第三，恩格斯运用唯物史观立场、观点和方法，按照唯物史观“五种社会形态”的学说，认为人类的整个“文明时代”分为“古代文明”和“现代文明”两大阶段，“古代文明”就是资本主义社会文明之前的若干社会形态的文明，“现代文明”就是资本主义社会文明，清晰地梳理出人类社会文明形态的历史发展进程。在1880年《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》中，恩格斯借用傅立叶关于历史分期的说法时指出：“他把社会历史到目前为止的全部历程分为四个发展阶段：蒙昧、野蛮、宗法和文明。最后一个阶段就相当于现在所谓的资产阶级社会，即从16世纪发展起来的社会制度，他指出：‘这种文明制度使野蛮时代每一个以简单方式犯下的罪恶，都采取了复杂的、暧昧的、两面的、虚伪的存在形式’；文明时代是在‘恶性循环’中运动，是在它不断地重新制造出来而又无法克服的矛盾中运动，因此，它所达到的结果总是同它希望达到或者佯言希望达到的相反。”恩格斯借助傅立叶对资本主义社会文明的批判与揭露，深刻揭示了人类社会的“文明时代”是在阶级斗争的“恶性循环”中运动，明确指出了资本主义“文明制度”的虚伪性及其最终走向反面的历史必然性。在1884年《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》中，恩格斯说道：“现在我们可以把摩尔根的分期概括如下：蒙昧时代是以获取现成的天然产物为主的时期；人工产品主要是用做获取天然产物的辅助工具。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。”在这里，恩格斯借用了摩尔根关于“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”的说法。笔者认为，所谓“对天然产物进一步加工”，最有代表性的就是原始社会人类把石头这种天然物加工成为劳动工具或生活用具，如捕捞工具、弓箭乃至陶器等，这应当是人类文明的起始和萌发，亦可以说是原始社会“古代文明”的萌发和起源。当然，“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”，是指奴隶社会文明时期、封建社会文明时期乃至资本主义社会文明时期，特别是指“现代文明”时期，即资本主义社会文明时期，这是人类社会文明成熟发展的历史进程。在同一部著作中，恩格斯指出：“文明时代是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。”恩格斯在这里认为，分工、分工引起的商品交换、生产的充分发展使人类社会真正进入“文明时代”。他在同一部著作中继续指出：“根据我们对古代最文明、最发达的民族所能作的考察，专偶制的起源就是如此。”“古代最文明、最发达的民族”，其文明显然是指原始社会父权制、一夫一妻制出现，即财产私有、阶级分化开始产生的原始社会解体时期的社会文明。他接着指出：“上面我们是站在古希腊罗马文明的摇篮旁边。这里我们却站在这一文明的棺木旁边了。”这里讲到的古希腊罗马文明是奴隶社会文明。“9世纪的社会阶级，不是在垂死文明的沉沦中，而是在新文明诞生的阵痛中形成的。”他在这里说到的“垂死文明”是奴隶社会文明，“新文明”是封建社会文明。以上分析表明，恩格斯虽借用了摩尔根的“文明时代”的说法，但并没有按照摩尔根的历史分期把“文明时代”之前说成“蒙昧时代”与“野蛮时代”，而是把“文明时代”明确划分为“古代文明”与“现代文明”两大阶段。“古代文明”与“现代文明”构成人类社会整个“文明时代”。从恩格斯涉及文明问题的整个论述可以看出，“文明起源”与“文明时代的开端”不是一个意思，也不是指同一个社会文明历史发展阶段。“古代文明”应包括原始社会的起源文明，还包括奴隶社会文明、封建社会文明；“现代文明”就是资本主义社会文明。“文明时代”是指原始社会分裂为阶级社会以来的奴隶社会文明，封建社会文明，直到资本主义社会文明。从奴隶社会、封建社会的“古代文明”到“现代文明”是人类社会“文明时代”的发展历程。“文明时代”显然不包括原始社会的起源文明。第四，恩格斯指明自原始社会公有制解体以来阶级剥削社会的一切“旧文明”，都是建立在阶级剥削和对立基础上的文明，阶级、国家的产生是判断人类社会进入“文明时代”的重要标志。在1884年《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》中，恩格斯进一步指出：“文明时代所由以开始的商品生产阶段，在经济上有下列特征：（1）出现了金属货币，从而出现了货币资本、利息和高利贷；（2）出现了作为生产者之间的中间阶级的商人；（3）出现了土地私有制和抵押；（4）出现了作为占统治地位的生产形式的奴隶劳动。与文明时代相适应并随之彻底确立了自己的统治地位的家庭形式是专偶制、男子对妇女的统治，以及作为社会经济单位的个体家庭。国家是文明社会的概括，它在一切典型的时期毫无例外地都是统治阶级的国家，并且在一切场合在本质上都是镇压被压迫被剥削阶级的机器。此外，文明时代还有如下的特征：一方面，是把城市和乡村的对立作为整个社会分工的基础固定下来；另一方面，是实行所有者甚至在死后也能够据以处理自己财产的遗嘱制度。这种同古代氏族制度直接冲突的制度，在雅典直到梭伦时代之前还没有过；在罗马，它很早就已经实行了，究竟在什么时候我们不知道；在德意志人中间，这种制度是由教士引入的，为的是使诚实的德意志人能够毫无阻碍地将自己的遗产遗赠给教会。”“文明时代以这种基本制度完成了古代氏族社会完全做不到的事情”，“由于文明时代的基础是一个阶级对另一个阶级的剥削，所以它的全部发展都是在经常的矛盾中进行的”。在这里，可以梳理清楚恩格斯是怎样对人类社会文明的发展历程进行唯物史观的分析认识的。在同一部著作中，他指出：“随着在文明时代获得最充分发展的奴隶制的出现，就发生了社会分成剥削阶级和被剥削阶级的第一次大分裂。这种分裂继续存在于整个文明期。奴隶制是古希腊罗马时代世界所固有的第一个剥削形式；继之而来的是中世纪的农奴制和近代的雇佣劳动制。这就是文明时代的三大时期所特有的三大奴役形式；公开的而近来是隐蔽的奴隶制始终伴随着文明时代。”他关于“在文明时代获得最充分发展的奴隶制”这句话，明确指出在奴隶社会发生了剥削阶级和被剥削阶级的第一次大分裂，从此阶级的分化与对立就“继续存在于整个文明期”，即整个“文明时代”。他认为，分工、分工引起的商品交换、商品生产，以及私有制及其引起的阶级分化与对立，是人类进入“文明时代”的重要标志。他指出，“奴隶制”“中世纪的农奴制”“近代的雇佣劳动制”，分别是奴隶社会、封建社会和资本主义社会的三大生产资料私有制的制度形式，是整个“文明时代”三大时期所特有的“三大奴役形式”。他把“近代的雇佣劳动制”即资本主义的雇佣劳动制称为“隐蔽的奴隶制”。恩格斯的阐述表明，所谓“文明时代”，存在着奴隶社会文明、封建社会文明和资本主义社会文明。他认为，奴隶社会以来的“文明时代”由分工及分工引起的商品交换和生产开始。在经济上有四个特征，即出现了货币资本、利息和高利贷，出现了商业阶层，出现了土地私有制与抵押，出现了奴隶劳动。在家庭形式上，出现了以专偶婚制、男人对女人的统治为特征的个体家庭。在政治上的特征，便是出现了国家，“国家是文明社会的概括”，“本质上都是镇压被压迫被剥削阶级的机器”。他还指出了“文明时代”的其他特征，即出现了城乡对立的旧式分工、私有财产继承制度。通过对“文明时代”特征的分析，恩格斯指明“文明时代”，不论是“古代文明”，即奴隶社会文明、封建社会文明，还是“现代文明”，即资本主义社会文明，都具有阶级剥削、阶级压迫、阶级矛盾、城乡对立、旧式分工的特征，揭露了人类以往的任何阶级社会的文明都是“奴役形式”的阶级剥削本质，揭示出了整个阶级社会的“文明时代”从“古代文明”到“现代文明”的发展历史。这里需要指出的是，恩格斯所讲的“古代文明”，还应包括初始的、萌发的、起源的原始社会文明。因为恩格斯借用了摩尔根的说法，“学会对天然产物进一步加工”，这个论述包含着文明是从人类学会对天然产物的加工开始的，首先从把天然物加工成工具开始。实际上，在原始社会，人类就学会将天然物加工为生产工具和生活用品，“古代文明”由此开始。当然，他把分工、由分工产生的商品交换与生产、私有制、阶级和国家的产生作为社会文明形成、人类进入“文明时代”的重要标志，与他赞同关于古代文明起源是从制造工具开始的判断并不矛盾。而从原始社会公有制解体以来的奴隶社会就进入了“文明时代”。进入“文明时代”的“古代文明”指的是奴隶社会文明、封建社会文明。第五，马克思、恩格斯深刻批判了历史唯心主义文明观，运用唯物史观阐明了关于文明产生、形成、发展的真正原因。在1844年《英国状况·十八世纪》中，恩格斯指出：唯物史观认为“文明是实践的事情，是社会的素质”。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思指出：文明是“工人创造的对象”。在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中进一步指出：“文明的一切进步，或者换句话说”，就是“社会生产力的一切增长”。在1896年发表的《劳动在从猿到人的转变中的作用》一文中，恩格斯指出：资产阶级把“迅速前进的文明”完全“归功于头脑，归功于脑的发展和活动”，批判了把文明归结为精神产物的历史唯心主义文明观。马克思、恩格斯强调文明是“社会生产力的一切增长”的结果，是“实践的事情”，是“工人创造的对象”。他们运用唯物史观充分说明了社会文明产生的真实原因和真正推动力量。

IV. Through the above review of the classical Marxist writers’ classic expositions on social civilization, one can grasp the basic views and opinions of the classical Marxist writers on human social civilization, and clearly recognize how they applied the basic principles and basic methods of historical materialism to analyze and understand the problem of social civilization, thereby elucidating the Marxist view of civilization. The term “civilization,” in its broadest sense, can be used in multiple ways, such as Eastern civilization, Western civilization, ancient civilization, modern civilization, industrial civilization, agricultural civilization, nomadic civilization, slave society civilization, feudal society civilization, capitalist society civilization, socialist society civilization, and so on; it can be used from different disciplinary perspectives, such as history, ethnology, anthropology, sociology, archaeology; and it can also have different referents and different connotations. When the classical Marxist writers used the term “civilization,” they imposed strict limits, that is, they endowed the concept of civilization with a definition grounded in historical materialism. When using the term “civilization” to expound on issues of social civilization, they consistently applied the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism, embodying the Marxist view of civilization. By systematically sorting through the classic expositions, arguments, and theses of Marxism on the issue of social civilization, the author believes that the Marxist view of civilization mainly includes the following important viewpoints.

四、通过以上对马克思主义经典作家关于社会文明的经典阐述的综述，可以从中领悟到马克思主义经典作家关于人类社会文明的基本看法和观点，可以清楚地认识到他们是怎样运用唯物史观的基本原理和基本方法来分析、认识社会文明问题，进而阐发马克思主义文明观的。文明一词，从最广泛的意义上来说，可以有多种不同的用法，如东方文明、西方文明，古代文明、现代文明，工业文明、农业文明、游牧文明，奴隶社会文明、封建社会文明、资本主义社会文明、社会主义社会文明等；可以从不同的学科，如历史学、民族学、人类学、社会学、考古学等来使用；还可以有不同的所指、不同的内涵。马克思主义经典作家在使用“文明”一词时有着严格限定，即对文明概念赋予了唯物史观的界定，在使用“文明”用语阐述社会文明问题时，贯穿了唯物史观的立场、观点和方法，体现了马克思主义文明观。系统梳理马克思主义关于社会文明问题的经典论述、论据、论点，笔者认为马克思主义文明观主要有以下重要观点。

First, the nature, condition, and degree of social productive forces are the fundamental standard for understanding the emergence, development, nature, condition, and degree of human social civilization. The classical Marxist writers held that productive forces are the ultimate driving force of progress in human social civilization, that the masses of the people are the creators of social civilization, and that the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, is the true cause of progress in human social civilization. For example, Marx pointed out that “all progress in civilization,” in other words, is “all growth of social productive forces.” [21]21 Karl Marx, “Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 318. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a standard Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the original German meaning as given in the MECW.] Civilization is “the object created by the worker,” [22]22 Karl Marx, “Economic Manuscripts of 1861–63,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 34, p. 159. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a standard Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the original German meaning as given in the MECW.] and “in order not to lose the fruits of civilization, people are compelled to change all inherited social forms when their mode of commerce no longer corresponds to the acquired productive forces.” [23]23 Karl Marx, “Letter to P. V. Annenkov, 28 December 1846,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 38, p. 96. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a standard Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the original German meaning as given in the MECW.]

第一，社会生产力的性质、状况和程度是认识人类社会文明产生、发展及其性质、状况和程度的根本标准。马克思主义经典作家认为，生产力是人类社会文明进步的最终动力，人民群众是社会文明的创造者，生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑的矛盾运动是人类社会文明进步的真正原因。譬如，马克思指出，“文明的一切进步，或者换句话说”，就是“社会生产力的一切增长”。文明是“工人创造的对象”，“为了不致失掉文明的果实，人们在他们的交往［commerce］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”。

Second, to judge the nature, condition, and degree of a social civilization, one should first take the nature, condition, and degree of the social formation in which that social civilization is situated as the basic basis. Proceeding from the fundamental cause that the basic contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, gives rise to changes and developments in human society, following the principle of the general laws of the evolution and development of human social formations, and based on the “five social formations” doctrine—that human social formations develop from primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, and finally through the transition of socialist society to communist society (socialist society being the first stage of communist society)—the classical Marxist writers regarded human social civilization as a developmental process of “five social civilization formations”: primitive society originating civilization, slave society civilization, feudal society civilization, capitalist wage-labor system civilization, and communist public ownership social civilization (socialist ownership social civilization being the first stage of its development). This revealed the law of human social civilization continuously advancing from lower to higher levels.

第二，判断一个社会文明的性质、状况和程度，首先应该以该社会文明所处的社会形态的性质、状况和程度为基本依据。马克思主义经典作家从生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑的基本矛盾引起人类社会发展变化这一根本原因出发，遵循人类社会形态发展演变一般规律的原理，依据人类社会形态发展由原始社会、奴隶社会、封建社会、资本主义社会，最终经过社会主义社会过渡而发展至共产主义社会（社会主义社会是共产主义社会的第一阶段）的“五种社会形态”学说，把人类社会文明看成原始社会起源文明、奴隶制社会文明、封建制社会文明、资本主义雇佣劳动制社会文明、共产主义公有制社会文明（社会主义所有制社会文明是其发展的第一阶段）“五种社会文明形态”的发展进程，揭示了人类社会文明不断由低级向高级发展的规律。

Third, civilization is a historical category; one cannot use abstract, eternal, transhistorical “universal civilization” to measure the concrete social civilization formations of different classes, different countries, and different nations under different historical conditions. Proceeding from the relations of production determined by productive forces, from the totality of relations of production—that is, from the superstructure determined by the economic base, and from the nature and condition of ownership of the means of production and the nature and condition of the political superstructure—the classical Marxist writers scientifically classified and defined the concrete forms of social civilization at different stages of development of human social civilization with different natures and conditions. They regarded human social civilization as historical, concrete, and constantly developing and changing, holding that there has never existed an abstract, transhistorical, or “universal” social civilization. They held that social civilization is a social phenomenon and possesses sociality.

第三，文明是一个历史的范畴，不能用抽象的、永恒的、超历史的“普适文明”衡量不同历史条件下不同阶级、不同国家、不同民族的具体的社会文明形态。马克思主义经典作家从生产力所决定的生产关系，从生产关系总和，即从经济基础决定的上层建筑，从生产资料所有制的性质和状况、政治上层建筑的性质和状况出发，对人类社会文明的不同发展阶段的不同性质和状况的社会文明的具体形态进行科学的划分界定；把人类社会文明看作历史的、具体的、不断发展变化的，认为从来就不存在抽象的、超历史的、“普适”的社会文明；认为社会文明是社会现象，具有社会性。

Fourth, one must use the viewpoint and method of class and class struggle to analyze and understand the phenomena of social civilization in class society. The classical Marxist writers, applying the viewpoint of class struggle and the method of class analysis to analyze social civilization in class society, profoundly revealed that civilization in class-exploitative societies is a civilization built on the basis of class antagonism and class exploitation. They held that class struggle is the driving force of the development and progress of human social civilization since class society, and that the history of human social civilization since the dissolution of the public ownership system of primitive society is the history of class struggle. In class society, social civilization has a distinct class character; there is no supra-class social civilization. Therefore, class analysis must be applied to social civilization in class society. Marx and Engels regarded the emergence of classes and the state as the basic and primary sign of human society entering the “epoch of civilization.” Marx pointed out that civilization “is the quality of society.” [24]24 Karl Marx, “Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 479. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a standard Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the original German meaning as given in the MECW.] Sociality is the developmental characteristic of human civilization, and class character is the concentrated expression of the sociality of civilization in class society. Marx and Engels held that, from the “ancient civilization” of slave society beginning with the dissolution of the public ownership system of primitive society, to the “ancient civilization” of feudal society, and up to the “modern civilization” of capitalism, all were social civilizations of class exploitation and antagonism, whose foundation was “the exploitation of one class by another,” [25]25 Friedrich Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 189. and that “with every step forward in civilization, inequality also advances one step.” [26]26 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25, p. 147. “The state is the epitome of civilization,” [27]27 Friedrich Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 190. and “in all cases it is essentially a machine for suppressing the oppressed and exploited class.” [28]28 Friedrich Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 271. The antagonism and struggle between classes is the objective law that the development of civilization follows. As Comrade Mao Zedong stated in 1949 in “Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle”: “Class struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history, such is the history of civilization for thousands of years.” [29]29 Mao Zedong, “Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle,” *Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung*, vol. IV, p. 428. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a standard Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the official English translation.]

第四，要用阶级和阶级斗争的观点和方法分析、认识阶级社会的社会文明现象。马克思主义经典作家运用阶级斗争观点和阶级分析方法对阶级社会的社会文明进行分析，深刻揭示了阶级剥削社会的文明是建立在阶级对立和阶级剥削基础上的文明，认为阶级斗争是阶级社会以来人类社会文明发展进步的动力，自原始社会公有制解体以来的人类社会文明史就是阶级斗争的历史。在阶级社会中，社会文明有着鲜明的阶级性，不存在超阶级的社会文明，因而必须对阶级社会的社会文明进行阶级分析。马克思、恩格斯把阶级、国家的产生作为人类社会进入“文明时代”的基本的、主要的标志。马克思指出文明“是社会的素质”。社会性是人类文明的发展特性，阶级性是文明社会性在阶级社会的集中表现。马克思、恩格斯认为，从原始社会公有制解体以来的奴隶社会的“古代文明”开始，到封建社会的“古代文明”，一直到资本主义“现代文明”，都是阶级剥削与对立的社会文明，其基础都是“一个阶级对另一个阶级的剥削”，“文明每前进一步，不平等也同时前进一步”，“国家是文明社会的概括”，“在一切场合在本质上都是镇压被压迫被剥削阶级的机器”。阶级与阶级之间的对立与斗争就是文明发展遵循的客观规律。正如毛泽东同志1949年在《丢掉幻想，准备斗争》中所言：“阶级斗争，一些阶级胜利了，一些阶级消灭了。这就是历史，这就是几千年的文明史。”

Fifth, any social civilization is historically progressive compared to the preceding social civilization, and any social civilization formation will inevitably be replaced by a new social civilization formation. The classical Marxist writers, applying the most thorough historical dialectics, elucidated that any social civilization of a given social formation is historically progressive relative to the social civilization of the preceding social formation and has made contributions to the development of human social civilization. For example, Marx and Engels gave a dialectical evaluation of the progressiveness of capitalist social civilization: they affirmed “the great civilizing role of capital,” [30]30 Karl Marx, “Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 318. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a standard Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the original German meaning as given in the MECW.] but held that capitalist social civilization, built on the basis of the antagonism and struggle between the two major classes of capitalist society, is an “old civilization” that inevitably gives rise to the proletarian socialist revolution, and through the dictatorship of the proletariat (the political rule of the proletariat), is replaced by a new civilization formation—communist social civilization, a “truly universal civilization.” [31]31 Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France,” *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 22, p. 335. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a standard Chinese edition; the English rendering follows the original German meaning as given in the MECW.] They pointed out that the proletariat is the material force that buries the old class social civilization and creates a new social civilization, and scientifically foresaw the historical inevitability of the future new civilization of human society, that is, communist social civilization replacing capitalist social civilization.

第五，任何一个社会文明较之前一个社会文明都具有历史进步性，任何一个社会文明形态都必然为新的社会文明形态所取代。马克思主义经典作家运用最彻底的历史辩证法，阐明任何一个社会形态的社会文明相对前一个社会形态的社会文明都具有历史进步性，都对人类社会文明的发展作出了贡献。譬如，马克思、恩格斯对资本主义社会文明的进步性给予辩证评价：肯定了“资本的伟大的文明作用”；但认为建立在资本主义社会两大阶级对立与斗争基础上的资本主义社会文明是“旧的文明”，必然引起无产阶级社会主义革命，经过无产阶级专政（无产阶级的政治统治），而为新的文明形态——“真正的普遍的文明”——共产主义社会文明代替。他们指出无产阶级是埋葬旧的阶级社会文明、创建新社会文明的物质力量，科学地预见了人类社会未来新文明即共产主义社会文明代替资本主义社会文明的历史必然性。

Sixth, it is necessary to thoroughly criticize the idealist view of civilization in history. Standing on the ground of historical materialism, the classical Marxist writers thoroughly criticized the narrow idealist view of civilization held by some Western bourgeois politicians and scholars, who argued that human social civilization is a product of pure spirit, advocated a binary division of human social history into “barbarism–civilization,” claimed that pre-capitalist society was a “state of barbarism” and that “capitalist society is the endpoint of civilization,” and propagated the “Western-centric view of civilization.” For example, in his 1896 article “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man,” Engels criticized the erroneous view of certain bourgeois scholars that human reason and spirit are the ultimate driving forces of human civilization, and criticized the idealist view of civilization that attributes “rapidly advancing civilization” entirely “to the head, to the development and activity of the brain.” He pointed out that the historical activities that drive the progress of civilization should be based on the real material production and living “needs,” not on the thinking of a few individuals. The practical activity of production is the foundation of the progress of human civilization, and productive forces are the fundamental driving force for the progress of human social civilization. Civilization is an important category of historical materialism that marks, embodies, and summarizes the nature, state, and level of human social progress. The “clash of civilizations” theory trumpeted by Huntington today is a contemporary variant of the idealist view of civilization criticized by the classical Marxist writers. The transhistorical, abstract “clash of civilizations” theory obliterates the fact that the history of human civilization since class society is a history of class struggle, and attempts to replace the theory of class struggle. From the expositions of the classical Marxist writers, the basic content and basic views of the Marxist view of civilization can be clearly sorted out, namely, the Marxist general view and basic principles concerning social civilization. Although they did not give a clear definition of civilization, it can be seen from their expositions on issues of social civilization that civilization should be the mark, embodiment, and summary of the state, nature, and degree of human social progress. We must learn to use the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism to conduct a historical, concrete, dialectical, and class-based analysis and understanding of issues of social civilization.

第六，必须彻底批判历史唯心主义文明观。马克思主义经典作家站在唯物史观的立场上，彻底批判了一些西方资产阶级政治家和学者论证人类社会文明是纯粹精神的产物，主张人类社会文明史“野蛮-文明”二元划分论，鼓吹资本主义社会之前是“野蛮状况”、“资本主义社会是文明的终点”，宣扬“西方文明中心论”等资产阶级狭隘的历史唯心主义文明观。譬如，在1896年发表的《劳动在从猿到人的转变中的作用》一文中，恩格斯批判了某些资产阶级学者认为人的理性、精神是人类文明的最终动力的错误观点，批判了把“迅速前进的文明”完全“归功于头脑，归功于脑的发展和活动”的历史唯心主义文明观，指出推动文明进步的历史活动应该基于现实的物质生产生活“需求”，而不是少数人的思维。生产实践活动是人类文明进步的基础，生产力是推动人类社会文明进步的根本动力。文明是标志、体现、概括人类社会进步的性质、状况、水平的唯物史观的重要范畴。当今亨廷顿所鼓吹的“文明冲突论”，是马克思主义经典作家所批判的历史唯心主义文明观的当代变种。超历史的、抽象的“文明冲突论”抹杀了阶级社会以来的人类文明史就是阶级斗争的历史，企图代替阶级斗争的理论。从马克思主义经典作家的论述中，可以清楚地梳理出马克思主义文明观的基本内容和基本观点，即马克思主义关于社会文明的总的看法和基本原理。虽然他们没有给予文明明确的定义，但是从他们涉及社会文明问题的论述中可以看出，文明应当是人类社会进步的状况、性质和程度的标志、体现和概括。我们必须学会运用唯物史观的立场、观点、方法，对社会文明问题作历史的、具体的、辩证的、阶级的分析和认识。

Source: *Philosophical Research*, Issue 1, 2025

文章来源：《哲学研究》2025年第1期

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆