The Logical Levels of Marx’s Category of World History

In the view of Marx and Engels, individuals existing only locally can establish rich connections with world history directly as individuals with a world-historical existence only by integrating into the grand pattern of universal intercourse in the world.

在马克思恩格斯看来，地域性存在的个人只有融入普遍交往的世界大格局之中，才能作为世界历史性存在的个人而直接与世界历史建立丰富联系。

The world today is an “integrated world” in the midst of universal intercourse. With the continuous deepening and expansion of human intercourse, Marx’s scientific prediction that “history becomes world history” has already been confirmed by the present “integrated world.” As a fundamental principle of Marxism, the scientific thought of “world history” has likewise moved from the hidden background to the prominent foreground, increasingly becoming an important theoretical issue of great concern. The category of “world history” in the textual context of Marx and Engels possesses multiple connotations. We must clarify their logical levels and internal connections in order to grasp more accurately the theoretical essence and practical significance of Marx’s category of “world history” as a form of thought.

当今世界是普遍交往中的“一体化的世界”。随着人类交往的不断深入扩展，马克思关于“历史成为世界历史”的科学预言已经被当今“一体化的世界”所证实。作为马克思主义基本原理的科学“世界历史”思想同样从隐秘的幕后走向显耀的前台，越发成为备受关注的重要理论议题。“世界历史”范畴在马克思恩格斯文本语境中具有多重内涵，我们需要厘清它们的逻辑层次及其内在关联，才能更加准确地把握作为思想形态的马克思“世界历史”范畴的理论本质与实践意义。

“World-historical significance” as opposed to “local significance.” The founders of Marxism once used the category of “world history” at a level contrasting with the local, regional, or national. In the essay “The Condition of England,” Engels argued that the various nations on the European continent all faced the actual circumstances of poverty and social oppression, but these did not exert a positive influence on the development of the nations; rather, “the poverty and misery of the modern English working class have a national significance, indeed a world-historical significance.” [1]1 This quotation is from Marx’s *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), where he discusses the historical emergence of world history as a product of capitalist development, not as a given from the start. In Engels’s view, unlike the hierarchical poverty of the past, the poverty of the English workers was caused by modern large-scale industry, through which the bourgeoisie rules the world. It can be said that the poverty of the working class to a certain extent achieved the myth of the British Empire as “the empire on which the sun never sets.”

相较于“地域性意义”的“世界历史意义”。马克思主义创始人曾在相较于地方性、地域性或民族性的层面使用“世界历史”范畴。在《英国状况》一文中，恩格斯认为欧洲大陆上各个民族都面临贫困和社会压迫的现实境遇，但它们并没有对民族的发展产生积极影响，而“现代英国工人阶级的贫困和穷苦却具有全国性意义，甚至具有世界历史意义”。在恩格斯看来，跟历史上的等级贫困不一样，英国工人的贫困是由资产阶级借以统治世界的现代大工业生产造成的，可以说，工人阶级的贫困在某种程度上成就了大英帝国“日不落”的神话。

In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels expounded on the fate of the Hegelian philosophical system facing disintegration in Germany. Those who “made philosophy their profession” and “lived off the absolute spirit” engaged in fierce competition among themselves for philosophical discourse, and this struggle “was trumpeted up and conceived as a transformation of world-historical significance, a factor that produced extremely significant results and achievements.” [2] At that time, German intellectual circles elevated these utterly useless trivialities “to the heavens,” and they “wanted to use such insignificant explanations to make discoveries of world-historical significance.” [3] In fact, the disintegration of the Hegelian philosophical system could only arouse minimal doubt or concern among the German nation, and “for Germany this had only local significance.” [4] Marx and Engels used “world-historical significance” at a level corresponding to “local significance” or “national significance.” Through this, they made an objective assessment of the widespread ideological critique or philosophical critique prevalent in Germany at the time and its significance, and in fact they were also thoroughly settling accounts with their own past idealist notion of “the philosophizing of the world simultaneously as the worlding of philosophy.”

在《德意志意识形态》中马克思恩格斯阐述了黑格尔哲学体系在德国面临解体的命运，那些“以哲学为业”“以经营绝对精神为生”的人们彼此之间为了争夺哲学话语而产生激烈竞争，而这个斗争“却被吹嘘和构想成一种具有世界历史意义的变革，一种产生了十分重大的结果和成就的因素”。当时的德国思想界把这些毫无作用的卑微琐事“被捧上了天”，他们“想用这样一些微不足道的说明作出具有世界历史意义的发现”。其实，黑格尔哲学体系走向解体，只会在德意志民族中间产生极小的怀疑或顾虑，并且这“对德国来说也只有地域性的意义”。马克思恩格斯在与“地域性意义”或“民族性意义”相对应的层面使用“世界历史意义”，他们借此对当时德国广泛流行的思想批判或哲学批判及其意义做出客观评价，实际上也是在彻底清算他们过去关于“世界的哲学化同时也就是哲学的世界化”的唯心主义观念。

“World history” born in human labor. Marx and Engels once used the concept of “world history” in the sense of the philosophy of history of “universal history,” with a connotation equivalent to “all history,” “the whole world,” or “human history.” How is the entire history of humanity born? This is an important question that many philosophers have long pursued and sought to answer. In Hegel, “all history” and “world history” are synonymous; they are merely the process through which the “universal spirit” realizes itself in the movement of contradiction. As the Hegelian system disintegrated, Feuerbach raised the banner of materialism, proclaiming the end of classical German philosophy. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx held that “history itself is a real part of natural history, a real part of the process of nature’s becoming human.” [5] Consequently, Marx further pointed out that “the whole so-called world history is nothing but the birth of man through human labor, nothing but the coming-to-be of nature for man.” [6] The scientific assertion that humanity creates the whole of “world history” through labor shows that Marx had already transcended Feuerbach’s mode of “sensuous intuition” and was moving toward the scientific practical view of “sensuous activity.” Marx’s scientific assertion about “labor creating world history” actually already surpassed Feuerbach’s materialism of “sensuous intuition,” because Marx already regarded the form of labor itself as a developmental process of historical evolution. Pre-capitalist regional manual labor created a “discrete world history”; capitalist socialized machine-based large-scale industry created an “alienated world history”; only communist “self-activity” can create a truly “universally free world history.” Marx examined “world history” as the process of the generation of all human history from the perspective of combining naturalism with the labor view of history. This was a crucial step for Marx toward a materialist conception of world history.

在人类劳动中诞生的“世界历史”。马克思恩格斯曾在“普遍史”的历史哲学意义上使用“世界历史”概念，内涵等同于“全部历史”“整个世界”“人类历史”。整个人类的全部历史是如何诞生的？这是众多哲学家长期追问并力图作出解答的重要问题。在黑格尔那里，“整个历史”与“世界历史”是同义语，它们只是“普遍精神”在矛盾运动中借以实现自身的过程。随着黑格尔体系走向解体，费尔巴哈高举唯物主义旗帜，宣誓德国古典哲学走向历史的终结。马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中认为，“历史本身是自然史的一个现实部分，即自然界生成为人这一过程的一个现实部分”。因而，马克思进一步指出，“整个所谓世界历史不外是人通过人的劳动而诞生的过程，是自然界对人来说的生成过程”。人类通过劳动创造整个“世界历史”的科学论断，表明马克思已经超越费尔巴哈的“感性直观”思维方式，正在通向“感性活动”的科学实践观。马克思关于“劳动创造世界历史”的科学论断实际上已经超越了费尔巴哈“感性直观”的唯物主义，因为马克思已经把劳动形态本身看作一个历史演进的发展过程。前资本主义时代的地域性手工劳动创造了“离散性的世界历史”，资本主义的社会化机器大生产创造了“异化的世界历史”，共产主义的“自主活动”才能创造真正“普遍自由的世界历史”。马克思从自然主义与劳动史观相结合的视角去考察作为人类全部历史生成过程的“世界历史”，这是马克思迈向唯物主义世界历史观的关键一环。

“World history” of universal intercourse as a form of thought. The category of “world history” as a form of thought mainly refers to the process of transformation from national history to world history, that is, the process of transformation from primitive closed regional intercourse to open and interconnected global intercourse. The discrete world is gradually connected into an organic and interconnected whole. Marx clearly pointed out: “The more the spheres of mutual interaction expand in this process of development, the more the original closed state of each nation is destroyed by the increasingly perfected mode of production, by intercourse, and

作为思想形态的普遍交往的“世界历史”。作为思想形态的“世界历史”范畴主要是指从民族历史向世界历史转变的过程，也即是从原始封闭的地域性交往向开放联动的世界性交往的转变过程，离散性的世界逐渐被连接成一个有机联动的整体。马克思明确指出，“各个相互影响的活动范围在这个发展进程中越是扩大，各民族的原始封闭状态由于日益完善的生产方式、交往以及因交往而自然形成的不同民族之间的分工消灭得越是彻底，历史也就越是成为世界历史”。马克思关于“历史成为世界历史”的经典表述，是站在彻底的唯物论立场和科学的实践观基础上得出的科学结论。

In Marx’s view, only large-scale machine industry could rapidly eliminate “the naturally formed state of seclusion and self-sufficiency of each country,” enabling the satisfaction of the needs of every civilized country to depend on the entire world. In this sense, large-scale industry “for the first time opened up world history.” This marks that the concrete referent of Marx’s concept of “world history” had already shifted from abstract human “universal history,” “all history,” “the whole history,” or “the entire world” to “world intercourse” or “universal intercourse” bearing the characteristics of the capitalist era. In Marx and Engels’ view, individuals existing in a localized form could only establish rich connections with world history as individuals existing in a world-historical sense by integrating into the great pattern of a world of universal intercourse. Marx and Engels also pointed out that “only when intercourse becomes world intercourse and is based on large-scale industry, and only when all nations are drawn into the struggle of competition, is the preservation of the productive forces that have been created ensured.” It can be seen that, in their view, “history becoming world history” and “intercourse becoming world intercourse” are in fact synonymous; they essentially express the same content, and both take the development of large-scale industry as their real premise.

在马克思看来，只有机器大工业才能迅速消灭“各国以往自然形成的闭关自守的状态”，才能使每个文明国家的需要的满足都依赖于整个世界，从这个意义上讲，大工业“首次开创了世界历史”。这标志着马克思“世界历史”概念的具体所指已经从抽象的人类“普遍历史”“全部历史”“整个历史”或“整个世界”转向具有资本主义时代特征的“世界交往”或“普遍交往”。在马克思恩格斯看来，地域性存在的个人只有融入普遍交往的世界大格局之中，才能作为世界历史性存在的个人而直接与世界历史建立丰富联系。马克思恩格斯还指出，“只有当交往成为世界交往并且以大工业为基础的时候，只有当一切民族都卷入竞争斗争的时候，保持已创造出来的生产力才有了保障”。可见，在他们那里，“历史成为世界历史”与“交往成为世界交往”实际上是同义语，它们在本质上表达的是同一内容，它们都是以大工业的发展作为现实前提的。

We need to recognize that, although Marx’s category of “world history” as an ideological form is neither “world history” in the sense of historiography nor “universal history” in the sense of general philosophy of history, the two undoubtedly participated in the process of elucidating and elevating the category of “world history” as an ideological form. If Marx and Engels had not possessed a large amount of “world history” material compiled from national histories, and especially if they had not possessed Britain’s rich “social history” material, they could not have established scientific principles for explaining the real historical process “from a standpoint outside Germany,” and the process of demonstrating “history’s transformation into world history” and “intercourse becoming world intercourse” would have lacked sufficient “empirical facts” as empirical support. Marx’s thought on “world history” could not have been elevated from the level of philosophy of history and the level of empirical science to the level of historical science.

我们需要看到，作为思想形态的马克思“世界历史”范畴虽然不是编撰学意义上的“世界史”，也不是一般历史哲学意义上的“普遍史”，但二者无疑参与了作为思想形态的“世界历史”范畴的阐发与升华过程。如果马克思恩格斯不占有大量关于国别史汇编而成的“世界史”资料，尤其是不占有英国丰富的“社会史”资料，他们就不可能“站在德国以外的立场上”确立起解释现实历史过程的科学原则，而“历史向世界历史转变”与“交往成为世界交往”的论证过程就会缺乏足够的“经验事实”作为实证支撑，马克思“世界历史”思想就不可能从历史哲学层面与实证科学层面升华到历史科学层面。

As a form of thought, Marx’s category of “world history” refers mainly to the way in which capitalist modern large-scale industry pushes humanity from closed and dispersed regional intercourse toward open and interconnected universal intercourse, causing the living conditions, class structures, development paths, and spatiotemporal orders of various nations to undergo major changes that are unavoidable. Marx once said, “World history has not always existed”; “history as world history is a result.” [1]1 This quotation is from Marx’s *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), where he discusses the historical emergence of world history as a product of capitalist development, not as a given from the start. Thus, Marx’s thought on world history is precisely a thought concerning the “historical fact” and “developmental process” by which closed national history or dispersed regional history turns into the world history of universal intercourse. In the “developmental process” of this “historical fact,” the mode of production controlled by the logic of capital gradually links the relatively closed and dispersed nations of the world into an organic and interconnected whole; the activities of “real individuals” and their communities expand into world-historical activities, increasingly subject to the order of intercourse governed by the capitalist world market. On this basis, Marx and Engels exploratorily answered such major epochal questions as “Where should humanity go?”, “What kind of good world should humanity build?”, and “How should humanity build a good world?” The universal intercourse established by the bourgeoisie through free competition is a great revolution—or rather, “history becoming world history” and “intercourse becoming world intercourse” constitute a great revolution of epoch-making significance. Yet this great revolution is also an “unfinished undertaking”; the bourgeoisie is merely the “unconscious tool of history” in driving this great revolution, and only the modern proletariat can assume the historical mission of reconstructing the order of world intercourse.

作为思想形态的马克思“世界历史”范畴主要指资本主义现代大工业推动人类从封闭离散的地域交往迈向开放联动的普遍交往，使各民族的生存境遇、阶级结构、发展道路、时空秩序等方面都不可避免地发生重大变革。马克思曾说，“世界史不是过去一直存在的”，“作为世界史的历史是结果”。可见，马克思“世界历史”思想就是关于封闭的民族历史或离散的地域历史转向普遍交往的世界历史的“历史事实”与“发展过程”的思想。在这一“历史事实”的“发展过程”中，资本逻辑操控的生产方式逐渐把相对封闭离散的世界各民族日益连接为一个有机联动的整体，“现实的人”及其共同体的活动扩大为世界历史性的活动，越发受到资本主义世界市场的交往秩序所支配。马克思恩格斯在此基础上探索性回答了“人类应该向何处去”“人类应该建立一个什么样的美好世界”“人类应该怎样建立一个美好世界”等重大时代课题。资产阶级在自由竞争中建立起的世界普遍交往是一场伟大革命，或者说，“历史成为世界历史”与“交往成为世界交往”是一场具有划时代意义的伟大革命，但这场伟大革命又是一项“未竟事业”，资产阶级只是推动这场伟大革命的“历史的不自觉的工具”，只有现代无产阶级才能承担起重建世界交往秩序的历史使命。

It should be pointed out that the theoretical content of Marx’s category of “world history” does not evolve in a straight line logically; in many of Marx and Engels’s works, these contents are used in a mixed and overlapping manner. This requires us to engage in deep reading based on the specific textual context in order to profoundly grasp the rich content and internal connections of Marx’s category of “world history” as a form of thought, and to strive for the inner unity of academic interpretation and textual logic.

需要指出的是，马克思的“世界历史”范畴的理论内涵在逻辑上并不是直线演进的，它们在马克思恩格斯的许多著作中是杂糅并用的，这需要我们根据具体文本语境进行深度阅读，才能深刻领会作为思想形态的马克思“世界历史”范畴的丰富内涵及其内在关联，努力做到学术解读和文本逻辑的内在统一。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心