The Meaning of Marx’s Concept of “World History”

Compared to Hegel’s advocacy of understanding world history “philosophically,” Marx completed the concept of “world history” at the level of practice and sensuous activity, advocating an understanding of world history starting from the activity of “real individuals.” He held that only when real world history itself is a dialectical process can the conceptual understanding, as the ideological reflection of that process, be dialectical. Through the innovation and reconstruction of Hegel’s concept of “world history,” Marx achieved an innovation in the principle of historical interpretation, endowing the concept of “world history” with new meaning.

相比黑格尔主张“哲学地”理解世界历史，马克思则完成了实践、感性活动层面的“世界历史”概念，主张从“现实的人”的活动出发来理解世界历史，认为只有现实的世界历史本身是一个辩证的过程，作为该过程的思想反映的观念认识才是辩证的。马克思通过对黑格尔“世界历史”概念的革新与重构，实现了历史解释原则的创新，赋予“世界历史”概念新的意义。

World history is the process of the birth of humanity through human labor

世界历史是人通过人的劳动而诞生的过程

Marx pointed out that Hegel “merely found an abstract, logical, speculative expression for the movement of history. This history is not yet the real history of man as a presupposed subject, but only the act of production, the history of the genesis of man.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 332. Translation modified. On the one hand, Hegel grasped only the thought-essence of man and nature, understanding history not from reality but from an absolute, unchanging abstract entity. On the other hand, Hegel took the abstraction of man—self-consciousness—as the subject of world history, believing that world history, as the dialectical process of spirit, was merely the externalization of self-consciousness and its sublation. Thus, Hegel’s understanding of world history always remained within the interior of thinking consciousness; the real history, with “real individuals” as its subject, existing as the absolute exterior of consciousness, had yet to be truly understood. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx stated: “The entire so-called world history is nothing but the process of the birth of man through human labor, the process of the coming-to-be of nature for man.” [2]2 Ibid., p. 305. This manuscript’s theory of alienation, taking man’s species-being as its starting point, reflects the extent to which Hegel influenced Marx, albeit mediated by Feuerbach; the real logic, taking the objective being engaged in objective activity as its starting point, reflects the extent to which Marx surpassed Hegel, albeit expressed in a concealed form.

马克思指出，黑格尔“只是为历史的运动找到抽象的、逻辑的、思辨的表达，这种历史还不是作为一个当作前提的主体的人的现实历史，而只是人的产生的活动、人的形成的历史”。一方面，黑格尔仅仅抓住人和自然的思想本质，不是从现实而是从绝对的、不变的抽象实体出发理解历史。另一方面，黑格尔把人的抽象即自我意识当作世界历史的主体，认为作为精神辩证历程的世界历史只不过是自我意识的外化及其扬弃。可见，黑格尔对世界历史的理解始终停留在思维意识的内部，作为意识的绝对外部、以“现实的人”为主体的现实的历史尚未得到真正的理解。马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中指出：“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。”这部手稿以人的类本质为出发点的异化史观体现了黑格尔在何种程度上影响了马克思，尽管其中经过了费尔巴哈的中介；以进行对象性活动的对象性存在物为出发点的现实逻辑体现了马克思在何种程度上超越了黑格尔，尽管只是以隐蔽的形式表现出来。

On the one hand, Marx accepted Feuerbach’s concept of species-being, holding that man is a species-being, and that free, conscious activity—labor—is man’s species-essence. However, under the rule of private property, human labor is no longer free and conscious labor but alienated labor. Private property is both the basis and cause of alienated labor, and also its result. In the relationship of private property, the autonomous activity and free activity that are the very life activity of man are degraded into a means, regarded as unfree activity serving others, dominated by others, and under the coercion and suppression of others. Communism, which is “a necessary link in the next stage of historical development,” [3]3 Ibid., p. 306. is the positive sublation of private property—that is, of man’s self-alienation—and is the return of man to his species-essence through the negation of alienated labor. In this sense, saying that world history is the process of the birth of man through human labor is merely saying that world history is the process of the alienation of human labor and the sublation of that alienation. Although Marx had already reduced world history to the history of man, understanding world history as the process of the self-alienation of man’s species-essence and its sublation—a negation of the negation—still followed the speculative logic of Hegel’s “theory of alienation and return.”

一方面，马克思接受了费尔巴哈的类概念，认为人是类存在物，自由的有意识的活动即劳动是人的类本质。然而，在私有财产的统治之下，人的劳动不再是自由自觉的劳动而是异化劳动。私有财产既是异化劳动的根据和原因，又是异化劳动的结果。在私有财产关系中，作为人的生命活动本身的自主活动、自由活动被贬低为手段，被看作替他人服务的、受他人支配的、处于他人的强迫和压制之下的不自由活动。“对下一段历史发展来说是必然的环节”的共产主义，是对私有财产即人的自我异化的积极扬弃，是人否定异化劳动、实现自己类本质的复归。在这个意义上，说世界历史是人通过人的劳动而诞生的过程，只不过是在说世界历史是人的劳动的异化及其异化的扬弃的过程。尽管马克思已经将世界历史归结为人的历史，但是把世界历史理解为人的类本质的自我异化及其扬弃的否定之否定的过程，遵循的依然是黑格尔“异化复归论”的思辨逻辑。

On the other hand, Marx accepted Hegel’s concept of alienation, distinguishing between alienated labor and objectified labor. In Marx’s view, real labor has both a positive and a negative significance. From the negative aspect, real labor is alienated labor, labor that should be abolished and eliminated; from the positive aspect, real labor is objectified labor, the transformation and utilization of nature by humanity, the natural foundation of human existence and development, and therefore never to be abolished. Hence, saying that labor is the essence of man means not only that man is a free, conscious being, but also that man is an objective being engaged in objective activity. In this sense, the world history born through human labor is nothing but the history of man’s objective activity. Furthermore, the objectification of man’s essential powers not only makes human senses human, but also creates human senses corresponding to the full richness of man’s essence and nature’s essence. Therefore, “the formation of the five senses is the product of all world history up to the present.” [4]4 Ibid., p. 301.

另一方面，马克思接受了黑格尔的异化概念，区分了异化劳动和对象化劳动。在马克思看来，现实的劳动既具有肯定的意义，又具有否定的意义。从否定的方面看，现实的劳动是异化劳动，是应该被废除、被消灭的劳动；从肯定的方面看，现实的劳动是对象化的劳动，是人类对自然界的改造和利用，是人类生存和发展的自然基础，因此永远不能废除。因此，说劳动是人的本质，不仅意味着人是自由自觉的存在物，还意味着人是进行对象性活动的对象性存在物。在这个意义上，人通过人的劳动而诞生的世界历史，不过是人的对象性活动的历史。另外，人的本质力量的对象化不仅使人的感觉成为人的，而且创造出同人的本质和自然界的本质的全部丰富性相适应的人的感觉。因此，“五官感觉的形成是迄今为止全部世界历史的产物”。

World history is the history of the evolution of humanity’s material production practice

世界历史是人类物质生产实践的演变历史

In *The German Ideology*, Marx achieved a great transformation in his philosophical outlook through a settling of accounts with the entire German ideology and his own former philosophical faith, which was an innovation in the principle of historical interpretation. This principle is clearly expressed as: not to explain practice from ideas, but to explain the formation of ideas from material practice. This principle means that “empirical observation must in every case bring to light, empirically and without any mystification or speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production.” [5]5 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 35. Accordingly, Marx no longer understood world history through the alienation and return of a transcendental species-essence of man, but rather started from real individuals to understand world history. Marx held that the existence of real individuals is the first premise of all human history, a real premise that “can be verified in a purely empirical way” and “can be disregarded only in imagination.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 31. Real individuals are those engaged in material production; they are not abstract men or “man in general,” but concrete men. Individuals are those who engage in activity and material production, but they do so under definite material conditions, limits, and premises that are not subject to their arbitrary will. Their activity is both limited by existing material conditions of life and by the material conditions of life created by their own activity. Therefore, real individuals can only be produced from the study of the real life process and activity of individuals in each epoch, and cannot be universally provided. Real individuals are those engaged in actual productive activity under definite social relations, not abstract, illusory individuals living in isolation. Real individuals are first of all natural beings of flesh and blood with life, who at all times require means of subsistence such as food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. However, the natural state of nature cannot satisfy these needs. To survive, real individuals must necessarily engage in the practice of material production.

马克思在《德意志意识形态》中通过对德国的整个意识形态以及自己哲学信仰的清算实现的哲学观上的伟大变革，是对历史解释原则的一次创新。这一原则被明确表述为：不是从观念出发来解释实践，而是从物质实践出发来解释观念的形成。这一原则意味着，“经验的观察在任何情况下都应当根据经验来揭示社会结构和政治结构同生产的联系，而不应当带有任何神秘和思辨的色彩”。据此，马克思不再通过人的先验类本质的异化与复归来理解世界历史，而是从现实的个人出发来理解世界历史。马克思认为，现实的个人存在是全部人类历史的第一个前提，是“只有在想象中才能撇开”，“可以用纯粹经验的方法来确认”的现实前提。现实的个人是从事物质生产活动的人，不是抽象的人或“一般人”，而是具体的人。个人是从事活动和进行物质生产的，但是在一定的物质的、不受他们任意支配的界限、前提和条件下活动。他们的活动既受已有的物质生活条件限制，又受由他们自己的活动创造出来的物质生活条件限制。因此，现实的个人只能从对每个时代的个人的现实生活过程和活动的研究中产生，而根本不能普遍地提供出来。现实的个人是处于一定社会关系下从事实际的生产活动的人，而不是离群索居的抽象的、虚幻的人。现实的个人首先是有血有肉有生命的自然存在，任何时候都需要吃穿住行等生活资料。然而，自然界的天然状态并不能满足人的这些需要。现实的个人为了生存，必然要从事物质资料的生产实践。

Starting from real individuals, the first historical act is the production of the means to satisfy these needs—that is, the production of material life itself. Material production activity is the first historical act of humanity; that is, all history is first of all not the history of thought but the history of production. It is not thought, ideas, or consciousness that make history history, but the material production activity of people that gives them a history. On this basis, the first need itself, once satisfied, the activity of satisfying it, and the instruments already acquired for satisfying it, give rise to new needs. Furthermore, simultaneous with material production is the production of human beings themselves—reproduction—which is “the third relation that enters into historical development from the very beginning.” [7]7 Ibid., p. 43. It is precisely on the basis of the production of human beings that relations between people arise; with the increase of new needs, such relations become relations subordinate to relations of production. Accordingly, the production of life—both the production of material means and the production of human beings themselves—immediately appears as a twofold relation: a natural relation and a social relation, which are closely interconnected. A definite natural relation—a stage of development of productive forces—is always linked to a definite social relation—a stage of development of society. Marx took the relation of material production as the basic, determining relation, while at the same time reducing relations of production to the state of productive forces, and then studied how relations of production constantly change their form with the development of productive forces. Through the concretization of this new principle of historical interpretation, Marx held that world history “is a completely material, empirically verifiable act, an act which every individual living a practical life, needing to eat, drink, and clothe himself, can verify.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 51. Therefore, world history is essentially the history of material production practice—that is, all history from ancient times to the present, including both natural history and human history, which are closely connected.

从现实的个人出发，第一个历史活动就是生产满足人们生存需要的资料即生产物质生活本身的活动。物质生产活动是人类历史的一个活动，即是说，一切历史首先不是思想史而是生产史。不是思想、观念、意识让历史成为历史，而是人们的物质生产活动才让人们有了历史。在此基础上，已经得到满足的第一个需要本身、满足需要的活动和已经获得的为满足需要而使用的工具又引起新的需要。此外，与物质生产同时进行的还有人的生产，即繁殖是“一开始就进入历史发展过程的第三种关系”。正是在人的生产的基础上产生了人和人的关系，随着新需要的增多，这样的关系成为了从属于生产关系的关系。据此，生命的生产，包括物质资料的生产和人本身的生产，立即表现为双重的关系，即自然关系和社会关系，二者紧密相连，一定的自然关系即生产力的发展阶段总是与一定的社会关系即社会发展阶段相联系。马克思把物质生产关系当作基本的决定性关系，同时又把生产关系归结为生产力的状况，进而研究生产关系如何随着生产力的发展而不断改变其形式。通过历史解释新原则的具体化，马克思认为，世界历史“是完全物质的、可以通过经验证明的行动，每一个过着实际生活的、需要吃、喝、穿的个人都可以证明这种行动”。因此，世界历史本质上是物质生产实践的历史，即人类从古至今所有的历史，既包括自然史，也包括人类史，两者是密切相连的。

World history is the history of the expansion of the capitalist mode of production

世界历史是资本主义生产方式扩展的历史

Marx speaks of world history both in a broad sense, as the history of material productive practice, and in a specific sense, as the history of the expansion of the capitalist mode of production. Marx believes that capital initially manifests itself as private property, and the rule of private property generally begins with the occupation of land. Under the feudal system of land ownership, the rule of landed property does not yet directly appear as the mere rule of capital; the mere rule of capital is still obscured by the warm personal appearance between the owner and his property and the romantic aura between the nobility and their fiefs. Precisely because “the people belonging to this piece of land treat it rather as they would their own fatherland,” [9]9 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 68. the history of humanity in this period is necessarily a history of narrow locality and nationality. It is only with the continuous development of the division of labor that capital gradually separates itself from landed property. The existence and development of capital independent of landed property begins with the separation of town and country. The separation of town and country is the greatest division of material and mental labor, and at the same time the separation of capital from land, the beginning of an ownership system based solely on labor and exchange. In Marx’s view, in the cities of the late European Middle Ages, capital had already gained an independent form of development within the guilds, with a small division of labor internally and a certain degree of intercourse externally. However, this capital within the guilds was still “naturally evolved capital,” [10]10 Ibid., p. 72. composed of housing, hand tools, and naturally formed, hereditary customers. Because it had not completely shaken off the fetters of feudal relations and was still limited by the division of labor and exchange, it could not truly break through local restrictions and establish worldwide connections.

马克思既在广泛的意义上谈论世界历史，即物质生产实践的历史，又在特定的意义上谈论世界历史，即世界历史是资本主义生产方式扩展的历史。马克思认为，资本最初体现为私有财产，私有财产的统治一般是从土地占有开始。在封建土地占有制之下，地产的统治还不是直接表现为单纯的资本的统治，资本的单纯统治依然被所有者与其财产之间温情脉脉的人格外观和贵族与领地之间浪漫主义的灵光所掩盖。正因“属于这块地产的人们对待这块地产毋宁说就像对待自己的祖国一样”，这一时期的人类历史必然是狭隘的地域性民族性的历史。随着分工的不断发展，资本才逐渐从地产中分离出来。资本不依赖于地产而存在和发展开始于城市与乡村的分离。城市与乡村的分离是物质劳动和精神劳动最大的一次分工，同时是资本和土地的分离，是仅仅以劳动和交换为基础的所有制的开始。在马克思看来，在欧洲中世纪晚期的城市里，资本已在行会中获得了独立的发展形式，在其内部已有少量的分工，在外部也有了一定的交往。然而，这些行会中的资本还是“自然形成的资本”，由住房、手工劳动工具和自然形成的世代相袭的主顾组成，因为没有完全摆脱封建关系的束缚，还受到分工、交换的限制，所以不可能真正打破地方性限制而建立起世界性联系。

With the further expansion of the division of labor and the further separation of production and intercourse, a special class, the merchants, was formed. “The first step beyond the naturally evolved estate capital was taken by the emergence of the merchants.” [11]11 Ibid., p. 73. Merchant capital is the result of the separation of production and intercourse. Compared with estate capital, it possesses greater mobility, which leads to the possibility of establishing trade with regions beyond the immediate vicinity. The development of means of transport, the stabilization of political relations, and the relatively developed demand within the areas reached by intercourse turned this possibility into reality. If merchant capital was only the beginning of breaking the initial local limitations, then the emergence of industrial capital completely shattered the narrow limitations of locality and nationality. Industrial capital “does away with all naturally evolved characteristics (as far as this is possible within the sphere of labor) and transforms all naturally evolved relationships into money relationships.” [12]12 Ibid., p. 74. Industrial capital is “liberated capital,” [13]13 Ibid., p. 73. capital in its completed form, the most active and truly “modern capital.”

随着分工的进一步扩大，生产和交往的进一步分离，形成了商人这一特殊阶级。“越过自然形成的等级资本而向前迈出的第一步，是由商人的出现所促成的”。商人资本是生产和交往分离的结果，同等级资本相比，具有更大的流动性，由此导致了同邻近地区以外的地区建立贸易的可能性。交通工具的发展、政治关系的稳定以及交往所及地区内比较发达的需求使这种可能性变成了现实。如果说商人资本只是打破最初地域局限性的开始，那么工业资本的出现则彻底打破了那种狭隘的地域性民族性的局限。工业资本“把自然形成的性质一概消灭掉（只要在劳动的范围内有可能做到这一点），它还把所有自然形成的关系变成货币的关系”。工业资本是“获得自由的资本”，是完成了的资本，是最具活动性和真正意义上的“现代资本”。

The irresistible power of purchase that capital possesses dominates not only labor and its products, but also the capitalist himself. “It creates a world after its own image.” [14]14 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), p. 54. From the perspective of the evolution of world history, Marx once referred to the history before capitalism as “prehistory,” [15]15 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), p. 21. that is, the period when each nation relatively isolatedly developed its own local history. “The more capital develops, the more the market on which it circulates, the market that constitutes the spatial path of capital’s circulation, expands, the more capital simultaneously strives to expand the market spatially and to annihilate space with time.” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 539. As local and national productive practices are all incorporated into the capitalist production system, history truly transforms into world history. Marx mostly uses the concept of world history in the sense of the expansion of the capitalist mode of production, thus pointing out that world history is “a summary of the most general results abstracted from the observation of the historical development of mankind.” [17]17 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*, p. 37.

资本具有的那种不可抗拒的购买的权力不仅支配着劳动及其产品，也支配着资本家本身。“它按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界。”从世界历史演进来看，马克思曾把资本主义之前的历史称为“史前史”，亦即各个民族相对孤立地发展着自己的地方性历史。“资本越发展，从而资本借以流通的市场，构成资本空间流通道路的市场越扩大，资本同时也就越是力求在空间上更加扩大市场，力求用时间去更多地消灭空间”。随着地方性的、民族性的生产实践都被纳入资本主义生产体系之中，历史真正转变为世界历史。马克思多是在资本主义生产方式扩展的意义上使用世界历史概念的，因而指出世界历史是“对人类历史发展的考察中抽象出来的最一般的结果的概括”。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗