A Visual Analysis of Research on the British Modernization Process in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*

Engels’s examination of the British modernization process in *The Condition of the Working Class in England* begins with the Industrial Revolution. As the first country to undergo the Industrial Revolution, Britain’s modernization process clearly presents a deep interaction between industrialization and urbanization. The development of industrialization inevitably brings about urbanization, which in turn promotes the development of industrialization. Capitalist large-scale industry created enormous productive forces, broke down regional and national restrictions, and inaugurated world history, but modernization driven by the logic of capital inevitably produces social contradictions. This article, based on the classic text *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, analyzes the spatiotemporal characteristics of British modernization from diachronic and synchronic perspectives, uses detailed data and historical records to present the evolutionary picture of British modernization that Engels observed at the time, and, by distilling the paradoxes in the British modernization process that Engels revealed in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, grasps the transcendence of Chinese-path modernization over Western modernization.

恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中对英国现代化进程的考察是从工业革命开始的。作为最先发生工业革命的国家，英国的现代化进程清晰呈现出工业化和城市化的深度互动。工业化的发展必然带来城市化，城市化又反过来促进工业化的发展。资本主义大工业生产创造了巨大的生产力，打破了地域性、民族性的限制，开启了世界历史，但资本逻辑驱动下的现代化必然产生社会矛盾。本文以《英国工人阶级状况》这一经典文献为依据，从历时性和共时性的角度对英国现代化的时空特征进行分析，运用翔实的数据和历史记录来呈现恩格斯当时所观察到的英国现代化演进图景，通过提炼恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中揭示的英国现代化进程中的悖论，以把握中国式现代化对西方现代化的超越性。

I. A Profound Analysis of the Spatiotemporal Attributes of the British Modernization Process in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*

一、《英国工人阶级状况》对英国现代化进程时空属性的深刻剖析

Engels’s examination of British modernization begins with the Industrial Revolution. When writing *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, his starting point for research was to link the historical process of the Industrial Revolution with changes in the social structure of capitalism, pointing out that urbanization is an inevitable result of industrialization, and revealing the spatiotemporal characteristics of the British modernization process. Driven by the logic of capital, British modernization inaugurated the world modernization process. With this as a starting point, the global capital market gradually took shape and advanced triumphantly, forming a world pattern under the rule of capitalism.

恩格斯对英国现代化的考察是从工业革命开始的，在写作《英国工人阶级状况》时，他的研究起点就是将工业革命的历史进程与资本主义社会结构的变化相联系，指出城市化是工业化的必然结果，揭示了英国现代化进程的时空特征。在资本逻辑的推动下，英国的现代化开启了世界现代化历程，以此为开端，全球资本市场逐步形成并一路高歌猛进，形成了资本主义统治下的世界格局。

1. The Industrial Revolution Is the Starting Point of the British Modernization Process

1.工业革命是英国现代化进程的起点

Modernization is the process by which human society transitions from an agricultural society to a modern industrial society. The main characteristics of an agricultural society are the predominance of agriculture and handicraft production, self-sufficiency in production and consumption, slow economic and demographic growth, and isolation between different regions. The fundamental difference between an industrial society and an agricultural society lies in the dominance of large-scale industrial production, which creates enormous productive forces, forms universal intercourse among people, and inaugurates world history for the first time.

现代化是人类社会由农业社会转向现代工业社会的过程。农业社会的主要特点是以农业和手工业生产为主，生产和消费自给自足，经济和人口增长缓慢，不同地区之间相互隔离。工业社会与农业社会的根本不同在于大工业生产占据主导地位，创造了巨大的生产力，人们之间形成普遍交往，首次开创了世界历史。

*The Condition of the Working Class in England* uses detailed data and historical materials to present the historical scene of the British Industrial Revolution and the modernization process resonating at the same frequency. The British Industrial Revolution first began in the cotton textile sector in the 1760s. Large-scale machine industrial production gradually replaced original handicraft production, and British social structure underwent tremendous changes. Engels’s analysis points out that the invention of the spinning jenny caused a fundamental change in the condition of the British working class. Due to the use of the new invention, the production efficiency of yarn greatly increased, machines gradually replaced the need for human labor in production, production costs decreased, and therefore the price of the cloth produced also fell, stimulating a rapid increase in market demand for cloth. Textile workers who had previously also engaged in agriculture gradually abandoned their own agricultural production and became the new industrial proletariat. The population shifted from the countryside to the cities, and capitalists continuously obtained more profit by purchasing raw materials and labor power.

《英国工人阶级状况》一文用翔实的数据和史料呈现了英国工业革命与现代化进程同频共振的历史场景。英国工业革命最先开始于18世纪60年代的棉纺织业部门。大机器工业生产逐渐取代了原来的手工业生产，英国的社会结构发生巨大变革。恩格斯分析指出，珍妮纺纱机的发明使得英国工人阶级的状况发生了根本性的变化。由于新发明的使用，纱的生产效率大大提高，机器逐渐替代了生产对人力的需要，生产成本降低，因此生产出来的布匹价格也随之降低，刺激市场对布匹的需求迅速增大。以往兼营农业的纺织工人逐渐抛弃自己的农业生产，成为新兴的工业无产阶级。人口从农村转向城市，资本家通过购买原材料和劳动力，不断获取更多利润。

The Industrial Revolution had a huge impact on the production and distribution of the population. The structure of the social population is influenced by multiple factors such as productive forces, relations of production, geographical environment, and natural conditions, among which the decisive factors are productive forces and relations of production. Before the mid-18th century, Britain’s population grew very slowly, and people were in a relatively isolated state. The Industrial Revolution fundamentally changed the condition of British workers; the population concentrated in urban spaces along with industrial production. The bourgeoisie replaced the original manufactories with the factory system, machine production replaced handicraft production, and the level of productive forces greatly increased. Engels wrote in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*: “The rapid development of industry created a demand for hands; wages rose, and therefore workers flocked from the agricultural districts into the towns. The population increased rapidly, and almost all the increase was in the proletarian class.” [1]1 Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4, p. 324. The development of urban factories triggered a substantial increase in demand for labor power, and the geographical distribution of the population manifested as a migration from the countryside to the cities, with large numbers of rural residents flooding into the cities (as shown in Figure 1).

工业革命对人口的生产和分布有着巨大的影响。社会人口结构受到生产力、生产关系、地理环境、自然条件等多种因素的影响，其中起决定作用的是生产力和生产关系。在18世纪中叶以前，英国的人口增长得十分缓慢，并且人们处于比较隔绝的状态。工业革命使英国工人的状况发生了根本性变化，人口是随着工业生产而在城市空间中进行集中的。资产阶级用工厂制度代替了原来的手工工场，机器大生产取代了手工业生产，生产力水平极大提高。恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中写道：“工业的迅速发展产生了对人手的需要；工资提高了，因此，工人成群结队地从农业地区涌入城市。人口急剧增长，而且增加的几乎全是无产者阶级。”城市工厂的发展引发对劳动力的需求大幅增加，人口分布在地理上表现为由农村到城市的迁移，大量的农村居民涌入城市（如图1所示）。

The Industrial Revolution brought tremendous changes to British society, and once the industrialization process began, it expanded irresistibly to all sectors of industrial production. The rapid increase in urban population and the flourishing development of industrial production brought about major changes in transportation. First was the establishment of a road network. Before the 19th century, British traffic conditions were still very poor. After the Industrial Revolution began, capitalists increased investment in roads and bridges, establishing a road network in Britain that not only connected various regions geographically but also brought capitalist civilization to previously remote and isolated areas, allowing bourgeois ideology to permeate every corner of Britain. As Marx and Engels later discussed in the *Communist Manifesto*, capitalism creates a world in its own image; British capitalism, which began with the Industrial Revolution, created a Britain in its own image. Second was the construction of canals. Before the mid-18th century, Britain had almost no canals. Since Lancashire opened the first canal in 1755, canal construction in Britain flourished, and many rivers were also dredged for navigation. Third was the building of railways. In 1830, Britain built the first railway line from Liverpool to Manchester. From then on, all British cities were connected by railways. In 1840, the railway network exceeded 4,500 miles; in 1850, it exceeded 23,500 miles. Britain’s land transportation underwent tremendous changes, greatly shortening travel times between cities. In 1750, traveling from London to Manchester by horse-drawn carriage took three and a half days (as shown in Figure 2); due to road construction, in 1830, the journey from London to Manchester took only 46 hours (as shown in Figure 3); with the construction of railways, by 1844, when Engels was writing *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, traveling from Edinburgh to London by train took only one day. The construction of railways promoted the flourishing development of industry, reduced the transport time and cost of people and goods, and thus opened the door to the world market. In the first 20 years of railway construction in Britain (1830–1850), British iron production rose from 680,000 tons to 2.25 million tons, and coal production increased from 16 million tons to 49 million tons. Finally, there was the transformation of water transport vessels. Before 1807, Britain had no steamships; by 1836, the number of steamships in British harbors had already exceeded 500. Engels vividly depicted the magnificent scene of the Thames: “The view of the Thames from the sea to London Bridge is one of the most imposing in the world. The many houses, shipyards, and countless vessels moored along both banks, especially above Woolwich... all this is so grand, so magnificent, that one is almost intoxicated, and cannot help but marvel at the greatness of England even before setting foot on its soil.” [2]2 Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4, p. 329.

工业革命带来了英国社会的巨大变革，并且工业化进程一旦开始，就以势不可挡的态势扩展到工业生产的各个部门。城市人口的迅速增加和工业生产的繁荣发展带来交通方式的重大变革。首先是公路网的建立。19世纪以前的英国交通状况还十分糟糕，工业革命开始后，资本家加大了对公路、桥梁的投资，在英国建立起了公路网，不仅在地理上将各个地区联系起来，而且将资本主义文明带去了以往偏僻闭塞的地区，使得资产阶级意识形态渗透到英国的各个角落。正如后来马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所论述的，资本主义按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界，以工业革命发轫的英国资本主义按照自己的面貌为自己创造了一个英国。其次是运河的建设。18世纪中叶以前英国几乎没有运河，自1755年郎卡郡开辟了第一条运河，英国的运河建设蓬勃发展起来，许多河流也因为疏浚得以通航。再次是铁路的修筑。1830年英国建造了第一条从利物浦通往曼彻斯特的铁路线，从此英国的各个城市都被铁路连通起来，1840年铁路线超过4500英里，1850年铁路线超过23500英里。英国的陆路交通发生巨大变革，大大缩短了各个城市之间通行的时间。1750年从伦敦乘坐马车到达曼彻斯特要3天半的时间（如图2所示），由于公路的修建，1830年从伦敦到曼彻斯特只需要46小时（如图3所示）；随着铁路的修筑，在恩格斯写作《英国工人阶级状况》时的1844年，从爱丁堡到伦敦坐火车只需要一天了。铁路的修建促进了工业的蓬勃发展，减少了人口、货物的运输时间和费用，从而打开了世界市场的大门。在英国修筑铁路的前20年间（1830年—1850年），英国的铁产量从68万吨上升为225万吨，煤产量从1600万吨增加为4900万吨。最后是水路交通工具的变革。1807年以前英国还没有轮船，到了1836年，英国港湾中的轮船数已经超过500艘。恩格斯对泰晤士河的壮观景象进行了生动的描绘：“从海面向伦敦桥溯流而上时看到的太晤士河的景色，是再动人不过的了。在两边，特别是在乌里治以上的这许多房屋、造船厂，沿着两岸停泊的无数船只……这一切是这样雄伟，这样壮丽，简直令人陶醉，使人还在踏上英国的土地以前就不能不对英国的伟大感到惊奇。”

2. Urbanization Is the Spatial Carrier of British Modernization

2.城市化是英国现代化的空间载体

Urbanization is a product of capitalist large-scale industrial production. The rise of industrialization attracted large numbers of people to gather in cities, prompting the start of the urbanization process. The process of population concentration in urban areas is also the process of the continuous transformation of the rural population into the urban population. The number of large cities increased, and the scale of cities also continuously expanded.

城市化是资本主义大工业生产的产物。工业化的兴起吸引了大量人口向城市聚集，促使城市化进程的开启。人口向城市地区集中的过程，也就是农村人口不断转化为城市人口的过程，大城市的数量越来越多，而且城市的规模也不断扩大。

Britain was the first country in the world to complete urbanization. Before the Industrial Revolution, manual labor and handicraft workshops were the main modes of production. Limited by the level of productive forces, urban development was very slow. Apart from London, whose population exceeded one million in 1801, other cities were composed of multiple small market towns and ports, and population growth was also very slow. The Industrial Revolution, which began in the 1770s, inaugurated an era dominated by machine production and the factory system, prompting cities to occupy an increasingly important position in social development.

英国是世界上第一个完成城市化的国家。在工业革命以前，手工劳动和手工作坊是当时生产的主要方式，受生产力水平的限制，城市发展十分缓慢。除了1801年人口超过100万的伦敦，其他城市都是由多个小集镇和港口组成，人口增长也十分缓慢。18世纪70年代开始的工业革命开启了机器生产和工厂制占主导地位的时代，促使城市在社会发展中占据着越来越重要的地位。

Industrial development and urban development promote each other. In the first half of the 19th century, the textile industry was the first to drive the development of English cities. Engels conducted key field research on several major agglomerations of cotton textile production in England, for example, Lancashire, the center of the cotton textile industry at that time. Through detailed investigation, Engels discovered that the cotton textile industry and Lancashire developed in mutual promotion: Lancashire was the place where the cotton textile industry arose, and the cotton textile industry in turn pushed forward the urbanization process of Lancashire, increasing its population ninefold in 80 years, forming large cities such as Liverpool and Manchester as well as surrounding factory towns. Glasgow was the second largest cotton textile district after Lancashire; with the rise of the cotton textile industry, Glasgow’s population grew from 30,000 to 300,000. In *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, Engels specifically points out that Manchester, as the central city of the English Industrial Revolution, saw its industrial and commercial activities also drive the development of surrounding cities, thereby forming an “urban agglomeration” centered on Manchester. In 1801, only London in England had a population exceeding 100,000 (as shown in Figure 4). By 1851, ten cities in England had populations exceeding 100,000 (as shown in Figure 5).

工业化发展与城市的发展互相促进。在19世纪上半叶，纺织业最先推动了英国城市的发展。恩格斯重点实地调研了英国几大棉纺织业生产集聚地，比如，当时棉纺织业的中心郎卡郡。通过详细的调研，恩格斯发现棉纺织业与郎卡郡的发展是互相促进的，郎卡郡是棉纺织业兴起的地点，棉纺织业又反过来推动郎卡郡的城市化进程，使郎卡郡的人口在80年间增加了9倍，形成了利物浦和曼彻斯特这样的大城市以及周围的工厂城市；格拉斯哥是仅次于郎卡郡的第二大棉纺织区，伴随棉纺织业的兴起，格拉斯哥的人口从3万增加到30万。恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》里特别指出，曼彻斯特作为英国工业革命的中心城市，其中进行的工商业活动也带动了周边城市的发展，从而形成了以曼彻斯特为中心的“城市群”。1801年，英国只有伦敦的人口数超过10万人（如图4所示）。到了1851年，英国有10个城市的居民超过了10万人（如图5所示）。

Urbanization is an inevitable result of industrial development and a spatial manifestation of the modernization process. The development of urbanization brought multifaceted impacts on English society, profoundly changing its social structure. First, urbanization transformed the stable urban-rural relations that existed in pre-capitalist society. Before the Industrial Revolution, the countryside and the city were completely separated; after the Industrial Revolution began, the city became England’s economic center, the countryside was influenced by the city, and there was a massive outflow of population. At the same time, large-scale industrial production in the city had a comparative advantage over traditional handicraft production in the countryside, breaking the original self-sufficient natural economy of the countryside and leading to the decline of rural handicrafts. In the process of urbanization, the expansion of city scale was based on the transformation of the countryside; part of the rural space was converted into urban space, forming a pattern in which the countryside was subordinate to the city. Second, urban space provides a site for capital accumulation. Urban space has abundant labor resources and infrastructure; for example, a developed transportation system facilitates the flow of labor and materials within the city, reduces transportation costs, and helps capitalists set up factories and enterprises at lower cost. Capital utilizes the population agglomeration effect and spatial agglomeration effect of the city to compress the time and space of production and increase production efficiency. Cities contain numerous markets and exchanges, which can provide raw material markets and sales markets for the development of capitalism, ensuring the continuity of capital production and circulation. Third, urban space creates conditions for the application of new technologies. The city is the site of capitalist large-scale industrial production; technological and machinery innovation is the driving force of capitalist development. In order to win in competition, capitalists constantly innovate production tools and use the most advanced production technologies, thereby raising productive forces. Finally, urban space itself forms a natural market. Urban space concentrates a large population and therefore has enormous consumption demand. Taking Manchester, a typical industrial city, as an example: Manchester’s development drove the surrounding “urban agglomeration,” while the surrounding cities were purely industrial cities, and commercial activities were conducted in Manchester. Therefore, Manchester performed the commercial function of supplying necessities to its own city and the surrounding cities, exchanging goods, labor, capital, etc., with the surrounding cities.

城市化是工业发展的必然结果，是现代化进程在空间上的呈现。城市化的发展给英国社会带来了多方面的影响，深刻改变了其社会结构。首先，城市化变革了前资本主义社会稳固存在的城乡关系。在工业革命以前，乡村和城市是完全隔离的；到工业革命开始以后，城市成为英国的经济中心，农村受到城市的影响，人口大量外流；同时，城市中的大工业生产相比农村传统的手工业生产具有比较优势，打破了农村原本自给自足的自然经济，导致乡村手工业的衰落。城市化进程中城市规模的扩大是建立在对乡村进行改造的基础之上的，部分乡村空间被转化为城市空间，形成农村从属于城市的格局。其次，城市空间为资本积累提供场所。城市空间具有充足的劳动力资源和基础设施，如，发达的交通系统为城市的劳动力和物资的流动提供了便利，降低了运输成本，有利于资本家以更低的成本开办工厂和企业。资本利用城市的人口聚集效应和空间聚集效应，压缩生产的时间和空间，提高生产效率。城市中市场和交易所众多，能够为资本主义的发展提供原料市场和销售市场，保证了资本生产和流通的连续性。再次，城市空间为新技术的应用创造条件。城市是资本主义大工业生产的场所，技术和机器的革新是资本主义发展的动力。资本家为了在竞争中获胜，总是不断革新生产工具，使用最先进的生产技术，以此提高生产力。最后，城市空间本身形成了天然市场。城市空间中聚集着大量的人口，因此具有巨大的消费需求。以工业城市的典型——曼彻斯特为例，曼彻斯特的发展带动了周围的“城市群”，而周围的城市都是纯粹的工业城市，商业活动是在曼彻斯特进行的，因此曼彻斯特发挥着向本城以及周边城市提供必需品的商业功能，与周边城市进行商品、劳动力、资本等的交换。

3. World history is the grand spatiotemporal background into which English modernization is embedded

3.世界历史是英国现代化所嵌入的宏大时空背景

The era in which Engels lived was precisely the era of the rapid rise of large-scale industrial production. Pre-capitalist society practiced a natural economy mode of production; people lived on their own land generation after generation, life was closed, there was almost no cross-regional exchange, and various countries and regions were independent of each other. Capitalist socialized large-scale production has an important driving effect, promoting the continuous development of productive forces and forms of intercourse; large-scale industry for the first time created world history, eliminating the previous state of isolation and self-seclusion of each country.

恩格斯所处的时代正是大工业生产快速兴起的时代。前资本主义社会实行的是自然经济的生产方式，人们世世代代生活在自己的土地上，生活是封闭的，几乎没有跨地区的交流，各个国家和地区之间相互独立。资本主义社会化大生产具有重要的推动作用，促使生产力和交往形式的不断发展，大工业首次开创了世界历史，消灭了以往各个国家闭关自守的状态。

First, the universal division of labor brought about by socialized large-scale production promoted the formation of world history. The fundamental reason for the formation of world history lies in the universal development of productive forces and social intercourse. The process of socialized large-scale production is the socialization of the production process itself, the transformation from scattered small-scale production to large-scale social production. Capitalist society implements machine production and an extensive social division of labor. This extensive division of labor not only expands the original scope and degree of division of labor but further extends into an international division of labor. The global division of labor creates universal connections and universal intercourse on a world scale, linking all regions of the world together into a unified whole. The mode of production of capitalist socialized large-scale production and the world market are interdependent; to obtain more profit, the bourgeoisie must continuously expand the scope of the market; to win in market competition, the bourgeoisie must continuously lower its production costs and improve the quality of the products produced, thus forming extensive competition among the bourgeoisie themselves. This competition is no longer competition within one place or one country, but global universal competition. This competition further strengthens the mutual intercourse of various countries, regions, and nations: “Large-scale industry has created the same relations among the social classes everywhere, thereby eliminating the peculiarities of each nation.”

第一，社会化大生产带来的普遍分工推动了世界历史的形成。世界历史形成的根本原因在于生产力和社会交往的普遍发展。社会化大生产过程是生产过程本身的社会化，是由分散的小生产转为大规模的社会生产。资本主义社会实行机器生产以及广泛的社会分工。这种广泛的分工不仅扩大了原有的分工范围和分工的程度，而且进一步扩展为国际化的分工。全球分工造成了世界范围的普遍联系和普遍交往，把世界各个地区联系起来，成为一个统一性的整体。资本主义社会化大生产的生产方式与世界市场是相互依存的关系，资产阶级要获取更多利益，就要不断扩大市场范围；资产阶级要在市场竞争中取得胜利，就要不断降低自己的生产成本，提高生产出来的产品质量，从而资产者之间形成了广泛的竞争，这种竞争已经不再是一地、一国范围内的竞争，而是全球性的普遍竞争。这种竞争进一步加强了各个国家、各个地区、各个民族的相互交往，“大工业到处造成了社会各阶级间相同的关系，从而消灭了各民族的特殊性”。

Second, the application and dissemination of new technologies brought about by the Industrial Revolution strengthened world intercourse. The notable hallmark of the Industrial Revolution was the widespread application of machinery. In every branch of capitalist production, whether agricultural production or industrial production, the application of new inventions and new technologies greatly raised productive forces (as shown in Figure 6). The application of science and technology is a necessary stage of modern production. England, as the first country to carry out the Industrial Revolution, undoubtedly had a first-mover advantage; other countries, either actively or passively, learned advanced science and technology from England. With the dissemination and exchange of science and technology as a carrier, the Industrial Revolution further advanced the process of world history.

第二，工业革命带来的新技术的应用和传播加强了世界交往。工业革命的显著标志是机器的广泛应用。在资本主义各个生产部门，无论是农业生产还是工业生产，新发明和新技术的应用都大大提高了生产力（如图6所示）。科学技术的应用是现代生产的必经阶段。英国作为最先进行工业革命的国家，毫无疑问具有先发优势，其他国家或主动或被动地向英国学习先进的科学技术，以科学技术的传播与交流为载体，工业革命进一步推动了世界历史的进程。

Third, the world market is an important field for world intercourse. The fundamental purpose of capitalist production is to obtain surplus value; to realize more surplus value, capitalist large-scale industrial production requires not only the establishment of a stable domestic market but also the continuous opening up of international markets. Capitalist large-scale industrial production and the world market are interdependent; to promote the development of large-scale industry, capitalism must adapt to the requirements of the world market, lower production costs, and improve product quality. Through the continuous appropriation of domestic and foreign markets, the commodity economy penetrates every aspect of social life, further universalizing competition and strengthening the mutual connections between various countries and nations. The emergence of the world market transforms originally regional and national economic intercourse into a worldwide activity. At the same time, cities provide a spatial carrier for the formation of world history, and the globalization of capital also reshapes the urban spatial system. Engels points out that 19th-century England was the commercial capital of the whole world, and Manchester was the world’s first factory town. These “world cities,” as hubs of global geographic space, link various regions together, forming a global trade network in the spatial pattern.

第三，世界市场是世界交往的重要场域。资本主义生产的根本目的在于获得剩余价值，为了实现更多的剩余价值，资本主义工业大生产不仅要求建立稳定的国内市场，还要不断开辟国际市场。资本主义大工业生产与世界市场是相互依存的，资本主义要推动大工业的发展，就要适应世界市场的要求，降低生产成本，提高产品质量。通过不断占有国内市场和国外市场，商品经济渗入社会生活的方方面面，进一步造成竞争的普遍化，加强各个国家、民族之间的相互联系。世界市场的出现把原本地域性、民族性的经济交往转变为世界性的活动。同时，城市为世界历史的形成提供了空间载体，资本的全球化也对城市空间体系进行重塑。恩格斯指出，19世纪的英国是全世界的商业首都，曼彻斯特是世界上第一个工厂城市。这些“世界城市”作为全球地理空间的枢纽将各个地区联系起来，在空间格局上形成了全球贸易网络。

II. *The Condition of the Working Class in England*’s Revelation of the Paradoxes in the English Modernization Process

二、《英国工人阶级状况》对英国现代化进程中的悖论的揭示

The British modernization process brought about the advancement of industrialization and urbanization. The rise of large-scale capitalist industry spurred the rapid development of productive forces, and the advancement of urbanization formed large cities and urban agglomerations. However, the British modernization process in the 19th century did not bring about an improvement in the living conditions of the working class. The phenomenon of polarization between rich and poor was not only not alleviated but was further exacerbated within capitalist society, manifesting as a direct antagonism between the two major classes. The capitalist factory system caused workers to become appendages of machinery. Urban space under bourgeois rule exhibited a hierarchical and class-based imbalance, and global free trade intensified competition. In *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, Engels acutely and resolutely lifted the veil of the triumphant march of British industrialization and urbanization, penetrating to reveal the paradoxes within three sets of relationships: the dislocation of the subject-object relationship between workers and machines, the imbalance in urban spatial development, and the obstruction of global free trade.

英国现代化进程带来了工业化和城市化的推进，资本主义大工业的兴起促使生产力快速发展，城市化进程的推进形成了大城市和城市群。但19世纪英国的现代化进程并没有为工人阶级带来生活的改善，贫富两极分化的现象不但没有得到缓解，反而在资本主义社会中进一步加剧，表现为两大阶级的直接对立，资本主义工厂制度导致工人沦为机器的附庸，资产阶级统治下的城市空间出现了等级化、阶级化的不平衡，全球自由贸易使得竞争变得愈发激烈。恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中敏锐而坚定地揭开了英国工业化和城市化高歌猛进的面纱，透视其内在的三组关系的悖论，即工人与机器的主体关系错位、城市空间发展失衡和全球自由贸易受阻。

1. The Paradox of the Relationship between Workers and Machines: Workers Reduced to Appendages of Machines

1.工人和机器关系的悖论：工人沦为机器附庸

The sole purpose of capitalist production is the pursuit of more surplus value. Engels offered a strong critique of the capitalist factory system, pointing out that it constitutes a dual exploitation of the worker’s body and spirit. “The more the means of production are concentrated on a large scale, the more the workers are correspondingly crowded into the same space.” [3]3 Friedrich Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 468. [Translation modified from the standard English edition to match the Chinese text’s phrasing.] The capitalist factory system gathered workers into cramped factories, inflicting immense harm upon them.

资本主义生产的唯一目的是追逐更多的剩余价值，恩格斯对资本主义工厂制度进行了强烈批判，指出资本主义工厂制度是对工人身体和精神的双重剥削。“生产资料越是大量集中，工人就相应地越要聚集在同一个空间”，资本主义工厂制度将工人聚集在狭小的工厂中，对工人造成巨大的伤害。

First, the capitalist factory system harms the worker’s body. Engels’ analysis in *The Condition of the Working Class in England* indicates that due to the invention of new machines and the refinement of the division of labor, the skill requirements for work were lowered. Factory owners tended to hire cheaper women and children, leading to an influx of female and child laborers into factories. From 1834 to 1847, adult men constituted only one-quarter of workers in British cotton textile mills. According to the content of the “Report of the 1833 Factory Commission,” British children began working in factories from the age of five, with daily working hours lasting 14 to 16 hours. Taking the textile industry as an example, the conditions of the workers’ workspace were extremely poor. Most of those engaged in lace production within the textile industry were child laborers, confined to “small, unventilated, and suffocating rooms,” [4]4 Ibid., p. 490. which caused immense harm to the development and growth of adolescents. To maintain a working posture, girls wore corsets with wooden stays, deforming their chests and ribs. Due to poor air circulation in the workplace, with flying cotton fibers and dust, workers commonly suffered from respiratory diseases and digestive problems. Machines, originally tools to enhance productive forces, became forces of destruction under the capitalist system. Workers were enslaved by machines; their bodies were not under their own control but became accessories to the machinery. Besides the condition of the proletariat, Engels also examined the living conditions of the bourgeoisie, revealing a stark contrast between the conditions of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the same time and space: workers labored diligently yet could not even meet their basic living needs, while the bourgeoisie lived in luxury. “Down below, on the street, dash the splendid carriages of the wealthy bourgeoisie; perhaps some contemptible dandy loses at faro in a single evening more money than the poor girl can earn in a whole year.” [5]5 Ibid., p. 560. The modern worker “does not rise with the progress of industry, but sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. The worker becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth.” [6]6 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 490.

第一，资本主义工厂制度伤害工人的身体。恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中分析指出，由于新机器的发明和分工的细化使得工作对工人的技能要求降低，工厂主们更倾向于雇佣更为廉价的妇女和儿童，因此更多的女工和童工进入工厂之中。1834—1847年，在英国棉纺织厂的工人中，成年男子只占1/4。根据“1833年工厂调查委员会报告”的内容，当时的英国儿童从5岁开始就进入工厂工作，每天的工作时间长达14—16小时。以纺织业为例，工人工作空间的状况十分糟糕。从事纺织业中的花边生产的大都是童工，这种被固定在“狭小的、不通风的和令人窒息的屋子里”的劳作，对青少年的发育和成长造成了极大的伤害：为了使身体保持工作的姿势，女孩子们穿上带有木板条的紧身衣，这使得她们的胸腔和肋骨变形；由于工作场所的空气不流通，棉絮和烟尘纷飞，工人们普遍产生呼吸道疾病和消化不良症状。机器本来是提高生产力的工具，在资本主义制度下却成为破坏的力量，工人受到机器的奴役，身体不受自己的支配，反倒成为机器的附属物。除了无产阶级的状况，恩格斯也考察了资产阶级的生活状况，揭示出同一时空下的资产阶级和无产阶级的状况形成的鲜明对比：工人们辛勤工作却连基本的生活需要都无法满足，而资产阶级的生活奢侈，“楼下街道上却飞驰着大资产阶级的富丽堂皇的马车，也许附近某个可鄙的花花公子玩法罗纸牌一晚上输掉的钱，就比她们在一整年中所能挣得的还要多”。现代的工人“并不是随着工业的进步而上升，而是越来越降到本阶级的生存条件以下。工人变成赤贫者，贫困比人口和财富增长得还要快”。

Second, the capitalist factory system destroys the worker’s spirit. Due to the refinement of the division of labor, workers were fixed in one position in the factory, repeating mechanical movements. “This activity does not require the worker to use his mind, but at the same time it does not allow him to think of other things.” [7]7 Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, p. 468. The factory system and division of labor completely reduced the worker to a “tool.” In Engels’ view, this kind of labor in the factory was not true labor; it was the most torturous and wearisome activity in the world. Because the worker was fixed on a single link in the production process, the production activity required no thought, only the endless repetition of the same movements, leading to the destruction of the worker’s physical and intellectual capacities. In this boredom, the worker’s spirit and will were constantly worn down, yet they could not stop to allow their body and mind to rest, having no free time whatsoever. Amid the din of machinery and under the watch of the foreman holding a fine book, the worker had to keep laboring. The factory maximized the degree of exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat lost all freedom, becoming entirely dependent on capitalist production for its existence. Engels offered a powerful critique of capitalist society: “The cruelty of society is also particularly glaringly exposed: society abandons its members precisely when they most need its help, leaving them to the mercy of fate.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 579.

第二，资本主义工厂制度摧毁工人的精神。由于分工的细化，工人在工厂中被固定在某个位置，重复机械的动作，“这种活动并不需要工人运用思想，但同时又不许工人思考别的事情”。工厂制度和分工使得工人彻底沦为“工具”，在恩格斯看来，这种工厂中的劳动并不是真正的劳动，是世上最折磨人、最让人厌倦的活动。由于被固定在某一生产环节上，生产活动不需要工人进行思考，只需要工人一遍又一遍地重复一样的动作，导致工人的体力和智力也被毁掉。工人在这种无聊中不断消磨精神和意志，却无法停下来让身体和心灵放松，没有任何的空闲时间。在机器的喧嚣声中，在握着罚款簿的监工的监视之下，工人不得不一直劳作下去。工厂使得资产阶级对无产阶级的剥削程度达到了最大化，无产阶级失去了任何自由，完全依附于资本主义生产而存在。恩格斯对资本主义社会进行了强烈的批判：“社会的残酷性也特别鲜明地暴露出来：社会正是在自己的成员最需要它援助的时候抛弃了他们，让他们去受命运的摆布”。

2. The Paradox of Urban Spatial Relations: Imbalance in Spatial Development

2.城市空间关系悖论：空间发展失衡

The progress of capitalist productive forces and the transformation of the mode of production spurred the emergence of modern industrial cities. Large industrial cities were the sites of industrial production, and the concentration of population and resources laid the foundation for the development of industrial capital. Urban space was stamped with the imprint of capital. The development of capitalist industrialization was closely linked to the process of large-scale urbanization. Capital engaged in production within urban space and accelerated capital accumulation through the shaping of urban space. Engels revealed the imbalance in urban spatial development caused by the capitalist mode of production.

资本主义生产力的进步和生产方式的变革推动了现代工业城市的产生，大工业城市是工业生产的场所，人口和资源的聚集为工业资本的发展奠定了基础。城市空间被打上资本的烙印，资本主义工业化的发展与大规模城市化的进程是紧密相关的，资本在城市空间中进行生产，并且以对城市空间的塑造加速资本积累。恩格斯揭示了资本主义生产方式所造成的城市空间发展的失衡。

First, the irrational planning of urban space. In order to increase the capacity of urban space, the bourgeoisie, when constructing workers’ housing, gave no thought whatsoever to the comfort of the workers’ dwellings; buildings were always piled together in a chaotic jumble. As long as there was any vacant space in a workers’ residential area, the capitalists would build houses in it, until there was no empty ground left between any two houses. Although large numbers of people gathered in the cities, the supply of housing did not increase with the growth in the number of workers; workers’ housing was extremely scarce, and the population density in the dwellings was very high. Engels cited data from the journal of the official Statistical Society showing that “in 1840, 5,366 working-class families occupied 5,294 dwellings.” [9]9 Friedrich Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 344. The original citation is from the *Journal of the Statistical Society of London*, Vol. 6 (1843), p. 401. The small houses that the urban asset-holders built for the workers looked “very pretty and substantial” from the outside, but upon closer investigation Engels discovered that the walls of these small houses were very thin, because the owners cut corners during actual construction solely to save costs. At the same time, because British law stipulated that the owners who built the houses did not own the land rights, the owners, out of self-interested calculation, always “calculated carefully” to ensure that the houses they built would depreciate by the time the land lease expired. Most of these owners were either bosses of construction companies or factory owners; they were unwilling to spend money repairing the small houses. On the one hand, they did not want to invest more costs in workers’ housing; on the other hand, because when an economic crisis came large numbers of workers lost their jobs and could not afford to rent houses, there was no need to repair the small houses either. Faced with the asset-holders’ exploitative behavior toward the workers, the government authorities displayed extreme indifference; not only did they make no improvements, but they colluded with the capitalists, further aggravating this exploitation and worsening the deterioration of the workers’ living conditions. Thirty years after writing *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, Engels pointed out again in *The Housing Question* that “the housing shortage of the workers and part of the petty bourgeoisie in our modern big cities is only one of the countless smaller, secondary evils of the modern capitalist mode of production.” As Figure 7 reveals, from 1700 to 1860, the total population of Britain increased nearly fourfold, and total industrial output value grew to 15 times its original level, with the metal and mining sectors in particular increasing 50-fold; but housing supply and domestic services, although they developed somewhat, grew only slightly, and the cities became increasingly crowded due to the concentration of large populations. Second, the opposition between town and country. The process of urbanization is accompanied by the migration of population from the countryside to the cities; the process of urban development is a process of the continuous separation of town and country. Under the capitalist mode of production, the city holds a distinctly dominant position relative to the countryside. Capital uses the advanced science and technology, transportation systems, and concentrated population and resources of urban space to carry out socialized large-scale production; the city becomes the center of capital accumulation, and the countryside ultimately subordinates itself to the city. The countryside gradually becomes a supplier of raw materials and labor power for the city; the division of labor continuously widens the gap between town and country. To accelerate capital accumulation, capital tends toward continuous concentration; the bourgeoisie needs to “destroy the scattered state of the means of production, property, and population.” The profit-driven nature of capital drives it to establish connections everywhere, to expand territorially and penetrate into rural areas, transforming originally dispersed rural spaces into urban spaces. The bourgeoisie exercises ideological control over rural space, eliminating “the customs and relations of the good old times” and replacing them with capitalist money relations and free competition.

第一，城市空间规划不合理。为了增加城市空间的容量，在建造工人住宅时，资产阶级丝毫不考虑工人居住的舒适性，建筑物总是乱糟糟地堆在一起。只要工人住宅区有任何空隙，资本家就在其中盖起房子，直到任何两座房子之间没有任何空地为止。尽管大量人口向城市聚集，但房屋的供给并没有随着工人数量的增加而增加，工人的住宅十分稀缺，而且居住人口密度很高，恩格斯引用的官方统计学会会刊的资料显示，“在1840年，5366个工人家庭住了5294所住宅”。城市中资产者为工人建造的小宅子从外观上看“非常漂亮而坚固”，但通过深入考察，恩格斯发现这些小宅子的墙壁非常薄，这是因为业主在实际建造过程中偷工减料，只为了节省成本；同时，由于英国的法律规定，盖房子的业主并不拥有土地权，因此业主出于利己的打算，总是“精打细算”让自己盖的房子在土地租赁期满的时候贬值。这些业主大多数都是建筑公司的老板或者厂主，他们不愿意花钱修缮小宅子，一方面，他们不愿意在工人住宅投入更多成本，另一方面，由于经济危机来临的时候大批工人失业，租不起房子，小宅子也就没有维修的必要了。面对资产者对工人的剥削行径，政府当局表现得十分冷漠，不但没有作出任何改善，反而与资本家勾结，进一步加重这种剥削，加剧了工人居住条件的恶化。在《英国工人阶级状况》写作的30年后，恩格斯在《论住宅问题》中再次指出，“我们现代大城市中工人和一部分小资产者的住房短缺，只是现代资本主义生产方式所造成的无数比较小的、次要的祸害之一”。正如图7所揭示的，从1700年到1860年，英国总人口增长了近4倍，工业总产值增长到原来的15倍，尤其是金属和采矿业增加了50倍，但住房供给和国内服务虽然有所发展但增长幅度很小，城市由于大量人口聚集而变得愈发拥挤。第二，城市与乡村的对立。城市化的过程伴随着人口从乡村到城市的迁移，城市发展过程就是城市与乡村不断分离的过程。在资本主义生产方式下，城市相对乡村具有显著的优势地位，资本利用城市空间中先进的科学技术、交通系统、聚集起来的人口和资源来进行社会化大生产，城市成为资本积累的中心，农村最终从属于城市。乡村逐渐成为城市的原料和劳动力的供应地，分工使得城市与乡村之间的差距不断加大。为了加速资本积累，资本趋于不断集中，资产阶级需要“消灭生产资料、财产和人口的分散状态”。资本的逐利本性驱使其到处建立联系，在地域上扩张、渗透到农村地区，将原来分散的乡村空间转化为城市空间。资产阶级对乡村空间进行意识形态的控制，消灭了“美好的旧时代的习俗和关系”，取而代之的是资本主义的金钱关系、自由竞争。

Third, the absence of workers’ leisure space. Under the domination of capitalist private property, public space is continuously transformed into the private space of the asset-holders. In the past, the proletarians could live and entertain themselves on public grounds, but the asset-holders, in order to increase production efficiency, used parliamentary struggles to have more common land plundered and converted into arable land; the proletariat thus lost its original public recreational spaces. The bourgeoisie used political power to turn public space into private property; the proletarians lost the conditions for places to play and amuse themselves. Added to this were their poverty, their exhausting work, and their hopelessness, so they had no choice but to go to the taverns to drink. Engels cited a series of data to illustrate the state of workers’ drunkenness at the time: in 1823, 2,300,000 gallons of distilled spirits subject to excise tax were consumed in Scotland, and 1,976,000 gallons in England; in 1837, 6,620,000 gallons were consumed in Scotland and 7,875,000 gallons in England. Taking the example of the change in distilled spirits sales in Scotland and England over 15 years, Engels fully demonstrated the fact that workers’ drunkenness was continuously worsening. The situation of workers’ drunkenness was very serious in every region of Britain, and the root cause of workers’ drunkenness was that they felt no joy whatsoever in their lives; heavy physical labor occupied almost all of their time. Under these conditions, workers had no life of their own, no activities for enjoyment, and could not feel their own existence as “human beings.” After work, workers were extremely tired and exhausted, yet they continued to suffer all-around torment, both material and spiritual: in urban space they had no place of belonging; their crude dwellings had no comfort whatsoever; in interpersonal relations they had no space for social interaction, so they had to satisfy their social needs in the taverns. Engels did not stop at the surface phenomenon of the working class indulging in drunkenness; rather, penetrating through the appearance, he used the method of class analysis to conduct a trenchant analysis of the condition of the proletariat, pointing out that the fundamental cause behind it lay in capitalist private property. Engels pointed out that drunkenness was not an accidental bad habit that workers had picked up; under the capitalist system, it was an inevitable phenomenon. Those who should be held responsible for this phenomenon were not the workers, but the bourgeoisie. The workers inevitably contracted the vice of drunkenness, and also had to bear the bourgeoisie’s accusations of their supposed lack of ambition; yet drunkenness, as a form of workers’ “enjoyment,” had an even more devastating impact on the workers’ bodies and minds. Long-term drunkenness caused workers’ health to deteriorate steadily, inducing lung diseases and stomach ailments.

第三，工人休闲空间缺失。在资本主义私有制的支配下，公共空间不断被转化为资产者的私人空间。以往的无产者可以在公共场地上生活和娱乐，但资产者为了提高生产效率，通过议会斗争使得更多的公地被掠夺并改造为耕地，无产阶级失去了原本的公共娱乐空间。资产阶级利用政治权力使得公共空间变为私有财产，无产者失去了游玩和娱乐的场地条件，加上生活穷困、工作劳累看不到希望，只好到小酒馆酗酒。恩格斯列举了一系列数据来说明当时工人酗酒的状况：1823年，在苏格兰缴纳消费税的烧酒有2300000加仑，在英格兰缴纳消费税的烧酒有1976000加仑；1837年，在苏格兰缴纳消费税的烧酒有6620000加仑，在英格兰缴纳消费税的烧酒有7875000加仑。恩格斯以苏格兰和英格兰15年间的烧酒销量变化为例，充分说明了工人酗酒不断加剧的事实。英国各个地区的工人酗酒状况都十分严重，而工人酗酒的根本原因是他们在生活中感受不到任何的快乐，繁重的体力劳动占据了几乎全部的时间。在这种状况下，工人没有自己的生活，没有享乐的活动，感受不到自己作为“人”的存在。下班后的工人十分困倦疲惫，依然在物质和精神上继续遭受全方位的折磨：在城市空间中没有自己的归属之处，简陋的住宅毫无舒适可言；在人际交往上没有可以承载交往的空间，只好在酒馆满足社交需求。恩格斯没有停留于工人阶级沉湎于酗酒的表面现象，而是透过现象，运用阶级分析方法对无产阶级的状况进行鞭辟入里的分析，指明其背后的根本原因在于资本主义私有制。恩格斯指出，酗酒不是工人偶然染上的恶劣习惯，在资本主义制度之下，这是一种必然现象。应当为这种现象负责的并不是工人，而是资产阶级。工人不可避免地染上了酗酒的恶习，还要承担资产阶级对其所谓不思进取的指责，而作为工人“享乐”方式的酗酒，对工人的身体和精神带来了更加毁灭性的影响，长期酗酒使得工人的身体每况愈下，诱发了肺部疾病和胃部疾病的产生。

3. The Paradox of Global Free Trade: The Conflict between Free Trade and Trade Protection

3.全球自由贸易的悖论：贸易自由与贸易保护冲突

By the first half of the 18th century, Britain had become the most developed capitalist country in the world. In the early stage of British industrialization, Britain implemented a protective tariff system domestically, laying the foundation for monopolizing the world market. As Engels himself said: “The modern industrial system, i.e., production driven by steam engines, was hatched and developed in Britain under the wing of the protective tariff system in the last third of the 18th century.” [10]10 Friedrich Engels, “Protective Tariffs and Free Trade,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 21 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1985), p. 395. During the period of manufacture, when capitalism was in its infancy, Britain’s protective tariff policy was conducive to establishing its own industrial system. When capitalism developed and competition became universal, protective tariffs became an obstacle to capitalism’s global expansion, “becoming an unbearable fetter for any country that hopes to successfully establish itself independently on the world market.” [11]11 Ibid., p. 396. Britain’s Corn Laws were repealed in 1846–1847. Engels wrote *The Condition of the Working Class in England* in 1844–1845; he had already keenly perceived that the periodic outbreak of capitalist crises would inevitably drive the bourgeoisie to shift the crisis through various means, and he predicted that “the next crisis, due in 1846 or 1847, will very likely bring about the repeal of the Corn Laws and the passage of the Charter.” [12]12 Friedrich Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4, p. 569. The “Charter” refers to the People’s Charter, the central demand of the Chartist movement for universal male suffrage and parliamentary reform.

到18世纪上半叶，英国成为世界上最发达的资本主义国家。在英国工业化的早期阶段，英国在国内实行保护关税制度，为垄断世界市场奠定了基础。正如恩格斯所说：“现代工业体系即依靠用蒸汽发动机器的生产，就是在保护关税制度的卵翼之下于18世纪最后30多年中在英国孵化和发育起来的。”在资本主义萌芽的工场手工业时期，英国实行保护关税政策有利于建立本国的工业体系。当资本主义发展起来时，竞争变得普遍化，保护关税又成为资本主义向全球扩张的阻碍，“对于任何一个有望成功地争取自立于世界市场的国家都会变成不能忍受的镣铐”。英国的谷物法是在1846—1847年废除的，恩格斯写作《英国工人阶级状况》的时间是1844—1845年，他已经敏锐地洞察到资本主义周期性的危机爆发必然驱使资产阶级通过各种方式转嫁危机，预测到“1846年或1847年行将到来的下一次危机，很可能会促成谷物法的废除和宪章的通过”。

The bourgeoisie claimed that the repeal of the Corn Laws would have a positive effect on free trade, but Engels pointed out that this freedom was still merely the freedom of capital, that is, the freedom of the bourgeoisie to oppress the workers, not the freedom of the workers. First, free trade intensified competition among workers. After the repeal of the Corn Laws, “free competition, the modern economic system, would develop to its extreme.” Free trade linked the domestic market with the international market, facilitating capital accumulation and concentration, with the result being an expansion of the division of labor and the widespread use of machinery. Factories’ demands for workers’ specialized skills decreased, competition among workers became fiercer, and capitalists could exploit workers’ competition to lower the wages they had to pay. Second, free trade led to a decline in workers’ purchasing power. The Corn Laws kept British grain prices higher than in other countries, so workers’ wages remained at a relatively high level while their cost of living was also persistently high. During the period when the Corn Laws were in effect, British factory owners’ competition was confined to the home country; once the Corn Laws were repealed, grain prices fell, and workers’ wages would also fall to the average level of the international market. Cheap labor benefited capitalists’ competition and further increased market demand for goods. Although rising demand would bring about an increase in the demand for labor, this was insufficient to solve Britain’s problem of “labor surplus.” On the one hand, the capitalists’ demand for labor increased only in the short term; on the other hand, industrial prosperity also brought about population growth, and the increase in demand for labor could not offset the rapid population increase. Engels criticized the despicable lies concocted for the workers by the Anti-Corn Law League—the bourgeoisie attempted to use untenable arguments to prove that “the price of labor power is inversely proportional to the price of grain”—and clearly pointed out that the relative purchasing power of the workers was in fact declining, warning the working masses not to be deceived by the bourgeoisie. Finally, free trade led the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat on a global scale. Britain, as the most developed capitalist country at the time, used its advanced machine-based large-scale industry to strike at the handicraft production methods of backward countries, forcing foreign markets to become its sources of raw material imports, “commerce and industry grew ever more prosperous, and almost all foreign markets that had not adopted protective tariffs were occupied.” The formation of the world market was based on the exploitation of less developed countries by developed countries; “the richer country exploits the poorer one,” thereby forming a world structure centered on the developed countries. This spatial exploitation runs through the entire development of capitalism: during the period of primitive accumulation of capital, developed countries carried out colonial exploitation of less developed countries; in the process of the rise of capitalist large-scale industrial production, capitalism used its own advantages in capital, trade, technology, and other aspects to directly and indirectly exploit less developed countries, forming a world structural system centered on developed capitalist countries.

资产阶级声称废除谷物法对于自由贸易具有积极的作用，但是恩格斯指出，这种自由仍然只是资本的自由，即资产阶级压榨工人的自由，而不是工人的自由。首先，自由贸易导致工人的竞争加剧。废除谷物法之后，“自由竞争，现代社会经济制度就会发展到极端”。自由贸易把国内市场与国际市场联系在一起，有利于资本积聚和资本集中，结果是分工的扩大和机器的广泛使用，工厂对工人专业技能的要求降低，工人之间的竞争变得更加激烈，资本家能够利用工人的竞争来降低需要支付的工资。其次，自由贸易导致工人的购买力下降。谷物法使英国的粮价高于其他国家，工人的工资保持在相对较高的水平的同时生活成本也居高不下。在谷物法施行期间，英国工厂主的竞争局限于本国之内；一旦废除谷物法，粮食价格下跌，工人的工资也就会下跌到国际市场的平均水平。廉价劳动力有利于资本家的竞争，进一步增加了市场对商品的需求，尽管需求上涨会带来对劳动力需求的增加，但不足以解决英国“劳动力过剩”的问题。一方面，资本家对劳动力的需求增加是短期内的；另一方面，工业繁荣也会带来人口数量增加，对劳动力需求的增加无法抵消人口的快速增长。恩格斯批判了反谷物法同盟对工人炮制的卑劣谎言——资产阶级企图用站不住脚的论据来论证“劳动力价格与粮食的价格成反比”，明确指出工人的相对购买力实质上是降低的，提醒工人群众不要被资产阶级蒙蔽。最后，自由贸易导致资产阶级在全世界范围内剥削无产者。英国作为当时资本主义最发达的国家，利用本国先进的机器大工业生产打击落后国家的手工业生产方式，迫使国外市场成为其原料进口地，“商业和工业日益繁荣，一切没有实行保护关税的国外市场几乎全被占领”。世界市场的形成是建立在发达国家对不发达国家的剥削基础上的，“比较富有的国家剥削比较贫穷的国家”，从而形成了以发达国家为中心的世界格局。这种空间剥削贯穿于资本主义发展的始终：在资本原始积累时期，发达国家对不发达国家进行殖民剥削；在资本主义大工业生产兴起的过程中，资本主义利用自身的资本、贸易、技术等多方面的优势，对不发达国家进行直接和间接剥削，形成以发达资本主义国家为中心的世界格局体系。

III. Theoretical Insights from *The Condition of the Working Class in England* on Reflecting on the British Modernization Process

三、《英国工人阶级状况》反思英国现代化进程的理论启示

In *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, Engels, on the basis of empirical investigation, document research, and theoretical analysis, revealed the various ills in the British modernization process and profoundly analyzed the inherent logic of capital in that process. British modernization did not bring well-being to the broad masses of the British proletariat; on the contrary, it intensified social polarization and class antagonism. This holds important theoretical value for our profound grasp of the essence of Western modernization and the transcendence of Western modernization by Chinese-path modernization.

在《英国工人阶级状况》中，恩格斯在实证调研、查阅资料和理论分析的基础上揭示了英国现代化进程中的种种弊端，深刻分析了英国现代化进程内在的资本逻辑，英国的现代化并没有为广大的英国无产阶级带来福祉，反而加剧了社会的两极分化与阶级对立。这对于我们深刻把握西方现代化的本质和中国式现代化对西方现代化的超越，具有重要的理论价值。

1. Transcending the Modernization of Things with the Modernization of People

1.以人的现代化超越物的现代化

In the preface to the 1892 German edition, Engels, recalling his writing of *The Condition of the Working Class in England* in 1844 and confronting the development and ills that capitalism had brought to cities like Manchester, frankly stated that “the districts which could then still be described in almost idyllic terms have now, with the growth of the cities, sunk entirely into the same state of decay, desolation, and poverty.” The capitalist development characterized by the Industrial Revolution, technological progress, and socialized large-scale production did not make cities better, because the Western-style modernization shaped by capitalist development is the modernization of things. If Engels, when writing *The Condition of the Working Class in England* in 1844–1845, focused on British modernization, then in the preface to the 1892 German edition, he used British modernization to observe German modernization. Modernization is a concept that inherently carries spatiotemporal attributes: in the temporal dimension, different countries enter the modernization process at different times; in the spatial dimension, there are both types of modernization distinguished by national and regional attributes, and different types such as endogenous modernization and exogenous modernization. Western-style modernization as the modernization of things means seeing “things” but not “people.” In capitalist society, “the worker is regarded merely as a piece of capital, which he lends to the manufacturer, who pays him interest in the form of wages.” The working class, as the subject driving the development of modernization, lacks subjectivity and is reduced to an appendage of the machine. Engels, in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, clearly pointed out that the reason for the paradox in the relationship between workers and machines should not be sought in some minor details, but “should be sought in the capitalist system itself.” The growing development of the modernization of things results in an increasingly divided social system: on one side are the owners of all means of production and consumer goods; on the other side are wage laborers who possess nothing but their labor power. This is the modernization produced and continuously shaped by capitalism itself.

在1892年德文版序言中，恩格斯回顾自己在1844年写作《英国工人阶级状况》时面对资本主义给曼彻斯特等城市带来的发展及其弊端时，坦言当时“还能用几乎是田园诗的笔调来描写的那些地区，现在随着城市的发展已经整批地陷入同样衰败、荒凉和穷困的境地”。以工业革命、技术进步、社会化大生产为特征的资本主义发展并没有让城市更美好，这是因为资本主义的发展所塑造的西方式现代化是物的现代化。如果说恩格斯在1844—1845年创作《英国工人阶级状况》时关注的是英国的现代化，那么他在1892年德文版序言中则是以英国现代化来观察德国的现代化。现代化，是一个自带时空属性的概念：在时间维度，不同国家进入现代化进程有早有晚；在空间维度，既有国别和区域属性所区分的现代化，也有内生型现代化和外发型现代化的不同类型。西方式现代化是物的现代化意味着见“物”不见“人”，在资本主义社会里，“工人，仅仅被看作是一笔资本，他把自己交给厂主使用，厂主以工资的名义付给他利息”。作为推动现代化发展主体的工人阶级没有主体性，沦为机器的附庸，而恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中明确指出，工人与机器关系产生悖论的原因不应当从一些细枝末节去寻找，而“应当到资本主义制度本身中去寻找”。物的现代化日渐发展的结果就是社会制度越来越分裂，一边是全部生产资料和消费资料的所有者，一边是除了劳动力一无所有的雇佣劳动者，这是资本主义本身所产生并不断形塑的现代化。

Historical materialism scientifically reveals the essence of human beings and can thereby elucidate the logical process of the modernization of people. In the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858), Marx discussed three different stages: relations of personal dependence, personal independence founded on objective dependence, and the free and comprehensive development of individuals. In societies with private property, especially the advanced form of private property society, capitalist society, human history also progresses. With each major advance, people have won a certain degree of freedom from nature and social relations, more or less approaching the threshold of humanity’s complete emancipation. However, it must be recognized that in societies with private property, the liberation people achieve is, after all, limited; that is, humanity remains in the realm of necessity. The leap from relations of dependence to the free and comprehensive development of individuals, from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, viewed from the spatiotemporal attributes of modernization, is the leap from the modernization of things to the modernization of people, because “real, living people create all this… history is nothing but the activity of people pursuing their own ends.” General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes: “The ultimate goal of modernization is the free and comprehensive development of people. Whether a path of modernization can ultimately be viable and stable depends on whether it adheres to a people-centered approach.” Taking dialectical materialism and historical materialism as the fundamental stand, viewpoint, and method, the essence of Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of people. It breaks through the stage of Western-style modernization characterized by “personal independence founded on objective dependence” and represents a genuine transcendence of the modernization of things.

历史唯物主义科学地揭示了人的本质，进而能够阐明人的现代化的逻辑进程。马克思在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中论述了人的依赖关系、以物的依赖关系为基础的人的独立性和人的自由全面发展三个不同阶段，在私有制社会里，尤其是私有制社会的高级形态资本主义社会里，人类历史也在进步，每一次重大进步，人都从自然界、社会关系中争得了一定的自由，或多或少地进一步接近人类彻底解放的门槛，但必须看到的是，在私有制社会里，人所获得的解放毕竟是有限的，也就是人类处在必然王国之中。从依赖关系到人的自由而全面的发展，从必然王国到自由王国的飞跃，从现代化的时空属性来看，就是从物的现代化到人的现代化，因为“现实的、活生生的人在创造这一切……历史不过是追求着自己目的的人的活动而已”。习近平总书记强调：“现代化的最终目标是实现人自由而全面的发展。现代化道路最终能否走得通、行得稳，关键要看是否坚持以人民为中心。”以辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义为根本立场观点和方法，中国式现代化的本质是人的现代化，突破了“以物的依赖关系为基础的人的独立性”的西方式现代化发展阶段，是对物的现代化的真正超越。

Being people-centered is the fundamental reason why the path of Chinese-path modernization can be viable and stable. The modernization we pursue—political democracy, economic development, cultural prosperity, social fairness, and ecological well-being—is, in the final analysis, a modernization that can meet the people’s needs for a better life. Precisely because it consistently adheres to being people-centered, Chinese-path modernization can achieve a transcendence of the Western modernization of things, embodying and maintaining the socialist superiority of Chinese-path modernization.

以人民为中心，是中国式现代化道路能够走得通、行得稳的根本所在。我们所追求的政治民主、经济发达、文化繁荣、社会公平和生态美好的现代化，归根到底是能够满足人民群众对美好生活的需求的现代化。正是因为始终坚持以人民为中心，中国式现代化可以实现对西方物的现代化的超越，体现并保持中国式现代化的社会主义优越性。

Being people-centered is the prerequisite foundation for establishing a correct outlook on modernization. In his important speech at the opening ceremony of a study session for principal leading officials at the provincial and ministerial level on studying and implementing the spirit of the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee [15]15 The Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee, held in October 2020, adopted the CPC Central Committee’s proposals for formulating the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035., General Secretary Xi Jinping put forward the important proposition that “we must have a correct outlook on modernization.” The fundamental understanding of the many issues of modernization constitutes the outlook on modernization. What kind of outlook on modernization one has determines what kind of concepts, policies, and measures for modernization one will adopt. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Seeking happiness for the people and rejuvenation for the nation—this is both the starting point and the落脚点 [16]16 “落脚点” (luòjiǎodiǎn) is a standard Chinese political term meaning “ultimate goal” or “final purpose,” often paired with “出发点” (starting point). of our Party’s leadership in modernization and the ‘root’ and ‘soul’ of the new development philosophy. Only by adhering to a people-centered development philosophy, insisting on development for the people, development relying on the people, and development results shared by the people, can we have a correct outlook on development and modernization.” Only by being people-centered can we accurately judge the development and changes in the principal contradiction in society, and thereby form a correct understanding of the morphological characteristics of Chinese-path modernization. The realization of Chinese-path modernization requires continuously solving the problems of unbalanced and inadequate development in the process, constantly meeting the people’s growing needs for a better life, and the ultimate goal is to realize the free and comprehensive development of the individual. Being people-centered is the prerequisite foundation for us to form a correct outlook on modernization, just as General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, “Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other ‘ism’; the basic principles of scientific socialism cannot be abandoned; if they are abandoned, it is not socialism.” The people-centered Chinese-path modernization is the contemporary expression of the theory of modernization in scientific socialism.

以人民为中心是树立正确现代化观的前提基础。在省部级主要领导干部学习贯彻党的十九届五中全会精神专题研讨班开班式上的重要讲话中，习近平总书记提出了“要有正确的现代化观”这个重要命题。对现代化诸多问题的根本认识，构成了现代化观。有什么样的现代化观，就会有什么样的现代化理念、方针和政策。习近平总书记指出：“为人民谋幸福、为民族谋复兴，这既是我们党领导现代化建设的出发点和落脚点，也是新发展理念的‘根’和‘魂’。只有坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，坚持发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享，才会有正确的发展观、现代化观。”以人民为中心，才能准确判断社会主要矛盾的发展变化，进而对中国式现代化的形态特征能够形成正确的认知。中国式现代化的实现需要不断解决发展过程中的不平衡、不充分的问题，不断满足人民群众对美好生活的向往，最终目标是为了实现人的自由而全面的发展。以人民为中心是我们形成正确的现代化观的前提基础，正如习近平总书记指出的，“中国特色社会主义是社会主义而不是其他什么主义，科学社会主义基本原则不能丢，丢了就不是社会主义”。以人民为中心的中国式现代化，是科学社会主义关于现代化理论的时代表达。

2. Surpassing the capitalist urban-rural opposition through the construction of socialist urban-rural space

2.以社会主义城乡空间构建超越资本主义城乡对立

The urban-rural issue is an inevitable result of the modernization process. In the introduction to *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, Engels states clearly at the outset that capital accumulation has not only changed the historical process of human society but has also reshaped the spatial structure of human society, with urbanization being a typical manifestation. In the section on “The Industrial Proletariat,” Engels analyzes in detail the roots and manifestations of the urban-rural opposition typified by British modernization. Large-scale industrial production requires workers to gather together for collective labor, so a medium-sized factory easily gives rise to a village nearby; people from all walks of life gather in the village, and the villagers gradually become accustomed to factory labor. As new factories increase, the scale of the town expands into a small city, and small cities become large cities. Compared with cities, rural areas face difficulties in transportation; due to their remote locations, building materials, machinery, and workers all need to be transported at higher costs, and the degree of market exchange lags far behind that of cities. The advantage rural areas possess is that wages are generally much lower, “hence the constant competition between country and manufacturing towns.” In the course of Western-style modernization, the rural problem is an “alienated” result of urbanization. The development of capitalism allows cities to rule the countryside, and the urban-rural opposition deepens continuously. Cities use their advantages of agglomeration, cost, and scale to continuously absorb rural surplus—both raw materials for production and the laborers engaged in production—making the disadvantages of rural development outweigh the advantages, harming long-term development for short-term gains, and attaching the problems of urban development itself to the countryside, presenting them in the form of seemingly non-urban issues. Engels’ analysis of the urban-rural opposition and rural problems caused by British urbanization enlightens us that the construction of modern urban-rural space in China can neither copy the Western model nor follow the traditional path of urban-rural planning. Instead, we should construct the urban-rural space of Chinese modernization with socialist attributes in the following two aspects.

城乡问题是现代化进程的必然结果。在《英国工人阶级状况》的导言部分，恩格斯开篇明义，指出资本积累不仅改变了人类社会的历史进程，而且重塑了人类社会的空间结构，典型表现就是城市化。在“工业无产阶级”部分，恩格斯详细分析了以英国现代化为典型代表的城乡对立产生的根源及表现。大工业生产需要工人集聚在一处共同劳动，于是一个中等规模的工厂附近很容易形成一个村镇，各行各业的人群向村镇集聚，村镇的居民逐渐习惯于工厂劳动形式，随着新的工厂的增加，城镇规模扩大为小城市，小城市变成大城市。农村与城市相比，交通运输困难，因地处偏远，建材、机器和工人都需要用更高的成本才能运过来，市场交易程度又远远落后于城市，农村所具有的优势是工资通常要低很多，“于是农村和工厂城市不停地竞争”。在西方式现代化的发展历程中，乡村问题是城市化的“异化”结果。资本主义的发展让城市统治乡村，城乡对立不断加深。城市利用集聚优势、成本优势和规模优势不断吸纳乡村剩余，既包括生产的原材料也包括从事生产的劳动者，让乡村发展的弊端多于优势，以短期效益损害长远发展，并将城市发展自身的问题附加在乡村上，以看似非城市化的问题形式呈现出来。恩格斯关于英国城市化所造成的城乡对立和乡村问题启示我们，中国现代城乡空间构建既不能复制西方的模式，也不能走传统的城乡规划路径，应该在以下两个方面构建社会主义属性的中国现代化的城乡空间。

First, build people’s cities. The urban space in capitalist society is a container and site for capital accumulation; the primary function of the city is to produce surplus value, and workers are in a state of neglect within it. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC [17]17 The 20th National Congress of the CPC was held in October 2022. pointed out, “People’s cities are built by the people, and people’s cities serve the people.” To advance China’s urbanization process, we must adhere to the guidance of Marxist urban thought, draw on Engels’ critique of urban space in the British modernization process, and build people’s cities. This requires us: First, building people’s cities must adhere to the principle that people’s cities are built by the people. People’s cities must coordinate the three main bodies of government, citizens, and society, give play to the principal role of the people, and fully mobilize the people’s enthusiasm and initiative in participating in urban construction and management. The people are both the purpose and the driving force of urban construction and development; “‘urban people’ are the subjects of production and enjoyment of spatial practice.” The construction of people’s cities must adhere to the principal position of the masses in urban space, and through the participation of the people in all areas of urban construction, achieve the unity of urban development and human development. The construction of people’s cities is closely related to the people’s sense of gain, happiness, and security; it is necessary to shift the focus of urban management downward and realize self-governance by urban residents. Second, building people’s cities must adhere to the principle that people’s cities serve the people. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that people’s cities serving the people is the starting point and落脚点 of urban construction. Urban work is an important part of modernization; urban construction must adhere to a people-centered concept and meet the needs of urban residents for a better life.

一是建设人民城市。资本主义社会的城市空间是进行资本积累的容器和场所，城市的首要功能是生产剩余价值，工人在其中处于被忽视的状态。党的二十大报告指出，“人民城市人民建，人民城市为人民”。推进中国城市化进程，必须坚持马克思主义城市思想的指导，汲取恩格斯对英国现代化进程中的城市空间批判思想，建设人民城市。这就要求我们：第一，建设人民城市要坚持人民城市人民建。人民城市要统筹政府、市民、社会三大主体，发挥人民的主体作用，充分调动人民参与城市建设与管理的积极性和主动性。人民是城市建设和发展的目的，也是城市建设和发展的动力，“‘城市人’是空间实践的生产主体和享用主体”。人民城市建设要坚持人民群众在城市空间中的主体地位，通过人民参与城市建设的各个领域，实现城市发展与人的发展相统一。人民城市的建设与人民群众的获得感、幸福感、安全感息息相关，要推动城市管理重心下移，实现城市居民自治。第二，建设人民城市要坚持人民城市为人民。习近平总书记指出，人民城市为人民是城市建设的出发点和落脚点。城市工作是现代化建设的重要一环，城市建设要坚持以人民为中心的理念，满足城市居民美好生活的需要。

Second, promote rural revitalization and reshape the urban-rural spatial pattern. The construction of socialist urban-rural space is a breakthrough from the Western modernization path that dismantles and destroys rural space. The rural revitalization strategy in the New Era [18]18 The “New Era” (新时代) refers to the period beginning with the 19th CPC National Congress in 2017, when Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era was established as the Party’s guiding ideology. takes spatial production as its perspective, places the countryside on an equal footing with the city, breaks the traditional model of “urbanizing the countryside,” focuses on excavating and reshaping the uniqueness and richness of rural space, and gives rural space the same principal status as urban space. The “Rural Revitalization Strategic Plan (2018–2022)” issued by the Central Committee of the CPC and the State Council clearly stipulates improving the urban-rural layout structure, developing distinctive, industry-city integrated, and charming small towns and townships according to local conditions, strengthening the construction of farmers’ living circles centered on the seats of township governments, using towns to drive villages and villages to promote towns, and promoting the linked development of towns and villages. Build ecologically livable and beautiful villages, give play to multiple functions, provide high-quality products, inherit rural culture, retain nostalgic memories, and meet the people’s growing needs for a better life.

二是推进乡村振兴，重塑城乡空间格局。社会主义城乡空间构建是对西方瓦解、摧毁乡村空间的现代化路径的突破，新时代乡村振兴战略以空间生产为视阈，将乡村放在与城市平等的地位上，打破传统“以城化乡”的模式，着力挖掘和重塑乡村空间的独特性和丰富性，让乡村空间具有和城市空间一样的主体地位。中共中央、国务院印发的《乡村振兴战略规划（2018—2022年）》明确规定完善城乡布局结构，因地制宜发展特色鲜明、产城融合、充满魅力的特色小镇和小城镇，加强以乡镇政府驻地为中心的农民生活圈建设，以镇带村、以村促镇，推动镇村联动发展。建设生态宜居的美丽乡村，发挥多重功能，提供优质产品，传承乡村文化，留住乡愁记忆，满足人民日益增长的美好生活需要。

3. Expanding the space for Chinese-path modernization through the mutual promotion of domestic and international dual circulation

3.以国内国际双循环相互促进拓宽中国式现代化空间

Taking Britain, the first country to begin the modernization process, as an example, Engels reveals the “Achilles’ heel” of capitalist production: capitalist production must constantly grow and expand, otherwise it will surely die. If capitalism reduces even slightly its share of the world market supply, it means economic stagnation; on the one hand, there is a surplus of capital, and on the other, a surplus of industrial workers. If production were to stop completely, the result is predictable. Continuous expansion is the basis for the existence of capitalist production, and this continuous expansion cannot continue forever. At just over twenty years of age, Engels, in his own way, arrived at the scientific conclusion that capitalism is inevitably doomed.

恩格斯以最先开始现代化进程的英国为例，揭示资本主义生产的“阿喀琉斯之踵”，即资本主义生产必须不断增长和扩大，否则必定死亡。资本主义只要略微缩减在世界市场供应方面所占有的份额，就意味着经济停滞，一方面是资本过剩，另一方面是产业工人过剩，要是完全停止生产，结果可以想见。必须持续扩大是资本主义生产存在的基础，而这种持续扩大不可能永远继续下去。在20岁出头的年纪，恩格斯用自己的方式得出了资本主义必然灭亡的科学结论。

At present, changes of the world, of the times, and of history are unfolding in ways like never before, and the modernization process of human society has once again come to a historical crossroads. Trade protectionism and conservatism are on the rise in major capitalist countries, which continue to pursue hegemonism and power politics. “Engaging in protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room; while it may seem to shelter one from wind and rain, it also cuts off sunlight and fresh air.” Accelerating the construction of a new development pattern with domestic circulation as the mainstay and domestic and international dual circulation mutually promoting each other is a major strategic task related to the overall situation of China’s development proposed in the recommendations for the 14th Five-Year Plan [19]19 The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) is China’s national economic and social development plan for that period.. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, “As a socialist country with a large population and an ultra-large market scale, China will inevitably face various pressures and severe challenges that other countries have never encountered in its historical process of moving toward modernization.”

当前，世界之变、时代之变、历史之变正以前所未有的方式展开，人类社会现代化进程又一次来到历史的十字路口。资本主义大国贸易保护主义、保守主义抬头，继续推行霸权主义和强权政治，“搞保护主义如同把自己关进黑屋子，看似躲过了风吹雨打，但也隔绝了阳光和空气”。加快构建以国内大循环为主体、国内国际双循环相互促进的新发展格局，是“十四五”规划建议提出的一项关系我国发展全局的重大战略任务。习近平总书记指出，“我国作为一个人口众多和超大市场规模的社会主义国家，在迈向现代化的历史进程中，必然要承受其他国家都不曾遇到的各种压力和严峻挑战”。

Chinese-path modernization is an open modernization, and it is also an endogenous modernization. Endogeneity does not mean that Chinese-path modernization is a closed, conservative modernization, but rather a modernization that relies on its own internal accumulation and on resolving problems arising in the course of development by its own efforts; openness does not mean that we will follow the old path of Western-style modernization characterized by plunder, but rather that we will construct a multidimensional international space, abandon the old path of constructing spatial order through plunder, colonization, and war, and realize peaceful and civilized global spatial production and exchange. By taking the domestic great circulation as the mainstay, adhering to the main line of deepening supply-side structural reform, accelerating the achievement of a high level of scientific and technological self-reliance and self-strengthening, and fully leveraging the advantage of being the world’s largest market, we will build a strong domestic economic circulation system and a stable foundation, thereby gaining an advantage in a broader, wider, and deeper pattern of opening up to the outside world, and expanding the space for Chinese-path modernization.

中国式现代化是开放性的现代化，也是内生性的现代化。内生性并不意味着中国式现代化是封闭、保守的现代化，而是依靠自身内部积累、依靠自身解决发展过程中产生的问题的现代化；开放性并不意味着我们要走西方式现代化掠夺的老路，而是建构多维的国际空间，摒弃掠夺、殖民和战争的空间秩序建构老路，实现和平和文明的全球空间生产交往。以国内大循环为主体，坚持深化供给侧结构性改革这条主线，加快实现高水平科技自立自强，充分发挥世界最大市场这一优势，构建起强大的国内经济循环体系和稳固的基本盘，进而在更大范围、更宽领域和更深层次的对外开放格局中占据优势，拓宽中国式现代化空间。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗