Liu Nana: A Visual Analysis of the Research on Britain's 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 industrialization, Britain's modernization process clearly exhibits a profound interaction between industrialization and urbanization. The development of industrialization inevitably brings about urbanization, which in turn promotes the development of industrialization. Large-scale capitalist industrial production created immense productive forces, broke through regional and national limitations, and initiated world history; however, modernization driven by the logic of capital ^[1] inevitably generates social contradictions. Drawing upon the classic text The Condition of the Working Class in England, this article analyzes the spatio-temporal characteristics of British modernization from diachronic and synchronic perspectives. It utilizes detailed data and historical records to present the vista of British modernization's evolution as observed by Engels at the time. By distilling the paradoxes within the British modernization process revealed by Engels in this work, we aim to grasp how Chinese-path modernization transcends Western modernization.

I. The Profound Analysis of the Spatio-Temporal Attributes of Britain's Modernization Process in The Condition of the Working Class in England

Engels’s investigation of British modernization begins with the Industrial Revolution. When writing The Condition of the Working Class in England, his research starting point was to link the historical process of the Industrial Revolution with changes in capitalist social structure, pointing out that urbanization is the inevitable result of industrialization and revealing the spatio-temporal characteristics of Britain's modernization process. Driven by the logic of capital, British modernization initiated the course of global modernization. Starting from this point, the global capital market gradually formed and advanced triumphantly, creating a world pattern under capitalist rule.

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

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

The Condition of the Working Class in England uses detailed data and historical materials to present a historical scene where the British Industrial Revolution and the modernization process resonate at the same frequency. The British Industrial Revolution first began in the 1760s in the cotton textile sector. Large-scale machine industrial production gradually replaced former handicraft production, and Britain's social structure underwent a massive transformation. Engels's analysis pointed 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 new inventions, the efficiency of yarn production greatly increased; machines gradually replaced the need for human labor in production, and production costs fell, leading to a drop in the price of cloth and stimulating a rapid increase in market demand. Weavers who previously engaged in part-time farming gradually abandoned their agricultural production to become the burgeoning industrial proletariat. Population shifted from the countryside to the cities, and capitalists continuously extracted more profit by purchasing raw materials and labor power.

The Industrial Revolution had a massive impact on the production and distribution of the population. The social structure of the population is influenced by various factors such as productive forces, relations of production, geographical environment, and natural conditions, among which the decisive factors are the productive forces and relations of production. Before the mid-18th century, Britain's population grew very slowly, and people lived in a state of relative isolation. The Industrial Revolution brought a fundamental change to the situation of British workers, with the population concentrating in urban spaces following industrial production. The bourgeoisie replaced the original manufactories with the factory system, and large-scale machine production replaced handicraft production, causing the level of productive forces to increase tremendously. Engels wrote in The Condition of the Working Class in England: "The rapid expansion of industry called for many hands; wages rose, and troops of laborers migrated from the agricultural districts to the towns. The population increased with amazing rapidity, and the increase was almost all among the proletarian class." The development of urban factories triggered a massive increase in the demand for labor. The population distribution manifested geographically as a migration from the countryside to the city, with large numbers of rural residents pouring into the towns (as shown in Figure 1).

The Industrial Revolution brought about a great transformation of British society, and once the process of industrialization began, it expanded to all sectors of industrial production with irresistible momentum. The rapid increase in urban population and the flourishing development of industrial production brought about a major transformation in modes of transport. First was the establishment of a road network. Before the 19th century, the state of transportation in Britain was quite poor. After the Industrial Revolution began, capitalists increased investment in roads and bridges, establishing a road network in Britain. This not only linked various regions geographically but also brought capitalist civilization to districts that were previously remote and closed off, allowing bourgeois ideology to penetrate every corner of Britain. As Marx and Engels later argued in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, the bourgeoisie creates a world after its own image; British capitalism, originating from the Industrial Revolution, created a Britain after its own image. Second was the construction of canals. Before the mid-18th century, Britain had almost no canals. Since the opening of the first canal in Lancashire in 1755, Britain's canal construction flourished, and many rivers became navigable through dredging. Third was the construction of railways. In 1830, Britain built its first railway line from Liverpool to Manchester. From then on, various British cities were connected by rail. In 1840, railway lines exceeded 4,500 miles, and by 1850, they exceeded 23,500 miles. British land transport underwent a massive transformation, greatly shortening the travel time between cities. In 1750, it took three and a half days to reach Manchester from London by coach (as shown in Figure 2); due to the construction of roads, it only took 46 hours by 1830 (as shown in Figure 3). With the construction of railways, by 1844, when Engels was writing The Condition of the Working Class in England, it took only one day to go from Edinburgh to London by train. The construction of railways promoted the flourishing development of industry and reduced the transport time and cost of people and goods, thereby opening the door to the world market. During the first twenty years of railway construction in Britain (1830–1850), Britain's 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. Before 1807, Britain had no steamships; by 1836, the number of steamships in British harbors exceeded 500. Engels gave a vivid description of the grand sight of the Thames: "The view of the Thames from the sea up to London Bridge is one of the most moving that can be imagined. On both sides, and especially above Woolwich, the many houses and shipyards, the countless ships moored along both banks... all this is so imposing, so magnificent, that it is intoxicating, and one cannot but be amazed by the greatness of England before even setting foot on British soil."

2. Urbanization as the Spatial Carrier of British Modernization

Urbanization is a product of large-scale capitalist industrial production. The rise of industrialization attracted large numbers of people to congregate 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 rural inhabitants into urban inhabitants. The number of large cities grew, and the scale of the cities expanded continuously.

Britain was the first country in the world to complete urbanization. Before the Industrial Revolution, manual labor and handicraft workshops were the primary modes of production. Restricted by the level of productive forces, urban development was very slow. Except for London, which had a population of over one million in 1801, other cities were composed of several small market towns and ports, and their population growth was very slow. The Industrial Revolution that began in the 1770s initiated the era dominated by machine production and the factory system, causing the city to occupy an increasingly important position in social development.

Industrial development and urban development promoted each other. In the first half of the 19th century, the textile industry first drove the development of British cities. Engels focused his field research on several major clusters of cotton textile production, such as Lancashire, the center of the cotton industry at the time. Through detailed investigation, Engels found that the cotton industry and the development of Lancashire were mutually reinforcing. Lancashire was the site where the cotton industry arose, and the cotton industry in turn drove the urbanization process of Lancashire, causing its population to increase ninefold over 80 years and forming large cities like Liverpool and Manchester, as well as the surrounding factory towns. Glasgow was the second-largest cotton textile district after Lancashire; accompanying the rise of the cotton industry, Glasgow’s population increased from 30,000 to 300,000. Engels specifically noted in The Condition of the Working Class in England that as the central city of the British Industrial Revolution, Manchester’s industrial and commercial activities also drove the development of surrounding cities, thereby forming a "city cluster" centered on Manchester. In 1801, only London had a population exceeding 100,000 (as shown in Figure 4). By 1851, ten cities in Britain had more than 100,000 residents (as shown in Figure 5).

Urbanization is the inevitable result of industrial development and the spatial manifestation of the modernization process. The development of urbanization had multi-faceted impacts on British society and profoundly changed 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 isolated; once the Industrial Revolution began, the city became Britain’s economic center, the countryside was influenced by the city, and the population outflowed in large numbers. Meanwhile, large-scale industrial production in the city possessed a comparative advantage over traditional rural handicraft production, breaking the original self-sufficient natural economy of the countryside and leading to the decline of rural handicrafts. The expansion of urban scale in the urbanization process was built on the foundation of transforming the countryside; part of the rural space was converted into urban space, forming a pattern where the countryside was subordinate to the city. Second, urban space provided sites for capital accumulation. Urban space possesses ample labor resources and infrastructure; for example, a developed transportation system provided convenience for the flow of urban labor and materials, reduced transportation costs, and was conducive to capitalists opening factories and enterprises at lower costs. Capital utilizes the population agglomeration and spatial agglomeration effects of the city to compress the time and space of production and improve production efficiency. Cities contain numerous markets and exchanges, which can provide raw material markets and sales markets for capitalist development, ensuring the continuity of capital production and circulation. Third, urban space created conditions for the application of new technologies. The city is the site of large-scale capitalist industrial production, and the innovation of technology and machinery is the driving force of capitalist development. To win in competition, capitalists constantly innovate production tools and use the most advanced production technologies to increase productivity. Finally, urban space itself formed a natural market. Large numbers of people congregate in urban space, resulting in huge consumer demand. Taking Manchester, a typical industrial city, as an example: Manchester’s development drove the surrounding "city cluster," and while the surrounding cities were purely industrial towns, commercial activities were conducted in Manchester. Therefore, Manchester performed the commercial function of providing necessities to itself and the surrounding cities, exchanging goods, labor, and capital with them.

3. World History as the Grand Spatio-Temporal Background within which British Modernization is Embedded

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

First, the socialized production on a large scale brought about a universal division of labor, which propelled the formation of world history. The fundamental cause of the formation of world history lies in the universal development of productive forces and social intercourse. The process of large-scale socialized production is the socialization of the production process itself, marking a shift from scattered small-scale production to large-scale social production. Capitalist society implements machine production and an extensive social division of labor. This broad division of labor not only expanded the scope and degree of the original division of labor but also further extended it into an internationalized division of labor. The global division of labor created universal links and universal intercourse on a world scale, connecting various regions of the world into a unified whole. The capitalist mode of large-scale socialized production and the world market share a relationship of interdependence; to obtain more profit, the bourgeoisie must continuously expand the scope of the market; to achieve victory in market competition, the bourgeoisie must continuously reduce its own production costs and improve the quality of manufactured products. Consequently, extensive competition formed among capitalists—competition that was no longer confined to a single locality or country, but was a universal, global competition. This competition further strengthened the mutual intercourse between various countries, regions, and nations: "Big industry... created the same relations between the classes of society everywhere, and thus destroyed the peculiar individuality of the various nationalities."

Second, the application and dissemination of new technologies brought about by the Industrial Revolution strengthened world intercourse. The prominent hallmark of the Industrial Revolution was the widespread application of machinery. In various capitalist production sectors, whether in agricultural or industrial production, the application of new inventions and technologies greatly enhanced productive forces (as shown in Figure 6). The application of science and technology is an essential stage of modern production. As the first country to undergo the Industrial Revolution, Britain undoubtedly possessed a first-mover advantage. Other countries, either actively or passively, learned advanced science and technology from Britain. With the dissemination and exchange of science and technology as a vehicle, the Industrial Revolution further propelled the process of world history.

Third, the world market is an important field for world intercourse. The fundamental goal of capitalist production is to obtain surplus value. To realize more surplus value, large-scale capitalist industrial production requires not only the establishment of stable domestic markets but also the continuous opening of international markets. Capitalist large-scale industrial production and the world market are interdependent; to promote the development of big industry, capitalism must adapt to the requirements of the world market by reducing production costs and improving product quality. By continuously occupying domestic and foreign markets, the commodity economy penetrated every aspect of social life, further causing the universalization of competition and strengthening the interconnectedness between various countries and nations. The emergence of the world market transformed what was originally local and national economic intercourse into a world-level activity. At the same time, cities provided the spatial vehicle for the formation of world history, and the globalization of capital also reshaped the urban spatial system. Engels pointed out that 19th-century Britain was the commercial capital of the world, and Manchester was the world's first factory city. These "world cities," serving as hubs of global geographic space, linked various regions together and formed a global trade network in terms of spatial configuration.

II. The Revelation of Paradoxes in Britain's Modernization Process in The Condition of the Working-Class in England

The British modernization process brought about the advancement of industrialization and urbanization. The rise of large-scale capitalist industry prompted the rapid development of productive forces, while the advancement of the urbanization process formed large cities and urban clusters. However, the modernization process in 19th-century Britain did not bring improvement to the lives of the working class. The phenomenon of the polarization between the rich and the poor was not alleviated; instead, it further intensified within capitalist society, manifesting as the direct antagonism between two major classes. The capitalist factory system led to workers becoming appendages of the machine, urban space under bourgeois rule became characterized by hierarchical and class-based imbalances, and global free trade made competition increasingly fierce. In The Condition of the Working-Class in England, Engels perceptively and resolutely pulled back the veil of Britain's triumphant industrialization and urbanization to examine the paradoxes inherent in three sets of relations: the displacement of the subject-object relationship between worker and machine, the imbalance in urban spatial development, and the obstruction of global free trade.

1. The paradox of the relationship between workers and machines: workers becoming appendages of the machine

The sole purpose of capitalist production is the pursuit of more surplus value. Engels launched a powerful critique of the capitalist factory system, pointing out that it represents a dual exploitation of the worker's body and spirit. "The more the means of production are concentrated in large masses, the more the workers must be aggregated in the same space." The capitalist factory system gathered workers into cramped factories, causing them immense harm.

First, the capitalist factory system harmed the physical bodies of workers. In The Condition of the Working-Class in England, Engels analyzed how the invention of new machinery and the refinement of the division of labor reduced the skill requirements for workers, making factory owners more inclined to employ cheaper women and children. Consequently, more female and child laborers entered the factories. Between 1834 and 1847, adult men accounted for only one-quarter of the workers in British cotton mills. According to the "Report of the Factories Inquiry Commission of 1833," British children at that time entered factories to work starting at age five, with daily working hours reaching 14 to 16 hours. Taking the textile industry as an example, the conditions of the workers' workspace were appalling. Most of those engaged in lace production within the textile industry were child laborers. This labor, fixed in "small, ill-ventilated, and stifling rooms," caused extreme harm to the development and growth of adolescents; to maintain their working posture, girls wore stays with wooden slats, which caused their chests and ribs to deform. Due to the lack of air circulation in the workplace, and with cotton lint and dust flying everywhere, workers generally developed respiratory diseases and symptoms of indigestion. Machinery, originally a tool to enhance productive forces, became a destructive force under the capitalist system; workers were enslaved by machines, their bodies no longer under their own control but rather becoming appendages of the machine. Beyond the condition of the proletariat, Engels also examined the living conditions of the bourgeoisie, revealing the sharp contrast between the conditions of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the same time and space: while the workers toiled hard yet could not even meet basic living needs, the bourgeoisie lived in luxury—"the grand carriages of the upper bourgeoisie roll through the streets below, and perhaps some despicable dandy nearby loses more money playing Faro in one night than they can earn in a whole year." The modern worker "instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth."

Second, the capitalist factory system destroyed the workers' spirit. Due to the refinement of the division of labor, workers were fixed to a certain position in the factory, performing repetitive mechanical movements—"this activity does not require the worker to use his thoughts, but at the same time it does not allow him to think of anything else." The factory system and the division of labor caused the worker to degenerate completely into a "tool." In Engels' view, labor in such a factory was not true labor, but the most torturous and wearisome activity in the world. Being fixed to a single production link, the production activity did not require the worker to think, but only to repeat the same movement over and over, leading to the destruction of the worker's physical and intellectual powers. In this boredom, workers constantly wore away their spirit and will, yet could not stop to let their bodies and minds relax, having no leisure time whatsoever. Amidst the roar of machinery and under the gaze of overseers holding fine-books, workers were forced to toil on. The factory allowed the bourgeoisie to maximize the degree of exploitation of the proletariat; the proletariat lost all freedom, existing entirely as an appendage of capitalist production. Engels offered a stinging critique of capitalist society: "The social cruelty also stands out particularly clearly: society abandons its members precisely when they most need its help, leaving them to the mercy of fate."

2. The paradox of urban spatial relations: spatial development imbalance

The progress of capitalist productive forces and the transformation of the mode of production drove the emergence of modern industrial cities. Large industrial cities were sites of industrial production; the congregation of population and resources laid the foundation for the development of industrial capital. Urban space was stamped with the hallmark of capital. The development of capitalist industrialization was closely related to the process of large-scale urbanization; capital carried out production within urban space and accelerated capital accumulation by shaping that space. Engels revealed the imbalance in urban spatial development caused by the capitalist mode of production.

First, urban spatial planning was irrational. To increase the capacity of urban space, the bourgeoisie gave no consideration to the comfort of the workers' dwelling when building workers' housing; buildings were always piled together in a chaotic mess. Wherever there was a gap in a working-class residential area, capitalists would huddle houses into it until no open space remained between any two houses. Despite the massive influx of people to the cities, the supply of housing did not increase with the number of workers. Workers' housing was extremely scarce and the population density was very high. Data from the Journal of the Statistical Society cited by Engels showed that "in 1840, 5,366 working-class families lived in 5,294 dwellings." The small houses built by the bourgeoisie for workers appeared "very pretty and solid" from the outside, but upon deep investigation, Engels found that the walls of these small houses were very thin. This was because the owners cut corners during the actual construction process simply to save costs. At the same time, because British law stipulated that the owners who built the houses did not hold the land rights, owners—out of self-interest—always "calculated meticulously" to ensure the houses they built would devalue by the time the land lease expired. Most of these owners were bosses of construction companies or factory owners; they were unwilling to spend money repairing the small houses. On one hand, they were unwilling to invest more costs into workers' housing; on the other hand, since large numbers of workers were unemployed and could not afford rent when economic crises arrived, there was no necessity to maintain the small houses. Faced with the exploitative behavior of the bourgeoisie toward the workers, the government authorities appeared extremely indifferent; not only did they fail to make any improvements, they even colluded with the capitalists to further increase this exploitation and exacerbate 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 for workers and a part of the petty bourgeoisie in our modern big cities is only one of the countless smaller, secondary evils which result from the modern capitalist mode of production." As revealed in Figure 7, from 1700 to 1860, the total population of Britain grew nearly fourfold, and the total industrial output value grew to 15 times its original level—with metals and mining specifically increasing 50 times—but while housing supply and domestic services developed, their growth margin was small. Cities became increasingly crowded due to the congregation of large populations.

Second, the antagonism between town and country. The process of urbanization was accompanied by the migration of population from the countryside to the city; the process of urban development was a process of constant separation between town and country. Under the capitalist mode of production, the city occupied a significantly superior position relative to the countryside. Capital utilized advanced science and technology, transportation systems, and the aggregated population and resources within urban space to carry out large-scale socialized production; the city became the center of capital accumulation, and the countryside eventually became subordinate to the city. The countryside gradually became the supplier of raw materials and labor for the city, and the division of labor caused the gap between town and country to widen continuously. To accelerate capital accumulation, capital tended toward constant concentration; the bourgeoisie needed to "suppress the scattered state of the means of production, of property, and of population." The profit-seeking nature of capital drove it to establish connections everywhere, expanding geographically and penetrating rural areas, transforming what was originally scattered rural space into urban space. The bourgeoisie exerted ideological control over rural space, destroying the "customs and relations of the good old days" and replacing them with capitalist cash relations and free competition.

Third, the loss of leisure space for workers. Under the dominance of capitalist private ownership, public space was continuously converted into the private space of the bourgeoisie. Previously, proletarians could live and recreate on communal lands, but in order to improve productive efficiency, the bourgeoisie—through parliamentary struggle—plundered more common land and transformed it into arable land, causing the proletariat to lose its original spaces for public entertainment ^[9]. The bourgeoisie utilized political power to turn public space into private property, depriving proletarians of the spatial conditions for play and recreation. Coupled with their destitution and the hopelessness brought on by grueling labor, they had no choice but to resort to alcoholism in gin palaces. Engels cited a series of data to illustrate the condition of worker alcoholism at the time: in 1823, excise tax was paid on 2.3 million gallons of spirits in Scotland and 1.976 million gallons in England; by 1837, these figures rose to 6.62 million gallons in Scotland and 7.875 million gallons in England. Taking the change in spirits sales in Scotland and England over fifteen years as an example, Engels fully demonstrated the fact of intensifying alcoholism among workers. The state of worker alcoholism was severe across all regions of Britain, and its fundamental cause was that workers could not experience any joy in their lives, as heavy physical labor occupied nearly all their time. Under such conditions, workers had no life of their own, no activities for enjoyment, and could not feel their own existence as "human beings." After finishing work, they were exhausted and weary, continuing to suffer all-around torment both materially and spiritually: they had no place of belonging within the urban space, and their meager dwellings offered no comfort whatsoever; in terms of social interaction, there were no spaces to facilitate it, forcing them to satisfy their social needs in taverns. Engels did not remain at the superficial phenomenon of the working class indulging in alcoholism but looked through the phenomenon, using the method of class analysis to conduct an incisive analysis of the condition of the proletariat. He pointed out that the fundamental reason behind it lay in capitalist private ownership. Engels noted that alcoholism was not a bad habit accidentally contracted by workers; under the capitalist system, it was an inevitable phenomenon. The responsibility for this phenomenon lay not with the workers, but with the bourgeoisie. While workers inevitably succumbed to the vice of alcoholism, they also had to bear the bourgeoisie’s accusations of being "unambitious," even though alcoholism—the workers’ only mode of "enjoyment"—brought even more devastating impacts on their physical and mental health. Long-term alcoholism caused the workers' health to deteriorate daily, inducing pulmonary and gastric diseases.

3. The Paradox of Global Free Trade: The Conflict Between Trade Freedom and Protectionism By the first half of the 18th century, Britain had become the world's most developed capitalist country. During the early stages of British industrialization, the country implemented a domestic system of protective tariffs, laying the foundation for its monopoly of the world market. As Engels said: "Modern industry, that is, production by steam-driven machinery, was hatched and nurtured in England during the last thirty-odd years of the 18th century under the wing of the system of protective tariffs." During the manufactory period of nascent capitalism, Britain's implementation of protective tariff policies was conducive to establishing its domestic industrial system. When capitalism developed and competition became universal, protective tariffs became an obstacle to global capitalist expansion, becoming "unbearable fetters for any country that hopes to successfully strive for independence in the world market." Britain's Corn Laws were repealed in 1846–1847; Engels wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844–1845, yet he had already keenly perceived that the periodic outbreaks of capitalist crises would inevitably drive the bourgeoisie to shift the crisis through various means. He predicted that "the next crisis, coming in 1846 or 1847, will likely lead to the repeal of the Corn Laws and the passing of the Charter" ^[10].

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 remained merely the freedom of capital—that is, the freedom for the bourgeoisie to squeeze the workers, rather than freedom for the workers. First, free trade led to intensified competition among workers. Following the repeal of the Corn Laws, "free competition, the modern socio-economic system, will develop to the extreme." Free trade linked domestic markets with international markets, facilitating capital accumulation and concentration. The result was the expansion of the division of labor and the widespread use of machinery, lowering the requirements for professional skills and making competition among workers more intense. Capitalists could exploit this competition to reduce wages. Second, free trade led to a decline in the purchasing power of workers. The Corn Laws had kept British grain prices higher than in other countries, meaning that while workers’ wages remained at a relatively high level, their cost of living was also high. During the period the Corn Laws were in effect, the competition among British factory owners was limited to the domestic sphere; once the laws were repealed and grain prices fell, workers’ wages would also drop to the average level of the international market. Cheap labor benefited the capitalists' competitiveness and further increased market demand for commodities. Although rising demand would increase the demand for labor, it was insufficient to solve Britain’s "surplus labor" problem. On one hand, the increased demand for labor was short-term; on the other hand, industrial prosperity would lead to an increase in population, and the increased demand for labor could not offset rapid population growth. Engels criticized the "vile lies" concocted by the Anti-Corn Law League for the workers—the bourgeoisie attempted to use untenable arguments to prove that "the price of labor is inversely proportional to the price of grain"—and clearly pointed out that the relative purchasing power of the workers actually decreased, warning the worker masses not to be deceived by the bourgeoisie. Finally, free trade led to the bourgeoisie's exploitation of proletarians on a global scale. As the most developed capitalist country at the time, Britain used its advanced large-scale industrial machinery to crush the handicraft production methods of backward countries, forcing foreign markets to become sites for its raw material imports: "Commerce and industry are increasingly prosperous, and almost all foreign markets that have not implemented protective tariffs have been occupied." The formation of the world market was built upon the exploitation of undeveloped countries by developed ones—"richer countries exploiting poorer countries"—thereby forming a world structure centered on developed nations. This spatial exploitation persists throughout the development of capitalism: during the period of primitive accumulation of capital, developed nations carried out colonial exploitation of undeveloped ones; during the rise of large-scale industrial production, capitalism utilized its advantages in capital, trade, and technology to conduct direct and indirect exploitation, forming a world system centered on developed capitalist countries.

III. Theoretical Inspirations from The Condition of the Working Class in England for Reflecting on the Process of British Modernization In The Condition of the Working Class in England, through empirical investigation, literature review, and theoretical analysis, Engels revealed the various maladies within the British modernization process and profoundly analyzed its inherent logic of capital. British modernization did not bring well-being to the broad masses of the British proletariat; instead, it exacerbated social polarization and class antagonism. This holds important theoretical value for us in profoundly grasping the essence of Western modernization and how Chinese-path modernization transcends it.

1. Transcending the Modernization of Objects with the Modernization of Humans In the preface to the 1892 German edition, Engels looked back at the development and maladies capitalism had brought to cities like Manchester when he wrote the book in 1844. He admitted that those regions which he could "still describe in almost idyllic terms" had now, with the growth of cities, "fallen into the same state of decay, desolation, and misery." Capitalist development, characterized by the Industrial Revolution, technological progress, and socialized mass production, did not make cities better. This is because the Western-style modernization shaped by capitalist development is a "modernization of objects." If we say that Engels focused on British modernization when composing the work in 1844–1845, then in the 1892 German preface, he was observing German modernization through the lens of the British experience. Modernization is a concept with inherent temporal and spatial attributes: in the temporal dimension, different countries enter the modernization process at different times; in the spatial dimension, there is modernization distinguished by national and regional attributes, as well as different types such as endogenous and exogenous modernization. Western-style modernization being a modernization of objects means seeing "objects" but not "people." In capitalist society, "the worker is seen merely as a piece of capital who yields himself to the manufacturer's use, and for whom the manufacturer pays interest in the form of wages." The working class, as the subject promoting the development of modernization, lacks subjectivity and is reduced to an appendage of the machine. Engels clearly pointed out in The Condition of the Working Class in England that the cause of the paradox in the relationship between workers and machines should not be sought in minor details, but "should be sought in the capitalist system itself." The result of the increasing development of the modernization of objects is the further fragmentation of the social system: on one side are the owners of all means of production and consumption, and on the other are the wage laborers who own nothing but their labor power. This is the modernization produced and continuously shaped by capitalism itself.

Historical materialism scientifically reveals the essence of human beings, thereby clarifying the logical process of the modernization of humans. In the Grundrisse (Manuscripts of 1857–1858), Marx discussed three stages: human dependence, human independence based on objective dependence, and the free and well-rounded development of individuals. In a society based on private property—especially in its advanced form, capitalist society—human history also progresses. With every major step forward, humans gain a certain degree of freedom from nature and social relations, moving more or less closer to the threshold of complete human emancipation. However, it must be recognized that in a society of private property, the emancipation humans obtain is limited; that is, humanity remains within the realm of necessity. From the perspective of the temporal and spatial attributes of modernization, the leap from the relationship of dependence to the free and well-rounded development of humans, and from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, is the transition from the modernization of objects to the modernization of humans. This is because "real, living individuals create all of this... history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims." General Secretary Xi Jinping has emphasized: "The ultimate goal of modernization is to achieve the free and well-rounded development of people. Whether the path of modernization can be successfully navigated and sustained depends crucially on whether it adheres to a people-centered approach." Taking dialectical materialism and historical materialism as the fundamental positions, viewpoints, and methods, the essence of Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of humans. It breaks through the stage of Western-style modernization characterized by "human independence based on objective (material) dependence," representing a true transcendence of the modernization of objects.

Being people-centered is the fundamental reason why the path of Chinese-path modernization can be successfully navigated and sustained. The modernization we pursue—characterized by political democracy, economic development, cultural prosperity, social equity, and ecological beauty—is, in the final analysis, a modernization capable of meeting the people's needs for a better life. Precisely because it consistently adheres to a people-centered approach, Chinese-path modernization can achieve the transcendence of Western modernization of objects, embodying and maintaining the socialist superiority of Chinese-path modernization.

Taking the people as the center is the prerequisite and foundation for establishing a correct outlook on modernization. In his important speech at the opening ceremony of a seminar for provincial and ministerial-level leading officials on studying and implementing the spirit of the fifth plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee, General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed the important proposition that "one must have a correct outlook on modernization." The fundamental understanding of various issues concerning modernization constitutes one’s outlook on modernization. The type of outlook on modernization one holds determines the concepts, principles, and policies of modernization that will be adopted. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Seeking happiness for the people and rejuvenation for the nation is both the starting point and the ultimate goal of our Party's leadership in modernization construction, as well as the 'root' and 'soul' of the New Development Philosophy. Only by adhering to the people-centered development philosophy—insisting that development is for the people, relies on the people, and its fruits are shared by the people—can there be a correct outlook on development and modernization." Only by remaining people-centered can we accurately judge the evolution of the principal contradiction in society ^[11] and subsequently form a correct cognitive understanding of the morphological characteristics of Chinese-path modernization. The realization of Chinese-path modernization requires the continuous resolution of the problems of unbalanced and inadequate development in the developmental process, the continuous meeting of the people’s aspirations for a better life, and has as its final goal the realization of free and comprehensive human development. Remaining people-centered is the prerequisite and foundation for our formation of a correct outlook on modernization; as General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, "Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism and not any other 'ism'; the basic principles of scientific socialism cannot be abandoned, for if they are abandoned, it is no longer socialism." Chinese-path modernization, centered on the people, is the contemporary expression of the theory of modernization in scientific socialism.

2. Surpassing the Capitalist Antithesis Between Urban and Rural Areas through the Construction of Socialist Urban-Rural Spaces

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 stated clearly from the outset that capital accumulation not only changed the historical process of human society but also reshaped the spatial structure of human society, with urbanization as its typical manifestation. In the section on the "Industrial Proletariat," Engels provided a detailed analysis of the roots and manifestations of the urban-rural antithesis as typified by British modernization. Large-scale industrial production requires workers to gather in one place for collective labor; thus, a village or town easily forms near a medium-sized factory, and people from all walks of life gravitate toward it. Residents of these towns gradually become accustomed to industrial forms of labor, and as new factories are added, the scale of towns expands into small cities, and small cities become large cities. Compared to cities, rural areas face difficulties in transport and communication; due to their remote locations, building materials, machinery, and workers all require higher costs to be brought in, and the level of market transactions lags far behind the cities. The advantage possessed by the countryside is that wages are generalized as being much lower, "hence the continuous competition between the country and the factory town." In the developmental history of Western-style modernization, the rural problem is the "alienated" result of urbanization. Capitalist development allows the city to dominate the countryside, and the urban-rural antithesis continues to deepen. Cities utilize their advantages in agglomeration, cost, and scale to continuously absorb rural surpluses—including both raw materials for production and those laborers engaged in production—causing the disadvantages of rural development to outweigh its advantages, damaging long-term development for short-term gains, and appending the city’s own developmental problems onto the countryside, presenting them in forms that appear to be non-urbanization issues. Engels’s insights into the urban-rural antithesis and rural issues caused by British urbanization enlighten us: the construction of modern Chinese urban-rural spaces can neither replicate the Western model nor follow traditional paths of urban-rural planning. We should construct urban-rural spaces for Chinese modernization with socialist attributes in the following two aspects.

First, the construction of "people’s cities." Urban space in capitalist society is a container and site for capital accumulation; the primary function of the city is the production of surplus value, while workers remain in a neglected state. The report to the 20th CPC National Congress pointed out that "cities are built by the people and for the people." To advance China’s urbanization process, we must adhere to the guidance of Marxist urban thought, draw upon Engels’s critique of urban space in the process of British modernization, and build people’s cities. This requires us: First, to insist that people’s cities are built by the people. The people's city must coordinate the three major subjects—the government, citizens, and society—giving full play to the subjective role of the people and fully mobilizing their enthusiasm and initiative in participating in urban construction and management. The people are the purpose of urban construction and development, as well as its driving force; "the 'urban person' is both the subject of production and the subject of enjoyment in spatial practice." The construction of people’s cities must insist on the subjective status of the masses within urban space, achieving the unification of urban development and human development through the participation of the people in all fields of urban construction. The construction of people’s cities is closely linked to the people’s sense of gain, happiness, and security; we must promote the downward shift of the focus of urban management and realize autonomy for urban residents. Second, we must insist that the people’s city is for the people. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that "the people’s city for the people" is the starting point and ultimate goal of urban construction. Urban work is a vital link in modernization construction; urban construction must adhere to the people-centered concept to meet the needs of urban residents for a better life.

Second, the advancement of rural revitalization to reshape the spatial pattern of urban and rural areas. The construction of socialist urban-rural space represents a breakthrough from the Western modernization path that dismantled and destroyed rural space. The rural revitalization strategy of the New Era takes the production of space as its perspective, placing the countryside on equal footing with the city, breaking the traditional "urbanizing the countryside" model, and striving to excavate and reshape the uniqueness and richness of rural space, allowing it to hold the same subjective status as urban space. The Strategic Plan for Rural Revitalization (2018–2022) issued by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council explicitly stipulates the improvement of urban-rural layout structures; the development of distinctive, charming small towns and townships with integrated industry and urban functions based on local conditions; and the strengthening of the "peasant living circle" centered on township government seats, using towns to lead villages and villages to promote towns to achieve linked town-village development. This involves building beautiful villages that are ecologically livable, giving play to multiple functions, providing high-quality products, inheriting rural culture, preserving "nostalgic memories" (xiangchou ^[12]), and meeting the people’s growing needs for a better life.

3. Broadening the Space for Chinese-path Modernization through the Mutual Reinforcement of Domestic and International Dual Circulation

Taking Britain—the first to begin the modernization process—as an example, Engels revealed the "Achilles' heel" of capitalist production: that it must constantly grow and expand, or else it must die. For capitalism, even a slight reduction in its share of the world market supply means economic stagnation; on one hand, there is a surplus of capital, and on the other, a surplus of industrial workers. If production were to stop completely, the results can be imagined. Continuous expansion is the basis for the existence of capitalist production, yet this continuous expansion cannot go on forever. In his early twenties, Engels arrived in his own way at the scientific conclusion that capitalism must inevitably perish.

Currently, changes in the world, in the times, and in history are unfolding in unprecedented ways, and the modernization process of human society has once again arrived at a historical crossroads. In major capitalist powers, protectionism and conservatism are on the rise, and they continue to pursue hegemonism and power politics. "Practicing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room: while one may seem to have escaped the wind and rain, one has also cut oneself off from sunshine and air." Accelerating the construction of a new development pattern with domestic circulation as the mainstay and domestic and international dual circulation mutually reinforcing each other is a major strategic task concerning the overall situation of our country’s development, as proposed in the recommendations for the 14th Five-Year Plan. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "As a socialist country with a large population and a super-sized market, China, in its historical process toward modernization, will inevitably endure various pressures and severe challenges that no other country has ever encountered."

Chinese-path modernization is an open modernization, but also an endogenous modernization. Endogeneity does not mean that Chinese-path modernization is closed or conservative, but rather that it is a modernization that relies on its own internal accumulation and on itself to solve the problems arising in the developmental process. Openness does not mean that we will follow the old Western path of modernization through plunder; rather, it means constructing a multi-dimensional international space, abandoning the old path of constructing spatial orders through plunder, colonization, and war, and realizing the production and interaction of a global space based on peace and civilization. By taking domestic circulation as the mainstay, adhering to the main line of deepening supply-side structural reform, accelerating the realization of high-level technological self-reliance and self-strengthening, and giving full play to the advantage of being the world's largest market, we can construct a powerful domestic economic circulation system and a solid fundamental base. This, in turn, will allow us to occupy an advantageous position in a pattern of opening up to the outside world across a wider range, broader fields, and deeper levels, thereby broadening the space for Chinese-path modernization.

(About the Author: Liu Nana is an Associate Professor at the School of Marxism, Beihang University, and a researcher at the Capital University Party Building Research Base.) Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Marxism Studies, Issue 3, 2024