“Concise World History” (1975) is a brief theoretical book on world history compiled by the “Concise World History” editorial team from the Department of History at Peking University. The entire book is divided into ancient, modern, and contemporary sections, along with a map atlas that accompanies the text, succinctly narrating world history from the emergence of humanity to the end of the Second World War.
World history is the sum of all national histories; its content encompasses the entire history of human society. However, world history is not simply a superposition of all national histories, but a meaningful summary of parts of history that have significantly influenced world history, based on an integrated view of all national histories, forming an interconnected organic whole. The content of world history can be overly complicated; merely stacking national histories or presenting superficial content for each country and ethnicity is a mistake.Before Marxism, human society had many historians eager to write world history since the advent of class society. However, due to their class limitations and narrow perspectives constrained by the scale of production, their world histories were generally idealist in nature. These histories not only contained many biases and factual errors of varying degrees, but also incorporated superstitious religious and mythological elements. Moreover, since the authors were from exploitative classes and wrote from the standpoint of the ruling class, their histories tended to belittle the laboring masses and exaggerate the role of a few monarchs and officials, reflecting a subjective idealist tendency. Most importantly, before capitalist society, the regions, nations, and countries of human society were largely isolated from each other, with some completely unaware of each other’s existence. Therefore, in this sense, there was no true world history before capitalism, only regional histories discussing certain aspects of world history. After the emergence of capitalism, due to the expansion of production scale and the global expansion of capitalism, humanity finally gained the possibility of understanding the entire human society for the first time. Bourgeois historians were the first to begin writing genuine world history, which marked a significant progress. However, due to their bourgeois class bias and limited perspective constrained by the scale of production, bourgeois historians could not fully scientifically comprehend the laws of world history. They still explained the development of world history with idealist principles, even fabricating facts for the benefit of their class, turning history into a commodity that bourgeoisie could “customize” at will. Engels pointed out: “The bourgeoisie turns everything into a commodity, including history. Its very nature and conditions of existence require it to falsify everything, including history. The most profitable historical works are those that serve bourgeois interests, and thus they are the most falsified.”[^1] Therefore, the task of writing a thoroughly scientific world history fell to Marxists. The reason why Marxists could produce a thoroughly scientific world history lies in profound historical reasons.
Marxists’ writing of world history is fundamentally based on the standpoint of the proletariat. The proletariat is “the most visionary, selfless, and revolutionary”[^2] class, so Marxist writers of world history can transcend class biases and objectively evaluate every historical figure and event. This not only means recognizing the basic principle of historical materialism that “the consciousness of people does not determine their existence; rather, their social existence determines their consciousness”[^3], and accepting the scientific conclusion that “the ultimate causes of all social and political changes should be sought not in people’s minds, but in the changes of modes of production and exchange”[^4], and affirming the great idea that “the people, and only the people, are the driving force behind world history”[^5]. It also involves applying Marxist doctrine to conduct the first comprehensive scientific analysis of the laws of world history, ensuring that the principles of historical materialism run throughout the entire content of world history. The motivation of Marxists to write world history is not to serve narrow class interests but to make world history a tool for the proletariat and the broad masses of working people to learn about world history, enrich their knowledge reserves, enhance their understanding of historical materialism, and enable them to draw lessons from history, better identify enemies and allies in class struggle, and follow the correct path—thus facilitating the transition of human society into communism and realizing the liberation of all humanity. This is because the class interests of the proletariat dictate that only by liberating all humanity can they free themselves; therefore, in this sense, the interests of the proletariat can be said to truly represent the interests of all humanity—serving the historical mission of the proletariat. Consequently, they highly evaluate the laboring masses who have played a decisive role in world history, reversing the distorted view of history. They also objectively assess those historical figures of the exploitative classes who, although oppressing and exploiting people, in some respects aligned with historical development or met certain people’s demands, acknowledging their progressive contributions while pointing out their class and historical limitations, exposing their negative aspects as exploiters and oppressors. This is something no other exploitative class historian can do when evaluating oppressed class figures whose interests conflict with theirs.
Secondly, since the emergence of Marxism itself reflects the development of human society’s productive forces to a certain stage, enabling a thorough scientific investigation of the laws of human social development as a whole, Marxists who write world history using Marxism can have a broader perspective than past exploitative class historians, allowing for a more comprehensive and detailed discussion of world history. Based on this, because Marxists are the most farsighted and knowledgeable in society, they are fully capable of providing a complete account of world history.
Finally, as outstanding representatives of the proletariat, Marxists do not act as isolated individuals but as representatives of a class. They have the full support of the entire proletariat, other genuinely pro-proletariat workers, and progressive elements. This means that their writing of world history is fully supported by the masses, enabling them to accomplish what past exploitative class historians could not—overcoming historical difficulties that previously could not be addressed. For example, historical materials that existed only among the working people were often ignored, concealed, or distorted by exploitative historians in the past. Only Marxists, with the support of the masses, could obtain such materials (e.g., during the historical investigation of Wu Xun’s biography in socialist China, information was gathered by visiting villages where Wu Xun had lived and consulting local residents). Moreover, because Marxists rely on the support of the masses, they can wholeheartedly depend on and trust the people during the process of writing world history, mobilizing the masses to collect many historical materials that individual or state exploitative historians could not gather (such as the famous Terracotta Warriors in the Qin Shi Huang Mausoleum, which were discovered and reported by local workers during production activities). Additionally, since Marxists are not isolated individuals but part of society, embedded within Marxist organizations and educated in Marxism, they can utilize the work of other Marxist scholars and revolutionary masses with Marxist literacy to produce results—most notably in linguistics and archaeology—achieving research outcomes that past exploitative historians could not attain. All these facts demonstrate that any work without mass support is doomed to fail; with mass support, success is guaranteed. The same applies to the writing of world history.
In summary, “Concise World History” is a product of these principles…Because of that, it can become a history book written by Marxists that reflects the principles of historical materialism.\n**
Before Marxism, bourgeois historians in the process of compiling world history often arbitrarily demarcated the history based on their subjective will and the interests of their own class, providing explanations most favorable to their class interests. Of course, this made it impossible for them to correctly demarcate world history, which also affected the accuracy of the world history books they compiled, especially evident before capitalist society. After entering capitalist society, bourgeois historians, due to the development of the scale of production in their era, could collect more historical data, and human society had already experienced primitive society, slave society, and feudal society. These historians could observe social development from a more long-term perspective, and thus they could generally correctly divide world history into ancient history, modern history, and contemporary history, with ancient history further divided into prehistory and medieval history. This was undoubtedly a significant step forward in the work of demarcating world history compared to the past. However, regarding this division, bourgeois historians only vaguely sensed the necessity and basis for such division, and had no scientific explanation for it. Therefore, they lacked a correct understanding of the markers of different historical periods in world history, that is, the specific years defining each period. They either divided different historical periods based on superficial historical phenomena or according to their various class biases, still unable to make a correct historical demarcation. The reason why all past bourgeois historians failed to correctly demarcate history, as mentioned above, was due to their narrow vision driven by their class interests and limited by the scale of production. Therefore, Marxists who are not influenced by class bias and who are in an era of expanded production scale capable of comprehensively understanding human society can accomplish the task of correct historical demarcation of world history.
According to Marxism, different historical periods of world history should be divided into ancient history, modern history, and contemporary history, with ancient history further divided into prehistory and medieval history. So, what is the basis for dividing different historical periods? From the perspective of historical materialism, this division is based on different modes of production and social forms in different historical periods. Different social stages have distinct characteristics, and thus should be distinguished, but some stages have certain similarities, so they should be grouped into the same period. After considering the similarities and differences between these stages, ancient history should include the primitive social stage, slave society stage, and feudal society stage, while modern history should include the period before the October Socialist Revolution in Russia within the capitalist society, and contemporary history should include the period from the October Socialist Revolution in Russia to the present. Within ancient history, prehistory should include the primitive social and slave society stages, and medieval history should include the feudal society stage.
The reason why ancient history includes the three stages of primitive society, slave society, and feudal society is determined by the mode of production at that time. Before capitalist society, human society was generally in a stage of complete manual labor, with slow growth of productivity and social change, similar to the efficiency of manual labor. Due to the limitations of such low productivity, contact between different regions, ethnic groups, and nations was restricted by the backward communication, trade, warfare, and travel ranges determined by the then level of productivity. These regions, ethnic groups, and nations developed, grew, and perished independently in this period, and world history was only considered as a whole because these regions, ethnic groups, and nations were all within human society and governed by the general laws of social development. For example, contact between Europe, Asia, and Africa and the Americas and Oceania was almost completely cut off before capitalism or capitalist relations emerged, so it is unreasonable to think that societies on the American continent could influence the development of Eurasia, Africa, or Oceania. Therefore, not only were contacts between regions, ethnic groups, and nations extremely unstable and easily interrupted, but even the ethnic and national entities themselves were unstable. In primitive times, due to the limited contact in politics, economy, culture, and thought caused by low productivity, the ethnic groups formed were also fragile, easily destroyed by war, internal conflicts within ruling classes, migrations, and other factors. Thus, before capitalism, there were no truly stable nations, or what we now consider modern nations with internal cohesion. As the ruling class used the state as a tool to suppress the people, it was even more fragile, capable of changing, disintegrating, strengthening, expanding, or merging with other states. Because of these similarities, especially because regions, ethnic groups, and nations could only develop almost independently and were rarely affected by external social factors, the ancient period of world history is demarcated as such.
The division of ancient history into prehistory and medieval history, with the former including primitive and slave societies and the latter including feudal society, is also determined by the mode of production at that time. The common feature of primitive and slave societies is the use of collective labor and its decisive role in social production. In primitive society, humans first existed as a collective of primitive humans, then as matrilineal clans, followed by patrilineal clans, and finally entered class society. Throughout the primitive stage, humans operated as a collective: initially as a collective of primates—because they inherited the collective activity of apes—then as a matrilineal clan society based on female kinship, and then as a patrilineal clan society based on male kinship. Since productivity was so low that no individual could survive relying solely on personal labor outside the collective, human labor was also collective at this stage. At the end of primitive society, private ownership appeared, and for the first time, labor was performed for individuals, with personal labor income belonging to the individual—this is small-scale production. However, the emergence of small-scale production was accompanied by another form of collective labor, also arising from private ownership, which involved enslaving multiple laborers to work for one or a few owners—namely slave labor. The appearance of private ownership led to class division in human society, and under the production conditions of that time, the lowest form of class society—slave society—could emerge. In slave society, the two main classes were the slave-owning class and the slave class. The slave class was exploited and oppressed by the slave-owning class; they had to hand over all labor results and their own persons were the private property of the slave owners, subjected to violent suppression by the state established by the slave-owning class. The slave-owning class could maintain slavery through coercion, enabling many laborers to work collectively for a single owner and coordinate with each other. The tall pyramids, the broad Roman roads—these achievements were created by slaves forced into collective labor by slave owners. Small producers existed in slave society but did not form the fundamental class of this society, nor could their mode of production be the decisive one for the society, because at that time, due to backward tools, natural conditions, and predation by usurers and merchants, they could not be stable classes, often in a state of polarization. Usually, the wealthier among them would accumulate wealth over time due to favorable conditions and become slave owners employing slaves for labor and wealth creation—at that time, their only source of labor was slaves; the poorer would exhaust their resources under harsh conditions and become others’ slaves due to hunger, debt, or coercive contracts. Overall, collective labor remained the decisive factor in social production in slave society, just as in primitive society, which is why the earliest history of human labor is called prehistory.
In contrast, medieval history is characterized by small-scale or individual labor as the decisive mode of social production. Since feudal society was distinguished from primitive and slave societies by the predominance of individual labor, the period after prehistory and before modern history must be entirely feudal. The mode of production in feudal society was small-scale production. Society was divided into two main classes: the landlord class and the peasant class, with peasant individual labor becoming the decisive factor of the feudal mode of production. To force peasants to work for themselves and extract their labor, landlords could no longer forcibly seize all labor results or personal freedom as in slavery—at least not entirely—so they recognized their personal freedom (even if partial, as in serfdom), and obtained a certain amount of labor through coercion. This meant acknowledging peasants as independent individuals and their right to private property, usually land, and possibly tools, harvests, livestock, and houses. Even landless laborers working solely for others had private assets, which landlords could not confiscate. Of course, this right was relative, meaning landlords could not treat peasants as they did slaves, but they could still seize some property or turn peasants into serfs with limited personal freedom. Regardless, for the first time, laborers—peasants—could work for themselves, which is the root of their willingness to labor. The entire content of medieval history is about the struggle of peasants to recover their labor results and establish small-scale production, fighting against landlords who sought to expropriate their property and impose more exploitation and oppression, which differs from the class struggle in primitive and slave societies. Here, peasants aim to keep their labor results entirely their own, and the primary condition for this is to acquire land they own, so they can work on it and keep the harvests for themselves. That is why the core issue of peasant struggles in feudal society is land. Overall, this is the entire content of medieval history.
As for the beginning of modern history, it is naturally marked by the start of capitalist society. Due to further improvements in productivity, accumulated experience, and the development of social institutions, humans first used their physical strength and intelligence to create a completely different kind of manual tool—machines. All machines can be divided into three parts: power units, transmission devices, and working machines, with power units being the core that distinguishes machines from manual tools. Previously, all manual labor relied on human muscle power. Workers could only use their muscles to power tools, enabling them to work. Before the invention of machines, although devices like water mills and windmills used natural forces as power, these were still incomplete—water and wind could disappear with natural changes. More importantly, these forces were not artificially created; people simply utilized them as they were, so natural forces remained natural and were not transformed into human-made power. Water wheels let water flow according to physical laws, windmills let wind blow naturally, and humans were powerless over these changes. Thus, these devices did not have a stable, independent power source. This instability prevented humans from fully escaping manual labor. Only after the advent of machines—initially powered by coal, converting heat energy from burning coal into mechanical power—could human labor tools move relatively autonomously, becoming a kind of “automatic machine,” achieving automation. The reason it is called relatively automatic rather than absolute is that machines ultimately still depend on human operation—whether in using, supporting, or repairing them—and they cannot invent new machines themselves; their updates rely entirely on human invention. But even relative automation is better than none, and under such circumstances, the establishment of capitalist production mode was realized, with large-scale mechanized industry forming the core of capitalism, and the emergence of industrial bourgeoisie as the true representative of capitalist production, enslaved by the industrial bourgeoisie, relying on wages paid by them—before this, capitalism existed but was unstable, with landlords, peasants, and other classes still having space to exist, and these classes had not yet begun to lose their space due to large-scale mechanized production. Some classes, like the landlord class, could even maintain their dominance during capitalism, subjugating the bourgeoisie. Only then did humanity enter a new historical period—an era where social development could advance rapidly like machine production, with new things appearing frequently, and history progressing at an unprecedented speed. This speed allowed internal cohesion among nations to form quickly without interruption by external factors, enabling the modern nation-state; the connections among regions, nations, and states could be established swiftly without being interrupted by unforeseen factors; and the entire world history could be examined as a closely connected, organic whole. This is why the beginning of modern history is marked by the start of capitalist society. Of course, the initial emergence of large-scale mechanized industry did not immediately produce the miraculous effects described, but since such industry could only appear under capitalist conditions and not before, the beginning of modern history is defined as the period before the establishment of large-scale mechanized industry.
Regarding the symbolic historical event marking the start of modern history, there have been two opinions among Marxists. One believes that the beginning should be marked by the start of the Dutch bourgeois revolution, as it was the first revolution in the world initiated by the bourgeoisie, leading to the establishment of the Dutch Republic. The other believes it should be marked by the start of the British bourgeois revolution, as in the division in A Brief History of the World. The second opinion argues that although the Dutch bourgeois revolution was indeed a bourgeois revolution, strictly speaking, it was not a complete bourgeois revolution. This is not because the Dutch revolution had a national liberation aspect against Spanish rule, but because it did not constitute a full process of overthrowing feudalism or a complete national liberation movement. It was only half of the process—revolting against feudalism but failing to establish a complete bourgeois dictatorship, and the national liberation was only partial, with the north (the Netherlands) victorious but the south (Belgium and Luxembourg) remaining under Spanish rule. This led to the development of different national identities and paths, resulting in the current division of Dutch, Belgian, and Luxembourg nations, speaking different languages and dialects. An appropriate analogy is that of human anatomy: one can recognize a person as human despite congenital deformities, but it would be inappropriate to use deformities as the defining “sample” of the human species. Similarly, although the Dutch revolution was a bourgeois revolution, it was a deformed, incomplete one, and thus an inappropriate symbol for the establishment of the capitalist system. Conversely, the British bourgeois revolution, despite its subsequent setbacks—restoration of the landlord class, the “Glorious Revolution,” and the establishment of a coalition dictatorship of landlords and large capitalists—still had a complete process: overthrow of feudalism through violence, execution of the king as the representative of feudalism, establishment of a bourgeois dictatorship, and eventual reaction under the pressure of the people and feudal restoration forces. It is like a human being born healthy and normal; even if later injured or disabled, it still remains a human. From this perspective, the author of A Brief History of the World considers the British bourgeois revolution as the beginning of modern history, which is also the view expressed here.
As for the end of modern history, it should be marked by the outbreak of the October Socialist Revolution in Russia. Like the British bourgeois revolution, the October Revolution ended the existence of a single social form and opened a new era where two social forms—communist and capitalist—coexisted. After the revolution, under Lenin’s leadership, the Bolshevik Party fought arduously to defend the Soviet regime, fought against imperialist intervention and White armies, and, supported by the people, defeated reactionary plots to overthrow Soviet power. As a result, the Soviet Union, the world’s first socialist state, was able to exist long-term and coexist with the capitalist world outside. This coexistence persisted because the political and economic development of capitalist countries was uneven, making revolutionary conditions unbalanced; revolutions could not occur simultaneously everywhere but would break out first in one or a few countries and then spread. Before these countries established stable socialist regimes, they remained under the encirclement of the capitalist world, coexisting with it for a long time. Nonetheless, this was a leap from nothing to something, clearly indicating the path of human social development. The path of the October Revolution is the common path for all humanity—every nation and state will eventually follow it—through socialist revolution into communism. It must be pointed out that, in the usual sense, although the society established after the socialist revolution can be called a communist society, strictly speaking, this is not the kind of communist society that people generally think of, or the kind first proposed by Marx and Engels as the highest revolutionary ideal of the proletariat — a society without classes, without distinctions between the brain and body, between urban and rural areas, between workers and peasants, without a state, without nations, where everyone does their best and resources are distributed according to needs, and so on. The communist society established through the socialist revolution, according to a more scientific definition of Marxism, can only be called a lower stage of communist society; it differs from the fully developed communist society, which is the advanced stage of communist society after this stage — in the lower stage of communist society, classes and class distinctions still exist, class exploitation and oppression have been abolished, but there remains the possibility of a reversion; old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits still linger in people’s minds; the productive forces of society have not yet developed to the point where distribution according to needs based on everyone doing their best can be implemented, and only distribution according to labor based on everyone doing their best can be carried out; the state, as a tool for the proletariat to maintain rule, suppress domestic hostile classes, and prevent foreign capitalist forces from invading, still needs to exist and should be continuously strengthened, and so on. In short, in the lower stage of communist society, the remnants of the old capitalist society still exist, including various legal forms that are residuals of capitalist production relations, collectively called bourgeois legal rights. When bourgeois legal rights, as the legal embodiment of capitalist production relations, still exist, capitalism as a social system still has the potential for reversion within a communist society because it can persist long-term and produce a large number of capitalist elements. Only when all bourgeois legal rights—material and ideological—are abolished, productive forces are highly developed with abundant material products, making any return to past social systems impossible, and people’s ideological consciousness is greatly improved, can they inscribe on their banners “each doing their best” and “distribution according to needs.” Therefore, given the difference between the lower and higher stages of communist society, the lower stage of communist society is generally called “socialism,” while the term “communism” in contexts outside of communist ideology generally refers to the higher stage of communist society. This means that the society established by the socialist revolution described above should strictly be called socialist society.
Apart from socialist society, which first appeared as a social form fundamentally different from capitalist society after the October Revolution, the reason why the October Revolution marks the end of modern history also includes an obvious fact: after the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, the Soviet Union, as the only country in the world, was still surrounded by the capitalist world. It brought two converging consequences: one is that the Tsarist imperialist regime in Russia collapsed, so the international imperialist forces lacked a powerful ally and a market for capital export; many colonies and semi-colonies involved with Tsarist Russia—such as China, Mongolia, Iran—lost a subject of their own enslavement. As a result, the power of international imperialist forces was severely weakened, while the strength of colonies and semi-colonies was relatively increased. This led to a rise in the contradictions between imperialism and colonies during the imperialist era, with the colonies gaining strength as imperialist power declined. This caused a surge in national liberation movements worldwide, plunging the world into an era where colonial peoples, through revolutionary struggle against imperialism, would thoroughly expel imperialist forces from their own countries and push them back to their imperialist homeland—an era that meant the demise of imperialism as it was increasingly buried by national liberation movements. The other consequence was that the newly established Soviet Union, to fulfill its lofty historical mission of proletarian liberation of all humanity, and to gain international support in its isolated and hostile environment, not only needed to support the anti-imperialist struggles of proletarians in other imperialist countries but also needed to support all anti-imperialist struggles of peoples opposing imperialism—this first included all peoples of colonized countries opposing imperialism; it also required aid from proletarians of other imperialist countries and support from all anti-imperialist forces—this again primarily included all peoples of colonized countries opposing imperialism. Therefore, this also means that support from socialist countries to the peoples of colonies fighting imperialism and achieving national liberation is support for their own socialist revolution, and vice versa, the national liberation movements of colonized peoples opposing imperialism are also support for the socialist revolutions of socialist countries. Thus, for the first time, the national liberation movement became part of the socialist revolution rather than a bourgeois revolution—since in the past, bourgeois revolutions never truly helped the proletariat and socialist revolution; they could only lead to two outcomes: either success, where the bourgeoisie, having seized leadership, would take power and follow the path of internal exploitation and oppression of the landlord class and external aggression and expansion, becoming a new imperialist state strengthening international imperialism; or failure, where the entire country remained under the control of the landlord class or imperialism, and the control of imperialism or landlords was strengthened due to counterattacks—this was the case. This, like the ultimate outcome of the first consequence, signifies that although today’s national liberation movements are, in essence, bourgeois revolutions aimed at achieving national independence and developing independent capitalism, they are no longer part of the development of the capitalist world but have become part of the development of the socialist world because they objectively favor the development of the socialist world and hinder that of the capitalist world, and they can receive support from the socialist world. Therefore, this common result means that the history of continuous expansion of capitalism has ended; after entering the highest stage of capitalism—the imperialist stage—it has finally entered a period of decline, and the next historical period after modern history can thus begin.
After modern history, human society entered the period of contemporary history. Bourgeois historians often muddle the division of modern history, making the main content of modern history very confusing, so much so that people cannot discern what the main theme of modern history truly is. However, since Marxism has already analyzed how modern history ended, it is now clear how modern history began and what its main content is—namely, the establishment of the world’s first socialist country through the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, and its main content is the gradual decline of imperialism through continuous blows from socialist revolutions, national liberation movements, and wars between imperialism and other forces, with socialism developing and advancing through these three channels toward victory. Therefore, at least for now, modern history should be called the history of the communist society. In this historical period, humanity will see the realization of true self-liberation by eliminating all exploitation and oppression, and the entire human species will move from a past where they could not correctly understand objective laws and were instead governed by spontaneous forces—whether natural forces or social forces created by humans but not properly understood—to a future where they can correctly understand objective laws, consciously utilize these laws to serve themselves, scientifically predict different possible developments, and make the best choices among these possibilities—such choices are the long-held aspiration for freedom, called “realization of necessary desires” (Epicurus) by progressive philosophers of slavery, “knowledge of the inevitable” (Spinoza) by bourgeois progressive philosophers, and thoroughly and comprehensively summarized by Marxists as “knowledge of the inevitable and transformation of the objective world” (Mao Zedong)—a hope to see the transition from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. Although this hope cannot be immediately realized and requires revolutionary efforts by people worldwide to bring the entire world into communist society, it nonetheless exists and is inevitably realizable. This is the great significance of human society entering modern history.
As for when modern history will come to an end and whether the entirely new social form after communism should also be included in the scope of modern history, this is not something any current person can predict. Because in this era where communism has yet to be fully realized, discussing the specific conditions of communism or what comes after communism is purely wishful thinking. Therefore, the only certain thing is that modern history has continued to extend up to now and is still ongoing, even more so at the time of writing the “Concise World History.” For the sake of historical rigor, the modern part of the “Concise World History” thus only ends with the conclusion of World War II.To the end of its modern section.
The correctness of the statements above about A Concise World History as a world history book guided by Marxism, and the basis for dividing world history into such chronological segments. After discussing the correctness of A Concise World History as a Marxist world history book, it is also necessary to point out some issues that A Concise World History still has, so that the broad readership can have a more accurate understanding of world history. These issues do not affect the overall correctness of A Concise World History as a Marxist world history book, nor will they significantly mislead readers’ understanding; most of these are unavoidable due to the limitations of the author’s historical conditions at the time and should not be overly criticized. However, pointing them out one by one is ultimately helpful to prevent readers from being misled by any errors.First, the ancient part of A Concise World History did not utilize one of the latest achievements in Chinese socialist-era historical research—the theory of Confucian-Legalist struggle—to examine ancient history, but still used traditional historical perspectives. This viewpoint naturally aligns with the Marxist class struggle perspective, but adds the Confucian-Legalist struggle theory, a historical view rooted in Mao Zedong Thought, making it more comprehensive and scientific. This is especially evident in the history of Korea and Japan entering feudal society. For example, when Japan entered feudal society, the struggle between the Soga clan and Ohtomo clan, representing the declining interests of the Confucian slave-owning class, and Prince Shōtoku, Crown Prince Naka no Ōe, and Ōtomo no Yakamochi, representing the emerging Legalist landlord class, involved efforts to overthrow and defend slavery, and to maintain or overthrow the feudal system. On the line of development, this reflected the struggle between the Confucian route of the landlord class and the Legalist route of the landlord class. Without using the Confucian-Legalist struggle theory as an explanation, it would be impossible—or at least incomplete—to explain why Japan’s emerging landlord class could gain popular support and ultimately establish feudalism, because outside this theory, the landlord and slave-owning classes are merely engaged in a dog-eat-dog struggle among exploitative classes, with no reason for the people to necessarily support one side over the other. Consequently, the feudal system replacing slavery appears as a seemingly accidental event, prone to a vulgar idealist view of history like “supporting whoever wins.” In this regard, although the author of A Concise World History did not intend this subjectively, failing to thoroughly clarify this point may lead to misunderstandings of the historical content. Readers can learn from articles discussing Confucian-Legalist struggle theory during Chinese socialism to establish a more accurate understanding of ancient world history. As for the example of Japan’s transition from slave society to feudal society, readers may refer to several articles in the Learn History series published by the Department of World History at Wuhan University in December 1975, which discusses class struggle and Confucian-Legalist struggle in Japanese history, and compare these with the relevant content in A Concise World History.
Another issue is that A Concise World History sometimes cannot fully escape the influence of past bourgeois historiography when explaining specific historical events, and is affected by bourgeois idealist viewpoints. For example, when explaining why Charlemagne’s Frankish Empire split into West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia after his death, leading to the formation of France, Italy, and Germany, it does not analyze from the perspective of class struggle or national struggle. Instead, it attributes the division to the superficial historical phenomenon of the Treaty of Verdun, signed by Charlemagne’s successors, which divided the empire into three parts. This explanation reduces the formation of France, Italy, and Germany to the personal will and internal conflicts of a few landlord class figures. In reality, the reasons behind the Treaty of Verdun’s establishment, and the subsequent territorial changes that led to the current borders of France, Italy, and Germany, are rooted in deep historical causes. For instance, France’s history begins long before Roman conquest, with the Gauls as an independent ancient nation. Although called Gaul at the time, the Gauls had already existed as a distinct people. After the Roman conquest, due to the reactionary nature of Roman slavery and policies of ethnic oppression by Roman slave-owning classes, Gaul never truly integrated into the Roman state. The Gauls spoke Latin but never considered themselves Romans first; they identified as Gauls. During the late Roman Empire, when the crisis of Roman slavery and ethnic oppression intensified, the Gauls launched the Bagauda movement—a national liberation movement aiming to separate Gaul from the Roman Empire. This movement temporarily succeeded, with the emerging Gaulish landlord class exploiting peasant uprisings to gain independence and establish a Gaulish empire rivaling Rome. Although this movement ended with the Gaulish landlords’ compromise and reintegration into the Roman Empire, it demonstrated that Gaul had its own national voice and was unwilling to be subordinate to other nations or empires. Italy’s history is even more straightforward: it originated from the ancient Roman nation, and after the Roman Empire, it was formed through the ethnic fusion of invading barbarian tribes and the native Roman population. The Germanic peoples had already begun forming their ethnic identity during the period of shared Germanic paganism, and through subsequent changes, the ancient Germanic nation was established. Charlemagne’s military conquests could temporarily unify these peoples, but he could not use military force to eliminate their differences or make the French nation superior to the Italian or German nations. Nations seek independence, and people pursue revolution. After Charlemagne’s death, it was only through class struggle and national liberation struggles—by his other sons, not his designated heir—that the Italian and German peoples fought for and gained their territories, ultimately forming the modern states of France, Italy, and Germany. This shows that monarchs could never truly force the people to obey; rather, their power always depends on the will of the people.
Furthermore, due to the limitations of the historical conditions at the time, A Concise World History sometimes fails to accurately describe certain historical facts, and does not utilize research findings that appeared after its publication or were unknown to the author before. For example, it mistakenly identifies the Huns invading Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire as the Xiongnu migrating westward from China defeated by Han landlords, which archaeological evidence now refutes. Current archaeological findings indicate that the Huns in Europe still belonged to a primitive society, forming loose tribal alliances, using inferior bronze weapons, and living in simple dwellings. The Xiongnu, on the other hand, had already entered a mature slave society, possessed iron smelting technology—though inferior and low-yield compared to Han China—and could build large cities. It is highly unlikely that the Huns who migrated west were direct descendants of the Xiongnu, as such a regression in social development is virtually impossible in history. Additionally, other historical and archaeological evidence shows significant differences in culture, language, and ethnicity between the Huns and the Xiongnu, further confirming they are not the same people. Similarly, in discussing the Hundred Years’ War between England and France, the book erroneously describes Joan of Arc as a peasant hero from a peasant family. However, historical records show she came from a wealthy family owning about fifty acres of land, and her father was a tax collector in Domrémy. This clearly indicates Joan’s social background was that of a small landowning family, not a peasant family. Moreover, A Concise World History depicts Joan as a representative of the peasant class and attributes her betrayal to the betrayal by the French landlord class, which is inaccurate. Joan not only came from a landlord family but also acted in the interests of the landlord class, serving their needs. During the invasion of England and the subsequent capitulation of the French landlord class, Joan did not adopt a peasant-based resistance relying on peasant forces, as in the case of Zhong Xiang or Yang Yao resisting Jin invasions, but instead sought support from the French crown prince, representing the French landlord class, hoping for his favor. Under pressure from the people’s struggles and the need to resist the English, the crown prince appointed Joan to recover lost land, but her efforts remained within the landlord class’s framework, not involving any land redistribution to peasants. Her resistance was therefore not anti-feudal peasant rebellion but a nationalist movement against English colonial oppression. Her betrayal and execution by the English only reveal the weakness and capitulation of the French landlord class, more afraid of losing power than of national defeat. Her class stance is most clearly exposed in her attitude toward the Hussite Peasants’ War, which was anti-feudal and anti-national oppression. After the Hussite Taborite revolutionary peasants repeatedly defeated the armies of Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor and German landlords, Joan issued the Letter to the Hussites, condemning the Taborites as heretics, attacking them as “barbaric,” “despicable,” “furious,” “stupid,” and “mad,” tarnishing their just war against landlords and national oppressors as “destroying legitimate faith and worship,” “performing shameful and illegal superstitions,” “massacres,” “darkness,” “sacrilege,” and threatening to bring “greater pain and punishment” after ending the war with England, intending to “eliminate” the so-called “false and vile superstitions” by sword. Only by humiliating surrender to feudal forces and returning to the faith of the church—i.e., crawling under the feet of the reactionary Catholic Church and landlord class—could she be considered to have betrayed the revolutionary peasant cause. This fully exposes Joan’s class nature as an enemy of the people, hostile to peasant revolution, and serving the landlord class. Of course, this does not prevent people from calling Joan a national hero of France, just as Yue Fei, who also came from a small landlord family and suppressed the Zhong Xiang and Yang Yao uprisings, is recognized for his patriotic resistance against the Jin invasion. However, it would be incorrect to call Joan a peasant or peasant hero solely because of her progressive aspects. Such factual errors can only be distinguished by readers through comparison with other credible historical sources and books during their reading process.
Finally, due to various reasons, A Concise World History does not provide more detailed discussions of certain historical periods, such as the history of Korea and Japan mentioned earlier. This issue can be addressed by consulting other more comprehensive and detailed historical books and materials. For reference, the World History Series compiled by the Department of World History at Wuhan University in 1976, including Ancient World History and Modern World History, is recommended.
In summary, although A Concise World History has these shortcomings, they do not hinder its overall correctness. It remains a worthwhile book for serious reading and for learning historical knowledge and the principles of historical materialism. This is why it is worth recommending.