胡伯项,江振. “劳动”范畴的过渡性与双重规定—以《1844年经济学哲学手稿》为中心[J]. 南昌航空大学学报(社会科学版),2026,28(3):1-9. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-8574.2026.03.001
引用本文: 胡伯项,江振. “劳动”范畴的过渡性与双重规定—以《1844年经济学哲学手稿》为中心[J]. 南昌航空大学学报(社会科学版),2026,28(3):1-9. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-8574.2026.03.001
HU Boxiang,JIANG Zhen. Transitional Nature and Dual Definitions of the “Labor” Category——Centered around the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 [J]. Journal of Nanchang Hangkong University (Social Sciences),2026,28(3):1-9. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-8574.2026.03.001
Citation: HU Boxiang,JIANG Zhen. Transitional Nature and Dual Definitions of the “Labor” Category——Centered around the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 [J]. Journal of Nanchang Hangkong University (Social Sciences),2026,28(3):1-9. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-8574.2026.03.001

“劳动”范畴的过渡性与双重规定以《1844年经济学哲学手稿》为中心

Transitional Nature and Dual Definitions of the “Labor” CategoryCentered Around the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

  • 摘要: 围绕马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的理论性质与历史定位,国内学界已形成多种具有代表性的解释路径,但相关讨论多集中于整体思想立场的评价,对文本内部关键范畴的结构性展开关注相对不足。《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的“劳动”并非一个完成现实生产关系的社会经济范畴,而是一个横跨哲学批判与政治经济学批判的过渡性范畴。正是这一过渡性,使“劳动”在理论结构中呈现为理想本质与现实异化的双重规定,并构成异化劳动展开的内在动力。异化劳动的诸规定及私有财产的生成关系,实为劳动内在矛盾按照从对象关系到社会关系的逻辑次序展开的辩证演绎。由此,《1844年经济学哲学手稿》通过“劳动”范畴实现了辩证法从思辨形式向现实社会关系分析的初步转化,同时也显现出尚待克服的理论限度。异化劳动理论因而可被理解为马克思思想发展中一个具有方法论意义的关键环节,其内在张力直接推动了历史唯物主义与政治经济学批判的形成。

     

    Abstract: Around Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, domestic scholarship has developed multiple representative interpretive approaches regarding its theoretical nature and historical positioning. However, most discussions have focused on evaluating the text’s overall intellectual stance, while relatively little attention has been paid to the structural articulation of its key internal categories. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, “labor” is not yet a fully formed socio-economic category grounded in concrete relations of production; rather, it functions as a transitional category spanning philosophical critique and critique of political economy. It is precisely this transitional character that allows “labor” to appear within the theoretical structure as a dual determination of ideal essence and real alienation, thereby constituting the internal driving force of the unfolding of alienated labor. The determinations of alienated labor and the genesis of private property are, in essence, a dialectical development of labor’s internal contradictions following a logical progression from object-relations to social relations. In this sense, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 accomplish an initial transformation of dialectics from a speculative form into an analysis of real social relations through the category of “labor” while also revealing theoretical limitations that remain to be overcome. The theory of alienated labor can thus be understood as a methodologically significant moment in the development of Marx’s thought, whose internal tension directly contributed to the formation of historical materialism and the critique of political economy.

     

/

返回文章
返回