异化劳动理论四重规定的逻辑关系研究——基于《1844年经济学哲学手稿》文本研究

A Study on the Logical Relationships of the Fourfold Definition of Alienated Labor—Based on a Textual Study of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

摘要: 作为马克思早期思想发展进程中的核心理论构境，异化劳动理论是《1844年经济学哲学手稿》(以下简称《手稿》)的核心命题，更是马克思从人本主义范式向物质生产实践视域下的社会历史批判跃迁的关键学术枢纽。本文以异化劳动四重规定的内在逻辑关联为研究锚点，基于《手稿》的文本细读法与历史语境还原法，系统阐释劳动产品异化、劳动过程异化、类本质异化、人与人异化四重规定的理论内涵，厘清四者之间的辩证统一关系。研究表明，四重规定并非平面化罗列的并列范畴，而是严格遵循从具象现象逐层深入到社会本质的“现象显现–根源探寻–本质揭露–现实定格”的逐层深化的递进逻辑：劳动产品异化是异化最直观的外在现象显现，劳动过程异化是催生产品异化的内在生成根源，类本质异化深度触及异化劳动的深层哲学本质，人与人异化则是前三重异化作用下的必然结果与社会关系层面的本质定格。四者在时空双重维度上同步生成、互嵌共生，共同构成不可分割的有机理论整体。厘清这一逻辑演进脉络，既有助于精准把握马克思早期思想的演进路径，回应阿尔都塞“认识论断裂”带来的二元分割解读偏差，也为解析当代资本主义新形态劳资矛盾提供扎实的理论支撑。

Abstract: As a core theoretical framework in the early development of Marx’s thought, the theory of alienated labor is the central proposition of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (hereinafter referred to as the Manuscripts), and also serves as a key academic pivot for Marx’s leap from a humanist paradigm to a socially and historically grounded critique under the lens of material production. This article uses the intrinsic logical connections of the four aspects of alienated labor as a research anchor. Based on a close-textual reading of the Manuscripts and historical contextual reconstruction, it systematically explains the theoretical implications of the alienation of labor products, the labor process, species-essence, and human relations, clarifying the dialectical unity among them. The study shows that these four aspects are not merely a flat, parallel listing of categories, but follow a strict, stepwise logic that deepens from concrete phenomena to social essence: the alienation of labor products is the most direct, external manifestation of alienation; the alienation of the labor process is the internal root that produces product alienation; the alienation of species-essence touches the deeper philosophical core of alienated labor; and the alienation of human relations is the inevitable result and social-level essence shaped by the previous three. These four dimensions emerge synchronously across time and space, interwoven and coexisting, forming an indivisible, organic theoretical whole. Clarifying this logical development helps accurately grasp the trajectory of Marx’s early thought, responds to the dualistic misinterpretations arising from Althusser’s “epistemological break,” and also provides solid theoretical support for analyzing labor-capital conflicts in contemporary forms of capitalism.