中文摘要：

奈格里立足劳动一工人阶级和工作一资产阶级的对抗逻辑，把劳动视为单纯的主体创造能力和获得自由的现实根源，将马克思的劳动理论重构为以本源性、创构性和绝对革命为核心的激进主体理论，强调制宪力的主体化和政治的社会化，拒绝黑格尔与马克思的任何连接。阿伦特对劳动一工作的区分与奈格里完全不同，她把劳动描述成满足人类生命需求的活动和默认暴力的前政治活动，认为马克思将自由等同于劳动解放，进而明确与社会相分离的政治之自主性和制完原则的非对抗本性。卢卡奇和奈格里一样致力于马克思主义的本体论转向。他立足实践的社会历史范式，将劳动重塑为立足历史性、人之主体性和去目的论的历史一社会本体，恢复马克思主义中的黑格尔因素，最终割裂劳动一生产领域和政治革命。三者基于特定的理论立场，遮蔽或弱化了马克思劳动理论的科学内涵。

英文摘要：

Based on the antagonistic logic between laobor-working class and work-bourgeois, Negri considers labor as pure subjective creative power and realistic resource of achieving freedom and recon- structs Marx＇s theory of labor as the theory of radical subject taking origin, constitutivity and absolute revo- lution as core. He emphasizes the subjectivization of constituent power and socialization of politics and re- fuses any connection between Marx and Hegel. The distinguishment of labor-work of Arendt＇s understanding is different from Negri. She discribes labor as activities satisfying the need of human life and pre-political activities acquiescing violence. She thinks Marx considers liberation of labor as freedom and confirms au- tonomy of politics separating from society and anti-antagonistic nature of constituent princinple. Both Lukacs and Negri commit themselves to ontological turn of Marxism, but the former constructs labor as his- torical and social ontology on the basis of historicity, human subjectivity and anti-teleology from social and historical paradigm of practice. He restores Hegel＇s elements in Marxism and separates the domain of labor- production from political revolution. They cover or weaken the scientific meaning of Marx＇s theoy of labor from specific theoretical position.