阿伦特对马克思劳动观的批评可以概括为四个核心命题：在概念上马克思混淆了劳动、工作和行动；在内容上马克思存在着自相矛盾；在理论效应上马克思劳动观引发了经济、政治和文化等领域的种种消极后果；在理论的现实性上“废除劳动”的设想难以实现。本文立足于马克思的《资本论》及其手稿，以唯物史观为依托，运用文本研究、比较研究、哲学解释学等方法，从“技术-合作关系”与“权力-支配关系”的双重视角切入，对阿伦特的批评予以回应与辨析。其一，阿伦特忽略了技术具有主体和客体两种不同的存在形式，仅仅将技术同特定的主体即工匠相联系，最终片面地认为马克思混淆了劳动与工作；同时，她将物质形态而非生产关系作为评价劳动的生产性的根本标准，并将劳动的内容限定为服务劳动或非物质生产劳动，进而认为马克思在混淆劳动与工作的基础上用劳动取代行动。其二，阿伦特无视马克思考察劳动的双重视角，仅仅在一般性的物质内容层面认识劳动，将其限定为奴隶式的营生，最终得出马克思自相矛盾地认为劳动既自由又不自由的错误结论；同时，她片面地将马克思的“自由王国”解读为超验性的未来共产主义社会，最终得出马克思陷于既要废除劳动又不要废除劳动的自相矛盾中的错误结论。其三，阿伦特没有意识到劳动的地位在现代社会得到提升，本质上是生产力一元决定规律起作用的结果，而非马克思劳动观造成的所谓消极后果；同时，她否定本质抽象层面存在的经济对政治进而对文化的线性决定，片面地强调现象具体层面各种要素之间的相互作用及其偶然性，并且片面地将马克思劳动观解读为排斥这种偶然性和相互作用的唯经济论。其四，阿伦特无视马克思所主张的将要废除的是造成劳动时间和自由时间对立的劳动而非劳动本身，并且这种愿景绝非一种不切实际的幻想，而是可以通过劳动的科学化和社会化等得以实现；同时，她忽视消费与生产的统一性，错误地基于资本主义的生产关系来臆测共产主义的消费问题，并且狭隘地将未来社会中的劳动解放界定为免于物质生产，而将真正自由界定为参与政治实践。回应阿伦特对马克思劳动观的批评的理论与现实意义在于：有利于澄清马克思劳动观的真实涵蕴，揭示阿伦特批评的真实意图与根本局限，回击以阿伦特为代表的西方自由主义思想家的理论攻讦；有利于借鉴和汲取阿伦特思想中的合理因素和积极启示，为当代中国的政治哲学研究和中国特色社会主义民主政治建设提供理论资源；有利于在二者的深入对话中彰显马克思理论的阐释力与生命力。

Arendt’s criticism of Marx’s view of labor can be summarized into four core propositions: in concept, Marx confused labor, work and action; in content, Marx had inconsistencies and self-contradictions; in theoretical effects, Marx‘s view of labor had caused various negative consequences in the fields of economy, politics and culture; in the theoretical reality, the idea of “abolishing labor” is difficult to realize. This thesis is based on Marx’s Das Kapital and its manuscripts, takes historical materialism as the basis, using methods such as textual research, comparative research, and philosophical hermeneutics, from the dual perspectives of “technology-cooperation relationship” and “power-dominance relationship”, responds and analyzes Arendt’s criticism.Firstly, Arendt ignored that technology had two different forms of existence, subject and object, and only connected technology with a specific subject, namely craftsmen, and finally unilaterally thought that Marx confused labor and work unilaterally; at the same time, she regarded the material form rather than the production relationship as the fundamental standard for evaluating the productivity of labor, and restricted the content of labor to service labor or non-material production labor, and further believed that Marx replaced action with labor on the basis of confusing labor and work. Secondly, Arendt ignored Marx’s dual perspectives on labor, and only recognized labor in general material content, and defined it as a slave-like livelihood, and finally, she drew the wrong conclusion that Marx thought labor was both free and not free; at the same time, she interpreted Marx’s Free Kingdom as a kind of future communist society which was a transcendental existence, and finally drew the wrong conclusion that Marx was trapped in the self-contradiction of abolishing labor and not abolishing labor. Thirdly, Arendt did not realize that the promotion of the status of labor in modern society is essentially the result of the rule of unary determination of productivity, rather than the so-called negative consequence caused by Marx‘s view of labor; at the same time, she negated the linear decision of economy to politics and then to culture in the abstract level of essence, unilaterally emphasized the interaction and contingency between various elements in the concrete level of phenomenon, and interpreted Marx’s labor view as the sole economic theory that excluded such contingency and interaction. Fourthly, Arendt ignored Marx’s claim that what should be abolished is the labor that caused the opposition between labor time and free time, rather than labor itself, and this vision is by no means an unrealistic fantasy, but can be realized through scientific and socialized labor; At the same time, she ignored the unity of consumption and production, mistakenly based on the production relationship of capitalism to speculate on the consumption problem of communism, and narrowly defined the emancipation of labor in the future society as freedom from material production, and defined the real freedom as participation in political practice.The theoretical and practical significance of responding to Arendt’s criticism of Marx’s view of labor lies in: it is beneficial to clarify the real connotation of Marx’s view of labor, reveal the real intention and fundamental limitation of Arendt’s criticism, and fight back against the theoretical criticism of western liberal thinkers represented by Arendt; it is beneficial to draw lessons from the rational factors and positive enlightenment of Arendt’s thought and provide theoretical resources for the study of contemporary Chinese political philosophy research and the construction of socialist democratic politics with Chinese characteristics; it is beneficial to demonstrate the explanatory power and vitality of Marx’s theory in the in-depth dialogue between the two.