The Scientific Connotation, Constraining Factors and Realization Paths of Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life

The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC clearly states: “Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of material and cultural-ethical progress. Material abundance and cultural-ethical enrichment are fundamental requirements of socialist modernization. Material poverty is not socialism, nor is cultural-ethical impoverishment.” This major judgment places equal emphasis on material abundance and cultural-ethical enrichment as one of the major principles of Chinese-path modernization, breaking through the materialist tendency in traditional modernization theories and placing greater focus on human subjectivity and spiritual needs. Adhering to common prosperity in both material life and spiritual life is not only an adherence to the essence of socialism but also an important guarantee for the steady and sustained progress of Chinese-path modernization. When discussing the issue of “private property and its wealth and poverty” in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the “*Manuscripts*”), Marx used the concept of “spiritual wealth” for the first time. He examined the state of human spiritual life on the basis of the economic base of society, arguing that human society is divided into material wealth and material poverty, spiritual wealth and spiritual poverty, and further pointing out that the fundamental reason for whether the spirit is wealthy or poor lies in the opposition between “having no property” and “having property,” that is, the opposition between labor and capital. As the “secret and birthplace” of Marxist philosophy, the *Manuscripts*, through its critique of political economy and Hegelian philosophy as well as its exposition of the theory of alienation, analyzes from a philosophical height the common union, common labor, and common enjoyment of people in spiritual life, presenting the overall picture of common prosperity in spiritual life as depicted by Marx.

党的二十大报告明确指出：“中国式现代化是物质文明和精神文明相协调的现代化。物质富足、精神富有是社会主义现代化的根本要求。物质贫困不是社会主义，精神贫乏也不是社会主义。”这一重大判断将物质富足与精神富有并重，作为中国式现代化的重大原则之一，突破了传统现代化理论中的物质主义倾向，更加注重人的主体性和精神需求。坚持物质生活与精神生活共同富裕不仅是对社会主义本质的坚守，更是中国式现代化行稳致远的重要保障。马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》(以下简称“《手稿》”)中谈及“私有财产及其富有和贫困”这一问题时，首次使用了“精神的富有”这一概念。他将人的精神生活样态置于社会经济基础之上加以考察，认为人类社会存在物质富有和物质贫困、精神富有和精神贫困之分，并进一步指出精神是富有还是贫困的根本原因在于“无产”与“有产”的对立，也就是劳动与资本的对立。作为马克思主义哲学的“秘密和诞生地”,《手稿》通过对国民经济学与黑格尔哲学的批判以及对异化理论的阐释，从哲学的高度对人在精神生活中的共同联合、共同劳动、共同享受进行了分析，展现出马克思所描绘的精神生活共同富裕的总体图景。

I. The Scientific Connotation of Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life

一、精神生活共同富裕的科学内涵

Spiritual life, as a unique dimension of human existence, is closely intertwined and mutually reinforcing with material life, together constituting the two pillars of human free and comprehensive development. Marx emphasized on the basis of humanism: “Man appropriates his comprehensive essence in a comprehensive way.” This goal and requirement is not only the logical starting point for understanding the theoretical framework of people-centered common prosperity in spiritual life but also the key to condensing and elaborating the scientific connotation of common prosperity in spiritual life.

精神生活作为人类独有的生存维度，与物质生活紧密交织、相辅相成，共同构成了人类自由而全面发展的两大支柱。马克思在人学基础上强调：“人以一种全面的方式……占有自己的全面的本质。”这一目标要求不仅是理解以人为核心的精神生活共同富裕理论框架的逻辑起点，也是凝练并阐述精神生活共同富裕科学内涵的关键所在。

(A) The Essential Requirement of Human Comprehensive Development: Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life Embodies the Completeness of Human Life Expression

(一)人的全面发展的本质要求：精神生活共同富裕体现为人的生命表现的完整性

Unlike the Western traditional naturalist and transcendentalist views of spiritual life, Marx placed human spiritual life on the foundation of historical materialism, taking the real individual as the starting point of his research. He pointed out: “The wealthy person is at the same time one who needs the completeness of human life expression.” The wealthy person refers not only to those who are abundant and satisfied at the material level but also to those who achieve fullness and richness in the spiritual realm. Marx called this “the person with all this richness of human essence.” This means that people can comprehensively and freely use their various abilities to engage in labor production, conduct social interactions, and satisfy spiritual needs.

与西方传统自然主义与超验主义的精神生活观不同，马克思将人的精神生活置于历史唯物主义基础之上，以现实的个人为研究起点。他指出：“富有的人同时就是需要有人的生命表现的完整性的人。”富有的人不仅指那些在物质层面得到丰盈与满足的人，更指在精神领域达到充实与富足的人。马克思称之为“具有人的本质的这种全部丰富性的人”。这意味着人能够全面、自由地运用自己的各种能力，从事劳动生产、进行社会交往、满足精神需求。

First, the objectification of human essential powers in labor practice.

第一，劳动实践中人的本质力量的对象化。

In the *Manuscripts*, Marx emphasized the importance of labor for people’s pursuit of spiritual wealth, proposing “free, conscious activity,” arguing that human labor and other practical activities are conscious, free, and creative, and that people can fully exert their subjective initiative to understand and transform the world. This is the philosophical basis for Marx’s critique of the theory of alienated labor and Feuerbach’s humanist “species-life,” clarifying that human labor is the originating activity of all other activities. Marx pointed out: “For socialist man, the whole of what is called world history is nothing but the creation of man by human labor.” Any religion or alienated labor that transcends nature and non-reality is an obstacle to the “person with the completeness of human life expression.” On the contrary, only individuals who can fully manifest their own essence and abilities through labor can possess the conditions for pursuing genuine spiritual freedom. Man not only transforms nature but also shapes himself. In this process, human life is comprehensively manifested and exerted, and human spiritual life gains momentum.

马克思在《手稿》中强调了劳动对于人追求精神富有的重要性，提出“自由的有意识的活动”,认为人的劳动及其他实践活动是有意识的、自由的、具有创造性的，人能够充分发挥其主观能动性来认识世界与改造世界。这是马克思批判异化劳动理论与批判费尔巴哈人本主义“类生活”的哲学论据，明确了人的劳动是其他一切活动的始源性活动。马克思指出：“对社会主义的人来说，整个所谓世界历史不外是人通过人的劳动而诞生的过程。”任何凌驾于自然界和非实在性的宗教或者异化劳动，都是对“生命表现的完整性的人”的阻碍，相反，只有能够通过劳动充分展现自身本质和才能的个体，才能拥有追求精神上真正自由的条件。人不仅改造了自然界，也塑造了自身。在这个过程中，人的生命得到了全面的表现和发挥，人的精神生活有了动力。

Second, the confirmation of human essence in social interaction.

第二，社会交往中人的本质的确证。

Marx believed that the essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in a single individual but the sum total of all social relations, and that the expression of human life cannot be separated from the social environment in which it is situated. The impact of human social interaction on spiritual life is more important than on material life. For example, language and writing, as media of spiritual life, are themselves products of social interaction and can only exist within the realm of social interaction. Marx pointed out: “Activity in direct association with others, etc., becomes an organ of my life expression and a mode of appropriation of human life.” Therefore, the “person with the completeness of human life expression” not only possesses the ability for labor practice but also the ability for social interaction. On the basis of social interaction, Marx emphasized the dialectical relationship between people’s common activity and common enjoyment. He pointed out: “Common activity and common enjoyment, that is, activity and enjoyment manifested and confirmed directly through actual association with others.” Common activity refers to people engaging together in various production and social interaction activities in society; these activities include not only material activities but also spiritual ones. Common enjoyment refers to the satisfaction and pleasure people obtain in common activities; this enjoyment is social in nature and is realized through interaction with others.

马克思认为，人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，而是一切社会关系的总和，人的生命表现离不开其所处的社会环境。人的社会交往对精神生活的影响比物质生活更重要。例如，作为精神生活介质的语言、文字，本身就是社会交往的产物，也只有在社会交往领域中才能存在。马克思指出：“同他人直接交往的活动等等，成为我的生命表现的器官和对人的生命的一种占有方式。”所以，“生命表现的完整性的人”不仅具备劳动实践能力，也具备社会交往的能力。马克思在社会交往的基础上强调了人的共同的活动与共同的享受的辩证关系。他指出：“共同的活动和共同的享受，即直接通过同别人的实际交往表现出来和得到确证的那种活动和享受。”共同的活动指人们在社会中一起进行各种生产和社会交往活动，这些活动不仅包括物质的活动，也包括精神性的活动；共同的享受则指人们在共同活动中所获得的满足和愉悦，这种享受具有社会性，是在与他人的交往中实现的。

Third, the satisfaction of people’s spiritual needs.

第三，人的精神需求的满足。

The *Manuscripts* points out: “Social activity and social enjoyment by no means exist only in the form of direct common activity and direct common enjoyment.” People’s spiritual needs are needs at the spiritual level characterized by subjectivity, initiative, and growth. Under these conditions, people’s spiritual activity is not only a perception of the external world but also the attainment of spiritual satisfaction through the transformation of the external world. On the basis of Feuerbach’s exposition of the species-essence of man, Marx proposed the concept of “species-consciousness,” emphasizing that man can take his own species (i.e., the essence, attributes, or characteristics of man) as the object of consciousness. This means that man can recognize his own existence as a species-being and the essential characteristics of this species. Marx believed that human species-consciousness is not abstract, transcendental, or alienated but concrete, historical, and common, formed and developed by people in labor practice. In labor practice, through the understanding and transformation of the external world, people form their own subjective spiritual world. The shaping of this subjective spiritual world is an important manifestation of the generation of human spiritual life.

《手稿》指出：“社会的活动和社会的享受决不仅仅存在于直接共同的活动和直接共同的享受这种形式中。”人的精神需求是以主体性、能动性、成长性为特征的精神层面的需求。在此条件下，人的精神活动不仅是对外部世界的感受，更是通过对外部世界的改造获得精神上的满足。马克思在费尔巴哈论述人的类本质基础上提出了“类意识”的概念，强调人能够将自身的类(即人的本质、属性或特征)作为意识的对象，这意味着人能够认识到自己作为一个类的存在，以及这个类所具有的本质特征。马克思认为人的类意识不是抽象的、超验的、异化的，而是具体的、历史的、共同的，是人们在劳动实践中形成并发展起来的。在劳动实践中，人们通过对外部世界的认识与改造，形成了自己的主观精神世界，这种主观精神世界的塑造，是人的精神生活生成的重要表现。

(B) The Path of Balance between Material Life and Spiritual Life: Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life Means that People Have Reached a Spiritual Realm of Harmonious Coexistence with Nature

(二)物质生活与精神生活的平衡之道：精神生活共同富裕指人达到了与自然和谐共生的精神境界

The *Manuscripts* points out: “Without nature, without the sensuous external world, the worker can create nothing.” This assertion not only outlines the indispensable core position of nature in human material and spiritual production activities but also highlights the interdependent symbiotic relationship between humans and nature. In Marx’s vision, there are countless and inseparable connections between human spiritual life and nature.

《手稿》指出：“没有自然界，没有感性的外部世界，工人什么也不能创造。”这一论断不仅勾勒出自然界在人类物质与精神生产活动中不可或缺的核心地位，更凸显了人类与自然界的相互依存的共生关系。在马克思的视野中，人的精神生活与自然界之间存在着千丝万缕且不可分割的联系。

First, nature constitutes the inorganic body of man.

第一，自然界构成了人的无机的身体。

The inorganic body is not literally a part of the human body but a metaphor used by Marx to describe the special relationship between nature and humans, referring to nature as the material foundation for human survival and development, just like an indispensable component of the human body. Marx emphasized the close connection between humans and nature; the human body can only live by relying on nature, and the food, clothing, fuel, and housing that people need all depend on nature. Nature is not only the direct means of subsistence for humans but also the object and tool of human life activity, forming part of the inorganic body of man.

无机的身体并非字面意义上人的身体部分，而是马克思用来描述自然界与人类之间特殊关系的隐喻，指的是自然界作为人类生存和发展的物质基础，就如同人类身体的不可或缺的组成部分。马克思强调了人与自然之间的紧密联系，人的肉体只有依靠自然才可以生活，人所需要的食物、衣物、燃料和住房，无不依赖于自然界。自然界不仅是人类生存的直接资料，更是人的生命活动的对象和工具，构成了人类无机的身体的一部分。

Second, nature is both the source of resources needed for labor and the direct carrier of the fruits of labor.

第二，自然界既是劳动所需资源的源泉，也是劳动成果的直接载体。

Labor, as the core pathway for humanity to achieve survival, development, and self-transcendence, fundamentally depends on a dual gift from nature: on the one hand, nature provides the laborer with the means of production; lacking these means of production, labor cannot exist independently because it has no object to process. On the other hand, nature provides the laborer with the means of subsistence, ensuring that the laborer’s basic survival needs are met. Labor is divided into physical labor and mental labor. Physical labor acts directly on nature, humanizing nature by transforming the material world. Mental labor deepens the cognition and interpretation of nature, enabling humanity to transcend intuitive perception and enrich spiritual life. Thus, nature is not only an objective existence but also possesses human perceptual characteristics.

劳动作为人类实现存续发展与自我超越的核心途径，根本依赖于自然界的双重馈赠：一方面，自然界给劳动者提供生产资料，缺乏这些生产资料，劳动没有了加工对象便不能独自存在；另一方面，自然界给劳动者提供生活资料，确保了劳动者的基本生存需要得到满足。劳动分为体力劳动和脑力劳动，体力劳动直接作用于自然界，通过改造物质世界来人化自然；脑力劳动则加深对自然界的认知与诠释，使人类得以超越直观感知，丰富精神生活。由此，自然界不仅是客观存在，也具有人的感性特征。

Third, nature is the source of the materials for human spiritual life.

第三，自然界是人的精神生活材料的来源。

Humans are species-beings. Animals only obtain what they or their offspring need driven by the instinct of physical need, whereas humans “create an objective world through practical activity and transform inorganic nature,” engaging in spiritual production activities unaffected by physical needs; the scope of the inorganic world on which humans depend for life is far broader. The *Manuscripts* [1]1 The *Manuscripts* refers to Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, a key early text where he develops his theory of alienated labor. point out: “It is only through the existence of its object, through humanized nature, that human feeling and the human character of feeling are produced.” Humanized nature does not mean that nature changes due to human subjective perception, but rather emphasizes that the human cognition and transformation of nature is a process full of spiritual processing and spiritual creation. It is not merely an intuitive, superficial reflection of nature, but, through rational thought, emotional mapping, and artistic reprocessing, integrates nature into the realm of human spiritual life, making it a part of human spiritual life. Marx vividly states: “Plants, animals, stones, air, light, etc., constitute, from the theoretical aspect, a part of human consciousness, partly as objects of natural science, partly as objects of art—they are humanity’s inorganic nature, its spiritual inorganic nature, its spiritual food, which it must first prepare before it can enjoy and digest.” [2]2 This is a paraphrase of a passage from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Humans need to cognize, understand, and process the inorganic elements of nature in order to enrich their spiritual life. Marx emphasizes that humans, as a part of nature, should respect and conform to nature, rather than plundering and destroying it without restraint. This reverence and respect for nature is a vivid portrayal of the nobility of human spiritual life. Only through the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature can a balance between material life and spiritual life be achieved.

人是类存在物，动物只是在肉体需要的本能驱使下获取自己或者幼崽所需要的东西，而人是“通过实践创造对象世界，改造无机界”,在不受肉体的影响下从事精神生产活动，人赖以生活的无机界的范围更广阔。《手稿》指出：“人的感觉、感觉的人性，都是由于它的对象的存在，由于人化的自然界，才产生出来的。”人化自然并非指自然界因人的主观感受而发生改变，而是强调人对自然界的认识和改造是充满精神加工与精神创造的过程，不仅是对自然界进行直观的、表面的反映，更是通过理性思考、感性映射以及艺术再加工，将自然界融入人的精神生活领域，成为人的精神生活的一部分。马克思形象地指出：“植物、动物、石头、空气、光等等，一方面作为自然科学的对象，一方面作为艺术的对象，都是人的意识的一部分，是人的精神的无机界，是人必须事先进行加工以便享用和消化的精神食粮。”人需要对自然界的无机元素进行认识、理解和加工，从而丰富自己的精神生活。马克思强调了人作为自然界的一部分，应当尊重、顺应自然，而不是无节制地掠夺与破坏自然。这种对自然的敬畏与尊重就是人的精神生活高尚的鲜明写照。只有人与自然和谐共生，才能达到物质生活与精神生活的平衡。

(III) The Firm Philosophical Stance of dialectical materialism: Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life is the Dialectical Unity of Content and Form

(三)坚定的辩证唯物主义哲学立场：精神生活共同富裕是内容与形式的辩证统一

The content of human spiritual life (such as self-realization, value pursuit, emotional experience, etc.) needs to be expressed and realized through certain forms (such as philosophical reflection, literary and artistic creation, ideals and beliefs, etc.). At the same time, the forms of spiritual life not only enrich the modes of expression of spiritual life content but also increase the diversity and profundity of the content of human spiritual life. Standing on the position of dialectical materialism, Marx, through his critique of the spiritual life content in German classical philosophy that was divorced from social reality and the erroneous forms of spiritual life thought in Hegel’s philosophy of right, reveals the complexity and diversity of human spiritual life, emphasizing that the content and form of spiritual life are not separate existences but a dialectical unity in the continuous development and perfection of social practice and material production activities.

人的精神生活内容(如自我实现、价值追求、情感体验等)需要通过一定的形式(如哲学思考、文艺创作、理想信念等)来表达和实现。同时，精神生活的形式不仅丰富了精神生活内容的表现方式，也增加了人的精神生活内容的多样性与深刻性。马克思站在辩证唯物主义的立场上，通过对德国古典哲学中脱离社会实际的精神生活内容与黑格尔法哲学中错误的精神生活思想形式的批判，揭示了人的精神生活的复杂性和多样性，强调了精神生活内容和形式之间并非割裂的存在，而是在社会实践和物质生产活动不断发展和完善过程中的辩证统一。

On the one hand, the dialectical unity of the content and form of spiritual life is embodied in the sublation of old philosophy and Hegel’s concept of alienation. Marx believed that the redundancy in form, complexity in content, and obscurity in speculation of German classical philosophy caused Germany at that time to have “actual life lacking spiritual vitality, and spiritual life lacking actual content.” [3]3 This is a paraphrase of a passage from Marx’s early writings, likely from his critique of the German situation. Based on this, Marx emphatically pointed out that spiritual life should have actual content, not be empty and devoid of substance. He stated: “In labor, all the natural, spiritual, and social differences of individual activity are manifested.” [4]4 This is a paraphrase of a passage from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Old philosophy and religion obliterate human self-consciousness, restrict human spiritual activity, and not only affect the comprehensive development of the individual but also hinder the overall progress of society. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx successively criticized Hegel’s “externalized spirit” and “absolute knowledge.” He believed that Hegel’s concept of alienation, logically starting from absolute and unchanging abstractions and ending with superhuman abstract spirit, directly led to the alienation of the human spirit and human essence. One should base oneself on social reality, take the realization of humanity’s free and comprehensive development as the core, and focus on the substantive content of common prosperity in spiritual life, including practical issues such as ensuring the quality of spiritual life for all people, co-building and sharing spiritual and cultural achievements, and narrowing the gap in spiritual and cultural life, thereby enriching the content of human spiritual life from the specific aspects of social reality.

一方面，精神生活内容与形式的辩证统一体现在对旧哲学与黑格尔异化观的扬弃上。马克思认为，德国古典哲学在形式上的冗杂、内容上的繁复与思辨上的晦涩，让当时的德国“实际生活缺乏精神活力，精神生活也无实际内容”。基于此，马克思强调指出，精神生活应该具有实际内容，而不是空洞无物。他指出：“在劳动中，个人活动的全部自然的、精神的和社会的差别会表现出来。”旧哲学和宗教抹杀人的自我意识，对人的精神活动进行限制，不仅影响了人的全面发展，更阻碍了社会的整体进步。马克思在《手稿》中对黑格尔“外化精神”与“绝对知识”进行了接续批判。他认为黑格尔的异化观在逻辑上从绝对和不变的抽象出发，到超人的抽象精神结束，直接导致了人的精神与人的本质的异化现象。应当立足社会现实，以实现人的自由全面发展为核心，着重关注人的精神生活共同富裕的实质内容，包括保障全民精神生活品质、共建共享精神文化成果、缩小精神文化生活差距等现实问题，从社会现实的具体方面丰富人的精神生活内容。

On the other hand, the dialectical unity of the content and form of spiritual life is embodied in the critique and transcendence of Hegel’s philosophical spirit. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx criticized Hegel’s erroneous philosophical views. He believed that Hegel’s first mistake was to abstractly transform conceptual absolute knowledge into independent philosophical thinking. Hegel believed that material wealth, spiritual wealth, and state power become alienated from human essence and exist independently; human essence is equated with self-consciousness, and all alienation of human essence is merely the alienation of self-consciousness. Marx pointed out that Hegel believed human thinking exists in “the opposition between being-in-itself and being-for-itself, between consciousness and self-consciousness, between object and subject.” [5]5 This is a paraphrase of a passage from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Although Hegel grasped the essence of labor and understood objective humanity, the real human being, as the result of his own labor, he nevertheless understood alienation as objectification and the sublation of alienation as the sublation of objectivity itself. In this way, the object itself is a negative, self-sublating thing, a nothingness without independent essence. Marx believed that Hegel’s second mistake was to treat “sensuousness, religion, state power, etc.” as “the essence of spirit.” [6]6 This is a paraphrase of a passage from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Hegel only saw that thought, ideas, and religion detach themselves from human spiritual activity and in turn control human spiritual life, but he did not see that human spiritual activity is concrete, historical, and social. Marx pointed out: “The only labor Hegel knows and recognizes is abstract spiritual labor.” [7]7 This is a direct quote from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. The labor Hegel understood is not simple physical labor or material production activity, but a spiritual activity divorced from social reality. Labor is the process of the subject-object unity realized by the individual under the guidance of ideas; that is, through labor, the individual can inject his will and goals into the external world and realize his own freedom in this process. This kind of labor is more manifested as a thinking activity, an understanding and transformation of the world, rather than a simple material transformation. Marx pointed out: “The true form of spirit is thinking spirit, logical, speculative spirit.” [8]8 This is a paraphrase of a passage from the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Human spiritual life is rooted in the close connection between the self and the objective world; it not only grants humanity the spiritual right to autonomously and actively pursue true freedom but also endows humanity with the ability to engage in spiritual creation starting from the real world.

另一方面，精神生活内容与形式的辩证统一体现在对黑格尔哲学精神的批判和超越上。马克思在《手稿》中对黑格尔的错误哲学观点进行了批判。他认为黑格尔的第一个错误就是把概念式的绝对知识抽象化为独立的哲学思维。黑格尔认为，物质财富、精神财富和国家权力同人的本质相异化而独立存在，人的本质等同于自我意识，人的本质的全部异化不过是自我意识的异化。马克思指出，黑格尔认为人的思维是在“自在和自为之间、意识和自我意识之间、客体和主体之间的对立”,黑格尔虽然抓住了劳动的本质，把对象性的人、真正的因而是现实的人理解为他自己的劳动的结果，但是却把异化理解为对象化，把异化的扬弃理解为对象性本身的扬弃。这样一来，对象本身就是一种否定的、自我扬弃的东西，是一种没有独立本质的虚无之物。马克思认为黑格尔的第二个错误是把“感性、宗教、国家权力等等”当做“精神的本质”。黑格尔只看到了思维、观念和宗教从人的精神活动中脱离出来反过来控制人类精神生活，却没有看到人的精神活动是具体的、历史的、社会的。马克思指出：“黑格尔唯一知道并承认的劳动是抽象的精神的劳动。”黑格尔理解的劳动并非简单的体力劳动或物质生产活动，而是一种离开社会现实的精神活动。劳动是个人在观念的指导下实现的主客体统一的过程，即通过劳动，个人能够将自己的意志和目标注入外部世界，并在这个过程中实现自身自由。这种劳动更多地表现为一种思维活动，是对世界的理解和改造，而非简单的物质变换。马克思指出：“精神的真正的形式则是思维着的精神，逻辑的、思辨的精神。”人的精神生活植根于自身与客观世界的紧密联系之中，它既使人类拥有自主能动地追求真正自由的精神权利，又使人类具备从现实世界出发进行精神创造的能力。

II. Constraining Factors of Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life

二、精神生活共同富裕的制约因素

The *Manuscripts* profoundly analyze the factors affecting common prosperity in spiritual life in capitalist society—alienated labor, private property, and the logic of capital—which intertwine and act together, leading to the impoverishment, materialization, and falsification of human spiritual life.

《手稿》深刻剖析了资本主义社会中影响人的精神生活共同富裕的因素——异化劳动、私有财产和资本逻辑，它们相互交织、共同作用，导致人的精神生活趋于贫困化、物质化与虚伪化。

(I) The Existence of Alienated Labor Leads to the Impoverishment of the Spiritual Life of the Working Class

(一)异化劳动的存在导致工人阶级的精神生活趋于贫困化

Impoverishment of spiritual life refers to the state of resource scarcity and conditional constraints encountered by individuals or groups in aspects such as spiritual pursuits, ideological exploration, psychological needs, and value concepts. Previous philosophers only focused on analyzing the causes of spiritual life impoverishment from the spiritual dimensions of cognition, thought, and consciousness. However, in the *Manuscripts*, Marx broke through this theoretical limitation, directly pointing to the core of alienated labor, and clearly stated that alienated labor is the internal root cause of the impoverishment of the spiritual life of the working class.

精神生活贫困化，指的是个体或者群体精神追求、思想探索、心理需求与价值观念等方面所遭遇的资源匮乏与条件限制状态。以往哲学家只注重从认知、思维与意识等精神层面来分析精神生活贫困的原因，而马克思在《手稿》中突破了这一理论局限，直接指向异化劳动这一核心，明确指出异化劳动是造成工人阶级精神生活贫困的内在根源。

First, the alienation of man from his own labor product strips away the rich and diverse content of the worker’s spiritual life. Marx pointed out: “The more commodities the worker produces, the cheaper a commodity he becomes.” The object produced by the worker’s labor confronts him “as an alien being, as a power independent of the producer.” Marx further stated: “The worker’s production, and the alienation, loss, of the object, i.e., the worker’s product, in its objectification.” This judgment precisely exposes the essence of the alienated relationship between the worker and the product of his labor under the capitalist mode of production. In the capitalist production system, the capitalist’s relentless pursuit of surplus value fills this process with contradictions and conflicts, ultimately leading to the total alienation of the worker from his labor product. This antagonistic relationship between the worker and his own labor product not only highlights that the labor product has been alienated into a force that devours the worker himself, but also reveals that, under conditions of ever-diminishing material means of subsistence, the worker gradually loses the autonomy of his spiritual activity. Moreover, under the oppression of unceasing labor, the time available for spiritual life is ruthlessly stripped away, reducing the worker entirely to a tool of production. Consequently, the working class suffers the dual oppression of material impoverishment and spiritual hollowing-out, remaining for a long time in a state of passivity, helplessness, and even despair.

第一，人同自己的劳动产品相异化，剥离了工人精神生活的丰富多元内容。马克思指出：“工人创造的商品越多，他就越变成廉价的商品。”工人的劳动所生产的对象“作为一种异己的存在物，作为不依赖于生产者的力量，同劳动相对立”。马克思进一步指出：“工人的生产，以及对象即工人的产品在对象化中的异化、丧失。”这一论断精准揭露了在资本主义生产模式下，工人与其劳动成果之间关系异化的本质。在资本主义生产体系中，资本家对剩余价值的无休止追求，使得这一过程充满了矛盾与冲突，最终导致工人与其劳动产品之间的全面异化。这种工人与自己的劳动产品的对立关系，不仅凸显了劳动产品异化为一种反噬工人自身的力量，更揭示了工人群体在物质生活资料不断减少的境遇下，精神活动自主性的逐渐缺失，以及在无休止的劳动压迫下，进行精神生活的时间被无情剥夺，彻底沦为生产工具。由此，工人阶级承受着物质生活贫瘠化与精神生活空洞化的双重压迫，长期处于一种消极、无助乃至绝望的心理状态之中。

Second, the alienation of man from his own labor activity distorts the natural and authentic state of his spiritual life. Understood from the perspective of philosophical anthropology, the natural form of spiritual life includes self-realization and transcendence, spiritual freedom and independence, emotional richness and harmony, and social recognition and contribution. However, in capitalist society, the worker’s subjectivity and initiative are severely weakened. He cannot choose the mode and content of labor according to his own will and interests, but can only passively accept the arrangements and commands of the capitalist. Marx pointed out: “The worker becomes a slave of his object in two respects.” These two respects are the worker’s work and the means of subsistence he receives. By exploiting the surplus value of the worker’s labor, the capitalist controls the worker’s job opportunities and means of subsistence, compresses the limits of the worker’s physical existence, and causes the labor product that originally belonged to the worker to belong to another, becoming a fetter that enslaves the worker. Marx pointed out: “Alienated labor reduces spontaneous, free activity to a means, thus degrading man’s species life into a means for maintaining his physical existence.” Alienated labor enslaves not only the worker’s body but also his spirit. In labor, the worker “does not feel happy but unhappy, does not freely develop his physical and mental energies but mortifies his body and ruins his mind… The alien character of labor is clearly shown by the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague.” “Labor produces wisdom, but for the worker it produces stupidity and cretinism.” In the capitalist relations of production, the worker experiences in his spiritual life not his own creativity and value, but only the pain of oppression. This spiritual torment makes the worker’s spiritual world distorted, empty, and blunted.

第二，人同自己的劳动活动相异化，扭曲了其精神生活的自然本真状态。从人学角度理解，精神生活的自然形态包含自我实现与超越、精神自由与独立、情感丰富与和谐、社会认同与贡献等内容。但是，在资本主义社会中，工人的主体性和能动性被严重削弱，无法按照自己的意愿和兴趣去选择劳动的方式和内容，只能被动地接受资本家的安排和指挥。马克思指出：“工人在这两方面成为自己的对象的奴隶。”这两方面分别是工人的工作与工人得到的生存资料，资本家通过剥削工人劳动的剩余价值，控制工人的工作机会与生存资料，压缩工人的肉体生存限度，使原本属于工人的劳动产品却属于他人，并成为奴役工人的枷锁。马克思指出：“异化劳动把自主活动、自由活动贬低为手段，也就把人的类生活变成维持人的肉体生存的手段。”异化劳动不仅奴役工人的肉身，而且奴役工人的精神。工人在劳动中“不是感到幸福，而是感到不幸，不是自由地发挥自己的体力和智力，而是使自己的肉体受折磨、精神遭摧残……劳动的异己性完全表现在：只要肉体的强制或其他强制一停止，人们就会像逃避瘟疫那样逃避劳动”。“劳动生产了智慧，但是给工人生产了愚钝和痴呆。”在资本主义生产关系中，工人在精神生活中体会不到自己的创造力与价值，只是体会到一种被压迫的痛苦，这种精神上的折磨使工人的精神世界变得扭曲、空虚与钝化。

Third, the alienation of man from his species-being compresses the space for the free development of the working class’s spiritual life. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx for the first time proposed the concept that man is his own species-being. So-called species-being means that man consciously and purposefully engages in free, conscious practical activity, and takes the species as his own essence or regards himself as a species-being. However, in capitalist society, the worker’s labor is reduced to a mere means of subsistence, leading to the alienation of man’s species-essence. This alienation causes the worker to lose self-identity and a sense of belonging in his spiritual life. Specifically, it has a dual impact on the worker’s spiritual life. On the one hand, the alienation of man from his species-being hinders the unity among workers. In capitalist society, workers are forced into economic competition with each other in order to obtain the small portion of means of subsistence and means of labor needed to survive. This competition makes it difficult for the working class to form a genuine community at the spiritual level, leaving workers isolated and helpless, further intensifying their spiritual suffering. On the other hand, the alienation of man from his species-being strips away man’s capacity for spiritual activity. Marx pointed out: “Man (the worker) feels himself to be freely active only in his animal functions—eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment—while in his human functions he feels himself to be nothing more than an animal… making these functions the final and sole ultimate ends, they become animal functions.” He reveals an even more serious problem: because labor is reduced to a mere means of subsistence, the species-character of man and the species-character of animals show a tendency toward unlimited convergence. The serious consequence of this tendency is that it not only causes the worker to lose the labor product he himself has created and labor itself, but also causes the worker to lose his species-consciousness. That is, the space for the worker’s spiritual activity is severely compressed, and he even loses the capacity to engage in spiritual activity as a human subject.

第三，人同人的类存在物相异化，压缩了工人阶级精神生活的自由发展空间。马克思在《手稿》中首次提出了人是自己的类存在物的概念。所谓类存在物指的是人有意识、有目的地进行自由自觉的实践活动，并将类视为自己的本质或将自己视为类存在物。然而，在资本主义社会中，工人的劳动沦为谋生的手段，导致人的类本质发生异化。这种异化使得工人在精神生活上失去了自我认同和归属感。具体而言，对工人的精神生活造成了双重影响。一方面，人与人的类存在物相异化阻碍了工人之间的联合。在资本主义社会中，工人为了获得维持生存的小部分生活资料与劳动资料，在经济上陷入相互竞争。这种竞争使工人阶级在精神层面难以形成真正的共同体，导致工人变得孤独和无助，进一步加剧了他们的精神痛苦。另一方面，人与人的类存在物相异化剥离了人的精神活动能力。马克思指出：“人(工人)只有在运用自己的动物机能——吃、喝、生殖，至多还有居住、修饰等等——的时候，才觉得自己在自由活动，而在运用人的机能时，觉得自己只不过是动物……使这些机能脱离人的其他活动领域并成为最后的和唯一的终极目的，那它们就是动物的机能。”他揭示了一个更为严峻的问题：由于劳动沦为纯粹谋生的手段，人的类属性与动物的类属性呈现出一种无限度趋近的趋势。这种趋势的严重后果在于，它不仅导致工人失去了自己亲手创造的劳动产品与劳动本身，还使工人丧失了类意识，即工人的精神活动空间被严重压缩，甚至失去了作为人这一主体进行精神活动的能力。

Fourth, the alienation of the relation of man to man destroys the foundation of cultural identity for the spiritual life of the working class. Marx pointed out: “The direct consequence of the alienation of man from the product of his labor, from his life activity, from his species-being, is the alienation of man from man.” The alienation of man from man is the result jointly produced by the first three forms of alienation. In analyzing the mechanism by which alienated labor destroys the common cultural foundation of the working class’s spiritual life, Marx stated: “The alienation of man, in general, any relation of man to himself, is realized and expressed only through the relation of man to other men.” The relationship between the bourgeoisie and the working class is reified into a relationship of exploitation and being exploited, replacing the original relationship of cooperation and mutual assistance between people. Similarly, the forced competition among workers for limited survival resources also dissolves the real foundation of unity and the cultural bonds within the working class. Furthermore, all interactive relations between people are commodified; mutual respect, cultural identity, and emotional resonance in spiritual life are all incorporated into the logic of commodity exchange. Therefore, the worker loses the possibility of confirming his self-worth in labor, and cultural identity loses its social carrier. These factors cause the bonds of the spiritual life community of the working class to break.

第四，人与人的关系相异化，摧毁了工人阶级精神生活的文化认同根基。马克思指出：“人同自己的劳动产品、自己的生命活动、自己的类本质相异化的直接结果就是人同人相异化。”人同人相异化是前三种异化共同导致的结果。马克思在分析异化劳动对于工人阶级精神生活中共同文化根基的摧毁机理时指出：“人的异化，一般地说，人对自身的任何关系，只有通过人对他人的关系才得到实现和表现。”资产阶级与工人阶级的关系被物化为剥削与被剥削的关系，取代了原本人与人之间的协作互助关系。同样，工人之间为了争夺有限生存资源被迫相互竞争，也瓦解了工人阶级内部团结的现实根基和文化纽带。进一步地，人与人之间的一切互动关系均被商品化，精神生活中的相互尊重、文化认同、情感共鸣等都被纳入商品交换逻辑之中。所以，工人失去了在劳动中确认自我价值的可能，文化认同也失去了社会载体，这些导致工人阶级精神生活共同体的纽带断裂。

(2) The existence of private property leads to the materialization of the spiritual life of society as a whole

(二)私有财产的存在导致社会整体的精神生活趋于物质化

Marx pointed out that the spiritual life of the upper class is usually characterized by “refinement, concealment, and ambiguity,” while the spiritual life of the working class is characterized by “crudeness, openness, and frankness.” The rich often advocate thrift for society as a whole, yet they themselves are often unrestrained in their extravagance. This causes the spiritual life of the bourgeoisie to be extremely rich, while the spiritual life of the working class falls into extreme poverty. At one pole, wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of big capitalists who swallow up small capital; at the other pole, members of the bourgeoisie who fail in capital competition are transformed into the proletariat, thereby swelling the ranks of the working class, which possesses ever less wealth. In this way, under unceasing anxiety about survival, people turn toward a material life centered on profit and money, while the common spiritual life becomes increasingly shallow, vulgar, and blind.

马克思指出，上层社会的精神生活通常具有“讲究、隐蔽、含糊”特征，而工人阶级的精神生活则具有“粗陋、明白、坦率”特征。富人常常倡导整个社会的节约，然而他们自身往往毫无节制地挥霍，这导致资产阶级的精神生活极其丰富，而工人阶级的精神生活却陷入极端贫困。一端是财富越来越集中于吞并小资本的大资本家手中，另一端则是在资本竞争中失败的资产阶级转化为无产阶级，进而导致了掌握越来越少财富的工人阶级数量的膨胀。这样，人在无休止的生存忧虑下转向了以利益、金钱为核心的物质生活，共同的精神生活则变得愈加浅薄、鄙陋与盲目。

First, the existence of private property leads individuals to pursue the maximization of personal interests, resulting in disorder in the governance of common spiritual life. Marx refuted Hegel’s philosophy of right, which held the erroneous view that private property benefits the common prosperity of the entire society. Hegel argued that the existence of private property shapes a system of mutual dependence among people, in which individuals not only pursue the maximization of their own interests but also promote the common prosperity of the entire society. Marx criticized this view, maintaining that in a social production system centered on private property, citizens are more inclined to focus on their own particular interests rather than the universal interests of society, valuing only the private property of individuals and families rather than the common material and spiritual wealth of the entire society. In the *Manuscripts* [9]9 The *Manuscripts* refers to Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, a key early text in which he critiques classical political economy and develops his theory of alienated labor., Marx conducted an in-depth study of classical political economy and discovered the fundamental cause of the imbalance between material life and spiritual life, with economic factors such as wages, capital, land rent, and profit becoming key objects of his investigation. He further revealed a hidden paradox under private property: the flourishing growth of the material world is often accompanied by a corresponding contraction in the value of the spiritual world. The core of this phenomenon lies in the fact that private property tends to stimulate individuals’ pursuit of the maximization of personal interests, rather than guiding members of society to jointly work toward public welfare or the free and comprehensive development of the human person. As material wealth accumulates continuously, individuals gradually become addicted to the possession and enjoyment of things, while neglecting the creativity, critical thinking, emotional communication, and the enrichment and deepening of the spiritual world required for the free and comprehensive development of the human person. People lose the interest and motivation to engage in spiritual life, undermining the foundation of common prosperity in spiritual life and further leading to an imbalance in the governance order of common spiritual life.

第一，私有财产的存在引导人们追求个人利益的最大化，导致共同精神生活治理失序。马克思驳斥了黑格尔法哲学关于私有制有利于整个社会共同富裕的错误观点。黑格尔主张私有制的存在塑造了一种人与人相互依赖的社会体系，在这一体系中，个体不仅追求自身利益的最大化，还促进了整个社会的共同富裕。马克思对这一观点进行了批判，认为在以私有财产为核心的社会生产体系中，市民更倾向于关注个人的特殊利益，而非社会的普遍利益，只重视个人与家庭的私有财产，而非整个社会共同的物质与精神财富。马克思在《手稿》中深入研究了古典政治经济学，发现了物质生活与精神生活不平衡的根本原因，其中工资、资本、地租、利润等经济要素均成为他的重点考察对象。他进一步揭示了私有制下存在的一种隐性悖论——物质世界的繁荣增长，往往伴随着与之相对应的精神世界价值的缩减。这一现象的核心在于，私有制倾向于激发个体对个人利益最大化的追求，而非引导社会成员共同致力于公共福祉或人的自由全面发展。随着物质财富的持续累积，个体逐渐沉迷于对物的占有与享受之中，而忽视了人的自由全面发展所需的创造力、批判性思维、情感交流以及精神世界的丰富与深化。人失去了进行精神生活的兴趣与动力，动摇了精神生活共同富裕的基础，进一步导致共同精神生活治理秩序失衡。

Second, the existence of private property becomes a barrier to people’s spiritual interaction, causing anomie in the behavior of common spiritual life. Marx pointed out: “This material, directly sensuous private property is the material, sensuous expression of estranged human life.” [10]10 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Under the domination of private property, individuals are driven to create a power that dominates others and is alien to their own essence, as a means of satisfying their private desires. This motivational mechanism not only intensifies mutual deception and plunder among members of society but also inadvertently turns newly produced material products into a breeding ground for nurturing such false, utilitarian interpersonal relationships. Consequently, with the accumulation of material wealth, an alien force that enslaves people and alienates them from their essence continues to expand. The result is that, although external material conditions appear abundant, people’s inner spiritual world becomes increasingly impoverished, and the essential attributes of the human person are suppressed.

第二，私有财产的存在成为人精神交往的壁垒，使共同精神生活行为失范。马克思指出：“这种物质的、直接感性的私有财产，是异化了的人的生命的物质的、感性的表现。”在私有财产的支配下，个体被驱使去创造出一种支配他人、异于自身本质的力量，以此作为满足个人私欲的手段。这种动力机制不仅加剧了社会成员之间的相互欺诈和掠夺，而且新的被生产出来的物质产品，在不经意间，成为滋养这种虚假、功利化人际关系的温床。因此，随着物质财富的积累，一种奴役人的、与人的本质相疏离的异己力量也在持续扩张。结果是，尽管外在物质条件看似丰裕，但人的内在精神世界却愈发贫瘠，人的本质属性受到压抑。

Third, the existence of private property amplifies people’s vulgarized spiritual needs, leading to the distortion of the content of common spiritual life. Marx pointed out: “All passions and all activity must be submerged in the lust for money. The worker can have only as much as he needs to stay alive, and he wants to stay alive only in order to have that much.” [11]11 Ibid. This statement reveals the paradoxical relationship between money and the products of labor under the influence of private property: the stronger the power of money, the deeper people’s sense of inner poverty becomes. This unrestrained and unbridled pursuit of money not only intensifies human submission to inhuman, refined, unnatural, and imaginary desires but also deepens people’s spiritual poverty. Private property cannot transform crude needs into human needs; instead, it distorts and alienates people’s spiritual needs. People’s spiritual needs are no longer based on the essence of the human person and comprehensive development but are shackled by the fetters of material interests, directly leading to the alienation of spiritual needs themselves. This fundamentally alters the authentic needs of people’s spiritual life, distancing them from the track of promoting personal growth and social progress, and sinking them into the mire of vulgar, unending materialism.

第三，私有财产的存在放大了人的庸俗化精神需求，导致共同精神生活内容失真。马克思指出：“一切情欲和一切活动都必然湮没在贪财欲之中。工人只能拥有他想活下去所必需的那么一点，而且只是为了拥有这么一点，他才想活下去。”这一论述揭示了私有财产影响下货币与劳动产品的悖论性关系：货币的力量越强，人们内心的贫困感反而愈发深重。这种对货币的无限制、无节制追求，不仅加剧了人类对非人的、精致的、非自然的和幻想的欲望的屈从，还进一步加深了人们的精神贫困程度。私有财产不能把粗陋的需要变为人的需要，反而将人的精神需求扭曲和异化。人的精神需求不再基于人的本质和全面发展之上，而是被物质利益的枷锁所牵绊，直接导致人的精神需求本身的异化，从根本上改变了人的精神生活本真需求，使其远离促进个人成长与社会进步的轨道，深陷于庸俗的、无休止的物质主义的泥潭之中。

(3) The existence of the logic of capital causes the content of humanity’s collective spiritual life to tend toward hypocrisy.

(三)资本逻辑的存在致使人类集体精神生活内容趋于虚伪化

In the *Manuscripts*, Marx clearly pointed out that in a capitalist society dominated by the logic of capital, “the need for money is the true need created by national economy, and the only need it creates… measurelessness and excess become the true measure of money.” [12]12 Ibid. Whether for the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, individual pursuits are mostly focused on external honor, social status, and the accumulation of wealth, rather than inner spiritual fulfillment and self-growth. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx criticized the so-called justice of capital in classical economics, which is essentially a false conception of justice aimed at safeguarding the interests of the bourgeoisie. Marx profoundly exposed the hypocritical nature of morality and ethics in capitalist society: morality and ethics often degenerate into tools for maintaining the rights and ruling position of the bourgeoisie, rather than a reverence for and care for human dignity and value, ultimately causing the content of humanity’s collective spiritual life to tend toward hypocrisy.

马克思在《手稿》中明确指出，在资本逻辑主导的资本主义社会中，“对货币的需要是国民经济学所产生的真正需要，并且是它所产生的唯一需要……无度和无节制成了货币的真正尺度”。无论是资产阶级抑或无产阶级，个体的追求多聚焦于外在的荣誉、社会地位及财富积累，而非内在的精神富足与自我成长。马克思在《手稿》中批判了古典经济学所谓的资本正义，这种虚假的正义观本质上是为了维护资产阶级利益。马克思深刻揭露了资本主义社会中道德和伦理观的伪善本质，即道德和伦理往往蜕变为维护资产阶级权益和统治地位的工具，而非对人类尊严与价值的尊崇与关怀，最终致使人类集体精神生活内容趋于虚伪化。

First, this is manifested in the dehumanizing force of domination.

第一，体现在非人化的统治力量上。

In the *Manuscripts*, Marx extensively excerpted empirical materials from Friedrich Wilhelm Schulz’s *The Movement of Production: A Historical-Statistical Foundation for a New Science of State and Society*. Through detailed cases, Schulz revealed how the rich exploit the poor by extending workers’ labor time. Marx criticized: “National economy regards the worker only as a working animal, as a beast with only the most necessary physical needs.” [13]13 Ibid. Within the framework of production relations dominated by the logic of capital, a spiritual controlling force that transcends individual will gradually takes shape, binding people’s activities guided by free will. Particularly notable is that workers’ spiritual living space is eroded by continuously extended labor time, and their right to spiritual activity is ruthlessly deprived. In such an environment, workers generally experience spiritual malaise and a lack of vitality, making spiritual life monotonous and oppressive. Furthermore, through alienated labor, the capitalist not only directly exploits the worker’s own labor power but further extends this exploitation to the worker’s children, viewing them as future resources for the reproduction of labor power. This act not only deprives workers’ children of their innocent childhood and future space for growth but also subjects them to physical and mental dual devastation, alienating them into mere production tools serving the capitalist’s profit-making. The greed and hypocrisy of the capitalist cause the entire human spiritual life to lose the conditions for free development, with human dignity and self-growth being severely neglected.

马克思在《手稿》中大量摘录了弗里德里希·威廉·舒尔茨的《生产运动：从历史统计学方面论国家和社会的一种新科学的基础的建立》中的实证材料，舒尔茨通过翔实的案例揭示了富人如何通过延长工人劳动时间，实现对穷人的剥削。马克思批判指出：“国民经济学把工人只当做劳动的动物，当做仅仅有最必要的肉体需要的牲畜。”在资本逻辑主导的生产关系框架中，一种超越个体意志的精神控制力量逐渐形成，它束缚了人们在自由意志指导下的活动。尤为显著的是，工人的精神生活空间被不断延长的劳动时间所侵蚀，其精神活动的权利遭到了无情的剥夺。在这种环境下，工人普遍出现精神萎靡、活力不足的状态，精神生活变得单调而压抑。此外，资本家通过异化劳动不仅直接剥削了工人本身的劳动力，更进一步将这种剥削扩展到工人的子女身上，视其为劳动力再生产的未来资源。这一行为不仅剥夺了工人子女纯真的童年时光与未来成长空间，还致使他们遭受身体和心灵的双重摧残，被异化为仅服务于资本家谋取利润的生产工具。资本家的贪婪虚伪导致整个人类精神生活失去了自由发展的条件，人性尊严与自我成长被严重忽视。

Second, this is manifested in the solidification and squandering of wealth.

第二，体现在对财富的固化与挥霍上。

The *Manuscripts* point out: “The being for whom labor is performed and for whom the products of labor are enjoyed can only be the human person himself.” [14]14 Ibid. It is a natural right for individuals to use and enjoy the material and spiritual wealth obtained through labor. However, the capitalist appropriates surplus value without compensation, and this part of the material and spiritual wealth, obtained by the worker through labor and meant to be disposed of by the worker himself, becomes the object of the capitalist’s deprivation. In pursuit of external vanity, people neglect their inner true needs, and even disguise their true selves to maintain a superficial appearance of brilliance, thereby intensifying the hypocritical turn of humanity’s collective spiritual life and deviating from the original pursuit of spiritual fulfillment.

《手稿》指出：“劳动为之服务和劳动产品供其享受的那个存在物，只能是人自身。”个人使用和享受通过劳动获得的物质财富与精神财富是天然权利。但是资本家无偿占有了剩余价值，这部分由工人劳动获得并由工人自己支配的物质财富与精神财富却成为资本家剥夺的对象。人们为了追求外在的虚荣，忽略了内心的真实需求，甚至为了维护某种表面的光鲜亮丽而伪装真实的自己，进而加剧了人类集体精神生活的虚伪化转向，背离了对精神生活充实的本原追求。

Third, this is manifested in the solidification of the social division of labor.

第三，体现在社会分工的固化上。

Marx believed that the social division of labor greatly expanded the boundaries of exchange and interaction among people, driving the evolution of world history. However, under the profound influence of the logic of capital, human spiritual activities have unfortunately been commodified, their value needing to be measured by the laws of market exchange. This process of commodification not only deprives spiritual life of its original naturalness and purity but also renders it hollow, hypocritical, and superficial. In the *Manuscripts*, Marx profoundly pointed out that the social division of labor, like a chasm, sharply separates mental labor from physical labor, a division that exacerbates the individual’s state of fragmentation between material labor and spiritual labor. Although social economy has developed and the material wealth of the entire society has greatly increased, this historical progress has come at the cost of depriving the rights and interests of physical laborers. At the same time, although mental laborers engage in spiritual production, they find it difficult to comprehensively reflect the common interests of the broad masses of laborers, leading to a misalignment between the fruits of spiritual production and the genuine spiritual needs of all laborers. More seriously, the mode of division of labor under the capitalist system greatly restricts the potential for comprehensive human development, not only deepening the estrangement and contradictions between different types of laborers but also weakening the unity and cohesion within the working class, resulting in the fragmentation of the workers’ forces and making it difficult to form an effective social synergy.

马克思认为社会分工极大地扩展了人与人之间交换与互动的边界，推动了世界历史的演进。然而，在资本逻辑的深刻影响下，人类的精神活动不幸被商品化了，其价值需要通过市场交换法则来衡量，这种商品化过程不仅剥夺了精神生活原有的自然与纯粹，还使其变得空洞、虚伪与肤浅。马克思在《手稿》中深刻指出，社会分工如同一道鸿沟，鲜明地把脑力劳动与体力劳动划分开来，这种划分加剧了个人在物质劳动与精神劳动之间的割裂状态。虽然社会经济得到了发展，整个社会的物质财富得到极大增加，但这种历史的进步却以体力劳动者的权益被剥夺为代价。同时，尽管脑力劳动者从事精神生产，他们却难以全面地反映广大劳动者的共同利益，导致精神生产成果与全体劳动者的真实精神需要出现错位。更为严峻的是，资本主义制度下的分工模式极大地限制了人的全面发展潜力，不仅加深了不同类型劳动者之间的隔阂与矛盾，还削弱了工人阶级内部的团结与凝聚力，导致工人队伍的力量被分化，难以形成有效的社会合力。

III. Realization Paths for Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life

三、精神生活共同富裕的实现路径

In [Notebook III] of the *Manuscripts*, Marx introduced the concept of “creation [Schöpfung].” This concept not only breaks through the limited framework of national economics, which defines wealth and poverty solely by the quantity of possessions, but also points toward a new realm that transcends material boundaries and touches the essential pursuit of human spiritual life. In this context, Marx expanded his analysis, arguing that common prosperity in spiritual life is to be realized through three aspects: guaranteeing the free time of the proletariat, superseding private property, and promoting the unity of the proletarians.

马克思在《手稿》的[笔记本Ⅲ]中引入了“创造[Schöpfung]”概念，这一概念不仅突破了国民经济学单纯以财富多寡界定富有与贫困的局限框架，更指向了一种超越物质界限、触及人类精神生活本质追求的新境界。在这一语境下，马克思拓展分析，认为精神生活共同富裕要通过保证无产阶级的自由时间、扬弃私有财产和推动无产者的联合三个方面来实现。

(A) Guaranteeing the Free Time of the Proletariat Is the Basic Prerequisite for Realizing Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life

(一)保证无产阶级的自由时间是实现精神生活共同富裕的基本前提

In the *Manuscripts*, when criticizing the concept of labor as defined by classical economics, Marx pointed out: “In national economics, labor appears only in the form of a livelihood activity.” In capitalist society, the material and spiritual means of subsistence obtained by the proletariat are only sufficient to meet the standards of physical survival and basic living needs. The proletariat engages in one-sided, abstract labor and receives only “uninterrupted poverty.” When studying the positive role of labor in promoting spiritual enrichment, Marx again cited the views of Schulz. Schulz pointed out: “If a nation wants to develop more freely in the spiritual aspect, it should no longer be a slave to its own physical needs, no longer a servant to its own body.” Marx further deepened this issue, emphasizing that the liberation of labor not only marks a historical transformation in the mode of material production but also symbolizes a new stage in the development of human spiritual life toward freedom. Based on the core concept of comprehensive human development, he elucidated the dialectical unity between labor time and free time. In [Notebook III] of the *Manuscripts*, Marx specifically cited Schulz’s concept of free time. Schulz proposed that “they must first have time for spiritual creation and spiritual enjoyment.” This view is highly consistent with Marx’s discussion on the liberation of labor and the free development of the spirit, jointly revealing the deep logic of social progress and human well-being: through the liberation of labor and the increase of free time, promoting the comprehensive prosperity and development of individuals and the entire society at the spiritual level.

马克思在《手稿》中批判古典经济学所规定的劳动概念时指出：“劳动在国民经济学中仅仅以谋生活动的形式出现。”在资本主义社会中，无产阶级所得到的物质生活资料和精神生活资料仅以满足肉体生存与基本生活需要为标准，无产阶级从事着片面的、抽象的劳动，只会得到“持续不变的贫困”。在研究劳动对促进精神富有的积极作用时，马克思再次援引了舒尔茨的观点。舒尔茨指出：“一个民族要想在精神方面更自由地发展，就不应该再当自己的肉体需要的奴隶，不应该再当自己的肉体的奴仆。”马克思进一步深化了这一议题，强调劳动的解放不仅标志着物质生产方式的历史性变革，更象征着人类精神生活向着自由发展的新阶段迈进。他基于人的全面发展这一核心理念，阐释了劳动时间与自由时间之间的辩证统一关系。在《手稿》的[笔记本Ⅲ]部分，马克思特别引用了舒尔茨的自由时间概念。舒尔茨提出“他们首先必须有能够进行精神创造和精神享受的时间”,这一观点与马克思关于劳动解放与精神自由发展的论述高度契合，共同揭示了社会进步与人类福祉的深层逻辑，即通过劳动的解放与自由时间的增加，促进个体及整个社会在精神层面的全面繁荣与发展。

Marx demonstrated the two aspects of the connotation of free time available for spiritual life. On the one hand, the free time of the working class is leisure time “that is a rest subordinated to production,” allowing workers to recover the energy and physical strength consumed by work during their breaks. On the other hand, free time also includes free time for engaging in advanced activities, ensuring the actual richness of the human spirit. Based on the theory of human nature, Marx believed that human spiritual life, as a concentrated manifestation of the brilliance of human nature, is an indispensable and highly conformable form of human activity. To realize this spiritual pursuit conforming to human nature, individuals must have more freely disposable time beyond labor time. This time should not only be used to accompany family but also to receive diversified education and participate in a variety of non-labor activities. In such free time, individuals’ interests and potential can be fully stimulated, allowing them to explore the unknown and pursue self-growth according to their own will.

马克思论证了可以进行精神生活的自由时间的两个方面内涵。一方面，工人阶级的自由时间“是一种服从于生产的休息”的闲暇时间，让工人在工作空暇之余恢复因工作消耗的精力与体力。另一方面，自由时间又包括从事高级活动的自由时间，保证人在精神上的现实丰富性。马克思在人性论的立论基础上认为，人的精神生活作为人性光辉的集中展现，是不可或缺且高度合乎人性的人类活动形态。为了实现这一符合人性的精神追求，个体必须在劳动时间之外拥有更多可以自由支配的时间。这些时间不仅应被用来陪伴家人，还应被用来接受多元化教育、参与丰富多样的非劳动性活动。在这样的自由时间中，个人的兴趣与潜力能够充分激发，因而可以根据自己的意愿探索未知与自我成长。

(B) Superseding Private Property Is the Inevitable Path to Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life

(二)扬弃私有财产是精神生活共同富裕的必由之路

Marx pointed out: “Man himself is considered the essence of private property.” In capitalist society, this does not mean that man is an appendage or tool of private property, but rather that human labor and human creativity are regarded as the source and foundation of private property. Marx further argued that “national economics proceeds from the fact of private property,” and that private property is the prerequisite foundation for the existence of national economics. To thoroughly criticize national economics, it is necessary to thoroughly supersede private property. The main reason for advocating supersession here is that Marx believed private property contains both the private property of the capitalist (i.e., capital) and the portion of the means of subsistence that the laborer obtains through their own labor. Marx saw that private property has both the positive effect of promoting historical progress and the negative effect of producing alienated labor. Therefore, what Marx criticized and discarded was the relations of production of private ownership that function as a link among labor, capital, and land rent—that is, the ruthless appropriation of proletarian labor by the bourgeoisie. What Marx inherited and developed was the return of genuine private property—labor—to the laborers themselves, truly realizing the transformation of private property into common property. On this basis, Marx pointed out: “The supersession of private property is the complete emancipation of all human senses and attributes; but it is this emancipation precisely because these senses and attributes have become human, both subjectively and objectively.” When private property is superseded, human senses and attributes will achieve a humanized return both subjectively and objectively. Therefore, the supersession of private property is the key to realizing the complete emancipation of all human senses and attributes, and also a necessary condition for human spiritual activities to be freed from the spiritual shackles of maintaining private ownership. Marx then gave an example: “The eye has become a human eye, just as its object has become a social, human object—an object made by man for man.” The eye becomes a human eye, no longer merely a physiological organ, but a sense capable of perceiving and understanding social, cultural, and historical meanings. At the same time, the object of the eye (i.e., the thing) also becomes a social, human object, meaning that the thing is no longer merely a naturally existing inorganic object but an organism endowed with human meaning and value. After private property is superseded, the relationship between man and things will undergo a fundamental change: things are no longer merely tools to satisfy individual selfish desires, but social, human objects created by man and for man. Furthermore, human needs and enjoyment lose their egoistic nature, meaning that man no longer pursues spiritual enjoyment merely to satisfy his own selfish desires, but regards spiritual enjoyment as a means to realize human freedom and development.

马克思指出：“人本身被认为是私有财产的本质。”在资本主义社会中，这并不意味着人是私有财产的附属品或工具，而是说人的劳动、人的创造力被当做私有财产的来源和基础。马克思进一步认为，“国民经济学从私有财产的事实出发”,私有财产是国民经济学存在的前提基础，要对国民经济学进行彻底批判，就要彻底地对私有财产进行扬弃。在这里提倡扬弃的主要原因是，马克思认为私有财产中既包含着资本家的私有财产(即资本),也包含劳动者通过劳动获取的属于自己的那部分生存资料。马克思看到了私有财产同时具有推动历史进步的积极作用和产生异化劳动消极影响的两方面效果，因此，马克思批判与抛弃的对象是在劳动、资本、地租之间发挥联系作用的私有制生产关系，即资产阶级对无产阶级劳动的无情占有。而马克思继承和发扬的是让真正的私有财产——劳动回归劳动者自身，真正实现将私有财产变为共同所有。在此基础上，马克思指出：“对私有财产的扬弃，是人的一切感觉和特性的彻底解放；但这种扬弃之所以是这种解放，正是因为这些感觉和特性无论在主体上还是在客体上都成为人的。”当私有财产被扬弃后，人的感觉和特性将在主体和客体上均实现人性化复归，所以对私有财产的扬弃是实现人的一切感觉和特性的彻底解放的关键，也是人的精神活动从维护私有制的精神枷锁中解脱出来的必要条件。马克思接着举了一个例子：“眼睛成为人的眼睛，正像眼睛的对象成为社会的、人的、由人并为了人创造出来的对象一样。”眼睛成为人的眼睛，不再仅仅是一个生理器官，而是能够感知和理解社会、文化和历史意义的感官。同时，眼睛的对象(即物)也成为社会的、人的对象，这意味着物不再仅仅是自然存在的无机物，而是被赋予人的意义和价值的有机体。私有财产被扬弃后，人和物之间的关系将发生根本性变化，物不再仅仅是满足个人私欲的工具，更是社会的、人的、由人并为了人创造出来的对象。进一步地，人的需要和享受失去其利己主义性质，这意味着人不再仅仅为了满足自己的私欲而追求精神享受，而是将精神享受视为实现人的自由和发展的手段。

(C) Promoting the Unity of the Proletariat Is the Fundamental Guarantee for Common Prosperity in Spiritual Life

(三)推动无产者的联合是精神生活共同富裕的根本保障

In the *Manuscripts*, Marx repeatedly refers to the overall spiritual outlook displayed by the working-class movement during the period of the French Revolution. He profoundly points out that “to supersede real private property requires a real communist action.” [17]17 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 306. The translation follows the standard English edition. The sublimation of the spiritual life of the proletariat must break free from the narrow vision of pursuing the wealth of a few and achieve a transformation toward the spiritual pursuit of common prosperity. The key to this transformation lies in promoting the unity of the proletariat. Through unity, workers can change the inherently scattered and isolated condition under the capitalist system, focus on the goal of striving for common interests, and realize their own emancipation. The unity of the proletariat not only helps improve the material living conditions of workers but also greatly enriches the spiritual life content of the working class, elevating their social status and dignity. Marx points out: “When French socialist workers unite, one can see what brilliant results this practical movement achieves.” [18]18 Ibid., p. 313. In this context, the means of association and unity, such as daily conversation, eating, and drinking, transcend mere forms of interaction and transform into emotional bonds and a condensation of spiritual strength based on full trust. Marx further points out: “Brotherhood among people is not an empty phrase for them, but a genuine feeling.” [19]19 Ibid., p. 313. This broad and profound interaction gives birth to sincere and deep emotions among the proletariat. These emotions are concretely manifested in the working class, through close unity, jointly opposing the exploitation and rule of the bourgeoisie, aiming to seize control over the means of subsistence and the means of production, thereby changing their own destiny. In this process, the means of production and the means of subsistence are placed on the basis of public ownership, ensuring that the proletariat can continue to participate in labor as subjects, avoiding the alienation of labor, and preventing laborers from becoming exploited and alienated objects under the reactionary rule of the bourgeoisie, thus truly realizing the liberation of labor and the free and comprehensive development of the human person. Marx highly praises the spiritual outlook displayed by the unity of the proletariat, calling it “the light of the lofty human spirit.” [20]20 Ibid., p. 313. This is not only a eulogy to the unity and strength of the proletariat during the French Revolution but also an expectation for the future common prosperity of spiritual life.

马克思在《手稿》中多次提到法国大革命时期工人阶级运动所展现出的整体精神面貌。他深刻指出，“要扬弃现实的私有财产，则必须有现实的共产主义行动”,无产者精神生活的升华，要从追求少数富裕的狭隘视野中超脱出来，实现向共同富裕的精神追求的转变。这一转变的关键在于推动无产者的联合。通过联合，工人能够改变在资本主义制度下固有的分散、孤立的状况，聚焦争取共同利益的目标，实现自身的解放。无产者的联合不仅有助于改善工人的物质生活条件，更能极大地丰富工人阶级的精神生活内涵，提升了其社会地位与尊严。马克思指出：“当法国社会主义工人联合起来的时候，人们就可以看出，这一实践运动取得了何等光辉的成果。”在这一语境下，如日常叙谈、吃饭、饮酒等交往联合的手段，超越了单纯的交往形式，转化为基于充分信任的情感纽带与精神力量的凝聚。马克思进一步指出：“人与人之间的兄弟情谊在他们那里不是空话，而是真情。”这种广泛且深刻的交往互动，孕育了无产阶级之间真挚而深厚的情感，这种情感具体体现在工人阶级通过紧密的联合，共同对抗资产阶级的剥削与统治，旨在夺取对生活资料与生产资料的掌控权，从而改变自身的命运。在这一过程中，生产资料与生活资料置于公有制基础之上，确保无产阶级能够继续以主体的姿态参与劳动，避免了劳动的异化，使劳动者不再沦为资产阶级反动统治下被剥削、被异化的对象，从而真正实现劳动的解放与人的自由全面发展。马克思高度赞扬了无产者联合所展现出的精神风貌，称之为“人类崇高精神之光”,这不仅是对法国大革命时期无产阶级团结力量的颂扬，更是对未来精神生活共同富裕的期许。

IV. Conclusion

四、结论

The pursuit and exploration of common prosperity in spiritual life is an eternal theme for humanity. If ancient Greek philosophy and modern philosophy provided philosophical reflections on common prosperity in spiritual life for humanity, from individual spiritual freedom to the rational construction of the collective, Marx, by contrast, based himself on social reality and provided a practical path for the construction of humanity’s spiritual life. The *Manuscripts*, as an important work in the formation process of Marxist philosophy, creatively puts forward the logical thread of “critique of alienated labor—supersession of private property—unity of the proletariat” for common prosperity in spiritual life, clarifying the developmental trend of people’s spiritual life from alienation to freedom, from emptiness to reality, and from the individual to the common. This theoretical innovation provides a theoretical foundation and methodological reference for later philosophers to carry out research on common prosperity in spiritual life. At present, China is in the great journey of solidly advancing Chinese-path modernization. The goal of promoting the coordinated development of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress is precisely to promote the free and comprehensive development of the human person. Clearly, the thought of common prosperity in spiritual life in Marx’s *Manuscripts* also has great practical significance.

对精神生活共同富裕的追求与探索，是人类亘古不变的主题。如果说古希腊哲学与近代哲学从个体精神自由到群体理性建构为人类的精神生活共同富裕提供了哲学反思，马克思则立足于社会现实，为人类的精神生活建构提供了实践路径。《手稿》作为马克思主义哲学形成过程中的重要著作，创造性地提出了精神生活共同富裕“异化劳动批判—私有财产扬弃—无产者联合”的逻辑思路，明确了人们精神生活从异化到自由、从空虚到实在、从个别到共同的发展趋势。这一理论创新为后来哲学家们开展关于精神生活共同富裕的研究提供了理论基础和方法论参照。当前，中国正处于扎实推进中国式现代化的伟大征程中，推动物质文明与精神文明协调发展，目标就是促进人的自由全面发展，显然，马克思《手稿》中精神生活共同富裕思想也具有其重大现实意义。