A “Spectropolitics” for Guiding Future Justice

From the deconstruction of justice to “spectropolitics” is the intellectual belonging of the French theorist Jacques Derrida, and also a clear expression of the justice-seeking appeal of his theoretical critique. The reason Derrida provoked so much controversy and criticism both during his lifetime and after his death is precisely that his deconstructionism embodies an uncompromising critical posture and a radical anti-conformist spirit, which has kept him at the forefront of contemporary Western thinkers. Derrida’s seemingly depoliticized and quasi-playful textual critiques are not only filled with the dismantling and rebellion against established hierarchies of thought, but also constitute a theoretical defense of the ideal of human fairness and justice. At a time when slogans such as “history has ended,” “Marx is dead,” and “communism has perished” were clamorously ascendant, Derrida declared his identity as an heir of Marx and stated unequivocally: “One must accept the heritage of Marxism, accept its most ‘living’ part… Heritage is never a given, it is always a command. Just as we are unquestionably the heirs of Marx, even before we are willing or refuse to be his heirs, this mission is placed before us.” Against the backdrop of heated discussions in Western leftist academic circles about “where Marxism is going,” Derrida, from the standpoint of deconstructing justice, proposed his “spectropolitics” concerning the inheritance of Marxism’s critical spirit and the inheritance of Marx’s spiritual legacy. For Derrida, in this “disjointed time,” amid the “new world order” that decries Marxism and embraces the “end of history,” “the specter of Marx” has once again come back to haunt, still roaming Western society, as evidenced by the persistent appeal for a “New International” and its fairness and justice.

从解构正义到“幽灵政治学”，是法国理论家雅克·德里达的思想归属，也是其理论批判的正义诉求的鲜明表达。德里达之所以在其身前和身后引发了如此多的争论和非议，正是因为他的解构主义具有一种毫不妥协的批判姿态和激进的反潮流精神，这也使他始终立于当代西方思想家的前列。德里达的那些看似非政治化和准游戏化的文本批评，不仅充满了对既有的思想等级建制的拆解和反叛，而且也是对人类公平正义理想的理论辩护。在“历史已经终结”“马克思已经死了”“共产主义已经灭亡”等论调甚嚣尘上之时，德里达亮出自己的马克思继承人身份，并明确指出：“人们必须接受马克思主义的遗产，接受它的最有‘活力’的部分……遗产从来不是一种给予，它向来是一项命令。正如我们无可置疑地是马克思的继承人那样，甚至在我们愿意或是拒绝做他的继承人之前，这项使命就摆在我们的面前了。”在西方左翼学界争相讨论“马克思主义向何处去”的大背景下，德里达从解构正义的立场出发，提出了他关于继承马克思主义的批判精神和继承马克思的精神遗产的“幽灵政治学”。对于德里达而言，在当今这个“脱节的时代”，在唱衰马克思主义和信奉“历史终结论”的“新世界秩序”中，“马克思的幽灵”再次复活显形，依然在西方社会徘徊，关于“新国际”及其公平正义的持续吁求就是证明。

As a deconstructionist version of Marxism, Derrida’s “spectropolitics” first and foremost values the critical spirit and skeptical attitude of Marxism, which is the intellectual link where Marxism and deconstructionism coincide. However, Derrida places greater emphasis on Marxism’s messianic “promise,” namely the communist ideal of human liberation. Thus, when he claims to remain loyal to Marxism and to be an heir of Marx, the Marxism he has in mind represents a messianic eschatology. But when he explicitly declares that he is not a “Marxist” and that the spirit of Marxism is not singular, he rejects Marxism that advocates historical determinism and takes the form of a political party. The reason Derrida speaks of “specters of Marx” is that he believes Marx’s spiritual legacy is by no means singular but plural; inheriting Marx does not mean reciting Marx’s ready-made answers, but rather reviving Marx’s spiritual legacy—only this counts as truly inheriting the critical spirit of Marxism.

作为一种解构主义版本的马克思主义，德里达的“幽灵政治学”首先看上的是马克思主义的批判精神和怀疑态度，这是马克思主义与解构主义不谋而合的思想联系。然而，德里达更加强调的是马克思主义的弥赛亚式“允诺”，即关于人类解放的共产主义理想。因此，当他声称仍然忠诚于马克思主义且是马克思主义的继承人之时，他心目中的马克思主义代表着一种弥赛亚主义的末世论。但是，当他明确宣称自己并不是一个“马克思主义者”、马克思主义的精神不止一种时，他又不接受主张历史决定论的和以政党形式出现的马克思主义。德里达之所以说“马克思的幽灵们”，是因为他认为马克思的精神遗产决不是单数，而是复数，继承马克思不是去背诵马克思的那些现成答案，而是让马克思的精神遗产复活，这才算是真正继承了马克思主义的批判精神。

I. Stepping Out of the “End of History”

一、走出“历史终结论”

Derrida’s deconstructionism has always been regarded by its critics as an apolitical intellectual game. Although he had many intersections with thinkers such as Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault, Derrida never expressed clear political views, nor did he formally publish any commentary on Marx and Marxism. In his dialogue with Élisabeth Roudinesco, Derrida emphasized that his “Specters of Marx was written shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall.” The Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989; Derrida was invited in April 1993 to deliver a lecture titled “Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International,” which was later expanded into a book—a gap of only a little over three years. This shows the immense intellectual impact the fall of the Berlin Wall had on Derrida. This is the real background for understanding and evaluating Derrida’s “spectropolitics” and grasping the ideological reversal that occurred among Western leftist scholars represented by Derrida at the time. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, “where is Marxism going” became a hot topic in Western intellectual circles. This topic was particularly沉重 and urgent for the Western left (whether old left or new left), and even more so for Derrida, a thinker who, in his early years, would feel his heart surge upon hearing “The Internationale.” He once explicitly stated that writing Specters of Marx was first and foremost a political act: “The most important thing is not the work of reading Marx’s texts… What is of current significance, what raises my voice in a situation where I take a political stance, is the growing impatience I feel—and I think I am not the only one—in the face of this jubilant and laughable consensus that has spread to all discourse… All references to Marx have become something accursed. I believe there is here a will to disenchantment and complicity that deserves analysis and resistance. In a certain way, my book is a book of resistance.”

德里达的解构主义一直被批评者视为非政治的思想游戏。尽管与路易·阿尔都塞和米歇尔·福柯等思想家多有交集，但德里达从未发表过态度鲜明的政治观点，更没有正式发表过关于马克思和马克思主义的评论。在与伊丽莎白·卢迪内斯库的对话中，德里达强调他的“《马克思的幽灵》是在柏林墙被推倒后不久写成的”。1989年11月9日柏林墙被推倒，德里达于1993年4月应邀发表了题为“马克思的幽灵：债务国家、哀悼活动和新国际”的演讲，后扩充成书出版，其间仅仅相隔三年多的时间，可见柏林墙倒塌事件对德里达的思想冲击力有多大。这是我们理解和评价德里达的“幽灵政治学”、把握当时以德里达为代表的整个西方左翼学者发生思想反转的现实背景。柏林墙倒塌之后，“马克思主义向何处去”成为西方思想界的热门话题。这个话题对于西方左翼（无论是旧左翼还是新左翼）来说尤其沉重，也特别急迫，对于德里达这位早年一听到《国际歌》就会心潮澎湃的思想家来说更是如此。他曾经明确表示，他写作《马克思的幽灵》首先就是一个政治行为：“最重要的并不是对马克思作品的解读工作……具有当前意义的，让我在采取政治立场的形势下提高声调的，是在面对着这种蔓延至所有言论的欢欣可笑的共识时，我感到不断增加的不耐，我想我并不是唯一有此感受的人……所有对马克思的援引都变成了某种遭诅咒的东西。我认为这里存在着一种祛魅与合谋的意愿，值得进行分析和反抗。在某种方式上，我的书是一本反抗的书。”

Why does Derrida say that Specters of Marx is a book of resistance? This is because he had to rebel against the “end of history” thesis, the dominant Western discourse at the time. In the summer of 1989, the American scholar Francis Fukuyama published a long article titled “The End of History?” in the journal The National Interest, arguing that liberal democracy constitutes “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and “the final form of human government,” thus realizing the “end of history.” For Fukuyama and other Western right-wing scholars, this meant not only the “end of history” but also the “end of Marxism.” In Fukuyama’s view, “the most remarkable change in the last quarter of the twentieth century is that, whether on the military-ruled right or the totalitarian left, people have discovered huge fatal weaknesses at the core of what seemed to be the world’s most authoritarian regimes. From Latin America to Eastern Europe, from the Soviet Union to the Middle East and Asia, authoritarian governments have collapsed in large numbers over two decades. Although they have not all uniformly established stable liberal democracies, liberal democracy has always remained the only political ideal persistently pursued, widely disseminated across various regions and cultures around the globe. Moreover, the liberal principle in the economic sphere—the free market—is also spreading, and has successfully created unprecedented material prosperity both in industrialized countries and in those poor Third World countries that were left behind at the end of World War II. The liberalization revolution in the realm of economic thought is proceeding hand in hand with the global process of political liberalization.” Derrida believed that this highly influential discourse of Fukuyama had become the dominant mainstream discourse at the time. “This dominant discourse often takes on a frenzied, euphoric, and demagogic form… Accompanied by the rhythm of a smooth march, it proclaims: Marx is dead, communism is dead, truly dead, and so its hopes, its discourse, its theories, and its practices have all perished with it. It shouts: Long live capitalism, long live the market economy, long live economic freedom, long live political freedom.”

为何德里达说《马克思的幽灵》是一本反抗的书？这是因为他必须去反叛“历史终结论”这一当时西方的主流论调。1989年夏，美国学者弗朗西斯·福山在《国家利益》杂志上以“历史的终结”为题发表了长篇文章，强调民主制度是“人类意识形态发展的终点”，也是“人类最后一种统治形式”，因此实现了“历史的终结”。对于福山等西方右翼学者来说，这不仅意味着“历史的终结”，而且也意味着“马克思主义的终结”。在福山看来，“20世纪最后25年最令人瞩目的变化是，不论是军事管制的右翼，还是极权主义的左翼，人们都发现，在世界貌似最为专制的核心地带存在着巨大的致命弱点。从拉丁美洲到东欧，从苏联到中东和亚洲，强权政府在20年间大面积塌方。尽管他们没有都千篇一律地实行稳定的自由民主制度，但自由民主制度却始终作为惟一的一个被不懈追求的政治理想，在全球各个地区和各种文化中得到广泛传播。此外，经济学范畴中的自由原则——自由市场——也在普及，并且不论在工业发达国家还是在那些二次大战结束时曾经是贫困的第三世界国家中已经成功地创造出前所未有的物质繁荣。经济思想领域的自由化革命正在与全球的政治自由化进程相伴而行”。德里达认为，福山这一颇具影响力的话语在当时成为了占据统治地位的主流话语。“这一占统治地位的话语经常带有狂热、兴奋和蛊惑人心的形式……配合着流畅的进行曲节奏，它宣称：马克思已经死了，共产主义已经灭亡，确确实实已经灭亡了，所以它的希望、它的话语、它的理论以及它的实践，也随之一同灰飞烟灭。它高呼：资本主义万岁，市场经济万岁，经济自由幸甚，政治自由幸甚。”

Faced with the “end of history” thesis loudly propagated by right-wing thinkers such as Fukuyama, and the real-world predicament encountered by Marxism and communism, Derrida gave his response directly: “If there is a spirit of Marxism that I will never renounce, it is not merely a critical idea or a posture of suspicion (which a consistent deconstructive theory must emphasize, even though it knows this is neither the final nor the initial conclusion). It is even more essentially a certain emancipatory and messianic declaration, a certain promise, that is, the ability to break free from any dogma, even any metaphysical religious determination and any experience of messianism. The promise must guarantee fulfillment, that is, it must not remain in a ‘spiritual’ or ‘abstract’ state, but must lead to the promised event, or rather to new and effective forms of action, practice, organization, and so on.” This statement by Derrida clearly indicates that the reason he stepped forward to defend Marx and Marxism is that Marx and Marxism’s promise of human emancipation is by no means merely spiritual and abstract, but is realized in action and organization. To respond to the erroneous assertions that equate Marxism and communism with totalitarianism or even Nazism, Derrida also specifically distinguished Marxism from totalitarianism. In a dialogue with Roudinesco, Derrida pointed out: “The communist ideal fights for human justice, and this ideal still inspires and guides countless men and women who believe in communism. This goal of struggle has absolutely no similarity, proximity, identity, or comparability with the Nazi ‘ideal.’ We must resolutely distinguish the ‘communist ideal’ from Nazi atrocities… From the ‘communist’ perspective, the errors of the totalitarian system, though cruel, are deviations that occur in the process of realizing the goal, or in the struggle for the ideal. But deviation is not the goal or the ideal itself. Nazi totalitarianism, on the contrary, has a goal that is itself perverse and anti-human.”

面对福山等右翼思想家大肆宣扬的“历史终结论”，以及马克思主义和共产主义的现实遭遇，德里达直截了当地给出了自己的回应：“如果说有一种马克思主义的精神是我永远也不打算放弃的话，那它决不仅仅是一种批判观念或怀疑的姿态（一种内在一致的解构理论必须强调这些方面，尽管它也知道这并非最后的或最初的结论）。它甚至更主要地是某种解放的和弥赛亚式的声明，是某种允诺，即人们能够摆脱任何的教义，甚至任何形而上学的宗教的规定性和任何弥赛亚主义的经验。允诺必须保证兑现，也就是说不要停留在‘精神的’或‘抽象的’的状态，而是要导致所允诺的事变，或者说行动、实践、组织等等的新的有效形式。”德里达的这段表述清楚地表明，他之所以要站出来为马克思和马克思主义辩护，是因为马克思和马克思主义关于人类解放的允诺决不仅仅是精神的和抽象的，而是落实到了行动和组织之中。为了回应那些将马克思主义和共产主义与极权主义甚至纳粹主义等同起来的错误论断，德里达还特别对马克思主义与极权主义进行了区分。在与卢迪内斯库的对话中，德里达指出：“共产主义的理想是为人类的正义而奋斗，至今这种理想仍在鼓舞和引导着无数信仰共产主义的男人和女人，这种奋斗目标与纳粹的‘理想’根本没有任何相似、相近、相同或可比之处。我们必须坚决地将‘共产主义理想’与纳粹的暴行相区别……从‘共产主义’的角度看，极权制的错误尽管很残酷，但那是在实现目标的过程中，或为理想而奋斗的过程中出现的偏差。但偏差并不是目标和理想的本身。而纳粹的极权制则相反，它的目标本身就是变态的和反人类的。”

Clearly, in Derrida’s view, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European socialist camp, and the setbacks and crises encountered by Marxism and its communist cause are not caused by the emancipatory promise of Marx and Marxism itself. He reminds us that, as heirs of Marx, we should read and discuss Marx repeatedly, especially today, reading Marx is more important than ever. He also points out that there is an essential kinship between Marx’s promise of justice and liberation and a certain messianic spirit; it is a movement that remains open to the future that is to come, and therefore history has not ended. In *Specters of Marx*, Derrida lists ten plagues brought by the “new world order”: (1) new forms of unemployment and poverty under global competition in new technologies and new markets; (2) the deprivation of democratic participation rights for the homeless and immigrants; (3) economic wars between nations and regions; (4) trade protectionism and interventionism under the concept of the free market; (5) hunger and despair for the majority caused by heavy foreign debt and the worsening of other related mechanisms; (6) the arms industry and trade becoming the world’s largest business, along with the growth of the drug trade; (7) the proliferation and uncontrolled trend of nuclear weapons; (8) the intensification of ethnic wars driven by concepts such as community, nation-state, and sovereign borders; (9) the growth and borderlessness of mafia-like organizations and drug cartels haunting the world like ghosts; (10) the challenges and crises faced by international law and its related institutions. These plagues not only occur around us at every moment but also show a tendency to intensify, and they are unsolvable by contemporary capitalist society. In other words, the “new world order” has not brought fairness and justice; the world remains in a state where justice is absent. We cannot ignore the visible facts, “it already constitutes innumerable special sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows us to ignore the fact that on earth there are so many men, women, and children being enslaved, starved, and exterminated, in absolute numbers unprecedented before.” Therefore, we cannot celebrate the victory of liberal democracy in the revelry of the “end of history.” The “end of history” thesis promoted by Fukuyama and others is untenable. Human history has not reached the end of justice, and the globalization of the world pattern is not the ideal or endpoint of human pursuit. As long as real suffering continues to exist, the “specter of Marx” will “appear” and be resurrected again in the guise of “invisible visibility.”

显然，在德里达看来，柏林墙的倒塌、苏联和东欧社会主义阵营的分崩离析、马克思主义及其共产主义事业遭遇的挫折和危机，这些都不是马克思和马克思主义本身的解放允诺所导致的。他提醒我们，作为马克思的继承人，应当反复阅读并讨论马克思，尤其在今天，阅读马克思更甚于任何时候。他还指出，马克思关于正义和解放的允诺与某种弥赛亚式的精神之间有着本质的亲缘关系，它是一种对即将到来的未来保持开放的运动，因此历史并未终结。在《马克思的幽灵》一书中，德里达列举了“新世界秩序”所带来的十大祸害：（1）在新技术和新市场的全球竞争条件下的新型失业和贫困；（2）对无家可归者和外来移民的民主参与权利的剥夺；（3）国家之间和地区之间发生的经济战争；（4）自由市场概念下的贸易保护主义和干预主义；（5）背负沉重外债以及其他相关机制恶化给大多数人造成的饥饿和绝望处境；（6）军火工业和贸易成为世界上最大的交易以及毒品交易的增长；（7）核武器扩散和不受控制的趋势；（8）共同体、民族国家和主权边界等观念驱使下的种族战争的不断加剧；（9）如幽灵般遍布世界各地的黑手党组织和贩毒集团的日益增长和无边界化；（10）国际法及其相关机构所面临的挑战和危机。这些祸害不仅时时刻刻发生在我们的身边，而且有愈演愈烈之势，是当代资本主义社会所无法解决的。换言之，“世界新秩序”并未带来公平正义，世界依然处于正义不在场的状况中，我们不能无视肉眼可见的事实，“它已经构成了不可胜数的特殊的苦难现场：任何一点儿的进步都不允许我们无视在地球上有如此之多的男人、女人和孩子在受奴役、挨饿和被灭绝，在绝对数字上，这是以前从未有过的”。因此，我们无法在“历史终结论”的狂欢中欢呼自由民主的胜利，福山等人宣扬的“历史终结论”是站不住脚的，人类的历史并没有走到正义的尽头，世界格局的全球化也并不是人类追求的理想和终点。只要现实的苦难还继续存在，“马克思的幽灵”就会“显灵”，就会以“不可见的可见性”的面貌再次复活。

II. Inheriting the Spiritual Legacy of Marx

二、继承马克思的精神遗产

Derrida’s “spectropolitics” begins with a political interpretation of “specters.” In *Specters of Marx*, Derrida uses the aphorism “learning to live” as a “preface” and further emphasizes “learning to live with ghosts.” The ghosts Derrida refers to here “are the victims of war, politics, or other forms of violence, nationalism, racism, colonialism, sexism, and other disasters, the victims of capitalist imperialist oppression or any form of totalitarian oppression.” He says, “If I intend to speak exhaustively about ghosts, inheritance, and generation, or the generation of ghosts, that is, to speak about certain others who are neither present nor currently alive, who will neither present themselves to us nor appear inside or outside us, it must be in the name of justice,” because in the face of these “ghosts,” any justice is impossible and unimaginable. In Derrida’s view, without responsibility and respect for these “victims” or “sufferers,” without longing for future justice, our talk today about “where to go” and “what tomorrow will be like” is meaningless. Therefore, Derrida advocates that humanity live in a different way, not only living better but also living more justly. This means reviving Marx’s spirit of justice, living together with the absent Marx, and coexisting with the specter of Marx. Derrida uses the scene from Shakespeare’s play *Hamlet* (“the ghost enters, the ghost exits, the ghost re-enters”) as a metaphor, pointing out that because justice has never been settled in reality, the specter of Marx reappears. This specter is the spiritual legacy of Marx, which requires us to read and discuss it. When the “end of history” thesis becomes mainstream opinion and dominant discourse, when people seem unable to see a future better than the present, the ghost of Marx is resurrected, appearing and beckoning to us from afar. On this basis, Derrida gives a “spectropolitical” answer to the question “where is Marxism going?” — a question “repeated for a long time” by contemporary Marxists — which he calls “a politics of memory, a politics of inheritance, and a politics of generation.”

德里达的“幽灵政治学”是从对“幽灵”（specters）的政治性解读开始的。在《马克思的幽灵》中，德里达用“学会生活”这一警句作为“开场白”，并进一步强调要“学会和鬼魂一起生活”。德里达在这里所说的鬼魂，“乃是战争、政治或其他各种暴力、民族主义、种族主义、殖民主义、性别歧视及其他各样灾难的牺牲品，是资本主义的帝国主义压迫或任何一种形式的极权主义压迫的受害者”。他说，“如果我打算详尽地谈论鬼魂、遗传和生成或鬼魂的生成，也就是说，谈论某些既不在场、当下也无生命，某些既不会向我们呈现、也不会在我们的内部或外部呈现的其他东西，那就要借用正义之名”，因为在这些“鬼魂”面前，任何正义都是不可能的和不可想象的。在德里达看来，如果没有对这些“牺牲品”或“受害者”的责任和尊重，如果没有对未来正义的向往，我们今天谈论“向何处去”和“明天会怎样”都是没有意义的。因此，德里达主张人类换一种方式生活，不仅要生活得更好，而且还要生活得更正当，这就意味着要复活马克思的正义精神，与不在场的马克思一起生活，与马克思的幽灵共存。德里达借莎士比亚的戏剧《哈姆雷特》中的场景（“幽灵出场，幽灵退场，幽灵再出场”）做比喻指出，由于正义在现实中始终没有着落，所以马克思的幽灵再次出场，这个幽灵就是马克思的精神遗产，它需要我们去阅读和讨论。当“历史终结论”成为主流舆论和主导话语时，当人们似乎看不到还会有比现在更好的未来时，马克思的亡魂复活了，他在远处向我们显形和招手。在此基础上，德里达对“马克思主义向何处去”这个被当代马克思主义者“重复已久的话题”给出了“幽灵政治学”的回答，他称之为“一种记忆政治学、遗传政治学和生成政治学”。

Pierre Macherey once commented on Derrida’s “spectropolitics” as follows: “Precisely when Marx is hidden in the depths of the tomb, dead, buried, forced into silence, negated and annihilated … the moment seems to have come to give him back his speech, if not ‘this’ speech, the one belonging to him, hidden in the identity of his living presence, then at least the spectral speech of the ‘returned one’ that *Specters of Marx* bestows upon him.” Derrida links the “specter of communism” that opens the *Communist Manifesto* with the ghost of the father in *Hamlet*, and through the echoing of these two specters he introduces “the specter of Marx.” As the king’s heir, Hamlet’s mission is to avenge his father and reclaim his throne to appease the restless soul of his dead father; as Marx’s heir, Derrida takes it as his own task to revive the critical spirit of Marxism and uphold Marx’s ideal of future justice. In his view, on the one hand, under the dual pressure of real suffering and the need to change the world, we must inherit Marx’s spiritual legacy, which contains both negation and hope; on the other hand, we bear a responsibility toward the spiritual legacy Marx left behind, and also a responsibility toward the future. “The heir bears a double responsibility: to inherit the legacy of predecessors, and at the same time to deconstruct these legacies, so that they may be passed on to later generations in a new guise.”

皮埃尔·马舍雷曾这样评价德里达的“幽灵政治学”：“恰恰在马克思藏身墓穴深处，死亡，被埋葬，被迫沉默，被否定和消亡的时候……还给他话语的时机似乎来了，如果说不是‘这’话语，属于他本人，躲在他活生生的在场的同一性中的话语的话，至少是《马克思的幽灵》赋予他的‘归来者’的幽灵般的话语。”德里达将《共产党宣言》开篇中的“共产主义的幽灵”与《哈姆雷特》中的父王幽灵联系起来，通过这两个幽灵的遥相呼应引出了“马克思的幽灵”。作为国王的继承人，哈姆雷特的使命是为父王复仇，夺回自己的王权以安慰他死去父亲的冤魂；作为马克思的继承人，德里达以复兴马克思主义的批判精神、坚持马克思关于未来正义的理想为己任。在他看来，一方面，在现实苦难和改变世界的双重压力下，我们需要继承马克思的精神遗产，这其中既有否定也有希望；另一方面，对于马克思留下的精神遗产，我们要有责任感，对于将来，我们也要有责任感。“继承者担负着双重责任：继承前人的遗产，同时要对这些遗产进行解构，使这些遗产以一种新的面貌传诸后人。”

As a thinker who consistently employs deconstructive strategies, Derrida adopts the same theoretical posture toward Marx’s spiritual legacy. He points out: “Deconstruction is the structural decomposition of texts; while attending to the connotations of the text, it excavates the value of the text, allowing the concepts of the text to be fully manifested … Deconstruction acquires a large number of concepts, and at the same time creates and inherits concepts, until it enables others to grasp and understand these concepts. Deconstruction tries to understand the boundaries of concepts, even to transcend these boundaries, and regards this act as a kind of pleasure and an exciting thing.” In other words, the aim of the deconstructive strategy is to restore and reveal the “multiple meanings” of textual concepts, making the thought-text a completely open thing. Of course, in Derrida’s eyes, deconstruction is not only a theoretical dismantling activity but also a means to change real life. Along with the social transformations and the issues of the times since the 20th century, the theoretical problems of Marxism have continuously emerged. Theorists holding different positions interpret the essence of Marxism according to their own viewpoints, which has led to Marx’s thought being constantly dismembered and repeatedly dressed in various new theoretical garments. After Marx, from the Marxism of the Second International to “Leninist Marxism,” from various “Western Marxisms” to various “post-Marxisms,” theorists have continuously debated the essential characteristics and methodology of Marxist theory, interpreting Marx from the philosophical, scientific, political, ethical, aesthetic, and even religious perspectives they respectively emphasize, attempting to reconstruct the theoretical system and methodology of Marxism. The rise of “Western Marxism” in the 1920s was undoubtedly one of the most prominent appearances of “the specter of Marx.” At that time, the emerging European revolutionary movements seemed to stage a historical drama of “opposing *Capital*”; the victory of the October Revolution in Russia stood in stark contrast to the failure of the European workers’ movement, and Marxism faced a theoretical crisis of reconstruction. As a first-generation Western Marxist, Georg Lukács reconstructed the methodology of historical initiative in Marxism based on the category of “totality”; Antonio Gramsci interpreted Marxism as a “philosophy of praxis” centered on the struggle for “cultural hegemony”; Ernst Bloch attempted to deepen the utopian connotations of Marxism with his “philosophy of hope.”

作为一个始终在运用解构主义策略的思想家，德里达对马克思的精神遗产也采取了一贯的理论姿态。他指出：“解构就是对文本进行结构分解，在重视文本内涵的同时，发掘文本的价值，使文本的概念充分地体现出来……解构大量地获取概念，同时也创造和继承概念，直至使别人掌握和理解这些概念。解构试图了解概念的界限，甚至超越这个界限，并把这种行为视为一种快乐和激动人心的事情。”换言之，解构策略的宗旨就是力图还原和揭示文本概念的“多种意义”，让思想文本成为完全开放的东西。当然，在德里达眼里，解构不仅是一种理论的拆解活动，而且还是为了改变现实生活。伴随着20世纪以来的社会变革及其时代议题，马克思主义的理论问题不断地呈现出来。持不同立场的理论家们会按照自己的思想观点去解释马克思主义的精髓，这就导致了马克思的思想不断地遭到肢解，也不断地被换上各种各样的理论新装。马克思之后，从第二国际的马克思主义到“列宁主义的马克思主义”，从各种“西方马克思主义”到各种“后马克思主义”，理论家们不断地对马克思主义理论的本质特征及其方法论展开争论，分别从各自所看重的哲学、科学、政治、伦理、美学、甚至宗教的视角去解读马克思，试图重建马克思主义的理论体系及其方法论。“西方马克思主义”在1920年代的兴起无疑是“马克思的幽灵”最为凸显的一次出场。当时，新兴的欧洲革命运动似乎上演了一场“反对《资本论》”的历史戏剧，俄国十月革命的胜利与欧洲工人运动的失败形成鲜明对比，马克思主义面临着重建的理论危机。作为第一代西方马克思主义者，格奥尔格·卢卡奇立足于“总体性”范畴来重新建构马克思主义的历史主动性方法论，安东尼奥·葛兰西将马克思主义解释为以争夺“文化领导权”为核心的“实践哲学”，恩斯特·布洛赫则试图用“希望哲学”来深化马克思主义的乌托邦内涵。

In today’s “disjointed time,” Derrida once again declares that we still need to inherit Marx’s spiritual legacy: “No future without Marx, without the memory and the inheritance of Marx, in any case of a certain Marx, of his genius, of at least one of his spirits. For this will be our hypothesis or rather our bias: there is more than one of them, there must be more than one of them.” [11]11 Jacques Derrida, *Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International*, trans. Peggy Kamuf (New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 13. The English translation here follows the published version; the Chinese text in the source paragraph is a paraphrase. Here, Derrida believes there are multiple “spirits of Marx,” but the “spirit” he speaks of generally contains two meanings. First, spirit is a “specter”; as an intangible existence, spirit is like a departed soul, invisible and untouchable, yet still existing and functioning. Just as the reappearance of the father’s ghost in *Hamlet* reminds Hamlet to avenge him and informs Hamlet that as the prince and heir he has an inescapable responsibility, the significance of the “specter” lies in its presence as something absent — as something of memory, inheritance, and becoming. In *Specters of Marx*, Derrida first explains the presence and absence of the “specter of communism” through the *Communist Manifesto*, and, combining Marx’s theoretical analysis of the “specter” in *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, *The German Ideology*, and *Capital*, he emphasizes the “specter” as the absent presence of a departed soul. He clearly states: “When studying political reality, we cannot ignore the potential role of specters. I have studied almost all spectral phenomena, especially the specter that Marx himself exorcised (he both explored this specter and wanted to distance himself from it), reminding people how much European society feared the specter of communism.”

在当今这个“脱节的时代”，德里达再次宣称，我们仍然需要继承马克思的精神遗产：“不能没有马克思，没有马克思，没有对马克思的记忆，没有马克思的遗产，也就没有将来：无论如何得有某个马克思，得有他的才华，至少得有他的某种精神。因为这将是我们的假设，或更确切地说是我们的偏见：有诸多个马克思的精神，也必须有诸多个马克思的精神。”这里，德里达认为存在着多种“马克思的精神”，但他所说的“精神”一般包含两种含义。首先，精神是一种“幽灵”，作为一种无形的存在，精神如同逝去的亡灵一样看不见摸不着，但是依然存在并发挥作用。如同《哈姆雷特》中父王幽灵的再现提醒着哈姆雷特为其复仇，告知哈姆雷特作为王子继承人有着不可推卸的责任，“幽灵”的意义在于它是作为不在场的东西——作为某种记忆、遗传、生成的东西——而在场。在《马克思的幽灵》中，德里达首先通过《共产党宣言》来阐释“共产主义的幽灵”的在场和不在场，并结合马克思在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》《德意志意识形态》和《资本论》中关于“幽灵”的理论辨析，强调了“幽灵”作为故去亡魂的不在场的在场。他明确指出：“我们在研究政治现实的时候，不能忽略幽灵的潜在作用。我研究了几乎所有的幽灵现象，特别是马克思本人所驱除的那种幽灵（他既探索这种幽灵，又想远离它），他提醒人们欧洲社会是多么地惧怕共产主义的幽灵。”

Second, spirit is an ideal, representing hope and the future. As mentioned above, the “critical spirit of Marxism” that Derrida understands is more embodied as a messianic ideal of justice. He points out that, while awaiting the “messianic call,” in summoning a “coming of the one who represents the arrival of justice,” “we believe that this messianic appeal remains an indelible mark of Marx’s legacy — a mark that can neither be erased nor should be erased, and it is undoubtedly also a mark of the general experience of inheritance and the act of inheriting.”

其次，精神是一种理想，代表着希望和未来。如上所述，德里达所理解的“马克思主义的批判精神”更多地体现为一种弥赛亚式的正义理想。他指出，在等待“弥赛亚的号召”时，在召唤一个“代表正义的到来者即将到来”时，“我们相信，这个救世主的号召仍然是马克思的遗产的一种不可磨灭的印迹——一种既无法抹除也不应当抹除的印迹，并且它无疑也是一般的遗产继承经验和继承行为的印迹”。

In Derrida’s view, people inherit Marx’s spiritual legacy in order to respond to today’s world theoretically and practically, and also to change this world. However, how is this legacy to be inherited? Or, what can people do with Marxism? Derrida believes that the current theoretical state of Marxism is “both indispensable and insufficient.” “Indispensable” naturally refers to the critical spirit of Marxism and its messianic prophecy of liberation and promise of justice; “insufficient” refers to the fact that “Marx cannot conform to our … experiences and expectations today.” Therefore, Derrida proposes a “New International” and a “New Politics” as the concrete conception of his “spectropolitics.”

在德里达看来，人们继承马克思的精神遗产，就是为了从理论上和实践上来应对今天这个世界，而且还是为了改变这个世界。然而，如何继承这笔遗产？或者说，人们能够对马克思主义做些什么？德里达认为，马克思主义的理论现状表现为“既是必不可少的又是不够充分的”。“必不可少”当然是指马克思主义的批判精神及其弥赛亚式的解放预言和正义允诺；“不够充分”则是指“马克思不可能附和我们今天……的经验和期望”。因此，德里达提出了“新国际”和“新政治”，作为其“幽灵政治学”的具体构想。

III. “New International” and “New Politics”

三、“新国际”与“新政治”

Derrida’s “spectropolitics” not only seeks to inherit Marx’s spiritual legacy but also attempts to further advance the Marxist cause of justice. Of course, he has his own unique understanding of Marx’s promise of emancipation, namely, that it is understood not from the historical inevitability asserted by historical materialism, but on the basis of “the hope of emancipation.” That is to say, his political ideal is, to a large extent, a messianic eschatology. He states explicitly: “After rereading the *Manifesto of the Communist Party* and several other great works of Marx, I must admit that I know very little, indeed almost nothing, of the texts of the philosophical tradition, if we consider the remarks of Marx and Engels themselves concerning their own possible obsolescence and their inherent, insurmountable historicity (for example, Engels’s discussion in the 1888 preface to the reprint of the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*), then their lesson seems all the more urgent today. Which other thinker has ever issued a similar warning in such a clear manner? Who else has ever demanded a transformation of the conclusions of his own research subject?” Clearly, Derrida finds ample justification for his own theoretical interpretation and intellectual elaboration. In his view, since the old international order or the “new world order” affirmed by right-wing scholars like Francis Fukuyama has not achieved genuine fairness and justice, and since people are unwilling to abandon the hope that fairness and justice will eventually arrive, one must learn to wait and to innovate. Hence he puts forward the basic conception of a “New International” and a “new politics.”

德里达的“幽灵政治学”不仅想要继承马克思的精神遗产，而且还试图继续推进马克思主义的正义事业。当然，他对马克思的解放允诺有着自己的独特理解，即并非从唯物史观所主张的历史必然性出发，而是基于“解放的希望”去理解的。也就是说，他的政治理想在很大程度上是一种弥赛亚式的末世学。他明确指出：“在重读《共产党宣言》和马克思的其他几部伟大著作之后，我得承认，我对哲学传统中的文本所知甚少，甚至可以说是一无所知，假若我们思考一下马克思、恩格斯本人有关他们自己可能变得过时和他们固有的不可克服的历史性的言论（例如恩格斯在《共产党宣言》1888年的再版序言中的论述），就会觉得他们的教训在今天显得尤为紧迫。还有哪位思想家曾以此种明白的方式提出过类似的警告？还有谁曾经要求对他自己的研究主题的结论进行变革？”显然，德里达为自己的理论阐释和思想发挥找到了充足的理由。在他看来，既然旧有的国际秩序或福山等右翼学者所认定的“新世界秩序”并没有实现真正的公平正义，既然人们不情愿放弃对公平正义终将到来的希望，就需要学会等待并有所创新，于是他提出了“新国际”和“新政治”的基本构想。

In response to the ten plagues of the “new world order,” Derrida advocates the establishment of a new international organization to combat the ills existing in today’s world. He says: “I believe that all of humanity should strengthen its solidarity and seek new ways to solve problems. As for the form of this international organization, it cannot be decided by me, but it is clear that this organization is not composed of governments, nor is it an international political party organization… The international organization I speak of is not the ‘Communist International’ of that time, nor is it an international league of other political parties. But I am willing to retain the word ‘International,’ and to capitalize its first letter, so as to remind people of the important meaning this word once had and to preserve it.” So what kind of organization is the “New International”? Perhaps it is merely a vision in Derrida’s mind. He believes that with the development of science and technology and the integration of the world economy, concepts of territory and nationhood, as well as geopolitics, are undergoing major changes. Future democratic politics should break through the boundaries of the nation-state, and the concepts of citizens and their human rights should also break through the boundaries of nationality.

针对“新世界秩序”的十大祸害，德里达倡导成立新的国际组织，以便与当今世界存在的弊病作斗争。他说：“我认为整个人类应该加强团结，寻找解决问题的新途径。至于这个国际组织的形式，不能由我来决定，但可以明确的是这个组织不是由各国政府组成的，也不是一个国际政党组织……我所讲的国际组织并不是当时的‘共产国际’，也不是其他政党的国际联盟。但我愿意保留‘国际’这个词，而且其开头的字母要大写，以便使人们能回想起过去这个词的重要意义，并将其保留下去。”那么“新国际”究竟是一个什么样的组织呢？也许这只是德里达脑海中的一种憧憬。他相信，随着科学技术的发展和世界经济的一体化，领土与民族观念及其地缘政治都在发生重大变化，未来的民主政治应当突破国家的界限，公民及其人权概念也应该突破国籍的界限。

For Derrida, many major events occurring at that time—whether the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, or various disputes and conflicts erupting around the world—all allow one to see signs of the development of the world situation, heralding a new form of international alliance in the making. For Derrida, this “New International” implies a brand-new concept of politics and revolution, requiring us to “change our understanding of the concept of revolution. For a long time, people have believed that revolution is a process of seizing state power; one naturally thinks of the revolutionary actions of 1789, 1848, and 1917. In fact, these are all traditional, old-fashioned concepts of revolution, models that cannot be implemented in today’s society. The revolution I understand is an act of interruption, a thorough review of the normal course of history. All revolutions must assume ethical responsibility, must break with the system in power, and break with the dominant social norms.”

对于德里达而言，当时发生的许多重大事件，无论是海湾战争、科索沃战争还是在世界各地爆发的各种争端和冲突，都可以让人看到世界形势发展的征兆，预示着一种新形式的国际联盟正在形成之中。在德里达那里，这种“新国际”意味着一种崭新的政治概念和革命概念，要求我们“必须改变对革命概念的认识。长期以来，人们一直认为革命就是夺取政权的过程，大家会很自然地想到1789年、1848年和1917年的革命行动。其实这些都是传统的、老式的革命概念，这种模式在当今社会是无法实行的。我理解的革命是一种中断行为，一种对正常历史进程的彻底审查。所有的革命都需承担伦理责任，都要与处于统治地位的制度相决裂，与起决定作用的社会标准进行决裂”。

Of course, Derrida’s “New International,” as an embodiment of a new political concept, is not entirely empty or abstract; it is concretized in a series of legal principles of international law he proposes (for example, laws concerning the death penalty and animal protection). He even argues: “*Specters of Marx* is perhaps first and foremost a book about justice, a book about justice distinct from coordination and order.” Shortly after the publication of *Specters of Marx*, Derrida published *Force of Law* in 1994, a book that vigorously elaborates the cosmopolitan political view that “deconstruction is justice.” Centering on the relationship between law and justice, Derrida discusses the deconstructibility of law and the undeconstructibility of justice. In other words, he believes that law can be amended (for example, abolishing the death penalty), while justice cannot be changed; justice is higher than law, because justice is the messianic promise. He firmly believes: “Justice will come; it is bound to come; it must come; it will come; it possesses the fundamental attribute of an event that must come.” He argues that this is precisely why justice—insofar as it is not merely a judicial or political concept—opens itself to a future, a future of reforming, recasting, and reconstructing law and politics. It is evident that future justice is the fundamental goal of Derrida’s “spectropolitics.”

当然，德里达的“新国际”作为一种新政治概念的体现，并非完全空泛、抽象的，而是落实到了他提出的国际法等一系列司法原则（比如关于死刑和动物保护的法律）中。他甚至认为：“《马克思的幽灵》也许首先是一本有关司法的著作，一本有别于协调和秩序的司法著作。”在《马克思的幽灵》出版后不久，德里达又于1994年出版了《法律的力量》一书，书中着力阐发了“解构就是正义”这一世界主义的政治观。围绕着法律与正义的关系，德里达讨论了法律的可解构性和正义的不可解构性。换言之，他认为法律是可以修改的（比如废除死刑），而正义是不能改变的，正义高于法律，因为正义就是弥赛亚的允诺。他坚信：“公正必将来临，它势将到来，它必然来临，它将要来临，它具备必然来临之事件的根本属性。”他认为这便是公正就其不仅仅是一个司法的或政治的概念而言何以向未来——一个改革、重铸、重建法律和政治的未来——敞开大门的原因。可见，未来正义才是德里达的“幽灵政治学”的根本目标之所在。

Of course, what more deeply touches the intellectual nerve of Derrida’s “spectropolitics” and better reflects its practical concern is the “politics of hospitality” and “politics of friendship” he later proposed. “Hospitality” and “friendship,” seemingly very ordinary and everyday topics, not only embody the micro-political turn represented by Derrida’s deconstructive justice but also reflect the recent ethical-political turn in contemporary Western philosophy. We can see that contemporary Western political philosophy mostly revolves around the ethical theme of social solidarity, from which one can discern the severity of conflicts and contradictions worldwide and within national societies. For Derrida, the direct motivation for discussing “hospitality” and “friendship” is the increasingly prominent issues of immigration and refugees in European society and the numerous social contradictions and conflicts they trigger. How to treat the “foreigner”? Or how to treat the “other”? These questions have directly transformed from everyday experiential problems into ethical-political problems, even becoming philosophical issues. “‘Foreigner’: what does it mean? Who is the stranger? Who is the foreigner? What does it mean ‘to be foreign,’ ‘to come from outside’? We need only emphasize that we must at least provide the foreigner with a definite extension, a meaning usable in everyday language, so that it can be commonly used in everyday language.” Faced with the global conflicts brought by globalization and the concrete and real dilemmas posed to European society by the influx of immigrants and refugees, how to view Immanuel Kant’s “perpetual peace” and Emmanuel Levinas’s “absolute other” becomes the “new political” problem that Derrida attempts to study and resolve through his “politics of hospitality.” In Derrida’s view, on the one hand, there is “the unconditional law or absolute desire for hospitality,” and on the other hand, “the conditional law, politics, ethics”; between them there exist both “differences” and “inseparability,” “where one calls for, implies, or prescribes the other.” Then, “in the process of legislating for unconditional hospitality,” how can one establish a “specific, limited, and definable law”? How can one establish a “concrete politics and ethics”? In short, how to construct a “perfectibility”? Can one formulate a “politics, ethics, and law that can respond to the new demands of an unprecedented new historical situation,” and can one “adapt to these new demands” by “changing the law” and redefining “citizenship, democracy, and international law”? These are precisely the problems that Derrida’s “New International” and “new politics” seek to solve.

当然，更能触动德里达“幽灵政治学”的思想神经以及更能体现德里达“幽灵政治学”的现实关怀的，是他后来提出的“好客政治学”和“友谊政治学”。“好客”和“友谊”这些看似非常普通和日常化的话题，不仅体现了德里达的解构正义所代表的微观政治转向，而且也反映了当代西方哲学新近的伦理政治转向。我们可以看到，当代西方政治哲学大多围绕着社会团结这个伦理主题展开讨论，从中可见世界范围以及国家社会内部的矛盾冲突已经到了何等严重的程度。对于德里达而言，讨论“好客”和“友谊”的直接动机就是欧洲社会愈发凸显的移民和难民等问题及其所引发的诸多社会矛盾和冲突。如何对待“外人”？或者如何对待“他者”？这些疑问直接从日常经验问题变成了伦理政治问题，甚至成为哲学层面的问题。“‘外人’是什么意思？谁是陌生的？谁是外人？‘成为外人’、‘从外面来’又表明了什么？我们只不过要强调，至少要给外人提供一个确定的外延，一个日常可用的词义，从而可以在日常语言中通用它。”面对全球化带来的世界性冲突，面对移民和难民的涌入给欧洲社会带来的具体且现实的困境，如何看待伊曼努尔·康德的“永久和平”和伊曼努尔·列维纳斯的“绝对他者”，成为德里达试图通过其“好客政治”去研究和解决的“新政治”问题。在德里达看来，一方面是“无条件的法规或对好客的绝对欲望”，另一方面是“有条件的法规、政治、伦理”，它们之间既“存在着差别”，也“存在着不可分离性”，“其中一方召唤、蕴涵或规定另一方”。那么，“在为无条件的好客制定法规的过程中”，如何才能确立一种“特定的、有限的和可限定的法规”？如何才能确立一种“具体的政治和伦理”？简言之，如何构建一种“可完善性”？能否制定一个可以“回应前所未有的新历史处境下的新要求的政治、伦理和法律”，又是否可以通过“改变法规”以及重新“规定公民身份、民主和国际法”来“适应这些新要求”？这正是德里达的“新国际”和“新政治”所要解决的问题。

Clearly, Derrida’s “spectropolitics” is a deconstructive interpretation of Marxism and an ethical elaboration of Marxism’s critical spirit. As he himself says, “there are multiple spirits of Marx.” However, what he values is the spiritual legacy bearing a messianic demand for justice, while directly disregarding Marxism as ontology and dialectical materialism, as well as Marxism as historical materialism; these spiritual legacies all fall outside the scope of his thought. For him, we need only inherit the “vital part” of Marx’s spiritual legacy, namely the immanent critical spirit of Marxism. This critical spirit coincides with his deconstructive strategy. In his view, if today we discard the critical spirit of Marxism, fail to attend to the growth of market logic and the power of capital, fail to expose those new forms of servitude, and fail to reflect on the problem of hospitality [15]15 “Hospitality” (好客) here refers to the ethical and political concept of unconditional hospitality toward the other, a key theme in Derrida’s later work, particularly in relation to globalization and immigration. generated in the process of globalization, then justice cannot arrive.

显然，德里达的“幽灵政治学”是对马克思主义的解构式阐释，也是对马克思主义的批判精神的伦理化发挥。正如他自己所说，“有诸多个马克思的精神”。然而，他看重的是带有弥赛亚式的正义诉求的精神遗产，却直接忽视了作为本体论和辩证唯物主义的马克思主义，以及作为历史唯物主义的马克思主义，这些精神遗产都不在他的思想范围之内。对于他而言，我们只需要继承马克思的精神遗产中的“活力部分”，即马克思主义内在的批判精神。这种批判精神与他的解构主义策略可谓不谋而合。在他看来，今天我们如果丢掉了马克思主义的批判精神，不去关注市场逻辑和资本势力的增长，不去揭示那些新的奴役形式，不去反思全球化过程中所产生的好客问题，正义就不可能降临。

From Derrida’s attitude toward Marx’s spiritual legacy, we can see with particular clarity the thirst and expectation for social solidarity and fairness and justice in contemporary Western intellectual circles. It is this thirst and expectation that lead Derrida to Marx and Marxism, making him believe: “What currently appears in the ideological representations of old Europe only in the form of a specter will in the future necessarily become a present reality, that is, a reality of life. The *Communist Manifesto* summons and appeals for the presentation of this reality of life: we must realize that in the future, this specter — first a workers’ association that until around 1848 was still forced to remain secret — will become a reality, and a living reality. This reality of life must show itself, manifest itself; it must present itself within the region of Europe, old or new Europe, and within the universal scope of the international.” The theoretical goal of Marxism and the meaning of its practical philosophy is the pursuit of human fairness and justice. As long as genuine fairness and justice remain to be realized, then all of us are, to some extent, disciples of Marx, and will consciously or unconsciously become inheritors of Marxism. This is perhaps one of the intellectual inspirations that Derrida’s “spectropolitics” brings us.

从德里达对待马克思的精神遗产的态度中，我们可以特别清晰地看到当代西方思想界对于社会团结和公平正义的渴求和期盼。正是这种渴求和期盼将德里达引向了马克思和马克思主义，使得他相信：“目前在旧欧洲的意识形态表征中仅仅以幽灵的形象出现的东西在将来必然会成为一个在场的现实性，亦即一个生命的现实性。《共产党宣言》号召、呼吁这种生命的现实性的呈现：我们必须意识到，在将来，这个幽灵——首先是一个直到1848年左右还被迫处于秘密状态的劳动者协会——会成为一种现实，而且是一种活生生的现实。这种现实的生命必须展示自身，显明自身，它必须在欧洲，旧欧洲或新欧洲的区域之中，在国际的普遍范围内呈现自身。”马克思主义的理论目标及其实践哲学的意义就是追求人类的公平正义，只要真正的公平正义还是有待实现的，那么我们所有人在某种程度上就是马克思的徒子徒孙，就会自觉或不自觉地成为马克思主义的继承人。这或许就是德里达的“幽灵政治学”带给我们的一些思想启示。

(Author’s bio: Jia Liyan, School of Cultural Communication and Arts, China Women’s University)

（作者简介：贾丽艳，中华女子学院文化传播与艺术学院）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心