Derrida’s Argumentation on Marx’s “Specter” Politics

Derrida is a representative of postmodern Western Marxist thought and the founder of deconstructivist philosophy. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Marxism encountered unprecedented doubts, with claims of its “uselessness” and “obsolescence” becoming rampant. In this “chaotic age,” Derrida actively approached Marx’s “specter,” attempting to evoke the true spirit of Marx through his writings.

德里达是后现代西方马克思主义思潮代表，解构主义哲学创始人。苏东剧变后，马克思主义遇到前所未有的质疑，“无用论”“过时论”甚嚣尘上。在这“混乱的年代”，德里达主动走近马克思的“幽灵”，试图通过其著作唤起马克思的真精神。

The Image of the “Specter”: Uncertainty Contains a Promise for the Future

“幽灵”意象：不确定性蕴涵面向未来的承诺

In his book *Specters of Marx*, through a peeling, analytical reading of Marx’s *The German Ideology*, Derrida discovered the essence of Marx’s relentless pursuit of Stirner’s “spirits,” completing what he called the arrangement and recombination of the genealogy of specters, thereby achieving his spectrology that runs throughout. When interpreting the relationship between “spirit” and “specter” as addressed in Marx’s *The German Ideology*, Derrida states: “The visible form, the phenomenal body of spirit, that is the definition of the specter. The specter is the phenomenon of spirit.” He believes that the specter, as the phenomenal body of spirit, can take shape and appear in public. Thus, the specter and spirit are a contradictory entity with both connections and differences. Derrida then focuses on analyzing and demonstrating this “difference” or “heterogeneity,” calling it “différance”: “The specter is not only the carnal apparition of spirit, its phenomenal body, its fallen and guilty body, but also the impatient and nostalgic waiting for a redemption, that is, once again, a spirit. The specter seems to be a deferred spirit, a promise of atonement and an intention. What is this différance? Everything or nothing.” From Derrida’s analysis, it is not difficult to see that “spirit” is a nothingness scattered among the many relations of society, difficult to manifest, a soul without attachment wandering among people; but once spirit is deferred and referred, disseminated to the point of becoming a specter, it gains the opportunity to become visible.

德里达在《马克思的幽灵》一书中通过对马克思《德意志意识形态》的剥笋式阅读与条分缕析，发现了马克思对施蒂纳“诸精神”穷追不舍的本质，完成了他所谓的幽灵谱系的排列与重组，也成就了其贯穿始终的幽灵学。德里达在解读马克思《德意志意识形态》中所涉及的“精神”和“幽灵”之间的关系时说：“显形的形式，精神的现象躯体，这就是幽灵的定义。幽灵是精神的现象。”他认为幽灵作为精神的现象躯体能够形体化而显形于大庭广众之中。可见，幽灵与精神是既有联系又有区别的矛盾体。随后德里达对于二者之间的差异性进行了重点分析论证，并称这种“差异性”或“异质性”为“异延”，“幽灵不仅是精神的肉体的显圣，是它的现象躯体；它的堕落的和有罪的躯体，而且也是对一种救赎，亦即——又一次——一种精神焦急的和怀乡式的等待。幽灵似乎是延宕的精神，是一种赎罪的诺言和打算。这种异延是什么？是一切或什么都不是”。从德里达的分析不难看出，“精神”是散漫于社会诸多关系中而难于显形的虚无，是无所寄托并且游荡于人间的魂魄；但是一旦“精神”延宕并指涉下去，播撒而至于幽灵，它就具有了显形的机会。

To embody the ethereal and elusive mode of existence of the specter, Derrida coined the term “hauntology.” The subject of haunting cannot be captured; it is both present and absent, both formed and formless. It is an object generated in contradiction, lacking a real body yet possessing a vaguely visible appearance; it is a wandering soul, yet not pure spirit. Derrida cleverly borrows Marcellus’s line from *Hamlet* — “this thing” — to present the indescribable characteristic of the specter, which indeed exceeds our habitual cognition of either/or. Marcellus says: “I have seen nothing.” Derrida points out that this line highlights another feature of the specter, namely asymmetry. We cannot see who is watching us; we can only see the image hidden behind protections like visors, unable to fully and certainly identify him.

为了体现幽灵虚无缥缈、难以捉摸的存在方式，德里达首创了“游荡学”一词。游荡的主体是无法被捕捉的，它既在场又不在场，既有形又无形。它本就是一个在矛盾中生成的物体，虽不具有实在的肉体，但又有着隐约可见的模样；它是游荡的灵魂，却又不是纯粹的精神。德里达巧妙地借用《哈姆雷特》中马西勒斯的台词——“这个东西”来呈现幽灵无法被形容的特征，它确实超出了我们非此即彼的认知习惯。马西勒斯说：“我还没有瞧见什么。”德里达指出，这句话彰显了幽灵的另一特征，即不对称性。我们看不见是谁在注视我们，只能看到在面甲等保护物的遮盖背后的形象，无法完全确定地识别他。

Although the specter is a potential nothingness and a winged haunting, a both-and presence in absence, Derrida believes that the “specter” he invokes is not pure fantasy: “If the specter were only a specter and nothing else, no more than nothing, nothing from nothing, then my book would not be worth a second glance.” To clarify the referent of the “specter,” Derrida explains: *Specters of Marx* “is a reflection on the category of spectrality that I have long been concerned with. Such thoughts may also be encountered in my earlier studies. The specter is not merely soul, ghost, something that returns inopportunely to summon us to inherit a legacy, but also something neither dead nor alive, neither true nor false, that reintroduces the dimension of the ghost into politics… that is a main thread of this treatise.”

虽然幽灵是一种潜在的虚无和羽化的游荡，是亦此亦彼的不在场的在场，但是德里达认为自己呼唤的“幽灵”并不是纯粹的幻想，“如果幽灵只是幽灵而不是别的，并不多于无，是来自于无的无，那么我的书就不值得看第二眼了”。为了阐明“幽灵”的所指，德里达这样解释说：《马克思的幽灵》“是对我长期以来关注的幽灵性这个范畴的反思。人们在我的早期研究中也可能接触到这样的思考。幽灵不仅仅是灵魂、鬼魂，回过来不合时宜地召唤我们继承遗产的东西，而且还是非死非生、非真非假，把鬼魂的维度重新引入政治的东西……是这部论著的一条主线”。

Marx’s “Specter”: Continuing to Guide Our Lives

马克思的“幽灵”：继续指引我们的生活

The *Communist Manifesto* opens with the line: “A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism.” Derrida admits that his concept of the “specter” originates precisely from this metaphor, thereby entering into a discussion of Marx’s “specter.” “I have discovered, in fact just recalled, what had been lingering in my memory all along: the first noun in the *Communist Manifesto*… that is ‘specter.’” The *Communist Manifesto* uses the word “specter” to unveil the prelude to the communist bible, indicating that Marxism itself contains a kind of “specter” politics. So why did Marx call his intellectual achievement a “specter”? Derrida points out that Marx’s metaphor of communism as a “specter” means, on the one hand, that communism is an invisible force that terrifies the old powers and is inevitably cursed and slandered; on the other hand, it means that communism can give the proletariat immense strength to lead them in revolutionary practical activities. The communist specter drifting through the *Communist Manifesto* once terrified the old powers of Europe. Now, some people, in a “disjointed” age, attempt to declare that the communist specter has become a thing of the past, seizing the opportunity to elevate the capitalist system to a supreme throne. Derrida sarcastically notes that this reflects their inner fear of this specter. Precisely because of this, they are impatient to announce the death of Marxism, trying to exorcise the communist specter. In fact, this specter is ineradicable; it has been watching us from above Europe, and even the world.

《共产党宣言》开篇有言：“一个幽灵，共产主义的幽灵，在欧洲游荡。”德里达坦言自己的“幽灵”概念正是源自这一比喻，并由此切入了关于马克思的“幽灵”的探讨。“我已经发现，事实上是刚刚才回想起那个本来一直在我的记忆中徘徊的东西：《共产党宣言》中的第一个名词……这就是‘幽灵’。”《共产党宣言》以“幽灵”一词揭开共产主义圣经的序幕，说明马克思主义本身就包含一种“幽灵”政治学。那么，为什么马克思把自己的思想成果称作“幽灵”呢？德里达指出，马克思把共产主义比喻成“幽灵”，一方面是说共产主义是让旧势力恐惧的隐形力量，它必然遭到诅咒与谩骂；另一方面则是说共产主义能给无产阶级以巨大的力量，引领他们进行革命实践活动。《共产党宣言》中飘荡着的共产主义幽灵曾使得欧洲的旧势力闻风丧胆，如今有一批人企图在“脱节”的时代宣称共产主义的幽灵已经成为过去式，并趁机将资本主义制度扶上至高无上的宝座。德里达讽刺到，这反映了他们内心对这一幽灵的恐惧。正因如此，他们才急不可耐地宣布马克思主义的死讯，企图驱散共产主义的幽灵。事实上，这幽灵是挥之不去的，它一直在欧洲甚至世界的上空注视着我们。

Derrida says: “Now it is time to defend Marx’s specters.” By emphasizing the plural form of specter, he breaks the claim of a certain end of history that declares Marxism dead, calling for the future of Marxism. In *Specters of Marx*, the signified of “specter” far exceeds its signifier, mainly including the following meanings: first, the specter of the old king in *Hamlet*, a returning specter; second, the specters of certain theorists criticized and expelled by Marx in *The German Ideology*; third, the various differentiated understandings of Marx by later scholars; fourth, the specters of money and capital; fifth, the specter of communism, etc. Here, the meaning of “specter” is already intricate and difficult to discern, and Derrida, fond of wordplay, often uses intertextual techniques to place multiple meanings with unclear boundaries together for exposition, making these “specters” truly ghostly, confusing and opaque. In fact, Derrida intends to use the plural specters to prove to people that the collapse of the Soviet model does not mean the extinction of Marx’s spirit. Marxists scattered around the world have inherited one or several aspects of Marx’s spirit, such as materialism, historical theory, or revolutionary, critical, and class character, fulfilling different duties and functions. Marx’s legacy remains active; the rumors people hear are merely gospels fabricated by certain forces out of fear of Marx’s specter. Linked to the multiplicity of specters is the heterogeneity of Marx’s spirit. Jacques Derrida points out that heterogeneity is not necessarily bad; the heterogeneity of Marx’s spirit allows it to be constantly reinterpreted. In his view, metabolism is the most basic form of development for all things; if metabolism ceases, development stops. Marxism is no exception. “Heterogeneity opens the prospect for understanding, allowing itself to be opened by the fragments of what unfolds, arrives, or is about to arrive—especially from others. Without this rupture, there would be neither command nor promise.”

德里达说：“现在该维护马克思的幽灵们了。”他强调通过幽灵的复数形式打破了某种声称马克思主义已然灭亡的历史终结论，呼唤着马克思主义的未来。在《马克思的幽灵》一书中，“幽灵”的所指远远超出它的能指，主要有以下几种含义：第一，《哈姆雷特》中老国王的幽灵，一个回归的幽灵；第二，《德意志意识形态》中曾被马克思批判、驱逐的某些理论家的幽灵；第三，后世学者关于马克思的各种差异化理解；第四，货币、资本的幽灵；第五，共产主义的幽灵等。在这里，“幽灵”的含义本来就已经错综复杂，令人难以辨认，而热衷文字游戏的德里达还时常运用互文的手法将界限不甚明确的多种含义放在一起进行阐述，使得这些“幽灵”真的如鬼魅般，让人弄不清、看不透。其实，德里达意在以复数的幽灵向人们证明苏联模式的坍塌不等于马克思精神的灭亡，分散于世界各地的马克思主义者都继承了马克思精神的一个或数个方面，如唯物论、历史论，抑或革命性、批判性、阶级性等，履行着不同的义务与职能。马克思的遗产仍然活跃着，人们听到的谣言只是某些势力出于对马克思的幽灵的恐惧而编造的福音书。同幽灵的复多性相联系的是马克思精神的异质性。雅克·德里达指出，异质性未必是不好的，马克思精神的异质性使它能够不断被重新解释。在他看来，新陈代谢是一切事物发展的最基本形式，如果新陈代谢没有了，发展也就停止了。马克思主义也不例外。“异质性为理解打开了前景，它任由自己被展开、到来或即将到来——特别地是来自他人——的东西的碎片打开。若是没有这断裂，便既不会有指令，也不会有承诺。”

Derrida repeatedly asserts that the spirit of Marxism is not singular, but among the many heterogeneous spirits, “there must be at least one spirit, a Marxist critical spirit.” [1]1 Derrida’s phrase, from *Specters of Marx* (1993), emphasizes a non-dogmatic, self-critical Marxist inheritance. Specifically, he divides the Marxist critical spirit into two types: critique directed at the capitalist superstructure and capitalism’s own good self-regard; and a spirit ready for self-critique at any time. Derrida points out that Marxist critique of capitalism is embodied in theories of the mode of production, the concept of labor, social classes, and so on. Only through the analysis Marx conducted in this sense can one expose the fact that capitalist states monopolize financial capital, technological capital, private capital, and state capital through power politics, and can one make people realize that the political and economic system of capitalist states has become a malignant tumor in human history. Furthermore, Derrida reminds people not to forget that Engels, in the preface to the 1888 reprint of the *Communist Manifesto*, prophetically cautioned that he and Marx had already recognized that their own theory contained insurmountable inherent historicity and that these factors might well become outdated. Marx and Engels did not forget to remind people to later critique and innovate their theory. Hence, “this critical spirit in principle voluntarily accepts its own transformation, revaluation, and self-reinterpretation.” [2]2 Derrida’s paraphrase of Marx and Engels’ own call for theoretical self-renewal, as argued in *Specters of Marx*. Derrida claims that this statement should draw our attention, because “their lesson is particularly urgent today.”

德里达一再声称马克思主义的精神不是只有一种，而在诸多异质性精神中，“至少得有一种精神，一种马克思主义的批判精神”。具体来说，他将马克思主义的批判精神分为两种，即针对资本主义上层建筑以及资本主义良好的自我感觉的批判；随时准备进行自我批判的精神。德里达指出，马克思主义对资本主义的批判体现在生产方式、劳动概念、社会阶级等理论上，只有通过马克思在这种意义上进行的分析才能揭露资本主义国家通过强权政治垄断金融资本、科技资本、私人资本和国家资本的事实，才能使人们认识到资本主义国家的政治经济体制已经成为人类历史上的一颗毒瘤。此外，德里达还提醒人们不要忘记恩格斯在《共产党宣言》1888年再版序言中曾预示性地告诫人们，他与马克思已意识到他们自己的理论中存在着无法克服的固有的历史性并且这些因素很可能会过时。马克思与恩格斯不忘提醒人们在日后对他们的理论进行批判革新，由此可见“这种批判精神在原则上自觉自愿地接受它自身的变革、价值重估与自我再阐释”。德里达称这番言论应引起我们的重视，因为“他们的教训在今天显得尤为紧迫”。

So why did Derrida, in his vigorous defense of Marxism, focus specifically on the concept of the “specter”? Professor Jules Townshend of the University of Manchester, in his article “Derrida’s Deconstruction of Marxism,” points out that Derrida, like Heidegger, sought to find the key to evaluating the entire tradition of Western philosophy, in order to overturn the logocentric foundation of Western metaphysical presence. [3]3 Jules Townshend, a British political theorist, published this analysis of Derrida’s relation to Marx. In Derrida’s view, the pure present cannot be grasped. Because the “now” exists between past and future, memory and desire, and language, as the expression of “Being,” negates the proposition that “pure Being is internally self-identical.” Therefore, the things we express are always in a state of non-existence or not-yet-existence. The concept of the “specter” almost perfectly embodies the characteristic of a thing being between existence and non-existence, ungraspable, which precisely aligns with Derrida’s consistent deconstructive logic. He attempts to combine deconstruction with Marxism through the main thread of the “specter,” in order to mount a powerful confrontation with the thesis of the end of history. However, he also declared that the reason he attaches such importance to specter logic is that the concept of the “specter” corresponds to a logic that contends with reality or actuality, always leading us toward an open-ended thinking. This indicates that Derrida, to a large extent, does not identify with dialectical materialism, because it contradicts the infinite interpretation advocated by deconstruction. Therefore, Derrida’s condition for defending the spirit of Marx is to spectralize Marxism, which in essence violates the logic of Marxism’s validity and cannot be considered genuine Marxism.

那么，德里达为何在竭力捍卫马克思主义的时刻着重抓住了“幽灵”这一概念？英国曼彻斯特大学的朱尔斯·汤森教授在《德里达对马克思主义的解构》一文中指出，德里达与海德格尔一样，试图找到评价整个西方传统哲学的关键，以颠覆西方形而上学在场论的逻各斯中心主义基石。在德里达看来，纯粹的当下是无法把握的。因为“现在”存在于过去与未来、记忆与欲望之间，而语言作为“存在”的表达方式，否定了“纯粹的存在是自身内在统一的”这一命题。因此，我们表达的事物总是处于不存在或尚未存在的状态。“幽灵”概念几乎可完美地体现出某一事物处于存在与非存在之间、无法被把握的特性，这正符合德里达一贯的解构主义逻辑。他试图通过“幽灵”这一主线将解构主义与马克思主义结合起来，以便与历史终结论进行强力对抗。但是他也曾声明，其之所以如此重视幽灵逻辑，原因在于“幽灵”这一概念对应着一种与现实性或有效性相抗衡的逻辑，它总是能将我们引向一种开放性思考。这说明德里达在很大程度上不认同辩证唯物主义，因为它有悖于解构主义所倡导的无限性解读。因此，德里达捍卫马克思精神的条件就是将马克思主义幽灵化，这实质上违背了马克思主义的有效性逻辑，算不上真正的马克思主义。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗