这就是我们所说的受过1990年的洗礼的当代新左的特征。这种新左与代表‘世界新秩序’的资产阶级自由民主之间的斗争，德里达认为需要一种新的共产国际领导下的全球联合来保证其效力，这种联合至少应成为新左在马克思主义下的重新结集，成为一种亲和性、苦难和希望之间的串联：……without status, without title, and without name, barely public even if it is not clandestine, without contract, ‘out of joint’, without coordination, without party, without country, without national community (International before, across, and beyond any national determination),without co-citizenship, without common belonging to a class.…an alliance without institution among those who. Even if they no longer believe or never believed in the socialist-Marxist International, in the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the messiano-eschatological role of the universal union of the proletariat of all lands, continue to be inspired by at least one of the spirits of Marx or of Marxism…〖同上，85－6页〗。而这段话实际上同时也向我们指出了当代新左的存在和活动模态。
新左对新自由主义的批判有很多种，具体要看你是在哪一种马克思主义的幽灵下。我个人觉得拉克洛这个当今最激进的新左的下面这段话几乎说出了我这样的中国新左想说的话、所遭遇的当代政治处境，所要面对的社会现实，是我们对新自由主义的批判的实质。我们要在这段话之外说出更多的关于我们中国、第三世界的新左的关怀来，是要花很大力气的了，而这种我自己上下文里的说，将成为我的具体的‘新左’历史实践的一部分：‘For me, a radical democratic society is one in which a plurality of public spaces, constituted around specific issues and demands, and strictly autonomous of each other, instils in its members a civic sense which is a central ingredient of their identity as individuals. Despite the plurality of these spaces, or, rather, as a consequence of it, a diffuse democratic culture is created, which gives the community its specific identity. Within this community, the liberal institutions—parliament, elections, divisions of power—are maintained, but these are one public space, not the public space. Not only is antagonism not excluded from a democratic society, it is the very condition of its institution.
…As a socialist, I am prepared to fight against capitalism for the hegemony of liberal institutions and, as a believer in the latter, I am prepared to do my best to make them compatible with the whole field of democratic public spaces, but I see this compatibility as a hegemonic construction, not as something granted from the beginning. I think that a great deal of 20th century history can be explained by dislocations in the articulations of the three components just mentioned. Liberal institutions (let alone capitalism) have fared badly in Third World countries and of the attempt to articulate socialism and democracy (if attempt it can be called) in the countries of the Eastern bloc, the record is simply appalling. Though my preference is for a liberal-democratic-socialist society, it is clear to me that I am forced under given circumstances to choose one out of the three, my preference will always be for democracy. (For instance, if in a Third World country I have to choose between, on the one hand, a corrupt and repressive liberal regime, in which elections are a farce manipulated by clientelistic gangs, with no participation of the masses; and on the other, a nationalist military regime which tends to social reform and the self-organization of the masses, my preference will be for the latter. ’〖《各种解放》，1996年，121页〗我们哪个新左能说出比拉克洛这段话更负责任的话来？
在《马》之前，新左的概念要宽得多，哈贝马斯这样的左被罗蒂称为‘自由主义之左（liberal left）’，福柯被称为反讽式左派（ironist left）〖《偶然性、反讽和协同性》剑桥，1989年，94页〗，毛泽东在西方被称为民族左派（national left）。在当代中国是不是还有一种民族主义左派，但要命的是，民族主义和左派这两个概念之间是不是有很大的矛盾，是相互抵消的〖见上文对斯大林的《马克思主义与民族问题》的评述；另见上文德里达对新的共产国际的定义〗？新左摊上了民族主义，它还能左么？〖参见下文四－D〗
新左与新自由主义之间的那条战线是模糊的。此前Quentin Skinner〖《语言和社会变化》，见《Q. Skinner和他的批评者》，J. Tully编， Polity, 1988年, 126页 〗对自由主义者和马克思主义者（实际上就我们现在所说的左派或新左）作过这样的区别：他们之间的分岐在于对political这个字的意义的分岐：左派认为可以将这个字用到很广的上下文，而自由主义对政治这个字的使用是很克制的：If the Marxist is genuinely to persuade the Liberal to share or at least acknowledge some political insight, he needs in effect to make two points. One is of course that the term political can appropriately be applied to a range of actions where the Liberal has never thought of applying it. But the other, which his application of the term challenges the liberal to admit, is that this is due not to a disagreement about the meaning of the term but rather to the fact that the Liberal is a person of blinkered politcal sensitivity and awareness.）。德里达这本书事实上在新左，也就是新时代里的新马克思主义立场，与新自由主义的对抗，与我们时代对资本主义的批判之间划了等号。这使新左突然给自己找到了新自由主义这个敌人，而此前，我觉得哈贝马斯的自由主义、‘新保守主义’就可指称和包括这个敌人。
三、
我现在必须认定，我用来定性我的立场的那种新左是《马克思主义幽灵》之前的新左，还它之后的新左？
是指《马克思主义幽灵》之后的新左。
这里有一层暧昧，那些本来是自称新左的，如果不认同于《马》一书对马克思主义的这种有条件阐释，还可称他们是在支持新左立场？在《马》之前，西方新左的四条线是清楚的：德国的法兰克福学派和当代的哈贝马斯，法国的阿尔都塞之后，美国的欧文.豪、胡克到后来的詹明信，英国的威廉斯到汤普森、霍加特、霍尔等。《马》以后呢？
上文讲过，新左是一种思想和立场错综，新左里的门路很多，基本认同于《马》的立场的
