“Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad: Summary and Critique

Introduction and Context of the Lecture

• Michael Sprinker’s Legacy: Aijaz Ahmad delivers this lecture as a tribute to his late friend Michael Sprinker, a Marxist philosopher and enthusiast of Continental Philosophy and Western Marxism. Sprinker’s last major work was on Derrida’s “Spectres of Marx” (Ahmad, p. 43).
• Relevance of the Three Thinkers: Ahmad justifies discussing Derrida, Žižek, and Badiou, highlighting their influence on contemporary philosophy, particularly their engagement with Marxism in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse (Ahmad, p. 44).

Derrida’s ‘Return’ to Marx

• Spectral Marxism: Derrida’s Spectres of Marx (1993) is presented as an attempt to engage with Marxism during a time of capitalist triumphalism. Derrida focuses on Marx’s use of ghosts and specters to argue for radical uncertainty and the ‘promise’ of Marxism, without a guaranteed end to history (Ahmad, pp. 45-46).
• Commodity Fetishism and Religion: Derrida critiques Marx’s treatment of commodity fetishism, suggesting that Marx’s use of religious imagery points to a form of belief that transcends religious or economic categories (Ahmad, pp. 47-48).
• Weak Messianism: Influenced by Walter Benjamin, Derrida advocates for ‘weak messianism,’ the perseverance of hope without revolutionary inevitability, drawing on the idea of “The Promise” rather than strict Marxist doctrines like class struggle (Ahmad, p. 49).
• New International: Derrida calls for a ‘New International,’ a loosely connected global alliance without class-based or state-centered structures, challenging traditional Marxist frameworks (Ahmad, p. 51).

Žižek’s ‘Return’ to Marx

• Lenin and Revolutionary Repetition: Žižek’s Revolution at the Gates and The Idea of Communism emphasize Lenin’s ability to reinvent Marxism in times of crisis. Žižek sees Lenin as a philosopher of ‘eternal new beginnings’ where revolutionary tasks must be redefined in each historical moment (Ahmad, pp. 53-54).
• Class Struggle and Social Antagonisms: While acknowledging class struggle, Žižek shifts focus to broader antagonisms—such as ecological catastrophe, intellectual property, and new forms of apartheid—which he argues justify the revival of communism (Ahmad, p. 55).
• Critique of Ethical Socialism: Žižek rejects the notion of communism as driven by equality or ethical norms, focusing instead on the materialist notion of communism responding to concrete social antagonisms (Ahmad, p. 55).

Badiou’s ‘Return’ to Marx

• Communism as a Truth Procedure: Badiou conceptualizes communism as a ‘truth process,’ an idea grounded in emancipatory politics and not confined to past revolutionary failures. For Badiou, communism is less about historical successes and more about the ongoing creation of new political truths (Ahmad, pp. 56-57).
• Event and the Possibility of Revolution: Central to Badiou’s thought is the concept of the ‘Event,’ a rupture in the existing social order that creates new possibilities. He sees revolution as an unpredictable event, rooted in the potential of the present rather than a predetermined historical outcome (Ahmad, pp. 57-58).
• Critique of the State: Badiou, like Lenin, views the state as an obstacle to true revolution. He looks to the Paris Commune and the Chinese Cultural Revolution as examples of revolutionary moments where state power was temporarily challenged, but ultimately reinstated (Ahmad, pp. 58-59).

Critique and Reflection

• Ambiguities in Their Marxist Returns: Ahmad critically assesses the extent to which Derrida, Žižek, and Badiou truly ‘return’ to Marx. He argues that their theoretical formulations, while influential, often lack the grounding in class struggle and concrete political action that defines traditional Marxism (Ahmad, p. 59).
• The Failure to Propose a Clear Political Alternative: While Ahmad acknowledges the contributions of these thinkers, he critiques their reluctance to engage fully with the realities of class politics, suggesting that their works reflect an avant-garde retreat rather than a robust political praxis (Ahmad, p. 59).

1. Spectres of Marx by Jacques Derrida

• Superficial Engagement with Marx’s Materialism: Aijaz Ahmad critiques Derrida’s Spectres of Marx for focusing too much on metaphorical and spectral imagery without sufficiently engaging with the materialist core of Marx’s thought. Derrida emphasizes “ghosts” and “specters” but avoids delving deeply into Marx’s political economy, class struggle, or materialist philosophy (Ahmad, p. 46).
• Weak Integration of Class Struggle: Ahmad also critiques Derrida for sidelining the critical role of class struggle in Marxist theory. While Spectres of Marx acknowledges the importance of Marx, Derrida’s focus on deconstruction and metaphysical themes detracts from the real-world relevance of class conflict in contemporary capitalism (Ahmad, p. 50).

2. The Idea of Communism edited by Slavoj Žižek

• Downplaying the Importance of Class Struggle: Ahmad critiques Žižek’s essay in The Idea of Communism for downplaying the role of class struggle, traditionally central to Marxist theory. Instead, Žižek emphasizes other antagonisms like ecological crises and intellectual property issues, which Ahmad sees as a dilution of Marxism’s foundational focus on class relations and material conditions (Ahmad, p. 55).
• Rejection of Ethical Socialism: Ahmad is critical of Žižek’s rejection of “ethical socialism” and the emphasis on equality as a political norm. He argues that this rejection shifts Žižek’s focus away from the ethical dimensions of Marxism, making the theory less connected to real-world socialist movements and their struggles for equality and justice (Ahmad, p. 55).

3. The Communist Hypothesis by Alain Badiou

• Philosophical Abstraction of Communism: Ahmad critiques Badiou’s The Communist Hypothesis for its abstract philosophical approach to communism, which he frames as a “truth procedure.” While Badiou offers a compelling intellectual argument, Ahmad argues that this philosophical abstraction risks distancing communism from the material realities of class struggle and revolutionary practice (Ahmad, p. 56).
• Lack of Clear Political Strategy: Ahmad also criticizes Badiou for failing to provide a concrete political strategy for contemporary struggles. In The Communist Hypothesis, Badiou focuses on philosophical truths and the concept of the Event, but Ahmad argues that this approach lacks actionable guidance for Marxist politics today (Ahmad, p. 57).

4. Revolution at the Gates by Slavoj Žižek

• Selective Reading of Lenin: Ahmad critiques Žižek’s interpretation of Lenin in Revolution at the Gates, arguing that Žižek selectively reads Lenin’s revolutionary theory to fit his own philosophical framework. Ahmad contends that while Žižek emphasizes Lenin’s intellectual audacity and ability to reinvent Marxism, he downplays the centrality of class struggle in Lenin’s revolutionary practice (Ahmad, pp. 53-54).
• Excessive Focus on New Antagonisms: In Revolution at the Gates, Žižek’s focus on new antagonisms (such as environmental crises) is seen by Ahmad as a move away from the traditional Marxist focus on class. Ahmad critiques this shift, suggesting that Žižek’s engagement with Lenin should retain more of Lenin’s emphasis on class-based revolutionary strategy (Ahmad, p. 55).

1. Over-Reliance on Orthodox Marxism

• Criticism: Ahmad’s critique of Derrida, Žižek, and Badiou is rooted in a more orthodox Marxist framework, which prioritizes materialism and class struggle as central to Marxist theory. His insistence on the centrality of class struggle as the defining characteristic of Marxism could be seen as a limitation, especially in light of these philosophers’ efforts to address contemporary social and political issues such as environmental crises and new forms of social antagonism.
• Counterpoint: Philosophers like Žižek and Badiou argue that in the 21st century, class struggle needs to be expanded to encompass new social, ecological, and intellectual property struggles. Ahmad’s criticism may therefore appear somewhat rigid, as it does not fully engage with the idea that Marxism can evolve to meet contemporary conditions.

2. Limited Engagement with Post-Structuralism and Psychoanalysis

• Criticism: Ahmad’s critique of Derrida and Žižek downplays their contributions from post-structuralism and psychoanalysis, particularly Derrida’s deconstruction and Žižek’s Lacanian psychoanalysis. Ahmad focuses more on their perceived shortcomings in addressing class struggle and materialism but gives limited attention to how their methods open new theoretical possibilities for interpreting Marx.
• Counterpoint: Derrida’s focus on spectrality and Žižek’s psychoanalytic readings of Lenin and revolution may not fit into traditional Marxism, but they provide important critiques of historical determinism and fixed notions of revolutionary politics. Ahmad could have engaged more deeply with how these methodologies provide fresh perspectives on Marxist theory rather than dismissing them for their deviations from orthodoxy.

3. Lack of Concrete Engagement with Philosophical Innovations

• Criticism: Ahmad’s criticisms of Derrida, Žižek, and Badiou sometimes seem to gloss over the philosophical innovations these thinkers bring to Marxist discourse. For instance, Ahmad critiques Derrida’s concept of the “New International” for being vague and abstract, but he does not fully explore how Derrida’s anti-dogmatism and critique of state-based politics could offer new insights for Marxist politics in an era of globalized neoliberalism.
• Counterpoint: By dismissing these innovations as insufficiently engaged with class politics, Ahmad risks missing the potential contributions these thinkers offer to understanding the fluid and decentralized nature of contemporary capitalism and its global power structures.

4. Potential Dismissal of the Global Context

• Criticism: Ahmad focuses heavily on class politics in a traditional Marxist sense, but the world has undergone significant transformations since Marx’s time. Žižek, Badiou, and Derrida are trying to address the complex realities of global capitalism, which includes issues of ecological catastrophe, intellectual property, and the rise of new social antagonisms. Ahmad’s rigid focus on the centrality of class struggle could be seen as less relevant to these broader global challenges.
• Counterpoint: Ahmad’s critique might benefit from acknowledging that class struggle is not the sole dynamic in today’s global context. While class remains important, the globalized world faces new kinds of oppression and exploitation that transcend the traditional framework of class-based Marxism.

5. Insufficient Attention to Cultural and Ideological Critiques

• Criticism: Ahmad does not fully engage with Derrida’s critique of ideology and the cultural dimensions of Marxism, particularly in relation to commodity fetishism. Derrida’s insights into the ideological structures of belief in capitalism, and how they resemble religious practices, open new avenues for understanding alienation and exploitation in contemporary societies. Ahmad’s criticism of Derrida for focusing on metaphors and ghosts may oversimplify the cultural and ideological dimensions that Derrida is addressing.
• Counterpoint: Ahmad could have offered a more nuanced engagement with how Derrida’s analysis of ideology and culture complements, rather than detracts from, Marxist materialism, especially in the context of contemporary consumer society.

6. Conservative Understanding of Revolutionary Potential

• Criticism: Ahmad’s assessment of Badiou’s theory of the Event is somewhat conservative, focusing on the perceived abstraction of Badiou’s ideas and his lack of clear political strategy. However, Badiou’s notion of the Event challenges traditional understandings of revolution by emphasizing unpredictability and rupture rather than a linear progression toward revolution. Ahmad’s dismissal of this as too abstract could be seen as underestimating the innovative potential of Badiou’s approach.
• Counterpoint: Badiou’s emphasis on revolutionary rupture through unpredictable events opens the door for new possibilities in Marxist thought, which Ahmad might have explored more deeply, particularly in the face of contemporary political stagnation and the failures of 20th-century Marxist revolutions.