解构主义、马克思主义和索绪尔语言学都对价值系统展开了探讨,其间不乏相关的隐喻式类比,即货币作为语言的隐喻,这为马克思主义和解构主义之间展开语码转换提供了逻辑先在的必要条件。《资本论》本身就是文学批判作品,德.曼的文学理论就是政治经济学批判,两者都具有共同的批判精神。詹明信将政治无意思作为解读文本的主导符码,而德.曼则以“修辞阅读”帝国主义式地占领一切,两者都看到了语言文本存在的意识形态因素。两者主要的分歧是,詹明信充分考量社会语境的作用,而德.曼的修辞阅读与语言自恋不无关系,有滑入尼采“虚无主义”的嫌疑。这也是语言无意思和政治无意思两者之间不可通约的最主要特点。 Deconstruction, Marxism and Saussure’s linguistics all discuss the value system. There is no lack of related metaphorical analogy, that is, the metaphor of money as a language, which provides the logic for the code conversion between Marxism and deconstructionism First, the necessary conditions. Capitalism itself is the literary critical work, Germanman’s literary theory is the political economy critique, both have a common critical spirit. Zhan Mingxin used political inattention as the dominant symbol of text interpretation, while Germanyman occupied everything in an imperialist way with “rhetorical reading,” both of which saw the ideological elements of the existence of linguistic texts. The main difference between the two is that Zhan Mingxin fully considered the role of social context. However, Germanman’s rhetoric reading is not only related to the narcissism of language, but also to the suspicion of sliding into Nietzsche’s nihilism. This is also the most important feature of the incommensurability between language inattention and political inattention.