tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post4573991463817377261..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Althusser and Social ComplexityPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-63546851067419099332011-01-07T13:51:25.602+00:002011-01-07T13:51:25.602+00:00I am currently re-reading Alex Callinicos's li...I am currently re-reading Alex Callinicos's little book 'Althusser's Marxism' after first reading it 15 years ago.<br /><br />I'm not sure why the SWP/IST have largely discarded this book in favour of the arguments of Clarke's One-Dimensional Marxism (this was clear in many of the criticisms made of Althusser by the late Chris Harman). Callinicos's book is on the whole excellent, and although dated, at least reveals an excellent grasp of Althusser's arguments and locates its political limitations precisely. It covers almost all of the material published by Althusser up to 1974, with the exception of Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists, which he would have appeared to have read after the manuscript was finished but focused on Elements of Self-Criticism instead as it related more to his points on Althusser's theory and politics (it seems likely that the subtle differences between Lenin and Philosophy and PSPS were not picked up in what must have been a quick read for the postscript - in any case they are not especially consequential for Callinicos's argument). The points that he makes regarding ideology and sociology in the chapter on politics are very pertinent, as are his comments regarding the relationship of Althusser's work to Trotskyism and Maoism. I would strongly recommend the book as a book on Althusser's politics that locates its problems in a concrete and theoretical way - as well as being quite suggestive regarding some of the political reasons why the second definition of philosophy wasn't developed to its full potential in the published writings - while recognizing the contribution that Althusser's critique of theoretical humanism and Hegelianism made for Marxist theory, ironically especially for political theory. The subsequent publication of SOME of the writings in Althusser's archives and their lacunae might be profitably explored in terms of the theoretical effects of Althusser's affiliations and can also provide some ways out of those effects theoretically. One of the most interesting aspects of Althusser's late work is the fact that it sometimes reads like an anti-humanist version of Thompson's critique of Marx's "Grundrisse face" ...David McInerneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-73480936370189766812009-09-20T14:50:27.451+01:002009-09-20T14:50:27.451+01:00His autobiography is great, even if only for the q...His autobiography is great, even if only for the quality of his delusions. Meeting de Gaulle in the street and becoming fast friends? Going for a stroll on a nuclear sub?<br /><br />I think Resch's book is very good for countering the atemporal criticisms levelled at Althusser, and (if memory serves) criticises attempts to read pre-capitalist societies through concepts developed to analyse capitalism.<br /><br />In a sense I see Hegel and Althusser as fairly similar. What they both tried to do was capture, in abstract, the movement of social processes. Aside from the vast difference in language the primary difference is that Hegel thought his philosophy of history and history were identical whereas Althusser is very clear in stating that objects and our thoughts about them are two very different things. However Althusser did take this in a idealist direction, assuming that the epistemological status of a theory was guaranteed by Theory (i.e. philosophy) rather than practice.<br /><br />If one wanted to be symptomatic about it you could say in light of his theories his absence during May '68 wasn't entirely surprising.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-40137013273921967522009-09-19T16:54:40.185+01:002009-09-19T16:54:40.185+01:00Yes, all hail the great Marxist who at a critical ...Yes, all hail the great Marxist who at a critical moment in French working class history - 1968 - scuttled away to Torquay!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-38793322977308083042009-09-18T16:23:43.341+01:002009-09-18T16:23:43.341+01:00I think Althusser had lots of interesting ideas an...I think Althusser had lots of interesting ideas and I've made use of a lot of them at various times. Pierre Macherey's Althusserian 'A theory of literary production' is also a bomb of a book.<br /><br />But the overarching problem with Althusser is the static nature of these explorations. According to my reading of Marx and Engels on method, they weren't interested in generalised theories of base/superstructure and so on but rather in how such concepts work out in history. So, when I read Althusser and other theorists ruminating interminably on base/superstructure I always want to shout "but when? What period are you talking about?". Concepts must be fluid and rooted in our past, present and future, to badly paraphrase Trotsky. <br /><br />But I do love Althusser and his autobiography is bloody hilarious.<br /><br />The Poet DusterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-84705082997180500742009-09-18T14:27:08.338+01:002009-09-18T14:27:08.338+01:00Not at all Dave. But you do need to be very persit...Not at all Dave. But you do need to be very persitent and patient. When I read For Marx and Reading Capital I read it very carefully and very, very slowly. Would take me an hour to go through three pages at times.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-12528973901071960032009-09-18T13:40:25.065+01:002009-09-18T13:40:25.065+01:00I confess that Althusser is the one major Marxist ...I confess that Althusser is the one major Marxist thinker whose work made me throw in the towel after less than 100 pages. Sorry, I just couldn't finish it. I must be dumb or something ...Dave Ohttp://www.davidosler.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-29348624239071466212009-09-18T12:00:47.831+01:002009-09-18T12:00:47.831+01:00I remember reading Althusser thinking how anyone *...I remember reading Althusser thinking how anyone *not* interested in Marxism would get their head round it. He's tough enough for committed Marxists!Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-39908059421304372152009-09-18T11:16:32.204+01:002009-09-18T11:16:32.204+01:00Simon Clarke's book is pretty one-dimensional ...Simon Clarke's book is pretty one-dimensional itself. A good place to start is Gregory Elliot's biography of Althusser. Callinicos' book is very dated.<br /><br /><br />Actually Althusser's wriings in Fo Marx are difficult but not that difficult for someone brought up in an orthodox Marxist tradition. They were designed for a PCF audience after all. As were the essays around Ideology and State Apparatus. Perry Anderson's Arguments book is important re.Thompson. <br /><br />The real problem is his theory of overdetermination, and of causal determination in general. Look at its Spinozaian references...Andrew Coateshttp://www.tendancecoatesy.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-47377746048113571972009-09-18T08:56:45.820+01:002009-09-18T08:56:45.820+01:00Yeah, reading Althusser is no barrel of laughs (th...Yeah, reading Althusser is no barrel of laughs (that said, I did spot a very subtle joke in <i>Reading Capital</i>), but perseverence does pay off IMHO.<br /><br />For anyone thinking about reading Althusser there are a number of good entrees. Ted Benton's book is a good if very critical overview. The One Dimensional Marxism collection (with Simon Clarke) is extremely critical. The best supporting intros are Callinicos's very old <i>Althusser's Marxism</i> and the weighty Resch tome <i>Althusser and the Renewal of Marxist Social Theory</i>. The latter is especially excellent.<br /><br />My tips for reading Althusser himself is to do so very, very slowly. His writing is very dense and it's easy to miss something, which probably explains why he's more maligned than understood. <i>For Marx</i> is definitely the place to begin because, if anything, <i>Reading Capital</i> is even more dense.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-66563415514927681682009-09-17T20:05:27.710+01:002009-09-17T20:05:27.710+01:00Wow!
Interesting stuff....Althusser is less reada...Wow!<br /><br />Interesting stuff....Althusser is less readable than your prose, this looks a nice clear account of some of his thoughts.<br /><br />do you know Ted Benton's 'The Rise and Fall of Structural Marxism' its a long while see I looked at, but it seemed useful.<br /><br />Good and relevent.<br /><br />Easy to dismiss Althusser especially for those of us in a political tradition which includes E.P.Thompson who after William Morris and M and E was a key ecosocialist.Derek Wallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05462511891409913195noreply@blogger.com