Althusser and Structural Marxism

[nativeabuse]

Ok I have been reading texts from every Socialist/Anarchist thinker I could find, and now I was thinking about trying to dive into some Althusser maybe.

So I was just wondering what all of you thought about Althusser, I'm not really a big fan of most Structuralist/Poststructualist/Postmodernist thought so I was thinking I might just skip over him. Is he considered essential reading? Will I be missing out on much if I pass him up?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Personally, I think he's a genius that needs to be reconsidered by the left. His work on ideology represents a huge step in Marxian thinking that is largely disregarded by the majority of the left that resides in the Leninist tradition and is kinda stuck in the past in this regard. This isn't a given and the left is obviously a broad range of theories but I'm talking about the dominant Leninist presence in some cases.

One problem I see with Althusser and most of what is called 'poststructuralist' thought is that it can be considered quite nihilistic. Althusser shows how deeply intricate capitalism is in our society, in how it conditions so many aspects of our being in so many ways that are probably countless, it possibly undermines the whole binary notion of bourgeoise/proletariat in some ways and reveals a much deeper world of struggles and what not which can seem difficult to struggle against in terms of an overarching, grand narrative like traditional Marxism and Leninism of course. I think that this line of thinking is essentially a product of capitalism's own nature to adapt and change and 'evolve' in a sense - while there are fundamental relations that remain since the birth of capitalism, the capitalistic socio-economic order is much more complex than it was, this is obvious I suppose.

However, Marx (or Engels) did say something like things are in a state of constant flux and motion, which I find to be the best conceptualization to come from Marxism itself and in some ways a principle that is forgotten by many.

tl;dr every Marxist should read Althusser, I imagine that, if Marx was to witness the times that we live in, Althusser would definitely be a reference point for him.

[ed miliband]

"... and most new marxist theory has been execrable - particularly in britain, where the althusserian poison administered in massive doses by new left review paralysed the minds (though not unfortunately the writing hands) of a large section of the left intelligentsia for more than a decade" -- making a fresh start, maurice brinton.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

What's the alternative? The SWP being the largest far left party in the UK? Look at how they've turned out.

[ed miliband]

hahahaha, what? how is that even a response to the maurice brinton quote?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

because its a critique of althusserian influence in marxism whereas the major left in the uk has pretty much rejected it anyway, even though the major left in the uk is itself a joke. i'm just saying that perhaps the left could do with a re-read of althusser, given the state of things. it wouldn't hurt

[ed miliband]

because its a critique of althusserian influence in marxism whereas the major left in the uk has pretty much rejected it anyway, even though the major left in the uk is itself a joke. i'm just saying that perhaps the left could do with a re-read of althusser

brinton isn't talking about "the major left in the uk", but about marxist theory in general, and his organisation's relationship to it in particular. in this context it's nonsense to say althusser was "pretty much rejected in the uk".

there's a reason only english lit and cultural studies academics study althusser now.

[Android]

because its a critique of althusserian influence in marxism whereas the major left in the uk has pretty much rejected it anyway, even though the major left in the uk is itself a joke. i'm just saying that perhaps the left could do with a re-read of althusser, given the state of things. it wouldn't hurt
Not true. When Althusser was in fashion in the 1970s IS/SWP writers like Terry Eagleton and Alex Callinicos took it up.

[Art Vandelay]

Personally, I think he's a genius that needs to be reconsidered by the left. His work on ideology represents a huge step in Marxian thinking that is largely disregarded by the majority of the left that resides in the Leninist tradition and is kinda stuck in the past in this regard. This isn't a given and the left is obviously a broad range of theories but I'm talking about the dominant Leninist presence in some cases.

One problem I see with Althusser and most of what is called 'poststructuralist' thought is that it can be considered quite nihilistic. Althusser shows how deeply intricate capitalism is in our society, in how it conditions so many aspects of our being in so many ways that are probably countless, it possibly undermines the whole binary notion of bourgeoise/proletariat in some ways and reveals a much deeper world of struggles and what not which can seem difficult to struggle against in terms of an overarching, grand narrative like traditional Marxism and Leninism of course. I think that this line of thinking is essentially a product of capitalism's own nature to adapt and change and 'evolve' in a sense - while there are fundamental relations that remain since the birth of capitalism, the capitalistic socio-economic order is much more complex than it was, this is obvious I suppose.

However, Marx (or Engels) did say something like things are in a state of constant flux and motion, which I find to be the best conceptualization to come from Marxism itself and in some ways a principle that is forgotten by many.

tl;dr every Marxist should read Althusser, I imagine that, if Marx was to witness the times that we live in, Althusser would definitely be a reference point for him.

You've sparked my interest, I'll have to give him a read.

[ed miliband]

don't do it.

[Art Vandelay]

don't do it.

Why not? I don't simply read things which fit in with my current paradigm (that is a good way to stay willfully ignorant) and I certainly don't agree with everything I read; what could it hurt?

[ed miliband]

Why not? I don't simply read things which fit in with my current paradigm (that is a good way to stay willfully ignorant) and I certainly don't agree with everything I read; what could it hurt?

just making sure you don't waste your time, although you're free to if you wish so, obviously. basically outside the academy - and even there his influence is dwindling - althusser has no relevance whatsoever. of course, plenty of theory is irrelevant, but you're better off reading well-written theory by folk with half-decent politics than althusser's guff.

[nativeabuse]

Personally, I think he's a genius that needs to be reconsidered by the left.

You sold me, sounds like he has some interesting ideas. Where would you say I should start with him?

My library has On Ideology, For Marx, Reading Capital, and I can't remember the last one.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I remember Rafiq recommending me some of Althusser's works a while ago.
Haven't gotten around reading it yet. Maybe he could shed some light on Althusser.

[BeingAndGrime]

other than his stalinism whats wrong with althusser? his anti-humanism seems pretty spot on to me.

[Rafiq]

just making sure you don't waste your time, although you're free to if you wish so, obviously. basically outside the academy - and even there his influence is dwindling - althusser has no relevance whatsoever. of course, plenty of theory is irrelevant, but you're better off reading well-written theory by folk with half-decent politics than althusser's guff.

Yeah fuck theory, fuck science, fuck everything that's not "relavant" as far as proletarian consciousness goes. Stop calling yourself a Marxist. Marxism isn't a toadie of communism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[ed miliband]

Yeah fuck theory, fuck science, fuck everything that's not "relavant" as far as proletarian consciousness goes. Stop calling yourself a Marxist. Marxism isn't a toadie of communism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

calm down darling, i have no problem with theory. i have a problem with academia and it's usage of marx however, and althusser's influence is incredibly negative here.

[Hit The North]

calm down darling, i have no problem with theory. i have a problem with academia and it's usage of marx however, and althusser's influence is incredibly negative here.

Negative how? Althusser was a provocative writer and he should be read and discussed. I think his structuralist brand of Marxism has real problems but it also contains insights worthy of discussion.

[Rafiq]

calm down darling, i have no problem with theory. i have a problem with academia and it's usage of marx however, and althusser's influence is incredibly negative here.

You have a problem with academia? Why? It would appear you are simply guising your obviously apparent anti-intellectualism with "prolier than thou" nonsense. The sciences, academia are not inherently proletariat, not because they are not "revolutionary" but because only until recently has the proletariat been able to have access to this. Really, this dismissal of intellectualism I should say, stems purely from the garbage postmodernism which pervades on this site, namely that objective reality doesn't exist and all theory, science, etc. is merely the expression of how a certain class perceives reality. It's hilarious, really, because Marxism itself didn't derive "organically" through the revolutionary proletariat but through what you call "academia". As a matter of fact, Marx was only able to sustain his support for communism because of his "academic nature". Marxism was built upon not an "argument for why communizmz will workz n y da workerz shud own da means of da producdions", unlike what your average 14 year old red alert kiddo will suspect. Marxism was built upon a scientific understanding of human social movement, existing social relations and the nature of said relations (this could stem into the superstructure, an understanding of it from the arts to ideology) in the same way Darwin was the forefather of a scientific understanding of biological and natural history. Like I said in a previous thread, I am absolutely disgusted by these so-called "revolutionaries" (who in reality are more irrelevant than people like Althusser, who will strategically and tactically achieve absolutely nothing unlike Althusser who has something to offer to Marxism) who are willing to throw away Marxism's legacy in light of posturing as "active" revolutionaries. It makes things even more infuriating when we are on a fucking internet forum, where things like discussion exist exclusively.

[ed miliband]

You have a problem with academia? Why? It would appear you are simply guising your obviously apparent anti-intellectualism with "prolier than thou" nonsense. The sciences, academia are not inherently proletariat, not because they are not "revolutionary" but because only until recently has the proletariat been able to have access to this. Really, this dismissal of intellectualism I should say, stems purely from the garbage postmodernism which pervades on this site, namely that objective reality doesn't exist and all theory, science, etc. is merely the expression of how a certain class perceives reality. It's hilarious, really, because Marxism itself didn't derive "organically" through the revolutionary proletariat but through what you call "academia". As a matter of fact, Marx was only able to sustain his support for communism because of his "academic nature". Marxism was built upon not an "argument for why communizmz will workz n y da workerz shud own da means of da producdions", unlike what your average 14 year old red alert kiddo will suspect. Marxism was built upon a scientific understanding of human social movement, existing social relations and the nature of said relations (this could stem into the superstructure, an understanding of it from the arts to ideology) in the same way Darwin was the forefather of a scientific understanding of biological and natural history. Like I said in a previous thread, I am absolutely disgusted by these so-called "revolutionaries" (who in reality are more irrelevant than people like Althusser, who will strategically and tactically achieve absolutely nothing unlike Althusser who has something to offer to Marxism) who are willing to throw away Marxism's legacy in light of posturing as "active" revolutionaries. It makes things even more infuriating when we are on a fucking internet forum, where things like discussion exist exclusively.

your positivism is absolutely gross and you really haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

what experience do you have of academia rafiq?

[ed miliband]

Negative how? Althusser was a provocative writer and he should be read and discussed. I think his structuralist brand of Marxism has real problems but it also contains insights worthy of discussion.

it's not althusser's fault as such, but at least from my personal experience althusser and gramsci have been used by academics in arts and humanities departments to develop a depoliticised "marxism" which is dry, fixed and bears no relation to the world outside the university walls. it's marxism as an intellectual ideology or pose rather than as revolutionary theory.

that said, i've been impressed by michael heinrich's intro. to capital, which i believe is based on some engagement with althusser, so that's something...

[Hit The North]

To an extent, it is Althusser's fault as his writing style or, at least, the English translations of it, are dense and difficult. He also operates at the level of philosophy rather than empirical social science and, of course, philosophy only exists in the academy.

As for arts and humanities departments using him to depoliticise Marxism, they need him less now that they've embraced the European hermeutics gang. To even posit the centrality of class antagonisms as a driver of the symbolic order, even in its cultural studies guise, is like an incendiary flash amidst all the dreck from Gadamer and Ricoeur, etc.

[Rafiq]

your positivism is absolutely gross

This made me chuckle. Are you a complete fucking moron? Are you just shit slinging straight out of your ass? Do you even know what fucking positivism is? How the hell could one come to the conclusion that my post was "positivist". Jesus fuck, and you dare accuse me of not having a clue of what I'm talking about?


marxism as an intellectual ideology or pose rather than as revolutionary theory.

Ha! I love this, I fucking love this! There is nothing better than when I level an attack on someone, and, to my fortune, they immediatly dismiss it and proceed to not only make an ass out of themselves, but literally re-assure the legitimacy of my attack, all by themselves. Marxism is not an


"argument for why communizmz will workz n y da workerz shud own da means of da producdions"

It certainly isn't a "revolutionary strategy" (although revolutionary strategy can be formulated utilizing Marxism in certain ways). You're a fucking moron and a waste of time, do everyone a favor and stop posting if you're going to dismiss everything that isn't intrinsically ideological as "irrelevant" (especially when your revolutionary posturing is even more irrelevant).

There is NOTHING more ironic than to call Althusser's works ideological. You're a moron who has absolutely nothing to contribute to this site, or any discussion for that manner, especially since, unsurprisingly, a great many of your posts consist of pointless one-liners which aren't even remotely entertaining. It's scum like you that embaress Marxists. Apparently developments in sociological theory, our perception of human social organisation itself are "lol pointless". No one is pretending Althusser is some great revolutionary.

[ed miliband]

This made me chuckle. Are you a complete fucking moron? Are you just shit slinging straight out of your ass? Do you even know what fucking positivism is? How the hell could one come to the conclusion that my post was "positivist". Jesus fuck, and you dare accuse me of not having a clue of what I'm talking about?

yes, i do. the one vaguely correct thing you've posted here is that i don't contribute anything. i wouldn't say it's totally true, but i'm certainly quite honest about trolling a lot of the time.

you responded to me in a manner that was completely off-mark, i responded to you antagonistically. i engaged with hit the north's post seriously, albeit briefly, because there was some substance to it. your post was hot air, anger about something that was completely irrelevant to the post you quoted.

so let's be clear: i'm not anti-intellectual, i'm not opposed to theory. it's funny i am being accused of this now when i'm usually accused of the exact opposite because of my rejection of activism and the "do something" attitude.

i could not be anti-intellectual or opposed to theory without being a hypocrite. i am a currently reading endnotes on communisation and value-form for fucks sake; i'm a university student who writes papers on things even more esoteric that althusser, renaissance literature and the like.


There is NOTHING more ironic than to call Althusser's works ideological. You're a moron who has absolutely nothing to contribute to this site, or any discussion for that manner, especially since, unsurprisingly, a great many of your posts consist of pointless one-liners which aren't even remotely entertaining. It's scum like you that embaress Marxists. Apparently developments in sociological theory, our perception of human social organisation itself are "lol pointless". No one is pretending Althusser is some great revolutionary.

i didn't call althusser ideological. in fact, in that very post i suggest the issue isn't even althusser per se but his use in the academy, and very specifically in arts and humanities depts.

where on earth do i say "developments in sociological theory, our perception of human social organisation itself are "lol pointless"" - go on, find it? there's nothing in my post that suggests anything remotely like that.

you obviously have an issue with me, that's fair enough. i'm aware of the fact i don't post seriously.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

To an extent, it is Althusser's fault as his writing style or, at least, the English translations of it, are dense and difficult. He also operates at the level of philosophy rather than empirical social science and, of course, philosophy only exists in the academy.

I never came across the social sciences outside of the academy. I don't recall a single instance of discussing Marxism when I was a working man before meeting people who were in some way related to the academy (every Marxist I ever met was either an academic, a student or at least involved in groups that had a strong academic presence, such as the Socialist Party).

I see that the general disdain towards Althusser in this thread is to do with his nature as a philosopher, a member of the academy and then the notion of his 'depoliticized' Marxism as one person put it. All well and good but in return you have to show us your Marxism which exists only in the hands of working people and which is wholly separate from the academy. The joke on you is that pretty much any 'major' Marxist party has academics in its highest ranks and that Marxism is discussed more in the academy than it is in any workplace. That may be hard to swallow and may also be a sad legacy of Marxism itself, but I dare you to enter any workplace and start a discussion about historical materialism and I'd bet the small amount of cash I have in the bank that you would have trouble starting the discussion you desired (if it was the other way round, we might be on the brink of a revolution with Marxism as its intellectual fuel).

This prolier than thou attitude is a part of the same thing I was talking about when I said that Marxists might benefit from breaking away from their dogmas and reading things that were written outside of the Leninist tradition, given that things have changed so much - this might help Marxists to stop waving USSR flags and actually appeal to the working people who they aim to inspire, as opposed to being the culty groups that organize meetings amongst themselves whilst discussing the amount of papers they've sold or how many new recruits they've made. Marxism itself originated in the academy, it is an intellectual tradition. Like it or lump it - that is how it happened. Althusser provides an excellent contribution to Marxist theory, it is up to you to refute it within the intellectual tradition that makes Marxism itself applicable, the tradition that lends you the terms that you use to make your holier than thou slanders.

[Hit The North]

I never came across the social sciences outside of the academy.


A fair point. Empirical social science can exist outside social science departments, such as when research is carried out by organisations like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation or other public sector and voluntary sector organisations - although these, too, will draw often upon the expertise of university departments. However, I guess the real point I would want to make is that there is a difference between empirically-based social science (wherever it is practised) and the kind of philosophising Althusser and many European intellectuals engage in which is often free of empirical evidence. I think that this freedom from fact, often leads this kind of writing into obscurantism or plain fantasy.


I don't recall a single instance of discussing Marxism when I was a working man before meeting people who were in some way related to the academy (every Marxist I ever met was either an academic, a student or at least involved in groups that had a strong academic presence, such as the Socialist Party).
I've met many Marxists in the SWP who have never been to university or who became Marxists before they went to university. And many of them, the overwhelming majority, do not work in academia. Also, I would argue that the Marxist writing produced by actual Marxist activists is empirically based and does not tend to lapse into the obscurantism of the academy.



The joke on you is that pretty much any 'major' Marxist party has academics in its highest ranks and that Marxism is discussed more in the academy than it is in any workplace.This is true and obvious. Although I'll note that many prominent Marxists in the recent past such as Ted Grant, Duncan Hallas and Tony Cliff were not academics. But I don't have anything against academics, only in terms of when they use that as an excuse to engage in the obscure and convoluted and ignore empirical evidence. And I don't deny that Althusser's work might have important insights - as I indicated in a post above.

[blake 3:17]

For what's it worth, the SWP's leading intellectual, Alex Callinicos, is an Althusserian Marxist. His short book on Althusser is not bad. His main criticism of Althusser was that he wasn't a Trotskyist.

There was a thread on Althusser not too long ago: http://www.revleft.com/vb/althussers-later-writings-t176068/index.html

Anybody know anything good on Althusser and Heidegger? There are odd parallels and huge differences.

[Paul Cockshott]

You sold me, sounds like he has some interesting ideas. Where would you say I should start with him?

My library has On Ideology, For Marx, Reading Capital, and I can't remember the last one.

Read on Ideology first, and then Reading Capital.

[TiberiusGracchus]

Read Althusser. He is mostly good imo.

But also read E.P. Thompsons often excellent and always passionate critique of althusserianism in "The Poverty of Theory".

And then finish with Perry Andersons "Arguments Within English Marxism".

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

it's not althusser's fault as such, but at least from my personal experience althusser and gramsci have been used by academics in arts and humanities departments to develop a depoliticised "marxism" which is dry, fixed and bears no relation to the world outside the university walls. it's marxism as an intellectual ideology or pose rather than as revolutionary theory.

that said, i've been impressed by michael heinrich's intro. to capital, which i believe is based on some engagement with althusser, so that's something...
I think that the reason these strands of theory are 'depoliticized' is that they contradict reductionism and see social relations as existing far beyond 'politics'. If you look at it, it isn't as simple as worker v.s. boss but in fact, these social relations are far deeper. That's why Althusser's work on the Ideological State Apparatus is important, because it actually lets us know why most workers read The Sun, watch The X Factor and go and work a shitty job every day (if they're lucky enough to even have one) rather than unionizing and revolutionizing. This simple concept exists far beyond university walls and I always thought that being on the left meant that we want education to be available to anyone who may want it anyway. 'Things are in a constant state of flux and motion' - just as society and just as the theory which conceptualizes it. Althusser is our friend.

Soz for bumping an old post.

[The Douche]

You have a problem with academia? Why? It would appear you are simply guising your obviously apparent anti-intellectualism with "prolier than thou" nonsense. The sciences, academia are not inherently proletariat, not because they are not "revolutionary" but because only until recently has the proletariat been able to have access to this. Really, this dismissal of intellectualism I should say, stems purely from the garbage postmodernism which pervades on this site, namely that objective reality doesn't exist and all theory, science, etc. is merely the expression of how a certain class perceives reality. It's hilarious, really, because Marxism itself didn't derive "organically" through the revolutionary proletariat but through what you call "academia". As a matter of fact, Marx was only able to sustain his support for communism because of his "academic nature". Marxism was built upon not an "argument for why communizmz will workz n y da workerz shud own da means of da producdions", unlike what your average 14 year old red alert kiddo will suspect. Marxism was built upon a scientific understanding of human social movement, existing social relations and the nature of said relations (this could stem into the superstructure, an understanding of it from the arts to ideology) in the same way Darwin was the forefather of a scientific understanding of biological and natural history. Like I said in a previous thread, I am absolutely disgusted by these so-called "revolutionaries" (who in reality are more irrelevant than people like Althusser, who will strategically and tactically achieve absolutely nothing unlike Althusser who has something to offer to Marxism) who are willing to throw away Marxism's legacy in light of posturing as "active" revolutionaries. It makes things even more infuriating when we are on a fucking internet forum, where things like discussion exist exclusively.

Before I get to that bolded stuff, let me say I intend to read Althusser at some point, so there is no need to come after me about that.

But that bit in bold, I think its interesting that you point that out. Do you think that communism is dependent on marxism? Or that Marxism is the best tool/toolbox for the communist project, but not the only one that exists?