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?