1). Althusser in interpreting Marx revived the Stalinist distinction between the 'young' Marx and the 'older' Marx. For Althusser the 'young' Marx and the 'older' were separated by an 'epistemological rupture' between a Marx committed to a Hegelian-Feuerbachian humanism and a Marx committed to a science of history conceived of as a 'process without a subject.' As formulated by Althusser this argument was seriously deficient as a reading of Marx's texts. Undoubtedly as Marx matured his work manifested changes in emphasis as he went from abstract philosophy to political economy but Althusser's interpretation is difficult to justify on a full reading of Marx's texts. Indeed, I doubt there is any prominent Marx scholars who would take it seriously.
2). ALthusser emphasized the scientificity of Marx's work yet Althusser's own conception of science is open to question. His conception of the three Generalities seems to have pretty idealist in character. In this and other respects ALthusser drew upon the work of his teacher Gaston Bachelard who was one of the sources of pomo theorizing on science.
3). Althusser as an interpreter of Marx had the bad habit of reading many of his own idiosyncratic ideas concerning Marx into Marx's texts. There is IMO nothing wrong with using Marx's texts as a springboard for developing ones own theorizing about social reality. But to develop one's own idiosyncratic interpretations and then read these back into Marx's writings and claim that this what Marx "really said" seems to me to be disingenuous.
Althusser was no doubt a looney toon. Nietzsche was too of course but much of his work is quite valuable. The value of a thinker's must ultimately be judged on this basis of whether it coheres together, whether it provides compelling explanations of external reality, whether it can provide an effective guide for practice and so on. IMO there is some valuable insights in Althusser's writings but there also some serious deficiencies.
Jim Farmelant
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:46:11 +0100 Mark Jones <Jones_M at netcomuk.co.uk>
writes:
>Carrol, Althusser was another of these ouanqueres and a real loony
>toon. He
>retracted his denial, but I reckon its obvious he never read Capital.
>So 'Lire
>le Capital' was just a neopomo joke.
>
>Mark
>
>Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> I remember very vaguely about an announcement by Althusser near the
>end of
>> his life to the effect that he had never read *Capital*. I assume my
>> memory is at least partly false, but I wondered if anyone on this
>list
>> happens to have knowledge of anything like this.
>>
>> (I'm reading a critique of Althusser, parts of which suggest that if
>he
>> did read *Capital* he didn't really pay much attention to it.)
>>
>> Carrol
>
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]