> The essential proposition is false, by the way. History is a process
> with a subject (many, in fact). And there is a relationship between
> his beliefs, and his practise: His theory was an otiose aplogetic
> for Stalinism, and a polemic against human agency.
>
> But no, in itself, the fact that he was a shit, does not itself
> prove the theory shitty. But it was.
The connection between the "theory" and Althusseur's psychotic psychopathology does explain, however, the immunity of the "theory" and "anti-humanism" in general to rational critique.
Emphasis on the "shitty" aspect, however, ignores the role of unmastered sadistic, murderous aggressiveness in the particular form of psychopathology involved.
Ted