Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:44:48 PST
Subject: Re: M-I: Althusser
From: farmelantj-AT-juno.com (James Farmelant)


In Chapter 18 of his memoirs _The Future Lasts Forever_    Althusser
wrote the following concerning the method he used in developing his
Marxist philosophy:

	In short, I became a Marxist as a result of all my personal
	experiences, as well as the things I read and the associations I
	made. I began to think of Marxism in my own way, though I now
	realise it was not exactly the way Marx himself thought.  I can
	see that what I essentially tried to do was make Marx's
	theoretical texts intelligible in themselves and for us readers,
	because they were often obscure and contradictory, if not
	deficient in respect of certain key points.  I am also aware I
	had two driving ambitions in undertaking this task.  First
	and most importantly, I did not want to resort to mere
storytelling
	either about reality itself or the reality of Marx's thought.  
	Thus I sought to distinguish between what I referred to as
	the ideology (of his youth) and his later thought, which	
	I believed represented 'nature just as it exists without
	any admixture' (Engels).  'Not to indulge in storytelling'
	still remains my one and only definition of materialism.
	Secondly, in 'thinking for myself' (a phrase of Kant and
	taken up by Marx), I tried to make Marx's thought clear
	and coherent to all who read him in good faith and want
	to understand his theory.  Naturally, it meant that my
	exposition of Marxist theory took on its own particular
	form, as a result of which a good many militants
	and specialists had the feeling I invented my own
	view of Marx and an imaginary version of Marxism
	(Raymond Aron), which was far removed from the
	real Marx.  I willingly accepted this, since in fact I
	suppressed everything which seemed incompatible
	with his materialist principles as well as the remaining
	traces of ideology, especially the apologetic categories
	of the 'dialectic' and even the dialectic itself, which
	seemed to me to serve only in his famous 'laws'
	as an apology (justification) after the event for what
	had happened in the uncertain historical process,
	and which was used by the Party leadership to justify
	its decisions.  On this issue I never deviated, and that
	is why my own version of Marxist theory, which offered
	a corrective of Marx's own literal thought on a number of
	issues, brought forth countless attacks from those
	who clung to the letter of what Marx had written.  Yes,  I
	accept I created a Marxist philosophy which was different
	from the vulgar one, but since it provided the reader
	with a coherent and intelligible interpretation rather
	than a contradictory one, I thought I had achieved my
	objective and 'appropriated' Marx by restoring to him
	what he required: coherence and intelligibility.  Moreover,
	it was the only possible way of 'breaking' the orthodoxy of
	the disastrous Second International which had given Stalin
	free rein.


In short Althusser admits that he had interpreted Marx by reconstructing
his own
version of Marxism (in terms of French structuralism).  In this Althusser
was perhaps
not so unique.  Other Marxist philosophers have similarly developed their
own reconstructions of Marx in light different philosophical
perspectives.  Thus Plekhanov
reconstructed Marx in light of Feuerbachian materialism, Kautsky
reconstructed Marx
in light of Darwinism (as popularized by Haeckel).  Bogdanov had
attempted to reconstruct Marxism in light of Ernst Mach.  Later on
Sidney Hook attempted a reconstruction in light of Dewey
while Analytical Marxists have attempted reconstructions in light of
Anglophone philosophy and Rational Choice theory.  All these thinkers
attempted to give Marx
coherence and intelligibility by imposing their own philosophical
perspectives on
Marx's texts.

Moreover, these various reconstructions of Marx must be understood in
terms of the politics of the times in which these thinkers lived. 
Althusser made it clear that his
hostility to the "laws of dialectics' was motivated in part by his
hostility to the Stalinist
leadership of the French Communist Party which used 'dialectics' to
rationalize whatever their political line happened to be at a given
time.


                             James F.


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---