On Althusser’s Contributions and the Origins of Communist Insights
Posted by Mike E on January 23, 2009
Three Essays by Mike Ely
- The Dialectics of Marx, Althusser & Mao: That Lonely Hour of Last Instance
- The RCP’s Debt to Louis Althusser: Why It Matters
- On Althusser and the RCP in Decline
A Related Letter from Karl Marx:
It has to be asserted (and thought through) that the exploration of concepts developed outside the communist movement (including by thinkers who are not themselves communists) is not inherently a betrayal of Marxism, it is not inherently a turning away from Marxism. It is one of the ways that Marxism itself learns, and expands, and deepens. And (as Marx did with the Hegelian dialectic, and as Mao did with the dialectics of traditional chinese philosophy) such borrowing is a difficult process of transformation and critical assimilation.
One example of how communist have been able to learn from others: A great deal was learned from the works of Steven J. Gould (the radical evolutionary biologist). I can’t capsulize it all here…. but his work was characterized by several things I’ll note in passing: One was the ability to appreciate the value of wrong ideas (in a provocative and materialist way) including by uncovering what was correct within concepts that were (overall) wrong. Second Gould increasingly over his life went to war with determinism and teleology — and fought against inventing non-existing tendencies within nature (for example there is no tendency for life to go from simple to complex). His explorations (even though he personally went further away from materialism in his theory of “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” NOMA) helped propell the RCP to a deeper criticism of “inevitabilism” in Marxism — taking up the battle against remaining teleology in communist thought (a battle where Althusser and others have already made great contributions).”
“I think Althusser’s concepts were included in the RCP’s 1984 book America In Decline because the co-authors Ray Lotta and Frank Shannon thought these concepts were valuable (even necessary). I think they went unacknowledged because full acknowledgment would have gone against the concept of Marxism and synthesis that Avakian was already then formulating. Avakian’s conception of Marxism’s development and leaps — first laid out in Mao’s Immortal Contributions, then elaborated explicitly in For a Harvest of Dragons has very little room, conceptually, for the engagement or indebtedness to radical thinkers outside the most narrowly defined ‘international communist movement.’”
Karl Marx writes:
“There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.”
comradezero said
Those intersted in all of this might find the essay “The Legacy of Mao and Althusser” by Liu Kang interesting. It is in Critical Perspectives on Mao Zedong’s Thought edited by Arif Dirlik, et al (1997). Actually, the entire volume is pretty fascinating.
Mike S. said
Hello Kasama comrades,
I wanted to let you all know about a lengthy new reflection on Althusser by Don Hamerquist, long-time revolutionary and former member of the Sojourner Truth Organization. Since his piece was inspired by some of these discussions here on Kasama, I wanted to make sure people knew about it. Some teasers:
You can check the rest of it out here. Comments are more than welcome, either here or there.
Solidarity,
Mike
PS. Thanks for the “Basic Geek Skills” post. If this comment doesn’t look totally messed up, that post is the reason why!
Mike S. said
Oops, a here’s a more precise link.
Tell No Lies said
Mike S,
Thanks so much for that link. I have enormous respect for STO’s theoretical work in general and Don Hammerquist’s in particular and really look forward to reading the whole piece. (BTW your first link worked for me while your second one didn’t.) I think it would be great to see Don’s piece up on Kasama where it might recieve even wider attention (not to suggest that your site devoted to the history of STO doesn’t get massive traffic of course ;-)).
As someone who has done a lot to promote Althusser here I want to be clear that my view of him is not uncritical. Rather I think he is important and needs to be engaged by anybody who is serious about developing revolutionary theory in the 21st century. As Don notes Althusser has come up a lot because his work is such a good example of work that has obviously influenced Avakian but that he wierdly refuses to cite. “Althusser” thus has become here a sort of marker Avakian’s intellectual shoddiness for those who need one. Whether Avakian really understands Althusser, whether Althusser’s own work should be viewed as internally coherent and consistent, and which particular contributions of his are of value is a whole different matter.