In this essay, I try to go through the questions and analysis that Judith Butler puts on Althusser’s work—reading fundamentally and almost exclusively the essay on the “Ideological State Apparatus” from 1970, and the relationship she maintains in her reading with the Freud’s concept of repression and the Lacanian “symbolic order”. My central hypothesis is that it is the Foucauldian reading of Freud and Lacan, begun early in 1990 with Gender Trouble, that guides Butler in his interpretation of the Althusserian (...) concept of interpellation understood almost exclusively from the perspective of the “hailing” example that Althusser provides in his essay from 1970. This leads Butler to a reading that I characterize here as biographical—for its obscene reliance on a particular episode in Althusser’s life: the murder of Helène Rytman—and anti-Cartesian, insofar as it attempts reading the ideological readiness of the subject as something beyond the split of the cogito, and materially effected by an ontological repetition. The problem with Judith Butler's concept of repression is its unappealable juridical nature—which is paradoxical for an erudite reader of Michel Foucault—insofar as the agent of repression appears as analogous to the State and therefore it results assimilable with rebellions “melancholic” subjectivity. This conflation of the psychological and the social is conducive to some mass psychologism, which forgets Althusser’s debt to Lacan when elaborating his theory of ideology. I proceed to investigate the origins of this theory in the text “Three Notes on the Theory of Discourses” (1968) and in the recently published Que faire (2018). My tentative conclusion is that there is an idea of supplementary violence (in the Lacanian sense of plus-de-jouir) constitutive of the unconscious in Althusserian theory of ideology that cannot be overlooked, and that is linked to his reading of Freud. (shrink)

Despite the centrality of ideology critique in the works of Louis Althusser and his students, the Marxian concept of “appearance” as constitutive of the necessary obfuscation of social modes of exchange has not been sufficiently explicated. Furthermore, perceived incompatibility between ideology and commodity fetishism by this group of philosophers has amounted to a critical lacuna in the shape of a materialist theory of the valueform. This essay articulates the concept of appearance as framed by Gilles Deleuze’s concept of expression in (...) an attempt to foreground the structuring relations that immanently determine capital, appearance, and value. By carefully reformulating Marx’s value-form theory through the rationalist metaphysics of Baruch Spinoza, this essay endeavors to produce a value-form theory compatible with the Spinozist Marxist tradition. (shrink)

Though Althusser often spoke of his commitment to philosophical materialism—a position organically linked to his ongoing elaboration of the specific philosophical effects of Marxism—this paper argues that Althusser’s materialism must also include a commitment to realism and naturalism. Though Althusser does not use these terms himself, he nonetheless remains a realist to the extent that he argues for the capacity of conceptual thought to know a mind-independent reality and a naturalist to the extent that he is a consequent Darwinian (like (...) Engels and Lenin before him) who conceives of cognition as a contingent and evolved phenomenon. It is only on the basis of these considerations that Althusser’s polemic against empiricism can be properly understood and the stakes of his philosophical project properly evaluated. (shrink)

In the current “second reception” of Althusser, the concept of the capitalist mode of production as explored in Reading Capital and On the Reproduction of Capitalism has been relatively underdiscussed. The concept, however, remains an important component of larger discussions in Marxist theory. This paper rereads Althusser and Balibar’s early contributions to the concept of the mode of production alongside Marx and contemporary thinkers such as Jairus Banaji. In so doing, preliminary connections are made between Althusser’s second reception and important (...) recent interdisciplinary work on subsumption and heterogenous development. (shrink)

This paper aims to mobilize the concept of “aleatory materialism” from Althusser’s posthumous work “The Underground Current of the Materialism of the Encounter” to theorize the emergence of a capitalist mode of production and analyze theoretical problems of thinking through the emergence of a communist mode of production out of capitalism. A “materialism of the encounter,” with its non-teleological account of causality can theorize the emergence of such a complicated object and help think through transitions without recourse to necessity or (...) sufficient reason. Retroactively, we can identify the discreet encounters that have “taken hold” in the institution of the capitalist mode of production, but we cannot trace with any necessity the islets that would form a communist mode of production. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to revisit some of Louis Althusser’s texts from the 1970s and 1980s in order to examine the relation between Althusser’s conceptualization of a materialism of the encounter and his calls for a new practice of politics as part of a strategy for communism. In particular, I try to discuss Althusser’s reference to political practice and the organizational forms associated with it, at the same time attempting to stress the tensions and aporias running through these (...) interventions. (shrink)

A certain tension cuts across Althusser’s many theoretical experiments: a tension — perhaps even a “paradox”— between science and struggle. In a conjuncture in which a self-defeating skepticism short-circuits the conjunction between science and struggle, it seems vital to reformulate this problem anew. By turning to Althusser’s formulation of the “revolutionary” materialist dialectic in the so-called “theoreticist” texts this essay elaborates a re-formulation of the supposed aporias of this paradox and finds a possible way out of it. Science and struggle (...) are disarticulated insofar as no other practice produces the effect of their conjunction. That is the task of the revolutionary materialist dialectic. Having defined “Althusserianism” as the philosophical practice which continuously produces combinations, conjunctions, or encounters between science and struggle, this essay then turns to the theoretical and political practice of Mauricio Malamud. The variations in the “Althusserianism” of this communist philosopher and militant further displace the apparent paradoxical character of the relation between science and struggle. In the political and theoretical practice of Malamud, this essay encounters both the necessity of theory as “a guide for action” and affirms neither “a scientism without politics” nor a “politicism without science.” . (shrink)