Reading Capital: The Complete Edition

Althusser's reading of Capital is a theoretical exegesis of the act of reading a body of work itself. Althusser deals with the complexity of the Marxian project with all the tools of the structuralist tool-box, arguing in favor of a synchronic analysis of the array of concepts. Additionally, Althusser makes significant epistemological contributions to the our understanding of the fetishism of the commodity; he argues that there is an epistemological block inherent to capital, that the system by its nature obscures itself. However, Althusser establishes his own epistemology which identifies two worlds-the object and the object of knowledge-which he is never able to adequately resolve. Still, this remains a crucial text in the reception of Marx's philosophical status.

This is Althusser's and Balibar's unique interpretation of key methodological features of Marx's 'Capital'. The book launched a school of thought within Marxism, sometimes labeled Althusserian Marxism and sometimes Structuralist Marxism. Althusser was to later engage in self-criticism of some of its key concepts, such as the demarcation bewteen science and ideology, but much of its epistemology (esp. a division between theoretical and real objects, and scientific practice being a process of 'knowledge-production') and ontology (esp. multi-dimensional causality) remain valuable, interesting and fresh. That said, this is a difficult work not only because it requires extensive background knowledge of Marx and philosophy of science, and not only because the arguments are long and involved, but also because of the annoying use of neologisms (e.g. 'overdetermination') and unusual definitions of common words (e.g. 'empiricism').

Louis Althusser/ Etienne Balibar- Reading Capital This, alongside his momentous For Marx, has always been my favorite text from Althusser. It is so rigorous, so precise and so keen that one is often astonished by the attention devoted to seemingly trivial minutiae. Yet these subtleties make all the difference when reading Marx, and Althusser makes one feel like a bit of an idiot for being so careless in one's reading habits. What makes this text so stunning is the fact that it never veers into pedantry, despite its stringent meticulousness. Hobsbawm remarks on the back cover that "one reads him with excitement", and I would have to concur- if you have struggled through Das Kapital as many times as I have, marveling at its stirring lyricism and Promethean poetry, it is likely that you have missed the `epistemological break' that distinguishes it from its Western heritage. The understated elegance of Althusser's exposition contrasts with the impact that it registers upon even the most seasoned readers of Marx. In classically French style, the iconoclastic force of its content is dissimulated by its sober, clinical language. Of course, the weaknesses of Althusserian Marxism have been revealed by luminaries like Badiou (in his earliest essays, in the Theory of the Subject and in Metapolitics), Laclau/Mouffe and Zizek (Sublime Object of Ideology). Laclau and Mouffe are, perhaps, right in saying that Althusser is incapable of taking his leave of economistic idealism altogether, holding as he does to his hypothesis of `economic in the last instance'. This lacuna prevents Althusser from elaborating a truly materialist dialectic (yet is it really the case that the Marxist fixation on 'political economy' should be dismissed as a retrograde essentialism? Read Zizek's fiery defense of Althusser in his 'In Defense Of Lost Causes'). Still, the innovations of these thinkers would be unthinkable without Althusser- he transposed the study of Marx onto a different ground, `changing elements' and devising a new problematic for philosophical practice. To get a tentative grasp on Althusser, I would suggest that you read, as preliminary preparation, the entirety of For Marx, especially his discussions on overdetermined contradiction and the Marxist dialectic. Badiou's typology of situations, which attempts to break with every sort of naturalism and metaphysics altogether (even the Spinozist vitalism of Deleuze), would be altogether unthinkable without Althusser's retrieval of Mao and Lenin. Althusser's greatest contribution to Marxism, I think was his concerted, unflinching effort to purge it of every trace of idealism and historicism. More importantly, he tried to develop a consummately materialist dialectic, one that would require unsparing scientific effort and analysis on the part of militant intellectuals. We may not agree with Althusser's conclusions, but we cannot help but thank him for his conscientiousness. Oh, Balibar's section is brilliant too, and of

It's almost impossible to understand Marx's specific theoretical and methodological positions 150 years after. Not because they're exceptionally difficult, rather that they've been obfuscated by generations of pro- and anti- ideologues. Althusser's project is to reconstruct Marx's theoretical practices at a very high level of rigor, clarifying, for example, the specific differences between Hegel's understanding of "dialectics" and Marx's. In doing so he produces a series of new concepts: "structure in dominance", "overdetermination", "problematic", "epistemological break", "combinatory" and others. While none of these *terms* is present in Marx's writing, the things they refer to definitely are. In turn, this labor makes it possible to clearly understand the theoretical differences between Marx's early works and his mature ones; that is, between his "Feuerbachian" youth and his Marxist maturity. This is a difficult work, but a profoundly rewarding one for those interested in what it is that makes Marx Marx.