A review of recent French and Latin-American work on Althusser suggests that the received interpretations of the latter’s work may profitably be re-examined. The notion that there exists an early, middle and late Althusser, each distinct from the others in important ways, is called radically into question by this body of scholarship. Various authors show the presence of an aleatory dimension, usually associated with the late Althusser, in even his most ‘structuralist’ concepts. These works help us read Althusser in a (...) new way. (shrink)

As an accompaniment to the translation into English of Louis Althusser's 'Letter to the Central Committee of the PCF, March 18th, 1966', this note provides the historical and theoretical context necessary to understand Althusser's 'anti-humanist' interventions into French Communist Party policy decisions during the mid-1960s. Because nowhere else in Althusser's published writings do we see as clearly the political stakes involved in his philosophical project, nor the way in which this project evolved from a 'theoreticist' pursuit into a more practical (...) one, the note also argues that the letter is of importance to Althusser scholars, to historians of Marxist thought, and to those interested in the relevance of Althusser's work to contemporary Marxist philosophy. (shrink)

Inspired by Louis Althusser’s polemic that Marxism is a science and not a philosophy, we enquire about the nature of this ‘scientificity’ of Marxism. The result is a clarification that Marxism is a social theory within the discourse of hermeneutics. Drawing on William Dilthey’s categorisation of human science as Geisteswissenschaft, which essentially is an interpretive science when differentiated from Naturwissenschaft, we point out that Marxism should be understood and used as a socio-hermeneutic theory. We highlight that at the pinnacle of (...) his intellectual development that resulted in Das Kapital, Marx produced a scientific principle for interpreting historical social formations and the human condition, particularly during the capitalist epoch. The description of the scientific character of this hermeneutic principle, set against what Althusser attempted, and motivated by the quest for a contemporaneous application of Marxist theory, is the mission of our paper. It is a contribution to the Philosophy of Social Science. (shrink)

While the ‘mechanosphere’ is a concept mentioned only six times in A Thousand Plateaus, it is fundamental to the way Deleuze and Guattari construct their geophilosophy. In this article, I argue that the mechanosphere solves what Louis Althusser calls the idealist coupling of mechanism and spiritualism implicit in Teilhard de Chardin's noosphere and in Jacques Monod's appropriation of the term. My contention is that the mechanosphere must be contextualised within Althusser's critique of Monod, delivered during the ‘Philosophy Course for Scientists’ (...) at the École normale supérieure rue d'Ulm in 1967. Reading A Thousand Plateaus against Monod's Chance and Necessity and Althusser's Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of Scientists, I argue that the mechanosphere evacuates the spectre of an ‘idealist tendency’ latent in Monod's molecular science. By refashioning Teilhard's Omega point, Deleuze and Guattari create a sphere that serves as an asymptote on the horizon of ecological history – a projected point of complete destratification between the production of human subjects and planetary ecology. Ultimately, the mechanosphere nuances contemporary treatments of the Anthropocene, asking us to consider not only how humanity is overwhelming natural forces, but also how the former category is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the latter. (shrink)

Cette note devait introduire à un public anglophone la traduction de la « Lettre de Louis Althusser datée du 18 mars 1966 et adressée au Comité central du PCF », elle est ici enrichie dans une version livrée au public français. Elle apporte le contexte historique et théorique nécessaire à la compréhension des interventions « anti-humanistes » de Louis Althusser qui questionne les choix politiques opérés par le PCF au cours des années 1960. Nulle part ailleurs, dans les écrits publiés (...) d’Althusser, nous ne voyons aussi clairement les enjeux politiques imbriqués dans son projet philosophique, ni comment ce projet évolua progressivement d’une entreprise « théoriciste » à la recherche d’une philosophie en lien plus étroit avec la pratique. Cette lettre nous paraît de la plus haute importance pour les spécialistes de l’œuvre d’Althusser, les historiens de la pensée marxiste, mais aussi plus largement à tous ceux qui s’intéressent à l’importance que peut revêtir le travail d’Althusser dans les débats actuels dans le champ de la philosophie marxiste. (shrink)

During the Cold War and especially after the failure of Stalinism, Althusser tried to give a contribution to build up a new Marxism by the production of an original "theory of ideology". The result was the draft of a new political philosophy: the so-called "aleatory materialism" that is a philosophy of contingency (or a philosophy of the un-necessary). Using at the same time Machiavelli, Spinoza and Marx, Althusser proposed an explanation of the birth of society and State with reference neither (...) to the doctrine of natural law nor to contractualism. In the althusserian theory, the ideology (persuasion without constraint) is necessary in order to interpellate the individuals into subjects. But the ideology can fail because the class struggle is aleatory in its effects. So, beyond every kind of functionalism, a revolution is always possible starting from a deviation (clinamen), that may be the prelude of a structural yielding and so an occasion to transform the old structures or to construct something totally new. (shrink)