[OPE-L:4320] Re: Althusser and Hegel

Paul Zarembk (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Sat, 8 Mar 1997 12:26:18 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Gerald Levy wrote:

> True enough, but there are divisions within Althusserianism as well. Is it
> not so? (see Callari & Ruccio ed book for examples).

In fact, I disagree with Amherst "Althusserians" to the extent that I
would have trouble calling them Althusserians at all--to me, a basic
principle of Marxism and of Althusser is determination in the last
instance by the economy and I believe all of the Amherst MA
"Althusserians" pull that out from their conception of Marx and Althusser
(if I wrong on this, someone please let me know, e.g. Steve or Bruce on
this list). I have been at a number of conferences where this criticism
has been made (and I was one of those doing the criticism), but the
problem (for me) is that many who make the criticism come from a
non- or anti-Althusserian perspective.

Since we are into Hegel, for the moment anyway, I have never felt a great
urgency to understand Hegel to understand Marx. Lenin once said it is an
absolute necessity, but it just never seemed important to me, given all
the other theoretical developments Marxism needs. Actually, I hope we
don't get too diverted into Hegel, and in any case I will not be able to
defend this paragraph with any cogency.


> Well ... as I have said repeatedly since our conception ... I don't have
> all the answers either. In fact, I am highly suspicious of anyone who
> claims to have all of the answers (folks of that type can be found with
> frequency on some of the marxism lists, right Paul Z?).

You are right on, on this one, Jerry.

Paul Z. (how many Paul's on the list now?)