Reading Capital: The Complete Edition by Louis Althusser

by Louis Althusser

Paperback Bunko

Published January 1, 1749

About the author

Louis Pierre Althusser (1918–1990) was one of the most influential Marxist philosophers of the 20th Century. As they seemed to offer a renewal of Marxist thought as well as to render Marxism philosophically respectable, the claims he advanced in the 1960s about Marxist philosophy were discussed and debated worldwide. Due to apparent reversals in his theoretical positions, to the ill-fated facts of his life, and to the historical fortunes of Marxism in the late twentieth century, this intense interest in Althusser's reading of Marx did not survive the 1970s. Despite the comparative indifference shown to his work as a whole after these events, the theory of ideology Althusser developed within it has been broadly deployed in the social sciences and humanities and has provided a foundation for much “post-Marxist” philosophy. In addition, aspects of Althusser's project have served as inspiration for Analytic Marxism as well as for Critical Realism. Though this influence is not always explicit, Althusser's work and that of his students continues to inform the research programs of literary studies, political philosophy, history, economics, and sociology. In addition, his autobiography has been subject to much critical attention over the last decade. At present, Althusser's philosophy as a whole is undergoing a critical reevaluation by scholars who have benefited from the anthologization of hard-to-find and previously unpublished texts and who have begun to engage with the great mass of writings that remain in his archives.

Reviews

[Alexander Ucci · Rating 3 out of 5]

(I would have given this a 3.5/5 stars if it was possible)

Over a month ago I started reading this book and holy fuck I am so glad I am done.

But as a special treat I decided to make a lil review
The TLDR for its contents, and why I chose to read it at all, is basically; its a work by these French structuralist-Marxists (though they reject the label) where they read Capital closley, and try and discover its 'hidden' logic/philosophy.

Now even going in I thought that was a slightly silly undertaking, but Althusser is so influential I figured that I should at least read it myself.

What I found was a 630 page book that contains ideas which should have been expressed in 100 at most - and pages and pages of rambling which makes no fucking sense. If they have any meaning at all, the authors are not good at expressing them.

Still, I am glad I read it!

I would tell everyone, so you dont have to read it, that the main ideas are:

(1) A reinterpretation of fetishism which is partially convincing, but interesting either way.

(2) Interesting points about Capital's
"object" - which are pretty convincing

(3) Some comments about Capital's Labor Theory of Value which were honestly super interesting.

(4) a distinction between the “Hegelian” and Marxist totality.

Going down the list, starting with 1:

Traditionally people interpret Marx's concept of fetishism to refer to a subjective process whereby consumers in capitalist societies loose sight of how products are made - they used to know the dude who make them, or make them themselves, but not they become generalized into these almost magical
'things' which you discover at stores.

BUT in Capital they argue that fetishism refers to a structural process:

They use the example of finance capitalists/finance economists, who believed that investments naturally lead to economic growth (so theoretically if nations invest in 100 or so years they'd have infinite money). Or more narrowly they talk about how for regular agents of production' we believe that thrift, how we save money personally, is how surplus value is generated,

But in both cases it is 'actually' the M-C-M' circut (production itself) which generates surplus value, which then gets re-divided into personal profits.

So in this view fetishism is a strucutral process whereby people need to be tricked about how the system operates in order to fulfill their role.

Now, I think this is a deeply structuralist reading - which does not actually explain human beliefs very well. But an interesting reading nonetheless.

Their second insight (2) is that Capital's object is NOT history, or even capitalism as it actually exists - but a description of the capitalist mode of production's "ideal average" which had yet to manifesto fully in Marx's time.

I think this argument is convincing, as it explains the work itself, and its relationship to history - though it does make me think that Capital itself is very goofy.

(3) In this framework (and related to (1)) they argue that in Capital Volume 3 Marx abandons the labor thoery of value for explaining the price of goods, and INSTEAD argued that it only explains the lump-sum of values: but individual prices, profits, rent, etc., are all sub-divisons of this lump-sum (one result of this being that profit rates are equalized according to industries size, rather than rate of surplus value).

Now they seem to be completely correct interpretation wise, but again, it makes me find Capital to be very silly.

Finally, (4) they make a point about the Hegelian vs Marxist totality - the Hegelian, or expressive, totality referring to ‘when all elements of a system express the same logic and the determinant element’ - but honestly it’s not clear to me what the Marxist totality is: but their definition of the Hegelian totality is strong.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you're looking for an introduction to Capital, you won't find it here. The essays are dense, verging on opaque. Balibar and Althusser are the pick of the bunch. Establet's contribution is less than ideal. Still, a worthwhile read if you're interested in what Structuralism really means. It may not be what you think