Stop reading Althusser

pathetic tbh

you're stupid

holy fuck you guys are fucking retarded

Marx is approaching this from a specific point of view. As a Hegellian, and as a student of classical political economy. I don't think anyone could come to his same conclusions, especially if you don't devote as much time to studying it.

That's complete bullshit btw.

I don't know why you're trying to discredit Althusser, with this baseless shit.

maybe because they are useless idiots?

He wrote it in a memoir that was published after he died (where he talked about killing his wife). He also plagiarized some of his university work.

completely disgusting

No the fuck it isn't read Marx.
The "epistemological split" is complete bullshit.
One note even notice is that marx even began to reuse Hegelian language later in his life again which ravages Althusser's argument.

Sorry you took him seriously

*One note you can even…

What a completely shit thread: two liner ad hominem OP, source-less and wild claims in comments, complete lack of trying to understand the attacked person.

Really makes me think about these people. I never understood passion for lying and manipulation.

Holy shit, give me evidence of the fucking "split".

If anybody is curious, I saw this discussion from Anarchopac's comment section

...

...

that doesn't even make sense in this context

Althusser was the last great Marxist.

alienation is garbage

Start watching Molyneux.

He has arguments.

And he thinks this is a better analysis than Althusser's epistemological split? Pmsl. And Louis was well aware of the Hegelian and Feurbachian hangovers in Capital so calling him a charlatan is equally ridiculous. It's his whole point that sections of Capital are inadequate because they are still Hegelian or Feurbachian

You fucks aren't even familiar with Althusser. His first writings were on Hegel. He is intimately familiar with Hegelian thought.

versobooks.com/books/1551-the-spectre-of-hegel

His memoir is complete horseshit. He was living in a mental asylum and was not lucid when he wrote it.

Well it's as self-deprecating as it can get, his guilt over his wife really shows and he pisses on himself at every corner.

Anyway, to those really interested about the quarrel over Marx's epistemological break, see ch1. "Reply to John Lewis."

Me irl

Deleuze > Derrida

Thank you.

I'm not a humanist, I think Marx's human-species essence is a weakness in his early theory.

Hey, I'm the one that called him a charlatan, not anarchopac.

Yeah, it absolutely is a better analysis than Althusser's epistemological break. At least he actually bothered to read Marx before speaking about his ideological development, which is a hell of a lot more than Althusser can say.

already addresses the point about The German Ideology and Capital, but Althusser did back away from his initial claim of the epistemological break being a single break, and claimed it was a process instead. Unfortunately, this claim also falls apart when you take into account late Marx, which made a return to Hegelian language and thus topics related to human nature, and more humanistic topics. At best, Althusser's epistemological break is simply just an osculation between Marx describing how capitalism works, and how capitalism affects humanity, but never actually breaking with his previous Hegelian and Humanist past. From my readings of early Marx, it seems more like young Marx laid the philosophical foundations which old Marx built off of, so rather than a split, it's a continual development.

What the fuck does this have to do with the epistemological break? A critique of Marx is one thing, but we're talking about Marx's ideological development, not what Althusser found unsatisfactory the few times he read Marx.

That aside, I mostly just dislike Althusser because he's a pompous ass, more so than other philosophers, which is saying a lot. Even if what he's saying isn't that bad, he says it in a way that just pisses me off.

I'm not a Humanist btw, I just haven't seen any evidence of an epistemological break.

Pic unrelated. I just thought it was funny as fuck.

bump

are you sure older marx discarded that idea?

bump

...

Hey, don't fucking impersonate me. That is my screenshot!

I'm just gonna post this here too.

If you don't want to read the Grundrisse or Marx's Manuscripts, you should check out Marxism and Freedom by Raya Dunayevskaya. It's a Libertarian Marxist text, but it's worth reading for her take on Marx's Humanism and her return to Hegel, and talking about Hegel's relevance in Marxism, since Marx himself was very open about being a disciple of Hegel.
Marx was a Humanist, and Marx did not reject morality as a concept. The Grundrisse and his early manuscripts prove this, as well as the two paragraphs from Capital I'm posting. The other picture is an excerpt from an article called Marx and Morality.
There was no "Epistemological Break." Young Marx simply laid out the philosophic foundations that he later built off of in Capital. Marx in his early works elaborated thoroughly on the desire for mankind to achieve freedom. His humanism was not a bourgeois humanism, but rather a humanism of liberation and total freedom. This is why Marxism is the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat, and more than just theories of how Capitalism functions, but also details the movement from theory to practice, which is also a theory itself.

pdf'd it and figured i might as well post it here

only thing i added was a link to the letter mentioned in the first paragraph

bump

Why are no Althusserists defending their positions?

Was Marx an anti-humanist who discarded morality?

bump

Because there arent really any here

there aren't a bunch of people who claim that Marx was an anti-humanist or rejected morality?
That there was a break between younger and older marx?

I've seen it from multiple posters. Even muke has said it

r u srs
like thats gonna prove anything

most better read posters have ditched this place since it's under constant fire and there is no reason to put any effort into posting here now that it's too popular

bump

Anti-humanism has nothing to do with morality, it's a claim about a lack of human essence. It's a completely separate notion from which some could derive morality.

The epistemological break in Marx's ouvre isn't simply a break with Hegel; it would be called the Hegelian Break then. The epistemological break connotes how Marx came to treat the abstract - concrete pair, namely, ditching the utilitarian/positivist notions of the primacy of the concrete. For Marx (with any science) there's always a set of abstracts (ideologies, pre-scientific theories, hearsays, religions) we have to deal with and we have no direct or pure access to the concrete, since man always already works upon the (ideological or otherwise) work of past generations.

It's not that we ditched the place, it's that you can't argue with people who didn't take the time to understand what they are supposedly disagreeing with.

Yes, it's a left-over from his youth, direct inspiration from Feuerbach's anthropology.