Is the Young Marx/Old Marx distinction legit?

Is the Young Marx/Old Marx distinction legit?

Other urls found in this thread:

thecharnelhouse.org/2013/10/29/alienation-reification-and-the-fetish-form-traces-of-the-hegelian-legacy-in-marx-and-marxism/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No.

He was a massive shitposter his entire life

Is the Junghegelianer/Althegelianer distinction legit?

Why is he so unpopular?

Yes, and no. The focus and method of the project changed, certainly, but the disruption with humanism seems ridiculous.

Sort of. I think Althusser is right when he says that we shouldn't read Marx's earlier drafts and works as gospel, especially when he contradicts them in later works.

Didn't he himself later say it wasn't?

legit

bump

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bless you, thugger.

Later Marx is certainly more based and less humanistic

His ideas develop and his writings mirror this over his life, but the idea of a defined or distinct break, like Althusser proposes, is quite a mistake in my view. It is a gradual move away from Hegelian ideas into more economic understanding, which necessarily affects his philosophy and politics.

The idea is that Althusser was coming out against currents in the Italian CP and the USSR CP during a time when CP's were being basically revisionist and using Marxist humanism as a cover.

I think it is pretty clear, reading Marx's E&P Manu's and the German Ideology, and "The Young Marx" that there was indeed an epistemological breakā€¦but that doesn't mean that we should dial back the scope of the socialist revolution or Marxism. To me, we just need to strictly and consciously separate what Althusser calls 'Theory' (historical materialism, scientific methodology etc) from theory (philosophy, ideology, so many metaphors). There is a fire in the young Marx that we would do well not to extinguish but keep burning in ourselves.

Addendum: I don't think epistemological break should be taken to mean something like that they are two totally different people, one who's works count and one who's don't. I can't explain it rigorously or systematically, but the combined unity and rupture in Marx is his own development, dialectical or not.

Comparing the Frankfurt School and Althusser on the question of alienation.
thecharnelhouse.org/2013/10/29/alienation-reification-and-the-fetish-form-traces-of-the-hegelian-legacy-in-marx-and-marxism/

I actually just wrote my final dissertation for my philosophy degree on this question. Will post here for comments when I get my grade back in a couple weeks if anyone is interested.

why wait for the grade?

In case its either really really bad (in which case I will maybe rewrite things) or really really good, enough to maybe get into a journal for publication or something - I would still want to distribute it for free of course but I'd want to know where I stood legally if this unlikely possibility happens. I'm expecting it to be good but not that good, really, so probably will just post it here when marks are released

I understand, makes sense. What sources did you use?

A whole lot of Marx, obviously, and a bunch of other theorists on his work. I reference Althusser, Averni, Fromm, Joe McCarney and more besides. Bibliography will be included when I post the essay. Thanks for your interest comrade, its very affirming :)

Color me interested, too.

From who?

Erich Fromm?

Erich from where?

Frankfurt

Genuinely laughed