The following text has been automatically reproduced by an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) algorithm. It may not have been checked over by human eyes. For matters of precision please consult the original pdf.

Doctor Althusser, Swansea and Belgrade, RPG Reports

Doctor Althusser
In June Louis Althusser, of international reputation and after having
taught for twenty-five years at the
Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris,
travelled to Amiens to defend his
doctoral ‘thesis’ before a local
jury. It has not been explained
1Io1hy Al thusser bQthered to do this
or what it mea~t to him personally
or politically .to submit himself to
this particular exercise. As is
the custom th~ occasion was open to
the public and was attended by some
of Althusser/s friends (Macciochi,
Debray) and;was well advertised in
the local Cpmmupist press.

Althusser i~ fact offered as his
doctoral ‘thesis’ his published
works (on Montesquieu, For Marx,
Reading Capital, translation of
Feuerbach) and gave, according to
Le Monde, ‘an astonishing performance’, an account lasting an hour
and a half of his philosophical
views and their development. It
will be impossible from now on,
says the Le Monde correspondent,
to write about Althusser without
making reference to this exposition. The Nouvel Observateur
gives the following account of
parts of Althusser’s speech.

Althusser explained himself: that
was why this was an event. First
of all the question everyone has
been asking: what of Althusser’s
political position since May 68?

For the first time he spelled it
out really clearly:

‘This intervention (in philosophy)
has been that of a member of the
Communist Party, acting from within the Party, within the workers’

movement … even though he was
for a long time isolated there,
even though he was not always
heard there, even though he was
and still is criticised there … ‘

He has thus never been doing
anything other than politics. His
politics have never been other than
that of the PCF. He has never had
any other concern than to influence
its leadership.’

But still, we have not been dreaming all this time. It was in
Althusser’s name that a whole generation of his students at the Ecole
Normale broke with the Communist
student organisation and with
official marxism. It was in his
name and that of his legendary
‘rigour’ and of his slogans that
so many had the courage to think
and–to struggle – in the first
place against the CP. And when,
in December 1966, a handful of
philosophers held the founding
congress of the Union des Jeunes
Communistes marxistes-leninistes

where French Maoism was born, it
was again from his works that they
drew their rationale.

Paradox? Perhaps not. Remember
Machiavelli, said Althusser. In
order to persuade the real Prince
he spoke in the name of an imaginary Prince who existed only in his


books. Althusser, to make himself heard in his own Party, had
to speak in the name of another.

Conclusion: to be listened to as
a Communist philosopher he had, in
a sense, to be the pioneer of

What does this mean concretely,
and what exactly is the new political position involved?

Althusser says:

I would never have written anything were it not for the XXth
Congress and Kruschev’s critique
of Stalinism and the subsequent

But I would never
have written these books i f I had
not seen this affair as a bungled
destalinisation, a right-wing
destalinisation which instead of
analyses offered us only incantations; which instead of Marxist
concepts had available only the
poverty of bourgeois ideology.

My target was therefore clear:

these humanist ravings, these
feeble dissertations on liberty,
labour or alienation which were
the effects of all this among
French Party intellectuals. And
my aim was equally clear: to make
a start on the first left-wing
critique of Stalinism, a critique
that would make it possible to
reflect not only on Kruschev and
Stalin but also on Prague and Lin
Piao: that would above all help
put some substance back into the
revolutionary project here in the

much ink has been spent, and which
Althusser, against all the evidence
has sought up to now to minimize.

Why? Because an Hegelian is,
schematically, someone who believes
in a dialectic which has all the
characteristics of the Christian
Providence, in which contradictions
appear only in order to be immediately resolved, in which history
has an end towards which the course
of events is leading us gently and
without danger or surprise. Because an over-Hegelian Marxist
reproducing this metaphysical
schema in his politics believes
that the dialectic is there to
overcome all the problems, that
the bourgeoisie produces its own
grave-diggers, capital its own
anti-bodies, and that the new
world is already here in the womb
of the old just waiting to be born.

To all of which Althusser has
wanted to oppose his view that
concretely things never happen
like that; that some revolutions
become frozen, that others are
abortive or are not made at all:

that history can-wander, without
direction, decentred: that the
revolution is not inevitable and
that no mechanism automatically
brings it about: that politics, in
other words, has its own force,
contrary to the economism of
present-day communist parties.

To ~ell it out clearly: to deny
Marxism’s Hegelian heritage is to
adopt Mao’s slogan: ‘Politics in
command’ •
Curious language, of course, in
defence of an academic thesis.

The jury, rather disconcerted,
retired to deliberate. Their
decision: Althusser was awarded a
‘mention tres honorable’.

Swansea Bc Belgrade

Since this was the meaning of my
intervention one should not be
surprised at the paradoxes, the
provocations, the approximations
and the mistakes which are
scattered throughout my books.

Yes, I have made mistakes. Yes,
I have blundered.

I know that I
have sometimes shocked you.

for me philosophy is something of
a battlefield. It has its frontlines, its entrenched positions,
its strongholds, its frontiers.

I have made use of Hegel in order
to launch an assault on the fortress of Descartes.

I have turned
the weapon of Spinoza against

I have always been rough
in my use of references and quotations.

But that was not the
problem. The urgent thing was
‘think at the limit’ and, as my
peasant grandfather taught me,
to bend the rod of theory in the
other direction, to open the way,
against the dominant ideas, for
completely new political thought.


An example of this kind of provocation: the famous relationship
between Marx and Hegel on which so

A rather obscure editorial in the
July issue of Philosophy presents
its readers with a distinction between ‘open’ and ‘totalitarian’

universities. The editorial .attempts a variation of the ‘if you
don’t like it here, go back to
Moscow!’ argument that all leftwing demonstrators will be familiar
with: ‘It is to be hoped,’ says
the editorial, ‘that our own philosophical radicals, currently conducting in Radical Philosophy a
witch-hunt against Prof. D.Z.

Philiips, are as aware of the
differences as of the similarities
between Swansea and Belgrade.’

As regards Belgrade, it is to be
hoped that our own philosophical
reactionaries will read the document produced by the Belgrade
philosophers and published in the
last issue of Radical Philosophy.

As regards Swansea, where there
was a question of a philosophy
lecturer being dismissed for his
trade’ union activities (a case
taken up in Radical Philosophy 9)
it is good to be able to report
that the Industrial Relations
Court has ruled that his dismissal
was indeed unfair.

Download the PDFBuy the latest issue