RE: Foucault and capital

Not much to add to this

> 5. Stuart Elden says that Montag's "recent book on Althusser made me
> rethink a number of things about him." I certainly agree that this book
> is valuable and insightful; what I would suggest is that it does not
> tell the whole story. It explains Althusser's literary theory and
> Macherey's elaboration of those views in his first big book. Catherine
> Belsey, Terry Eagleton (whose views Montag notes), Tony Bennett, John
> Frow and others also elaborate those views and like Macherey go on to
> repudiate them on very different grounds, but Montag does not discuss
> these developments. Like McInerny he implies that Althusserians are all
> doing the same thing.

but i would say that yes, it's obvious Montag's study is a limited one. it's
in a series, and does treat the literary theory angle predominantly. but
it's useful in the way it approaches both the texts of Althusser, the
posthumous publications, and various commentaries. I found the short
discussion notes on the various texts very useful, and therefore don't
understand your last sentence above.

When I met Montag, at a Foucault conference in France, the way he talked
about Althusser made me reconsider what i thought of the latter. I still
think his reading of Marx's development is seriously flawed, but i'm
prepared to accept that there is much more going on. Montag's book renewed
this sense.


Partial thread listing: