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.

Stuart


Partial thread listing: