The Future Lasts Forever: A Memoir

Rating:
Summary: Dear Stalin: "Alas, ... [he is] no Rousseau"
Review: A review in New Republic by Tony Judt of Althusser's posthumous The Future Lasts Forever implements what might be called the standard reactionary reading of that "curious" autobiographical document. Judt was, at least initially, correct in refusing to read the text as a "Rousseau-like confession", although he claims, and not incidentally, that Althusser would have us read it as such. Curiously enough, however, Althusser cites the exact reason as Judt for encouraging readers to repress the inclination to read the memoir as his Rousseaudian "Confession": he is simply not up to the challenge, at least in the sense that he has no pretensions concerning originality and philosophical profundity. Rather than Rousseau, Althusser sounds more like a victim of a Stalinist inquisition: all he has to do is to confess his guilt, explain in vulgar psychologistic terms his aberrant psychoanalytic constitution. He would have been wise to adopt the Deleuzian stance of, "I have nothing to admit" - who cares if Althusser only studied Vol. 1 of Das Kapital? This would be the effective hystericization of Judt's position in his review. Thus, it is not that he overidentifies with Althusser, takes him too literally, but that he does not identify with him enough - that is, we must take Althusser at his word when he says, "Alas, I am no Rousseau".

Rating:
Summary: perhaps best read symptomatically
Review: A review in New Republic by Tony Judt of Althusser's posthumous The Future Lasts Forever implements what might be called the standard reactionary reading of that "curious" autobiographical document. Judt was, at least initially, correct in refusing to read the text as a "Rousseau-like confession", although he claims, and not incidentally, that Althusser would have us read it as such. Curiously enough, however, Althusser cites the exact reason as Judt for encouraging readers to repress the inclination to read the memoir as his Rousseaudian "Confession": he is simply not up to the challenge, at least in the sense that he has no pretensions concerning originality and philosophical profundity. Rather than Rousseau, Althusser sounds more like a victim of a Stalinist inquisition: all he has to do is to confess his guilt, explain in vulgar psychologistic terms his aberrant psychoanalytic constitution. He would have been wise to adopt the Deleuzian stance of, "I have nothing to admit" - who cares if Althusser only studied Vol. 1 of Das Kapital? This would be the effective hystericization of Judt's position in his review. Thus, it is not that he overidentifies with Althusser, takes him too literally, but that he does not identify with him enough - that is, we must take Althusser at his word when he says, "Alas, I am no Rousseau".

Rating:
Summary: Self-annihilation or self-apotheosis?
Review: I like Althusser. He was the first to try to fit the esoteric Heidegger, as presented by Jean Hyppolite in Logic and Existence, together with Marx. There had been attempts (by Sartre and Henri Lefebvre) to put the explicit Heidegger together with Marx, but no one was buying it, since the German thinker disavowed humanism. Hence Althusser's rather bizarre (to contemporary eyes at least) claim that you need to READ Marx correctly, that is find all the esoteric truths in Capital, to have a revolution.

Althusser was a depressive all his life. His illness prevented him from entering into les evenements of 1968, where he might have actually done some good. But he was also a manic. His books have the sort of obsessive compulsive features you only find with people on amphetimines. Those who say that this memoir is just a depressive trying to commit suicide aren't taking Althusser as he was diagnosed. He was also capable of limitless affirmation of life.

And we find Althusser making some pretty huge affirmations in this book. He liked the USSR in the post-Stalin era. Since the people of Russia are so much worse off under the system that they have now (arguably the world is, both for their infamous Mafia and the lack of a check on US hegemony), this is probably not a bad thing. His argument as to how the people of the USSR really were free in every way except politics is specious (it's sort of like saying the people of the USSR were free in every way except the one that counts), but its very speciousness smacks of a manic affirmation.

He also says that he never had sex until he was 29. This apparently was because he was disgusted with sex. He says something like "We have bodies! And they have sex organs!" He went on to be quite the ladies man, even conquering women in front of his wife. Which means that he affirmed, like a good Deleuzian, life in all its ugly glory.

Then there's his last work on Machiavelli. Or is it his last work on himself? Machiavelli formalized the relations between king, nobility and people. Just as Althusser formalized Marx's discussions of class relations and structures in Reading Capital. The fact that he's pulled this off so convincingly in Machiavelli and Us, and the fact that the people who have made a career out of riding on his coattails totally missed it, implies to me that he successfully became-other/imperceptible. In the same way that both Bataille and Sartre missed the point of Genet means that Genet did successfully become-other (as per Derrida's Glas).

As a last point to consider, for those who see this book as just the sorry chronicle of someone who had better shut up before he gives the entire game away, look at the books he did claim to read. He read all three volumes of Marx's Theories of Surplus Value. I know of no one else who can make that claim. I barely made it half way through the Grundrisse before I gave up. Since he's so humble about his actual reading of Capital (didn't get past the first volume and didn't get the theory of fetishism in the first 50 pages), he probably really did read TSV.

It's true that after this book Althusser was shunned by French intellectuals. It was, as a French student of Badiou wrote, a form of social suicide. BUT that wasn't what Althusser intended to do with this book. Or not only that.

If you're a Marxist and you liked Althusser, you can always enjoy Etienne Balibar who has at last fitted together the esoteric Heidegger with Marx in his Marxism and Philosophy. That was what dear old crazy Louis was trying to do all along.

Rating:
Summary: perhaps best read symptomatically
Review: This contains one of Althusser's late writings on materialism, which might be read profitably alongside "Machiavelli and Us". The train metaphor is especially useful, and Althusser here rejects -- as he did increasingly after 1967 -- any idea of materialism as a philosophy of the primacy of matter over ideas, and grounds it in the thesis of the materiality of ideology, or that "the imaginary exists only in its effects" ... As far as the claims made by Althusser regarding his abilities and knowledge in the text, or his criticisms of his books, these need to be read in light of his quest of self-annihilation, and this genre of autobiography -- and the authority which readers conventionally regard it to have regarding the 'truth' -- provides the best means of achieving that end. Warren Montag's essay on the autobiography, which can be found in Callari, Cullenberg & Biewener (eds), "Marxism in the Postmodern Age" (1992) is essential reading for anyone tempted to take Althusser's confessions at face value.