Comments on: … was the UJCML? http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/ A working notebook Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:03:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/#comment-2195 Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:52:10 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/#comment-2195 What can I say man, it was meant to be. What can I say man, it was meant to be.

]]> by: MJ http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/#comment-2193 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:10:56 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/#comment-2193 Figures a search for Linhart and Ranciere would bring me to you, Nate. Figures a search for Linhart and Ranciere would bring me to you, Nate.

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/#comment-603 Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:48:56 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/#comment-603 hi David, Thanks for your comment. I know you sent me Reid's article on Linhart and the establis (sp?), I'm not sure about the other stuff - can you send it to me just in case, when you can? The Linhart book is somewhere in the stack of library books on top of my bookshelf. Re: Ranciere and the break with Althusser, I'll defer to you on these. I'm not invested in Ranciere's criticisms applying to Althusser. I do think the apply by analogy to a certain academic way of thinking. Re: Ranciere's break, I didn't know it was so early as 1965. I thought it was later. His vitriolic denunciation was written after the '68 May stuff (1969 I think, with that being expanded into a book in the early 70s). I'd love to hear more on the misrepresentation of Althusser in Metapolitics. I don't know Althusser at all (looking forward to that reading group to rectify that, I'll have more time in about a month), I think all I've read is the ISAs piece, which I liked quite a bit. I started to read Ranciere's Reading Capital piece and didn't finish it - knowing he'd later lumped it and given how dull it was I decided to bail out on that one. take care, Nate hi David,

Thanks for your comment. I know you sent me Reid’s article on Linhart and the establis (sp?), I’m not sure about the other stuff - can you send it to me just in case, when you can? The Linhart book is somewhere in the stack of library books on top of my bookshelf. Re: Ranciere and the break with Althusser, I’ll defer to you on these. I’m not invested in Ranciere’s criticisms applying to Althusser. I do think the apply by analogy to a certain academic way of thinking. Re: Ranciere’s break, I didn’t know it was so early as 1965. I thought it was later. His vitriolic denunciation was written after the ‘68 May stuff (1969 I think, with that being expanded into a book in the early 70s).

I’d love to hear more on the misrepresentation of Althusser in Metapolitics. I don’t know Althusser at all (looking forward to that reading group to rectify that, I’ll have more time in about a month), I think all I’ve read is the ISAs piece, which I liked quite a bit. I started to read Ranciere’s Reading Capital piece and didn’t finish it - knowing he’d later lumped it and given how dull it was I decided to bail out on that one.

take care,
Nate

]]> by: David McInerney http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/#comment-601 Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:05:00 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/04/14/was-the-ujcml/#comment-601 Hi Nate This stuff on French Maoism is very interesting. I do feel though that Donald Reid misrepresents Althusser's "autocritique" though. The self-criticism is when Althusser finally breaks with Stalinism in theory, and when his group begin to turn the attention towards the PCF's complicity with the State. No doubt this is because Reid is taken in my Ranciere's representation of events. Badiou is better on the self-criticism because he was a student of Althusser's during the period when the self-criticism began, 1966-68. Ranciere broke with Althusser in 1965 and attributes all of his own failings as a youthful Communist to his teacher, a none-to-generous approach to what was in fact by all accounts a collective endeavour. As a result Ranciere's Althusser looks suspiciously like Ranciere's hyper-structuralist Marxism in his essay on the Paris Manuscripts in Reading Capital. I've been reading Badiou's Metapolitics as per your suggestion and I have found that there are some symptomatically consistent distortions of Althusser's position on philosophy in there but I'm going to get to the end of the book and live with it a while before coming to any conclusions on it. Certainly many aspects of the book seem to be very worthwhile, and I should read his Infinite Thought, which I've had lying around here for a long while. Did I send you those essays on Linhart by Reid and the others on Badiou and Maoism that I have here somewhere??? take care David Hi Nate
This stuff on French Maoism is very interesting. I do feel though that Donald Reid misrepresents Althusser’s “autocritique” though. The self-criticism is when Althusser finally breaks with Stalinism in theory, and when his group begin to turn the attention towards the PCF’s complicity with the State. No doubt this is because Reid is taken in my Ranciere’s representation of events. Badiou is better on the self-criticism because he was a student of Althusser’s during the period when the self-criticism began, 1966-68. Ranciere broke with Althusser in 1965 and attributes all of his own failings as a youthful Communist to his teacher, a none-to-generous approach to what was in fact by all accounts a collective endeavour. As a result Ranciere’s Althusser looks suspiciously like Ranciere’s hyper-structuralist Marxism in his essay on the Paris Manuscripts in Reading Capital.

I’ve been reading Badiou’s Metapolitics as per your suggestion and I have found that there are some symptomatically consistent distortions of Althusser’s position on philosophy in there but I’m going to get to the end of the book and live with it a while before coming to any conclusions on it. Certainly many aspects of the book seem to be very worthwhile, and I should read his Infinite Thought, which I’ve had lying around here for a long while. Did I send you those essays on Linhart by Reid and the others on Badiou and Maoism that I have here somewhere???

take care
David

]]>