Reading notes: Louis Althusser, "Philosophy as a Revolutionary Weapon" (in Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays. Trans. Ben Brewster. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001. 11-23.)

It's difficult for an intellectual to be a Marxist, because traditional intellectuals are ideologically petty-bourgeois by default. In order to become an "organic intellectual" the intellectual has to effect a "radical revolution" of ideas -- a paradigm shift, if you will; essentially a re-education of worldview.

Marxism includes a science (historical materialism) and a philosophy (dialectical materialism). Marxist theory is a system for unifying the two -- Gramsci's "philosophy of praxis."

Philosophy is linked to science -- science preceeds philosophy (examples: geometry discovered by the Greeks, physics discovered by Galileo). Philosophy exists insofar as it provides discourse surrounding science. Theory is the discourse surrounding both science and philosophy -- consider D&G's abstract machine/machinic assemblage that connects the plane of consistancy/body without organs and the strata. Theory is productive.

Marx founded a new science in historical materialism -- the science of History. Though where does this leave Vico? Foucault talks about how Marx founded a new discourse (Marxism) -- this in "What is an Author?" I prefer this way of thinking about it. Anyway: Marx opened up history as a site for the production of scientific knowledge. Because "philosophy is always linked to the sciences," dialectical materialism comes out of historical materialism.

Marx the philosopher -- particularly the young Marx (still an idealist, pre-Capital) -- subsumed by and consumed into the various bourgeois Humanist ideologies, in particular French phenomenology and existentialism. We can perhaps blame Kojeve and Hippolyte for this, and Sartre (respectively). This blunts the revolutionary edge of his work. The Frankfurt School thinkers, and such others as Lukacs and Gramsci, had very productive relationships with Marx/Hegel -- but the situation is different in France because of the assimilation by the Humanist philosophies. Thus Althusser's project of a "return to Marx" -- more or less excising Hegel, focusing first and foremost on Capital. Capital stresses the aspect of science -- the human sciences -- and therefore so does Althusser. The scientific aspect has not been assimilated to the degree that the philosophy has, and thus the revolutionary potential has not been blunted. The revolutionary potential of Marxism must always be kept in sight.

Philosophy emphasizes language: language is never neutral. Words are weapons. -- See, e.g., Marcuse, "Repressive Tolerance" -- The purpose of philosophy is "to draw a dividing line" between true ideas and false ideas (Lenin). "A theoretical dividing line between true ideas and false ideas. A political dividing line between the people [...] and the people's enemies." -- true ideas serve the people, false ideas serve the enemies of the people.

Althusser gives the example of "Humanism" -- in essentials, Marxism could be considered a humanist ideology. But the word "Humanism" is taken and exploited by bourgeois ideologies, and is therefore not adopted by Marxists. Lenin: "The fate of [...] Social-Democracy for very many years to come may depend on the strengthening of one or the other 'shade' [of opinion]."

It is impossible to separate the philosophical struggle over words from political class struggle. Thus philosophy is a political weapon.