Beginning of the article C’est un fait : la désormais première puissance économique du monde (en mesurant le produit intérieur brut en parité de pouvoir d’achat) est dirigée par un État qui se réclame du marxisme et, au-dessus de lui, un Parti qui se dénomme toujours communiste. Les néolibéraux de toutes obédiences le déplorent, escomptent que … Continue reading This Uncharted Land: China (when seen from France), about Contradictions, Dialectics, Morals and Socialism
This article examines how Althusser’s structuralist approach transforms the Marxian concept of ideology. Marx distinguishes two functions: the description/distortion ideology and the legitimization/reproduction ideology. But his proposed articulation does not succeed because it keeps a phenomenological anthropology of the “living individual” in the background. By making the “subject” the product of the ideology through the mechanism of “interpellation,” Althusser suggests a deconstruction of the Marxian approach of the “constituent subject” and a general theory of the “constituted subject” as its substitute, which is more in keeping with the science of history which Marx inaugurated. It remains to be seen whether the “subject” exhausts all the dimensions of the “subjectivity,” that is to say, whether the “structuralist” approach can do without the “phenomenological” approach of Marx or not.
This paper seeks to reexamine Nietzsche’s views on work as an activity. Instead of explaining Nietzsche’s positions on work through his philosophy, we shed light on his philosophy—particularly his rejection of both liberalism and socialism—based on his criticism of work. This methodological approach allows us to fully take into account both aspects of his criticism of work and his abhorrence of modernity and its political ideologies, which are its byproducts.