Remarx

Abstract

In my response to Callari and Ruccio I contrast their Althusserian interpretation of democracy in Marx to my understanding, which stems from Critical Theory. The non-materialistic and non-dialectical character of Callari and Ruccio's Althusserian theory makes them unable to bring to the fore the dialectical relation between form (capital) and content (our doing) according to which democracy and fetishism should be analyzed.

Keywords:

• Dialectics
• Materialism
• Adorno
• Althusser

Notes

¹I use the term ad hominem as used by Marx himself. He clearly states that theory becomes ad hominem, thus radical, only when it grasps the root of the matter, which is man himself (Marx 1975a, 182). He also highlights the importance of human practice in his understanding of materialism in the eighth and ninth thesis on Feuerbach.

²The Open Marxism tradition has been very successful in showing the dialectic relation between form (appearance) and content (essence). It is my view that Holloway, especially in his most recent text, Crack Capitalism, has successfully shown the contradictory nature of totality. For more on this see Grollios (2012).

³The best criticism of Althusserian thinking that I have encountered and one of the most constructive analyses of the relationship between economy and politics is that by Simon Clarke (1980).