[FallenRaptor]

I decided to dedicate the first thread on this forum to the article Contradiction and Overdetermination by Louis Althusser. In it, Althusser discusses the concept of overdetermination(the accumulation and exacerbation of multiple contradictions in a process) in historical materialism, and uses the Russian Revolution as an example of this. He then uses this concept to criticize the Hegelian dialectic and show that the Marxist dialectic isn't just a simple "extraction" or "inversion" of it. He also goes into some detail about social superstructures and their relation to their infrastructure.

I think this is a great idea for a subforum.

[Vera Politica]

He also goes into some detail about social superstructures and their relation to their infrastructure.

I would read his 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses' and all of For Marx, which includes the article mentioned but also his famous section on the 'Young Marx' where he discusses his controversial thesis on the discontinuity of Marx.

[Bounce Widdit]

What I like about the notion of overdetermination is the importance of uneveness.

Dialectical contradiction does not involve the interaction of two 'equal' moments, but rather the overdetermining effects of one side on another.

What is so interesting about this is how it corresponds with the progression of history. The perfect example is indeed the Russian Revolution, however I feel a better version of it is found in an exposition that preceded Althusser's by over half a century, that of Leon Trotsky. His theory of Uneven and Combined Development tallies with Althusser's theory of contradiction and overdetermination in many ways. Although Trotsky's analysis of this is restricted to the advent of capitalism in Russia, I think it reveals something crucial about historical development in general, namely its intrinsic uneveness.

As much as I admire many aspects of Louis Althusser's theory, I don't like his seperation of Marx's young (unscientific) from his mature (scientific) writings, and the structuralist Marxism that emerges from this separation.

[Vera Politica]

I don't like his seperation of Marx's young (unscientific) from his mature (scientific) writings

Why does this distinction bother you?