Chapter 2 Interlacing of Times: the ‘Althusser Effect’, Temporality and Transition The unorthodox Marxist Ernst Bloch opined that the communists’ inability to galvanise the historically restive German peasantry issued from their unaware- ness of unfulfilled aspirations sprawled across history. The institutions of the past towered over their worldview; thus, the longing for equality and commu- nity over the land was susceptible to reactionary ends as well as progressive ones. It was not that capitalist modernisation left the peasantry behind as a historical curiosity, figuring in the political scene only as rural fodder to metro- politan reactionary politics. In Bloch’s (1977: 26) words, ‘superstructures that seemed long overturned right themselves again and stand still in today’s world as whole medieval city scenes’, signifying not only an outdated prejudice, but the chronological presence of the non-synchronous. While Marxists’ exposi- tion of the roots of social issues was unparalleled, this ‘cold stream’ of reason and disenchantment fell short of inflaming the passion and hope of the ‘warm stream’, made up of sedimented folk tales of struggles against the powerful (Bloch, 1996: 595). The discussion below builds on this notion of temporal dif- ferentiation to explain its modalities as part of a temporally stratified social formation, a task for which Althusserian and Gramscian branches of Marxist theory have been path-breaking. To illustrate Bloch’s commingling temporalities, this chapter investigates the theme of temporality, and develops Marx’s earlier discernment that non- contemporaneous elements survive in a permutation of distinct modes of pro- duction. This defies a model of neatly legislated historical epochs, and rein- forces the complexity of history as lived praxis. Seizing on this, I evaluate how non-simultaneity is conceptualised respectively in Althusserian and Grams- cian theories. Despite disagreements, there are points of contact between these orienta- tions, specifically in their accounts of ideology, conception of continuities be- tween the ideological and political vectors of hegemony, and the treatment of time as a sociopolitical concept. Additionally, the Althusserian theory of tran- sition provides a backdrop for the Gramscian theory of hegemony, pertaining to politics as a struggle to bridge temporal gaps. The thematic focus prioritises coherence over chronology. Following a critical exposé, the purported discord between Althusser and Gramsci will be scrutinised, proposing that ‘structural’ © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���1 | doi:10.1163/9789004436671_005 <UN> Interlacing of Times 29 and ‘historicist’ accounts of transition can be reconciled to the benefit of both. The notion of multiple temporalities is a point of convergence, considering the high regard, from distinct angles, for the role of the political as a mediator of social transition. A note on the progression from the previous chapter, with a focus on alien- ation as it pertains to transition, and the current chapter, where Althusser’s theories are consulted, is in order. Althusser (2005: 32) argued that in The Ger- man Ideology, we can see a relentless repudiation of Hegelian concepts, par- ticular those of species-being, alienation and its supersession, all of which have comprised rudiments of a theory of transition I have sketched thus far. This notorious ‘break’ between the young and the mature Marx tends to be considered as Althusser’s key contribution to Marxist philosophy. Based on these, it may appear inconsistent to entertain Althusserian theory alongside an account of transition that uses these concepts. Nevertheless, there is a strong case to synthesise Althusser and Balibar’s theories on temporal lag with the holistic approach to Marx’s philosophy in the previous chapter. Althusser (ibid: 78) rightly identifies a ‘change of elements’ in Marx’s thought, in the sense of a migration away from the Hegelian mysticism of the Idea leading history to its teleological endpoint, and towards political econo- my. Even so, the notion of productive essentialism, a theoretical stance owing much to Hegel’s species-being, finds expressions in both the young and the mature Marx, up to and including Capital, where the Hegelian vocabulary is absent, but this productive capacity figures in Marx’s descriptions of exploita- tion. For this reason, Althusser appears to make a clear-cut distinction between the phases of Marx’s theoretical journey, from a purely philosophical left Hege- lianism to political economy, whereas these inclinations can be glimpsed in every stage, and take on a potent historical materialist synthesis that redresses the shortcomings of its parts. In addition, as this analysis aims to trace the theme of transition in its various incarnations in classical and Western Marxist theory, a complete exposition and comparative analysis of each thinker in- voked here is beyond the scope of analysis. Nor should there be an expectation of seamless porosity among each of these thinkers’ entire theoretical corpuses, as my goal here is to marshal the most useful elements from their theories to build a temporal theory of transition. 1 Expressive Totality to Ruptural Unity: Althusser Reading Marx Althusser (2005: 39) asserted that the hallmark of Marxism is in accounting for itself historically, setting forth a theoretical level autonomous from the <UN>.