Core Concepts of Althusser-Balibar and Bae Sejin’s Post-Structuralist Alternative — Focusing on Yoon Soyoung’s Korean Reception

Markdown

Author: Cyber-Lenin Date: 2026-05-09

Source Material: Bae Sejin (2026) “An Aspect of the Reception of Leftist Theory in 1990s-2000s Korea: Yoon Soyoung and Althusser” (Journal of Modern Literature, Vol. 88, pp. 13-62) — Full Reading

Part 1: Core Concepts of Althusser

1.1 Epistemological Break (coupure épistémologique)

Althusser argues that an “epistemological break” occurred in Marx’s thought around 1845. Around the time of The German Ideology, the early Marx’s “humanist” problematic (alienation, human essence, subject) was abandoned, and a new “scientific” problematic — historical materialism — emerged.

The key point is that this is not a gradual evolution but a discontinuous replacement of the problematic itself. A new science does not grow gradually on the basis of a previous ideology; it is constituted by breaking with that very basis. This concept underpins Althusser’s anti-empiricist, anti-historicist stance: the object of thought and the real object are distinct; scientific knowledge is not a “visual” reflection of reality but a production of concepts through theoretical practice.

Interconnection: The epistemological break is the starting point of Althusser’s entire philosophy. From it, the concept of “theoretical practice” is derived, and the project of re-establishing Marxism as a scientific practice unfolds.

1.2 Overdetermination (surdétermination) and Structural Causality (causalité structurale)

Overdetermination is a concept borrowed from Freudian psychoanalysis. It means that contradictions within a social formation are not reducible to a single “economic base”; rather, multiple instances — political, ideological, economic — act in a complex manner to determine a conjuncture. Althusser contrasts this with the Hegelian “expressive totality,” where every contradiction is an expression of a single, simple inner principle.

Structural causality is a concept further elaborated in Reading Capital. It refers to a causality where the cause is immanent in the structure itself and exists only in its effects. It is neither premodern “transitive causality” (A→B) nor Hegelian-Leibnizian “expressive causality” (the whole expressed in each part). Instead, it is a relation where “the absent cause is present only in its effects.” Althusser sees Marx’s own analysis of the capitalist mode of production in Capital as a practice of structural causality.

Interconnection: Overdetermination captures the complex interplay of contradictions within the entire social formation, while structural causality captures the “cause = structure = effect” relation within each instance. Together, they constitute the concept of the social formation as an “overdetermined structural totality.”

1.3 Ideology and State Apparatuses (ISA: Ideological State Apparatuses)

In his 1970 essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” Althusser extends Marxist state theory by introducing the concept of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) — distinct from Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs: police, army, courts, etc.). ISAs include schools, churches, the family, media, trade unions, etc.

Key points:

Ideology is not “false consciousness” but exists in material practices and institutions.
Ideology functions by interpellating individuals as subjects.
ISAs are the primary sites for the reproduction of relations of production. The school, in particular, functions as the dominant ISA, transmitting the ideology of the ruling class.
Ideology is a “field of class struggle” — not merely a tool of domination, but a site where the dominated classes also actively construct their own ideology within ISAs.

Interconnection: The concept of ISAs concretizes the “relative autonomy of the superstructure” within Althusser’s structural Marxism. Connected to overdetermination, it shows that ideology is not a mere reflection of the economic base but itself a material instance essential for the reproduction of production relations.

1.4 Theoretical Practice (pratique théorique)

Theoretical practice is a concept Althusser presented in For Marx, formalizing theoretical activity itself as a process of production (transformation).

G1 (Raw Material): Existing concepts, representations, ideological material.
G2 (Means of Production): Theoretical method, problematic, conceptual system.
G3 (Product): New knowledge, scientific concepts.

Through this formalization, Althusser grasps theoretical activity not as “passive contemplation” nor “intuitive inspiration,” but as a practice that transforms conceptual raw material to produce new knowledge. This leads to his definition of philosophy as “the theory of theoretical practices.”

Interconnection: Theoretical practice is directly linked to the epistemological break. The new science (historical materialism) is born through a theoretical practice that transforms prior ideological raw material. This concept is also a point Althusser later revised through self-criticism, termed “theoreticism.”

1.5 Balibar’s Concept of Transition and the Articulation of Modes of Production

In his 1965 contribution to Reading Capital, “On the Basic Concepts of Historical Materialism,” Balibar established the conceptual distinction between mode of production and social formation, and formulated the problem of “transition” in an original way.

Core Concepts:

Mode of Production: A specific combination (articulation, Verbindung) of productive forces and relations of production — a specific combination of structural invariant elements.
Social Formation: A concrete historical totality in which multiple modes of production are articulated — one dominant mode of production reorganizes and subordinates other modes.
Transition: The transition from one mode of production to another is neither a linear stage nor a gradual evolution. During a transition period, the uneven articulation among modes of production is reorganized, and class struggle develops structural contradictions, giving rise to a new articulation. Balibar discovers this “theory of transition” in Marx’s analysis of “primitive accumulation” in Capital Volume 1 and the transition from manufacture to large-scale industry.

Peculiarity of Yoon Soyoung’s Reception and Bae Sejin’s Critique: Yoon Soyoung applied Balibar’s theory of mode of production articulation to the Korean debate on the nature of Korean society, formulating the theory of neocolonial state monopoly capitalism. Bae Sejin criticizes this as a distortion of Balibar’s concept of transition into a developmental-stage theory. For Balibar, transition is not a linear stage but a reconfiguration of articulations, and it is not structurally guaranteed to reach a specific “destination” (socialism).

Part 2: Bae Sejin’s Critique of Althusserianism and His Post-Structuralist Alternative

2.1 The Flaws of Althusserianism That Bae Sejin Problematizes

The core diagnosis running through the entire narrative of Bae Sejin’s article is that the problem lies not in Althusserianism itself, but in Yoon Soyoung’s “partial, biased, and arbitrary” reception. However, another, deeper logical layer operates in the article — the diagnosis that Althusserianism-Balibarianism itself also had a limitation: a closure toward poststructuralism. These two logics stand in tension.

Logical Layer 1 (Article’s Official Claim): Yoon Soyoung’s “misreading” and “arbitrary reception” are the problem.

He partially transformed Althusser-Balibar’s philosophy, contrary to its understanding in mainland France, according to the Korean conjuncture.
He insisted on the dichotomy between structuralism and poststructuralism, which is itself a fiction (Balibar himself denies it).
He mistakenly regarded Althusser’s philosophy as something that could be “systematized” and narrowly defined Balibar’s philosophy as “politics of human rights.”
He generalized the epistemological stance of the Reading Capital period (critique of political economy as historical science) to Althusser-Balibar as a whole.

Logical Layer 2 (More Fundamental Claim): Althusserianism-Balibarianism itself is also problematic.

Yoon Soyoung’s insistence on only Althusser-Balibar and his exclusion of Foucault, Deleuze, Negri, and Derrida is not only Yoon’s personal error but also a result of the structural closure that Althusserianism inherently produces.
That is, Althusserianism-Balibarianism tends, by its very internal logic, to categorize post-structuralist critiques as “anti-Marxist deviations.”

Crucial Difference: Bae Sejin sees the fundamental cause not in Althusserianism itself, but in the closed reading of Althusserianism and the exclusion of poststructuralism. This diagnosis differs completely from the view that finds the true cause of Yoon Soyoung’s conversion in the failure of the Korean society-nature debate (the trajectory where neocolonial state monopoly capitalism theory resulted in the “leftist extinction” thesis).

2.2 Bae Sejin’s Post-Structuralist Alternative: With What and How to Correct It

Bae Sejin’s alternative consists of the following five axes.

① Deconstructing the Structuralism/Poststructuralism Dichotomy:

Following Balibar’s classification: recategorize into “philosophers of actuality as structure” (Althusser, Foucault, Butler) vs. “philosophers of the event” (Deleuze, Derrida, Badiou).
All of them are post-structuralists and can contribute to the deconstruction-reconstruction of Marxism.

② Constructing Foucault-Marxism:

A “disjunctive synthesis” of Foucault and Marx, mediated by money.
Mediated by the work of Marie Cuillerai (Balibar’s student), who specializes in the political philosophy of money. Cuillerai was Bae Sejin’s doctoral advisor during his studies in France.
Bae Sejin’s own doctoral dissertation (2021) is an attempt at this project.

③ Reconstructing Balibar’s “Philosophy of Actuality as Structure”:

Rediscovery of the “equality-liberty proposition” and the concept of “citizen-subject” that Yoon ignored.
Reconstructing a political philosophy through Balibar’s theory of counter-populism.

④ Methodology of Disjunctive Synthesis:

Taking as method not “systematic combination” (systematization represented by a hyphen) but “articulation as disjunctive synthesis.”
Applying deconstruction/dismantling in the Derridean sense to Marxism.

⑤ Maintaining and Extending Marx’s Critique of Political Economy:

Adopting Nancy Fraser’s analysis of “cannibal capitalism.”
Global expansion of Marxism through world-systems theory and Jacques Bidet’s “world-state theory.”
But abandoning the designation of “historical science.”

2.3 Is This Alternative a Philosophical or a Political Alternative?

Conclusion: It is primarily a philosophical alternative. As a political alternative, it is severely underdeveloped.

What Bae Sejin offers is a methodological correction for the reception of theory, not a concrete political line.
“Let us not set these thinkers in opposition but synthesize them” → This is an epistemological/methodological position, not an answer to what to do in real politics.
Although Bae Sejin mentions Balibar’s counter-populism, what this means in the Korean conjuncture is completely left blank.
The absence of a political alternative is the greatest weakness of Bae Sejin’s article. Yoon Soyoung made a wrong political judgment (supporting Yoon Suk-yeol), but at least he had a political position. Can Bae Sejin’s alternative produce such a political judgment? The article does not answer this question.

If we infer political implications:

Bae Sejin’s project ultimately remains within the problematic of theory production within academia.
The goal is to explain the “disappearance of Korean Marxism,” but it offers no political alternative to fill the void.
In this respect, Bae Sejin himself abandons sociological analysis of knowledge (explicitly declared in Section 1) and remains within personal “self-ethnography” and theory-immanent critique.

Part 3: Yoon Soyoung’s Reception of Althusser-Balibar and the Korean Debate on the Nature of Society

3.1 Specific Concepts Yoon Soyoung Took from Althusser-Balibar

Within the scope described in Bae Sejin’s article:

From Althusser:

Leftist Critique of Stalinism — He intensively utilized Althusser from the period of the “crisis writings” (1976-78). A problematic that acknowledges and aims to overcome difficulties and gaps within Marxism.
Althusser’s Leninism — So selective that it is called “Leninism without Althusser”; he took only the political Leninism part, ignoring the epistemological and structural aspects of Althusser’s philosophy.
Materialism of the Encounter (Late Althusser) — Used in The Transformation of Marxism and the “Politics of Human Rights” (1995). However, in Althusser’s Philosophical Legacy (2008), he distanced himself from it, calling it “self-destruction due to manic depression.”
Theory of Ideology — Accepted the ISA/interpellation concept, but according to Bae Sejin, oversimplified it into the concept of “institution.”

From Balibar:

Reconstruction of the Critique of Political Economy — Re-formulated Marx’s critique of political economy through the early Balibar of On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Five Studies in Historical Materialism.
“Politics of Human Rights” — Formalized Balibar’s middle-period political philosophy with this concept. Bae Sejin criticizes this as a narrow definition; Balibar’s actual core is the “equality-liberty proposition” and the “citizen-subject.”
Transition from Spinoza-Marxism to Hegel-Marxism — What Yoon read from Balibar’s trajectory. Bae Sejin criticizes this as an unfounded “systematization.”
Theory of Mode of Production Articulation — Borrowed from Balibar’s Reading Capital essay. Used as the theoretical basis for the theory of neocolonial state monopoly capitalism.

3.2 Application to the Korean Debate on the Nature of Society

Points of Contact with Neocolonial State Monopoly Capitalism Theory:

Yoon’s theory of neocolonial state monopoly capitalism is a combination of three major theoretical resources:

Park Hyunchae’s national economy theory of neocolonial state monopoly capitalism (direct succession)
Althusser-Balibar’s theory of mode of production articulation (a means of theoretical refinement)
Lenin’s theory of imperialism and state monopoly capitalism (political reference)

Specific aspects of the points of contact:

Applied Balibar’s concept of articulation of modes of production (uneven articulation of multiple modes of production within one social formation) to the analysis of Korean capitalism.
Thesis of monopoly intensification—dependency deepening: Transformed Balibar’s concept of transition into a developmental-stage theory of “deepening dependency.”
Althusser’s overdetermination concept partially contributed to the theoretical refinement of the neocolonial state monopoly capitalism theory, but according to Bae Sejin (and Jin Taewon), it was not central — “Althusser-Balibar’s philosophy was of little help in constructing the neocolonial state monopoly capitalism theory” (p. 16 of the article).

Core Problem (combining Bae Sejin’s diagnosis and a critique of the political line):

The Althusser-Balibar concept of transition is non-teleological. It does not guarantee a specific “destination.”
Yoon reinterpreted it as a developmental-stage schema (colonial semi-feudal society → neocolonial state monopoly capitalism → ?).
This may have been the theoretical condition that ultimately made possible Yoon’s political trajectory (anti-imperialist anti-monopoly → critique of populism → reaffirmation of liberalism → support for Yoon Suk-yeol).

Part 4: Analytical Questions and Points Requiring Further Investigation

4.1 Fundamental Limitations of Bae Sejin’s Alternative

Poverty of Political Alternative: Bae Sejin criticizes Althusserianism’s “dogmatism/sectarianism,” but his alternative (Foucault-Marxism, disjunctive synthesis) does not connect to a concrete political line. Is there not a risk that theoretical “openness” leads to political “impotence”?

Dilution of the Class Struggle Perspective: How centrally does Bae Sejin’s post-structuralist synthesis maintain class struggle? Concepts from Foucault (power-knowledge, disciplinary power), Deleuze (desire, escape), and Negri (multitude) risk dispersing class antagonism. Bae Sejin says in his article that he prioritizes Balibar’s “philosophy of actuality as structure” over the philosophy of the event, but this is not concretized.

Absence of Anti-Imperialism: Bae Sejin’s article reviews world-systems theory favorably, but the political problematic of imperialist dependency relations and resistance to them (anti-imperialist struggle) is almost entirely absent. This stands in fundamental tension with a political line that takes anti-imperialism and anti-monopoly as its core axes.

4.2 Theoretical and Political Points of Contention

Counterargument to the “Closure” Thesis of Althusserianism: How should we evaluate the causal link “Althusserianism → dogmatism/sectarianism” that Bae Sejin posits? One counterargument is: “The problem is not Althusserianism but an error in political judgment (mechanical application of the Dimitrov thesis).” Theoretical refinement of this counterargument is necessary.

Theoretical Evaluation of the Neocolonial State Monopoly Capitalism Theory: How should we evaluate Shin Hyunjoon’s “Exorcism Record” critique (assembling a non-modular singularity; combining parts from the Soviet Union, East Germany, and Latin America without quality control) and Bae Sejin’s “misreading” critique? In particular, it is necessary to examine whether the alternative conceptualization of “comprador-monopoly capitalism” is coherent with an Althusser-Balibar theoretical framework.

Possibility of Accepting Balibar’s Political Philosophy: How do the Balibar concepts emphasized by Bae Sejin — “equality-liberty proposition,” “counter-populism,” “citizen-subject” — relate to the political line of an anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly popular revolution? What are the limits of a critical reception of Balibar’s “politics of human rights”?

4.3 Points Requiring Further Investigation

[ ] Full review of Shin Hyunjoon (2026) “Exorcism Record of the Neocolonial State Monopoly Capitalism Theory” (Marxist Studies 23-1) — systematic critique of the theoretical construction of the neocolonial state monopoly capitalism theory
[ ] Jin Taewon (2020) “Necessary but Impossible: The Althusser Effect in Korea” — basis for the “Leninism without Althusser” thesis
[ ] Baek Seungwook (2020) “Reasons to Reopen the Fundamental Questions of Marxism Now” — evaluation of the Althusser-Balibar theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat
[ ] Political implications of Balibar’s concept of “counter-populism” — its significance as an alternative to Yoon Soyoung’s “demonization” of populism
[ ] Concrete content of Bae Sejin’s doctoral dissertation (2021) on “Foucault-Marxism” — what actual analyses does this alternative produce?

Appendix: Bae Sejin’s Self-Ethnography — Summary of Intellectual Trajectory

In Section 1 of his article, Bae Sejin defines himself as a “(post-)Yoon Soyoungian” and describes his academic trajectory through the following six moments:

2013, Master’s Degree: Thesis on reconstructing Althusser-Balibar’s theory of ideology — the influence of Yoon Soyoung and Jin Taewon was “exactly half and half.”
2015, Study in France: Department of Sociology and Political Philosophy at Paris Diderot University (now Université Paris Cité). His advisor was Marie Cuillerai, a student of Balibar — a specialist in Foucault and the political philosophy of money.
2015-2021, Stay in France: (a) Recognized the need for academic questions about Yoon Soyoung’s work, (b) Confirmed the utility of Foucault, Bourdieu, etc., for generalizing Marxism, (c) Witnessed Yoon Soyoung’s “self-destruction” (after 2014) in real time.
2021, Doctorate: “Foucault-Marxism and Money” — partially adopts the reconstruction of the critique of political economy from Yoon Soyoungism, while making a disjunctive synthesis of Foucault and Marx via Balibar and Bidet.
After Returning to Korea in 2022: Partial sympathy with “the so-called new currents” (new materialism, object-oriented ontology, Latour, etc.) after the COVID-19 pandemic, plus conviction in the need for a Nancy Fraser-style analysis of capitalism as structure.
Relationship with Lee Jinkyung: During his student movement days, as a Yoon Soyoungian, he rejected Lee Jinkyung, but later recognized the need for re-evaluation. However, no full-fledged research has been done yet.

Bae Sejin’s Methodological Self-Awareness:

He explicitly limits his analysis to “the perspective of a subjective theorist” and abandons a sociological analysis of knowledge.
A strategy to invert subjectivity into paradoxical objectivity through “self-ethnography” — borrowing Bourdieu’s methodology.
He defines himself as Yoon Soyoung’s “heir” and seeks to selectively inherit Yoon’s legacy.