Marxism vs postmodernism

[oneday]

Can someone help me understand the differences between Marxism and postmodernism. What are the core ideas of postmodernism that Marxists reject?

It would seem that that are some commonalities. For instance, the concept of the ruling ideas reflecting the ruling ideas of the ruling class seem like it might bear some similarity to a postmodern critique.

[Rafiq]

Postmodernism is a very general ideological tendency, it therefore cannot be contrasted with Marxism as some kind of alternative, all-encompassing particular discourse or paradigm.

That is to say, do Marxists oppose postmodernism? They do, but not for the reasons that Anglo-philistines do. In fact, a revitalized Marxism in the 21st century would qualify as "postmodernism" in their minds, because anything they don't understand (Yet are so arrogant that they feel like they don't have to) is dismissed as postmodernism.

Let's make one thing clear, however - postmodern theorists, those engaged in cultural studies, etc. are - so to speak - on our side of the fence. Postmodernism is irreducible to these individuals, or these studies, because these simply openly encapsulate postmodern logic and allow us to critically evaluate it - but postmodernism as an IDEOLOGICAL trend has pervaded society as a whole, which we should indeed evaluate in terms of specific changes in capitalism over the past few decades - de-industrialization and consumerism in the west, the rise of a 'cultural' multiplicity following globalization, the defeat and destruction of the worker's movement and the list goes on.

Ultimately, Marxists attempt to continue the project of modernity and conceive the issues unique to postmodern discourse as ones ultimately conceivable in modern terms: The class struggle, the social antagonism. That doesn't mean, as many of our philistine True Leftists℠ see it, that this amounts to a green light for dismissing a wide range of complex issues on ground of the empiricist faux-materialism (which is patently idealist) that fails desperately at being the reductionism that it so very much wants to be.

No, no, no, the deadlocks that postmodernists presents us are very real ones - very real theoretical controversies that Marxists need to engage. Some of our clownish pseudo-millenarians are so utterly confident in themselves, in their theoretical foundations - they don't understand that if they were for an instant to realize that their views are ideological perversions, bankrupt formalities, and idealist nonsense they'd have the existential crisis of the century. This responsibility, however, is far more arduous, far more painful and far more risky than "doing things", than the brainless and incessant activism of this or that sect. They confer upon themselves the special ability to not deal with "that nonsense" by falling upon ordinary working people, whose ignorance they deem with essential political value, something to emulate, a badge of honor. They don't understand that their engagement with "workers" and their fetishism of the "real" world is itself nothing more than the product of controversies unique only in the domain of thought, which they have failed to realize in approximation to real material conditions of being. They, in other words, confuse the real with the real-in-thought, and as a result have a proper grasp of neither.

In terms of CONTENT, the postmodernists correctly triumphed over the corrupt and formalist Marxism of the past. Why? Because formalist Marxism was purely relegated to abstractions in pure thought with no basis in reality, and postmodernists - themselves idealists - tore it to shreds. Where were the Marxists criticizing Ernesto Laclau for claiming that we ought to conceive the class struggle as no longer an essential one, no more constitutive of the social field than any other struggle (identity politics, etc.)? Zizek, who they can't even distinguish, took this role (http://www.lacan.com/zizpopulism.htm). True Leftists betrayed Marxism by rendering truth as a matter of content-in-form, while Marxists understand truth to be a PRACTICAL question above all things.

[Tim Redd]

Can someone help me understand the differences between Marxism and postmodernism. What are the core ideas of postmodernism that Marxists reject?

It would seem that that are some commonalities. For instance, the concept of the ruling ideas reflecting the ruling ideas of the ruling class seem like it might bear some similarity to a postmodern critique.

Off the bat, position one is that post-modernist theory never really straight up indicts the rule of the 1% as the root of what's messed up in society. An obvious required action is that there is a need to overthrow the rule of the 1% by a proletarian revolution. None of the various postmodernist thinkers come straight on with these truths. There's all the falderol about this or that social or cultural phenomena but rarely straight up indicting capitalist rule and capitalist society as the enemy. Post-modernism [aka deconstruction] rarely explains the need to target capitalism in order to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat [just as there is currently a dictatorship of the capitalists] to eliminate classes and abolish all exploitation and oppression.

Fyi... notable post-modernists are Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze.

[Tim Redd]

There were progressive aspects to post-modernism (aka deconstruction), but there were anti-progressive aspects as well. We should definitely identify what was progressive - what helped to expose capitalism and what helped to bring about new modes of thought that facilitated proletarian revolutionary consciousness. Both sides of deconstruction should be detailed and analyzed. I will attempt to address both aspects of deconstruction as time goes on. Remind me if I fall off.

[Dodo]

Quoting miself:


Post-modernity is pretty much the rejection of the mentality of modernity through modenity.

Foremost, it is an epistemological argument which is its greatest contribution. It becomes very easy to understand post-modernism as a Marxist due to the "modernist" theory framework that Marxism has created. And yet it is also very easy to have a post-modern perspective as a Marxist due to dialectics being the core philosophy.

Secondly, post-modernism refers to an era, what some call late-capitalism, service economy dominated capitalism.

Third, it has its own political culture. Which is where the hipsters and radical feminists come in.

The political culture bit clashes with Marxism but it can also be an ally if the fragmented struggles are united in a new-framework(see post-marxism), the post-modern era is something Marxists need to update to in their political-economy critique. And most importantly, the epistemological contributions of post-modernism must be absorbed and answered to not be radical dogmats with marginalized ideas.

Basically though, modernist ideas start with enlightenment philosophy, with the concept of "laws of nature" . What is important for us is how modernism related to social science mentality, something Marx actually critized very well long before post-modernists.
An example would be the grand narrative of history, where Europe is seen as the end point of a linear development cycle. And this process occurs through "laws of nature" that apply to society as well. Modernism is best presented in positivist social sciences.

Where we are hit most by post-modernism is the historicist perspective of dialectics. But I believe it is easy to integrate. Some of the core ideas like historical materialism however needs clear revision. As majority of the early Marxist "theoretical frameworks" carried a strong modernist perspective.