Postmodern ideas and Marxism

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Ok, I decided to post a little on what exactly postmodernism has done and taken from Marx's ideas and how they applie to what has been termed by post modern theorists, the post-capitalist age.

Basically I think a lot of people could benefit from getting out of the whole Lenin/Trotsky rut, both of which although admirable thinkers were fairly flawed when there philosophical ideas came under scrutiny. This is also important as arguing with capitalists and using ideas which are outdated by some time is fairly embarassing.

So here we go:

Postmodernism in France especially among the Situationist movement focused upon the idea of the 'Society of the Spectacle'. This is a form of social control based on consumer capital. It works by creating a world in which passive entertainment leads to the creation of spectacles.

Baudrillard although not in the movement was closely associated with it and one is recognized as one the most important post-modern theorists ever. An important idea of his is that the idea of buying commodities for use has passed and we have entered a new age in which 'sign' value' or say image has signified the worth of commodities. Society has essentially been dematerialized into one of codes, images and signs. The implications for classical Marxism are obvious.

In this kind of world individuals consume a world fabricated by others rather than producing their own.The society of the spectecle is however essentially a commodity society. The Spectacle itself refers to the media and consumer society but also to the vast beacracy and insitutions that dominate our lives. The apparatus of the state shall we say. This is a non-direct force which subjecates the individual.

Another thinker Debord talked about seperation and how consumer society alienates us from each other and puts traps us into a passive indirect society.

In the society of the spectale there appears to be a life of luxury and happiness that is open to all. Anybody can have everything. In reality only those with suffucient wealth can fully enjoy the benefits of society. The benefits of course are taken out of the lifes of the exploited who hope to attain what they can never have. This leads to mass alienation but in a way that the alienation is hidden.

When images overtake reality life is no longer a direct experience but a passive life in which the spectacle dominates all and social relations are reduced to passivity.

There is more to come so, I am working my way through a few books and posting my thoughts on them. This is just to get me started.

Let me know if any of you want to see more, it is pointless typing more if nobody is interest.

[VukBZ2005]

I Express some interest in this - Perhaps you Could elaborate in your next post on this?

[monkeydust]

Certainly postmodernism, in many respects, makes Marxism seem outdated, or even anachronistic.

It's my understanding that postmodern theorists believe society to be shaped by fundamentally different forces, and composed in a critically different manner to the way in which Marx described it, which, if they're right, would have serious implications for Marx's theories (at least in the short term). For example, Postmodernists (at least I think) tend to portray society as fairly atomistic and individualistic, making class antagonisms seem quite irrelevent.

This is precisely why we need to look at Marx's and others' works so critically, and to build upon them where necessary. Anyone who takes Marx's words as almost "The word of God" needs to seriously re-think their ideas.

[redstar2000]

Here is a contemporary "post-modernist" critique of the left for you folks to chew on...

Protest Aesthetics-What the Left Can Learn from Las Vegas (http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/1699089.php)

I sort of hope you'll spit it out...but we'll see.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Karo de Perro]

I myself consider the term 'postmodern' to be quite imbelcilic of sorts though its usage is merely one more means of classifying human endeavors.

Its completely nonsensical for one to stitch themself entirely to a single ideology that has been granitized by dinosaurs which no longer roam the earth,to say 'I am a Marxist,Leninist,Maoist,etc exposes a person unsure of his own intellect,instinct and socio-political discernment.

I too have read the writings of earlier socialists as well as works by psuedo-philosophers,still its my own judgements to which I cling though all that has gone before influence such decisions to greater and lesser extents depending on the criteria of the matter at hand and those who appear to have laid out the framework best dealing with the issue.

Sure I could play this pretentious game of name-droppin in an effort to impress but whats the point? I have studied many but I speak as one - myself!

Lenin and Che have both lived and died so why attempt to be either? ... this cult of personality is none too flattering of a persons own self-perception really,I have found that hero-worshippers lack the initiative and courage to act as bravely hence they are destined to grovel at the feet of true men.

Whats so damn difficult for people to put together these days and why all this endless bullshit concerning this or that philosophy when in reality the only true notion is one which leads to action and this stems from seeing great wrongs and wishing to right them.

With this I ll leave it to the great pontificators to haggle over smancy jargon and endless rhethoric which leads to nothing but confusion and inaction.

[Guerrilla22]

[QUOTE]In the society of the spectale there appears to be a life of luxury and happiness that is open to all. Anybody can have everything. In reality only those with suffucient wealth can fully enjoy the benefits of society. The benefits of course are taken out of the lifes of the exploited who hope to attain what they can never have. This leads to mass alienation but in a way that the alienation is hidden.

When images overtake reality life is no longer a direct experience but a passive life in which the spectacle dominates all and social relations are reduced to passivity.

This is all too apparent. We live in a society in which image is used to define status. People are not consuming out of necessity, but rather out of an attempt to improve their image or status in society. People feel as though driving a 60,000 dollar SUV, or wearing 60 dollar jeans will prop them up in society, seperating them from those who cannot obtain that image (usually out of lack of funds) its just another way that the western, capitalist world has created a caste system that engulfs us all.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 08:21 PM
I Express some interest in this - Perhaps you Could elaborate in your next post on this?
No problem, I will post more of my own views, then some critiques, most notably one from the Fourth International.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I myself consider the term 'postmodern' to be quite imbelcilic of sorts though its usage is merely one more means of classifying human endeavors.

Not at all, it describes a vast shift in ideas in literature, philosophy and even politics. It also addresses the shift in consumer capitalism from basic commodity driven society to one when the image rules all.


Whats so damn difficult for people to put together these days and why all this endless bullshit concerning this or that philosophy when in reality the only true notion is one which leads to action and this stems from seeing great wrongs and wishing to right them.

Because the old appraoch failed, because society is different economically and politically from when the old writers wrote.


With this I ll leave it to the great pontificators to haggle over smancy jargon and endless rhethoric which leads to nothing but confusion and inaction.

Your post was a waste of time so.

[Valkyrie]

Geist, I saw your reference to this post.. and had to dig my way through 90 days of past posts to find it.

Anyway.. to sum it up..

MORE! MORE! MORE!!!!!

Let us dissect "The Society of the Spectacle" and "Revolution in Everyday Life"

The great thing about Ken Knabb's Spec translation is that it's copyright free--- can be distributed everywhere!

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well I have the benefit of studying a course on Debord and the Situationists this year in college, I'll post the notes here and anything I find that's useful.

I can certainly look into doing more on this anyway.

[PRC-UTE]

No problem, I will post more of my own views, then some critiques, most notably one from the Fourth International.

Would that be the Twatsky one or the Councilists?


As for the post-mod critique of Marxism, I think there are some good points made, but it seems like the useful ideas in PMism are just footnotes to marxism at best and at worst expressions of alienation that remind me of movies like Fight Club.

A good point is that capital has commodified so much of culture reducing the rest of us to mere consumers, spectators, etc.

Anyway, thanks for posting something interesting, Geist.

[PRC-UTE]

Guy Debord, the key theoretician of the French Situationists, argued in his 1967 masterwork that we are living in a Society of the Spectacle, a cultural system in which the genuine experience of the individual in society has been superseded by a representation of experience. While we mostly agree with this analysis (thirty-five years later, in an age of virtual reality and post-modern simulacra, such a notion has become almost a commonplace), and our understanding of spectacle shares some of his flavor, we consider Debord’s call to resist the spectacle by reasserting a genuine unmediated experience, to be romantic and naïve. We instead believe that the only way forward, the only way to change our lived experience, is to re-represent the representation, to engage in the spectacle as best we can.

That's a bit mental methinks.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I'm updating the origanal post, so more soon.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm interested to know more.

[monkeydust]

If anyone's seriously interested in Postmodernism, I recommend reading some of Michael Focault's stuff, or perhaps something by Jacques Derrida or Jean-Francois Lyotard.

Focault's "Madness and Civilization" is pretty interesting.

[Monty Cantsin]

I think debord was Marxists and just enhanced the ‘revolutionary theory’ and became the enemy of ‘revolutionary ideology’, if you know what im saying.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Thats true, they certainly ended the idea of any grand narrative in the name of small struggles. I guess '68 did that to them.