ckaihatsu
2nd June 2008, 07:00
http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php/topic,2631.new.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/feudalism-postmodernism-and-t80319/index.html?p=1161371
> Will a comrade answer the following questions and oblige:
Hi, if you don't mind, I'm going to give *very brief* answers to your questions, because each one could bring forth enough material for a course of its own. I'm also cross-posting to RevLeft.com so that more people may be able to answer your questions.
> 1. How feudalism stands in the way of bourgeoisie in backward countries? Please explain the issue through some examples.
Feudalism *doesn't* stand in the way of the bourgeoisie -- some areas of the world either were in a position to get on the boat when it came through, or else they missed the boat and are still under feudal-like conditions. The U.S. was able to benefit tremendously from capitalism, while Latin America, Asia, and Africa have not. Capitalism -- along with its cultural component, white supremacy -- doesn't care about this area or that -- it only cares about markets, even if they're around such intangible things as derivatives or carbon credits.
> 2. What is postmodernist literature and art from a Marxist-Leninist point of view? Can it be said that all or at least most of the postmodernist works are bourgeoi and reactionary?
Postmodern literature and postmodern art are two different, though similar, approaches to each medium. Basically postmodern art allows for using a mish-mash of past, established styles, or approaches. Postmodern literature is similar to postmodern art in that way -- I'm going to lean on Wikipedia for this one:
The term Postmodern literature is used to describe certain tendencies in post-World War II literature. It is both a continuation of the experimentation championed by writers of the modernist period (relying heavily, for example, on fragmentation, paradox, questionable narrators, etc.) and a reaction against Enlightenment ideas implicit in Modernist literature.
Postmodern literature, like postmodernism as a whole, is difficult to define and there is little agreement on the exact characteristics, scope, and importance of postmodern literature. However, unifying features often coincide with Jean-François Lyotard's concept of the "meta-narrative" and "little narrative", Jacques Derrida's concept of "play", and Jean Baudrillard's "simulacra". For example, instead of the modernist quest for meaning in a chaotic world, the postmodern author eschews, often playfully, the possibility of meaning, and the postmodern novel is often a parody of this quest. This distrust of totalizing mechanisms extends even to the author; thus postmodern writers often celebrate chance over craft and employ metafiction to undermine the author's "univocal" control (the control of only one voice). The distinction between high and low culture is also attacked with the employment of pastiche, the combination of multiple cultural elements including subjects and genres not previously deemed fit for literature. A list of postmodern authors often varies; the following are some names of authors often so classified, most of them belonging to the generation born in the interwar period: William Burroughs (1914-1997) Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), John Barth (b. 1930), Donald Barthelme (1931-1989), E. L. Doctorow (b. 1931), Robert Coover (1932), Jerzy Kosinski (1933-1991) Don DeLillo (b. 1936), Thomas Pynchon (b. 1937), Ishmael Reed (1938), Kathy Acker (1947-1997), Paul Auster (b. 1947).[1]
The same approach that's used in art and literature really fucks things up when used in the domain of philosophy -- this is where you'll see stark differences with the materialist, or Marxist, approach to reality and history.
Postmodernism is pretty much the same wishy-washy take on things that you see coming from liberals. Instead of taking the time to be precise in its investigations it simply says that *any* narrative is as good as any other. It essentially rejects the objective world by saying that it's unknowable in objective terms -- this is obviously an unscientific approach to reality, and that's why it's outside the scope of materialism.
> 3. What is "extra economic coercion"?
"Extra-economic coercion" is the use of the military. I'm not sure what the context is that you have in mind, but this would be my first answer.
> Thanks.
No prob.
Chris
--
--
___
RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162
Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com
MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu
CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u
http://www.revleft.com/vb/feudalism-postmodernism-and-t80319/index.html?p=1161371
> Will a comrade answer the following questions and oblige:
Hi, if you don't mind, I'm going to give *very brief* answers to your questions, because each one could bring forth enough material for a course of its own. I'm also cross-posting to RevLeft.com so that more people may be able to answer your questions.
> 1. How feudalism stands in the way of bourgeoisie in backward countries? Please explain the issue through some examples.
Feudalism *doesn't* stand in the way of the bourgeoisie -- some areas of the world either were in a position to get on the boat when it came through, or else they missed the boat and are still under feudal-like conditions. The U.S. was able to benefit tremendously from capitalism, while Latin America, Asia, and Africa have not. Capitalism -- along with its cultural component, white supremacy -- doesn't care about this area or that -- it only cares about markets, even if they're around such intangible things as derivatives or carbon credits.
> 2. What is postmodernist literature and art from a Marxist-Leninist point of view? Can it be said that all or at least most of the postmodernist works are bourgeoi and reactionary?
Postmodern literature and postmodern art are two different, though similar, approaches to each medium. Basically postmodern art allows for using a mish-mash of past, established styles, or approaches. Postmodern literature is similar to postmodern art in that way -- I'm going to lean on Wikipedia for this one:
The term Postmodern literature is used to describe certain tendencies in post-World War II literature. It is both a continuation of the experimentation championed by writers of the modernist period (relying heavily, for example, on fragmentation, paradox, questionable narrators, etc.) and a reaction against Enlightenment ideas implicit in Modernist literature.
Postmodern literature, like postmodernism as a whole, is difficult to define and there is little agreement on the exact characteristics, scope, and importance of postmodern literature. However, unifying features often coincide with Jean-François Lyotard's concept of the "meta-narrative" and "little narrative", Jacques Derrida's concept of "play", and Jean Baudrillard's "simulacra". For example, instead of the modernist quest for meaning in a chaotic world, the postmodern author eschews, often playfully, the possibility of meaning, and the postmodern novel is often a parody of this quest. This distrust of totalizing mechanisms extends even to the author; thus postmodern writers often celebrate chance over craft and employ metafiction to undermine the author's "univocal" control (the control of only one voice). The distinction between high and low culture is also attacked with the employment of pastiche, the combination of multiple cultural elements including subjects and genres not previously deemed fit for literature. A list of postmodern authors often varies; the following are some names of authors often so classified, most of them belonging to the generation born in the interwar period: William Burroughs (1914-1997) Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), John Barth (b. 1930), Donald Barthelme (1931-1989), E. L. Doctorow (b. 1931), Robert Coover (1932), Jerzy Kosinski (1933-1991) Don DeLillo (b. 1936), Thomas Pynchon (b. 1937), Ishmael Reed (1938), Kathy Acker (1947-1997), Paul Auster (b. 1947).[1]
The same approach that's used in art and literature really fucks things up when used in the domain of philosophy -- this is where you'll see stark differences with the materialist, or Marxist, approach to reality and history.
Postmodernism is pretty much the same wishy-washy take on things that you see coming from liberals. Instead of taking the time to be precise in its investigations it simply says that *any* narrative is as good as any other. It essentially rejects the objective world by saying that it's unknowable in objective terms -- this is obviously an unscientific approach to reality, and that's why it's outside the scope of materialism.
> 3. What is "extra economic coercion"?
"Extra-economic coercion" is the use of the military. I'm not sure what the context is that you have in mind, but this would be my first answer.
> Thanks.
No prob.
Chris
--
--
___
RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162
Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com
MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu
CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u