Postmoderism & Marxism

[trivas7]

Was it postmoderism's scepticism re all metanarratives -- like Marxism -- that resulted in neoliberalism's suspicion of government and politics?

Why don't people generally trust government nowadays? And isn't this a huge stumbling block for most people in sympathizing with Marxism?

[Hit The North]

Neo-liberalism sees the state as an impedance on the autonomous activity of the free market and an unwelcome check on the freedom of the capitalist to enrich him/herself. I don't think it has much to do with post-modernism. Also, I think most people are cynical of politicians because they've been let down by reformism.

Also, I think this thread fits better in Theory so I'm gonna move it. :)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Reformism failed, and government bureaucracies are some of the most annoying things on the planet. Since business now favors dismantling the state, the approved channels of information are free to talk about the authoritarian state in all its glory.

[ifeelyou]

Was it postmoderism's scepticism re all metanarratives -- like Marxism -- that resulted in neoliberalism's suspicion of government and politics?

Why don't people generally trust government nowadays?

firstly, im not sure i would directly link postmodernism to neoliberlism; if anything, id say postmodernism is a critique of neoliberalism. secondly, a great many postmodernists are political but are suspicious of the belief that traditional forms of politics and political approaches (including marxism) are going to solve all problems.

in terms of why people dont trust government, do we really need to answer that?

[trivas7]

Neo-liberalism sees the state as an impedance on the autonomous activity of the free market and an unwelcome check on the freedom of the capitalist to enrich him/herself. I don't think it has much to do with post-modernism. Also, I think most people are cynical of politicians because they've been let down by reformism.

You don't think it there's been a cultural shift in terms of how people in general view the efficacy and desirability of government in their lives since, oh, about the 80s (the beginning of the neoliberalism turn)?

[trivas7]

Reformism failed, and government bureaucracies are some of the most annoying things on the planet. Since business now favors dismantling the state, the approved channels of information are free to talk about the authoritarian state in all its glory.
I hear more whinning from the right about the evils of Mommy government -- and it was Sinclair Lewis who warned that fascism would come to USA under the guise of socialism, no?

[trivas7]

firstly, im not sure i would directly link postmodernism to neoliberlism; if anything, id say postmodernism is a critique of neoliberalism. secondly, a great many postmodernists are political but are suspicious of the belief that traditional forms of politics and political approaches (including marxism) are going to solve all problems.

Whatever do they mean by untraditional forms of politics?

[Dean]

Was it postmoderism's scepticism re all metanarratives -- like Marxism -- that resulted in neoliberalism's suspicion of government and politics?

Why don't people generally trust government nowadays? And isn't this a huge stumbling block for most people in sympathizing with Marxism?

I think people don't trust government because, since the 1990s, politicians have been using anti-government rhetoric (to support statist, capitalist measures). The government is viewed as a distinctly evil entity, whereas corporations and companies are viewed as historically necessary and therefore outside of criticism. The private sector has been conflated with the public sector, which has created a very twisted view of the actual reality experienced in society.

[ifeelyou]

Whatever do they mean by untraditional forms of politics?

well, to start off with, i think its important to remember that postmodernism as a general idea is such a complicated thing to talk about because there isnt one definition of it and as a result there really isnt a "they." there are so many differences of opinions and approaches.

as far as "untraditional" goes, ill give u an example. in a recent book, The Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, cultural anthropologist saba mahmood went after the liberal assumption that islamic women in egypt are "oppressed" and need to be "liberated," which, in turn, would lead to a lifting of what marx called "false consciousness." rather, she explores these womens pious behaviors and beliefs in relation to what foucault called "ethical practices." in the end, she calls for caution when the liberal west declares that "subjugated" women need to be "liberated" and when the west assumes it knows whats best for the rest of the world. this is a postmodernist (and postcolonial) critique of not only liberalism and western feminism, but also what some would call a "traditional" political approach.

[Hit The North]

You don't think it there's been a cultural shift in terms of how people in general view the efficacy and desirability of government in their lives since, oh, about the 80s (the beginning of the neoliberalism turn)? Yes, I do. In the UK, at least, it corresponded to the collapse of Labourist reformism. Nevertheless, in the UK, public support for the Welfare State has remained high. Neo-liberal attempts to dismantle it have met with hostility.

Fredric Jameson and David Harvey both make links between the reorganization of contemporary capitalist accumulation and shifts in culture as encapsulated by post-modernism. Neo-liberalism is obviously one of the main ideological drivers of this reorganization; whereas post-modernism is a more diffused and contradictory response.

[trivas7]

[...] in a recent book, The Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, cultural anthropologist saba mahmood went after the liberal assumption that islamic women in egypt are "oppressed" and need to be "liberated," which, in turn, would lead to a lifting of what marx called "false consciousness." rather, she explores these womens pious behaviors and beliefs in relation to what foucault called "ethical practices." in the end, she calls for caution when the liberal west declares that "subjugated" women need to be "liberated" and when the west assumes it knows whats best for the rest of the world. this is a postmodernist (and po stcolonial) critique of not only liberalism and western feminism, but also what some would call a "traditional" political approach.

Point taken that postmodernism is a broad generalization. I mean by it merely the broad outlines of the assumptions of contemporary culture.

IMO what Saba Mamood expounds is cultural relativism, or perhaps multiculturalism, i.e., the idea that there is no template by which to compare cultures. It also seems to me entirely consistent with a conservative critique of modernity.

[ifeelyou]

Point taken that postmodernism is a broad generalization. I mean by it merely the broad outlines of the assumptions of contemporary culture.

IMO what Saba Mamood expounds is cultural relativism, or perhaps multiculturalism, i.e., the idea that there is no template by which to compare cultures. It also seems to me entirely consistent with a conservative critique of modernity.

ur right. postmodernism was and is informed by cultural relativism, multiculturalism, pluralism, etc. she is also trained in anthropology, which is where cultural relativism, in part, derived from.

what do u mean by a conservative critique of modernity?

[trivas7]

Fredric Jameson and David Harvey both make links between the reorganization of contemporary capitalist accumulation and shifts in culture as encapsulated by post-modernism. Neo-liberalism is obviously one of the main ideological drivers of this reorganization; whereas post-modernism is a more diffused and contradictory response.
It was reading David Harvey's book on neoliberalism that sparked the question. It seems to me that you have it backwards, i.e., post-moderism is the culture shift away from belief in government (perhaps that started in the 60s) that the levers of power used in order to justify their neoliberal agenda.

[trivas7]

what do u mean by a conservative critique of modernity?

I mean that this is exactly the argument any good conservative uses to justify oppressive (but traditional) historical practices, viz., "who are you (Westerners) to tell us what is right and good? In our culture these things -- forced hijab, clitorectomies, etc. -- are acceptable".

[trivas7]

The private sector has been conflated with the public sector, which has created a very twisted view of the actual reality experienced in society.
How was this possible? IMO people seemed to have allowed the public sector to "whither away".

[ifeelyou]

I mean that this is exactly the argument any good conservative uses to justify oppressive (but traditional) historical practices.

agreed, but we cant blame postmodernism itself or writers for how one's work is used. marxism and darwinism have also been used for terrible ends--see social darwinism, etc.

this argument is always being used, and will probably always be used, to attack ideas that may go against particular beliefs. as has been mentioned lots of times on revleft, take nietzsche, who in many ways was a precursor to postmodernism. although he himself was not a nazi, his work was used by nazis to justify what was done. also, foucault himself has, many times, come under attack by liberationists for criticizing the idea of "liberation," which is seen as putting their leftist political work into question. more specifically, his work is disliked by a number of gay liberationists, even though he was homosexual and in interviews talked a great deal about gay and lesbian rights and activism.

the truth of the matter is that we can learn a great deal from these thinkers/writers, even if they put into question what we are doing or others use their work in unintended ways

[trivas7]

agreed, but we cant blame postmodernism itself or writers for how one's work is used. marxism and darwinism have also been used for terrible ends--see social darwinism, etc.

the truth of the matter is that we can learn a great deal from these thinkers/writers, even if they put into question what we are doing or others use their work in unintended ways

Your right, it's not a matter of blame. I personally haven't studied postmodernism much, but I intensely dislike the deconstructionists I've occasionally seen or read.

As a Marxist IMO much of postmodern thought has to be fought. Postmodernism generally holds the view that Marxism is one more discredited ideology, no? In that sense -- like the profound liberalization of Western societies in the 60s -- postmodernism has just been co-opted by capitalism. Have I got that right?

[Dean]

How was this possible? IMO people seemed to have allowed the public sector to "whither away".

Quite frankly, it was technocracy and free-market capitalism. What happened in the 90s was that people increasingly started using numbers and charts to dictate social policy and economic decision making. This had a lot to do with the rise and pervasive character of information technology.

This documentary (in 18 parts on youtube, I think) is an extremely good look at the development of positive/negative ideas of freedom, management systems, capitalism and imperialism. It is a very good, direct film, I recommend it to anyone. I'm sure if you peruse the videos you will find the answers you're looking for, at least from one viewpoint ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAluyt5_kic

[ifeelyou]

Your right, it's not a matter of blame. I personally haven't studied postmodernism much, but I intensely dislike the deconstructionists I've occasionally seen or read.

As a Marxist IMO much of postmodern thought has to be fought. Postmodernism generally holds the view that Marxism is one more discredited ideology, no? In that sense -- like the profound liberalization of Western societies in the 60s -- postmodernism has just been co-opted by capitalism. Have I got that right?

for me, i dont tend to think of postmodernism, or even marxism, as something that needs to be "fought." instead, i try to be critical of most philosophies. at the same time, i find useful things in many schools of thought, including the two we are discussing here.

postmodernism, i think its safe to say, argues that all views, opinions, philosophies, theories, etc. are ideological, counting marxism and itself. even then, postmodernists are not the only thinkers to assert this. the communist, marxist, and critic of postmodernism slavoj zizek--in my opinion, accurately--describes ideology as consciousness. in other words, to be alive is to be an ideological construction. as such, we can never really escape ideology.

in my view, because someone raises questions about marxism doesnt automatically mean that person has been "co-opted by capitalism," as if we all arent products of capitalism and being used by and contributing to such (see above comments about zizek and ideology). discussing co-optation, i cant help but think of the fact that i come across derrida's Of Grammatology (which really is the beginning of deconstructionism) alongside che's Motorcycle Diaries and, perhaps most ironically, marx's Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital at many, and what some would call mainstream and capitalist-driven, bookstores, like borders and barnes and noble.

lastly, marxism and deconstructionism are not entirely incompatible. there have been numerous intellectuals and activists that have fused parts of them together. for example, gayatri spivak, who identifies as a "feminist marxist deconstructivist." if ur at all interested, i have her essay "can the subaltern speak?." i'd be more than happy to email it to u :)

[SEKT]

Posmodernism is false because of the following:

They consider all as relative (merely a moment of subjectivity because objectivity it's an impression of the mind but it really doesn't exist), then all the theories that claim something as objective (as class struggle) posmodernism reduce it to a merely expresion of the mind of the thinker, in fact it is only a form of narrative speech. The problem is that for posmodernist thinkers truth doesn't exist. It is a basic precept becuse it also shows the untruth of this ideology (in the sense that is appeareance to cover reality). If all is relative the unique truth is of course that all is relative, then you have something absolute so the first argument is completely false. Besides the world show us that reality does exist even if some people believe that is only product of our mind.

Posmodernism forgett that what determines the counsciouss of people is the social being not the opposite. This path can be fund since (in my opinion) Habermas. Habermas still (i think) believes in the construction of a better world, the problem is that he reduced all to a single moment of communication (Theory of communicative action) what really matters is the social relations people get in their life, communication is only a moment of this process but not all. Then all the posmodernist thinkers believes the same error, that all is only communication and narrative.

The final resolution of this is that posmodernist thinkers try to "tolerate" all because it is relative, it turnes the theory into a reactionary theory, and also posmodernism is completely separated from praxis.

They tend to reject all the "metanarratives" because they consider them as ideology (and in some things they are correct, but in the other hand they forgett that not all is subjectivity, that humans can really know reality and that also the reality is condiotionated by the social structure).

Then we can see that Marxism can see that there is a part subjective and an objective part, that we cannot be a passive set of "Tolerants" because we know that the truth of human being is to be free not a slave of a system. That is why MARXISM bases it thought in scientific method (dialectical not analytic as the burgeosie), then we try to find this truth, even if this is historical, we don't try to reificate all the content to crazy ideas, we try to find the moments of truth of ideas and how they can help in the fight for social change and freedom.

Finally i would like to add that the maximum expression of reactionary theory development in this moment is posmodernism and the reason is that it is not shown as the antithesis of marxism but a supposed "Sinthesis" of it, what is merely appeareance.

[Hit The North]

It was reading David Harvey's book on neoliberalism that sparked the question. It seems to me that you have it backwards, i.e., post-modernism is the culture shift away from belief in government (perhaps that started in the 60s) that the levers of power used in order to justify their neo-liberal agenda.

Firstly, I don't recall posing an ordinal relationship between the two. Secondly, I'd be interested to see how European writers like Lyotard and Baudrillard influenced the likes of Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher and the Adam Smith Institute. It seems to me that the latter draw on much more traditional sources of bourgeois ideology. Besides, although postmodernism can be seen as a drift away from ideology, the proponents of the neo-liberal reoganization of the economy were of a distinctly ideological hue. What I would argue is that neo-liberalism and postmodernism are parallel responses to fundamental changes in late capitalism (primarily the move from Fordist to flexible production).

[Oswy]

Historically there's a strong correlation between the disappointment over the failures of popular left uprisings (especially in the 1960s) and many former Marxist intellectuals turning towards non-revolutionary and milder and more 'diffuse' critiques of capitalism - even towards acceptance or celebration of consumerism as the central feature of human existence in advanced societies. Most of the major thinkers associated with postmodernism's first generation were prior Marxists.

The big error in postmodernism for me is its general idealist orientation (as opposed to materialist). Postmodernism tends to reify ideas over existence and to reify the representation of such ideas in the form of the written word. In large measure postmodernism reduces all analysis to poststructuralist word-games wherein little can be said about the actual world out of which any such word-games might have come or be connected to. There's a dead-end quality to postmodernism - and an often accepted inability to say anything authoritative about the 'real world' at all (indeed the very existence of the 'real world' can be a target of postmodernists).

I think we're actually past the worst excesses of postmodernism as newer generations of thinkers find that the world hasn't disappeared into language and that when people get shot, or starve, or experience unemployment, these are actual physical phenomenon in the real world which deserve real-world orientation in explanation, and not convoluted poetry.

[trivas7]

The big error in postmodernism for me is its general idealist orientation (as opposed to materialist). Postmodernism tends to reify ideas over existence and to reify the representation of such ideas in the form of the written word.

I agree completely, but in post-modern culture materialism is seen as just one more ideology to be suspicious of. IMO it's linked with distrust of science. Perhaps that's a leap.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I hear more whinning from the right about the evils of Mommy government -- and it was Sinclair Lewis who warned that fascism would come to USA under the guise of socialism, no?

And the right is ascendant is it not? Thus they dominate the discourse. People regardless of their political affiliation encounter the annoying state on a semi regular basis. By and large they don't like it, and consequently those discourses about the evil state get a lot of popular resonance.