Postmodernism: Materialist?

[Ralph Dumain]

Jim, I'm sure others can answer this question with finer technical accuracy
than I, as I don't spend time reading this crap.  One would certainly have
to make finer discriminations than one often makes when lumping various
thinkers under the umbrella label "postmodernism" to designate a general
intellectual, ideological, cultural trend.  It would seem much of this
stuff is decidedly idealist.  However, there is a further complication: you
must know as a Marxist that even thought-systems that call themselves
materialist may well be considered idealist from a Marxist perspective.
Consider even the various competing schools within Marxism itself.  Many of
those which would accept the designation of historical materialism at the
same time reject ontological materialism.  So perhaps you could help by
clarifying in what way you suspect that postmodernism is materialist.

BTW, this same question is applicable to the Frankfurt School itself.  This
whole school is riddled with idealist influences, from which it derives
some of its unique strengths as well as its fatal flaws.  When Frankfurters
are "materialist", they come about it via a different route than
dialectical materialism.  For example, Adorno's non-identity of thought and
being comes down to a materialist position by a roundabout route, but the
Nietzschean and other idealist influences, the rejection of natural
science, the withdrawal from an affirmative investigation of physcial
reality and retreat into negative dialectic all contribute to the impotent
and reactionary side of this brand of thinking.  It is well worth
contemplating why you can never get a straight answer from the present-day
disciples of these people.

At 03:30 AM 02/20/2000 -0500, Jim W. Jaszewski wrote:
>
>Hey Ralph:
>
>You of all people might be able to answer this straight:
>
>I have the definite impression that while much of 'postmodernism'
>(despite whatever it HAS to offer that is truly insightful or new) is
>just the latest installment of bourgeois reaction against marxist
>clarity, it is also largely MATERIALIST at its base -- something which
>the idealist disinformationists in academe are careful to avoid drawing
>attention to...
>
>How close is this (if at all) to the actual situation? As far as you can
>tell..?
>
>Anyone else feel free to pipe up.