Postmodernism: Materialist?

[Jim W. Jaszewski]

Ralph Dumain wrote:
 
> Jim, I'm sure others can answer this question with finer technical accuracy
> than I, as I don't spend time reading this crap.

I don't blame you, but we're all gonna HAVE to, if we're to slay this
multi-headed worm in the name of workingclass clear-thinking...
:<



>  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.

This we know for sure. To help clarify my admittedly broad question, let
me add that AFAIC, most PM is complete shit (we have that famous little
incident with the academic journal to PROVE it beyond ALL reasonable
doubt); but for that which isn't, what I want to know is: can the
_majority_ of THAT be considered at least implicitly materialist (in any
sense)?



>  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.

I've always found this simply amazing. What WILL they think of?



>  So perhaps you could help by
> clarifying in what way you suspect that postmodernism is materialist.

I really can only consider ontology here as being the key. IMO how could
a true materialism be anything other than ontological at heart?? All
else is bogus. But gee. Maybe I'm just a naif.


 
> 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.

Ideas themselves aren't bogus, are they, Ralph?
:>



>  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.

This, I am sorry to say, I know little of.
:<


>  It is well worth
> contemplating why you can never get a straight answer from the present-day
> disciples of these people.

A sure and fishy sign...




ciao & solidarity,
(someday I'm gonna change that to Viva la Revolucion...)

Jim W. Jaszewski.