OK, OK, the reason I am writing an essay about why Postmodernism cannot be anywhere near fully understood if we think of it in terms of 'cultural Marxism' is so that I don't have to keep arguing about this on Twitter. So I am stopping, sleeping, waking, writing. Goodnight.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But PoMo shouldn't share Marxism's revolutionary ethos. The only reason it does is because those ideas have been smuggled in. Which is why it's more accurate to say there's an unholy alliance between the two schools, not that one stepped into the shoes of the other.
-
Why shouldn't it? This is what liberalism does. It attempts to dismantle oppressive structures. Marxism failed because it misconceived class oppression. It succeeded with feudalism, the church, patriarchy, slavery etc. This didn't begin with Marx.
-
PoMo isn't a political ideology with stated political aims. It's a method of cultural critique that views all narratives, all ideas with equal skepticism and derision. All forms of discourse collapse. The method lends itself so well, though, to the aims of cultural Marxists.
-
Which don't actually exist but are what the political manifestations of postmodernism are called. It just didn't work like that and it still doesn't. Completely different rationale and mentality.
-
I'm not going to argue about this any more. When I have finished all three of my PoMo essays, it will explain much better than I can on here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.