2020. 2. 10. 22:39ㆍ카테고리 없음
© Photos.com/Thinkstockterm used, often derogatorily, to describe classical economic liberalism of the 19th century, based on the writings of Adam Smith in ‘The Wealth of Nations’; French word bourgeois refers to merchants, bankers, and entrepreneurs of the towns; prosperous middle class, or bourgeoisie, was contrasted with the workers, called the proletariat; bourgeoisie deemed by antiliberals to have different economic interests; word liberalism comes from Latin liber (free); fundamental principles of bourgeois liberalism were individual liberty, right. Choose a language from the menu above to view a computer-translated version of this page.
Please note: Text within images is not translated, some features may not work properly after translation, and the translation may not accurately convey the intended meaning. Britannica does not review the converted text.After translating an article, all tools except font up/font down will be disabled. To re-enable the tools or to convert back to English, click 'view original' on the Google Translate toolbar.
★ Communism 101 ★Welcome! This is a place for learning and teaching Marxism. An anti-Marxist ideology which gained popularity in the 90s, though not originating from within the ICM, nevertheless created considerable confusion through its intervention in people’s movements in various parts of the world.
This ideology went by the name of ‘postmodernism’. Its central thesis was to announce the end of the ‘Modern’ age and with it the end of the beliefs of the Enlightenment that humanity constantly progressed through the advancement of reason and freedom. It also simultaneously rejected the ideologies rooted in the Enlightenment - bourgeois liberalism and socialism. It rejects universal values like rationality, equality or general human emancipation as ‘totalising’ concepts and contrasts them to an emphasis on ‘different’ identities such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, on various particular and separate oppressions and struggles. The emphasis on differences is continued as a refusal to accept the possibility of building common social consciousness, such as class consciousness, because the individual’s identities are so different and variable.
It rejects what it calls ‘grand narratives’ including the Marxist materialist conception of history, on the grounds that it reduces the complexity of human experience to a simplistic, monolithic, world-view, giving undue weightage to economics, the mode of production and class. In contrast it concentrates its focus on language, culture and ‘discourse’ on the grounds that language is all we can know about the world and we have access to no other reality. Thus the link running through all the postmodernist themes is an emphasis on the fragmented nature of the world and of human knowledge and a staunch opposition to any politics of emancipation attempting to liberate the whole of society, e.g. Socialism, communism.The material roots of the postmodernist thinking can be traced to the segmented, consumerist and seemingly continuously changing and shifting nature of contemporary global capitalism. Postmodernism simultaneously attempts to link itself to the various sectional movements growing in this period.
However it principally is an example of the various defeatist philosophies that have attempted to grow in prominence in the wake of the collapse of all socialist bases. While countering it at the philosophical and ideological levels, it is also simultaneously necessary to clearly and forcefully propagate the Marxist perspective within the fighting sections in the movements where postmodernism attempts to create its defeatist confusions - the environment, women’s, caste, race, and other movements. (my emphases). It rejects universal values like rationality, equality or general human emancipation as ‘totalising’ concepts and contrasts them to an emphasis on ‘different’ identities such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, on various particular and separate oppressions and struggles.This is actually a key point regarding my question, which I couldn't really put into words. I often see Communists 'critique' (or more often spam memes at) the idea of nonbinary gender identity by claiming that it is 'postmodern'. However, in my view, an understanding of the distinction between different struggles of different groups is vital to overall consciousness. Postmodernism is a multifaceted set of schools of thought that essentially suggest that the age of modernity (the age introduced by the enlightenment and the liberal revolutions.) It is sometimes interesting and insightful.
At its core, however, is an attack on the promises of the enlightenment. That is, basically, freedom and equality.
Marxism itself was spawned by the analysis of Marx and Engels as to why liberalism had not realised these promises. The promise was a splendid one, but liberalism and the bourgeoisie will never deliver it. That's the task of the proletariat and of communism.Be sure not to get caught up in the reactionary narrative from the likes of TumblrInAction and GamerGate that suggest that the Frankfurt School and other Marxist schools and strands are related to postmodernism. There is occasionally an attempt to draw connections between the two based on the mutual rejection of positivist social science of the Frankfurt School and of the postmodernists.
Rorty Postmodern Bourgeois Liberalism Pdf Editor Free
But the Frankfurt School rejects positivism because dialectical and materialist analysis reveals the ideology-fraught nature of positivist social science (think of the bullshit 'proof' of people of colour being inferior to whites.) That is, it's difficult for us to see the truth, as ideology shapes what we 'discover to be the truth.' Postmodernists reject the idea that there is any real truth at all.Postmodernism stands in stark contrast to a materialist, structuralist analysis, such as that of the Frankfurt School and other Marxists. But read it anyway. Some of it is interesting, and they occasionally critique ideology in ways that is genuinely insightful. The biggest problem with answering any question about postmodernism is that it isn't easily definable, and different nominal postmodernists have different approaches to what has been termed the postmodern condition making any singular critique of it difficult if not impossible. There is also the conflation of postmodernism with more general post-structuralist tendencies, which muddies the water even more. For instance, I only know of one philosopher that actually could be considered a true postmodernist: Lyotard.
And even then, his project was describing the postmodern condition, which he identified as having an incredulity towards meta-narratives, it is not all that clear that he was advocating for its truth-the latter would, in and of itself, be seen as contradictory towards postmodernism's perspective. Rather, Lyotard could be seen as merely a pragmatist in the vein of Rorty, attempting to salvage meaning in an age of skepticism.Another problem with critiques of postmodernism is a conflation of the postmodern condition with postmodern philosophy-I can see no reason why a postmodernist would hold to identity politics since identities are just as contingent and historical situated as anything else. You can't base your philosophy on an identity while also discarding the very pre-discursive grounding for this philosophy that would be central to a postmodernist account.Basically, though, postmodern philosophy does not conflict with Marxism, since it isn't really a philosophy to begin with: it is just a term that people use to label those they find to relativistic.