3NT, you mentioned in class that for a revolution to be considered marxist it had to be more than just class conflict; the revolution had to incorporate some sort of material basis, usually the workers against the bourgeoise. I was hoping you, or someone else, could expand on that point here.

Thanks,
Bumpkins

Which is more postmodern?

"The painter is in principle that only fully independent producer, who as a rule needs no further intermediation to realize a work of art." (p.94)

v.

"Television, which was so decisive in the passage to a new epoch, has no modernist past. It became the most powerful medium of all in the postmodern period itself." (p.122)

Conclusion:

"Postmodernism is the cultural logic of a capitalism not embattled, but complacent beyond precedent. Resistance can only start by staring down this order as it is." (p.118)

I have a hard time locating where postmodernism stands in terms of its relation to society at large. I have been reading postmodern theory as an alternate to capitalism, but, as anonymous stated in his/her* blog, postmodern theory is a theory of the inevitable rise of the proletariat and the ideas that will accompany the revolution (if I read the post right). So would is the following thought logical:

The Soja essay did a solid job at explaining the basic concepts of Marxist Geography and their role within the greater Marxist philosophy. Many of his thoughts and examples pertained to actual situations that have to be dealt with in the modern political landscape. The design of everything from a city block to the relationship in trade between developed countries and underdeveloped nations has a huge effect on our everyday lives.

Well, as usual, I take objection to about half of the claims that the author makes. In this instance, the subject of *admiration* is Harvey. I don't know if it is a function of the time this particular piece was written in, but his ideas seem oddly out of place. I guess I just don't have an issue with society and these authors, being social critics, do. So here goes my critic of the critic:

"Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its 'use-value'." (Lyotard 4-5) I believe the second half of this statement to be false and the first half to be inconsequential. As long as liberal arts colleges exist, knowledge will always be an end in itself. This class offers me no material gain, any knowledge I gain will broaden my understanding of the world, but will have little effect on my career in Real Estate.

Habermas begins his paper with the idea that our sense of modern is liquid. "With varying content, the term "modern" again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from old to the new." (Habermas p.3) Modern, according to this definition, is not a set time period, but a sense of the current age. What is modern now will be antiquated at some point in the future. With that in mind, how does anything become postmodern?

Let me throw out a disclaimer: This post is long and I would be very impressed if anyone besides KF decides to read the whole thing. That being said, I like the last paragraph the best and the one on Benjamin. So if you decide to even read any farther down my post, thats what I recommend.