postmoderism's place within capitalism

"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:

Because the proletariat revolution is caused by the angst of people within the capitalist system, is postmodernism a part of capitalism?

Postmodernism cannot be outside or above the capitalism system because the revolution will be bread out of capitalism. Postmodern theory then becomes less of a critique of the system and more of an explanation for its ultimate demise. The postmodern is capitalistic by nature: catchy, mundane, and accessible. As much as anderson wants to place himself and his work above the ordinary, it takes it place within postmodernism which is within capitalism. His ideas cannot spread without a publisher. The average person can't even understand what is being said because of the "verbal intelligibility" of his work. How can a revolution of the proletariat begin without an understanding of the theory by the proletariat?

* I obviously know the sex of Anonymous, but don't wanna give it away for the sake of anonymity. Are all bloggers necessarily sexless, soulless voids with a voice?

Sorry to break it to you, Bumpkins, but your contention that discourses never transcend the conditions out of which they arise, and are therefore not "critique[s] of the system" so much as "explanation[s] for its ultimate demise," is (gasp!) highly Marxian. His dialectical materialist understanding of history borrows from Hegel and posits that socio-economic systems produce the conditions of their subversion. Otherwise - unless one invokes a realm beyond materiality - how is change explicable? (Actually, I think there are problems with this theory, but it makes enough sense according to the materialist premise)

Your asterisk point is interesting: does the erasure of gender equal, or even correlate to, the erasure of the soul and/or the deprivation of subjectivity itself?

In writing my paper proposal this weekend, I suppose that I also was puzzled with postmodernism and its role in/against capitalism. In some works we have read, I have a hard time seeing the manifestation of these postmodernist theories in our everday life. Let's just take, for example, Benjamin (because I'm writing my paper on him)...

He proposes that photography and film will be revolutionary new art forms because they eliminate the idea of an original and unique art work.

But..what about the art market today, based on capitalistic supply and demand, and how it regulates fine art photography practices. Sure, the fine art photograph comes from a negative which can produce innumerable copies. But the actual practice is to issue an edition of the photograph, limiting the number of photographs in existence and destroing the negative to insure its value.

This is especially important in the elimination of the gold standard, where art is actually used as a sort of currency.

The new forms of art have not been revolutionary in the sense that Benjamin wanted, but have been incorporated into the capitalist system itself.

A few thoughts.

First of all, I think Bumpkins slightly misread my assesment of postmodernism; I would say it is not so much a theorizing of the inevitable rise of the proletariat as it is instead a collective theoretical effort to understand why the Marxist expectation for an inevitable uprising never in fact occurred. So it is the theory of the lack of the proletariat revolution. I think this might slightly alter your question, though I am not entirely sure in what ways.

On the matter of gender - and by the way, I'm about to largely digress from anything strictly related to the texts - I think there is a very strong reinforcement of patriarchy that occurs by advocating for gender anonymity. Despite the irony of my blog name, I am in no way seeking to hide my gender (which we all know is female). I might argue that a gender-less cyberspace essentially becomes a male cyberspace because practically speaking, you all would probably have assumed I was male if you didn't actually know who I was. I think women may hesitate to publicize their gender for fear of having their comments and ideas attributed to a more gendered-perspective than is often placed upon men. But our identities inform and direct our world views, and I think my experience as a women has many implications for the ways in which I make sense of, for example, post modern theory. Hidden does not simply mean 'irrelevant.' Personally, I'd be interested in seeing us, as the players of this space, begin to locate our readings of the texts within our own experiences - both to ground the theoretical in the lived world, and to understand how 'identity' (pardon the vagueness) informs our sense of this most-socially-bound theory.