I tend to agree, with a nuance. Modernity is the era of industrial capitalism. Modernism is the academic discourse that sought to interpret modernity, often in terms of individualism, science, and technique (aesthetic, etc.). Modernity continues so long as industrial capitalism continues. Modernism - as more or less derivative of moderni…
I tend to agree, with a nuance. Modernity is the era of industrial capitalism. Modernism is the academic discourse that sought to interpret modernity, often in terms of individualism, science, and technique (aesthetic, etc.). Modernity continues so long as industrial capitalism continues. Modernism - as more or less derivative of modernity, but not actually creating it - fell into disfavor sometime in the interwar period, e.g. Heidegger's move towards a kind of proto-postmodernism.
Just to state it upfront, Marx was a theorist of modernity, but not in the vein of the modernists, such as John Stuart Mill. Marx was what I call a counter-modernist, somewhat prefiguring the postmodern turn. I consider myself something of a revisionist Marxist, and I'll elaborate below to the degree that's relevant.
Postmodernism is a distinct stage of academic discourse, emerging out of modernist discourse but departing from it in terms of skepticism (objectivity is dependent on subjectivity), pragmatism (knowledge is subjective and pragmatic), and trangression (incongruity as aesthetic).
Modernity nevertheless continues onwards and postmodernism falls victim to its own inadequacies.
Metamodernism appears to try and transcend both postmodernism and modernism, but since all three are discourses that lack the critical power of Marxism, metamodernism is no more potent than its postmodern predecessor.
Marxism is a living tradition, not simply the distillation of Marx and/or Engels. As a counter-modernism with a practical politics at its core, the better Marxists never mistake discourse for revolutionary practice.
There is much to learn from all three periods of discourse, and Marxism has taken much from each era, whilst remaining focused on its core mission of fostering revolutionary collectives.
I appreciate the reply Charley. I'm in some agreement. I think the mode of production of modernity hasn't changed and so we have that Marxian base continuing (primitive communism → slavery → feudalism → capitalism).
While I think the term modernism is a bit tricky even with your qualifiers, I do agree with the sentiment that "modernism", "postmodernism" and "metamodernism" are each paradigms within the capitalist Marxian Base.
The question of the reality of these paradigms as anything but reified caricature is something I'll be exploring more in future instalments of the critique. Sufficed to say, I don't see them (insofar as they exist at all) as being hegemonic paradigms in the culture at large
I tend to agree, with a nuance. Modernity is the era of industrial capitalism. Modernism is the academic discourse that sought to interpret modernity, often in terms of individualism, science, and technique (aesthetic, etc.). Modernity continues so long as industrial capitalism continues. Modernism - as more or less derivative of modernity, but not actually creating it - fell into disfavor sometime in the interwar period, e.g. Heidegger's move towards a kind of proto-postmodernism.
Just to state it upfront, Marx was a theorist of modernity, but not in the vein of the modernists, such as John Stuart Mill. Marx was what I call a counter-modernist, somewhat prefiguring the postmodern turn. I consider myself something of a revisionist Marxist, and I'll elaborate below to the degree that's relevant.
Postmodernism is a distinct stage of academic discourse, emerging out of modernist discourse but departing from it in terms of skepticism (objectivity is dependent on subjectivity), pragmatism (knowledge is subjective and pragmatic), and trangression (incongruity as aesthetic).
Modernity nevertheless continues onwards and postmodernism falls victim to its own inadequacies.
Metamodernism appears to try and transcend both postmodernism and modernism, but since all three are discourses that lack the critical power of Marxism, metamodernism is no more potent than its postmodern predecessor.
Marxism is a living tradition, not simply the distillation of Marx and/or Engels. As a counter-modernism with a practical politics at its core, the better Marxists never mistake discourse for revolutionary practice.
There is much to learn from all three periods of discourse, and Marxism has taken much from each era, whilst remaining focused on its core mission of fostering revolutionary collectives.
I appreciate the reply Charley. I'm in some agreement. I think the mode of production of modernity hasn't changed and so we have that Marxian base continuing (primitive communism → slavery → feudalism → capitalism).
While I think the term modernism is a bit tricky even with your qualifiers, I do agree with the sentiment that "modernism", "postmodernism" and "metamodernism" are each paradigms within the capitalist Marxian Base.
The question of the reality of these paradigms as anything but reified caricature is something I'll be exploring more in future instalments of the critique. Sufficed to say, I don't see them (insofar as they exist at all) as being hegemonic paradigms in the culture at large