Printable View
The two are actually rather different and in some ways even opposing schools of thought. For example, while post-Marxists would look at the (real or perceived) historical imbalances in power and wealth between Wales and England, and what has formed the relationship between the two nations, post-modernists would say "what is Wales and what is England?", arguing that they (and nations in general) are merely "social constructs" that ultimately mean whatever people want them to mean.
Post modernism is philosophy while post marx is economics. Modern social pysch is removed from economics but is influenced by marxism (and obviously post modernism) so the two get conflated. However people throw around post-modernism like its nothing (perhaps due to jordan petersons influence) it is clear the the woke crowd on twitter and colleges is a self generating culture, they aren't dipping into Foucault et al.
Social constructionism is just one aspect of post-modernism. In terms of socio-economics post-modernists are totally invested in (neo)marxism. They would "problematize" everything but their own marxist dogma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen
Well, surely there is a world of difference between the post-Marxist idea that some groups oppress other groups, and the post-modern idea that such groups (be they the 'victim group' or the 'oppressor group') don't really exist in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellbeaking
Piss and shit are completely different things but they happen at the same timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen
xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Bellbeaking
bump
Well it is the main aspect by far.Quote:
Originally Posted by ixulescu