Hello! This is my first post on Lemmygrad.
I have a lesson from my Literature Theory class in college about Marxist analysis. It has some stuff about "British Cultural Materialism", "American New Historicism" and calls Simone de Beauvoir a Marxist among other things. I have a basic understanding of ML theory, though not enough to properly counter what is being said here.
The lesson is in PDF form, but I formatted it to Markdown and uploaded it to PrivateBin, here. I will also attach a screenshot showing the final questions regarding the lesson.
What points are there to be made against what is written there? It often feels like idealism and the lesson itself is filled with pseudo-Marxists.
Thank you comrades!
If it's being used to criticize Marxism by suggesting just wanting and talking about things is plenty enough (which I have dealt with irl many times), the simplest response is to point to the zero postmodernist revolutions and that the places where it became in any way popular are colonizer countries currently being stripped for parts through neoliberalization.
But only if it's being used that way. Postmodernism as a fun little academic exercise is fine.
Yeah I mean, in that regard, just look at the entire weight of history. There are vanishingly few instances where people merely communicating was able to bring about what could reasonably be described as revolutionary change, with the Velvet Revolution being something of an ironic counterexample.