Understanding Post-Neo-Marxism: A Critique and Analysis

The concept of Post-Neo-Marxism is intriguing and often complex, especially since it merges elements of Marxism with postmodernist critiques. To unravel this, it’s crucial to understand the underpinnings of these theories, particularly postmodernism and neo-Marxism.

Postmodernism: A Departure from Modernism

Postmodernism is a broad cultural and intellectual movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century, marking a departure from modernism. It is characterized by skepticism, irony, and a rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism. Postmodernists frequently challenge universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, and social progress. Instead, they view knowledge claims and value systems as contingent, socially-conditioned, and produced by political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies.

Neo-Marxism: Amending and Extending Marxism

Neo-Marxism is a Marxist school of thought that encompasses 20th-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions. It aims to address perceived deficiencies in orthodox Marxism or dialectical materialism. Key thinkers in neo-Marxism include Herbert Marcuse and members of the Frankfurt School. They have historically been sociologists and psychologists, adding broader understandings of social inequality to Marxist philosophy. Neo-Marxism's diverse and syncretic nature allows for a more nuanced approach to class and power dynamics.

The Intersection of Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism

Statesman Jordan Peterson, a prominent public intellectual, has coined the term 'Postmodern Neo-Marxist' to describe a diverse and vague group of leftists, social justice activists, and those involved in university campuses. Peterson's definition is often criticized for its incoherence and narrow perspective. His attempt to equate postmodernism with Marxism is misconstrued, as postmodern thinkers generally reject the grand narratives and ideology associated with Marxism.

In Peterson's view, postmodernists like Foucault and Derrida are vilified because they are seen as undermining objective truths. However, Foucault explicitly distanced himself from Marxist parties, and his work focused more on power relations rather than class warfare. Similarly, Derrida's work was more about deconstruction and the socially-conditioned nature of language rather than traditional Marxist class analysis.

Criticisms and Revelations

The criticism of postmodern neo-Marxism often stems from Peterson's reliance on pseudo-intellectual rhetoric and narrow political narratives. Peterson's claim that postmodernists are 'destroying Western civilization' by contradicting absolute truths is seen as an oversimplification. Such rhetoric is more indicative of a 'reds under the bed' attitude than a constructive debate about political issues on the left.

Postmodernism and neo-Marxism share a critique of traditional power structures but differ significantly in their approaches. Postmodernists often focus on the role of ideology in maintaining power, while neo-Marxists emphasize class struggle. Peterson's linking of these two ideologies is more of a political narrative than a coherent academic argument.

A Call for Skepticism

It is important to maintain a skeptical stance towards grand narratives and dogmas, especially when they are used to enforce a particular political or intellectual viewpoint. Jordan Peterson’s theories, though accessible and inspiring in some areas, lack the rigorous academic standards required for meaningful debate. His influence should not overshadow the need for critical thinking and robust debates in political theory and philosophy.