>>9584Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism, akin to the very sorts of 'critiques' leveled against post-modernism, i.e. strawman tier stuff such as 'if everything is relative, then the statement of relativity itself is also relative and so cannot have any real axiomatic basis and is epistemically incoherent'. Attempts at logical 'gotchas' like this are demonstrably below Wikipedia tier, come scrutiny.
Anyhow, the notion that grand narratives being rejected 'is itself a grand narrative' is aphoristic and trite/meaningless on two main fronts: firstly, to stipulate something's negation as being positively categorical within its negation prior to sublation is thusly a misstep, and it is also, erroneously, to suspend the unresolved contradiction as an impossible qualifier. And secondly, the idea that the rejection is itself a grand narrative, is a confused conflation of the form of what a grand narrative even is as being merely axiomatic (a grand narrative is NOT something axiomatic, in actuality).
It also seems you have no standard or basis for what a post-modernist really is. 'People calling them that' is beyond retarded, as this could be said of anything in relation to anything else. If I call Marx a capitalist, is Marx now a capitalist, in the objectively historical sense? If the idea you're attempting to insinuate here is instead that we should pragmatically address those who call others post-modernists on those very terms, then you'd encounter another problem, namely that you're now ascribing the labels others have applied for postmodernism onto my own separate account of what constitutes post-modernism, which of course, was never the case in my original statement. What's more, no specific names have been provided. Also, I'm not interested in what others arbitrarily declare post-modernists to be, I'm interested in recognizing the category as a concrete subject of analysis. From this, it can likewise be fairly extrapolated that your idea of 'marxist postmodernists' probably falls short, too. You didn't provide any examples of these supposed figures, but I'm sure any examples you might offer will probably also be doomed to inaccurate classification. Let me guess: Deleuze is somehow a marxist, Lacan is somehow a marxist (he wasn't even a postmodernist, either), explicitly anti-marxist authors like Baudrillard, Foucault, etc. are somehow marxists…
..Someone taking inspiration from (or inhering a background in having read) another author doesn't mean they ARE of that same ideology, not even by proxy of derivation. Were this the case, there wouldn't exist any ideological+philosophical distinctions to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, there are continental marxists, but not all continentals are post-modernists and vice versa.
The quote about Adorno and Leninism is pretty banal; you're dealing here with a continental thinker who was not a post-modernist (Adorno), who also, for what it's worth, didn't have a very solid grasp of Marx in many respects. All Lenin ever claimed to be doing, from the outset, was forwarding the ramifications of Marx's theoretical revelations to their furthered ends in practice, via his supplanting of the (as he claimed) shared theoretical background. So, although Marx never explicitly word-for-word acknowledged the interrelations of societal subjectivity, Lenin believed that this dynamic was already inscribed in the dialectic of Marx; the process of materialism qua the inversion of Hegel inherently must owe itself to these topics, as is already apparent in Hegel, with whom both Marx & Lenin were necessarily, intimately familiar. One of the chief obligations then, in reconciling the seeming contradiction between the implicit acknowledgment of subjectivity with an objective materiality of history & consciousness, is to have grasped the obliteration of the subject-object divide precisely through materialism, as a part of the dialectic, which, indeed, is the vitally social essence of Marxism.