You can't really say it grew out of Marxism when the whole process of arriving at that theory--insofar as postmodernism actually is a theory--involved an abandonment of Marxism. Postmodern neomarxism doesn't make any sense because it's attempting to make it sound like there's any connection between the French postmodernists and the German critical theorists (who are often wrongly called 'neomarxists') to point to some vague conspiracy taking place in academia and civil society to brainwash the masses, which is just the 'cultural Marxists' bit rebranded. It also doesn't make any sense to call a theory neo-something when it clearly has no connection to the original something; in this case the whole concept of neomarxism falls apart because Marxism is historically invariant.
Like I said, it's perfectly possible to argue postmodernism is not Marxism anymore. It's a reasonable point. But all postmodernists are far leftists, almost all of them are/have been Marxists, and members of communist/Marxist organizations. So it is fair to make a connection between postmodernism and Marxism. But if we want to understand the possibility of the combination, let's see what eminent literary critic and Marxist Fredric Jameson has to say about it:
Marxism and postmodernism: people often seem to find this combination peculiar or paradoxical, and somehow intensely unstable, so that some of them are led to conclude that, in my own case, having ‘become’ a postmodernist, I must have ceased to be a Marxist in any meaningful (or in other words stereotypical) sense. [*] For the two terms (in full postmodernism) carry with them a whole freight of pop nostalgia images, ‘Marxism’ perhaps distilling itself into yellowing period photographs of Lenin and the Soviet revolution, and ‘postmodernism’ quickly yielding a vista of the gaudiest new hotels. The over-hasty unconscious then rapidly assembles the image of a small, painstakingly reproduced nostalgia restaurant—decorated with the old photographs, with Soviet waiters sluggishly serving bad Russian food—hidden away within some gleaming new pink and blue architectural extravaganza. If I may indulge a personal note, it has happened to me before to have been oddly and comically identified with an object of study: a book I published years ago on structuralism elicited letters, some of which addressed me as a ‘foremost’ spokesperson for structuralism, while the others appealed to me as an ‘eminent’ critic and opponent of that movement. I was really neither of those things, but I have to conclude that I must have been ‘neither’ in some relatively complicated and unusual way that it seemed hard for people to grasp. As far as postmodernism is concerned, and despite the trouble I took in my principal essay on the subject to explain how it was not possible intellectually or politically simply to celebrate postmodernism or to ‘disavow’ it (to use a word to which I will return), avant-garde art critics quickly identified me as a vulgar-Marxist hatchet man, while some of the more simplehearted comrades concluded that, following the example of so many illustrious predecessors, I had finally gone off the deep end and become a ‘post-Marxist’ (which is to say, a renegade and a turncoat). https://newleftrevie...d-postmodernism
Fredric Jameson on 'cultural Marxism':The specific use of the term cultural in a certain Marxist tradition, most notably the Soviet: here culture designates daily life and daily practices in general (or, if you like, the “superstructural” in general). This is of course an immediately central political area for any postrevolutionary society, since what is now designated is a level of collective consciousness, issues of education and social reproduction, and most significantly what we might be tempted to call ideological attitudes: literacy, the relationship of the peasant to industrial and technological phenomena, the relationship of hitherto dominated classes to images of authority, sexual politics and gender attitudes including the place of the family, and so forth. This brief list is enough to suggest that when Lenin and others termed this or that problem a “cultural issue,” they did not thereby intend to marginalize or trivialize such problems, but on the contrary to designate them as a crucial area for which some enlarged conception of political work and collective reeducation had to be invented. Gramsci’s notion of a struggle for hegemony, or more precisely, for the construction of a counter-hegemony, seems to me very obviously to designate this same area, whose problematic has now been widened to include “cultural” struggles that must precede and prepare a social revolution; while the Chinese conception of “cultural revolution” obviously also develops very squarely in this tradition, although to discuss it (and to show the originality of this conception, which can now be distinguished from its limited historical experience in revolutionary China) would take too much time here.
Of course they did reflect on material causes. I would also throw in Max Weber as one of the very best liberal theorists just for the range of subjects he wrote on. I was referring to modern liberal analysis above all, but even in Weber, for example, you can clearly see explicitly idealist explanations to some phenomena (for example, Protestantism and capitalism).
You can't really understand Protestantism merely through materialism though. Understanding Protestantism merely through materialism would be bizarre and reductionist.
And of course liberalism isn't politically neutral, but you presented these concepts of truth and justice as if they weren't completely politicized, which is disingenuous. It doesn't mean much to say liberal thinkers support them because, in effect, what you're saying is that liberal thinkers defend a liberal order.
Free speech as John Stuart Mill argues for isn't a hegemonic construct to enforce some specific societal order. That's really, exactly what it is not. He argues that regardless how offensive an opinion is, offense is not a reason for censorship. He argues for the protection of minority opinions, because opinions are generally only half truths, and that this is also true of majority opinions. That's not a reasoning with the aim to push through a specific type of order. Is it political? Sure. But it is not an aim for 'liberal dialogue', to aim for 'liberal truth', and 'liberal justice'. It is not premised on reaching a specific end.
The whole 'collectivization' thing doesn't mean anything more than state ownership.
And state ownership, collectivization, is the opposite of privatization, which was the purpose of the enclosure act. So that's not 'the same'. It's even opposite.
I should say the book I was referencing is not The Entrepreneurial State, which is not by Chang as far as I can tell, but Bad Samaritans, which is a study and dismantlement of the free market myth of industrialization
Yeah, I mixed them up, because they both argue against popular free market myths, and were on Chomsky's reading list.
They did more than acknowledge disparity, they regarded it as exploitation backed by state power. Hence all the revolutions lead by liberals to abolish feudal, clerical and royal power and establish formal equality before the law.
They didn't really consider it 'exploitation'. They just thought it was incompetent and unjust. As for the legitimacy of state power. Godwin is a classical liberal and a proto anarchist. But he is an exception in that respect.
It's absolutely full of class analysis, especially his analysis of divisions of labour (ie, class systems) and how they'll have to be abolished to allow for human flourishing.
He, doesn't really say that. He mainly rants on praising how gigantic the increase in productivity is under it. He also criticizes it for making human beings mere cogs. He gives a mixed picture, but the positive is a more dominant element. It's fair to say that negative comment is all too often forgotten, and Adam Smith is misrepresented as a free market fanatic, which he was not. He was nuanced.
unless you think Bernie Sanders and Bill Maher are socialists.
Bill Maher, no, obviously. But Bernie Sanders does seem to engage in class warfare rhetoric against 'the 1%'. There's a devestating amount of inequality in the USA, so criticism of it is justified. It's even very laudable, and I think Bernie is important. But he does go overboard on the rhetoric sometimes. Probably because he needs to compensate for a lack of such thinking in the mainstream. Though I think that has changed, partly because of him.
I shouldn't have to explain why liberal feminism is liberal.
It developed more from corporate PC culture than from some sh*t Foucault wrote.
That is indeed an interesting influence. I think ideas that were conceived by people like Foucault are popularized also due to corporate PC culture, and marketing aimed at identity, which is funny and strange.
wherein Capitalism is reformed with state management of industry
In Western countries states don't 'manage' industry. They subsidize and participate in innovation, provide natural resources on the cheap, and engage in protectionist patents and trade barriers. But.. They don't run the business. They do a lot, but not that.