Connectthroughvalues seems to have succumbed to postmodernism. Truth is no longer included in the list of values for which they stand.

As to the people who announce that they do not understand the article, it should be remembered that there is an opinion, that in order to understand the article, one’s thought process would need to be in the same sad state as those of the authors of the article.

They may feel some gratitude for, or even pride in, their lack of understanding

I love post modernism. It is an excuse to blather on at length about not very much and avoid reaching any useful conclusions.

The ALP is a progressive liberal party.

The Liberal Party is a conservative party.

Marx is a dead German.

This contribution is welcome, as an attempt to bring Marx's theoretical base back into discussing the "left's" program. It highlights again the old, but present, distinction between those who see the need to revolutionise society and those who are content with reform.

I dont believe either party has an agenda for reform or revolution. In this neo-darkage era both parties are content to manipulate the social and political environment to keep donations rolling in.

If either party had modernist foundations they would both have addressed climate change effectively over the past 25 years. Instead we have the post modernist bondage to emotions where greed and sloth are the foundations to policy. The modernist pragmatism is not heard in Australian political rhetoric , instead our post modernist primeminister wobbles from hysterical mumbo jumbo resonant to 1984 newspeak to cutsie jingoism of bristling muscles in singlets and playing with balls. Meanwhile the opposition leader bleats the middle earth values of wizards that occult drivel can actually mean be kinder to demonic heathens than previously practiced in history.

While only being tangentially relevant to the original article, I think that postmodernism, while not being wedded to a particular flavour of political thought per se, seems to have found favour among the 'left' in academia (for want of a better term).

Therefore, postmodernism and left philosophy have become intermixed to the point where, to the layperson, they are one and the same. Ironically, then, postmodernism, while attempting to pull apart the facade of modernism, has also managed to undo the moral and ethical basis for left economics and philosophy. After all, it must be remembered that Marxism is a modernist notion, as it is infused with all those wonderful ideas about evolution, progress and the prioritising of the group over the individual. In fact, I would argue that postmodernism and left ideology are not compatible, since Marxism is nothing more than an outgrowth of capitalist and humanist thought.

"One man's truth is another man's lies." Kev Carmondy.

The article seems to be coming from the Habermas' interpretation of post modernism. In the context of the other various interpretations and expansions of the meaning of post modernism, such as Barthes (more so a radical departure from structuralism) and the reinterpretation of Western thought/morality by the colonised; I'd say the article is actually confirms post- modern discourse is trucking along nicely.

Not meaning to “decentre” you folk but we all mostly come from different reference points and I think it will pretty well be impossible to ever get us all on the same page - let alone adherring to the ideology (oops Principles) of some mystical extra systemic reference point -– unless fascism prevails (especially if we don’t realise it is so).

I am more concerned about the spectre of fascism; on the spectre of all folk believing in the “one idea” and the destruction of individual thought - than romper stomping Marx. Did I revisit the past with enough irony to be representative of post-modernist carry on? Are you certain?