What do you think?
Rate this book
Colorful Classics #16
Post-Modernism Today
“Marxism is a scientific theory that grasps the laws of the development of society and bases itself on practice for making history. Post-modernist thoughts stand against this, and any rational thinking.
Revisionism, seen (posing) as Marxism, is a vulgarisation of the original, depriving it of its scientific essence, and making it, therefore, unattractive to those who desire change.”
Revisionism, seen (posing) as Marxism, is a vulgarisation of the original, depriving it of its scientific essence, and making it, therefore, unattractive to those who desire change.”
235 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2018
4 people are currently reading
176 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 15, 2025
(4.5) If one wants to know the cutting-edge of the Maoist perspective on post-modernism/structuralism, this is the definitive work/critique. I'd take .5 points off just for the first quarter of the book which would likely scare off certain readers (including almost myself) in which Siraj sounds like a dogmatic Marxist blindly bashing these post-theorists. However, it is extremely clear that Siraj knows these theorists well and ends up reconstructing the arguments of Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, and Baudrillard especially well (and charitably at times) for a most contemporary Marxist criticism birthed from the grounds of struggle and imperialist oppression in India. He even uses Erich Fromm, Louis Althusser, and Karl Popper at different times to illustrate certain points that I found very fruitful. By far the most fruitful upshot is the parallel made of structuralists and post-structuralists with the dialectical materialists and Machian idealists in Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. As Siraj formulates, it is clear that this is no mere coincidence but is very much one of the repetitions of history that coincide with the ebbs and flows of capital and the progress of reason and science that is tied to it. A praise of the structuralist mode of thought in its closer proximity to the Marxist totality is precisely what Lenin shows with Engels's closeness with Feurbach whilst the Machians relapse into Berkleian Idealism. One who wants to seriously criticize post-isms from a Marxist point of view must confront themselves through this text in which post-modernism/structuralism is built from the ground up, dissected, and obliterated of its irrelevant and revisionist elements.
July 24, 2025
finallyyyyyyy finished. i was definitely slogging thru it but only cuz postmodernism is so stupid. tho i am glad i now have a better understanding of where the ideas come from/their effects. siraj was straight shitting on them the entire 230~ pages so it was entertaining lmfao
August 12, 2025
Rigid ideologue DESTROYS a different type of rigid ideologue!
~
As someone who has spent my life in bourgeois academia (social sciences), I have yet to encounter, even once in my life, someone who has attempted to weave together the thinkers like Siraj did to create this sort of intricate, cohesive and comprehensive postmodernist life philosophy for themselves. In that way, the book felt to me a bit like someone beating a strawman to death. Congrats, you won! This is not to say that the contradictions in post-structuralist thought that were highlighted are not truly contradictions- they are! It’s not a strawman in the sense of an inaccurate depiction- but instead, in the sense that I don’t feel like it’s a very representative example of “postmodernism today.”
This feels relevant because this book takes some bold philosophical stances (eg, our perceptions and conceptions simply reveal “reality” to us, more or less accurately)- asserting them by fiat rather than attempting to rigorously argue them. This is precisely the type of scientific positivism that poststructuralist thinkers helpfully problematized! And this is precisely the reason why people tend to vaguely accept the broad points of postmodern thought.
Generally speaking, academics find the style of rigid dogmatism used in this book- where the map is presumed to be synonymous with the terrain- to be naive and unconvincing. Pointing out legitimate issues with other systems of thought doesn’t magically fix that. I would have appreciated the author putting forward a more rigorous argument for Marxist epistemology, which actually attempted to answer the critiques raised by poststructuralism. Instead, the book focused singularly on discrediting the entire post-hoc grouping of so-called postmodernist thinkers, leaving Marxist epistemology as apparently valid in comparison, due to being the only one left standing.
Long story short, it reads more like propaganda than genuine educational materials. It does provide education on the particulars of several famous post-structuralist philosophers’ systems of thought, but only in the context of a takedown piece. Which is fine, but there’s far more to think through than this book attempts. Naive scientific positivism comes with its own problems as well- and a good faith engagement with these thinkers would have revealed that. So, those who have engaged with postmodernist thinkers enough to understand that probably won’t find this book very persuasive. It may make them discontent with “postmodernism”, but they will likely also be discontent with the lack of justification for Marxism.
~
As someone who has spent my life in bourgeois academia (social sciences), I have yet to encounter, even once in my life, someone who has attempted to weave together the thinkers like Siraj did to create this sort of intricate, cohesive and comprehensive postmodernist life philosophy for themselves. In that way, the book felt to me a bit like someone beating a strawman to death. Congrats, you won! This is not to say that the contradictions in post-structuralist thought that were highlighted are not truly contradictions- they are! It’s not a strawman in the sense of an inaccurate depiction- but instead, in the sense that I don’t feel like it’s a very representative example of “postmodernism today.”
This feels relevant because this book takes some bold philosophical stances (eg, our perceptions and conceptions simply reveal “reality” to us, more or less accurately)- asserting them by fiat rather than attempting to rigorously argue them. This is precisely the type of scientific positivism that poststructuralist thinkers helpfully problematized! And this is precisely the reason why people tend to vaguely accept the broad points of postmodern thought.
Generally speaking, academics find the style of rigid dogmatism used in this book- where the map is presumed to be synonymous with the terrain- to be naive and unconvincing. Pointing out legitimate issues with other systems of thought doesn’t magically fix that. I would have appreciated the author putting forward a more rigorous argument for Marxist epistemology, which actually attempted to answer the critiques raised by poststructuralism. Instead, the book focused singularly on discrediting the entire post-hoc grouping of so-called postmodernist thinkers, leaving Marxist epistemology as apparently valid in comparison, due to being the only one left standing.
Long story short, it reads more like propaganda than genuine educational materials. It does provide education on the particulars of several famous post-structuralist philosophers’ systems of thought, but only in the context of a takedown piece. Which is fine, but there’s far more to think through than this book attempts. Naive scientific positivism comes with its own problems as well- and a good faith engagement with these thinkers would have revealed that. So, those who have engaged with postmodernist thinkers enough to understand that probably won’t find this book very persuasive. It may make them discontent with “postmodernism”, but they will likely also be discontent with the lack of justification for Marxism.
February 27, 2021
I didn’t realize how pervasive post-modern thought was in Academia until I looked back at my humanities classes. A lot of interesting takes that come from it, but this book explains how its ideas of “difference”, micro protest and over-emphasis of identity distort the class struggle and is anti-science in nature. There’s a lot to learn from post-modern philosophy, but it shouldn’t be to the extent where it distorts the class struggle .
Siraj makes pretty interesting takes on the nature and origins of Fascism as well.
Overall, a good marxist critique of postmodernism.
Siraj makes pretty interesting takes on the nature and origins of Fascism as well.
Overall, a good marxist critique of postmodernism.
October 19, 2025
Really terrific view on the anti-science and irrationalist view seen in modern philosophy. Though some of the viewpoints on ideology, symbols and langauge are important, Siraj states that it cannot stand above obective nature and material reality. I will definitely come back to rethink my views on Heidegger and Nietzsche using this.
Though it's important to understand the role of philosophy when it comes to politcs and action, Heidegger, Marx and Nietzsche would all agree that becoming and instinct are primordial to our activity and mere thinking is secondary. But out of these Marx does give a better balanced view between learning from experience and moulding experience from material activity. Heidegger says we should try to see what philosophy can do for us, rather than what we can do for it. The critique on rationality is the pre-assumption that we are starting from the perfect vantage point to observe scientific reality. Marx would agree but from an anti-capitalist stance of profit over inquiry. Out of all the figures critisized I do think he's the one worth digging into more and dismantling.
Finally, I would argue that the decentralization of class happened under Mao espeically, making him a notable figure to many of the post-modernists stated.
8.2/10
Though it's important to understand the role of philosophy when it comes to politcs and action, Heidegger, Marx and Nietzsche would all agree that becoming and instinct are primordial to our activity and mere thinking is secondary. But out of these Marx does give a better balanced view between learning from experience and moulding experience from material activity. Heidegger says we should try to see what philosophy can do for us, rather than what we can do for it. The critique on rationality is the pre-assumption that we are starting from the perfect vantage point to observe scientific reality. Marx would agree but from an anti-capitalist stance of profit over inquiry. Out of all the figures critisized I do think he's the one worth digging into more and dismantling.
Finally, I would argue that the decentralization of class happened under Mao espeically, making him a notable figure to many of the post-modernists stated.
8.2/10
April 21, 2025
Where are the post-modern neo-Marxists
Very interesting analysis, Mr Foucault but how do we use that for political action to create a world free of exploitation?
Siraj does an excellent job explaining post-modernism the ideas of postmodernism what they believe and how it differs from that of marxist views. Siraj does not "debunk" post modernism but shows how impractical these ideas are towards any sort of relevant political organization. I still think postmodernism is relevant in philosophy, I do not believe that it is a passing fad like siraj, but the work is a good critique on many of the prominent post modern thinkers.
Very interesting analysis, Mr Foucault but how do we use that for political action to create a world free of exploitation?
Siraj does an excellent job explaining post-modernism the ideas of postmodernism what they believe and how it differs from that of marxist views. Siraj does not "debunk" post modernism but shows how impractical these ideas are towards any sort of relevant political organization. I still think postmodernism is relevant in philosophy, I do not believe that it is a passing fad like siraj, but the work is a good critique on many of the prominent post modern thinkers.
January 8, 2026
Good overview of post-modernism, from a Marxist perspective. There are nuggets of value to be found in the tenets of post-modernism, but on the whole I find that it values individuality too much and lacks appreciation of how power affects the systems around us and is ultimately part of the system. This book elucidated those points very well and was a well thought out treatise against post-modernism. Only negatives are a somewhat repetitive nature and a massive need of a better translation that gets rid of all the mistakes.
September 16, 2022
Not sure if it’s the multiple translations or what, but the grammar/syntax is so poorly edited that it makes what’s already dense material nearly unreadable at times. I’m sure it’s a great text, as the parts I understood were cool, and I’m going to continue trying to parse through it, but yea, definitely needs to be republished with help of an editor.
June 17, 2025
While the points are well-taken, this book is a mess. Very repetitive, it is besieged on all sides by typos, unfinished phrases, and grammatical dead-ends.
Still: It isn't wrong. It's just hard to recommend.
The insights into the state of affairs in India during the previous decade were also welcome.
Still: It isn't wrong. It's just hard to recommend.
The insights into the state of affairs in India during the previous decade were also welcome.
August 14, 2025
a bit intimidated in the beginning. this was dense and so many name drops but i got through it and im really glad i did! challenging myself to keep engaging in theory. learned a lot about post-modernism and its origins and how it has depoliticized thought and suppressed revolutionary action. siraj really clowned on post-modernist thinkers over and over again, very entertaining.
December 10, 2022
Finally, a Marxist author who demonstrates an understanding of major post-modernist philosophers while critiquing them, rather than referring to the beliefs of "post-modernist academics", but never specifying which ones in particular
September 28, 2021
Interesting critique of post-modernism from a Marxist viewpoint. Dropped from four to three starts for me for terrible editing and seemingly thinking the Sokal hoax was serious.
December 3, 2021
Yeah, I'll have to revisit this one later on
Found the conclusion really stimulating though
Found the conclusion really stimulating though
March 28, 2023
Definitely the most academic book I’ve read, but I enjoyed what I was able to grasp. I’ll definitely have to revisit it in the future to get everything out of it.
February 11, 2025
To the majority of the academics out there, how does it feel to be a pawn of capitalist-imperialism?
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews