> The book was a crystalization of views he had developed over the preceding decades, when he had done the most to develop postmodernism. Key point is that his

> The book was a crystalization of views he had developed over the preceding decades, when he had done the most to develop postmodernism. Key point is that his readings of Marxism weren't central to his core tools of Postmodernism, nor is that reading indicative of any fervent Marxism from "before". Wrong on all counts. > its progenitors were inspired by and attempted to build on top of Marxism to different degrees. > and was formulated mostly by intellectuals that accepted several of the basic suppositions of Marxism. Again, citation needed on the majority of the tenuous connections. You are being a tad too obsessive here. Sorry, but being a green account to respond to my single post screams another J account. "The lady doth protest too much." The rest of your post? Equally misguided with nothing to do with Postmodernism, and less relating to the Foucaultian aspect I referenced.