The modern-to-postmodern shift correlates with capitalism’s transformation from monopoly to multinational

Evidence

We need a detour through the modern, then, in order to grasp what is historically original in the postmodern and its spatialisms. Indeed, such a history lesson is the best cure for nostalgic pathos, minimally teaching us, by way of Necessity, that the way back to the modern is sealed for good. Presupposed in what follows, of course, is a correlation between the transition from the modern to the postmodern, and that economic or systemic transformation of an older monopoly capitalism (the so-called moment of imperialism) into its new multinational and hightech mutation. Increasingly spatial features of a new type can be derived from such economic accounts, but any concrete account of the new spatial aesthetic and its existential life world demands some intermediary steps, or what the dialectic used to call mediations. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 374

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the core correlation between economic periodization and aesthetic form — exactly the ‘style as economy’s way of appearing’ thesis the reader wants.
• XREF: Connects to the ‘cultural dominant’ thesis and to Mandel’s late capitalism periodization Jameson builds on; also relates to the reader’s earlier notes on monopoly vs multinational capital. — connects to: Postmodern architectural disputes are inseparable from capitalist spatial reorganization — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 577; Jameson grounded postmodernity in identifiable features of multinational capitalism as of the early eighties. — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 150; Postmodern political change flows from markets rather than mass struggles — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 273 (+9 more)