The rejection of atomism does not force abandoning reference.

Evidence

One cannot write for a reader formed in this tradition—one cannot even come to terms with one’s own historical formation—without taking this influential conceptual opponent into account; and it is this, if you like, which makes up the tendentious part of my book, which gives it its political and philosophical cutting edge, so to speak. For the bankruptcy of the liberal tradition is as plain on the philosophical level as it is on the political: which does not mean that it has lost its prestige or ideological potency. On the contrary: the anti-speculative bias of that tradition, its emphasis on the individual fact or item at the expense of the network of relationships in which that item may be embedded, continue to encourage submission to what is by preventing its followers from making connections, and in particular from drawing the otherwise unavoidable conclusions on the political level. — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 12 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Rejecting atomism need not entail abandoning the concept of reference — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 328; Holistic semantics does not require denying reference or truth, contra the post-structuralist route. — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 325; Refusing presentation of the world is not refusing the world itself — The Friends of Attention, Attensity!: A Manifesto of the…, 255 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Empiricism’s atomism prevents followers from connecting facts into political conclusions #complicates (0.74) — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 12