Postindustrialism and Postmodernism

A tremendous number of movers and shakers in this culture of youth have never heard the word postindustrialism and have no idea what it entails, yet it informs the very nature of our existence. Having its roots in the 1950's phenomena of Levittown and Disneyland, of freeways and shopping centers, of computers and television, it is an ill formed vision of the possible that is a Keynesian, oversimplified, and ill thought nightmare of economically unsupportable infrastructure, commercial, and residential blunders that constitute a Grand Design for life in the Future. It is not a workable concept.
Postmodernism has its roots in the liberal vision of a polycultural society of tolerance and participation. It is the wellspring of consumerism, the notion of a shift from production to consumption, formalized in market socialism. While it is European in style and socialist in practice, postmodernism has no necessity of any Marxist influence. I am a postmodernist and I am not by any measure a socialist. I am a pragmatist who sees the hope of the world in Game Theory and Schumpeter.
The critical limit of both postindustrialism and postmodernism is transfer of wealth whether the magic hand of postindustrialism, incidental Keynesian transfer, or the programmatic transfer of postmodernism, socialism. What we are finding is that participation is the limit of transfer of wealt. A socioeconomy generates only so much wealth and so much meaning and they are both zero sum games. We are desperately in need of a new economic model and desolately without one and twenty years away from a Game Theory/Schumpeter synthesis that could provide one. So we stumble on into the 21st century.
Be well and do good.