{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027358490566037737, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1686046511627906, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Spectres of Post-marxism? Reassessing Key Post-Marxist Texts: A Reply to Stuart Sim

This reply to the article 'Spectres of post-Marxism? Reassessing key post-Marxist texts' focuses on two key moments that emerge from Stuart Sim's argument: the identification of the complexity of the signifier 'post-Marxism'; and post-Marxism's engagement with relativism via postmodernity
 and poststructuralism. In developing this argument Sim offers a close reading of what are considered to be four key post-Marxist texts by Baudrillard, Lyotard, Laclau and Mouffe, and Derrida and concludes that the conceptual thread that runs through all of them is relativism. However,
 in this response it will be argued that while relativism might indeed tie these texts together, it is problematic to then move to an argument that suggests postMarxism demands a leaving behind of Marxism or anti-Marxism. The key to understanding this problematic is evident in the relationship
 between modernity and postmodernity through the application of concepts such as, limit and antagonism.