Between Freiburg and Frankfurt Book

I really appreciate what Callinicos tries to achieve and restore here. One of the main problems of poststructuralist theory is that their implicit distance from Marx's texts, however this is only implicit and requires further research and discussion, something Callinicos doesn't undertake but instead accept their so called non-Marxist stance from the get-go. One of the main aims of the poststructuralist thought is to overcome the eternal problems of "ideology" and "class consciousness" in orthodox Marxism, which is an important task to enable a revolutionary framework. For that, post-structuralists, with a Nietzschean ontology, deny the problematic dichotomy of "appearance-truth" since it's an obsolete discussion, giving way to countless fractions within structuralists themselves, inhibiting any possibility of a collective action. What they do is rather a Hegelian turn which incorporates even the "appearance" (Schein) in the totality of "truth" (see Foucault's analysis of the social truth based on the everything and anything the agents "do and do not", "say and do not say", as empirical reality; or Deleuze's emphasize on the givenness of the empirical facticity, especially with the conecpt of "immanence" as opposed to Platonic "emanation"), in that sense, far from engaging themselves in endless language games, Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze all share a common commitment to the relevance of the classical theory of reality as a starting point. But what bothers Callinicos is apparently their second and third steps which seek to create zones of resistance and transformation in symbolic and cultural practices as well, (and I see nothing wrong there, since as Marx underlines it well, symbolic and cultural practices are in an organic and reciprocal relation with the factual reality of forces of production).
His only relevance may be when he is criticizing writers such as Lyotard and Baudrillard and accusing them for being apologists for the narcissistic culture of consumption with their so called "post-modernism". However, I don't agree at all with his demonization of Nietzsche since it is based on a shallow and one-sided interpretation of Nietzsche and it heavily relies on what those "decadents" have said about him. Thus, even though Callinicos is right to claim that there is not a distinct phenomenon as "post-modernism" but an intensification of 19th century modernism, some of his arguments seem to0 farfetched and shallow, that in some parts it becomes hard to distinguish him from the writers he criticizes.