The most significant aspect of Jameson`s position on postmodernism is to reject ethical judgment strictly for the so called dialectical analysis. However, the problem is that the ethical and the dialectical are not opposite and separated things, but have some overlapping areas; and this position can preclude him from the more ``critical`` analysis of postmodernism. His concept of totality is not a pathway to ethical or political evaluation, but a purely ``functional`` device which demonstrates the structural limits and local validities of the other codes of interpretation. Jameson`s functional objectivism produces various effects. He usually focuses on the phenomenological characteristics of postmodernism and relatively neglects the analysis of the ``real`` relationship between postmodernism and its material basis, which contradicts, ironically, his own position that postmodernism should be understood as the cultural logic of late capitalism. His conception of mediation has some problems in the process of practical application. He equates the three stages of capitalism directly to the three stages of culture, which produces the corresponding schema of market capitalism-realism, monopoly capitalism or imperialism-modernism, and late capitalism or multinational capitalism-postmodernism. However, there is no mediation established between the former and the latter. The developmental laws of capitalism and culture do not always coincide; and besides, culture is not the simple or direct expression of the infrastructure. He explores mainly the resemblances and overlooks the structural opposition and contradictions between them. I do not intend to ignore his original project in whole, but to indicate the fact that his theory of postmodernism is too postmodern and insufficiently Marxist that there is some serious attenuation of the critical and political attitude as a Marxist problematic.