The author begins by discussing David Geoffrey Smith's analysis of the enantiomorphism inherent in the rhetoric of New American Imperialism. He goes on to examine critically Smith's defence of Enrique Dussel's advocacy of transmodernism as a way of understanding this enantiomorphism and of moving beyond what are seen as the constraints of both modernism and postmodernism. The author argues that transmodernism has purchase in analysing the genesis and genealogy of the New Imperialism. The author then offers a critique, from a Marxist perspective, of both postmodernism and transmodernism. He suggests that, in moving beyond the mere deconstruction of postmodernism, transmodernism is theoretically and practically more progressive than both non-Marxist forms of modernism and postmodernism. However, he suggests that, in rejecting all forms of totalising synthesis, transmodern analysis, like postmodern analysis, is ultimately conducive to capitalism. He also suggests that, since transmodernism's agenda for change is solely analectical rather than dialectical, transmodernist proposals for change are not viable in the context of the current imperialist project. Turning to education in societies characterised by an enantiomorphism and enfraudening, he argues that, from a Marxist perspective, the role of education should be to transform schools from sites of misrepresentation and conformity to the needs of neo-liberal capitalism and imperialism into sites of social justice. (Contains 10 notes.)