Lukacs and postmodernity

I am perplexed at how much theory nowadays is born of ignorance, or to be more precise, a sheer blindness towards history. My favourite is this strange notion of a postmodern epoch. Now the first question is what does the mere fact that something comes after modernity tell us? Not much if anything that is for sure. It seems to be somehow related to the word dark in physics which also connotes not knowing exactly what one is talking about. Baudrillard concisely defined postmodernity as scepticism towards all metanarratives. The other day I was reading Lukacs' History and class conciousness and I came across this interesting passage: "On the one hand the bourgeoisie acquires increasing control over the details of its social existence, subjecting them to its own needs. On the other hand, it loses - likewise progressively - the possibility of gaining intellectual control of society as a whole and with that it loses its own qualifications for leadership." It certainly seems that postmodernism is a distinctly modern phenomenon.