Not everything is a conspiracy theory you dumb conservative trump supporter
Was the Frankfurt School a porky psyop? I've been reading excerpts from Adorno,...
Not that user, but I see him more as a theorist then any kind of revolutionary political actor. I think Adorno himself makes excellent critiques of the culture industry, and that its important to take note of his observations on capitalism and utilize them in future critiques of capitalist culture industry. That doesn't mean we should follow absolutely everything he said or mirror his actions, but that instead put his work towards meaningful use in both the observational realm and the revolutionary one especially in our current age of tailored and targeted mass media in which it remains as relevant as ever. Walter Benjamin can honestly go fuck off though
I should probably make it clear that generally speaking I agree with most of what Adorno says about the culture industry, I just think that he generalizes a little too much and downplays the role of economic factors in sustaining capitalism, which leads to an overly pessimistic system of thought that doesn’t really have any potential to lead to a political movement.
Rendering fascism within essential terms
The fact that the acerbities of his critiques were based on situation within Freudian analysis would mean that he was constructing the idea of the authoritarian personality, not setting it as axiomatic. He merely wanted to conceptualize the common path and appeals of reactionary ideology.
the Authoritarian Personality
Pretty much agree, minus that the initial Marxian framework is still there, so one needn't resort to specious characterization of the work as 'liberal', although it was definitely a regression from their previous work
Benjamin is the greatest among them.
dumbass fucking post.
wow, how could i not realize it before, it's actually counter-revolutionary to critically assess why particular revolutionary movements failed. it's actually counter-revolutionary to develop a systematic understanding of how bourgeois ideology functions, and is capable of figuring some forms of social unrest back into the hegemonic order. surely this is all a waste of time. leftist theory should never make us approach our own situation in the most critical way possible, it should never confront us with ways in which certain kinds of subversion fail due to their own inability to understand how ideology functions within the subject. we just need to be revolutionaries, man. never mind critically approaching our historical moment, that shit is for bourgeois nerds. the left should never question itself, what are you some kind of liberal? any theory which doesn't just tell me "revolution now" is probably a secret infiltrator by the enemy, trust me this is a super rational way of approaching things. now, let me return to the writer most applicable to my current situation, lenin.
endlessly dissecting how Jazz music reinforces bourgeois cultural hegemony while denouncing every real world radical movement as a waste of time is actually existing socialism guys
wow user, what a fucking spot on analysis. great work. adorno truly didn't ever do anything politically meaningful. he didn't even participate in student movements! that entire body of theoretical work of his? fucking bogus, man. every good marxist has been defined by their political engagement, not with some dumb theory which they had to write books about to explain. that has nothing to do with marxism. and there definitely has never been a real marxist who was highly critical of the entirety of the leftist movements which existed in his/her time, such a stance is literally unheard of in the history of good marxists. as is well known, marx was a big enthusiast of the theory supporting the socialist movement of his time. he never wrote entire fucking books theoretically destroying all of his contemporaries, he knew that they were good because they were revolutionary, which is of course the core of marx's teachings.
I'm not at all surprised you like him.
Benjamin is the greatest among them.
This but only because he is only one that has never been fully co-opted by liberals.
never pay attention to the specific ways in which capitalist ideology materially reinforces itself guys! and always remember that if a radical movement exists, it's automatically good!
this is apparently what being a leftist is all about folks, never critiquing specific aspects of capitalist society or ourselves, because what we stand for is to be blindly revolutionary because revolutionary=good. the power of this philosophy is why we as the radical left are in such a great place right now, and why we just keep on succeeding. one needs to look no further than the great international leftist utopia as it currently exists for evidence that there is nothing wrong with how we're conducting ourselves.
Except Marx, Lenin, etc all actually did shit. They made major contributions to theory and yet they still organized and took measures to make their theories a reality, and furthermore they still worked with people and groups that they had major disagreements with. Adorno’s contributions to theory are admirable, but if you are incapable of putting any of your ideas into practice, and if your ideas lend themselves to pessimism and armchair philosophizing instead of practical action then you are a valid target of criticism for these very reasons.
I hope you realize that in the context of capitalism’s material unsustainability that the main these of the culture industry is somewhat moot. A superstructure like a cultural hegemony only functions when supported by a base, meaning that when the base weakens or collapses, so too does the cultural hegemony of the ruling class. That the ability of culture to reinforce the dominance of that class is reduced. Bread and circuses only works when you have bread. In other words Adorno’s analysis of culture, while interesting and insightful, don’t really present any problems that aren’t already more or less covered by classical Marxism.
you god damn fucking moron. do you understand the profoundly anti-intellectual, which is to say anti-leftist, sentiment of what you're saying? if you take marx's contributions to theory out of his life, he means NOTHING to us as a left. the fact that he engaged with any kind of concrete practice is a meaningless biographical factoid in terms of what makes him such a historically massive figure. marx is important for his theoretical work and nothing else. we do not call ourselves marxists because some guy was particularly engaged politically, we do it because he wrote a historically unprecedented theory. nothing else matters, in terms of how we understand marx's importance to the left. the site of academic theory is not somehow separate from concrete class struggle, this is precisely what bourgeois ideology, WHICH YOU ARE CURRENTLY REGURGITATING, tells us to think. please, tell me what "putting the ideas" of Capital into practice actually looks like, when the text is nothing more than a scientific understanding of what the current situation is? practice is only worthwhile when it is backed by theory, and in this sense we are not allowed to assess a theorist based on how they acted politically. i can't believe i have to make this clear to you, but we assess a theorist based on the merits of their theory, you fucking dolt. in this sense, adorno and his contemporaries remain indispensable, because their theory is absolutely spot on.
if you take marx's contributions to theory out of his life, he means NOTHING to us as a left
So I guess that Castro and Ho Chi Minh have no historical or political significance for leftists in your mind?
marx is important for his theoretical work and nothing else
Yeah guys I guess being a founding member of the First International and one of the most important and active early organizers of Europe’s socialist movement is totally meaningless.
how we understand marx's importance to the left. the site of academic theory is not somehow separate from concrete class struggle
I would agree, which is why we should chastise people who do not contribute to both.
practice is only worthwhile when it is backed by theory and in this sense we are not allowed to assess a theorist based on how they acted politically
And theory is only worthwhile when backed by practice. See how that works? The problem with Adorno isn’t so much that he didn’t put anything into practice, but his ideas are essentially incapable of being put into practice, since any attempt would, according to his own theory, become inevitably absorbed into the capitalist machine. Thus the inability to derive political practice from Adorno’s theories is in fact a criticism of the theory itself.
You know for somebody who claims to support the principles behind critical theory, that is the relentless critique of all hitherto existing society, ideas, and movements, you seem extremely hostile to anybody who criticizes Adorno.