/lit/ - Literature

>>22291862
Not him but if by 'anglo-liberal' he means American, it's true.

>>22061242

>>21563214
Americans did this to you because you are a colony.

>>21313268
Meanwhile, in real life...

>>21266067

>>21021977

>>20904713
>The Authoritarian Personality is just running cover for Soviet communism
No, this kike did it for the money. He isn't loyal to anything.

>>20682356
>Imagine pretending to be a leftist and not knowing an inch of Critical Theory
This is very true, you need to know the previous generation of US shills to understand the current one.

>>20569079
Why do Hegelians love carrying water for Americans? Is there a passage in Phenomenology that explains it?

>>20554791
>Diversity in English, everything else in Deutsch

>>20387660
>need to get that bag somehow
Exactly. He wanted the grants from the US Government and that Jewish society that paid for the book.
Also, let's not forget his research was useful for Lispet (funded by the Congress for Cultural Freedom) to say that working class people are reactionaries and only fascists and communists rely on them.

>>20336502
He didn't write for the educated elite either.
Why did Adorno hate Jazz:
>At best Adorno’s attack on jazz seems to be out of sympathy with informed opinion on the subject; at worst it appears to be reactionary and possibly racist.
Introduction to Adorno's On Jazz:
>It is within this context that Adorno makes the observation that has brought on the accusations
of an implicit racism in his work on jazz when
he remarks that, in the consumption and
promotion of jazz, "the skin of the black man functions as much as a coloristic effect as does the silver of the saxophone."
This man wrote just for his rich patrons (US and that anti discrimination society). A record company owner without any jazz artists probably paid him to write asinine shit and decades later his ideological successors are calling him a racist because of this.

>>20280024
>Throughout the 19th century and the very early 20th century, it appeared that socialist revolutions were imminent and inevitable. Everywhere the working class seemed to be gaining political power at least and engaging in revolutionary activity at best, and relatively consistently. This all fit in very well with Marxism as exhorted by the man himself.

Is this what marxists actually believe? The working class of the turn of the century never particularly liked revolutionary socialists, socdems were always a lot more popular. The only time unironic revolutionary socialism ever got close to power was when it piggybacked off post-war chaos (hungary) as a blanquist vanguard (by a government that was extremely tolerant towards them, no less), or when the general discontent with the war was so great that anyone who could ride the wave of their frustration would have gotten into power, such as russia. There was never a society where people explicitly craved revolutionary marxism and accepted it of their own volition.

>developed into authoritarian states

just drop the muh authoritarian larp already, the only thing you're mad about is that it wasn't your camp who got to be authoritarian.

>he Frankfurt School, all Marxists, wondered why. They came to the conclusion, like Gramsci before them, that Marx had understated the ways in which ideology could prevent class consciousness from adequately developing.

>In Marxism "ideology" represents the ruling class' social institutions (laws, morality, culture, the state, religion) which are imposed on the working class to dominate them, as fundamentally juxtaposed to the economic institutions (capitalism), from which the relations of production are constituted.

>So the Frankfurt school theorists look at ways that culture, law, religion, morality, etc dominate the working class and prevent it from realizing its own interests.

While Gramsci was true in a general sense about ideology and false consciousness I always find it weird how marxists reconcile their rhetoric of rebellion with the historical fact of post-WW2 marxism being co-opted by the establishment. Like how the fuck do you weave this pathos-laden tale about being the troo rebels which the establishment fears while also being the heads of the post-WW2 brainwashing program in western germany and the USA, getting sinecures everywhere in the western world, never being actively censored and deplatformed even in the fucking 50s, and not wondering why it was that your school had a meteoric rise from being complete nobodies outside marxist circles to getting a massive push by the establishment.

For what it's worth, even Lukács is mostly remembered as an ideological tyrant in the immediate post-WW2 years in hungary, and as the guy who ruined any chance of actual intellectual discourse in the future in hungary through his influence in the school he founded, despite all his LARP.

>>20222458
Exactly, it made realize that all academics are after the money and are willing to publish whatever their sponsors want

>>20185178
The US was funding Adorno's retarded research

>>20142896
wtf I love bootlickers now!

Adorno was such a scammer kek. He was willing to publish whatever his US sponsors wanted just to get the funding.