What does Sup Forums think of the Frankfurt School?

What does Sup Forums think of the Frankfurt School?

youtube.com/watch?v=a_qO9EnvNLs

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6fhPx7Zvz4Y
archive.is/NelT9
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Popper was right
adorno was shit

Why?

a shit

adorno is a social construct

In what ways?

Well, it suffered the fate of all modernism. It was destroyed in the late '60s by Post Structuralism.

Unfortunately, the right wing were too stupid to understand their ideology no longer had a cogent underpinning. Only those on the left realized the game was up.

The past 40 years have been a right wing economic shit show.

he was a socialist apologist
and the fakfurt shit started worser things than 3. wave feminism BLM and SJW

*frankfurt

Disgusting trash

>It was destroyed in the late '60s by Post Structuralism.
Unfortunate too. I've seen some people claim the Frankfurt School were the precursors to PoMo, yet the only place where they really overlap are old essays by Benjamin on language.

> the right wing were too stupid to understand their ideology no longer had a cogent underpinning.
Agreed. If the Right knew philosophy they'd see the true origins of SJWs lie with Foucault, Lacan, and their ideological offspring like Judith Butler.

Dioretix. Science of matter over mind.

You'd better read it and quick.That book will change your life. Found it in a Maseratti in Beverly hills.

Frankfurt School isn't a economic School
Freiburg School was a economic School (a great one)

>and the fakfurt shit started worser things than 3. wave feminism BLM and SJW
No they didn't. SJWs take their methodology from postmodernists.

i was talking about worser things look at the picture

>What does Sup Forums think of the Frankfurt School?

all need to die a painfull death

Jew trickery

the right wing understood this very well considering the work of Kissinger and his concept of Realpolitik..neoconservatism is an example of postideological power management and in fact ideology is only now used as a way of wrangling the masses and pandering to the intellectually bankrupt

It's rather amusing to see the Two Germans in the thread don't know what the Frankfurt School was.

The only member of the Franks who was remotely religious was Benjamin, and his religious/theological views were heavily mocked by others in the school.

I know, right?

wait till Habermas is dead than i'll agree

What about Axel Honneth? He still has another 20-30 years to go.

Postructuralism renders all modernism, of the left and right, null and void.

The left wing understood this. This is why there is no left wing, as a coherent movement.

The right wing thrust Neoliberalism onto the World stage. Neoliberalism is a modernist project with no intellectual basis - it is a thin veneer for the exercise of power.

never read him
i i don't know/care

Neoliberalism has a intellectual basis
but everyone misuses the word
he original Neoliberals were Pro state liberals of the Freiburg School in the1920's 1930's

but you propably mean the lets privatise menthality of the 1980 till today

youtube.com/watch?v=6fhPx7Zvz4Y

poststructuralism is much like neoliberalism (and globalism generally) a development of leftwing technocratic thinking..i.e. it is political technology where ideology is incidentally significant rather than integrally significant--post structuralism did not nullify the modernist project--it was a product of that projects failure

>Unfortunately, the right wing were too stupid to understand their ideology no longer had a cogent underpinning.
>Still no cogent anything, hasn't changed a bit for 50 years.

Neoliberalism is right wing, in ideological terms.

The left disintegrated in the wake of Post Structuralism. It simply doesn't exist anymore. It's become fragmented identity politics, nothing more.

All modernism is redundant. Neoliberalism is the simple exercise of power, it has no coherent intellectual basis. It's intelectual basis was destroyed along with the left's intellectual basis in the late '60s.

The difference is: the right either don't realize, or, they don't care. It's all about power for them.

Based Brit, why do you think it is that Adorno and co. get blamed for things that should clearly be blamed on neoliberalism?

They're convenient scapegoats.

The right wing no longer have any real Marxist boogymen to blame for the problems they have created for themselves. So, they invent imaginary Marxists adversaries to cover their own failings.

Well how can the abuse of power be in any way distinguished from the use of power? Narratives dictate morality for as long as knowledge is defined by its relation to power.
There never was a left, nor a right

if anything the traditional left disintegrated as its narratives wereade irrelevant by the undeniable successes of neoliberalism and globalization. i contend that the left lapsed into the bin of history exactly because they failed to ever fully recognize and respond to the failure of their narratives

were made*

> undeniable successes of neoliberalism and globalization. i

Er... the entire global economy is floated on tens of trillions of debt; Neoliberalism has proved an unmittigated disaster. It has failed in its own terms,

The fact there is no "left wing" alternative to fill the void demonstrates the non existence of the left as a coherent movement.

Marxism was destroyed in academia in the late '60s by Post Structuralism. This was when the intellectual centre of the left collapsed. It took a decade for the collapse to reverberate thoughour the movement. This is when the left fragmented.

Neoliberalism's apparent "success" was the absence of an opposition. This is why why all mainstream political Parties are Neoliberal. All of them.

>Well how can the abuse of power be in any way distinguished from the use of power?

It's a question of legitimacy.

> Narratives dictate morality

The exercise of power against your will is coercive, by definition.

>There never was a left, nor a right

hehe

no disrespect, but denying the success of globalization is either lazy or dishonest. All currency represents a debt, so saying the economy floats on debt is no different than saying thr economy runs on money--an obvious truism and no basis of critique. It is funny because you recognize the ascendency of deconstruction and yet you order your thoughts as though it never happened--in fact you seem to be defending some irreducible kernel of the left while presenting like a critic..

"legitimacy" suggests some arbitration truth therefore knowledge therefore we are again reduced to the exercise of power which limits the discourses of knowledge (to put it in a silly way, for example "history is written by the winners")

There can be no power without the exercise of power against the will of whoever is subject to that power. Power cannot be exercised if not against your will. That is the ticklish nature of power.

dunno why your laughing at my incredulity towards the false dichotomy of left and right, it is not so uncommon as to be ridiculous

arbitration of truth*

>no disrespect, but denying the success of globalization is either lazy or dishonest.

Mate...

In 2007/8 the global economy nearly collapsed in the wake of the biggest financial crisis in history. If the Governments of the World had not intervened with tens of trillions of dollars, euros and yen (did I forget sterling?) we wouldn't have an economy right now.

If you can seriously talk about the "success" of Neoliberallism and keep a straight face, you should consider a career in acting, or, politics.

>so saying the economy floats on debt is no different than saying thr economy runs on money-

Are you claiming the vast national debts caused by the financial crisis don't exist?

>in fact you seem to be defending some irreducible kernel of the left

I have taken no postion, at all.

>"legitimacy" suggests some arbitration truth therefore knowledge therefore we are again...

You are sliding into solipsism.

>ere can be no power without the exercise of power against the will of whoever is subject to that power.

There is a distinction between the exercise of legitimate power and arbitrary power. This is why you live in a liberal democracy.

>dunno why your laughing at my incredulity towards the false dichotomy

It was your solipsist slide that was funny.

Globalization has taken millions out of abject poverty. The 2008 crisis was not a failure of globalization, but a crisis--which is beimg corrected. The good ole days of ideological pedagogy and the hegemonic nation state are over--which is a great thing.

>solipsism
doesnt mean what you think it does, i was pointing out that the concept of a "legitimate" power is necessarily teleological, and therefore a fallacy. You post all these images of decent writers but if you have read their books, you lack any comprehension. Have fun in university :^)

>Globalization has taken millions out of abject poverty.

Structural Adjustment Programs plunged millions into poverty and starvation.

> The 2008 crisis was not a failure of globalization,

The international shadow banking system was global. Neoliberal governments around the World had removed regulations that hampered the free flow of capital. International finance was Neoliberalism in action. And, it was widely celebrated for its success - before it nearly collapsed entirely.

Origins of SJWs lie in technological advance and safe societies

A safe society can afford to indulge in the SJW nonsense

Blaming the Frankfurt School or written ideas for where we are is rightwing bullshit

Lazy rightwingers using bogeymen and buzzwords

Yeh I'm sure those hundreds of millions of Chinesr would rather be working outdoors breaking their backs than sat down in a factory screwinf together an iPhone for more money

>thinks I'm a utilitarian...

heh

>Yeh I'm sure those hundreds of millions of Chinesr would rather be working outdoors breaking their backs than sat down in a factory screwinf together an iPhone for more money

The fallacy of relative privation?

i think that most of Sup Forums doesn't understand a fucking thing about the frankfurt school.

this shit takes many fucking years to really understand (given that you need to go back and comprehend the last 200 years of german philosophy, and the last 2000 years of western philosophy).

>So, they invent imaginary Marxists adversaries to cover their own failings.
Sounds about right. I've studied writings by Adorno, Benjamin, and Marcuse and I have no idea why the Right would target them especially. The critiques of progress made by the former two sound very close to those made by reactionaries.

International finance has existed since the renaissance. Neoliberalism is a partial understanding and attempt to codify the functioning of Globalization into a coherent ideological--it is therefore an anachronism and destined for deemphasis. Globalization is a historically eminent event, the product of technology which has increased international access in unprecedented ways. It cannot be critique in the same way that Capitalism could, and in fact any accurate assesment of history reveals that capitalism/anticapitalism was a hollow narrative. The policies of nations and specific banks are not a sign that globalization had failed because there is no metric for success or failure when one is considering a hostorical phenomenon. Globalization is more reasonably compared to industrialization than it is to any of the ideological systems constructed in the modern era. You really should actually read Focault sometime

We still take Habermas/Honneth seriously im Germany tbqh

Fuck the Frenchies

a coherent ideology* sorry for the sloppy penmanship and why isnt anyone checking all my dubs?

they knew what they were doing.

>>Philosophy has evidenced a subversive element from its inception. Plato’s Apology tells how Socrates was condemned by the Athenian citizenry for corrupting the morals of the young and doubting the gods. There was some truth to that complaint. Socrates called conventional wisdom into question. He subjected long-standing beliefs to rational scrutiny and speculated about concerns that projected beyond the existing order. What became known as “critical theory” was built upon this legacy. The new philosophical tendency was generated between World War I and World War II, and its most important representatives would wage an unrelenting assault on the exploitation, repression, and alienation embedded within Western civilization.

>>Critical theory was conceived within the intellectual crucible of Marxism. But its leading representatives were from the start dismissive of economic determinism, the stage theory of history, and any fatalistic belief in the “inevitable” triumph of socialism. They were concerned less with what Marx called the economic “base” than the political and cultural “superstructure” of society. Their Marxism was of a different variety. They highlighted its critical method over its systematic claims, its concern with alienation and reification, its complicated relationship with the ideals of the Enlightenment, its utopian moment, its emphasis upon the role of ideology, and its commitment to resist thedeformation of the individual. This complex of themes constitutes the core of critical theory as it was conceived by the leading figures of “Western Marxism”: Karl Korsch and Georg Lukács. These two thinkers provided the framework for the critical project that later became identified with the Institute for Social Research—or “the Frankfurt School.”

one and the same.

>>“Negative dialectics” anticipated many concerns associated with postmodernism and poststructuralism. So much so, in fact, that they are now often treated as expressions of critical theory. Deconstructive or poststructuralist approaches invaded the most prestigious journals and disciplines ranging from anthropology and film to religion, linguistics, and political science. They generated new insights on race and gender as well as the postcolonial world.

>object-oriented ontology
>is somehow postmodernist
Please.

>International finance has existed since the renaissance.

Are you claiming pre-industrial Mercatile economies had a global banking system...

Are you an off duty comedian?

> It cannot be critique in the same way that Capitalism

Who's critisizing Capitalism?

> assesment of history reveals that capitalism/anticapitalism was a hollow n

What the fuck are you talking about?

>Globalization is more reasonably compared to industrialization

Are you suggesting industrialization did not occur in the 19th Century within capitalist economies?

Does the person who looks after you know you're on the internet?

Mate.

You're confusing Modernist Critical Theory with Post Modernism.

I ain't confusing jack shit. I am quoting from book on critical theory published by Oxford uni.

hehe

with this in mind, does thisNot sound a lot like 'cultural marxism' to anyone else?

Well, the Franks wrote quite a bit about alienation (especially Fromm), which is a concept entirely rejected by postmodernism and its antihumanism.

Mate.

Cultural Capitalism is the problem. Why do you persist with the "Marxist" bullshit?

Weren't they just a bunch of wannabe revolutionaries who wrote some shit for the sake of going down in history books, regardless of the quality of what was written? It was just a bunch of stuff questioning the origins of traditions and why they are, like, totally uncool. Oppressor v oppressed in terms of social standing.

HALF OF YOU FUCKS
>Left wing no longer exists turned into identity politics bl;ah
OTHER HALF
>Right wing dumb neocons
>Neoliberalism neoliberalism neoliberalism

>Liberalism
Economic freedom; aka you can start a business without complying with a ton of state legislature and pay $$$ for everything because government has more guns than you.
>Socialism
State owns all business and redistributes the wealth
>Neoliberalism
Combine Liberalism with socialism ??? everybody is happy?? Such a relatively moot point.

Your typical antiglobalist/anticapitalist calls the 80's privatization wave "neoliberalism" because they came from European welfare states that are almost indistinguishable from state socialism.

They had very little interest in identity politics.

The critique of 'cultural hegemony'(explicitly and before it had a name) is what spawned the anti-rationalist 'feels over facts' BS that is SJWism. Yes or no?

It is Marxist in that it took philosophy from studying society to for the purposes of understanding to doing it to affect change, as well as basing its entire thinking on the Marxian Social-Conflict approach.

Did they not set a foundation for those kinds of beliefs? I'm not saying they were outright bashing le white devil, but they certainly laid the framework.

I've read right-wing criticisms of them for years, but never any of their actual works aside from a few excerpts from Adorno and Marcuse. Is it worth reading any of their stuff?

Unless OP is over 100 years old they ruined your life

>The critique of 'cultural hegemony'(explicitly and before it had a name) is what spawned the anti-rationalist 'feels over facts' BS that is SJWism. Yes or no?

No.

You muppet.

Cultural Hegemony is a concept put forth by Gramsci, whose prison notebooks (where the term appears) weren't even published until after WWII, far too late to have been an influence on the Frankfurt School.

In fact, Benjamin and Adorno learned Marxism from Georg Lukács, who never used the term "hegemony" in the manner Gramsci did.

They didn't. Read any of their texts and you'll see identity politics barely plays any role.

Yes. Start with:
>Illuminations
>Dialectic of Enlightenment
>One-Dimensional Man
>The Art of Loving
In that order.

Yes. The essentially started from the premise that the revolutions Marx predicted didn't happen in Europe because the culture was conducive to capitalism. So given they were Marxists, they obviously saw said culture as problematic.

Critical theory, and the related cultural studies both started from the premise that there were deep underlying issues with westen culture/society and sought to bring them to the forefront.

10/10 post

>Britbong read a book

None of this proves the Sup Forumstard conspiracy though. The Franks had barely any influence on academia.

archive.is/NelT9

Then what was the thesis of the work?

This was what I thought they were about.
The biggest issue with them is that they put the needs and history of non-whites first, who cares about niggers, they are subhumans. Nobody cares what happens to them when they act the way they do. The culture they critique is objective truth, they just want to do away with standards so every loser can be accepted, like in art, who are you to say that my two lines are worse than the Night watch? It's all subjective, man.

They were mostly interested in critiquing the confusion brought on by modernity, and how the West's obsession with economic and technological progress lead to disaster because it wasn't coupled with social progress.

>Benjamin evokes Lurianic kabbalah for the principle of tikkun

Wait so this shit is now legit reference in scholarly works?

Benjamin himself made the influence of Jewish theology and kabbalah on his work no secret.

Social progress? Define social progress, what an open-ended phrase.

The 'conspiracy' doesn't start and end with the frankfurt school. Well. Arguably starts there. And Marcuse endorsed the 'long march through the institutions', literally the subversion of academia. I'd be happy to use another (appropriate) term if you have one, because at this stage the SJW shit needs to stop. And it's hard to call it out if you don't have a name for it.

>Foucault, Lacan, and their ideological offspring like Judith Butler
sounds kind of simplistic, like saying Nietzsche should be measured by his nazi offspring. sure, the movement produced shit later but the initial insight was valuable.

Who gets to define what social progress is? (According to you) the non-existent left champions the deconstructing of every western societal construct whether it is organic or designed.

Like every faggot from a university you get wrapped up in semantics and definitions without any meat or substance.

>They were mostly interested in critiquing the confusion brought on by modernity, and how the West's obsession with economic and technological progress lead to disaster because it wasn't coupled with social progress.

Hadn't thought of it that way before.

Ok. So critical theory may have had merit, IF used as describe above. But today it is used in a different way, to sniff out oppression and prejudice when none is present. It also assumes today that the same class of people who were powerfuk back when it was coming about (straight white men) are today just as powerful and indeed endued with said power purely on the basis that they are straight white males.

Where did it all go wrong?

So are all mystical paradigms legitimate in academia or only the (((best))) mystics?

Globalist detected

>Lazy rightwingers using bogeymen and buzzwords

>a_large_green_frog_whispering_'fascism'_in_an_ear.jpg