Professor Wielomski on the Frankfurt School, that is, ignorance and nonsense (part 2)
In the second part of my polemic with the claims of Prof. Adam Wielomski, I am already facing the main thesis of this scientist and I am tempted to explain in substance why the imagination of Marxism presented here is either the consequence of ignorance (optimistic option), or manipulation (pessimistic option, but besides realistic).
LINK: The first part of the survey that outlines the essence of the conflict of Karon – Wielomski.
LINK: The final part of the argument, together with the presentation of circumstantial allegations against Prof. Wielomski.
Does fresh Marxism truly leave the economy?
The first case, or alleged rejection by Frankfurters of the abolition of private property. How He Written Prof. Wielomski in its short article “Cultural Marxism and Marxism”:
Therefore, the concept of “cultural Marxism” is an interior contradiction, as alleged cultural Marxists (in this term, feminists, LGBTs, postmodernists, etc.) strive to revolutionize the planet of ideas, reject our tradition and religion, but do not undermine the existence of private property.
Representatives Frankfurt SchoolAnd I mean, according to factography, the squad Institute for Social investigation in Frankfurt am Main, but operating after 1930, they never deviated from the concept of abolishing private property and establishing a communist system. All the more reason why they did not break up with Marxism and reconcile themselves with the capitalist world, simply deconstructing everything that falls.
The Institute for Social investigation was established in Frankfurt am Main in 1923 at the initiative of a young Marxist Felix Weil, and was financed primarily from the money of his father Hermann – a wealthy grain merchant (de facto capitalist, which sounds like a paradox, and is not at all, due to the fact that communism was supported by the planet of finance from the beginning). Interestingly, in its first establishment, the facility was to be called “Marxism Institute” —Institut für Marxismus) and mention to the Marx and Engels Institute in Moscow, with which she worked for a long time. The historian of the Frankfurt School Martin Jay writes about it in his work "The Dialectical Imagination". The Institute was preceded by a peculiar conference held in 1922 in the city of Ilmenau in central Germany. In ‘First Marxist Working Week“ due to the fact that that was what the event was called, prominent Marxist intellectuals attended, surely not any deconstructors of Karl Marx’s thoughts.
Let's see:
- György Lukács, a Hungarian communist, served as the People's Commissioner for Education and Culture during the Hungarian Council Republic, was liable for implementing aggressive sex education in schools,
- Karl Korsch, associate of the Communist organization of Germany (Prosovian agentura),
- Richard Sorge, German Communist, since 1924 agent of russian military intelligence,
- Karl August Wittfogel, a historian belonging to the Communist organization of Germany,
- Bela Fogarasi, Hungarian Communist, advanced Officer during the Hungarian Council Republic, later associate of the Communist organization of Germany,
- Karl Schmückle, German historian, associate of the Communist organization of Germany,
- Konstantin Zetkin, associate of the Social Democratic organization of Germany, for a time lover of Rose Luxembourg,
- Hede Gumperz (after Massing's wedding), associate of the Communist organization of Germany, russian spy in the 1930s and 1940s,
- Eduard Alexander, a associate of the Communist organization of Germany, had previously been active in the revolutionary Union of Spartacus,
- Fukumoto Kazuo, the leading theorist of the nipponese Communist Party, besides a associate of the Communist organization of Germany.
However, the most crucial associate of the gathering was Marxist economist Friedrich Pollock, friend of Max Horkheimer and the most crucial theorist analyzing the alleged Staatskapitalismus, which is State capitalism. As we will shortly see, in the years to come, he played the most crucial function in presenting a comprehensive explanation on political economics.
The Birth of Advanced Capitalism
Professor Harry Cleaver, an American economist with Marxist views, wrote a book in 1979 “Political Capital Reading” in which he explained in item this aspect:
In the late 1920s and the 1930s, critical Marxism had to take into account not only the defeat of labour councils, but besides further dramatic changes in the management of capitalist accumulation, linked to the emergence of European fascism, a "socialist" accumulation in the russian Union and the Keynesian state of the American fresh Deal period. The results are rather well known. The russian Union's strategy was recognized as state capitalism (a view shared by communist councils), Marcuse created the concept of one-dimensionality, Horkheimer the concept of state capitalism (in the “liberal”, “fascist” and “socialist”) as an authoritarian state.
Pollock's deeper studies led him to the conclusion that ‘old “automatic” capitalist mechanisms market competition which led to the fresh crisis international, were abandoned by capital for “an economically planned new Order’, based on intervention State’. In another words, capitalism has evolved into authoritarian, a permanent state, thus extending its influence and absorbing so far revolutionary proletariat. Work masses, In a simple language, they sold themselves for being able to organize themselves in unions. professional and occasional social programs. Property structure the capital was not affected, but it gained more – hegemony cultural in the area of social life institutions.
Let's take another look:
This helps to realize why critical explanation turned towards an analysis of the “world of culture”. She assumed that in the mill the capitalist had full control, and the authoritarian state considered it to extend this hegemony to the remainder of the society, the apparent consequence of which was the survey of fresh forms of dominance occurring in this process. It should so be clear that the interest in Western Marxism and critical explanation was fundamentally political, not being, at least in the most fruitful period (the 1930s), a retreat to the "purely philosophical" planet of speculation, as any say.
Cleaver admits explicitly that an increased interest in cultural themes, and he means here psychoanalytic threads powerfully developed by Frankfurters in the 1930s, it is only an apparent change, motivated by an effort to adapt strategies to fresh circumstances: Stalinism in the russian Union, New Deal in the USA and ‘Fascism” in Germany. Depriving Marxists of the real support of the proletariat, which has been deceived even by the national socialists in Germany, forced them to focus their attention on "expanding the mill government and the form of goods to society as a whole".
He further explained that the Frankfurters’ approach to criticism of modern capitalism, besides called “Late Capitalism” —Late capitalism), in the best way of his work Herbert Marcuse, notabene the most extremist communist of the team, during the youth of the Spartacus Uprising in Germany:
Marcuse in the One-Dimension Man developed the basic ideas of Frankfurt criticism of the fresh "sociality of prosperity". The Keynesian state as a collective capitalist is treated as an administration not only of a collective factory, but besides a sphere of consumption, in which the demands of the working class are instrumentalized by the fresh logic of consumerist dominance. By satisfying the demands of the working class quantitatively, while shaping them and manipulating them as to quality, advanced capitalism is able to absorb the economical conflict of the workers and thus dull their awareness and rebellion. This is simply a "cultural" aspect of planning. It is no longer about suppressing the conflict of workers with periodic crises, but alternatively qualitatively and quantitatively managing the needs of the working class in specified a way that it does not argue the system. With the extension of the product form to all aspects of life, it is actually a control over the full cultural sphere, exercised by controlling consumption.
Sometimes it is adequate to read Marxists themselves to come across sincere expressions in their deliberations. There is no uncertainty that Frankfurt School has made revision of Marxism, however, this does not mean that they someway broke with the ideology of Charles Marx or his intentions. Just in the face of the defeat of the Communist revolution in the West, ideologists faced the request to adapt tactics to fresh circumstances, and thus the emergence of late capitalism, which deprived them of the masses capable of going to barricades. As he himself stated Jürgen Habermas in "Philosophical Discussion of Modernism" (1985):
Critical explanation was created in the ellipse of Horkheimer to reflect on the causes of political disappointment caused by the failure of the revolution in the west, the improvement of Stalinism in russian Russia and the triumph of Fascism in Germany. Critical explanation tiny explain mistaken Marxist predictions, but without rejecting Marxist intentions.”
The Frankfurters rejected both political lenismas well as revisionism Social democracy, developing a fresh approach, only seemingly focused on cultural issues. Sexual Revolution, which we can consider to be their top achievement, only in a secondary way led to any "demoralisation" of society. In fact, her goal was completely different. However, in the next part, in which I will besides answer the question of whether neo-marksists on the ground of dogma could "try" dismantle the capitalist system through cultural change.
LINK: The final part of the statement, together with a discussion of circumstantial allegations against Prof. Wielomski.
Bibliography
1. Cleaver H., Introduction [in:] Political Capital Reading, Poznań: The Trojka Brotherhood Publishing House, 2011, http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357k/RCP_final_Intro.pdf
2. Habermas J., Philosophical Discrimination of Modernism, Kraków: Universitas, 2000.
3. Jay M., The Creation of the Institut für Sozialforschung and Its First Frankfurt Years [in:] The Dialectical Imagination, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973, https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/jay/ch01.htm
4. Multi-male A., Marxism and Cultural Marxism, The Conservatism.pl, https://conservatives.pl/multi-marksism-and-marksism-cultural/
