A dropped 1945 reconstruction prompt would have grounded the study in workers’ own history.

Evidence

Among the points omitted was an important passage which might have been able to provide a specific historical perspective: Just think back to 1945,' the text read. What were things like? It was us, the workers, who rebuilt everything. The bosses had their hands tied. A lot of them were being held in camps or were banned for other reasons. The workers got things going on their own. And that proves we’re capable of participating in managementthat proves it’s good for the economy when workers have a say and can give their advice. That’s why we want workers’ participation now.’ — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 508

Categorization

• QUESTION: Why was this passage cut from the stimulus — was it fear of evoking the Nazi past or of stirring up worker militancy?
• ADDENDUM: Could feed an essay on how research instruments sanitize the political memory of postwar labor.
• XREF: connects to: The Institute dropped a historical workers’-pride argument from the Mannesmann stimulus — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2064
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: The Institute dropped a historical workers’-pride argument from the Mannesmann stimulus — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2064