Adorno rejected productivity-based freedom, prioritizing capital’s value composition instead

Evidence

Insofar as Lindner means by this that only under the above circumstances does the possibility of freedom exist for Adorno, he is incorrect. The opposite is the case: already in his seminar from the winter semester of 1957–8, Adorno rejectsthe’assumptionthattheincreaseingoodsonthesideof use-valuecould make social antagonisms inoperative’, arguing that ‘what counts is not increasing the quantity of goods as such: what’s decisive is much rather the relation between the terms c, v and s which characterise capitalist production’. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1351

Categorization

• XREF: This is the payload for the reader’s project — direct textual evidence that Adorno’s politics are not a pessimistic cul-de-sac nor a redemption-of-use-value program but a structural analysis of c, v, s. — connects to: Adorno refused to treat economic primacy as a static anthropological constant — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1178
• QUESTION: Adorno’s reference to c, v, s — does he mean the organic composition of capital, or the rate of exploitation? Which value-theoretical claim is decisive?

Broader Connections

• Adorno refused to treat economic primacy as a static anthropological constant #expands (0.80) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1178