Grünberg framed Marxists as optimists whose view of history justified the Institute

Evidence

The differences between his approach and that of his predecessor were immediately apparent. Instead of simply labeling himself a good Marxist, Horkheimer turned to the history of social philosophy to put its current situation in perspective. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 148 (#complicates, via linked claim)

To avoid giving the impression that the Archiv was competing with Kautsky, Grünberg emphasized that he was not concerned with topical theoretical discussions at the vanguard of the labour movement, but rather with the history of the movement and its theories. And the journal’s characteristic attitude was indeed that of the historian trying to find out where and when what happened, although it also gave space to contributors such as Lukács and Korsch, publishing Korsch’s Marxism and Philosophy in 1923. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 105 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Horkheimer’s Marxism was more historically self-reflective than Grunberg’s — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 148; Grünberg’s journal historicized Marxism rather than advancing its theory. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 105

Broader Connections

• Horkheimer’s Marxism was more historically self-reflective than Grunberg’s #complicates (0.85) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 148
• Grünberg’s journal historicized Marxism rather than advancing its theory. #corroborates (0.85) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 105