Horkheimer himself had renounced the critique of political economy by the 1940s

Evidence

Two months after receiving this draft from Adorno, Horkheimer answers as follows: ‘The elaborations of the concept of domination still seem a bit unsuitable to me, above all because they would require us to mention a series of other aspects which necessitate the editor’s note today. In my opinion, we should definitely drop the sentence on Engels’s polemic against Dühring, “Without recourse to elaborated economic analyses …”’. Apparently, Horkheimer believes either that the economic analysis of Dialectic of Enlightenment is already sufficient, or alternatively – and this is more likely given the direction Horkheimer’s thought had taken in the meantime – that the critique of economy is no longer a suitable instrument for the critique and ultimate overcoming of existing society. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 898

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the ‘pessimistic cul-de-sac’ reading of Adorno’s late thought — suggests the split from political economy was Horkheimer’s move, not solely Adorno’s. — connects to: Late Horkheimer embraced anti-Communist and pro-American rhetoric — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 1726; Horkheimer rejected state capitalism theory but kept the rackets concept throughout his life. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 607; Horkheimer’s own silence on capitalism contradicted his 1939 demand that fascism analysis require it — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1722 (+4 more)
• QUESTION: When exactly did Horkheimer’s position shift, and did Adorno resist or accept it? Worth chasing in the correspondence dating.