The Frankfurt School neglected autonomous political theory until Pollack’s state capitalism

Evidence

Reflecting its roots in Marxism, Critical Theory tended to see politics as more epiphenomenal than the socio-economic substructure. Although the Frankfurt School had already begun to question the derivative nature of culture assumed by mechanistic Marxists, it was slower to do the same for politics. Even with the introduction of political scientists such as Franz Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer into the Institut, there was little impetus for the development of an autonomous theory of politics. In fact, only after they left the Institut did Neumann and Kirchheimer develop a sensitivity to the “primacy of politics” in the twentieth century. Until then, they shared an underestimation of the political sphere with the other Institut members, which had been a hallmark of almost all nineteenth-century thought from Marx to the classical economists. Only in the late thirties, when Pollock developed a notion of “state capitalism” that stressed the role of governmental control, did the Institut begin to investigate the political component in political economy. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 395

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the earlier chapter on Pollock’s state capitalism theory and the Institute’s turn toward political economy analysis; ties into the general Marxist economism theme. — connects to: Pollock’s state capitalism theory erased class antagonisms in favor of purely political rulers — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 599; State-capitalism theory downgrades the economic base in favor of direct political domination — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 600; The Frankfurt School revised its theories in response to the changing postwar social reality — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 765 (+3 more)

Broader Connections