The Horkheimer-Neumann split pitted philosophy-of-history against reformist Marxism

Evidence

At this point the two were talking at cross purposes. Horkheimer was a theoretician of integral statism whose approach to Marxism was through the philosophy of history; Neumann was a theoretician of totalitarian monopoly capitalism whose approach to Marxism was a reformist one. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 1178 (#expands, via linked claim)

It was a rather modest result. If the development from liberalism via monopoly capitalism to fascism were seen, as Neumann saw it, as a consistent and effective process of transmutation serving to maintain the domination of the private ownership of the means of production, then how could a re-establishment of the good old aspects of liberal constitutionality which had been appropriate under competitive capitalism be conceivable? How could legal theories and legal interpretations which could have been defended as socially progressive be imagined under such a presupposition? Neumann’s book seemed to be saying: there could only be hope if something similar to the liberal constitutional state could be re-created, but with a ruling class which would recoil with horror from the fascist solution. Although he was now thinking in a Marxist fashion at the level of social-theoretical analysis, Neumann remained, like his teacher Laski, a political reformist who set all his hopes on an improvement in the politics of labour movement organizations once constitutional conditions had been re-established. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 934 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Laski introduced him to friends at various distinguished universities during a tour which they made. Among these friends was Felix Frankfurter, Professor at the Harvard Law School, who was a member of Roosevelt’s Brains Trust and was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1939. Neumann’s first impressions, which, looking back on the experience in 1952, he described as being decisive for him, indicated a point of view which was very distant from that of the Horkheimer circle. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 938 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Horkheimer and Neumann grounded incompatible versions of Marxism. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1178; Neumann’s Marxism coexisted with reformist hopes for constitutional restoration — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 934; Frankfurter and the US academic left shaped Neumann’s divergence from Horkheimer’s circle — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 938 (+1 more)

Related

• Horkheimer and Neumann grounded incompatible versions of Marxism. (similarity 0.90)
• Frankfurter and the US academic left shaped Neumann’s divergence from Horkheimer’s circle (similarity 0.88)
• Neumann’s Marxism coexisted with reformist hopes for constitutional restoration (similarity 0.87)
• Neumann’s trade-union and SPD background clashed with Horkheimer’s homogeneous circle ideal. (similarity 0.85)
• Neumann’s mechanistic Marxism aligned him with Grossmann and Wittfogel against Horkheimer’s circle. (similarity 0.79)
• Horkheimer’s state capitalism theory rested on speculative philosophy of history rather than evidence (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Horkheimer and Neumann grounded incompatible versions of Marxism. #expands (0.90) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 1178
• Neumann’s Marxism coexisted with reformist hopes for constitutional restoration #corroborates (0.85) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 934
• Frankfurter and the US academic left shaped Neumann’s divergence from Horkheimer’s circle #expands (0.80) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 938