The Institute’s American relocation muted its Marxist revolutionary language for multiple reasons

Evidence

After the Institut’s resettlement at Columbia University, however, this tone underwent a subtle shift in a pessimistic direction. Articles in the Zeitschrift scrupulously avoided using words like “Marxism” or “communism,” substituting “dialectical materialism” or “the materialist theory of society” instead. Careful editing prevented emphasizing the revolutionary implications of their thought. In the Institut’s American bibliography6 the title of Grossmann’s book was shortened to The Law of Accumulation in Capitalist Society without any reference to the “law of collapse,” which had appeared in the original. These changes were doubtless due in part to the sensitive situation in which the Institut’s members found themselves at Columbia. They were also a reflection of their fundamental aversion to the type of Marxism that the Institut equated with the orthodoxy of the Soviet camp. But in addition they expressed a growing loss of that basic confidence, which Marxists had traditionally felt, in the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 192

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the learned example about the Institute strategically self-censoring Marxist vocabulary for American funders in The Frankfurt School history; this earlier exile chapter shows the same censorship began immediately at Columbia. — connects to: Immigration insecurity shaped even the Institute’s published word choices — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 615; The Institute resisted American empirical fieldwork demands in favor of philosophical humanities work — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1446; Positive American experiences delayed the Institute’s return to Germany — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 849 (+1 more)

Broader Connections