The Institute’s fascism debate turned on how capitalism’s role had changed

Evidence

Where Critical Theory broke new ground was in its argument that the role of the economy had changed significantly in the twentieth century. In fact, the debate within the Institut over the nature of fascism centered largely on the character of that change. Behemoth shared many of the same assumptions about the nature of monopoly capitalism with orthodox Marxists such as Grossmann. The older members of the Institut’s inner circle, on the other hand, followed the lead of its associate director, Friedrich Pollock, who, despite his administrative duties, found time to devote to scholarly pursuits. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 482

Categorization

• QUESTION: This sets up the Pollock vs. Neumann(Behemoth) dispute over state capitalism vs. monopoly capitalism — worth tracking how that debate resolves in the rest of the chapter.
• XREF: Behemoth is Franz Neumann’s study, the counterpoint to Pollock’s state capitalism thesis. — connects to: The Institute’s turn to Marxism was driven by the anticipated Nazi victory in Germany. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 68; The Institute’s original economic theories did not fit post-1973 capitalism — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 19; Institute members split over whether fascism was capitalism’s political form — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 509

Broader Connections

• Institute members split over whether fascism was capitalism’s political form #expands (0.90) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 509