The Institute rejected both Second and Third International Marx orthodoxy as coagulated dogma

Evidence

‘In contrast to the Kautskyist Marx-orthodoxy of the Second International and the Leninist Marx-orthodoxy of the Third International, two instances of Marxist theory havingcoagulatedintoa“scientificworldview”of theproletariatandadoctrine of the general “dialectical” laws of nature and history’, the Institute’s employees had as their goal the ‘supposedly viable adaptation of Marxian theory to the real development of late capitalism’. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 499

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes the Frankfurt School’s ‘critical’ Marxism from both Kautskyist and Leninist orthodoxy — defines what the Institute meant by viable adaptation of Marxian theory.
• XREF: This self-positioning against both Internationals recurs in how Adorno’s ‘immanent critique’ is later framed against Stalinist and social-democratic readings; connects to the reader’s ongoing Adorno-political economy work. — connects to: The Institute rejected intuitionist methods for breaking through to underlying reality. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 212; The Institute abandoned orthodox Marxist ideology critique by the forties — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 779; Somali socialists rejected dogmatic Marxist doctrine as context-blind (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Somali socialists rejected dogmatic Marxist doctrine as context-blind #exemplifies (0.75)