Western Marxism advanced aesthetics but never extended Marxist political economy

Evidence

The long suit of that tradition was always aesthetic, and Jameson has played an extraordinary hand with it. But underlying the aesthetic enquiries of this line of thinkers, of course, there was always a set of economic categories derived from Capital that informed their focus and direction. The work of a Lukács or Adorno is unthinkable without this constant, immanent reference. At the same time, the tradition itself produced no significant development in the field of political economy as Marx — or Luxemburg or Hilferding — understood it. Here it relied on an intellectual legacy it did not extend. An alternative classical tradition, that did seek to pursue Marxist economic analysis into the era of the Great Depression, was generally ignored. By the end of the Second World War, this line itself had lapsed. — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 290

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharply frames the Western Marxist tradition’s asymmetry — aesthetic sophistication coupled with political-economic stagnation.
• XREF: This is the crux framing Jameson’s whole enterprise; connects to Hjelmslev/Marx concord on plane of form vs. substance via the Mallarmé epigraph. — connects to: Western Marxism’s central concern was the aesthetics of developed capitalist culture. — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 175; Western Marxism failed as a total theory of liberation; Western Marxism shifted Marxist theory away from political economy toward aesthetics and philosophy. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 32

Broader Connections

• Western Marxism’s central concern was the aesthetics of developed capitalist culture. #corroborates (0.92) — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 175
• Western Marxism failed as a total theory of liberation #expands (0.78)