Wittfogel’s positivist approach was mutually scorned by Horkheimer’s circle

Evidence

Although his new colleagues respected Wittfogel’s contributions to the understanding of what Marx had called the Asiatic mode of production, there seems to have been little real integration of his work with their own. On theoretical issues he was considered naive by Horkheimer and the other younger members of the Institut who were challenging the traditional interpretation of Marxist theory. Wittfogel’s approach was unapologetically positivistic, and the disdain was clearly mutual. Symbolic of this was the fact that he had to review one of his own books in 1932 under the pseudonym Carl Peterson, because no one else was interested in taking the assignment. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 122

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Wittfogel’s positivism isolated him from Horkheimer’s inner circle — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 122; Neumann’s mechanistic Marxism aligned him with Grossmann and Wittfogel against Horkheimer’s circle. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 462; Wittfogel’s rightward shift destroyed his friendship with Massing — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 528

Broader Connections

• Wittfogel’s positivism isolated him from Horkheimer’s inner circle #corroborates (0.95) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 122
• Neumann’s mechanistic Marxism aligned him with Grossmann and Wittfogel against Horkheimer’s circle. #expands (0.75) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 462
• Wittfogel’s rightward shift destroyed his friendship with Massing #complicates (0.70) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 528