But Marcuse was a paid agent of the FBI and later of the OSS - that much is fact, repeated in this latest publication of Marcuse's collected paper.
By contrast I have never fucked a pig (I suppose if I was to answer Michael Hoover in kind I would add "except for your wife").
In message <199811010425.GAA14867 at faramir.sangonet.org.za>, Patrick Bond
<pbond at wn.apc.org> writes
>Ken, on Grossmann, can you provide some citations perhaps? Did the FS
>and HM in particular have a serious economic critique of their
>colleague Grossmann?
A footnote on p 243 of Tehnology War and Fascism: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse Volume One, Routledge 1998 (D Kellner, ed) reads:
'In a letter from Horkheimer to Grossmann of January 20, 1943 Horkheimer developed in detail a critique of Grossmann's orthodox Marxist political economy and outlined his own perspectives; see Horkheimer to Grossmann, GS, Vol 17: 398-415'
In message <l0313030cb2616a70840b@[166.84.250.86]>, Doug Henwood
<dhenwood at panix.com> writes
>I'm a bit behind, but what about the U.S. governmnt subsidy for the
>restarting of the Frankfurt Institute after the war? Joel Kovel reports
>this as fact - is it controversial.
I couldn't find chapter and verse, but Istvan Meszaros comes colse enough, comparing Adorno's sitution to Lukacs (at a time when Adorno was crticisisng him for being supplicant to the Stalinist regime in Hungary):
'Thus he [Adorno] could feel free to indulge constantly in the most scathing and generic denunciation of "institutions" and "bureaucracy" as such while assuming paradigm bureaucratic and institutional functions - like doctoring Walter Benjamin's heritage ... - firt as deputy Director and then as Director of the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research, recreated in West Germany ater his return from the US "with the benevolent approval of the Adenauer Regime" [fn cites Adorno et al Aethetics and Politics p 142]' Meszaros, p 119
'.. Adorno's utterly self-debasing attack on Lukacs - who was under house arrest at the time in Hungary - was published in the CIA journal of West Germany (Der Monat) and soon afterwards in the other CIA funded journals (like Encounter) all over the world' p 118
Meszaros judges the Frankfurters:
'the repatriated Institute, first under Horkheimer's and later under Adorno's direction, played a dubious - not radically democratizing but actively Americanizing - role in the cultural developements of postwar Germany.'
p49
and
'All the members of the FI who returned with Adorno and Horkheimer toWest Germany in 1949 participated in the same enterprise [revising Marx's critique of capital as a sociological critique of organised societies]. In fact, notwithstanding their claimed critique of the "administered" society and its mass-manipulating "culture industry" (of which the Untied States consituted in their eyes the paradigm example), they willingly accepted the function to become in Germany the Trojan Horse ofAmerican cultural/ideological hegemony and the dissminator of its "anti-ideological" social science.'
p 100
>At least HM didn't move right like the
>gloomsters who returned to the old country.
>
No in fact he could be said to have moved somewhat to the left in the growing upsurge of the New Left, though he was instrumental in the reconsideration of where lay the agency of social change. For orthodox Marxists this was the historical mission of the working class, something that Marcuse and the rest of the Frankfurters felt to be disproved by the experience of 1933. Marcuse's view is that revolution is an aesthetic dimension, part of the principle of Eros and its struggle with the counter principle of death or Thanatos.
What this represented was a reorientation from the battle over production that preoccupied revolutionaries before the War, to a contest over consumption, which preoccupied the New Left.
-- Jim heartfield