Comments on The Frankfurt School

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Frankfurt School.

Programme information and audio

Comments for this programme are now closed.

Comments

  • Ak Mike - Frankfurt School

    Interesting subject and discussion. From my perspective it appears that the Frankfurt School intellectuals had an emotional need to cling to Marxism (in the sense of opposition to the market and belief in an eventual cooperative utopia), but had to reconcile that with the obvious fact that Marxism, as an economic theory, was false. Why there was no worker revolution was obvious - Marx predicted the proletariat would be pushed to the wall by the logic of capitalism - but instead, the workers were getting wealthier.The Franfurt School then had to develop a complex theory of capitalists hypnotizing the workers into capitalist culture, ignoring the obvious explanation that workers in advanced societies were naturally happy with central heating, automobiles, enough to eat, inexpensive clothing, more leisure, etc.Without speculating on why intellectuals remain socialist when the evidence is against it, the Frankfurt School illustrates the tenacity of these views and the complexity generated to retain the basic ideology in the face of what seems to be contradictory reality.

  • Frankfurt School-John

    If you saw The Baader Meinfof Complexrecently it covered the period well.The reactionary role of Stalinism and social democracy contributed significantly to the mixture of indignation and impotence that drove Meinhof, Ensslin and others into the dead end of terrorism. The crimes of Stalinism, which culminated in the summer of 1968 in the suppression of the Prague spring in Czechoslovakia, cut off the students' justified indignation from a socialist perspective. And the SPD unreservedly supported the Emergency Laws and the stepping up of state powers against the student protests Why did women such as Ulrike Meinhof and Gudrun Ensslin, who both originally aspired to high moral values in their politics, end up in the reactionary dead-end of individual terrorism?A section of the student left ascribed responsibility for the policies of the SPD to the workers, who had voted for the SPD by a large majority. Basing themselves on the theories of the Frankfurt School, and in particular Herbert Marcuse, they regarded the working class as a reactionary mass, which consumerism had completely integrated into the capitalist system. From this they concluded that only individual "revolutionary action" could electrify social consciousness-a theory that found its ultimate murderous consequences in the terrorism of the RAF.These connections are not made clear in the film. The appeals written by Ulrike Meinhof, which are repeatedly cited in the film, and the speech given by student leader Rudi Dutschke, are reduced to just a few sound bites, which make hardly any sense to a contemporary audience. The great struggles of the working class, which began with the French general strike in May 1968 and then rolled across Europe until 1975, are ignored-although they refuted the theories of Marcuse and undermined the theoretical stance of the RAF, which confused individual acts of terrorism with This, according to Baum, is still an important topic today: "Our fundamental rights are being damaged in the fight against terror-then as now."The film also completely omits any reference to Germany's Nazi past-the fact that in the post-war period, state personnel, judges andprofessors, were able to move smoothly from the Third Reich into new posts; that hardly anyone was brought to account for the crimes of the Nazis. Nor does it address the Emergency Laws enacted under the Christian Democrat-Social Democrat grand coalition in 1968. Both contributed just as much to the emergence of the mass student protest movement as the Vietnam War and the anti-Shah demonstrations.It has beensaid that the FS was an elitistmovement out of touch with the workingclasses.The terrorists came from good,bourgeois backgrounds.

  • Mike A - Frankfurt School

    An interesting programme. I appreciate time limitations, but it would have been interesting to follow through beyond the late 60s and hear something about Jurgen Habermas and his debates with Derrida and the other post-structuralists/postmodernists (the 'new right', as he regarded them). Come to think of it, has IOT tackled the post-structuralists themselves?

  • Michael Eldred - The Frankfurt School

    Woefully superficial program.

  • The German Institute (Adorno, Benjamin and others)

    Thands a million. So many ideas resonate and it's all very heartening, because with hindsight the struggle was a truly mighty one, to sort out where human life was headed. I look forward ENORMOUSLY to Walter Benjamin next year. Great newsletter, have just signed up. TA muchly

  • THEMISTOCLES- Frankfurt School

    The greatest complement one can pay to a thinker is not to accept his/her theories but to criticise them. Personally, I will always be indebted to the thought of Karl Marx, but I dislike the dogmatism and theology of many Marxists. When I first read 'The Capital', especially the first chapter on 'Commodities' all I could see was a development of the Aristotelian thought. It was hard not to see this, as Marx went on and on about Aristotle, making quotations in Ancient Greek, stating that he is the greatest theorist and asking the valid question: how could Aristotle think what he thought in his own time? This question unfortunately he did not answer. I consider Marx the greatest Aristotelian philosopher of the modern age. In his analysis he did mistakes. His greatest error was somehow spotted by the Frankfurt School, although they did not see it as such. The question in the first half of the programme 'why doesn't the working class behave as they should' is not unlike the question of Marx about Aristotle. Marx performed an analysis in too great historical cycles. In doing so it was natural that the material conditions would be emphasised more that the cultural ones. This analysis becomes extremely problematic at turning points of history. Necessary AND sufficient conditions in social science do not exist. In the chapter about Commodities he answers to a newspaper article which made almost exactly the aforementioned comment applied on the ancient Greek democracy. Marx answered that his method can explain the birth of Democracy, but this is not true, although it can help a great deal. This is important for the Frankfurt School because the question eventually becomes one of self-conscience of the working class. Self conscience obviously existed within the bourgeoisie but not in the working class at large. Now, any philosopher or historian that wants to study this, will ask what is the history of self-conscience, is there a starting point, and why 'self'? A thinking person will find easier answers in Classicists than in Marxists. I am reading a recent book by Prof. Paul Cartledge, 'Ancient Greece- a history in eleven cities', and although the question is not addressed as such, it is full of inspiration if one is looking for answers. Firstly, before the birth of democracy, and hence self-conscience, people simply followed religion or monarchs who themselves were justified on the basis of religion. In this case conscience was exogenous. This changed with the birth of the Athenian Democracy when citizens decided to rule themselves rather than follow. The dimension of Art is critical. There were three cultural activities that developed in the way to Democracy, without which the latter would be unthinkable: Historiography, Philosophy, and Art especially Tragedy. In retrospect this is common sense. How could you have social or class conscience without History (know yourself), Philosophy (political theory and action) and Art (self-reflection)? This is not just theory, it actually happened. Catledge has a wonderful example in his book, where the city of Syracuse developed Drama only when briefly adopted democracy, to the extent that they freed prisoners of war that 'could recite from memory the latest choruses of Euripides to the tragedy-mad captors.' Self conscience cannot come about without Democracy. The working class had only matured in terms of the materialistic process but not in terms of the democratic. Here I am not talking about the mirage of today's 'democracy' where we vote every 4 years, but real participation in deciding laws and structure in society. If Marxists wanted to solve the question of conscience they should push gradually, but as a matter of priority, for real participant democracy in our society. In this I agree with the late Castoriades. He named today's democracy: Liberal Oligarchy

  • John Archer - Dispute Ended

    "[It] is not fair to the majority of messagers...." I agree. One last word, please. I also agree with some of what Dr Kanda says but by no means all. For example, his "Mathematics tells us that there is no point in trying to rebut mathematical (logical) inconsistency by presenting numerical arguments" is aimed at a straw man. No such arguments were presented by me. Besides, his statement is not true in general - a simple numerical contradiction derived from an inconsistent theory suffices to demolish it. However, in general, I do agree with him, implicitly, that a thorough examination of the foundations of SR are highly desirable. Pity he didn't answer my simple question though. It would have clarified a few things, perhaps. Incidentally, Dr Kanda might be interested to know that I'm not exactly unfamiliar with mathematical logic either. Pure mathematics along with its foundations is "where I live" too. The End.

  • Jane Frankfurt School

    This has made me have to think harder than any other IOT programme I've listened to. Its tendrils spread in far more directions than I can address here, but I'll have a bit of a say (as I often do!). I always respond from a pragmatic twenty first century perspective. Letting the radio continue into 'book of the week' for a while, I heard Antonia Fraser reading that Harold Pinter thought that life was wonderful but the world was hell...and there's the rub - and a field day for neurosis. 'Blessed is he who expecteth little' - well - 'not too much' hey. I suppose high expectation must, in our somewhat flotsam and jetsam set-up, also be affiliated with neurosis (and probably the USA). I was deeply impressed by the eclectic thinking and the values of the Frankfurt school. It's so difficult to bring about real change. Out of the aggregate of society tend to emerge certain forms of leadership/power which then dominate the 'masses' and create 'mindset'...within a hierarchical framework. This construct then nestles in... intrinsically, cyclically and transparently. AS Neill's exemplary school, Summerhill, embodies the fact that far more healthy and evolved paradigms are possible and sustainable. We could, theoretically, have created a much better world for ourselves. You possibly have to jump 'out of the box' to even consider that 'personality drive' and 'intelligence quotient' don't automatically have to create pecking order - isn't that merely the extension of jungle antics? I think that these men, whatever their individual or existential reasons, took responsibility. Even if they couldn't be "under the skins of the proletariat" they could see that things were not good. In wikipedia's 'Frankfurt School' criticisms, 'bourgeois idealism' was mentioned. Easy to say... but who else was trying to address the situation with such nuanced intelligence...and empathy? Feeling a little despondent, I looked up Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and found this quote: 'How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. ... That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it...'. Also, Pascal's words: 'We know the truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart'. The avenues which ideology and technology take are fundamental. Capitalism, whilst (overly) productive, narrows the field of potential profoundly. There's far more at stake than simply losing your life to the 'do or die/do and die anyway' treadmill of it all. For example, I know a pharmacist whose husband died from cancer. At that point she gave up her career in outrage... she'd seen potential cures turned down because they weren't profitable. The iceberg of capitalism has pretty well frozen the entire globe...and it's not particularly white. The bigger and more tortuous the entity gets, the less we can do about it. We are disenfranchised to an alarming degree and seventy years on, these men would be whistling into a hurricane, never mind the wind. cont'd...

  • jane - cont'd...

    "To make sense of Hollywood and the holocaust"; "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric". The evening before the programme I'd popped into my mother's house and the channel five 'news' came onto her television. A grim faced, sombre toned newsreader told listeners that hundreds of thousands of people had been either killed or injured in a massive earthquake in Haiti and then gave a warning that snowy conditions were still proving problematic. On her next intake of breath, as I was reeling with dismay for the plight of the Haitians, an instant smile spread widely across her face and she cheerily announced Danni Minogue's first pregnancy... a grinning photograph of Danni and boyfriend popping up to add to the joyous moment. My mother gave it not a second thought and didn't seem to understand my indignation at the dismissive disrespect for thousands of lives. The polarity is obviously not as extreme as the two quotes, and we know that "life goes on", but this madness seeps everywhere and is accepted as normal....horrific stories followed by "and now for the latest football results"....all assimilated along with chicken nuggets and chips. (It's okay...I know about generalization) X factor (banned in my generally liberal house) is brutal....it is, in the main, ruthlessly unkind and blatantly politically incorrect but it's become a very fat pig indeed...a billion pounds one it seems. Society - or rather what influences society - seems hell bent on bringing the worst out in the multi-faceted, malleable nature of the human being. The media are drowning people in a confusion of mixed messages. Happily munching down beef sandwiches amongst the sights and sounds of an abattoir soon becomes the norm for those thus placed. The denizens of this planet have been demeaned and diminished for far too long. This group of men might not have been perfect, they may only have managed to keep intelligence and idealism alive rather than bringing actual change, but I take my hat off to them. They spoke of evolution rather than obstacles to that and are amongst those who keep a much needed beacon alight for mankind. Why is it that so many of the finest poets, writers, artists, thinkers etc. tend towards 'the left' and hold disdain for capitalism?... (I suppose some of those - 'though not all - who find monetary success in their time have a 'double standards' issue to deal with!) Thank you for this superb programme...IOT also shines as a beacon in a world which arrogantly, if unwittingly, is stabbing itself not only in the foot, but in the heart. If only we had wisdom and senses to understand how subtly but perniciously arrogance, in truth, destroys its perpetrator. Best wishes to all ps whilst verifying Pascal's words, I found these by Edward Abbey: 'There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California'...

  • Malcolm Chisholm - The Frankfurt School

    Your programme about the Frankfurt School was very interesting, but I must vigorously object to the shallow characterization of California. It simply did not ring true, and I think was extremely misleading for your listeners. I can accept that the members of the School in their transient stay in the state had a superficial view of it, filtered through European presuppositions about Hollywood. However, as a British émigré myself, and having recently completed two years of voluntary exile in Southern California (from the East Coast of the USA), I find that my experience is vastly richer than the enumeration of tired clichés trotted forth by the panelists. If what was described was all that the members of the Frankfurt School could make of California, then all their conclusions must be suspect. If you listeners want a better appreciation of the culture of Southern California during the period discussed, then I can think of no better guide than that (half-British) genius of the place, time, and style - Raymond Chandler. Personally, I find it very difficult to explain modern California to New Yorkers. How it could be explained to Europeans is quite beyond my powers. Best regards, Malcolm Chisholm, Holmdel, NJ USA.

  • The Frankfurt School

    Although I welcomed this program, breaking away from its usual domain,I felt the speakers were all at sea, sounding indecisive and uncoordinated. The Frankfurt School, associated with the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt,consisted of dissident Marxists,outspoken critics of Capitalism, who were influenced by the failure of the working-classrevolution in Western Europe(where Marx had predicted a revolution would take place):what emerged in several Western societies was Fascism.Some Marxists had to re-evaluate and reconstruct Marxist theory.Having a Marxist regard for a cultural superstructure derived from a materialist base,they drew on Freudianism, existentialism,Hegelian idealism and the importance of aesthetics,their central task became one of Critical Theory based on disappointment in what had occurred in Western societies with incredible social wealth.CriticalTheory was a critique of society,not a criticism of text.Socialism would be the rational replacement for Capitalism collapsing under internal contradictions. Dialectical method would become a self-correcting tool correcting false dialectical interpretations,rejecting dogmatic materialism,diminishing class struggles of orthodoxy.Philosophy's only validity would be informing action.When action fails,the guiding theory must be reviewed,so praxis must also inform theory.I.S.R.had emigrated to America with its dialectical materialists,Adorno and Horkheimer.In their opinion Benjamin's thinkingwas 'undialectic',moved in 'materialistic categories'which did not coincide with Marxist ones. They didn't publish his work and he was dependent on them.He saw a connection between spirit and material manifestation, word and thing.He was not committed to historical ideas or binding,valid statements, these were replaced by 'metaphorical ones'(Adorno).Superstructure and substructure became metaphoric terms, by which the oneness of the world is poetically brought about.One of the Frankfurt School not mentioned was Marcuse,who had an influence on New Left thinking in the 60s.There was revisionist movements among Marxists inCommunist countries,culminating in the Prague Spring of 1968.This put the FS in line for the first time with real-life developments inside the Communist World.There was also a revival of interest of Marxism among educated young people in the West,culminating in student protest and violence in Europe and USA in 1968.There are some who say that Marxism became absorbedby Capitalism in the West.Others thinkthe FS were an elitist group of romantic idealogues,who refused to accept the errors of Marxism and clungon to it too long.

  • Keith Wild: The Frankfurt School

    I found this discussion very frustrating. However, there was no doubt what we were going to get when one contributor warned us that TFS decided they had to "consider the things in themselves". Cue a description of a dollop of Germanic navel gazing devoid of logic and fact, based on God knows what. Keep up the good work in the rest of the programmes though, and please thank the contributor who explained who Mr. Wagner was.

  • CM: The Frankfurt School

    The history of the Frankfurt School shows the recognizable pattern of "leading Marxist thinkers" getting confused. They are simply wrong. Classes are not layered, they are interwoven. History has shown that states aiming for Communism are not successful, free, fair nor benevolent. They have not understood nor cared about human nature and the individual. Marxism has always been about control, not about fairness. When will "leading Marxist thinkers" notice that their ideas have been played-out all too often and led to disastrous social experiments. They have the contrast between capitalist South Korea and communist North Korea at the moment. Would they rather live in North Korea? (The BBC recently had historian Simon Shama walking down a vibrant, colourful shopping street in South Korea and cynically bemoaning that South Korea's success wasn't exactly the Florentine Renaissance, whereas actually its technological renaissance has been akin to that, and it's Shama's left-leaning Britain that begins to look increasingly jaded). Amusing that members of the Frankfurt School chose to move from Germany to California rather than the Soviet Union before WWII. Well done to Melvyn Bragg for asking the panellists why, but not getting the real answer. Hypocrisy was the real answer of course. They wanted the good life. (Thank you those commentators who pointed out that the current, delinquent political correctness in Britain derives from cultural Marxism).

  • V. E. Boolsen, on the Frankfurt School

    The contributions from the Frankfurt School mainly consisted in some revisions of postions within "traditional Marxism"; i. e. the Communist parties, not least the Soviet ones, with their reductionism and teleological conception of history. The point of departure was to make one, whole "social theory", consisting of a theory of the social object - which Marx' theory was supposed to deliver - and a theory of the social subject - which psychoanalysis was supposed to deliver - bound together with a specific epistemology; a critical theory. The project failed, as it was worked on; for, Marx' theory failed to deliver, and psychoanalysis likewise failed to deliver, and as for epistemology, that, too, failed to deliver. Criticism since Kant has been "thinking through" - since Hegel with emotions (for, the German philosophical reason (VErnunft) is not to be conflated with rationality after Hegel has finished with it, in his Phenomenology). And when Adorno writes about culture, please read Freud into it, in his various cultural writings. Adorno - and not much else within the broad framework of the Frankfurt School - brought social theories a great step forward, and not least out of the claws of philosophy, especially the Anglo-Saxon mainstream variety of it.

  • Response to Anon: Dr. Kanda

    Why working class did not rise up? It is simply because they did not know anything about socialism and Marxism. Most of them were illiterate and had more urgent issues to deal with in real life. They certainly had little ambition to govern the nation after bringing down existing authorities. They must have instinctively sensed that the socialist revolution will bring them to even worse situation. Russian revolution is not uprising of working class. It was a cue of left-wing upper class. May be China's revolution was closest to the uprising of real working class. But it did lead China into catastrophe.

  • Victoria Isherwood - The Frankfurt School

    These people (like your guest) who dismiss 'It's a Wonderful Life' as "kitsch" - have they ever actually seen it, or are they just going by the title? I made that mistake for years, and nearly missed out on some superb, surprisingly dark, Capra movies.

  • Peter Bolt : Frankfurt

    Just out of interest which Frankfurt was it ? Frankfurt am Mainz or Frankfurt am der Oder ?As a uber moron I can never get past the fact that the intelligentsia alwaysthink us proles have a hatred of the upper classes.Wrong; Its the bosses we hate, from whatever class, `cos they make us work.

  • Dr Rod Paton

    As always today's programme uplifted and frustrated in equal measure. But it certainly did what it says on the label since the Frankfurt school had so much to say in our time with their big feet planted on both sides of the war and on both sides of the Atlantic. I also likke to see pop culture in Benjamin's perspective as potentially an opportunity to give music and art back to the people. Adorno was such an elitist. why does art have to be complex to be great? And wasn't Schoenberg the model for Mann's Dr Faustus? Adrian Levekuhn "invents composing with twelve notes in, I beieve, chapter 8. Schoenberg was livid! This was his property and he complained bitterly to Mann who, as is well known included in subsequent editions a rather supercilious postscript reminding readers that this method of composition was, in fact the property of an Austrian theorist and composer called A. Schoenberg. Arnold never spoke to him again. such great thinkers and artists. Such frail egos!

  • Robert Giddings The Frankfurt School

    Absolutely fascinating. The crises in the Weimar years have so many echoes for us in our time. Pity there was so little time to discuss and connect the art, culture and entertainment of the Republik with the analysis and theories of the Frankfurt School wallahs. And it's curious as well as fascinating to note that so much we now take as typically Weimar Germany such as Berg's Wozzeck, Lulu and Expressionism etc. have very deep roots in Germany's past. Wozzeck was based on the drama by George Buchner (d 1837) and Lulu was based on dramas that date from the 1890s. Expressionism manifested itself before the Great War and has strong roots in E.T. A. Hoffmann (d 1822). The singularly Weimarish Expressionist satire The Lat Days of Makind was begun by its creator, Karl Kraus in 1915 and the classic Expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr Caligari dates from 1919. Weimar expressed itself also in symbolic/abstract stage productions, especially in operas at the Kroll Theatre (Otto Klemperer's domain)and this spirit was revived in the Wagner twins' productions of Wagner at Bayreuth in the 1950s. Weimar culture was all of a piece, somehow. There is something that holds Berg, Schoenberg, the Bauhaus, Grosz -- the whole thing -- mysteriously together. And it is all so much more than Mr Norris changing trains and Auden and co having a gay old time and Liza Minella wowing 'em all up in cabarets.Of course works by these immortal Frankfurters stoked up the flames in the great book burnings of May 1933 and this shows how much the Nazis despised and feared those who thought. Goebbels, for example, banned analytic film criticism (writers such as Siegfried Cracauer) and only allowed reviewing that was in effect simple reporting.It's one of history's great ironies that after the Reichstag was burned out, Hitler's Reichtag opened in the auditoreum of the Kroll Theatre (Otto Klemperer having fled).Robert Giddings

  • Anon - The Frankfurt School

    Really excited about this coming on to In Our Time. Not actually very satisfying in the end. I suppose that some of the concepts of the Frankfurt School are tricky to discuss 'live' on the air, but I have to say, most of the time everyone on the show sounded really nervous. It would have been better to decide at the beginning to discuss either the Institution itself (its history, the politics, the individuals and their interrelation) or the ideas (Hegel, Marx, Freud and the interpretation of that philosophy through the works of Benjamin, Adorno, and Horkheimer). I know that would be anti-thetical to their own project, but would have made it easier...Steve Moxon: want to know why none of the points you raise were discussed?1) the Frankfurt School are not historically related to the development of 'political correctness', and Adorno in particular (and really all of those involved in the Institute) is considered as quite oppositional to the values expressed in 'political correctness', especially his possibly elitist perspective on art and its role in culture;2) 'political correctness' is not dominant in political philosophy;3) the Frankfurt School did not 'blame "the workers" for not rising up', and that is perhaps one of the key problems with the programme, for presenting that proposition as the principle aim of the Frankfurt School (figuring out why the working class did not 'rise up'). If you read the work of the speakers in the programme on the Frankfurt School thinkers you'll know why that is such a weird thing to say about them;4) Frankfurt School thinkers certainly NEVER suggested or argued that the 'workers' were 'deranged'. Far from it, Benjamin in particular expressly identified with 'workers'. Another problem with the programme, is that at the heart of critical theory is the proposition that the only way into a critique of contemporary capitalism is through its own distorted forms;5) I haven't come across any comments from Frankfurt School writers on the status or value of the family: do let us know where you get the idea that they proposed to 'destroy' it. I do know that Marx suggested that capitalism destroys the family, and those values that are attached to it, but I don't think that's what you mean (!);6) 'Adorno is a more pernicious fascist than Hitler'. That's revolting.

  • nic mcGerr - The Frankfurt Institute

    I am frequently frustrated by the title of this BBC program as the subjects discussed and those brought into discussion do not always reflect on the topics relevance to time in our time, and thus it is with this about the Frankfurt Institute. Much was made of the history and background to the fromation of the Institute but not much on its relevance to now "in our time" despite the fact that only towards the end of the piece there was reference to the interaction of the Institute members and the movements of '68 inter alia which to this day in our time remain mostly unresolved. The crisis of conciousness that was identified by the Institute back in the '30's found widespread expression in the '60's: Marcuse was taken up as a doyen of expanding awareness: the Institute's creed about the paradox of invert result is in his perception of "repressive tolerance" as a summary for the politics of liberal democracy, but by yet another paradoxical twist to the intellect the Frankfurt school has now become not only the shibboleth of extreme almost nazi parties but is condemned by deliberate ignorance and discrimination by academic and political hierachies throughout the "western world", which is a mark of the potential of Frankfurt to be a threat to the post modern regime because of its espousal of populism but also because it draws on Marxism which is also its failure: Marx is a valuable source of social analysis and critique but his grasp on reality as being able to be determined by historical inevitability and the reactions of class division is a mental flaw and bound not by chains but by ultimate failure. Instead of what they could clearly see as the ever growing repressions of state capiltalism the Frankfurters should have made more time and opportunity for Bakunin.

  • Simon Ellicott - The Frankfurt School.

    How can you talk for 45 mins on the Frankfurt School without mentioning 'Cultural Marxism' which we now know as 'Political Correctness' A philosophy that has corrupted nearly every part of our society, developed by the Frankfurt School in the USA. A whole 45 mins with nobody mentioning the elephant in the room.

  • Steve Moxon, re the Frankfurt School

    Today's edition on the Frankfurt School was a complete travesty.At no point was it even mentioned that the Frankfurt School is the root of the 'political correctness' fascism that is the current dominant political philosophy.Instead of realising that Marxist theory was so out of line with any understanding of human nature, the Marxist theorists of TFS just blamed 'the workers' for not rising up.To justify this they wedded Marxist to the psychobabble of Freud, and asserted that 'the workers' must be psychologically deranged. TFS saw 'capitalism' as so deeply pernicious that we must destroy the family.Adorno and his ilk created a fascism even more insidious than Hitler's, and we should view them with a similar disdain.It is appalling that the BBC should whitewash this intellectual atrocity.It confirms that the BBC is itself riven with the 'political correctness' fascist ethos: a clearly unacceptable state of affairs for what is supposed to be a public service -- not a public-hating -- broadcaster.

Podcasts

  1. Download every edition Download the podcast As well as the regular weekly podcast, you can now download past editions of the series via the new genre archives.

Newsletter

Melvyn Bragg

Melvyn Bragg's personal insight into the latest programme.

Read the newsletter

Melvyn Bragg

Read a profile of In Our Time's presenter

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.