4 ms·

> Adorno was just not immune to his own creation but was all for the left wing cause until then What was his “creation”? Or his “left wing cause”? I don’t unde

> Adorno was just not immune to his own creation but was all for the left wing cause until then What was his “creation”? Or his “left wing cause”? I don’t understand what these vague gestures are supposed to indicate. I’ll again highlight that “Cultural Marxism” is rooted in various anti-Semitic and fascist ideologies. But for the record, Adorno opposed the radical student movement and had vehement disagreements with many other leftists, including his Frankfurt School peers and famously with the actual communist party official and Marxist philosopher Lukács. There’s no uniformity of thought or conspiracy as painted by those like Peterson, who just repeats these canards to people hoping they won’t engage with their origins, the actual history, or the works themselves.

nwienert 6y ago
From your own source: Adorno was opposed to it once it grew to disrupt his own campus - to a point - then turned on just that element of it. Critical theory and its descendants are alive and well. It has roots in Marxism (as per Wikipedia[0]). That he teaches a class on this history and that you disagree with his hagiography is fine. Adorno and Lind have nothing to do with the conversation. Peterson's books and class lectures go far more into things than a couple Wikipedia pages, and you've basically just tied him to a couple small events/people and tried to call fascist.. You immediately jumped to guilt by association (Lind), brought out of context things (Cultural Marxism), cited a small example to try and refute a large body of work with Adorno (nice Motte and Bailey). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]