Adorno

[MarxSchmarx]

Does anybody read this person's writing and find it remotely intelligible? The few times I've tried, it took me like 5 re-reading of each sentence before I could make sense of it. And then I thought of several easier ways to make the same point, and moreover found the point problematic and frankly pompous grandstanding.

How a clown like this is so revered is beyond me. He's not that original, his ideas I think are somewhat deliberately obscured, and honestly I just don't get it - or,rather, I just don't get what is so great about what he has to say, assuming you can figure it out. Maybe comrades who are fans of his writings can relate to his needlessly complicated, convoluted, and atrociously pretentious writing style? Because as best I can gather reading his diatrabes are a waste of time.

[¿Que?]

Adorno and The Frankfurt School, if I'm not mistaken, have sometimes been referred to as cultural Marxists. Adorno for example, wrote a lot about popular culture. I think this is probably what makes him so appealing. People enjoy cultural critiques a lot more than social ones. They are less demanding and more intellectually self gratifying.

[Amphictyonis]

Does anybody read this person's writing and find it remotely intelligible? The few times I've tried, it took me like 5 re-reading of each sentence before I could make sense of it. And then I thought of several easier ways to make the same point, and moreover found the point problematic and frankly pompous grandstanding.

How a clown like this is so revered is beyond me. He's not that original, his ideas I think are somewhat deliberately obscured, and honestly I just don't get it - or,rather, I just don't get what is so great about what he has to say, assuming you can figure it out. Maybe comrades who are fans of his writings can relate to his needlessly complicated, convoluted, and atrociously pretentious writing style? Because as best I can gather reading his diatrabes are a waste of time.

Try reading Heidegger. That Nazi bastard. He could write a whole book on the word "if" and make it sound profound. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not ;) Some complicated points of view require complicated thought but I don't like intellectual grandstanding when it's not necessary. Many times, with many philosophers it not.

[9]

I haven't read any Adorno, but there is a thread of political commonality (in a really bad way) running through all the people I've met who've been into him (and the Frankfurt School in general), so I can't say I find the thought of reading him to be terribly appealing. That said, I suppose this could be purely a coincidence, and I probably shouldn't judge him based on the people I meet who like him.
This concludes my totally unhelpful contribution to this thread.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Which of his writings have you tried to read? I can honestly say his Minima Moralia is my favourite book, the words are so beautifully layered and heartfelt. I don't think the literary and the philosophical, the personal and the political, have been better represented in the 20th century than in Adorno's work. Extreme praise indeed, but I think justified

[¿Que?]

The Dialectic of Enlightenment is a terribly hard read. Certain paragraphs go for over an entire page sometimes. I've also read his essay on Popular Music, which was not as difficult.

Sorry, not the OP, but thought I'd share.

[cenv]

Adorno and The Frankfurt School, if I'm not mistaken, have sometimes been referred to as cultural Marxists. Adorno for example, wrote a lot about popular culture. I think this is probably what makes him so appealing. People enjoy cultural critiques a lot more than social ones. They are less demanding and more intellectually self gratifying.
I think you're creating a false dichotomy between "social" and "cultural" critiques. You can't understand the cultural forms of bourgeois society without looking at the social relations that shape them, and you can't create a coherent revolutionary theory/movement without understanding its cultural context. Most critical Marxism posits an understanding of capitalist social relations and Marxist methodology, so I would hardly call it "less demanding."

If we want to seriously challenge capitalism, we have to understand its workings as a complete system. Ignoring the cultural apparatus, an integral part of workers' daily life and consciousness, would be theoretical suicide.

[¿Que?]

I think you're creating a false dichotomy between "social" and "cultural" critiques. You can't understand the cultural forms of bourgeois society without looking at the social relations that shape them, and you can't create a coherent revolutionary theory/movement without understanding its cultural context. Most critical Marxism posits an understanding of capitalist social relations and Marxist methodology, so I would hardly call it "less demanding."

If we want to seriously challenge capitalism, we have to understand its workings as a complete system. Ignoring the cultural apparatus, an integral part of workers' daily life and consciousness, would be theoretical suicide.
Fine then, explain the reaction against identity politics.