What is Veeky Forums's opinion of the Frankfurt School?

Maybe it's time you actually read some of these thinkers. You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about

they're not important, guys. totally irrelevant

newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-frankfurt-school-knew-trump-was-coming

the New Left is partly influenced by the Frankfurt School, but this influence is often overstated.

further reading: nithgrim.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/some-comments-on-new-left-history/

>Chomsky is very anti-Frankfurt for example

Absolutely not. The Frankfurt School is essentially a bunch of philosophers of power, and Chomsky literally does nothing other than talking about power, power structures and their consequences.

It's quite ironic actually, because Chomsky is like Foucault in that way, but he's vastly more naive and optimistic and less materialistic.

>implying Munich-style beef sausage isn't far and away the best kind of sausage

The bottom one is retarded, like Waltz, Kindleberger, Strange, the horde of Gilpins, even like Butler and Zizek talk about power and structures. Chomsky isn't particularly a structuralist, but he does believe in demonstration and that GLOBAL REVOLUTION is possible.

For both of you, the Frankfurters believed really in sitting on their arses all day and wondering why nobody was rising up.

Chomsky probably doesn't like the Horkhaimer hate of "STEMlogics". He attributes all his methods to the whole of continental philosophy.

I often think back to a certain girl München my beef sausage.

Too painful.

>talk about power and structures

Yeah and many of them regularly cite the Frankfurt School.

Nozick wrote a whole paper on Ayn Rand and her works, it didn't mean they had the same philosophy. Come on user.

No, but if Nozick started to cite Ayn Rand in his own papers or talks/interviews as an authority on anything, it would imply at least an affinity with her ideas.

People don't need to cite others to be influenced by them you retard

He cite Rand an awful lot in the paper on Rand. In each case they're an authority on themselves, Strange is probably the most likely to cite the Frankfurter school as an actual citation and even that's a bit weird.

>People don't need to cite others to be influenced by them you retard

No shit you fucking idiot. That's my whole point. Many people are influenced by them, because many people are talking about the same topics as they did, so they have probably read everything they can related to the topic.

I mean, do you suffer from low reading comprehension or what?

>so they have probably read everything they can related to the topic.
Oh dear user, bit of an academic dunce.

Now you're just being a pedantic shitheel.

>Is it true that the ideology of the liberal left today is influenced by the Frankfurt School and Critical theory?
No because there is no liberal left today, end of story.

Power and structure are not narrow topics m8, the idea that every citation is like some reaction to one particular group is crazy,

Check out Waltz talking about some related shit
youtube.com/watch?v=9T-Bh254RJI

>the idea that every citation is like some reaction to one particular group is crazy,

Which isn't what I said or implied at all.

If you want to be finnickity, being influenced by a group is not the same as going "and the there were THESE guys" in a paper.

No, but that's not what I said either. I said that if you are talking about a specific topic, chances are you are at least acquainted with other people(who might have different theories), that are talking about the same topic as you.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

>chances are you are at least acquainted with other people(who might have different theories)
It looks to me like you've really changed your position ITT, but if it makes you feel better you win. I think you agree with me now anyway.

>It looks to me like you've really changed your position ITT,

No, I haven't. I mean, my whole point is contained in my first post here Just because Frankfurt Schoolers and Chomsky have vastly different methodologies, doesn't mean they aren't talking about the same things.

>methodologies
Ideologies. No it really does mean they're talking about different things because they have such divergent views.

Go through some of the authors bro, I think you'd enjoy it. Try R Gilpin Global Political Economy as a broadish intro.

>No it really does mean they're talking about different things

I don't think so.

If Nietzsche is talking about power, and Marxists are talking about power, they are both talking about power.

>If Nietzsche is talking about power, and Marxists are talking about power, they are both talking about power.
Now now user.

But also when Rippletits is talking about power and when Otto is talking about power that is the exact same.

The Frankfurt school wanted to bring down western civilization. Their spiritual (though not ideological) successors want the same thing. Full stop.

I never said it was "exact the same", but claiming that a, in practice, philosopher of power(Chomsky), is "anti-Frankfurt", is retarded.

>For both of you, the Frankfurters believed really in sitting on their arses all day and being completely unsurprised that nobody was rising up.
FTFY

Anti-something usually just means against something in English bro. They don't have to be diametrically opposed, though they can be.

Chomsky is on many levels diametrically opposite to them, though like they are a group with a fair amount of variation in there.

lol

>Now now user.
What a faggot.

Marcuse writings is part of the marxist tradition of destroying society from within by destroying its morality and religion.

Read Adorno and you'll find the 60s hippie/gay reovlution there.

What is their plan after they bring down Western civilization? Total anarchy?

>Adorno
>being anything but disgusted by hippies

You're either memeing or being memed.