Now that the dust ha settled can we admit that cultural Marxism has some good points but isn't right about everything?

He did a reasonable job documenting the problems of 19th Century capitalism but his prescriptions were lofty, needlessly iconoclastic and hopelessly utopian. He never reckoned that the working class might not want to be told whats good for them by a bunch of hoity-toity faggots that didn't have a days work in them. Regardless, the proles are a tool for Marxism. Marxists don't love the poor they just fucking hate the rich.

Even more regardless, the problems he documented were basically gone by the middle of the 20th century.

For example?

Ah yes, the overt prominence of capital owning classes, exploitation of the surplus value of labour by the bourgeoise and the widespread alienation of economic forces and people in society were all eradicated by mid 20th century?

Like how there's a lot of oppression in culture?

Oh I thought that was life. Personally I find having to get up to heat up my tendies oppressive.

The first two aren't problems because stratification keeps the world spinning. Also
>alienation
Pic related.

The course of human development is attempting to overcome oppression from the seedlings of civilization.

>Culture was alienated from local communities and became commodity, or "content" to use contemponary word
>Culture exist only as a "lure" so you have to watch advertisement
>Capitalism forces culture to the lowest common denominator, because it doesn't matter how much people like it, but how many people consume it

Either this is jibberish or I need further context.

>Teddy "the Classicist" Adorno and Max Horkheimer present: Cultural Marxism (The actual thing)

THE sociological theory that the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of the last remnants of pre-capitalism, together with technological and social differentiation or specialisation, have led to cultural chaos is disproved every day; for culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.

Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part. Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system. The decorative industrial management buildings and exhibition centers in authoritarian countries are much the same as anywhere else. The huge gleaming towers that shoot up everywhere are outward signs of the ingenious planning of international concerns, toward which the unleashed entrepreneurial system (whose monuments are a mass of gloomy houses and business premises in grimy, spiritless cities) was already hastening. Even now the older houses just outside the concrete city centres look like slums, and the new bungalows on the outskirts are at one with the flimsy structures of world fairs in their praise of technical progress and their built-in demand to be discarded after a short while like empty food cans.

Yet the city housing projects designed to perpetuate the individual as a supposedly independent unit in a small hygienic dwelling make him all the more subservient to his adversary – the absolute power of capitalism. Because the inhabitants, as producers and as consumers, are drawn into the center in search of work and pleasure, all the living units crystallise into well-organised complexes. The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular. Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed.

Interested parties explain the culture industry in technological terms. It is alleged that because millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods. The technical contrast between the few production centers and the large number of widely dispersed consumption points is said to demand organisation and planning by management. Furthermore, it is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result is the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger. No mention is made of the fact that the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those whose economic hold over society is greatest. A technological rationale is the rationale of domination itself. It is the coercive nature of society alienated from itself. Automobiles, bombs, and movies keep the whole thing together until their leveling element shows its strength in the very wrong which it furthered. It has made the technology of the culture industry no more than the achievement of standardisation and mass production, sacrificing whatever involved a distinction between the logic of the work and that of the social system.

This is the result not of a law of movement in technology as such but of its function in today’s economy. The need which might resist central control has already been suppressed by the control of the individual consciousness. The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same. No machinery of rejoinder has been devised, and private broadcasters are denied any freedom. They are confined to the apocryphal field of the “amateur,” and also have to accept organisation from above.

But any trace of spontaneity from the public in official broadcasting is controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs of every kind selected by professionals. Talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they would not be so eager to fit in. The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it. If one branch of art follows the same formula as one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends of the scale of musical experience – real jazz or a cheap imitation; or if a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled in a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.

>cultural Marxism
>>>r/JordanPeterson

>Marxists don't love the poor they just fucking hate the rich.
George Orwell said as much in Road to Wigan Pier, doing so as constructive criticism for socialist of all stripes, and of course this part was removed from the initial printings of the book by the socialist book club

>Even more regardless, the problems he documented were basically gone by the middle of the 20th century.
This. The exact reason marxist had to change gears and stopped appealing to workers and started appealing to students, which has led to the complete farce it is today. They have no vision anymore either. Marxist are all either retarded edgelord tankies, or they are completely suicidal westerners who think we need to destroy ourselves as appeasement for their overbearing colonial and white guilt. They no longer have any vision for the future. Video related is the end result of marxism.

youtube.com/watch?v=L_Ko2895D2E

Name something valuable that came from the Frankfurt School.

You're described the American Media Machine, AKA "War Machine 2.0: Thoughtform Boogaloo" pretty perfectly.