The Frankfurt School emerged not as a political organization but as an intellectual tradition associated primarily with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, founded in 1923. A decisive stage came in 1931, when Max Horkheimer became director and developed an interdisciplinary program combining philosophy, sociology, psychology, political economy, and the study of culture. Unlike the original Marxism, the thinkers associated with the Frankfurt School sought to explain why the working classes of advanced capitalist societies had not become a revolutionary force and why people could accept existing social arrangements even when those arrangements, in their view, restricted human freedom.
Among the best-known representatives were Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, and later Jürgen Habermas. After the Nazis came to power, the Institute was closed and many of its members, several of whom were Jewish, emigrated. The Institute continued its work first in Geneva and later at Columbia University in New York. After the Second World War, the tradition returned to Germany and subsequently influenced several generations of scholars in Europe and North America.
Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) became one of the most influential figures associated with the Frankfurt School. He combined Marxist social criticism with ideas derived from Freud and other philosophical traditions. In One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse argued that advanced industrial society could integrate individuals into the existing system not simply through direct coercion but through consumerism, mass culture, technology, and the creation of artificial or socially manufactured needs. During the 1960s, Marcuse became an intellectual symbol of the student and protest movements, particularly among sections of the New Left.
The influence of Frankfurt School ideas consequently moved beyond philosophy departments. Concepts concerning ideology, culture, domination, alienation, and the relationship between knowledge and power became influential in sociology, cultural studies, literary theory, education, and other humanities disciplines. While many of these discussions seemed rational in the beginnings, there was a point in recent history where most Western academia has been captured by ideas derived directly or indirectly from the Frankfurt School, in a way that does not allow opposition. Moreover, in many Western countries, schools today implement policies based on the impulses and influence of the Frankfurt School, which in its turn has spread modern Marxist ideology.
Was there a historical difference between how these ideas shaped Eastern and Western minds, depending on the political system?
For instance, in communist societies (such as the Soviet Union) political correctness was a system of officially approved language and ideas that people were expected to follow. One had to use language consistent with Marxism-Leninism and Communist Party ideology. It was impossible to criticize the Communist Party, Soviet leaders, or the socialist system. Also, certain groups or ideas were described using prescribed ideological terms—for example, “bourgeois,” “class enemy,” or “cosmopolitan.” Public speech, newspapers, books, education, and art were subject to censorship and ideological control. Of course, the original Frankfurt School did not create contemporary political correctness, but was heavily under the influence of Marxist ideals when promoting it. Even if later traditions included feminist theory, postcolonial studies, queer theory, and critical approaches to race and identity, in the background one can still find out how an expectation of restricting free speech is present. This was called more recently “cancel culture.” Because speech can shape public opinion and challenge authority, the new standard of thought is inflicted upon young people by modern educational systems, and they learn that free speech is somehow “oppressive,” while being (consciously or not) the oppressors themselves.
Another example is Critical Race Theory (CRT), which developed primarily within American legal and academic circles during the 1970s and 1980s. It argues that racism should not be understood exclusively as individual prejudice but can also operate through laws, institutions, and social structures. CRT has intellectual connections with Marxism and critical theory, although it should not simply be equated with the Frankfurt School. One of the most controversial aspects of critical theory concerns its emphasis on oppression and power. Critical theorists generally argue that apparently neutral institutions can reproduce unequal relationships and that education should make these mechanisms visible. Critical theorists also regard themselves as oppressed while simultaneously controlling through the modern educational setting most schools, including Waldorf schools. Critics have noticed however that this approach has itself become ideological, particularly when institutions increasingly interpret social problems through categories of oppression, privilege, and power – all of which were actually present in Marxism from the very beginnings.
The question of the influence of the Frankfurt School ideology on modern Waldorf schools requires special attention. A particularly interesting comparison can be made regarding Anatoly Lunacharsky, the first Soviet People’s Commissar for Education. Lunacharsky was a Marxist philosopher, cultural theorist, and one of the principal architects of early Soviet educational policy. Education under his leadership was understood not simply as the transmission of established knowledge but as an instrument for transforming society and creating a new type of social consciousness. The problem was that Bolshevik education was heavily shaped by Marxist-Leninist ideology, so schools were expected to teach loyalty to the Communist Party rather than encourage independent political thought. This limited intellectual freedom, encouraged censorship, and made education a tool for ideological indoctrination.
Even though the Frankfurt School has a different approach, its backbone is still immersed in Marxism and it shapes modern education with different methods, but in the same spirit as Bolshevism. The following quotation of Rudolf Steiner is very concerning, therefore: “Many dreadful things have come out of Bolshevism, but the most dreadful of all is the Bolshevist method of education, which would entirely eradicate all that former ages have contributed to human culture. This will not be achieved in the first generation but will certainly be attained in following generations, with the result that all culture will soon vanish from the face of the earth. Some people must see this. You have heard in this very room people singing a song of praise to Bolshevism, who have not the faintest idea that through it the Devil has entered socialism.” (Rudolf Steiner, The Study of Man – GA 293, Lecture IV: 25 August 1919, Stuttgart)
Thus, Waldorf education is being infected today with a new type of Marxism and we should be aware of its consequences. Rudolf Steiner seemed very concerned with what is going to happen “in following generations.” Since then, most Western students of young age have been severely influenced by concepts such as those promoted by the Frankfurt School. Its strong ideological tendency has limited freedom of thought and encouraged conformity rather than independent thinking. If everyone is pressured to reach the same beliefs, values, or outcomes, then unconventional ideas can be treated as problems rather than contributions. That creates conformity, which discourages questioning, experimentation, and independent judgment. That is why anthroposophy, which is at the core of Waldorf education and is a very different world view from what is currently being promoted, needs to enliven again what is becoming an abstraction in young people’s minds. Conformity in education is the worst possible expectation, because it equalises the very different spiritual capacities that human beings have. Anthroposophists need to wake up and consciously fight the influence of Marxist education in modern culture.
