Ohman vs. Adorno and Horkheimer

After reading both Ohman’s and Adorno and Horkheimer’s article, I found that Ohman’s made more sense. He gave reasoning and had factual information to support what he was saying. Where Adorno and Horkheimer’s article seemed to be unorganized, repetitive, and difficult to read.

When reading what Ohman had to say about capitalism and comparing it to what Adorno and Horkheimer had to say about capitalism they both may similar facts about capital formation. When Ohman stated “This second way of looking at capital formation deserves closer attention, because it captures that decision a society makes about what to do with the fruits of its works other things being equal, the more people consume, the less they put into new capital.” To me this is saying the consumers were making products but not receiving the recognition deserved for it. Adorno and Horkheimer stated “Because the inhabitants, as producers and as consumers, are drawn into the center in search of work and pleasure, all the living units crystallize into well-organized complexes. The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the fact identity of the general and the particular.” Both of the quotes are stating the fact that consumers were in captivate.

I found many things to be different about both the articles but the things that stood out to me the most was all the examples that were provided by Ohman, he gave dates and examples to explain what he was talking about. For example when Ohman was discussing the Crises he stated “In 1877 there was virtually a nationwide general strike. In 1886 there were 1400 strikes involving half a million workers.” Ohman gave dates of when the crises were and what caused it. Whereas Adorno and Horkhemimer don’t even provide a date to back their facts up. It’s almost as if they want people to believe what they say and that’s that.

Intro

My name is Cymone' Maxwell Im a sophomore, majoring in nursing.