Fabianism is a word; don't worry. :)
You're right about Cultural Marxists changing over because of their disappointment with straight Marxism. In addition to the disillusionment over WW1, a lot of them had hoped that the German Communist party would either beat the Nazis or come roaring back after widespread disgust with Nazism. Neither wish came true.
As a result, they were pretty embittered about the working classes. Significantly, that part of Cultural Marxism has led to life becoming harder for the same group that Marx himself pegged as the proletariat.
To succeed the neo-Marxists changed their focus away from economics to society... More particularly in destroying it- in effect payback for the failure of economic Marxism.
Well.... there is a difference between "positive" in the sense of beneficial and "positive" in the sense of achieving a goal. Lemme put it this way: For Cuba, Communism was a disaster - but for Castro and his buds, it meant that they succeeded in taking over the country. In this sense, Castro was talented at achieving a 'positive' goal in that he did conquer the country.
On the other hand, the Cultural Marxists - as you noted - haven't been able to successfully push any kind of political program except for making universities into Loonyversities, reinforcing the ideological rationale behind special status for so-called disadvantaged minorities, pushing for censorship that sometimes taints the laws, but little else.
That paucity is profoundly different from what the Fabians can brag about. They have a fair brag in claiming credit for the modern welfare state.
Good point about the Fabians... I hadn't thought about that aspect- I was focusing more on the social vs economic differences. Communism/Socialism/Fascism... any political system always benefits somebody... "It's good to be the King."
I understand. If I had any ulterior motive ;) , it was to deflate the implicit puff-job that the conspiracy theorists have given to the Frankfurt School. Sure, they have power, but conspiracy theorists tend to exaggerate the power of a certain group.
True story: one of the reasons why David Horowitz detached himself from the Left came from he and his then-writing-partner Peter Collier writing a book on the Rockefellers. They went into it planning a lefty-type of expose of the Rockefeller's great power, but when they dug into the real lives of the real family they saw "a family in pain."
I'm not trying to stir up any sympathy for cultural Marxists; far from it. If you read that snippet in a certain way, Collier and Horowitz discovered that the real Rockefellers were far less powerful than the New Left's pegging of them.
The same deflation can be made with zero sympathy. After the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, Vox Day made the point that the specifics of Weinstein's sexual harassment made him look pathetic.
I couldn't find the exact quote, but here's a related one:
(From here.)
With regard to Weinstein and the others, Day makes explicit what you kinda-sorta realize but don't realize fully until someone spells it out. Namely, those purportedly super-powerful moguls aren't all that great.
Sometimes, the Bastille can be stormed with mocking laughter.
In a similar way, or so I hope, the gap between the Fabians' record and the Frankfurt School's makes the latter look politically incompetent. That's good news, as it entails they'll be less difficult to beat.
the biggest reason was that he introduced a friend (a lady accountant) to the Black Panthers to do their accounting; they then murdered her (in his opinion, but very likely)
That's right: I forgot that. I was thinking of him as a New-Lefty-type intellectual, not activist. You're right: he withdrew from the New Left and buried himself in theoretical work after that murder. It certainly was the "first doubt."
the clue by four of reality Rich and I were talking about