I was focusing more on the social vs economic differences

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:

Here is my explanation: the combination of low socio-sexual status and power over women is simply more than most gamma males can stand. Throw in the absence of Christian values putting the brakes on the temptations they face, and you've got the perfect storm for creating a serial sexual harassser, if not a full-blown sexual predator.

(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.