Kafka had one problem and one only, ... and that was the problem of
 organization. He was terrified by the thought of the empire of ants: the thought of
 men being alienated from themselves by the forms of their life in society.... But
 he never found a solution and never awoke from his nightmare. Brecht says of
 Kafka's precision that it is the precision of an imprecise man, a dreamer. (88)

In other words, Brecht saw that Kafka's concerns were much like those of other

modernist, activist artists, but that Kafka's work held to an unresolved fear, rather than

working toward giving praxis to the working class.

 On the other side of the fence sit Adorno and Benjamin, who see value in Kafka's

work. Adorno's evaluation of Kafka revolves around disputing Lukacs' claims about the

writer. Adorno praises Kafka as a writer whose work is a "commodity that has served no

purpose" (114). Some argue that Adoro likes Kafka's work because of its "refusal of

any form of reconciliation" (Livingstone, et al. 146). Or, to put it another way, Kafka's

work avoids being used, a tactic that seems particularly sensible given the spurious use of

Expressionist art by National Socialism. At the same time, Jameson argues, Kafka's

work accomplishes something. He writes,

 Kafka and Beckett arouse the fear which existentialism merely talks about. By
 dismantling appearance, they explode from within the art which committed
 subjugates from without, and hence only in appearance. The inescapability of
 their work compels the change of attitude which committed works merely demand
 (191).

 Jameson is arguing that Kafka's work, despite often being associated with modernist (as

 opposed to realist) works, compels readers to change. But how? He doesn't explain.

 Deleuze and Guattari offer an answer in their book Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature.

 Their conception of the "becoming-animal" explains the efficacy of Kafka's work, and

 might lead us to a new understanding of Expressionism as well.