MESSIANISM AND MARXISM: WALTER BENJAMIN AND ERNST BLOCHS DIALECTICAL THEORIES OF SECULARIZATION Warren S.

Goldstein
Messianism is the red secret of every revolutionary . . .1 Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity

Among 20th century intellectuals, Walter Benjamin and Ernst Bloch are unique in the problem they present us: they mixed in their writings Judeo-Christian Messianism and Marxism. Both Benjamin and Bloch believed that Marxism is a secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism. Benjamin wrote: Marx has secularized the messianic time in the conception of the classless society. 2 However, Benjamin and Blochs conception of secularization is not unilinear; it does not develop in a one-way direction from the sacred to the profane. Rather, their theories of secularization are dialectical; they view the sacred and the profane as having a contradictory relation in which there is a dynamic tension between the sacred and the profane. The central argument of this article is that Benjamin and Blochs dialectical theories of secularization explain their mixture of Messianism and Marxism. One of the debates that has taken place over Benjamin is on the compatibility of Messianism and Marxism. Jrgen Habermas, Rolf Tiedemann, Richard Wolin and Stephen Eric Bronner argue that Messianism and Marxism are incompatible while Irving Wohlfarth, Michael Lwy and Susan Buck-Morss argue that they are complementary. According to Rolf Tiedemann in Historical Materialism or Political Messianism, when Benjamin used theological or mystical concepts, they have a materialistic intent. He argues that Benjamin sought to unite the irreconcilable.3 Grounding himself on the Tiedemann essay, Stephen Eric Bronner argues that Benjamins attempt to fuse theology and historical materialism into a messianic materialism is not only questionable but contradictory.4 Habermas believes that Messianism and Marxism are incompatible and the attempt to synthesize them is doomed to failure. This attempt must fail, because the anarchistic conception of now times that intermittently break through fate from above as it were, cannot simply be inserted into the materialistic theory of social developCritical Sociology 27,2

messianism and marxism

247

ment.5 Richard Wolin agrees but for a diVerent reason; he argues that Benjamins conservative attitude toward tradition cannot be reconciled with Marxist politics.6 The overriding opinion, according to Susan BuckMorss, is that Benjamins attempt to fuse theology and historical materialism was bound to failure.7 On the other side of this debate stand Irving Wohlfarth, Michael Lwy, and Susan Buck-Morss. Wohlfarth thinks that Marxism and theology are not at odds with each other.8 Both Bloch and Benjamin, according to Michael Lwy, regarded historical Messianism and Marxist historical materialism as the narrowest of complementarities.9 For Buck-Morss the conclusion that Marxism and theology are incompatible is not inevitable. Without theology (the axis of transcendence) Marxism falls into positivism; without Marxism (the axis of empirical history) theology falls into magic.10 This debate poses the wrong question. What is important is not whether Messianism and Marxism are compatible but the relationship between these two interrelated but opposed philosophies of history. The problem with this debate is not only that it is unsystematic, but it also lacks a framework. The theory of secularization provides the missing framework that can be used to analyze the relationship between Messianism and Marxism in the writings of Benjamin and Bloch. Karl Lwith argues that Marxism is a secularized form of Jewish Messianism. Communism, which is the goal of Marxs historical messianism, is a Kingdom of God, without God and on earth. 11 The driving force behind the conception of history as class con ict is a transparent messianism. Though perverted into secular prognostication, the Communist Manifesto still retains the basic features of a messianic faith. 12 Bloch describes Lwiths conception of secularization, which he uses in an attempt to discredit Marxism, as shallow.13 Messianism and Marxism share in common a parallel structure in their philosophy of history. In the Bible, history begins with paradise from which there is a fall. According to Marx and Engels, the earliest form of society is primitive communal society in which there is no private property, no classes and no state. The beginning of class society can be seen as a fall from paradise. In Judeo-Christian Messianism, the Messiah only enters during periods of disaster (Unheil ) and brings about salvation (Heil ).14 In Marxism, revolutions occur during crises and bring about social transformation. Messianism hopes in the coming of the Messiah while Marxism hopes in the coming of the revolution. In both Messianism and Marxism, at the end of the history there is a return to the beginning of history. In Messianism, there is a return to paradise.

248

warren s. goldstein

In Marxism, there is the reestablishment of communism (however, this time it is industrialized). Unilinear theories of secularization are an inadequate explanation of Benjamin and Blochs mixture of Messianism and Marxism. Benjamin, as Theodor W. Adorno indicates, engages in a secularization of theology in order to save it. At the same time, he analyzes profane texts as if they were holy.15 Michael Lwy writes:
. . . in this German-Jewish thought, there is as much making sacred of the profane as there is secularization of the religious: the relationship between religion and utopia is not here, as in the case of secularization, a one-way movement, an absorption of the sacred by the profane, but rather a mutual relationship that links the two spheres without suppressing either one.16

Benjamin and Blochs theories of secularization run simultaneously in two opposite directions; not only do they secularize theology but they theologize Marxism. When describing Benjamin and Bloch theories, one not only needs to think in terms of secularization but desecularization, not only in terms of disenchantment but reenchantment. For Benjamin and Bloch, the spheres of the sacred and the profane are not simply interlinked but dialectically interconnected. The Theological-Political Fragment provides a clue to the structure of Benjamins dialectical theories of secularization. This fragment, which describes the relationship between the messianic and the profane, is a key to Benjamins entire work.
If one arrow points to the goal toward the profane dynamic acts, and another marks the direction of Messianic intensity, then certainly the quest of free humanity for happiness runs counter to the Messianic direction; but just as a force can, through acting, increase another that is acting in the opposite direction, so the order of the profane assists, through being profane, the coming of the Messianic Kingdom. The profane, therefore, although not itself a category of this Messianic kingdom, is a decisive category of its quietist approach.17

The messianic and profane move dialectically in two opposite directions. 18 Both forces through acting increase the intensity of the one moving in the opposite direction. While they are opposed, they are mutually reinforcing; the profane assists in the coming of the Messianic kingdom. The messianic and profane have a contradictory relation the resolution of which is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Benjamin and Bloch viewed secularization as a contradictory process. The contradictions of secularization are expressed in the dialectical rela-

messianism and marxism

249

tionship between the sacred and the profane. Benjamin and Blochs dialectical theories of secularization express a constant tension between the profane and sacred realmbetween Messianism and Marxism. One is the secularization of the other; they are dependent on each other but opposed to one another. The dialectical theory of secularization hopes in a resolution of this dialectical con ict. However, the dialectic remains unresolved and therefore the contradictions need to be expressed. Benjamin and Bloch were not fusing Messianism and Marxism but expressing this contradictory relationship. Benjamin and Bloch have several dialectical theories of secularization. In Walter Benjamin, they are contained in his philosophy of language, theory of experience, theory of dreams, and aesthetic theory. In Ernst Bloch, there is a dialectical theory of the secularization of JudeoChristian Messianism into Marxism. After a brief history of the relationship between these two intellectuals, the remainder of this article will focus on Benjamin and Blochs dialectical theories of secularization and their juxtaposition of Messianism and Marxism. I. Intellectual History Walter Benjamin and Ernst Bloch belonged to The Generation of 1914. 19 They were part of a group of Jewish intellectuals which Michael Lwy divides into three groups: the anarchist religious Jews (Franz Rosenzweig, Martin Buber, and Gershom Scholem); the religious Jewish anarchists (Gustav Landauer, Franz Kafka, and Walter Benjamin); and the atheist-religious, anarcho-Bolshevik Jews (Georg Lukcs, Ernst Toller and Ernst Bloch).20 Benjamin and Bloch were the links that tied this group together. Anson Rabinbach describes the spirit of this group as modern Jewish Messianism.21 It captured a generation of Jewish intellectuals before World War I. According to Rabinbach, Ernst Bloch and Walter Benjamin represent a pure type of this thinking. 22 Only Bloch and Benjamin brought a self-consciously Jewish and radical Messianism to their political and intellectual concerns.23 Ernst Bloch met Georg Lukcs while attending the private seminar of Georg Simmel in Berlin in 1909. 24 The two of them went together to Heidelberg in 1913 and become regular guests at the home of Max and Marianne Weber on Sunday afternoons. 25 Bloch made a particular impression on Marianne Weber: a new jewish philosopher happened to be therea young man with an enormous crown of black hair and an equally enormous self-assurance. He evidently regarded

250

warren s. goldstein

himself as the precursor of a new Messiah and wanted to be recognized as such.26 Bloch scared away many of the guests from the Weber household. Max Weber is reported to have said: I would gladly send a porter to Blochs house, who would pack his suitcase and bring him to the train station, so that he goes away.27 World War I polarized Bloch and Benjamin from the older generation of German intellectuals who were their mentors (Georg Simmel, Max Weber, and Gustav Wyneken). Before World War I, Benjamin was active in Gustav Wynekens left-wing faction of the German Youth Movement but broke with him over his position toward the war.28 Bloch had a similar break with Simmel who came to Heidelberg and held a pro-war lecture, which Bloch described as all German to an excess. Bloch wrote a letter to Simmel in which he expressed his opinion on Simmels position toward the war: The metaphysical absolute is for you now the German trenches!29 As for Weber, Bloch reported that when the war broke out, he received us . . . in his reserve oYcer uniform.30 Marianne Weber confesses that it was bitterly painful for Max that he could not lead a company of troops into the battle eld.31 Benjamin and Bloch, on the other hand, went into exile in Bern, Switzerland during World War I to avoid the draft.32 They met each other there in the spring of 1919. 33 According to Benjamin, Bloch was the only person of signi cance I have gotten to know in Switzerland.34 Bloch rst mixed Messianism and Marxism in Spirit of Utopia (Geist der Utopie) rst published in 1918. Written during World War I and the German and Russian Revolutions, it was Blochs experience of war and revolution that led him to his Messianic Marxism. With Benjamin this mixture did not occur until after the economic crisis of 1923 which he described as a Trip through the German In ation. It has been argued that it was Asja Lacis and Bertolt Brecht who in uenced Benjamin towards Marxism.35 Equally as important was the in uence of Bloch and Lukcs.36 Bloch inspired Benjamin to read Lukcs History and Class Consciousness while they were both on vacation in Capri.37 Around this time, a split began to occur in the works of Benjamin between a metaphysical and Marxist perspective.38 This split was a result of his move toward Marxism while he retained a metaphysical worldview. It is likely that while Bloch encouraged Benjamins move towards Marxism, he also respected his retention of theological elements which he himself shared. In 1926, both Benjamin and Bloch stayed in the same hotel Paris where they spent much time with each other. This closeness led to con ict.39 While acknowledging the need for distance, Benjamin revealed: Bloch is extraordinary and to me the most knowledgeable of my work,

messianism and marxism

251

very venerable (he is much better informed than myself, then he does not only know everything by heart that I have written, but every spoken word from years ago).40 Benjamin and Bloch took part in Hashish experiments together, which were conducted by physicians Ernst Jol and Fritz Frnkel in 1928. 41 Both Benjamin and Bloch incorporated the intoxication of hashish into their theories of dreams and experience. During the late twenties, Benjamin rst contemplated joining the Communist Party. He also considered moving to Palestine.42 According to Asja Lacis The path of a normal thinking persons leads to Moscow, but not to Palestine.43 While Lacis claimed responsibility for Benjamin not going to Palestine, his trip to Moscow to visit Lacis made him decide not to join the party.44 Blochs Spuren (1930) is a collection of aphorisms similar to Benjamins Einbahnstrae (1927). It is in this text where Bloch bears the closest resemblance to Benjamin.45 This led Benjamin to believe that Bloch had plagiarized from him and thus caused con ict between them.46 Both Benjamin and Bloch went into exile in March 1933 as a result of the Nazi seizure of power. Benjamin went into exile in Paris where he became aYliated with the Institute for Social Research (the Frankfurt School), which itself was in exile at Columbia University in New York. The core members of the institute were Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. Bloch went into exile to Switzerland but was forced to leave after being arrested under suspicion of being an agent for the Communist International. 47 He went to Vienna, where his wife Karola became a courier to Poland for the Communist Party.48 They left in the summer of 1935 due to the rise of Nazism in Austria and went to Prague where Karola continued her work.49 Benjamin and Bloch saw each other for the last time in Paris during the summer of 1935. 50 Both expressed a deep remorse about the tensions in their relationship. Despite this, they both showed a certain resignation; neither was willing to sever contact with each other and both wanted to continue their relationship as imperfect as it was.51 After Hitler annexed Austria in 1938, Bloch began to make preparations to leave Prague out of fear of an invasion. 52 Bloch decided to go to the United States and not the Soviet Union where he felt he would not have the same intellectual freedom. 53 He wrote to Max Horkheimer asking him for a position at the institute and help in obtaining a visa, but Horkheimer said he was unable to assist him.54 When World War II broke out, the French government interned Benjamin.55 After his release from the internment camp he returned to

252

warren s. goldstein

Paris, where he wrote his Theses on the Philosophy of History. 56 When Paris fell to Nazi troops in June 1940, Benjamin once again was in ight. After crossing the Pyreenes by foot, he committed suicide in Port Bau, Spain on September 27, 1940. Spanish customs oYcials had decided to send him back to France, which meant he would have been handed over to the Gestapo.57 During the war, Ernst Bloch went to the United States where he lived in New York and Cambridge.58 While in the United States, Bloch tried to become a U.S. citizen. While Karola obtained citizenship, despite an active roll in the Communist Party of the United States, Bloch was denied citizenship because he was suspected of being a communist although he was neither active or a member.59 In the United States, the Blochs faced economic diYculties. Ernst turned to the Institute for Social Research for help, but the help that they were willing to oVer was limited.60 After the war in 1948 at age 63, Bloch was oVered his rst position as a Professor of Philosophy at the University in Leipzig in communist East Germany.61 Bloch was forced into retirement after supporting the Hungarian uprising in 1956. 62 While visiting West Germany in 1961 while the Berlin Wall was erected, Bloch decided not to return to East Germany.63 He went to Tbingen where he became a guest professor. In the late 1960s, Bloch allied himself with Rudi Dutschke and the German New Left.64 II. Dialectical Theories of Secularization 1. Philosophy of Language Benjamins early philosophy of language, which contains a dialectical theory of secularization, went through a process of secularization. It went from being a theological theory of allegory to a historical materialist portrayal of dialectical images. His early philosophy of language is contained in On Language as Such and the Language of Man (1916), The Task of the Translator (1923), and The Origin of the German Tragic Drama (1927). Benjamin believed in an Ursprachea pure original divine language.65 When man was expelled from paradise, language also went through a fall.66 The pure language became degraded; it became fragmented into a multiplicity of impure languages.67 This led to linguistic confusion. 68 Meanings ceased to be self-evident; they became multiple and antithetical.69 In this fragmentation of language arose the plan of the build-

messianism and marxism

253

ing of the Tower of Babble. Language became enslaved in babble.70 Whereas in the language of paradise, things only had one name, with the multiplicity of languages, they have hundreds of names.71 The fall of language from its pure form in paradise to a language of humans represents a process of secularization. In these early essays on language, Benjamin developed his theory of translation. This theory is based on the premise that all languages are related to each other. 72 Language develops from an imperfect language into a more perfect one through translation. 73 The development of language through translation is moving in the direction of the word of God. While all languages are related, it is not individual languages, but all languages collectively that can approach the pure (reine) or true (wahre) language.74 The task of the translator is redemptive in emancipating pure language from the broken language in which it is enslaved.75 In The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, Benjamin develops his theory of allegory. Allegory is at home in the Fall.76 Allegory signi es the true nature of a fallen worlda world which has been shattered and of which nothing remains but fragments or ruins.77 Because allegory arises in a fallen world, it produces Trauer (melancholy).78 An allegory has multiple layers of meaning, which are contradictory and open to interpretation. The allegorist gives meaning to the world but, at the same time, an allegorical interpretation deprives the world of its coherence. Considered in allegorical terms, then, the profane world is both elevated and devalued.79 Allegory enchants and disenchants the profane world. Benjamins theory of secularization in his early works on language has a two-way movement. The fall of language from paradise into allegories, represent a process of secularization. The task of the translator to the restore the pure language and for the allegorist to redeem language are acts of reenchantment. Benjamins early philosophy of language moves dialectically in two opposite directions: from sacred to profane and from profane to sacred. While his early philosophy of language contains a dialectical theory of secularization, this theory is theological. The Origin of the German Tragic Drama examines the historical context in which the German Baroque drama arose. Baroque arose during periods of decadence.80 The Trauerspiel (Tragic Drama) views history as a process of unstoppable decline (Verfall ).81 Benjamin uses Verfall, which means decadence, decay, or decline, as a secularization of the theological concept of the fall. The Trauerspiel of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation was a

254

warren s. goldstein

secularization of the mystery play of the Renaissance. The mystery play viewed the entire course of world history as a process of redemption. The Trauerspiel, on the other hand, is marked by inescapable doubt.82 Religious aspirations were denied a religious ful llment; instead, a secular solution was imposed upon them. In the Trauerspiel access to the other world ( Jenseits) was denied.83 Hope in redemption resided in this destiny itself rather than in ful llment of a divine plan of salvation.84 In the Baroque Trauerspiel, hope in redemption was not given up; rather, it became secularized in this world. During the early thirties, Benjamins philosophy of language took a shift in a secular direction. He no longer believed that the origins of language were theological but rather mimetic. Doctrine of the Similar (1933) and On the Mimetic Faculty (1933) are a secularization of Benjamins theological philosophy of language: In them the translation of the early thought from a theological into an anthropological language completes itself.85 The origins of language are a result of imitative behavior (mimicry), which is connected with the magic of primitive religious ritual. Due to the process of secularization, this magic is no longer observable in the modern world. The observable world of modern man contains only minimal residues of the magical correspondences and analogies that were familiar to ancient people. The question is whether we are concerned with the decay of this faculty or with its transformation.86 Modern language contains residues of the mimetic origins of language. The mimetic gift has over the course of the millennia wandered into language and writing and in the process magic has been liquidated. Language is the highest level of mimetic behavior. 87 Mimesis, which was originally connected with magic, has becomes secularized in language and in the process magic has gone through a process of decline. In Problems of the Sociology of Language (1935), Benjamin returned to the question of the origin of language. However, this time it is not explained from a theological perspective but rather from a sociological one. According to Pierre Missac, the essay replaces the idea of a philosophy of language with that of a sociology. 88 In this essay, Benjamin rejects the onomatopoetic origins of language and in its place proposes that the origins of language are mimetic.89 These essays not only contain a theory of the secularization of language, but also represent the secularization of Benjamins philosophy of language. Language originated in the mimetic capacity of human being. Mimetic behavior is connected with religious ritual. The loss of mimetic

messianism and marxism

255

capacity, over which Benjamin laments, represents a secularization of human experience. Like Benjamins earlier essays on language, he is concerned with the origin of language. However, the origin of language is no longer theological but anthropological and sociological. Benjamins theory of allegory became further secularized in his writings on Baudelaire: The Paris of the Second Empire of Baudelaire (1938), Central Park (1939), and The Arcades Project (19271940). In these essays, Benjamin considered himself a historical materialist. Baudelaire, for Benjamin, was an allegorist.90 Baroque emblems of the 17th century return in a more developed form as commodities of the 19th century.91 Baudelaire is Benjamins allegorist of 19th century commodity society. The commodity has taken the place of the allegorical way of seeing.92 In Benjamins early writings, his interest was in allegorical images. In his later writings, he made increasing use of dialectical images. Allegorical images are related to dialectical images but distinctly diVerent. Both allegorical images and dialectical images have contradictory meanings. However, allegorical images are melancholic whereas dialectical images are revolutionary. 93 The dialectical image is one ashing up momentarily. It is thus, as an image ashing up in the now of its recognisability, that the past, in this case that of Baudelaire, can be captured.94 Through remembrance, this image of the past ashes up in the present. The task of the historical materialist is to be able to hold on to the memory of the dialectical image. By doing so, the past can be redeemed. The Arcade, the neur, and the prostitute are dialectical images. The arcades were glass-covered, marble-paneled passageways through entire complexes of houses.95 They were built above the streets, which had the most fashionable shops. In this world, the neur was at home. The arcades were simultaneously a street and an interior; they created a dialectic of interior and exterior. The image of the neur was illuminated by gaslight which casted a surrealistic light on the ground.96 Like the stranger, the neur wanders through the city losing himself in the crowds.97 The goal for the neur is the market.98 The neur is a dialectical image in wanting to see and be seen. The intoxication caused by commodity fetishism is similar to the rush of drugs. The intoxication to which the neur surrenders is the intoxication of the commodity around which surges the stream of customers.99 The commodity causes a state of religious intoxication. 100 In an essay Capitalism as Religion, rejecting Webers Protestant ethic thesis,

256

warren s. goldstein

Benjamin argued that the development of capitalism is not caused by religion but that capitalism is a religious phenomenon. 101 In the religion of capitalism, it is the commodity that is worshipped. The prostitute, like the neur, is a dialectical image. The prostitute is dialectical since she is not only a laborer but also a commodity. The whore has inherited all the powers of baroque allegory.102 The allegory becomes secularized into the dialectical image in the form of a whore. The deceptive trans guration of the world of the commodity resists its distortion in the allegorical. The commodity attempts to look itself in the face. It celebrates its becoming human in the whore. 103 As a commodity, the whore takes on an allegorical meaning. The prostitute is an allegorical representative of all of us, who must sell our labor powers on the market in commodity society in order to survive. The neur, as a historical type, disappeared along with the arcade and the gaslight. The replacement of the gaslight by the electrical light came as a shock.104 With the decline of the arcades, the neur strolled through the aisles of the department store, which had replaced it.105 In the postmodern era, the arcade has been resurrected and coexists with the department store in the form of the shopping mall. In his work on Baudelaire, Benjamins theory of allegory takes a turn in a Marxist direction. Allegories of 19th century commodity society (the Arcade, the neur and the prostitute) return as dialectical images of 20th century modernity. They are images of the past which expose the contradictions of the present. The theory of allegory which was central to the Trauerspiel became secularized into dialectical images. The idea of redemption is not given but secularized in this world. 2. Theory of Experience Benjamins early theory of experience, which was concerned with metaphysical questions, went through a process of secularization and became a dialectical theory of secularization. Benjamin was perplexed with the problem of how metaphysical experience is possible. In an early essay On the Program of the Coming Philosophy, (1918) Benjamin attempted to develop a metaphysical concept of experience out of Kants empirical theory of experience. 106 In his later essays on experience, Benjamins orientation shifted to a social psychological perspective. Borrowing from Freud and Proust, Benjamin distinguished between voluntary and involuntary memory. Voluntary memory is memory that we are able to recall at will.107 Involuntary memory, which is composed of isolated visual images, is

messianism and marxism

257

unconscious memory that involuntarily ashes back before us.108 Out of this, Benjamin develops a third type of memory: that of remembrance (Eingedenken). It tries to make the past present through actualization (Vergegenwrtigung).109 It is through remembrance that one is able to seize hold of the dialectical image. Benjamin incorporated the Freudian explanation of the eVect of shock into his later theory of experience. One of the functions of consciousness is protection against shock.110 The greater the shock, the more the conscious attempts to screen it out and therefore, the less the experience. The decline in the capacity to experience is a result of the consciousness protecting itself against the ever-increasing shock of modern society.111 In Benjamin, individual shock becomes collective.112 The individual in the crowd of the city and workers in the assembly line of a factory experience shock.113 Mass communication like lm and photography causes shock. The shock of urbanization, industrialization, and mass media lead to a decline in experience. Benjamins theories of the decline of experience and the lost art of storytelling are dialectical theories of secularization. There is a decline in experience, argues Benjamin in Experience and Poverty (1933) and the Storyteller (1936), which is a result of the shock of World War I. With the [First] World War a process began to become apparent which has not halted since then. Was it not noticeable at the end of the war that men returned from the battle eld grown silentnot richer, but poorer in communicable experience. 114 Human beings who are in shock are unable to communicate their experiences. Rather than seeking new experiences, they seek to free themselves from their previous experiences.115 Benjamin laments that, along with experience, the art of storytelling has been lost. The stories of the storyteller are based on his own experience or the experience of others. 116 He turns these tales into the experience of those who are listening.117 The storyteller piles thin transparent layers of his narrative one on top of the other. 118 He is able to move up and down the rungs of the ladder of experience. 119 The storyteller is able to make the profane experience of the individual into a sacred experience of the collective. The story was born out of the boredom of the preindustrial era.120 In modern society, people are no longer bored. Rather, they live in a perpetual state of shock. The gift of listening is lost and along with it those willing to listen. As a result, the art of storytelling has become lost. The loss of the art of storytelling is accompanied by the decline

258

warren s. goldstein

in the communicability of experience. 121 Storytelling, which is based on experience, has been replaced by communication in the form of information.122 The loss of storytelling is due to the secular productive forces of history. 123 The storyteller is a secularized form of the chronicler. The chronicler, who is the precursor of the historian, is the history-teller. 124 The chronicler and the storyteller are both present in the works of Nikolai Leskov:
Both the chronicler with his eschatological orientation and the storyteller with his profane outlook are so represented in his works that in a number of stories it can hardly be decided whether the web in which they appear is the olden fabric of a religious view of the course of things, or the multicolored fabric of a worldly view.125

The outlook of the chronicler is eschatological while that of the storyteller is profane. The web in which they appear is that which connects the religious (the sacred) with the worldly (the profane). The sacred and profane are interconnected. In his essay on Surrealism, Benjamin advocates a type of experience, which he calls profane illumination: But the true, creative overcoming of religious illumination certainly does not lie in narcotics. It resides in a profane illumination, a materialistic, anthropological inspiration, to which hashish, opium, or whatever else can give an introductory lesson. (But a dangerous one; and the religious lesson is stricter.) 126 Profane illumination, which is a secularized form of religious illumination, replaces it. While hashish can provide an introductory lesson to profane illumination, profane illumination is more illuminating than the intoxication of hashish.127 There is a decline in modern society in the capacity of humans to have a meaningful experience or communicate it through storytelling. 128 Not only is there a fall in experience, but there is a redemptive hope by Benjamin that human beings will be able to regain the capacity to have meaningful experience. However, this meaningful experience is no longer religious but profane. The loss of the capacity to experience represents a disenchantment of the world; it is a result of the process of secularization. Benjamins hope that human beings will be able to regain the capacity to experience hints at a desire for reenchantment. Benjamins theory of experience is a dialectical theory of secularization; it moves simultaneously in two opposite directionsfrom the sacred to the profane and from the profane to the sacred.

messianism and marxism 3. Theory of Dreams

259

Both Benjamin and Bloch had theories of dreams. Bloch, who took part in Benjamins hashish experiments, incorporated the intoxication of hashish into his theory of dreams. Hash is associated with the not yet conscious of daydreams whereas opium is associated with night-dreams and the no longer conscious.129 The eVect of opium is to produce the night-dream while hashish causes the freewheeling, rapturous daydream.130 While the night dream is oriented toward the past, the daydream is oriented toward the future. Blochs Principle of Hope is connected with the not-yet conscious of the daydream; like Messianism and Marxism it moves in a utopian direction. Walter Benjamins theory of dreams is a dialectical theory of secularization. Benjamins interest in dreams was awakened by his discovery of Surrealism in 1926. Like the Surrealists, Benjamin in his theory of dreams mixed Freudianism with Marxism.131 Benjamins theory of dreams is a result of a synthesis of the theories of Freud and Jung with those of Marx. Freud argued that dreams are a product of the unconscious while Jung argued that there is a collective unconscious. Benjamin took this a step further. He reasons that if dreams are the product of the unconscious and if there is a collective unconscious, there must also be collective dreaming and therefore a collective awakening.132 His source of authority is Marx who wrote: the reformation of consciousness lies solely in the awakening of the world . . . from its dreams about itself.133 Human beings, by becoming conscious of their own dreams, have the possibility of realizing them.134 Like the individual consciousness, the collective consciousness alternates between dreaming and awakening. The collective nds its expression in the dream and their meaning in awakening.135 In Benjamin, there is a dialectic of dreaming and awakening. The relationship of the past to the present is that of dreaming to awakening.136 The dialectical method of history experiences the present as a woken world. One passes through the past in the memory of the dream!137 The past comes into view only at a speci c time: the epoch in which humanity, rubbing its eyes, suddenly recognizes the dream image as such.138 This moment, in which society recognizes that it has been dreaming, is the moment of awakening. The Now of recognizability ( Jetzt der Erkennbarkeit) is the moment of awakening.139 The dialectical image, because it is a image of the past, is a dream image.140 It is seized through remembrance and realized in awakening. Awakening is the dialectical, Copernican turn of remembrance.141 The goal of a dreaming

260

warren s. goldstein

society is collective awakening. Every epoch not only dreams the next, but also in dreaming, strives toward the moment of awakening.142 Benjamin believed that commodity society is living in a dream state and that society must collective wake up from this dream. The collective awakening has its parallel in both the redemption of Messianism and the revolution of Marxism. Collective dreaming is an act of enchantment while the idea of collective awakening is an act of disenchantment. Benjamins theory of dreaming and awakening is a dialectical theory of enchantment and disenchantment. 4. Aesthetic Theory Benjamins aesthetic theory went through a process of secularization and became a dialectical theory of secularization. Benjamins early aesthetic theory on the poetry of the Romantics (Hlderlin, Schlegel, and Goethe) attempted to bridge the material and spiritual realms. Paradoxically, while Benjamin saw romanticism as a secularization of the mystical tradition, Messianism lies at its center.143 After 1924, Benjamins aesthetic theory went through a process of secularization shifting from Romanticism to Marxism. His later Marxist aesthetic theory, which was on theater, photography, and lm, examined the sacred from the perspective of the profane. He developed a dialectical theory of secularization, which was concerned with the origin of theater and art in religious ritual. What is Epic Theater? (1931) is about Bertolt Brechts popular revolutionary theater. Epic Theater creates a VerfremdungsaVekt (eVect of alienation), which takes places through the process of interruption. 144 Interruption dispels the illusion of theater, which is imposed on the audience.145 Epic theater is a gestic theater. 146 Gestures, which result from interruption, are performed by the actor who is able to step out of character.147 Epic Theater, through its use of gestures, portrays the cessation of happenings. The conditions which the epic theatre reveals is the dialectic at a standstill.148 Epic Theater is a secularization of traditional theater. In traditional theater, the audience is separated from the actors by the abyss of the stage. The abyss which separates the players from the audience as it does the dead from the living; the abyss whose silence in a play heightens the intoxicationthis abyss, of all elements of the theater the one that bears the most indelible trace of its ritual origin, has steadily decreased in signi cance.149 The abyss of the stage, which has its origin in ritual, is the cause of traditional theaters intoxicating eVect. In

messianism and marxism

261

the epic theater, this separation no longer occurs. As a result, theater has lost its sacred function. 150 The secularization of theater sobers the audience from the religious intoxication of traditional theater. 151 While epic theater is a secularization of traditional forms of theater, in it the dialectic comes to a standstill, which is an act of reenchantment. Benjamins theory of the decline of aura is a dialectical theory of secularization. He rst developed his concept of aura in A Small History of Photography (1931) and more fully developed his argument of its decline in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1935). Benjamin de nes aura as a strange weave of space and time: the unique appearance or semblance of distance, no matter how close the object may be.152 Aura depends upon the presence of the original; it is the original that has authority. 153 The earliest works of art originated in ritual. The auratic work of art is not separable from its ritualistic function. The distance of aura gives art a cultic character.154 What is distant is unapproachable which is a characteristic of the cultic image. With the secularization of art, authenticity displaces the cult value of the work. 155 Authenticity is a secularization of the cult value of a work of art. The unique value of the authentic work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic basis, however remote, is still recognizable as secularized ritual even in the most profane forms of the cult of beauty.156 The cult of beauty is a secularization of the ritualistic basis of art. The ritualistic basis of art is recognizable as secularized ritual in its profane form. The sacred is recognizable in the profane. The aura of the work of art withers away in the age of mechanical reproduction. 157 Mechanically reproduced art lacks an aura. The most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space.158 It does not have a unique existence. The reason for the decline of aura is the desire of the masses to bring things spatially closer.159 In order to bring a thing closer, it must be reproduced. Reproduction is the overcoming of what is unique by duplicating it; it makes art available to the masses. The sameness of things, which is brought about by technical reproduction, results in a destruction of the aura. Mechanical reproduction liberates the work of art from its connection to cultic ritual.160 Mechanical reproduction has developed from stamping, to printing, to lithography, to photography, and to lm. The photograph is a technological advancement over the painting. 161 Early photographs had an aura.162 After 1880, photographers began to use the art of retouching

262

warren s. goldstein

which led to a decline of aura. Aura was banished from the picture.163 In lm, the person does not have an aura. Aura is dependent upon the presence of the actor. As a result, the aura of the actor disappears and with it the aura of the character he portrays.164 Theater and art have their origin in ritual. The loss of aura, which is a result of the mechanical reproduction of art, represents a loss of its religious, ritualistic, or cultic authority.165 As the mechanical means of reproduction developed from photography to lm, aura withered away. The loss of aura is part of a process of secularization; it is dialectical because Benjamin sees it as liberating but mourns at its loss. 5. From Messianism to Marxism A. Messianic Marxism Bloch rst juxtaposed Messianism with Marxism in the Spirit of Utopia which was written during World War I. Blochs most explicit mixture of Messianism and Marxism is contained in the section Karl Marx, Death, and the Apocalypse. In it, Bloch argues against an atheistic Marxism.
And nally it is in these days, where it has already become suYciently dark, where the desperate twilight of God stands in all things, and neither Atlas nor Christ carry their heaven, of no particular philosophical merit, when Marxism consequently remains atheistic, in order to give the human soul nothing other than a more or less eudmonistically furnished heaven on earth without the music, that would have resounded from this eVortless functioning economic and social mechanism.166

An atheistic Marxism is like heaven on earth without music; it lacks a utopian spirit. Unlike his later work, where he does take the position of atheism, Bloch in Spirit of Utopia argues that Marxism must become theological. Blochs mixture of Messianism and Marxism continue in his early work Thomas Mnzer, Theologe der Revolution (1921). In it, he discusses how Mnzers political revolution was guided by theological concepts. Bloch sees Marxism and theology as having the same goals. Marxism and the dream of the unconditional thus nally unite themselves in the same course and plan of operations. 167 B. Moses and the Prophets Whereas in his early work Bloch mixes Messianism and Marxism, in his later writings, Bloch develops a dialectical theory of secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism into Marxism, which is based on a contradiction between the belief in God and mans belief in himself.

messianism and marxism

263

In the Principle of Hope and Atheism and Christianity, Bloch has a Marxist sociology of religion. His approach is to read the Bible with the eyes of the Communist Manifesto. 168 In Blochs history of Messianism, there is a dialectical process of secularization that takes place from the Kingdom of God to the Kingdom of Man.169 The origins of Messianism are found in the exodus religion of Moses. The idea of the Messiah is based on Moses. In his revolt against the Egyptians, Moses had a spirit of rebellion. The spirit of rebellion is a messianic idea.170 Blochs interpretation of Job goes against the grain. Job, who was the most bitter of men has been made out to be the most patient. 171 This is the same man who called Yahweh a murderer.172 Job represents a loss of faith in God and an increasing faith in man. The basis of hope is Jobs own conscience with its rebellious desire for revenge. 173 Jobs messianic teachings are focused on man.174 With Job, a shift in the direction of secularization takes place from a belief in God to a belief in man. Job hoped in a messianic blood-avenger.175 Bloch uses the translation avenger of blood instead of redeemer.176 Job said: I know that my blood-avenger is living and will at the end rise up above my dust. ( Job 19, 2527)177 Jobs messianic beliefs are a result of the loss of faith in God. Job accuses God of doing nothing to stop evil. This creates the need for theodicy. 178 The solution to this is that God does not exist. The Book of Job, according to Bloch, leads to the conclusion of atheism.179 The belief in the Son of Man represents a loss of faith in God and an increasing faith in man. In the Book of Daniel, Messianism took on a human form in the Son of Man.180 And behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a Son of Man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him (Dan. 7, 13f.). 181 The idea of the Son of Man is humanistic; it implies that humanity is the source of salvation.182 A theological transformation took place. Trust in God alone was given up and was instead placed in the Son of Man.183 The development of the belief in the Son of Man represents a move away from the belief in God; it was a dialectical secularization of faith into man. The title Son of Man is diVerent from the dynastic title, Son of God, which has a history that extends from the oVspring of Zeus to Alexander. Son of Man belongs exclusively to the Jewish tradition. 184 Although both concepts are theological, the Son of Man represents a movement in a secular direction away from the belief in God to the belief in man. The tension between the Son of God and the Son of

264

warren s. goldstein

Man, which is based on a contradiction between mans faith in God and mans faith in himself, is that between the sacred and the profane. Although the Son of Man is a move away from the belief in God, in it the contradictions between the belief in God and the belief in man have not been resolved. The Son of Man is a dialectical secularization of the Son of God. C. Jesus The idea of the Messiah, which is based on Moses and was prophesized as the Son of Man, became embodied in Jesus. Jesus lived during a time of prophecy and expectations. The Jewish people waited for a king from the House of David who was capable of driving out the Roman occupiers.185 Because of its suVering, Israel was chosen for a future reward. Israel was associated with the idea of a suVering Messiahthe son of Joseph who should not to be confused with the victorious Messianic Son of David.186 The belief in Jesus as the Davidic Messiah led the way to his reception as Son of Man.187 The Son of Man was not a title used by Jesus disciples. It is Jesus name for himself.188 If Jesus presented himself as the Son of God, he did so as the Son of Man.189 Blochs interpretation of Jesus runs counter to that of the Churchs. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was full of anger. He overthrew the tables of the money-lenders in the Temple. He showed no love for his enemies and was only patient of his followers. Bloch nds quotations made by Jesus which cast him not as a paci st but as a militant: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10. 34) I came to cast re upon the earth. . . . (Lk. 12. 49)190 Bloch analyzes Jesus teaching from a Marxist perspective. Jesus rejection of the coin of tribute teaches not acquiescence in the world, as St. Paul argues, but contempt.191 Render therefore to Caesar the thing that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. (Matt. 22. 21) 192 This contempt for money is a rejection of the power of Caesar and material wealth. At the top of Jesus list of enemies are the enemies of those who labor and are heavy laden. Jesus said that it is more diYcult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than it is . . . for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.193 Jesus teaching are this worldly not otherworldly. Jesus never said, The kingdom of God is in you. This is a mistranslation. The proper translation of this phrase is: The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.194 The kingdom of God is not spiritual but this worldly. Jesus never conceived his mission in watered-down, unworldly terms.195 The

messianism and marxism

265

Son of Man does not stay in the other world. After his cruci xion and resurrection, he descends to this world.196 Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah in a traditional sense. If he did, the Jewish priest class would not have denounced him to the Romans.197 Common interests developed between the Jewish upper class and the Romans against Jesus and his eschatological radicalism.198 The claim to be the Messiah was not a capital oVense. However, in the case of Jesus, Leviticus (24. 16) was interpreted to mean that the Son of God was the blasphemer of God and therefore had to die. ( John 19. 7)199 Jesus took on the title King of the Jews. Under this title, he was cruci ed. Cruci xion was the Roman punishment for rebellion.200 According to Paul Jesus was not the Messiah in spite of the Cross, but because of it. (Is. 53. 212) 201 D. Feuerbach Ludwig Feuerbach paved the way for the dialectical secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism into Marxism. Feuerbach is a turning point in the philosophy of religion. Beginning with him, the nal history of Christianity begins.202 Feuerbach was an Enlightenment thinker. He wanted men to be students of the Here-and-now rather than candidates for the Beyond. 203 Long before the Enlightenment overthrew God, Christianity placed the Son of Man on the same level with God in Heaven.204 Feuerbach did not want to be a gravedigger of traditional religion which was easy to do a hundred years after the Enlightenment. 205 He was aware of the problem that religious residues remain even if they are demysti ed. Feuerbach was an atheist. His atheism attempted to destroy the illusion of religion. It fanned the ames which transformed the theologically created in nity of man back into a human one. 206 God is a negation of man. Feuerbach negates God in order to aYrm man.207 Man is not created by God; God is created by man.208 Religion, according to Feuerbach, is based on alienation. According to this theory, man is divided against himself. At one moment he is a limited individual and at the next he is unlimited and divinized, set over and against himself as an alienated Self, as God.209 God is nothing other than a projection of the alienated self. Feuerbachs theory of religion is an anthropologization of religion. 210 Like Feuerbach, Bloch engages in a new anthropology of religion. Humanity not God is the chief protagonist in the nal apocalyptic drama.211 The roots of religion lie in illusion. The mystery of religion is the mystery of the essence of man.212 Feuerbach demysti es heaven

266

warren s. goldstein

so he can make man important. Feuerbach expropriated ideas from the other world; he wanted to give man what is mans.213 Feuerbach brought the content of religion from heaven back to man.214 Feuerbach takes the dialectical process of secularization a step further. His anthropologization of religion replaces the belief of God with a belief in man. However, the concept of man remains abstract. E. Marx The history of the development of Judeo-Christian Messianism culminates in Marxism. Messianism and Marxism share a history of heresy. Marx took up the scourge with which Jesus chased the money-lenders out of the temple.215 Marx is guided simultaneously by Jesus with a whip and the Jesus of brotherly love.216 Marx, like Feuerbach, dialectically secularizes Judeo-Christian Messianism. Under the in uence of Feuerbach, Marx wrote: To be radical is to grasp things at their roots. But the root of all things is man.217 The critique of religion for Marx is an act of enlightenment. 218 Marxs analysis of alienation and critique of commodities began with his critique of religion. It began with Hegels statement about the treasures squandered on heaven and the anthropological insights of Feuerbach. With Marx, the anthropological and religious critique of God came down from heaven to earth. Marx warned about the illusions of ideology and the fetishistic character of commodities. Marx takes the dialectical process of secularization a step further. Unlike Feuerbach, Marx was not satis ed with overcoming alienation with an abstract idea of man. The victims of capitalism, the laborers and the heavyladen, are the most alienated.219 It is their alienation, Marx wants to overcome. Rather than aYrming an abstract idea of man like Feuerbach, in Marx faith becomes embodied in the concrete form of the proletariat. According to Bloch, Marxs position that religion is the opiate of the masses is misunderstood. Blochs reinterprets Marxs position toward religion. Marx sees religion as a protest against real suVering. Religion oVers comfort but brings only illusory happiness since it allows the conditions which cause suVering to remain. The critique and dissolution of religion oVers the possibility for true emancipation since it allows human beings to confront the conditions which cause their own suVering.220 Bloch attacks those who use the argument that Marxism is a secularized form of Judeo-Christian Messianism as a means to discredit Marxism. He calls them secularizers and includes Karl Lwith among them.221 The secularizers attempt to discredit Marx by accusing him of

messianism and marxism

267

imitating mythical originals. Marx is accused of being a church robber. His secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism into Marxism is feared because it is seen as being tainted with the foul odor of revolution. Humanity according to this view is nothing but the Son of Man trivialized, proletarian solidarity merely the kitsch edition of early Christian love-communism, the realm of freedom merely the kingdom of the children of Godat the level of godless pseudo-enlightenment. 222 Karl Lwith is a secularizer in his equation of theological concepts with their secular counterparts. For Lwith exploitation is prehistory or, in biblical terms, the original sin of this aeon. Historical materialism is a history of salvation in the language of national economics. Communist religion is a pseudo-morphosis of Judaeo-Christian messianism.223 Secularization has a negative connotation because it has been applied in a reactionary manner to Marx.224 Marx is regarded as part of the pavement. This is because Marx set the Hegelian dialectic, which was standing on its head, on-its-feet. What is set on its feet has then so to speak only come down from the nag to the ass, and then to the plebeian pedestrian. Or it was even irreverently brought down from a sacred space and made worldly. When it appears historically, this is also called secularizing, though then in a less pejorative sense.225 Bloch argues for a new Marxist conception of secularization. Blochs conception of secularization is dialectical as opposed to the shallow theory of secularization of the secularizers. Using the term secularization in a shallow sense, Bloch argues that A good substance is in fact not weakened when it is corrected, and even more obviously it is not secularized when, once set on its feet, it is realized.226 The implementation of Marxist ideas is not a secularization of the heights unless secularization is understood in a new Marxist sense. 227 Secularization, in this Marxist dialectical sense, places hope for the rst time on human feet. 228 Dialectical materialism has taken hold of the living soul of a dead religion. This is what remains when the opium, the fools paradise of the Other-world, has been burnt away to ashes. Dialectical materialism signals the way to a ful lled This-world of a new earth. 229 Religion and Marxism, according to Bloch, share a common element of hope.230 Where there is hope, there is also religion. 231 The end of religion is not no religion but in Marxismthe inheriting of it. Blochs theory contains a secularized, worldly, masterless . . . original biblical hope.232 Despite Blochs interest in religion, he argues for the position of atheism. The most powerful paradox in religion is the elimination of God.233 Every anthropologization of heaven from Prometheus to the belief in

268

warren s. goldstein

the Messiah indicates that the Kingdom can remain without God.234 The Kingdom of God can exist without God in the form of the Kingdom of Man.235 Paradoxically Bloch argues: Without atheism messianism has no place.236 Atheism enables the realization of Messianism. Only when man has given up belief in God, can he truly have faith in himself. Messianism is a movement away from the belief in God; it places faith in man. The culmination of this is atheism. Only an Atheist can be a good Christ, certainly but also; only a Christ be can a good Atheist; how could himself the Son of Man otherwise have been called equal to God.237 Dialectically Bloch believes that the only way secularization can take place is for the utopian goals of religion to be realized. Bloch, argues Peter Zudeick, in his confession to Marxism stands out in the tradition of Jewish Messianism.238 Bloch believes in an end goal of society. His eschatology, rather than waiting for the action of God, is actively driven from humans.239 Bloch believes that Marxism is a secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism. However, unlike the secularizers, he does not see it as something negative but rather as a form of self-correction. Messianism and Marxism share a history of heresy. Marxism is a dialectical secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism, which saves the radical content of Messianism while attempting to discard its mystical shell.240 III. Montage: Messianism and Marxism Benjamin, in his shift from Romanticism to Marxism, did not become completely secularized. Rather, his later writings mix both theological and materialist elements. Richard Wolin makes the claim that there are some works where Benjamin achieved an eVective fusion between his theological and materialist interests: the essays on Proust, Kraus, Kafka, and Leskov.241 Susan Buck-Morss is more accurate in her observation:
instead of really integrating the two poles of theology and Marxism, Benjamins writings tended to present them side by sidesometimes not in the same essay, but in essays upon which he worked simultaneously, each of which, as a self contained work, appeared to stand clearly in one camp or the other. Benjamin was aware of this duality, and often referred to the Janus-face of his theory.242

Of the four essays which Wolin mentions, the only one which comes close to an explicit mixture of Messianism and Marxism is the essay on Karl Kraus. In the others, the mixture remains under the surface. They either lean either more in a Messianic direction or a Marxist one.

messianism and marxism

269

Among Benjamins Weimar writings, the Kraus essay, observes Berndt Witte is the most radical attempt at a synthesis between early theological and materialist thinking. 243 In it, Benjamin mixes theological motifs with a Marxist critique of journalism. For Kraus the terrible years of his life are not history, but nature, a river condemned to meander through a landscape of hell. It is a landscape in which every day fty thousand tree trunks are felled for sixty newspapers.244 Hell is created on earth in a secularized form through the destruction of nature for the purpose of making a pro t. Describing the methodology of this essay, Benjamin sees himself as a materialist who has never been able to do research and think in other than a theological sense.245 Gershom Scholem gave Benjamin harsh criticism in response to this essay accusing him of self-deception.246 After this, Benjamin did not engage in the same type of explicit mixture of Messianism and Marxism until the late 1930s. Although the earlier essays (in the late 1920s and early 1930s) did to some degree attempt to integrate both Messianism and Marxism, the mixture remains under the surface. It was the negative reactions by Scholem, Adorno, and Brecht to Benjamins Marxism (Scholem and Adorno), his Messianism (Brecht) or his combination of the two (Scholem and Brecht), that is most likely responsible for Benjamin suppressing the montage of Messianism and Marxism.247 Neither one of the three, Scholem, Brecht, and Adorno, appreciated the in uence of the other upon Benjamin.248 It was as if Benjamin was caught in the jaws of a crocodile and was being pulled from three diVerent opposite directions: Jerusalem, Denmark, and New York.249 It was not until the Theses, when shortly before his suicide, it did not matter what the others thought. In Eduard Fuchs, Collector and Historian (1937), the Arcades Project (19271940), and On the Concept of History (1940) otherwise known as The Theses on the Philosophy of History (Geschichtsphilosophischen Thesen), Benjamin develops a conception of history which is both Messianic and Marxist. In the Theses, written at the outbreak of World War II shortly before Benjamins suicide, one nds the most explicit mixture of Messianism and Marxism. Benjamins mixture of Messianism and Marxism is achieved through the use of montage. The method of the Arcades Project reveals Benjamin is literary montage.250 In the procedure of montage: the superimposed elements disrupts the context in which it is inserted. 251 Benjamins montage is composed of quotations, which like montage result in interruption. To quote a text involves the interruption of its context. 252 Through the use of quotations, Benjamin juxtaposes one allegorical and

270

warren s. goldstein

dialectical image against the next. Messianic and Marxist dialectical and allegorical images are juxtaposed in montage. Benjamin begins the Theses with an allegory which reveals the relationship between historical materialism and theology. Historical materialism (the puppet) plays a dialectical game of chess against the automaton. Its hands are guided by theology (the little hunchback). Historical materialism is a puppet; it is theology that pulls the strings. Historical materialism must take theology into its service in order to win.253 Benjamins historical materialism is soaked with theology. 254 Like the little hunchback, theology remains hidden. The historical materialist has a messianic conception of history.
The past carries a secret index with it by which it is referred to redemption. Does not a gust of wind strike us that has been around those who have lived earlier? Is there not in the voices to which we lend our ears, an echo from those who have been silenced? Do not the women, who we court, have sisters, they no longer know? If this is so, then there exists a secret agreement between past generations and ours. Then we are awaited for upon this earth. Then is given to us, like every generation before us, a weak messianic power, upon which the past has a demand. It is cheap not to ful ll this demand. The historical materialist knows why.255

The historical materialist has a messianic conception of time.256 He recognizes in the monadic structure of history a messianic cessation of happenings. 257 The historical materialist rejects a conception of history as progress based on homogenous and empty time and instead attempts to realize a Now Time.258 He attempts to seize hold of the dialectical images of the past through remembrance and bring them into the present through actualization. Like for the historical materialist, for the Jews history is not homogeneous and empty time. For them, every second is the gate through which the Messiah may enter. 259 Conclusion The purpose of Benjamin and Blochs montage of Messianism and Marxism is to juxtapose these two opposed but interrelated philosophies of history. In doing so they reveal that Marxism is a dialectical secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism. As a result, traditional unilinear theories of secularization are placed into question. The mixture of Messianism and Marxism is not a rejection of the process of secularization but a diVerent understanding of it. The traditional theory of secularization is a unilinear theory of progress, one based on a homogenous and empty conception of time which moves

messianism and marxism

271

in a one-way direction from the sacred to the profane. The dialectical theory of secularization has a dialectical development which is driven by the contradiction between the sacred and the profane. Rather than using the theory of secularization to discredit Marxism, Benjamin and Bloch used it to reveal the relationship between Messianism and Marxismbetween the sacred and the profane. Benjamins dialectical theories of secularization contain a two-way movementfrom sacred to profane and from profane to sacred. Benjamins dialectical theory of secularization moves in a secular direction and doubles back on itself in the direction of the sacred. Blochs dialectical theory of secularization, on the other hand, is based on the contradiction between faith in God and faith in man. Both Benjamin and Bloch hoped in a resolution of this con ict. In Bloch, the dialectical secularization of Messianism is realized in the atheism of Marxism. Benjamin hoped in a Now Time, which is both Messianic and Marxist. Rather than viewing reality from either a Messianic or Marxist perspective, Benjamin and Bloch simultaneously viewed it from both. Peter Berger describes this as alternation: the possibility that an individual may alternate back and forth between logically contradictory meaning systems.260 Benjamin and Bloch alternate between Messianism and Marxism because these contradictory meaning systems are interconnected. They were able to see the continuum of the process of secularization that runs from the sacred to the profane. From the present looking into the past, it runs from profane to sacred. If Marxism is a secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism, then because the Messiah or the revolution that were waited for have not yet come, the contradictions between the sacred and profane have not been resolved. The relationship between Messianism and Marxism, between the sacred and the profane remains contradictory. Benjamin and Blochs montage of Messianism and Marxism resulted from a diVerent understanding of the process of secularizationnot a traditional unilinear one but a dialectical one. A Note on Translation In this article, I have used existing published English translations of the German original when they exist. Otherwise, I have done the translations from German to English myself. In some cases, I have slightly modi ed the existing translations. When there are existing translations, I have provided not only the citation of the English translation but of the German original. When I give both the citations for the English

272

warren s. goldstein

translation and the German original, I use the following abbreviations for the German original texts: Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften Walter Benjamin, Briefe Ernst Bloch, Geist der Utopie, Zweite Fassung Ernst Bloch, Das Prinzip HoVnung Ernst Bloch, Atheismus im Chistentum
Notes
1. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity: the religion of the Exodus and the Kingdom, p. 240 (translation modi ed); AC, p. 317. 2. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften I, p. 1231. 3. Rolf Tiedemann, Historical Materialism or Political Messianism? An Interpretation of the Theses On the Concept of History in The Philosophical Forum XV, nos. 12 (fall/winter 19831984), pp. 90, 96 cited in Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 247; The German original of this essay is contained in Rolf Tiedmann, Dialectic im Stillstand, Historischer Materialismus oder Politischer Messianismus?, pp. 99141. A Translation of it is also contained in Gary Smith, ed. Benjamin Philosophy, Aesthetics, History, pp. 175209. 4. Stephen Eric Bronner, Reclaiming the Fragments: On the Messianic Materialism of Walter Benjamin, in Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists, pp. 129, 137. 5. Jrgen Habermas, Bewutmachende oder rettende Kritik- die Aktualitt Walter Benjamins, in Siegfried Unseld, ed., Zur Aktualitt Walter Benjamins, (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1972), p. 207 cited in Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing , p. 248; A translation of this essay is also contained in Gary Smith, ed., On Walter Benjamin: Critical Essays and Re ections, Walter Benjamin: Consciousness-Raising or Rescuing Critique, pp. 90128. 6. Richard Wolin, An Aesthetic of Redemption, p. 248. 7. Jrgen Habermas, Bewutmachende oder Rettende Kritik- die Aktualitt Walter Benjamins, translated in Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 238. 8. Irving Wohlfarth, On Some Jewish Motifs in Benjamin in Andrew Benjamin, The Problems of Modernity, p. 202. 9. Michael Lwy, Redemption and Utopia, p. 201. 10. Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, pp. 249, 252. 11. Karl Lwith, Meaning in History, p. 42. 12. Ibid., p. 44. 13. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, pp. 1288; 1360; PH, pp. 1521, 1609. 14. Max Weber, Ancient Judiasm , p. 327; Gesammelte Aufstze zur Religionssoziologie III, p. 342. 15. Theodor W. Adorno, Noten zur Literatur IV, p. 113 cited in Josef Frnks, Surrealismus als Erkenntnis, p. 194. 16. Michael Lwy, Redemption and Utopia, pp. 2223. 17. Walter Benjamin, Re ections, p. 312; GS II, pp. 203204. 18. Sigrid Wiegel, Body Image and Image Space, p. 143. 19. Robert Wohl, The Generation of 1914 . 20. Michael Lwy, Jewish Messianism and Libertarian Utopia in Central Europe (19001933), in New German Critique 20 (Spring/Summer 1980), pp. 112113. 21. Anson Rabinbach, Between Enlightenment and Apocalypse Benjamin, Bloch and Modern German Jewish Messianism, in New German Critique 34 (Winter 1985), p. 80.

GS IVII BR GU2 PH AC

messianism and marxism

273

22. Ibid., p. 81. 23. Ibid., p. 82. 24. Arno Mnster, Utopie, Messianismus und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch, p. 56. 25. Arno Mnster, ed., Tagtrume vom aufrechten Gang. Sechs Interviews mit Ernst Bloch, pp. 101102. 26. Marianne Weber, Max Weber: A Biography, pp. 468469; Max Weber, Ein Lebensbild, p. 476. 27. Paul Honigsheim cited in Peter Zudeick, Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 45. 28. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910 1940, p. 76; BR , pp. 121122. 29. Peter Zudeick, Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 39. 30. Arno Mnster, Utopie, Messianismus und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch, p. 102. 31. Marrianne Weber, Max Weber: A Biography, p. 519; Max Weber, Ein Lebensbild , p. 527. 32. Arno Mnster, Utopie, Messianismus und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch, p. 99. 33. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, p. 442; Gershom Scholem, The Story of a Friendship, p. 79; Die Geschichte einer Freundschaft , pp. 101102. 34. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910 1940 , (translation modi ed); BR, p. 21. 35. Gershom Scholem, The Story of a Friendship, p. 122; Die Geschichte einer Freundschaft , p. 154; Bernt Witte, Walter Benjamin, p. 54; Witte, Walter Benjamin: An Intellectual Portrait, p. 73; Susan Buck-Morss, The Origins of Negative Dialectics, p. 21; Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 6. 36. See Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption , p. 109. 37. Werner Fuld, Walter Benjamin: Eine Biographie , p. 150; Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910 1940, p. 253; BR, p. 362. 38. Gershom Scholem, The Story of a Friendship, p. 123 ; Die Geschichte einer Freundschaft , p. 155. 39. Ernst Bloch, Recollections of Walter Benjamin in Gary Smith, ed., On Walter Benjamin, p. 339. 40. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, p. 299; BR, p. 424. 41. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, p. 310. 42. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin 1910 1940 , p. 300; BR, p. 425. 43. Asja Lacis, Revolutionr im Beruf, p. 45. 44. Gershom Scholem, The Story of a Friendship, p. 123; Scholem, Die Geschichte einer Freundschaft , p. 156; Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin 1910 1940, pp. 335, 343, 346347; BR, pp. 473, 483, 488. 45. Arno Mnster, Utopie, Messianismus, und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch, p. 223. 46. Peter Zudeick, Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 103; Ernst Bloch, Briefe, p. 410. 47. Peter Zudeick, Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 127. 48. Ibid., p. 131. 49. Ibid., p. 144. 50. Ernst Bloch, Recollections of Walter Benjamin in Gary Smith, ed., On Walter Benjamin, p. 135. 51. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, pp. 424, 436; Gershom Scholem, ed., Walter Benjamin-Gershom Scholem Briefwechsel , pp. 208209; Scholem, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem, pp. 170171. 52. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, p. 500. 53. Karola Bloch, Die Sehnsucht des Menschen, ein wirklicher Mensch zu werden , p. 59. 54. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, pp. 680, 682683. 55. Hans Sahl, Walter Benjamin im Lager in Ingrid and Konrad Scheurmann, Fr Walter Benjamin, pp. 114121.

274

warren s. goldstein

56. Letter to Morgenroth (Stephan Lackner) on May 5, 1940 in Stephan Lackner, Von einer langen, schwierigen Irrfahrt: Aus unverVentlichten Briefen Walter Benjamins in Neue Deutsche Hefte (No. 161/26. Jahrgang/Heft 1/1979), p. 66. 57. Werner Fuld, Walter Benjamin: Eine Biographie, p. 286. 58. Peter Zudeick, Der Hintern des Teufels, pp. 169, 171. 59. Karola Bloch, Die Sehnsucht des Menschen , p. 61. 60. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, pp. 443444. 61. Ibid., p. 591. 62. Peter Zudeick, Der Hintern des Teufels, pp. 232233. 63. Ibid., p. 255; Karola Bloch, Die Sehnsucht des Menschen , p. 71. 64. Peter Zudeick, Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 323. 65. Walter Benjamin, Re ections, p. 326; GS II, p. 152. 66. Irving Wohlfarth, On Some Jewish Motifs in Benjamin in Andrew Benjamin, The Problems of Modernity, p. 157. 67. Walter Benjamin, Re ections, p. 327; GS II, p. 152; and Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption , p. 42. 68. Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, 19131926 , p. 72; GS II, p. 154. 69. Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 173; Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption , p. 67. 70. Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, 1913 1926, p. 72 (translation modi ed); GS II, p. 154. 71. Ibid., p. 73; GS II, p. 155. 72. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 72; GS IV, p. 12. 73. Walter Benjamin, Re ections, p. 325: GS II, p. 151. 74. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, pp. 74, 77; GS IV, pp. 13, 16. 75. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 80; GS IV, p. 19. 76. Walter Benjamin, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, p. 234; GS I, p. 407. 77. Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 69. 78. Walter Benjamin, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, p. 185; GS I, p. 361. 79. Ibid., p. 175; GS I, p. 351. 80. Ibid., p. 55; GS I, p. 235. 81. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften I, p. 353. 82. Walter Benjamin, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, p. 78 (translation modi ed); GS I, pp. 257258. 83. Ibid., p. 78 (translation modi ed); GS I, p. 257. 84. Ibid., p. 81; GS I, p. 260. 85. Hans-Heinz Holz, Philosophie als Interpretation in Alternative 10/67, p. 239 cited in Barbara Kleiner, Sprache und Entfremdung, p. 16. 86. Walter Benjamin, Re ections, p. 334; GS II, p. 211. 87. Ibid., p. 336; GS II, p. 213. 88. Pierre Missac, Walter Benjamins Passages, p. 54. 89. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften III, pp. 477478; Gnter Karl Pressler, Vom mimetischen Usprung der Sprache, pp. 35, 38, 92. 90. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften I, p. 1091. 91. Ibid., p. 681. 92. Walter Benjamin, Central Park in New German Critique 34, p. 52; GS I, 686. 93. Max Pensky, Melancholy Dialectics: Walter Benjamin and the Play of Mourning, p. 211. 94. Walter Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, p. 49; GS I, p. 682. 95. Ibid., p. 36; GS I, p. 538. 96. Ibid., p. 50; GS I, p. 552; Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, p. 416; GS V, p. 524. 97. Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, p. 427; GS V, p. 538. 98. Ibid., p. 338; GS V, p. 427.

messianism and marxism

275

99. Walter Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, p. 55; GS I, p. 558. 100. Ibid., p. 56; GS I, p. 559. 101. Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, 1913-1926, p. 288; GS VI, p. 100. 102. Walter Benjamin, Central Park in New German Critique 34, p. 46; GS I, p. 676. 103. Ibid., p. 42 (translation modi ed); GS I, p. 671. 104. Walter Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, pp. 5051; GS I, p. 553. 105. Ibid., p. 54; GS I, p. 557. 106. Walter Benjamin, On the Program of the Coming Philosophy in Gary Smith, ed., Benjamin: Philosophy, Aesthetics, History, p. 3; GS II, 160. 107. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 158; GS I, pp. 609610. 108. Ibid., p. 214; GS II, p. 323. 109. Ibid., p. 211; GS II, p. 320. 110. Ibid., p. 162; GS I, p. 614. 111. Ibid., p. 163; GS I, p. 615. 112. Jutta Wiegmann, Psychoanalytische Geschichtstheorie: Ein Studie zur Freud- Rezeption Walter Benjamins, p. 95. 113. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, pp. 165, 176; GS I, pp. 618, 632. 114. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 84; GS II, p. 439. 115. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften II, p. 218. 116. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 108; GS II, p. 464. 117. Ibid., p. 87; GS II, p. 443. 118. Ibid., p. 93; GS II, p. 449. 119. Ibid., p. 102; GS II, p. 457. 120. Ibid., p. 91; GS II, p. 446. 121. Ibid., p. 93; GS II, p. 449. 122. Ibid., p. 159; GS I, p. 611. 123. Ibid., p. 87; GS II, p. 442. 124. Ibid., p. 95; GS II, p. 451. 125. Ibid., p. 96; GS II, p. 452. 126. Ibid., p. 179; GS II, p. 297. 127. Ibid., p. 190; GS II, pp. 307308. 128. Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption, p. 213. 129. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 89; PH, p. 99. 130. Ibid., p. 89; PH, p. 99. 131. Margaret Cohen, Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of Surrealist Revolution, pp. 2, 120. 132. Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, p. 389; GS V, p. 492. 133. Walter Benjamin, RE The Theory of Knowledge, Theory of Progress, in Gary Smith, ed., Benjamin: Philosophy, Aesthetics, History,

276

warren s. goldstein

143. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften III, p. 559; Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910 1940 , p. 139; BR, p. 208. 144. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 150; GS II, p. 535. 145. Ibid., p. 235; GS II, p. 698. 146. Ibid., p. 151; GS II, p. 536. 147. Ibid., pp. 151, 153; GS II, pp. 536, 538. 148. Walter Benjamin, Understanding Brecht, p. 12; GS II, p. 530. 149. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 154; GS II, p. 539. 150. Walter Benjamin, Understanding Brecht, p. 1; GS II, p. 519. 151. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 154; GS II, p. 539; Walter Benjamin, Understanding Brecht, p. 1; GS II, p. 519. 152. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 250; GS II, p. 379. 153. Ibid., p. 220; GS I, p. 476. 154. Ibid., p. 188; GS I, p. 647. 155. Ibid., p. 344; GS I, p. 481. 156. Ibid., p. 224; GS I, p. 480. 157. Ibid., p. 221; GS I, p. 477. 158. Ibid., p. 220; GS I, p. 475. 159. Ibid., p. 223; GS I, p. 479. 160. Ibid., p. 224; GS I, p. 481. 161. Walter Benjamin, One Way Street and Other Writings, p. 240; GS II, 368. 162. Ibid., p. 247; GS II, pp. 375376. 163. Ibid., p. 248; GS II, p. 377. 164. Ibid., p. 229; GS I, p. 489. 165. Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption, pp. 187188. 166. Ernst Bloch, Geist der Utopie, Erste Fassung, p. 407; Ernst Bloch, Man on his Own, p. 38; GU2, p. 304. 167. Ernst Bloch, Thomas Mnzer als Theologer der Revolution, p. 229. 168. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 69; AC, p. 98. 169. Alfred Jger, Reich ohne Gott: Zur Eschatologie Ernst Blochs, p. 66. 170. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1232; PH, p. 1453. 171. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 16; AC, p. 15. 172. Ibid., p. 117; AC, p. 160. 173. Ibid., pp. 117118; AC, p. 161. 174. Ernst Bloch, Atheismus im Christentum, pp. 115116. 175. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1270; PH, p. 1500. 176. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 115; AC, p. 157. 177. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1235; PH, p. 1456. 178. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 108; AC, p. 150. 179. Carl Heinz Ratschow, Atheismus im Christentum?: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Ernst Bloch, p. 76. 180. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1238; PH, p. 1460. 181. Ernst Bloch, Atheismus in Christentum, p. 140. 182. Ernst Bloch, Geist der Utopie, Erste Fassung, p. 376; Thomas H. West, Ultimate Hope without God: The Atheistic Eschatology of Ernst Bloch, p. 205. 183. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1238; PH, p. 1460. 184. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 161; AC, pp. 207208. 185. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1256; PH, p. 1483. 186. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 173; AC, p. 221. 187. Ibid., pp. 148149; AC, pp. 193194. 188. Ibid., p. 161; AC, pp. 207208. 189. Ibid., p. 165; AC, p. 212. 190. Ibid., p. 124; AC, p. 170. 191. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1261; PH, p. 1488.

messianism and marxism

277

192. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 134; AC, p. 180. 193. Ibid., p. 125; AC, pp. 170171. 194. Ibid., p. 131; AC, p. 177. 195. Ibid., p. 131; AC, p. 177. 196. Ibid., p. 134; AC, p. 180. 197. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1263; PH, p. 1491. 198. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 136; AC, p. 182. 199. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1263; PH, p. 1491. 200. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 127; AC, p. 173. 201. Ibid., p. 172; AC, p. 220; Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1262; PH, pp. 14891490. 202. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1286; PH, p. 1518. 203. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 211; AC, p. 282. 204. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1284; PH, p. 1517. 205. Ibid., p. 1286; PH, pp. 15181519. 206. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 211; AC, p. 282. 207. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1286; PH, p. 1519. 208. Ibid., p. 1284; PH, p. 1517. 209. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 59; AC, p. 89. 210. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1285; PH, p. 1517. 211. Thomas West, Ultimate Hope without God: The Atheistic Eschatology of Ernst Bloch, p. 167. 212. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 211; AC, p. 282. 213. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1286; PH, pp. 15181519. 214. Ibid., p. 1284; PH, p. 1517. 215. Ibid., p. 1357; PH, p. 1606. 216. Ernst Bloch, Man On His Own, p. 36; GU2, p. 302. 217. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 230; AC, p. 304. 218. Ibid., p. 60; AC, p. 89. 219. Ibid., p. 269; AC, p. 349. 220. Ibid., p. 62; AC, p. 91. 221. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1363; PH, p. 1613. 222. Ibid., p. 1362; PH, pp. 16111612. 223. Ibid., p. 1362; PH, p. 1612. 224. Ibid., p. 1360; PH, p. 1609. 225. Ibid., pp. 13591360; PH, p. 1609. 226. Ibid., p. 1363; PH, p. 1613. 227. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1364; PH, p. 1615. 228. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 253; AC, p. 333. 229. Ibid., p. 239; AC, pp. 316317. 230. Alfred Jger, Reich Ohne Gott: Zur Eschatologie Ernst Blochs, p. 47. 231. Ernst Bloch, Atheismus im Christentum, p. 23. 232. Alfred Jger, Reich Ohne Gott: Zur Eschatologie Ernst Blochs, pp. 167168. 233. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1202; PH, p. 1416. 234. Ibid., p. 1200; PH, p. 1413. 235. Ibid., p. 1196; PH, p. 1408. 236. Ibid., p. 1200; PH, p. 1413. 237. Ernst Bloch, Atheismus im Christentum, p. 24. 238. Peter Zudeick, Die Welt als Wirklichkeit und Mglichkeit, p. 128. 239. Ibid., p. 137. 240. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1361; PH, p. 1611. 241. Ibid., p. 206. 242. Susan Buck-Morss, The Origins of Negative Dialectics, p. 141. 243. Bernd Witte, Walter Benjamin- An Intellectual Biography, p. 126.

278

warren s. goldstein

244. Walter Benjamin, Re ections, p. 245; GS II, pp. 340341. 245. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910 1940 , pp. 372373; BR, p. 524. 246. Ibid., p. 375; BR, p. 526. 247. Adorno criticized Benjamins unmediated Marxism in his rst Baudelaire essay see Walter Benjamin, Briefe, p. 583; BR, p. 787; Bertolt Brecht criticized Benjamins mysticism with an attitude against mysticism in his Arbeitsjournal, 1938 bis 1942, vol. 1, ed. W. Hecht, Frankfurt am Main, 1973, p. 15 quoted in Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 246; Scholem criticized Benjamins communist phraseology in the Kraus essay see Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910 1940 , p. 375; BR, p. 526. 248. Buck-Morss, The Origins of Negative Dialectics, p. 140. 249. Ibid., p. 155; Walter Benjamin, Briefe, p. 767. 250. Walter Benjamin, RE The Theory of Knowledge, Theory of Progress, in Gary Smith, ed., Benjamin: Philosophy, Aesthetics, History, p. 47; GS V, p. 574. 251. Walter Benjamin, Re ections, p. 234; GS II, pp. 697698. 252. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 151; GS II, p. 536. 253. Ibid., p. 253; GS I, p. 693. 254. Walter Benjamin, RE The Theory of Knowledge, Theory of Progress, in Gary Smith, ed., Benjamin: Philosophy, Aesthetics, History, p. 61; GS V, p. 588. 255. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, pp. 253254 (translation modi ed); GS I, pp. 693694. 256. Ibid., p. 261; GS I, p. 701. 257. Ibid., p. 263; GS I, p. 703. 258. Ibid., pp. 257264; GS I, pp. 698704. 259. Ibid., p. 264; GS I, p. 704. 260. Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology, pp. 5152.

References
Benjamin, Andrew, ed. The Problems of Modernity. London: Routledge, 1989. Benjamin, Walter. The Arcades Project. trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999. . Selected Writings. Volume I, 19131926, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996. . The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 1910 1940 . trans. Manfred R. Jacobson and Evelyn M. Jacobson, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. . Gesammelte Schriften VI . eds. Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhauser with the collaboration of Theodor W. Adorno and Gershom Scholem. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1985. . Central Park, trans. Lloyd Spencer with the help of Mark Harrington, in New German Critique 34 (Winter 1985), pp. 3258. . Understanding Brecht. Trans. Anna Bostock, London: Verso, 1983. . Gesammelte Schriften V. eds. Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhauser with the collaboration of Theodor W. Adorno and Gershom Scholem. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1982. . One Way Street and Other Writings. trans. Edmund Jephcott and Kingsley Shorter, London: Verso 1979. . Briefe. 2 vols. eds. Gershom Scholem and Theodor W. Adorno, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1978. . Re ections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings. trans. Edmund Jephcott, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978. . Gesammelte Schriften II. eds. Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhauser

messianism and marxism

279

with the collaboration of Theodor W. Adorno and Gershom Scholem. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1977. . The Origin of the German Tragic Drama. trans. John Osborne, London: Verso, 1977. . Gesammelte Schriften I. eds. Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhauser with the collaboration of Theodor W. Adorno and Gershom Scholem. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1974. . Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism. trans. Harry Zohn, London: New Left Books, 1973. . Gesammelte Schriften IV. eds. Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhauser with the collaboration of Theodor W. Adorno and Gershom Scholem. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. 1972. . Gesammelte Schriften III. eds. Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhauser with the collaboration of Theodor W. Adorno and Gershom Scholem. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. 1972. . Illuminations. trans. Harry Zohn, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968. Berger, Peter. Invitation to Sociology. New York: Anchor Books, 1963. Bloch, Ernst. The Principle of Hope. 3 Vols., trans. Neville Plaice. Stephen Plaice and Paul Knight, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995. . Briefe 19031975 . 2 vols., eds. Karola Bloch, Jan Robert Bloch, Anne Frommann, Hanna Gelke, Inge Jens, Martin Korol, Inka Mlder, Arno Mnster, Uwe Opolka and Burghart Schmidt, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1985. . Atheism in Christianity: the religion of the Exodus and the Kingdom. trans. J.T. Swann, New York: Herder and Herder, 1972. . Geist der Utopie. Erste Fassung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1971. (1918) . Man on his Own: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. trans. E.B. Ashton, New York Herder and Herder, 1970. . Spuren. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1969. (1930) . Thomas Mnzer als Theologe der Revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1969. (1921) . Atheismus im Christentum. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1968. . Geist der Utopie. Zweite Fassung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1964. (1923) . Das Prinzip HoVnung. 3 Vols., Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1959. Bloch, Karola. Die Sehnsucht des Menschen ein wirklicher Mensch zu werden: Reden und Schriften. edited by Anne Frommann und Welf Schrter, 2 Volumes, Mssingen-Talheim: Talheimer Verlag, 1989. Bronner, Stephen Eric, Reclaiming the Fragments: On the Messianic Materialism of Walter Benjamin, pp. 128254 in Of Critical Theory and its Theorists, Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994. Buck-Morss, Susan. The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1989. . The Origins of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and the Frankfurt Institute. New York: The Free Press, 1979. Cohen, Margaret. Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of Surrealist Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Fuld, Werner. Walter Benjamin: Eine Biographie. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Rowohlt Verlag, 1990. Frnks, Josef. Surrealismus als Erkenntnis: Walter Benjamin- Weimarer Einbahnstrae und Pariser Passagen. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1988. Jger, Alfred. Reich ohne Gott: Zur Eschatologie Ernst Blochs. Zrich, EVZ Verlag, 1969. Jennings, Michael William. Dialectical Images: Walter Benjamins theory of literary criticism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987. Kleiner, Barbara. Sprache und Entfremdung: Die Proust bersetzung Walter Benjamins innerhalb seiner Sprach- und bersetzungstheorie. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, 1980.

280

warren s. goldstein

Lacis, Asja. Revolutionr im Beruf: Berichte ber proletarisches Theater, ber Meyerhold, Brecht, Benjamin und Piscator. ed. Hildegaard Brenner, Munich: Regner & Bernhard, 1971. Lackner, Stephan. Von einer langen, schwierigen Irrfahrt aus unverVentlichten Briefen Walter Benjamins in Neue Deutsche Hefte 161 (26 Jahrgang, Heft 1, 1979), pp. 4869. Lwith, Karl. Meaning in History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949. Lwy, Michael. Redemption and Utopia: Jewish Libertarian Thought in Central Europe: A study in elective aYnity. trans. Hope Heaney, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991. . Jewish Messianism and Libertarian Utopia in Central Europe (19001933) in New German Critique 20 (Spring/Summer 1980), pp. 105115. Missac, Pierre. Walter Benjamins Passages . trans. Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995. Mnster, Arno. Utopie, Messianismus und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1982. . ed. Tagtrume vom aufrechten Gang. Sechs Interviews mit Ernst Bloch. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1978. Pensky, Max. Melancholy Dialectics: Walter Benjamin and the Play of Mourning. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1993. Pressler, Gnter Karl. Vom mimetischen Usprung der Sprache: Walter Benjamins Sammelreferat Probleme der Sprachsoziologie im Kontext seiner Sprachtheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1992. Rabinbach, Anson. Between Enlightenment and Apocalypse: Benjamin, Bloch and Modern German Jewish Messianism, in New German Critique 34 (Winter 1985), pp. 78124. Ratschow, Carl Heinz. Atheismus im Christentum? Eine Auseinanderzetzung mit Ernst Bloch. Gterloh: Gterloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971. Rochlitz, Rainer. The Disenchantment of Art: The Philosophy of Walter Benjamin. trans. Jane Marie Todd, New York: The Guilford Press, 1996. Scheurmann, Ingrid and Konrad, eds. Fr Walter Benjamin. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1992. Scholem, Gershom, ed. The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem 1932 1940 . trans. Gary Smith and Andre Lefevere, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1992. . ed. Walter Benjamin Gershom Scholem Briefwechsel 19331940. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1980. . Walter Benjamin- The Story of a Friendship. trans. Harry Zohn, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981. . Walter Benjamin- Die Geschichte einer Freundschaft . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1975. Smith, Gary, ed. Benjamin: Philosophy, Aesthetics, History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. . ed. On Walter Benjamin: Critical Essays and Re ections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988. Tiedemann, Rolf. Dialektik im Stillstand. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Verlag: 1983. Unseld, Siegfried, ed., Zur Aktualitt Walter Benjamins . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1972. Weber, Marianne. Max Weber: Ein Lebensbild . Mnchen: R. Piper GmbH & Co. 1989. . Max Weber: A Biography. trans. Harry Zohn, New Brunswick: Transaction Books 1988. Weber, Max. Ancient Judaism. Trans. Hans H. Gerth and Don Martindale. New York: The Free Press 1952. . Gesammelte Aufstze zur Religionssoziologie. 3 Vols., Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1921.

messianism and marxism

281

West, Thomas H. Ultimate Hope without God: The Atheistic Eschatology of Ernst Bloch. New York: Peter Lang, 1991. Wiegel, Sigrid. Body Image and Image Space: Re-reading Walter Benjamin. London: Routledge, 1996. Wiegmann, Jutta. Psychoanalytische Geschichtstheorie: Ein Studie zur Freud- Rezeption Walter Benjamins. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag, 1989. Witte, Bernd. Walter Benjamin: An Intellectual Biography. trans. James Rolleston, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991. . Walter Benjamin. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag, 1985. Wohl, Robert. The Generation of 1914. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979. Wolin, Richard. Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption. New York: Columbia University Press. 1982. Zudeick, Peter. Der Hintern des Teufels: Ernst Bloch Leben und Werk. Bhl-Moos, Baden: Elster Verlag, 1987. . Die Welt as Wirklichkeit und Moglichkeit: die Rechtfertigungsproblematik der Utopie in der Philosophie Ernst Blochs. Bonn: Bouvier, 1980.