Jewish Messianism and Libertarian Utopia in Central Europe (1900-1933)

Author(s): Michael Löwy and Renée B. Larrier

Source: New German Critique, No. 20, Special Issue 2: Germans and Jews (Spring - Summer,
1980), pp. 105-115
Published by: New German Critique
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487708
Accessed: 18/09/2009 12:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngc.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

New German Critique is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New German
Critique.

http://www.jstor.org
Jewish Messianismand LibertarianUtopia
in CentralEurope (1900-1933)

by MichaelLowy

The thesis that socialismis only a secularizedformof Jewishmessianism

has frequently been put forwardby its contradictorsand critics. Lucien
Goldmannis one of the rareMarxistswho wasreadyto assumethispossible
heritage in positive terms: "It is representationslike the coming of the
Messiah, the Kingdomof Heaven, etc., whicharefounddevoidof anytrans-
cendentor supernaturalelementin thisimmanentreligioncalledsocialism,in
which they take the formof hope andfaithin an immanenthistoricalfuture
that men must realize by their own action.
This hypothesis, however, remains too abstractand too vague. The
suggestionpresentedby KarlMannheimin Ideologyand Utopiaseemsmore
precise and concrete:radicalanarchismis the moder figureof the chiliastic
principle, the relatively most pure form of moder utopian/millenarian
consciousness.Accordingto Mannheim,the20th-centurythinker,whomost
closely personifiesthis spiritualattitudeof a "demonicdepth,"is the Jewish
anarchist writer Gustav Landauer,2 one of the spiritusrectoresof the Bavarian
Republicin 1919.It is interestingto recallin thisconnectionthat,accordingto
the GermansociologistPaulHonigsheim(formermemberof theMaxWeber
Circleof Heidelbergandfriendof GeorgLukfcs andErnstBloch), some of
the participantsin the Republicsof the WorkersCouncilsof Bavariaand
Hungary were convinced of being called to carryout the mission of the
redemption of the world and belongingto a collectivemessiah.3Actually,
besides Gustav Landauer, other Jewish intellectuals(Kurt Eisner, Ernst
Toller, Erich Miihsam)played an importantrole in the BavarianRepublic,
while Lukacsand othermembersof the BudapestJewishintelligentsiawere
among the leadersof the 1919HungarianRepublic.
In orderto attemptto examinethisissuethoroughly,it wouldbe necessary
to examinethe possiblepoliticalimplicationsof Jewishmessianismitself.By

1. "EconomicDemocracyandCulturalCreation,"1961,in Goldmann,Epistemologyand
PoliticalPhilosophy(Paris,1978),p. 217.
2. KarlMannheim,Ideologieund Utopie,5th ed. (FrankfurtamMain,1969),pp. 195-196,
210,214.
3. PaulHonigsheim,"SoziologiederMystik,"in Versuchezu einerSoziologiedes Wissens,
ed. MaxScheler(Leipzig,1924),p. 343.

105
106 Lowy

taking the analyses of Gershom Scholem (universallyrecognizedas the

greatestauthorityin this area)as the pointof departure,the questioncanbe
narrowlydefined. In his essay, "TowardsanUnderstandingof theMessianic
Idea in Judaism,"Scholemstates:"Thereis an anarchicelementin the very
natureof messianicutopianism:the dissolutionof ancienttieswhichlose their
significancein the newcontextof messianicfreedom."4 Thisstatementis very
illuminating,but it seems that the analogybetweenthe messianicutopiaand
the libertarianutopiagoes beyondthisfactorandis manifestedin severalother
decisive aspects of these two cultural configurations.To examine this
analogy, I shall use a theoretical model - the ideal type - of Jewish
messianism formulatedby GershomScholem and a few remarksby Karl
Mannheimon radicalanarchism.
1. Jewishmessianismincludestwotendencieswhichareintimatelylinked
and contradictoryat the same time:a restorativetendency,orientedtoward
the reestablishmentof a formerideal state of a lost golden age, a shattered
Edenic harmony,and a utopiantendency,aspiringto a radicallynew future
that has never existed.The proportionbetweenthe two tendenciescanvary,
but the messianic idea is only crystalizedby their combination;they are
inseparable in a dialectical relationship remarkablydemonstrated by
Scholem:"Eventhe restorativefactorsareatwork .... Thecompletelynew
order containselements of the completelyold one, but even this old order
does not lie in the real past. It is rathera questionof a pasttransformedand
transfiguredinto an enlighteneddreamby the raysof utopia."5The Hebraic
concept - biblical and cabalist- of tikkun (simultaneousrestoration,
reparationand reform) is the condensedexpressionof this dualityof the
messianictradition.
However, it is preciselyin libertarianthoughtthata similarcombination
of conservatismand revolutionis found, as Mannheimstresseselsewhere.6
With Bakunin, Proudhon or Landauer, revolutionaryutopia is always
accompaniedbya profoundnostalgiaforpastpre-capitalistformsof thetradi-
tional peasant or artisancommunity.With Landauer,this amountsto an
explicit apology for the MiddleAges. Actually,most of the greatanarchist
thinkersintegratea romanticattitudetowardthe pastin theirapproach.
It is true that a romantic-nostalgic dimensionof thistype is presentin all
anti-capitalistrevolutionarythought,Marxismincluded,contraryto whatis
usuallythought.Nevertheless,whilewithMarxandhisfollowersthisdimen-
sion is relativizedby their admirationfor industryand economicprogress
broughtby capital,(whoin no waysharethisindustrialism) it is manifestedby
a particularintensityand even uniqueforce with the anarchists.Of all the
modem revolutionarycurrents,anarchismis undoubtedlythe utopiawhich

4. GershomScholem,"ZumVerstandnisdermessianischenIdeeimJudentum,"JudaicaI,
(Frankfurtam Main, 1963),pp.'41-42.
5. Ibid., pp. 12-13.
6. Mannheim,Ideologieund Utopie,p. 196.
 Messianismand Utopia 107

contains the strongest romantic and restorative weight. The work of

Landaueris in this regardthe supremeexpressionof the romanticspiritof
libertarianutopia.
It is perhapsin thisaspectthatthe analogybetweenJewishmessianismand
anarchismis the mostsignificant,the mostfundamental,the mostdecisive.It
alone could createa privilegedspirituallinkbetweenthem.I shallcomeback
to this later.
2. According to Scholem, Jewishmessianism(as opposed to Christian
messianism)considersredemptionasa necessaryeventthattakesplaceon the
stage of history, "publicly"so to speak, in the visible world. It is not
conceivable as a purelyspiritualprocess,in the soul of each individual,and
resulting in an essentiallyinternaltransformation.What type of "visible"
event is at issue?For the Jewishreligioustradition,the comingof theMessiah
is a catastrophicirruption:"Jewishmessianismis by its originandits nature
- this cannot be stressed enough - a theory of catastrophe.This theory
stressesthe revolutionaryandcataclysmicelementin the transitionfromthe
historicalpresentto the messianicfuture."7
Between the presentandfuture,the present-daydeclineandredemption
there is an abyss;moreover,in manytalmudictextsthe idea appearsthatthe
Messiah will only come in an era of corruptionand total culpability.
According to the MidrashTehilim"Israelasks God: when will You send us
redemption?He answers:when you have descendedto the lowest level, at
thattime I shallbringyou redemption."Thisabysscannotbe crossedby some
sort of "progress"or "development."Only the revolutionarycatastrophe,
with a colossal uprooting,a total destructionof the existingorder,opens the
way to messianicredemption.The secularizedmessianismof 19th-century
Jewish thought (the neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen, for
example), with its idea of uninterruptedprogress,the gradualperfectionof
humanity,hasnothingto do withthe traditionof the prophetsandAggadists,
for whom the adventof the Messiahalwaysimpliesa generaldisturbance,a
universalrevolutionarystorm.As Scholememphasizes:"TheBible and the
apocalypticwritersarenot awareof anyprogressinhistoryleadingto redemp-
tion. Redemption is not the productof immanentdevelopment. ... It is
ratherthe transcendencethat causesan irruptionin history,an intrusionin
which historyperishes,transformedin its ruinbecauseit is struckby a rayof
light from an externalsource."8
The parallelbetween thissignificantstructureandmoder revolutionary
doctrinesis suggestedby Scholemhimself:"Messianismof oureraprovesits
immense forcepreciselyin thisformof the revolutionaryapocalypse,andno
longer in the form of a rationalutopia (if one may call it that) of eternal
progressas the Enlightenment'ssurrogateforRedemption."In hisview, the
heirs of this Jewish traditionare those whom he calls "the most important

7. Scholem, "ZumVerstandnis,"p. 20.

8. Scholem, "ZumVerstin,nis," pp. 12-13,20, 24-25,27-28,29-30.
108 Lowy

ideologists of revolutionary messianism in our century": Ernst Bloch, Walter

Benjamin, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse.9
It seems to me, however, that without denying the more general scope of
the analogy, it is in libertarian thought (including that of Walter Benjamin)
that the parallel is most striking. It is indeed with the anarachists that the
revolutionary/catastrophic aspect of emancipation is most evident: "The
destructive passion is a creative passion" wrote Bakunin. On the other hand,
as Mannheim emphasizes - again referringto Landauer as paradigm - it is
with the anarchists that the abyss between all existing order ("Topia") and
utopia is the sharpest. There is here a qualitative differentiation of time,
opposing epochs pregnant with meaning and epochs devoid of meaning. All
possibility of progress or evolution is denied, and the "Revolution" is
conceived as an irruption in the world. 0
3. There remains the aspect of Jewish messianism that Scholem had
designated as intrinsically "anarchic": the idea, which appears in several
talmudic or cabalistic texts, according to which the advent of the Messiah
implies the abolition of restrictions that the Torah had until now imposed on
the Jews. With the messianic era, the former Torahloses its vitality and will be
replaced by a new Law, the "Torahof the Redemption," in which interdictions
and prohibitions will disappear. In this new paradisaicworld, where the force
of evil has been broken, and which would be dominated by the light of the Tree
of Life, the restrictions imposed by the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
would lose their significance. This "anarchic"element is also manifested, as
Scholem very clearly shows, in certain interpretations of Psalm 146:7 that
offer a new reading of the Hebraic text. In the place of the traditional version
according to which, in the messianic era "the Lord frees the prisoners" (matir
assurim), it should read "The Lord lifts the interdictions (matir issurim). "
Scholem correctly qualifies this problem of "anarchic":one need only think
of Bakunin's famous formula - cited by Mannheim as characteristic of the
chiliastic posture of radical anarchism - "I do not believe in constitutions or
laws . ... We need something else; passion, life, a new world without laws
and thus free." 2
The analysis of the three aforementioned aspects must be conceived as a
whole; thus it reveals a remarkablestructuralhomology, an undeniablespiritual
isomorphism between these two culturaluniverses situated in these apparently
completely distinct spheres: the Jewish messianic tradition and the notably
libertarian modern revolutionary utopias. During the years 1900-1933,
among a certain number of Jewish intellectuals of German culture, this

9. Scholem,"ReflectionsonJewishTheology,"in OnJewsandJudaisminCrisis(NewYork,
1976),pp. 285-287.
10. Mannheim,Ideologieund Utopie,pp. 173, 189, 195-196.
11. Scholem, "ZumVerstandnis,"pp. 41-50and"TheCrisisof Traditionin JewishMessia-
nism," in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York, 1971), p. 55.
12. Mannheim, Ideologie und Utopie, p. 190.
 Messianism and Utopia 109

homologybecamedynamicandtook theformof a veritableelectiveaffinity,in

the Goethiansenseof Wahlverwandschaft: twoelementsorbeingswhich"are
looking for one another, are attracted and seize each other ... and then
resurge from this intimate union into a regenerated,new and unexpected
form."'3 In the Weltanschauungof these intellectuals,it evolved into a
process of "culturalsymbiosis"of stimulationand reciprocalnourishment,
and even, in certain cases, of articulation,combinationor fusion (at least
partial)of these two currentsof thought.Ideologicalalliagesof thistype are
not rarein the historyof culture;it sufficesto thinkof the cabalandalchemy
since the Renaissance, or, to take the most famous example in modem
sociology, the protestantethic andthe spiritof capitalism.
The simplest explanationof this relationship,the one which comes to
mind rightawayas proof, wouldbe to considerthe messianictraditionas the
source (more or less direct) of the developmentof libertarianutopianism
among these Jewishthinkers.Withoutcompletelyrejectingthishypothesis,
whichprobablycontainsitspartof truth,we mustrecognizethatit raisesmore
difficultiesthanit resolves.
a) The influencein itself is not an adequateexplanatoryfactor.It itself
needs to be explained.Why did sucha doctrine,andnot another,influence
such a thinker?This questionis all the morerelevantsinceall the authorsin
question, were, as the large majority of Jewish intellectualsof German
culture,by theireducation,removedfromJewishreligioustraditions(which
remained much more alive in Eastern Europe). Their place of originwas
largely assimilated.The CentralEuropeanJewishintelligentsiadrewtheir
cultural references from literature and German philosophy; Goethe,
Schiller,KantandHegel were the acknowledgedandrespectedsources,and
neither the Talmudnor the cabal, both consideredby most as atavisticand
obscurantistvestiges fromthe past.
b) The Jewishmessianictraditionusedto lenditselfto multipleinterpre-
tations: purely conservativereadingsas in certainrabbinictexts, or purely
rationalisttexts (Maimonide),or also those inspiredby the liberal-progres-
sive spiritof the Aufklarung(JewishHaskala),aswithHermannCohen.But
why preciselydid a certaingroupof thinkerschoose an interpretationwhich
was apocalyptic,restorativeand utopianall at the sametime?
The inverse explanation would be namely the utopian-restorative
tendency of these authors who were aware of their borrowingfrom the
messianictradition.This explanationis as limitedand curtailedas the first.
One of the greatmeritsof the Wahlverwandschaft conceptispreciselyto allow
going beyond these two unilateralapproaches,towarda richerand more
dialecticalunderstandingof the relationship.
It seems more usefulto take as a pointof departurea widersocio-cultural
context, whichservesas a generalframework,commonto the twomentioned
tendencies,andwhichgrowsorganically,so to speak,outof centralEuropean
societies in crisis.The new developmentof romanticismfromthe end of the
19thcenturyuntilthe beginningof the 1930sdoes not designateherea literary
110 Lowy

or artistic style, but a much vaster and more profoundphenomenon:the

nostalgiccurrentof pre-capitalistculturesandthecurrentof culturalcriticism
of industrial/bourgeoissociety, a currentthatis manifestedin therealmof art
and literatureas well as in economic,sociologicalandpoliticalthought.
Anti-capitalistromanticism- to use the termcreatedby Lukacs- is a
particularpoliticalandculturalphenomenon,whichhasnot yet receivedthe
attentionit deservesbecauseit escapeshabitualclassifications; the traditional
division of the politicalfield into the left/center/righttriad- or conserva-
tives/liberals/revolutionaries, quo/progress- does
or stillregression/status
not permitit to be grasped;it slidesinto the meshof thisclassicalframework
and seems ungraspablein the frameworkof categories which the great
politicaloptions have definedsincethe FrenchRevolution.Thisdifficultyis
even more accentuatedin comparisonwith one of the tendenciesof the
romantic current, which we have elsewhere designatedas revolutionary
romanticism,and to which thinkersas diverse as Holderlin, Fourierand
Landauerbelong. It concernsa tendencyin whichnostalgiafor the pre-capi-
talistpast(realorimaginary,nearorfar),andthe revolutionaryhopeina new
future,14 restoration and utopia, are combined and inextricably associated.
For reasonswhichwe cannotelaborateuponwithinthe frameworkof this
essay, neo-romanticismwas developed especially in Germanywhere it
expressed the reaction of a diverse social strata- notablythe traditional
intelligentsiaandits universityelite - facingthevertiginousdevelopmentof
capitalist industry at the end of the 19th century.'5 In our opinion, the
essential element of cultural,politicaland scientificproductionin Central
Europe of Germancultureis traversedbythiscurrentandone cannotunder-
stand works as important as those of Thomas Mann, Stephan George,
FerdinandTonnies, MaxWeber, ErnstBloch or phenomenalike Katheder-
sozialismusor expressionism,withoutreferringto the neo-romanticproblem.
However, this makes the rapprochementby electiveaffinityand (some-
times) the convergenceand fusion of Jewishmessianism(in its restorative-
utopianinterpretation)andlibertarianutopiamoreunderstandable. Thetwo
are rooted in the sameground,the two developin the samespiritualclimate
- that of the anti-capitalistromanticismof the German intelligentsia.
Indeed, this cultural current, particularlyin its romantic-revolutionary
version, could only favorthe discovery,revitalizationor the growthof both
the restorative-utopianversionof messianism,and of a restorative-utopian
version of revolution(anarchism).
In orderto understandthe particularityof the receptionof anti-capitalist
romanticismamong Jewish intellectuals,their specific and contradictory
situationin the socialandculturallife of CentralEuropemustbe sociologically

13. Goethe, Die Wahlverwandschaften (Giitersloh,1948),p. 51.

14. See my workon thissubjectin Marxismeet romantismerevolutionaire (Paris,1979).
15. I refer to this subject in ChapterI of my book Pour une sociologiedes intellectuels
revolutionnaires:l'evolutionpolitiquede Lukdcs1909-29(Paris,1976).
 Messianism and Utopia 111

examined:they were bothdeeply assimilatedandlargelymarginalized;they

were attached to German cosmopolitan culture, yet freischwebendand
uprooted;they brokefromtheirbusinessbourgeoisorigins,wererejectedby
the traditionalrural aristocracy,and excludedfrom their naturalplace of
reception(the University).It is not surprisingthata significantnumber(much
largerin EnglandorFrance,countriesthathada completedbourgeoisrevolu-
tion behind them) of Jewish intellectuals from Germany and Austria-
Hungarywere ideologicallyavailableforthe tideof radicalquestioningof the
establishedorder.
Of course, manymembersof the assimilatedJewishintelligentsialeaned
towardliberal,Aufklarer,moderateandprogressiveideas:HermannCohen
and Eduard Bernstein are typical representatives.But the predominant
current in German cultural life - neo-romanticism - could itself only
attract partisans among the Jewish intellectuals.However, the romantic
Jewish intellectualwas immediatelypresentedwitha problem:the returnto
the past, whichwasat the heartof the romanticapproach,wasnourishedfrom
national (Germanancestry),social(feudalaristocracy),or religious(Protes-
tant or Catholic Christianity)referencesfrom whichthe Jew was radically
excluded.It is truethat,someJewishthinkerswerecapableof makingtheleap
and transformedthemselvesintoGermannationalists(RudolphBorchardt),
conservative Germanists (FriedrichGundolf), or Protestanttheologeans
(Hans Ehrenberg).But these are extremeand ratherrarecases in so far as
they imply a fairly artificialapproachand a total negationof their Jewish
identity.For the others,thatis to say, most,therewereonlytwopossibleouts
(in the neo-romanticframework):eithera returnto theirownhistoricalroots,
to their own culture, nationalityor ancestralreligion, or adherenceto a
romantic-revolutionary utopiaof universalcharacter.It is not surprisingthat
a certainnumberof Jewishthinkersof Germanculture,closeto anti-capitalist
romanticismsimultaneouslychose these two roads under the form of the
(re)discovery of the Jewish religion (in particularthe restorative-utopian
interpretationof messianism)andof sympathyor identificationwithrevolu-
tionaryutopias(notablythe libertarianones) heavilychargedwithnostalgia
for the past - all the more as these two paths,as we have seen above, were
structurallyhomologous.ThisdoubleapproachcharacterizesseveralJewish
thinkers from Central Europe who constitutean extremelyheterogenous
groupbutneverthelessunifiedby thiscommonproblem.One canfindamong
them some of the greatestmindsof the 20thcentury:poets andphilosophers,
revolutionaryleadersandreligiousguides,Commissionersof the Peopleand
theologians, writersand cabalists,and even writer-philosopher-theologian-
revolutionaries: Franz Rosenzweig, Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem,
Gustav Landauer, Walter Benjamin, Franz Kafka, Ernst Toller, Ernst
Bloch, Georg Lukacs.
These authorshave been sufficientlystudied,but until now it has never
been suggestedthat theirthoughtcouldhavea commonfundamentaldimen-
sion. It seems paradoxicaland even arbitraryto regrouppersonalitiesso
112 Lowy

diverseanddistantunderthesameroof.Letusstate,first,thatwithoutconsti-
tuting a group in the concrete and immediatesense of the term, they are,
nevertheless,linkedbya complexandsubtlesocialnetwork.Relationshipsof
deep friendship and/or intellectual, and political affinity unite Gustav
Landauer and Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem and Walter Benjamin,
ErnstBloch andGeorgLukacs,MartinBuberandFranzRosenzweig,Gustav
LandauerandErst Toller.Scholemwasattractedto Buberandto Landauer,
Buber correspondedwithKafka,BlochandLukacs.At the centerof thisnet-
work, at the intersectionof all thesespiritualcurrents,containingin itselfthe
most opposingpoles, WalterBenjamin,the close friendof Scholem,linked
with ErnstBloch, profoundlyinfluencedbyLukacs,RosenzweigandKafka,
interestedbut criticalreaderof LandauerandBuber.
However, that is not the essentialpoint. Whatpermitsus to conceiveof
these nine men as a group- whichcouldbe expandedwithfurtherresearch
to include other thinkers of the time - is the fact that within a culturalneo-
romantic background and in a relationship of elective affinity, their work
contains a Jewish messianic dimension and a utopian-libertariandimension.
For some, this constellationwas a transientepisode of their intellectual
itinerary (Lukacs); for others it was the central axis of all their work
(Benjamin).Of course,therespectiveweight,therelativeimportanceof each
one of the twodimensionswasnotthesame.Forsome(Rosenzweig)itwasthe
religious componentthat dominates;for others (Bloch) it was the utopian/
revolutionaryproject;but the two aspectscouldbe foundamongthemall.
It would be uselessto look amongthese nine authorsfor a systematicand
explicitpresenceof the two structuresin theirentirety.Jewishmessianismas
well as libertarianutopiaare foundin theirworkaspowerfulcurrents,some-
times underground,sometimesvisible, manifestingsometimesone of their
themes, sometimesanother(accordingto the authorsor thedifferentperiods
of the same author), sometimes separate, sometimesarticulatedbetween
them, sometimes explicit, sometimesimplicit, sometimesdominatingthe
thinker'swork, sometimessimplysparklinghere andtherein his writings.
On the basisof thepredominantroleof one oranotherdimension,it seems
possibleto dividethegroupintothreesets:I - theanarchisticreligiousJews:
Franz Rosenzweig, MartinBuber, GershomScholem.The lattertwo were
Zionists, the first, ratherhostileor reticenttowardZionism.In spiteof their
refusalto assimilateand theirreturnto Judaism(as a religionanda national
culture), political and spiritual(utopianand libertarian)preoccupationsof
universalcharacterarepresentin theirworkandseparatethemfroma narrow
or chauvinisticnationalism(BuberandScholem,afterleavingforPalestine,
were among the foundersof the pacifistorganizationBrit Shalom, which
advocatedfraternizingwith the Arabpopulationandopposedthe establish-
ment of an exclusively Jewish national state). II - The religiousJewish
anarchists:Gustav Landauer,Franz Kafka, and WalterBenjamin.These
three are characterizedby a contradictoryandtornattitudetowardsJudaism
andZionism,whichtheyperiodicallyapproachedanddrewawayfrom.Their
 Messianism and Utopia 113

anarchisticutopiais stronglytintedwithreligiosityanddrawnfrommessianic
sources(usuallyJewishbutsometimesChristian,too). III - Theassimilated,
atheist-religious,anarcho-BolshevikJews:GeorgLukacs,ErnstToller,Ernst
Bloch. Contraryto the others,they tendedto abandontheirJewishidentity,
while keeping, nevertheless,an obscurelink with Judaism.Theirreligious
atheism (Lukacs'term) was nourishedby Jewishas well as Christianrefer-
ences, and their political evolution led them from a utopian-libertarian
problem toward Marxismand Bolshevism,or resultedin an attemptat a
synthesisof the two (thatgoes for Benjaminalso).
The differences between these three groups reveal that the elective
affinitybetweenJewishmessianismandanarchistutopiaalsoincludesananti-
nomic element.It is a questionof a tension, if not a contradiction,between
Jewish particularism(national-cultural)of messianismand the universal
character(humanist-internationalist) of emancipatoryutopia. In the first
group, the predominance of Jewish particularitytends to relativizethe
universal revolutionary aspect of utopia without making it disappear
completely. In the third, on the contrary,the universalityof utopiais the
preponderantdimension,and messianismtends to be devoid of its Jewish
specificity- whichis not, in spiteof everything,entirelyerased.The inter-
mediategroupis characterizedby a fragileandunstableequilibriumbetween
particularismand universalism,Judaismandinternationalism,Zionismand
anarchism.
As we havealreadymentioned,thelistof namescitedaboveis notlimited.
On the other hand, the three tendencies outlined here are not the only
possibleones (withinthe commonproblem).In orderto concretizethesetwo
remarks, the example of Rudolf Kayser, a friend of Benjamin and his
"protector"in the FischerPublishingCompanyis useful.Kayser,a historian
and writer, became editorof the principalliteraryjournalin Germany,Die
Neue Rundschau,in 1924.His doctoraldissertation(1914)wasdedicatedto
romanticliterature(Amim andBrentano),but he was also interestedin the
Jewishreligion.In 1921,he publishedMosesTod(TheDeath of Moses). As
contributorto the journal Der Jude edited by MartinBuber in 1919, he
published a surprisingarticle which placed him in a separate category,
halfwaybetween BuberandLandauer.WhilerefusingZionism,he favored
the establishmentof a "NewAlliance"(NeueBund),a "JewishAssociation"
(jiidische Genossenschaft)- which he compared to the Taborites and
Hussites of the 15thcentury- whose missionwouldbe to "preparefor the
era of the Messiah"by helpinghumanityto passfrom"thehell of politics"to
the "messianicparadise."This missionimpliedthe abolitionof the State, a
taskforwhichthe Jewsarecalleduponto fillanessentialrole, inso faras "one
can imagineno communityfartherfromthe Statethanthis, religiousethicof
the Jews .... The idea of the State is a non-Jewish (unjiidisch) idea." The
Hebraicreligiouscommunitywasdistinguishedfromthe Statebythe absence
of relationshipsof domination:power belongsto the divineidea alone. In
conclusion: "Here then is the mission of the Jews: remainingthemselves
114 Lowy

without a State, to make of the eartha homelandof men."16

Inwhatmilieu,grouporcurrentcouldone findotherthinkerswitha vision
of the worldsimilarto thatof the ninementionedauthors?It is not likelythat
one can find them among intellectualsof Jewish origin from the KPD
(GermanCommunistParty),whowereboundupinanotherproblem,foreign
to Jewishmessianism(and to religion- Jewishor anyother - in general)
as well as to anarchistideas. Some were from the same milieu that we are
studying- it sufficesto thinkof GershomScholem'sbrotherWerner,who
becamea communistdeputyandwasexcludedfromthePartyin 1926asleftist
dissident(withRuthFischerandhercurrent)- butthemostimportantwere
the nativesof the EasternEuropeanJewishcommunities:RosaLuxemburg,
Leo Jogiches, Eugen Levine (the Spartakistleaderof the BavarianRevolu-
tion, shot afterthe defeatof theBavarianRaterepublik),
KarlRadek,etc. The
differenceof perspectivebetweenthe radicalJewishintelligentsiaof Central
Europe and that of the RussianEmpireis sociologicallyexplicable;some
rebelled againstan assimilatedand vaguelyliberalbourgeoismilieu;others
rebelled against the traditionalistand cramped ghetto. Parallel to the
romanticismof some intellectualsseekingtheirJewishrootswe findtheinter-
nationalist,atheistandAufklarerMarxismof others.Thatis true, to a large
extent, for the Jewishanarchistsof Russianoriginlike EmmaGoldmannor
Berkmann.
On the otherhand,it is possiblethatthethinkerswitha utopian-messianic
conception similarto the one which we have describedare found among
certaingroupswhichmuststill be researched.
1) The Germananarchistmovement,a ratherrestrainedcurrentbutwith
a high proportionof Jews amongits cadre, SiegfriedNacht, Peter Ramus,
Johannes Holzman, not to mention Landauerhimself and the libertarian
writers who were close to him: Benedikt Friedlander,Stefan Grossman,
Erich Muhsam. One could also add Robert Michelswho, before the First
World War, at Marburghad led a small circle of syndicalist-revolutionary
Sorelianintellectuals.
In hisworkon Landauer,EugeneLunnadvancesaninterestingsociological
hypothesisin orderto explainthe attractionof so manyJewishintellectualsto
anarchism:"If, as I have said, marginalintellectualshave the strongest
tendency towardanarchismin highlyindustrializedsocieties,then it wasfar
more likelyfora Jewishintellectualto becomeananarchistinGermanythana
non-Jewishone. One reasonwas the factthata disproportionatenumberof
GermanJewswere free-lancewriters,artistsandprivatescholars,whichmay
have been partlyowingto the discriminationagainstthemin the established
judicial, administrativeand educationalfields." 7 These intellectualsfound

16. RudolfKayser,"DerNeue Bund,"DerJude,III (1918-19),524-26.

17. Eugene Lunn, Prophet of Community: The Romantic Socialism of Gustav Landauer
(Berkeley, 1973), p. 80. See also Ismar Elbogen, Die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland
(FrankfurtamMain, 1966),p. 251.ThesociologistRobertMichelsseesalsoin theexclusionand
 Messianism and Utopia 115

themselvesthenin a marginaland"free-floating"position,whichconstituted
the most favorablesociologicalcontextforrevolutionary,notablylibertarian
currents.
2) The youngZionistsocialistsof the HapoelHatzair(theYoungWorker)
movement, which had been profoundlyinfluenced by Martin Buber as
well as by GustavLandauer,and,whoweregoingto tryto applytheirideasof
a socialistruralcommunityin the kibbutzimin Palestine.
3) The Hungarianrevolutionaryanarchistsof Jewishorigin,like Erwin
Szabo, who diedin 1918butis consideredthe "spiritualfather"of thegenera-
tion, who led the Revolutionof the Workers'sCouncils,andwhosedisciples
became communists.They constituted,aroundLukacs,the groupof "ethical
Bolsheviks"in 1919:ErwinSinko, Bela Balaszand, to a certainextentOtto
Korvin, the chief of the Red Securityof the HungarianRepublicof Councils
(shot by the Whites in 1919).
4) Some Jewishwritersor thoseof Jewishorigin,of revolutionarypacifist
and/or anarchisttendencyparticipatedin the expressionistmovementand
notably in the journal Die Tat (Action): LudwigRubiner, FranzWerfel,
Walter Hasenclever (friend of Ernst Toller), Albert Ehrenstein, Rudolf
Leohand, etc.
Only a preciseanalysisof the significantstructureof the thoughtof these
different authors or personalitiescan prove whether Jewish messianism
played a role in the constitutionof their politicalanarchist,anarchisticor
libertarianvision (in a broadsense). If the responseis positive,it is possible
that the nine great thinkerswere only the most visibleand most prominent
expression of a vast currentthat crossed all of CentralEurope and which
touched a significativefractionof the radicalJewishintelligentsia.

Translatedby ReneeB. Larrier

social marginalizationof Jewsin CentralandEasternEuropethe reasonforthe acknowledged

"predispositionof Jews to join revolutionaryparties."Robert Michels,Zur Soziologiedes
Parteiwesensin dermodernenDemokratie(Leipzig,1925),pp. 331-336.