Interview with Ernst Bloch

Author(s): Ernst Bloch, Michael Lowy and Vicki Williams Hill

Source: New German Critique, No. 9 (Autumn, 1976), pp. 35-45
Published by: New German Critique
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487687 .
Accessed: 01/09/2014 12:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 withErnstBloch
Interview

by Michael Lowy
Tiibingen, March 24, 1974

Note: The purpose of this interview is to clarify several aspects of the

relationship between Bloch and Lukacs, especially during the period from
1910 to 1918, within the framework of the general problematic of the
formationof an anti-capitalistcurrentamong German intellectuals at the turn
of the century.

Lowy: Could you tell us somethingabout the Max Weber Circle in Heidelberg?
What kind of ideology was dominant? Can one say there was a certain
anti-capitalist tendency?

Bloch: One shouldn't exaggerate.... There was a "Schiur" (private seminar)

which met every Sunday afternoon at Weber's house, in which half of the
Stefan George Circle participated, so theyweren't exactly revolutionaries....
And Weber himselfwas far frombeing a revolutionary.He considered himself
to be objective and the bearer of a value-freescience (Wert-frez).At that time
Marxism didn't play the same role it does now; it was considered to be one
model among others, one literaryrealityamong others, and thereforewasn't
the object of polemics within the circle; besides, it was impossible to discuss
anythingat all withpeople like Gundolf; it's impossible to project the present
onto the past of the years 1910-13.
At the time the war broke out, Weber was an enthusiasticmilitarist; he put
on his reserve officer's uniform to welcome us every Sunday.

Lowy: Nevertheless, there was still a sort of anti-militaristicleft wing in

Heidelberg including you, Lukacs and maybe others, wasn't there?

Bloch: There were very few of us. We had a circle in which Jaspers
participated, and he had been opposed to the war fromthe beginning. So there
were Jaspers, myself,Lukacs, Radbruch, a lawyer who belonged to the left
wing of the Social Democrats, the economist Lederer and several others. Toller
and Levin6 came to Heidelberg later, after I had already left.
I would like to share with you some reminiscences of my relationship with
LukAcs. That's all right with you, isn't it?

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

Lowy: Of coursel

Bloch: The beginningwas like this: I was a verygood friendof Georg Simmel's
in Berlin; he had a "Schiur" in which I sometimes participated. One time
Simmel invitedme to come to one of thesemeetingsbecause he wanted to know
my opinion of a young literaryhistorian and aesthetician who had come to
Berlin with a recommendation fromthe Hungarian Academy of Sciences. "A
recommendation fromthisinstitution,"Simmel said to me with a smile, "isn't
worthmuch; but the youngman has sentme a book on the sociologyof English
drama, and I would like you to talk withhim and tell me afterwardswhat kind
of impressionhe makes on you." The date set for our meeting arrived and I
went to Simmel's house, but I had actually forgottenthat I had the task of
judging thespeaker. Nevertheless,I did exchange a fewwordswithhim. When
everybodyhad left,Simmel asked me: "Well, what is your impression?What
do you thinkof thisfellow,what's his name? - Georg von Lukacs, the one you
talked to." "Oh, yes," I answered, "that's right. But I completelyforgotyour
request. Yes, I talked with him, but frankly,I don't quite know. He made no
impression on me at all."
Later I went to Budapest to visita friend,Emma Ritook, who knew Lukacs,
and I told her about my negative impression, or rather lack of impression.
Emma Ritook told Lukacs about myopinion, and he replied: "I never expect a
remarkable philosopher to be a good judge of men as well." I was disarmed by
his answer because I was incapable of such a superior "objective morality."
That was the beginning of my respect for the man I referredto in Geist der
Utopie as "the Genius of Morality."
So I got to know Lukacs more closelyin Budapest than I had at Simmel's in
Berlin, and we quicklydiscoveredthat we had the same opinion on everything,
an identityof viewpointsso complete that we founded a "wildlife preserve"
(Naturschutzpark) for our differencesof opinion, so that we wouldn't always
say the same things.

Lowy: What were these differencesof opinion?

Bloch: A disagreement which was very artificially preserved, artificially

maintained, on the relationshipbetween art and myth.One of us claimed that
art was opposed to myth,and the other that art was secularized myth. Against
our own convictions,we artificiallyheightened thisdisagreementso that there
would be at least one differenceand distinctionbetween us in the realm of
theory.Aside from that, there weren't any. When we had been separated for
several months and met again, we discovered that we had both worked in

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTER VIEW WITH ERNST BLOCH 37

exactlythesamedirection.I couldcontinuewherehe had leftoff,and he could

continuewhereI had leftoff.We werelikecommunicating vessels;thewater
was alwaysat the same level in both.
Later thiscommunity of ideas disappeared.But it did lastlongenoughfor
Lukacstowritetome againinSwitzerland during1918toproposeworking on a
common philosophy.It was his aesthetics--thatwas his theme at the
time- and hewantedme tocollaborateinthearea ofphilosophy ofmusicsince
LukAcsdidn't know anythingabout music.
It was stillevidentto bothofus at thetimethatwe wereof exactlythesame
opinion, althoughworkingon verydifferent material. Lukacs dealt with
paintingand literature--aboutwhich I knew nothing,as I said at that
time--butmusic,thatwas me, of course. "You don't have to showme the
manuscript,"Lukics wroteto me in a letter,"we don'tneed to discussit--I
knowin advancethatwe agree."This close relationship-I could almostsay
identity--between us continueduntil about 1917-18.
The firstseriousdisagreement appearedwhenLukics was draftedintothe
and
army agreed toleave forBudapest.That was thefirstdifference ofopinion
thatdidn'tbelongto the"wildlifepreserve."The factthathe leftforBudapest
and let himselfbe drafted,ratherthan emigrate.I, in contrast,went to
Switzerland;I didn'twantto takepartin thewar. Lukacs, in the name of a
morality whichwascompletely incomprehensible tome,thoughtitwashisduty
to go to Budapestand becomea soldier.It was notyeta profounddifference,
but it was alreadythe beginningof a separation.
When we met again afterthe war, around 1921, the old friendshipand
agreementstillcontinuedfora while,but therewere alreadyfundamental
questions that placed us in opposition to each other. Concerning
Schopenhauer,for example.
Our relationship had alwaysbeen a mutualapprenticeship. Thus, Lukacs
introducedme to Kierkegaardand Germanmysticism;I, on theotherhand,
taughthimto studyHegelmoredeeply,so to speak. But Lukacs theHegelian
and Bloch the Hegelian no longeragreed on Schopenhauer.
The keyquestionwas the conceptof truth: is trutha justification of the
world(die Weltrechtfertigend) orisithostileto theworld(zur Weltfeindlich)?
Isn'tthewholeexistingworlddevoidoftruth?The worldas itexistsis nottrue.
There existsa secondconceptof truthwhichis not positivistic, whichis not
foundedon a declarationof facticity, on "verificationthrough facts,"but
the
whichis insteadloaded withvalue forexample, in the
(wertgeladen)--as,
concept "a true friend," or inJuvenal'sexpressionTempestaspoetica-that is,
thekindofstormone findsin a book,a poeticstorm,thekindthatrealityhas
neverwitnessed, a stormcarriedtotheextreme,a radicalstormand therefore a

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

truestorm,in thiscase in relationshipto aesthetics,to poetry; in the expression

"a true friend," in relationship to the sphere of morality. And if that doesn't
correspond to the facts- and forus Marxists, facts are only reifiedmomentsof
a process--inthat case, too bad for thefacts (um so schlimmerffirdie
Tatsachen), as Hegel said in his late period.
This functionofbeing hostileto the world, ofdissolvingthe world, is fulfilled
in Schopenhauer's workby the concept of Nirvana; the world is not true, only
Nirvana is true. The will to live is not true; it can be verifiedof course, but it
shouldn't exist; thus a "valuative" concept, a subversive concept of value
(umstiirzende) is introduced into truth.
So therewas a big dispute between Lukacs and me on thisquestion because,
in my opinion, Schopenhauer's thought was a powerful oppositional force
against the ideology of the existing, but the opposition unfortunatelyled to
Nirvana and not to Marx.... But it was worth more than the reactionary
Hegel, forexample, the Hegel who changed his Philosophyof Right in 1819-20
afterthe Karlsbad Decrees, making it reactionary; we aren't concerned with
thatHegel, nor withSchopenhauer eitherfor that matter. We don't need him.
It's simply a question of recognizing his opposition to the existing world.
Consequently, in 1921 Lukacs and I no longer needed a "wildlifepreserve."
That doesn't mean we no longer had ideas in common. There are parts and
ideas in History and Class Consciousness which are expressionsof a common
point of view and which really came fromme, just as parts of Geist der Utopie
and aspects of itscontentsoriginated in conversationswith Lukacs, to the point
that both of us found it hard to say, "This is my idea, this is yours." We were
really in profound agreement.
But then came the Party, and Lukacs threweverythingoverboard that had
been dear and precious to him. In The Theory of the Novel, for example,
Lukacs asked onlya single question about Dostoyevsky:is he the precursorof a
new Homer, or is he himselfthe new Homer? At that time, Dostoyevskyplayed
the most importantrole imaginable forLukacs. But several yearslater thesame
Lukacs wrote a devastating critique of Dostoyevskywhich concluded with a
sentence I remember well: "And thus Dostoyevskyand his glory will sink
together toward an inglorious end."1 And this was the same manl Later
somethingsimilar happened with Kierkegaard, much admired by the young
moralistLukacs onlyto be completelywiped out in The Destruction of Reason.
Here I just couldn't go along with him. "My dear friend, my mentor in
Dostoyevskyand Kierkegaard," I said to him, "where then is truth?Now you

1. The referenceis to Lukdcs'essay"On theLegacyof Dostoyevsky,"

(Ueber den Dostojewski
Nachlass") MoskauerRundschau, Moscow, March, 1931.

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTER VIEW WITH ERNST BLOCH 39

are sayingtheopposite,themosthostileand the blindestthingpossibleand

oppositeofwhatyousaid threeyearsago whenI was yourpupil. In thatcase,
whatam I supposedto rely youwrongthenor are youwrongnow?
What's happened to you soon--were
that you can writea sentencelike that about
Dostoyevsky?"
UndertheinfluenceofthePartyhishorizonnarrowed,his opinionswerein
conformity and markedwiththeseal oftheapparatchiks;his ruleofmeasure
eliminated,destroyed and misjudgedeverything thatdidn'tcorrespondto the
values of the apparatchiksin Moscow.
By theway,on one occasionin the past, he had alreadydemonstratedan
unreliableinstinct, withrespectto Paul Ernst.As youremember,in The Soul
and theForms,he comparedPaul ErnsttoSophocles.Howwasthatpossible?It
was his neo-classicism. And, yousee, thisneo-classicismof theyoungLukacs
(whichI didn'tgo along with) was later called "orthodoxMarxism"--also
composedonlyof order,straightlines, the adorationof Greekbeauty,and
Stalin'skitschconstructions in Moscow,etc. There'sa transition here,a point
of contactbetweenthe two,in the bias of his passionfororder-which also
manifests itselfin thewayhe usesNikolaiHartmannbecausehe is so classical,
so orderly.
Later,duringthe1930s,thesedifferences of opinionbetweenus developed
further in ourdiscussionon expressionism. You're familiarwiththisdebate, I
imagine?
Well, I tookLukacsat hisword,unconditionally, on everythingwhichhad to
do withpainting,withtheaestheticsofpainting,and ofcoursewithliterature.
I followedhiminhisadmirationforC6zanneand Van Gogh'ssecondperiod; I
followedhimbecausehe was theone whohad said it, and he understoodthese
questionsa hundredthousandtimesbetterthanI did, as I thoughtat thetime.
However,I had beenin Munichin 1916 and discoveredtheworksoftheBlauer
Reitergroup,the writingsand paintingsof expressionism, and theymade a
great and deepimpression on me. But Lukics despisedthem, labelingthemthe
products of "a gypsy'sshatterednerves." That was when I began to doubtthe
validityof Lukacs'judgment.Later, as is well known,he was to react in the
same waytoJoyce,Brecht,Kafka,Musil,etc., classifying themas "decadent
artistsof the late bourgeoisie"and nothingmore. So thiswas the second
importantdifferenceof opinion which appeared betweenus.

Lowy: You speakmodestly ofLukAcsas yourmentorin art,literature,

etc. But
on theotherhand, Paul Honigsheim,whowas a memberof the Max Weber
Circle in Heidelberg,speaksof you twoin the followingterms: "Bloch, the
catholicizingapocalypticJewand his follower,Lukacs." Maybe Lukacs was

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

your disciplebefore1914?

Bloch: It wasreciprocal.I was as muchLukics' discipleas he wasmine.There

were no differencesbetweenus. Through him, I became familiarwith
Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaardand MeisterEckhart,and throughme, Lukacs
learned to understandHegel better.

Karola Bloch: I'm in theprocessof decipheringa hundredor so lettersfrom

Bloch to Lukacsdatingfromtheyears1910-14whichwerejustdiscoveredin a
suitcaseleftby Lukics in Heidelberg.They deal withextremely interesting
philosophicaland aestheticquestions,and Hegel is mentionedfrequently. I
believethatone can reallyspeakof a kindof "symbiosis"
betweenBloch and
Lukacs at that time.

Lowy: It is sometimes
said thatthecharacterofNaphta,thecommunist
Jesuit
createdbyThomasMann,wasinspiredbyyouorLukacs.Whatdo youthinkof
that?

Karola Bloch: When The Magic Mountain appeared, people generally

thoughtthatNaphtawas a combinationofcertaintraitsofLukacsand Bloch.

Bloch: I thinkthathe resemblesLukacs more. For Lukacs, the Communist

Partywas therealizationof an old aspiration.In hisyouth,he had wantedto
entera monastery.The Partywas a substituteforthissecretdesire.He was not
attractedby Catholicismas a systemor doctrine,but as a way of life--the
theabsenceofproperty,
solidarity, themonasticexistenceso opposedto thatof
the upper middle class to whichhe belonged throughhis familyand his
bank directorfather.

Lowy: What was yourown path to Marxism?

Bloch: I learnedaboutMarxismat a veryearlyage. I wasbornina workers'

city
ci thebanksoftheRhine,Ludwigshafen, wheretheI.G. FarbenTrusthad its
centralheadquarters.Half of the city'sinhabitantswereworkersand I had
somecontactwiththe Social Democratsveryearly.I had directconnections
withtheproletariatincontrast
to Lukacs,whowasbornin a villain theelegant
upper middle class districtof Budapest. But the intensification of my
anti-capitalist, attitudeobviously
pro-Marxist camewiththewarand laterwith
the Russian Revolution,which I welcomedwithjoy and enthusiasm.

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTER VIEW WITH ERNST BLOCH 41

Lowy: It seemsto me thatin one respecttherewas a remarkabledifference

betweenyou and Lukacs in 1918: while Lukacs was a Tolstoyianand was
obsessedwiththemoralproblemofviolence,youwrotein Geistder Utopiethat
toopposeestablishedpowerwithappropriately
"itisnecessary powerfulmeans
like a categoricalimperativewith a revolverin yourfist."

Bloch: Jesussaid long ago: "I have notcome to bringpeace, but a sword; I
havecometocastfireupontheearth."Besides,in 1914-18,thefirewas already
burning.
Thereis a veryimportant differencebetweenturningtheothercheek,as put
forwardin theSermonon theMount,whenI am theonlyone who has been
offended,and tolerating offensetomyneighbor.In thesecondcase I can and
use
should violence; theSermon on theMountpreachestolerancewhenI am
affected,but when my brother is the victim,I cannot tolerateinjustice,
persecution,murder. The Sermon on the Mountis not a pacifisttract.And
Thomas Miinzerwasn'ta pacifisteither,and he was a betterChristianthan
Lukacs.

Lowy: Withregardto Geistder Utopie,thereis a sentencein thelastchapter

whichI don'tunderstandverywell. Could you elaborateon it a little?You
write: "Perhaps thereis a way to reach what Dostoyevsky and Strindberg
as a
pursued 'psychology,'way likethat of Lukacs- and herehe is profoundly
close to us, associated with us again--Lukacs the absolute genius of
morality...who wants to reestablishthe caste systemon a metaphysical
basis."2 Whatdoes"reestablish
thecastesystem on a metaphysical basis"mean
to you?

Bloch: It is Lukics' conception,not mine.

The castesintendedare similarto thoseofIndia. The pointis to reestablish
themon a moralbasis,in thesenseof chivalry,forexample: manythingsare
forbiddento theknightthatare permittedto thepeasant. Incidentally,it'sa
Catholic idea. The difficulties, the asceticism,increase at the top of the
hierarchy;the difficulties accumulate,not the pleasures.That is the new
meaning of the castes.In capitalism,the oppositeis obviouslythe case. The
peasant isn't even subjectedto prohibitionsbecausehe is objectively prevented
from doing what he wants, while the Seigneur, the boss, is permitted
everything--luxury, profitsfromexploitation,surplus-value--everything is
put in hispocket. In theHindu and Catholic social utopias,it is theopposite,

2. Geist der Utopie, 1918 (Frankfurtam Main, 1961), p. 347.

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

and Lukacs wanted to followthistradition. Also, many thingsare forbidden to

the monk which are permitted to the layman. Monks are, in a sense, the
aristocracy of Christianity.That was the perspective of the young Lukacs.

Lowy: Yes, but you too wrote something about a new aristocracy,a spiritual
aristocracy. In Geist der Utopie you stated: "The whole of a utopia can thus
present the image of a hierarchywhich is no longer economically profitable,
which includes only peasants and artisans at the bottom and is perhaps
distinguished at the top by honor and glory, by a nobilitywithout serfsand
withoutwar, by a humanitywhich is chivalrous and pious once more, but in a
differentway, and by the authority of a spiritual aristocracy."

Bloch: It's true, those are castes of a differentkind. I was in agreement with
Lukacs at that time.
There are virtuesthat are distributedamong the differentsocial classes. The
bourgeoisie is attributedwithdiligence (Fleiss), parsimony,etc. The nobilityis
attributedwithhonor, fidelity,gentleman's respect, etc. - these are the virtues
of chivalry.
The new aristocracy I was talking about was, therefore, not profitable
economically, that is, not founded on exploitation, but on the contrary,it had
ascetic and chivalrous virtues.That is the meaning of Lukacs' referenceto the
new castes which have no economic meaning, no exploitative signification.
This brings us back to the question of the origin of and motivation for a
revolutionaryattitudein thosewho have no need forit- in the Decembrists, in
Bakunin, in Lenin, in Marx. They didn't need it--and Engels, the rich
Manchester cotton manufacturer, needed it even less--all he was doing was
sawing off the branch he was sitting on! Engels was remarkable!
Therefore, we are talking about a moral problem. We are talking about
chivalrousvirtues,about a moral and cultural heritage that one can findin the
writingsof Marx and Engels. "That isn't fair"-this verdict against capitalism
is based on a standard of values that is a "gentleman's" standard of values. It
goes back to the code of the knights,to the code of King Arthur'sRound Table.
A knightwho is not faithfulto the word he has given is dishonored. A capitalist
who is not faithful to the word he has given makes profitable deals.
However, I don't agree with this anymore.

Lowy: Really? You no longer thinkthat thereis a certain connection between

the pre-capitalist standard of values and that of socialism?

3. Geist der Utopie, p. 410.

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTER VIEW WITH ERNST BLOCH 43

Bloch: In socialism,each personproducesaccordingto hisor herabilitiesand

consumesaccordingto his or herneeds. It's a limitedconcept,a social ideal.
But,totheextentthatone approachesit,thattheeconomyofexploitation,the
reification( Verdinglichung)and the"commodification" (zu Warewerden)of
people and thingsdisappears,one no longerneedsthesevirtues.
One no longer
needsto hold someoneto a solemnpromise,etc. These values shouldwither
awaylike the machineryof the state accordingto Engels. That's not at all
what's happeningin the USSR, where the state is growingstrongerand
stronger--that's not the Marxistway; somethingisn't quite rightthere.

Lowy: There are a lot of thingswhicharen'tquite rightin the USSR! But I

would like to ask you anotherquestion: wheredo intellectualsacquire this
attitude-people likeMarx,Engels,Bakunin,etc.?
"chivalrous"anti-capitalist

Karola Bloch: It's an ethical question that can already be found in the
conversationsbetweenIvan and AlyoshaKaramazov.

Bloch: The proletariatdoesn'tneed "morality"to revoltagainstoppression

and exploitation.But intellectuals
can onlyhave ethicalmotivationsbecause
the revolution is opposed to their personal interests. By becoming
they'resawingoffthebranchthey'resittingon. If Marx had
revolutionaries,
beena goodbourgeoisliketheothers,he wouldn'thavesuffered fromhungerin
London.... Obviously,in that case, he wouldn'thave writtenCapital.

Karola Bloch: ErnstBloch's firstwife,Else von Stritzky,was veryrich; her

family owned large gold mines in Russia. In the Revolution of 1917, they
lost
obviously everything, but thatdidn'tinfluence Bloch'sfeelingtowardthe
Soviet October at all.

Bloch: I used to sayto myfriendsthatI paid 30 millionmarksfortheRussian

Revolution,butthatitwasworththepricetomelI had reallygottensomething
in returnformy money.

Lowy: Whatroledid Lukacs' firstwife,Elena Grabenko,playin his life?She

wasn'tshe?
was a Russian social-revolutionary,

Bloch: I knowthatduringthe revolutionof 1905 she carrieda baby in her

arms,a littlechildwhomshe had borrowedfromsomeone,and beneaththe
baby'sblanketshe had hiddensome bombs. That was Elena. Throughher,
Lukacs married Dostoyevsky,so to speak; he married his Russia, his

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

Russia whichdidn't existin reality.

Dostoyevskian

What do you mean by that?

Lowy: Veryinteresting!

Bloch: For him, this woman was a Sonia, or another characterfrom

Dostoyevsky, a personification
of the "Russian soul."
That's anothermystery,
which,bytheway,also belongstothesubjectofyour
researchon Germanintellectuals:whydid Dostoyevsky and Tolstoyhavesuch
an influenceon WesternEurope?

Lowy: Exactly!It's a questionI have thoughtabout for a long time.

Bloch: The Russianplayeda tremendous roleat thattime.RainerMaria Rilke

wrotethisremarkablesentence:"Othercountriesare borderedbymountains,
riversor oceans,butRussiais borderedbyGod." And accordingto Spengler,
forexample,in The Decline ofthe West,Tolstoyand Dostoyevsky pointto the
futureofhumanity.A newculturebeginswiththem,and it has nowreached
onlyitsMerovingian stage.I myself
participatedin thisgeneralfeelingwhenI
wrotein Geistder UtopiethattheRussianRevolutionwas the act of a new
PraetorianGuard"whoenthroned Christas Emperorforthefirsttime."This
wasstillthemythicalRussia. WithChristas Emperor!And withPraetorians,
who,contrary to theRomanones,helpedestablishChrist'spower.Forus, this
was RussianChristianity, thespiritualuniverseof Tolstoyand Dostoyevsky.
Why did all of WesternEurope see onlythis imaginaryRussia? It was an
impulsewhichwasreligiousas wellas moral,and itelicitedthispassionforthe
"Russiansoul"- youunderstandthatI'm consciously usingthekitschtermfor
it--forsomethingthatwe made glimmerin frontof our eyesand thatdidn't
existin reality.
Lukics had suchadmirationforthisdreamRussiathathe lovingly preserved
the stamps from lettersfrom St. Petersburg,Russian stamps with the
double-headedeagle and thecrown.The wholethingwentso farin hismind
that he includedthe double-headedeagle and the crownin the Russia of
Tolstoyand Dostoyevsky! Not withhis brain,not theoretically,but withhis
emotions.That was also thereasonwhyhe was so impassionedbythe Russian
Revolution.If therevolutionhad brokenout in France,it wouldn'thave had
thesameimpacton him.It wouldhave been a simpleaffairofthebrain. But
Russia was an affairof the heart.

Lowy: Before1914, Max Weber was attractedby Russia, too, wasn'the?

This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTER VIEW WITH ERNST BLOCH 45

Bloch: A littlebit. That was theothersideofhim,weakerthanthenationalist

German aspect, but there nevertheless;that was what drew him to
Lukics-the commonadmirationfor Tolstoyand Dostoyevsky.

Lowy: One lastquestion,ifyoudon'tmind: whatsubjectareyouworking

on at
the moment?

Bloch: I'm in theprocessofwritingmylastbook,whichis concernedwiththe

question of the meaning and ultimatesignificanceof life,of the world,of
humanity. A questionwhichreligionaskswithoutreallyanswering.A question
whichis remarkably wellformulated, bytheway,in thisold proverbwhichI
oncefoundin thehouseofa Bavarianpeasant: "WhereI comefrom,I cannot
tell; whereI'm going, I cannot see; that I'm so happy, amazes me."

TranslatedbyVickiWilliamsHill

KAPITAL
ISTATE
WORKING PAPERS ON
THE CAPITALIST STATE
JULY, 1976
SPECIAL DOUBLE ISSUE, NO. 4-5
FOCUS ON THE URBAN CRISIS
ArticlesbyManuel Castells, RickHill, Ann Markusen,SimonClarke,and
otherson Urban PoliticalEconomy.Also Guttmanon the crisisof British
economicpolicyand Sunneson on labor and the Swedish welfare state.
Issue No. 3 stillavailable
$4.00 No. 4-5
Subscriptions$10 forfourissues. WriteKapitalistate, c/o Economics
Department,San Jose State University,San Jose, CA 95115.

KAPITALISTATE
This content downloaded from 79.97.223.166 on Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:39:33 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions