5 2 D O C S . 6 3 , 6 4 J U N E 1 9 1 9 wanders far from the [original tree?] whether one arrives back at the same point cannot be checked, for solar eclipses do not blossom for everyone.[7] Greetings from your Zangger. 63. To Heinrich Zangger 18 June [1919] [Not selected for translation.] 64. From Paul Natorp Marburg, 26 June 1919 Dear Colleague, At last I have come to an agreement with Alf[ons] Paquet, Herrigel, and Wilh[elm] Schäfer on a version of a proclamation for socialism, which I am enclosing herewith with the request, if it is conscionably possible for you and seems right, that you add your signature to it.[1] I am initially also inviting, at my own instigation, Prof. Staudinger–Darmstadt, and Prof. Tönnies–Eutin (Kiel).[2] Only a few others are envisioned for the first signing, which will then be promul- gated with an appeal to wider circles to join. Objections may be raised against any version. I myself find fault with a few things already, part[icularly] with the next to last (longer) paragraph. The misunderstanding is not yet thoroughly eliminated enough, as if “we,” with all too common arrogance, were flaunting our “pure good- will,” “noblest hope,” “sin[cere] intellectuality,” etc., intending to do the other side a favor. The point is to the contrary, and the full intrinsic equality is certainly also given clearly enough by other expressions. I have just suggested an alteration to Paquet that I believe excludes such a misunderstanding, which draws the entirety of this par[agraph] away from the opposition of “you” and “we” and thereby finds completely common ground. The most serious issue, the most serious difficulty to us and to the whole thing, lies in the problem of violence. I am continually thinking about it—G. Sorel’s book (Réflexions sur la Violence, Panas, M. Rivière & Co.) is very strange. In spirit, I find myself very much in line with him, but he is completely infatuated with faith in the idea of violence (which he thus quite onesidedly interprets as a general strike), expressed as a “myth,” i.e., in full knowledge that it is unrealistic, as a reli- gious symbol, so to speak, to which the proletariat should cling in order to keep its (thoroughly intellectually and spiritually understood) radicalism pure and not
Previous Page Next Page