To Donald Grant (7 December 1929)
Dear Donald,
I liked the papers you left with me very much. I know of no group whose ideas so closely resemble to mine, as do those of your group.
Perhaps you purposefully left out (in Part II of Christ and Class War) the study of economics and of socialist problems in making your recommendations - in which case I dissent. There is a danger, not realized at yet clear enough which imperials all our efforts. This danger is that Christians might fail to accept the limitations inherent in the existence of society. As long as we are gang to continue to wish for the impossible, the enemies of progress and social justice must, and will always succeed in hindering us to achieve the possible.
No I don't mean the measure of our effort should be the possible. Only in aiming higher than it is given to us to attain are we able to [a]chieve the utmost measure of the possible. What I do mean is that the direction of our efforts take must be a possible one. Every effort to make a sentimental Christian attitude compatible with the existence of society, any society is an ill directed effort because it aim at the impossible.
If you want to bring religious and social reality into harmony with one another, then it's enough to reform society, you must also reform man's religious consciousness.
The consciousness of man, as he is now, is formed by the notion of the inevitability of death. Life is for him, the journey, the end of which is dead. Without the fact of death we wouldn't be morally what we are. That is which is meant in the scripture: eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
The consciousness of man, as he will be is go[i]ng to be formed by a second fact, as inexplicable as death itself. It is the fact of the existence, the necessary existence of society and all that that implies. He will realize that just as death is not the doing of man. Society is not the doing of man either. We cannot will that society is not the doing of man either. We cannot will that society were not. It is, whether we will it or not. Therefore the responsibility for the existence of society doesn't rest upon us. We are to answer only for that which is our doing. Is is not little.
The fact of power (Macht) and the fact of value (Wert) are co-existent with society. We are not responsible for the evil they mean because society is not our doing. Man cannot wish the good, hope for the right thing, fear evil, or encourage those of goodwill without bringing "power" into existence. (For power has for its origins, nothing but the wishes, the hopes, the fears and moral judgments of man).
What we are answerable for is the sort of power we are helping to create: whether a power for good, or a power for evil: for this depends essentially on ourselves. Man cannot have needs, wants, bodily or mental if their fulfillment requires material goods or commodities without bringing "values" into existence, commodity values. (These values may or not take the form of prices; that depends on the form of the organization of society - but even if no prices exist, there is "value" for what nobody needs must be without value, and what people need, want wish for must be of value, to the actual form of society, the actual organization of production and distribution. We are therefore not responsible for the existence of values as such in society, althou[gh] this fact is an eveil, just as power is an evil. What we are responsible for is the sort of values which should come into existence - what should be of value, and what not. For this depends essentially on ourselves. That commodities hard or dangerous or unhealthy to produce especially if they supply no real need, should not be "valued" and therefore not produced - that does depend on us!
Man wishes to realize his responsibilities. He