Add new comment

"It is time for those who aspire to love — which is to say everyone everywhere — to finally see the communism of their aspiration."

Checkmate, everyone! You were all communists all this time and you didn't know it! Whether you like it or not!
Love = good = communism. This logic is bullet proof, only someone who is hateful = bad =not communist would be against this!

In professional political discourse on the left we regularly see two tendencies: that of tagging a cuddly relatable word to your ideology to make its acceptance more palatable, and that of choosing a spiky scary edgy word to provoke and draw attention. It's mostly very empty wordplay. Neologisms and name-drop (the right authors) your way to the top!

Would reading this book be interesting as an exercise in examining how "love" can be used as a rhetorical device within politics?
(like what they did with http;//

A "hatred of an enemy grounded in love" is such an unnecessary conceptual contortion. Obviously we feel more than one feeling at different moments, or various at the same time, and towards different things. The words we use to name them are blurry enough as it is. Why feel the need to justify one emotion by saying it's based on another? You must really have a compulsion for justifying yourself if even your feeling requires justification in order to be valid and accepted. Revolt can no longer just be an outburst of anger, rage, indignation, it has to be conceptually tied to more nice-ist approved emotion to receive validation from hippy-liberal (who might fancy themselves anarchists if it's still in fashion!) hegemony of his lefty readership. How long til the subversive qualities and implications of all emotions are mused about in book length format? Will we eventually get a book about the anhedonic qualities of revolt? Boredom: A counterpower to capital worthy of it's name?

Or maybe the insecurity isn't about what's being felt, but around communism itself, its miserable legacy and its unclear meaning, that talking of emotions seems benign and positivistic by comparison. Having long discarded communism as "the immortal science of ML" do marxist cranks have to dig deep into the lovey-dovey woo-woo to gain acceptance?

"Hatred and love are not opposites. The true opposites of love are narrow self-interest and passive indifference." Can't narrow self-interest be narrow form of self-love? Can't passive indifference be a form of hate, or neither? Obviously most times things are presented as opposites, it's a rhetorical framing geared toward persuasion and not a literal fact or a scientific statement.

Who would want to stake the basis of a political project on such flimsy ground as the muddy distinctions of concepts as abstract, fleeting and ethereal as emotions? While it might not seem like a great move in terms of logical internal consistency and validity, anyone throughout their lives can become aware of how people use each other's strongest feelings as leverage to emotionally manipulate each other into x or y. So such wafty musings could be instrumentalized by petty politicians, but the text as it stands is worse than a flurry of unbased assertions, it's flume of wafty musings and vague insinuations. The only thing that's clear is the (moral) value judgement of communism (whatever that may be) as inherently good. Hence, the text could only serve the reader as: 1. cheap entertainment in the form of bad poetry, 2. basis for weak rhetoric for political manipulation (discourse), 3. the re-assuring comfort of a text that validates your goodness as a loving communist.