Catastrophic Intentions: Benjamin and Bloch on the Nature of Revolution | David Blencowe

Summary: Changing the Climate: Utopia, Dystopia and Catastrophe | David Blencowe Revolutionary praxis is the task, but Walter Benjamin and Ernst Bloch differ in its conception. A key point of divergence is the role ascribed to subjective intention. For Bloch, an unintended consequence of industrial capitalism has been the new way in which subjective productivity can be thought. This enables collusion between his epistemology and ontology. The true is no longer the object of interpretation, but the result of willed intention on behalf of the revolutionary subject. Benjamin, on the other hand, envisages an intentionless praxis of pure destruction. Justice can never be the goal, but nihilism is the method. Nature becomes an important analogue for both thinkers. For Bloch, it becomes the site of a breathtaking post- Darwinian anthropocentrism, where it is no longer an unknowable, indifferent other, but an ally who shares our aspirations. For Benjamin, nature’s blind, periodic catastrophes could provide precisely the destructive means that he seeks. David Blencowe is an MA candidate in the Centre for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies at Monash University, Melbourne Australia.