Sorel Critique Of Violence Analysis

At this moment it is necessary to remind that, for Sorel, the general strike is 'the myth in which socialism is wholly comprised, i.e. a body of images capable of evoking instinctively all the sentiments which correspond to the different manifestations of the war undertaken by socialism against modern society' (Sorel 2004, 118). In other words, this myth is what precisely constitutes the proletariat. As Bottici argues, 'Sorel presents the general strike as a means for creating a class consciousness that does not yet exist' (Bottici 2007, 230). There is no pre-existing class identity which will necessarily provoke successful class struggle. Rather, the task is to create such an identity by using proletarian violence as a pure means.
Benjamin,
However, I think Salzani is right to criticize this statement by pointing out that Sorel's and Benjamin's conceptions of myth 'are rather heterogeneous and play different, non-comparable roles in their thought' (Salzani 2008, 24-25). Sorel approaches the question of myth from a historical and practical perspective, while Benjamin's position is more politico-theological. Whereas for Sorel a myth is constitutive of class consciousness and, thus, threatens the entire politico-economical status quo, for Benjamin a myth is a sort of an ontological framework in which modern legal order has
Yes and no, as Derrida would have it. Yes, if we look at the problem from a political angle and hopefully crave for a radical political change. No, if we adopt a more theological position, so that the final identification of the general strike and divine violence is unlikely. However, I prefer to "suspend" any answer. In 'Theologico-Political Fragment' Benjamin, on the one hand, separates the messianic order from the profane one by arguing that 'nothing historical can relate itself on its own account to anything Messianic' and that 'the Kingdom of God is not the telos of the historical dynamic' (Benjamin 1979, 155). On the other hand, the profane, 'although not itself a category of this Kingdom, is a decisive category of its quietest approach' (Benjamin 1979, 155). In this case, it is unlikely that Benjamin's politico-theological account of violence exposes his radical anti-humanism, as Salzani insists (Salzani 2008). Likewise, it is difficult to simply equate divine violence to positive historical phenomena, as Žižek does (Žižek 2009). I suggest that the suspension of any definitive answer corresponds to Benjamin's philosophical strategy in the early 1920s, which is marked by his interest in "what was denied to the word," in "the ineffable." The existing tension between the profane and messianic orders is precisely what belongs to this realm of "the