This is how, in Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, Cathy characterizes her relation to Heathcliff, and provides a succinct definition of unconditional erotic love. There is an unmistakable dimension of terror at work here. Think about the ecstatic trance of Tristan and Isolde; ready to obliterate the entire social reality in their immersion into the night of deadly enjoyment.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."
This is the Marx that is usually attacked. One should not dismiss the talk of the ‘unconscious tool of history’. Marx is not a naive teleologist claiming the brutal exploitation of India by the British was a tool of some higher historical reason which made it an instrument of future progress and so on, and so on. All Marx claims is that the British colonization of India unintentionally created conditions for the double liberation of India: from the constraints of its own tradition as well as from colonization itself. There is even empirical proof of this. The British colonizers were intelligent enough that they knew that if they allowed their colonization to simply dissolve the traditional, ideological, social, Indian edifice, castes and so on, this would create revolutionary upheavals in India. It is interesting to notice that from the very beginning of their rule, in contrast to what anti-colonial critics claim that British colonizers wanted them to lose their conditions and impose western standards, they put hard work into re-establishing some kind of resuscitating old, stable, value, ideological and religious system, which would keep India a stable, inert society ready to be exploited.
"As to universal love, I would say that for me, an authentic communist perspective, would not be love for humanity. Here I admire Marx, when he was writing the Communist Manifesto with Engels, and they were debating what should be their slogan with their fellows. And some of them proposed things like "all men are brothers", "love of mankind", and Marx just acidly answered: no thanks, there are quite many people whom I don’t want to be my brothers, quite many people I don’t want to love. I think that there is always something wrong in proclaiming directly, universal love in this simple all-encompassing sense, because I think that this type of love is always founded on an exception. "I love you all", always, when you scratch deep enough, means something "I love you all and I love you all so much that I am ready to kill all those who destroy/undermine your universal welfare".
I think that authentic love is always; the majority of people are stupid idiots and ignorant, but maybe I love you and you and you and just you. I much more believe in this particular exclusive love. Now you will say, what about Agape? This is for me strictly love as a category of struggle. It’s not love in the sense of I love you all. It’s in the sense of let’s establish solidarity. The only universality that I admit today is the universality of struggle. The only universality is that [everywhere] we [all] have our problems and there is a common front of each of us fighting in our country against a [common] enemy. That is love as a category of struggle.”