Obsolete Capitalism: Acceleration, Revolution and Money in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-OEdipus (Part 3)
by Obsolete Capitalism
Obsolete Capitalism: Acceleration, Revolution and Money in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-OEdipus (Part 2)
For an Erotica of the Revolution
Solution to the molecular questions 4 and 5
“We realized that we couldn’t just hook a Freudian engine up to the Marxist-Leninist train” (DI, 216).
The Freudian engine and the Marxist-Leninist train
Guattari’s jokes positions the authors of the Anti-OEdipus in between the Freudian theory of desire and Marxist political theory. Desire for Deleuze and Guattari cannot be simply the sum of Marxism and Freudism: “The relations of production and those of reproduction participate in the same pairing of productive forces and anti-productive structures. We wanted to move desire into the infrastructure, on the side of production, while we moved the family, the ego, and the individual on the side of anti-production. This is the only way to ensure that sexuality is not completely cut off from the economy.” (DI, 216-7) In response to the fourth molecular question on how a politico-philosophical reflection on the real can conjugate in a coherent design with both economic and revolutionary dimension, it is important to isolate a few concepts expressed in the accelerationist passage of the Civilized Capitalist Machine. What meaning do «economy», «value», «money» and «revolutionary subject» hold in Deleuze and Guattari? And in Nietzsche and Klossowski? To describe the discouragement of the human being in the process of normalisation in XIX century society, Nietzsche uses economical categories like «exploitation», «luxury», «management» to testify that his thoughts overstep both the traditional concept of liberal economy (Smith, Ricardo, Mill) and their political expression, which is to say the Marxist concept of economics. In his view, the economy leads to a levelling of man and demands a reaction in the form of a counter-movement “aimed to bring to light a stronger species, a higher type of overman”. (NVC, 160-1). In Circulus Vitiosus Klossowski analyses Nietzsche’s vision of excess, otherwise known as plus value: “What Nietzsche discerns in the actual state of affairs is that men of excess, those who create, now and from the outset, the meaning of the values of existence (a very paradoxical configuration for Nietzsche) form, so to speak, an occult hierarchy for which the supposed hierarchy of current labourers does all the work. They are precisely the real slaves, the ones who do the greatest labour.” (CV, 36) There is another important consequence resulting from the comparison between gregariousness and singularity in the economic movement of «incorrect Darwinian selection», that Klossowski argues and comments with the following words: “From this point of view, the singular case represents a forgetting of previous experiences, which are either assimilated to the gregarious impulses by being relegated to the unconscious, and thus reprimanded by the reigning censure; or on the contrary, are rejected as being unassimilable to the conditions required for the existence of both the species and the individual within the species. For Nietzsche, the singular case rediscovers, in an ‘anachronistic’ manner, an ancient way of existing - whose reawakening in itself presupposes that present conditions do not correspond to the impulsive state which is in some manner being affirmed through it. Depending on the strength of its intensity, however, this singular state, though anachronistic in relation to the institutional level of gregariousness, can bring about a de-actualization of that institution itself and denounce it in turn as anachronistic. That every reality as such comes to be de-actualized in relation to the singular case, that the resulting emotion seizes the subject’s behaviour and forces it into action - this is an adventure that can modify the course of events, following a circuit of chance that Nietzsche will make the dimension of his thought. To the extent that he isolates its periodicity in history, the plan for a conspiracy appears under the sign of the vicious Circle.” (NVC, 80) The comment is explosive: it implies an irreconcilable fracture between singularity on an institutional level. He is saying that the communities of non-assimilated human beings will form new institutions with new forms: non-institutions or post-institutions rather than reformed institutions. Nietzsche assumes that dark forces operate on human nature thanks to the theory of will to power and with the help of a selective doctrine: he calls it Eternal Return; Klossowski calls it the Vicious Circle. In this context, the same doctrine becomes a tool for conspiracy. Nietzsche’s anti-darwinian attitude is here very clear inasmuch the implications brought about by the selective doctrines or the instinctual impulses are antithetical to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Deleuze and Guattari are absorbed by the implications developed by Klossowski’s post-institutional gregarious scenario. The communities of singularities may use the liberation of impulse to make mortal what seems immortal: the gregarious society and its institutions. In the Anti-OEdipus the two philosophers state: “The revolutionary pole of group fantasy becomes visible, on the contrary, in the power to experience institutions themselves as mortal, to destroy them or change them according to the articulations of desire and the social field, by making the death instinct into a veritable institutional creativity. For that is precisely the criterion—at least the formal criterion— that distinguishes the revolutionary institution from the enormous inertia which the law communicates to institutions in an established order. As Nietzsche says; churches, armies, States—which of all these dogs wants to die?” (AO, 62-3).
The universal delirium and the parody
The issue about the relevance of revolutionary actions appeared in Cerisy-la-Salle conference in July of 1972 and gave Klossowski the opportunity to talk about “parody” in Nietzsche’s philosophy as previously highlighted in his Nietzsche, Polytheism and Parody (1957). Reading Nietzsche vs. Marx as a key to interpret the riots of the turbulent 1972 enables Klossowski to sustain that: “under the sign of the vicious circle, anti-Darwinian conspiracy entails the coming to autonomy of productions that are primarily pathological as the very condition of monumental upheaval in the relation between the social forces present.”(CV, 39) Nietzsche’s proposed insubordination therefore has dueling delirious outcomes: 1) if the thought of the eternal return is nothing other than a parody of a doctrine, even its result, the revolt of the strong of the future, will be a manifestation of some collective delirium, 2) in a nihilist historical moment occurring a hundred years after Nietzsche’s idea of plot, the blossoming of a delusion [délire] when confronted with reality, can become in any way efficacious, or, more generally, any deranged comportment might be said to constitute an efficient resistance in the face of a determined adverse force. (CV, 38) During the debate Klossowski asks Deleuze: the insubordination of the delusory ones can be read as an expression of a universal behaviour or is it simply linked to the capital? And again: does delirium transcend any historical time or is it strictly related to the schizophrenic behaviour generated by the capital? Is the appreciation of delirium generated only by the same subverting process reproducing itself? Klossowski’s questions suggest that the same valorisation of delirium outlines an empty subject which frees itself from its identity and constantly moves into a metamorphosis of singularities to reach a final acceptance of the doctrine of Eternal Return. Klossowksi also indicates the strategies and the new ways of fighting that we may infer from Nietzsche’s accelerationist fragments: “Nietzsche’s position draws us away, in any case, from all that which I have up to the present called “political action”; it requires the creation of a new comportment with regards to conflict and strategising. It seems to me more and more - and here I allude to Gilles Deleuze - that we move towards a kind of anti-psychiatric insurrection (...), that is to say, the discovery of a species of pleasure (...), on the part of psychiatrists or doctors in becoming the“object of investigation”- and moreover the pathological case will feel more and more comfortable if he lives, and imposes himself, by subverting the institutional investigations which brand him pathological.” (CV, 42) Derrida asks explanations about the aforementioned declaration and the discussion becomes very interesting to sketch the Nietzschean Rhizosphere with Klossowski, Deleuze, Lyotard on one side and a very concrete and alert Derrida on the other:
Derrida: “You suggested that parody could become political, and that it was, ultimately, subversive….” Klossowski: “To the extent that «politics» is taken to entail «strategy» or «comportment»”.
Derrida: “But how, in any case, does parody operate? Should one distinguish between two kinds of parody: between the one, which, on the pretext of being subversive, takes the risk of establishing a political order (which very much likes a certain type of parody and finds its own confirmation there) and, on the other hand, a parody which can really deconstruct the political order? Is there a form of parody which actually marks the body politic, in contrast to a parody which would be a parody of a parody, which would play upon the surface of the political order, playfully teasing, rather than destroying it?”
Klossowski: “I think that «in the long run» nothing can resist such a parody.”
Derrida: “But someone who wants to transform the political order - can he really trust in the long run?” Klossowski: “The time that is needed is a function of exercised pressure, and pressure depends, as a consequence, upon contagion.
Lyotard: “For Nietzsche the «parody of a parody» consists in a kind of «ressentiment» against power, it goes no further, it is a condition of mediocrity or weakness in intensity. To differentiate it from the other kind, I think the fundamental criterion is that of intensity. However, it is impossible to determine beforehand what the effectiveness of a parody will be, that’s why Nietzsche says it is necessary to be experimenters and artists, not people who have a plan and try to realise it - that’s old politics. Nietzsche says it’s necessary to try things out and discover which intensities produce which effects.” (CV, 43)
Here are two different revolutionary positions: Derrida’s more traditionalist inclination towards socialism and the more heterodox interpretation outlined by Nietzschean Rhizosphere members who support a free-from-ideologies and non-top-down insurrectional action, conceiving revolution as headless, that expresses itself through aimless emissions of energy. Klossowski reminds us in Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle that “Nietzsche sought from the experience of the return of all things - namely, to lead intention back to intensity” (NVC,112). The theme of intensity is the real challenge, Deleuze and Guattari write: “And then, above all, we are not looking for a way out when we say that schizoanalysis as such has strictly no political program to propose. If it did have one, it would be grotesque and disquieting at the same time. It does not take itself for a party or even a group, and does not claim to be speaking for the masses. No political program will be elaborated within the framework of schizoanalysis. (AO, 380) They mean that the next revolutionary ones may have to face up the effort to occupy and consequently free the Anti-OEdipus «space» so that its mechanic and energy may be of help for the future fights. Chlebnikov docet.
Simulacrum, copy and model
Another example of Nietzschean double-parody that rises from Deleuze’s words in a discussion in Cerisy-la-Salle, is about the popular justice. At the time the positions on this issue were very emphasized: Sartre and the Maoist representatives of the Gauche Prolétarienne were in favour of revolutionary courts, Deleuze and Foucault’s GIP plus the Nietzschean Rhizosphere members were against any USSR/Chinese-style countervailing-power. “(...) I think of the question posed by Derrida on the kinds of parody. In some ways it evokes the two currents which emerge in recent debates on what might be called “popular justice”. One group says, roughly: the goal of popular justice is to make “good” what bourgeois makes “evil”, consequently, they institute a parallel court, then try the same case; it is a type of parody that defines itself as a copy of an existent institution, with jurors, accusers, lawyers, witnesses, but that considers itself better and more fair, more rigorous that the model. But another group might pose the problem in a very different way, saying that a popular justice, if there were one, would not proceed according to the formalism of courts because it would not merely be a copy which claims superiority to that which models it - it would be a parody of another type which would pretend, at once, to overthrow the copy and the model. (...) It seems to me that this is exactly the criterion of effective parody in the sense that Nietzsche understands it.” (CV 43,44) ) As we can notice the resolution of the Nietzschean Rhizosphere members is to be «part» of the revolutionary moment adopting an «open mode», offering a dialogue but also they criticize monolithic mainstream thought, if necessary. One of the central goal of the French Nietzschean Rhizosphere in the ‘70s was to avoid the violent outcome that partially occurred in those years. The big crisis of the Maoist Gauche Prolétarienne will see its dissolution in 1973, for reasons mainly due to its internal maoist organization, but we like to think that a positive and anti-terrorist push may have arrived from the philosophical community lead by Deleuze and Foucault through the benefic role of Anti-OEdipus and in particular of the crucial accelerationist passage of The Civilized Capitalist Machine.
Drives and affects in favour of an insurrectionary erotica
At the end of the ‘60s the figures of Freud and Marx represented in France a conformist position that the two authors of the Anti-OEdipus tried to overcome. Through Klossowski’s comment of the fragment nr. 10  Deleuze and Guattari show that the gregarious drives are so deeply introjected, - because of the various waves of regularization - to become unconscious, leaving no space to any trace of resistance or diversity. In case this trace reveals itself, society - namely the human beings, the species - will refuse it, but given the chance to affirm itself, a new awakening, a «yes to life» will display. Thus - Klossowski continues - it is the drive state that enables the individual to rediscover an anachronistic primordial condition of existence and the emotion produced by the dis-alignment of two contrasting realities - the differentiated reality of the single and the gregarious dimension of the larger group - influences the conduct and promotes diverted actions. Deleuze and Guattari introduce here the Freudian concept of «Oedipal group fantasy» and echo it in the social body quoting a passage from Klossowski’s Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle: “In this respect Klossowski has convincingly shown the inverse relationship that pulls the fantasy in two directions, as the economic law establishes perversion in the “psychic exchanges,” - called drives by Nietzsche and Klossowski - or as the psychic exchanges on the contrary promote a subversion of the law: “Anachronistic, relative to the institutional level of gregariousness, the singular state can, according to its more or less forceful intensity, bring about a de-actualization of the institution itself and denounce it in turn as anachronistic.” (AO, 63) Let us apply such divarication to the accelerationist fragment in Anti-OEdipus and see the two possible directions, as the capitalism of the fluxes distorts the wage earner and grabs the capitalist through money in a constant exchange where “profit will flow alongside wages, side by side, reflux and afflux”, or as the drive state of the revolutionary singularities will subvert the codes of a controlled and money-directed society, operating in a universal affects-driven economy, as Deleuze and Guattari testify with the following words “In a certain sense capitalist economists are not mistaken when they present the economy as being perpetually “in need of monetarization,” as if it were always necessary to inject money into the economy from the outside according to a supply and a demand. In this manner the system indeed holds together and functions, and perpetually fulfills its own immanence. In this manner it is indeed the global object of an investment of desire. The wage earner’s desire, the capitalist’s desire, everything moves to the rhythm of one and the same desire”. (AO, 239)
The nomadic unity and the Guattarian schizophrenic man
The last molecular question inquires which hidden philosophical and political thought lies in the accelerationist passage of The Civilized Capitalist Machine. Let us analyze the historical and political background of those years in France. Deleuze and Guattari spoke about the political issue in the early 1970s on several occasions: “We also know that the problem for revolutionaries today is to unite within the purpose of the particular struggle without falling into the despotic and bureaucratic organization of the party or status apparatus. We seek a kind of war machine that will not re-create a status apparatus, a nomadic unit related to the outside that will not revive an internal despotic unity.” (NT, 149) These are Deleuze’s words at Cerisy-la-Salle, words that he will reaffirm in an interview with Vittorio Marchetti for the Italian philosophical magazine «Tempi Moderni»: “The problem is not determining which science will be the human science par a certain number of “machines” endowed with revolutionary potential are going to fit together. For example, the literary machine, the psychoanalytic machine, and political machines: either they will find a unifying point, as they have done so up to now, in a particular system of adaptation to capitalist regimes, or else they will find a shattering unity in a revolutionary utilization.” (DI, 236) Guattari is on the same level of analysis when he answers to Michel Antoine Burnier in an interview for the magazine «Actuel» published in 1973: “The most important thing is not authoritarian unification, but a kind of infinite swarming: desires in the neighborhood, the schools, factories, prisons, nursery schools, etc. It’s not about a make-over, or totalization, but hooking up on the same plane at its tipping point. As long as we stick to the alternative between the impotent spontaneity of anarchy and the hierarchical and bureaucratic encoding of a party-organization, there can be no liberation of desire.” (DI, 266)
He continues underlining the issue of «opponents» in the revolutionary organization: “It’s always the same old trick: a big ideological debate in the general assembly, and the questions of organization are reserved for special committees. These look secondary, having been determined by political options. Whereas, in fact, the real problems are precisely the problems of organization, never made explicit or rationalized, but recast after the fact in ideological terms. The real divisions emerge in organization: a particular way of treating desire and power, investments, group- Oedipuses, group-super-egos, phenomena of perversion... Only then are the political oppositions built up: an individual chooses one position over another, because in the scheme of the organization of power, he has already chosen and hates his opponent.” (DI, 264)
To overcome such political poverty Deleuze and Guattari firmly believe that only a brand new type of revolution can produce a brand new type of politics: “... revolutionary organization must be the organization of a war-machine and not of a State apparatus, the organization of an analyzer and not of an external synthesis” (DI, 269). Guattari insists: “And in our view, this corresponds to a certain position vis-a-vis desire, a profound way of envisioning the ego, the individual, and the family. This raises a simple dilemma: either we find some new type of structure to facilitate the fusion of collective desire and revolutionary organization; or we continue on the present course, heading from one repression to the next, toward a fascism that will make Hitler and Mussolini look like a joke.” (DI, 269). Fascism then becomes the main strategic enemy of the ethical-political option proposed by Deleuze and Guattari and it will be the basis on which the two philosophers will develop their theory of molar and molecular fascism in the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia, A Thousand Plateaus in the chapter entitled 1933 Micropolitics and Segmentarity. Foucault himself will highlight this important non-fascist feature in his Introduction to the American edition of Anti-OEdipus when he defines the book as an “introduction to a non fascist life because it tracks down all varieties of fascism, from the enormous ones that 71 surround and crush us to the petty ones that constitute the tyrannical bitterness of our everyday lives” (INFL, 13).
The Great Politics and the revolutionary
Another point we have to make is to identify the revolutionary type of the Anti-OEdipus. The physiognomy has been already outlined in two different forms in Anti-OEdipus. Guattari in an interview for the magazine «Neue Zeitung» in 1972 with regards to the identification among analyst, patient and activist says: “First of all no one has ever said that the analyst is the same as the schizophrenic man but that the analyst, as well as the activist or the writer or anybody else, is more or less engaged in a schizo process and there is always a difference between the schizo process and the schizophrenic man interned in an insane-asylum, as his schizo process is blocked or goes uselessly around in circles. We are not saying that the revolutionary need to identify with the madmen going uselessly round in circles, but that they need to push their actions into a schizo-way process.” According to Guattari the schizophrenic man does not coincide with the madman but becomes schizo when he clashes with an individual or collective «desiring process» which holds at its centre a «libidinal energy» able to drive him from an assessed subject to a new open code subject, passing through a metamorphosis and a process of both de-subjectivation and neo-subjectivation. In this transition we can identify parts of former subjectivity - the doctor, the worker, the white man, the human being - and some of the new one - the homosexual, the trans-gender, the foolish man, the analyst. It is therefore not possible to locate one single typical revolutionary man, but multiple individual and/or group connections in schizo-revolutionary processes. What revolution really requires, according to Guattari, is an experimental revolutionary process and not revolutionary subjects tailored by ideology. “Repeated mistakes and insignificant results are more necessary than a stupid passivity and claw back mechanisms.”
To deeply understand the concept of the revolutionary man as intended by Deleuze we need to look at Klossowski again and in particular to his speech at the Collége de Philosophie in Paris during a conference entitled Nietzsche, Polytheism and Parody in 1957. Klossowski was considered one of the central figures in French Nietzsche’s studies, especially after his masterful translation of Nietzsche’s The Gay Science in 1954. In this speech Klossowski underlines the figure of the «actor as interpreter of a celestial revelation» able to contrast the catechontic institutions with artistic antinomic «accelerated» creations: “But art has a very wide meaning, and in Nietzsche, this category includes institutions as much as works of free creation. For example -and here we can see immediately what is at issue-how does Nietzsche consider the Church? For him, the Church is constituted grosso modo by a cast of profound impostors: the priests. The Church is a masterpiece of spiritual domination, and it required that impossible plebian monk, Luther, to dream of ruining that masterpiece, the last edifice of Roman civilization among us. The admiration Nietzsche always had for the Church and the papacy rests precisely upon the idea that truth is an error, and that art, as willed error, is higher than truth. This is why Zarathustra confesses his affinity with the priest, and why, in the Fourth Part, during that extraordinary gathering of the different kinds of higher men in Zarathustra’s cave, the Pope -the Last Pope-is one of the prophet’s guests of honor. This betrays, I think, Nietzsche’s temptation to foresee a ruling class of great meta-psychologists who would take charge of the destinies of future humanity, since they would know perfectly both the different aspirations and the different resources capable of satisfying them.” (NPP; 106, 107) What he is saying is that Nietzsche at the end of the 80’s of the XIX century had already understood that the Great Politics needed an entertainment sphere where institutions, dominating castes, gregarious masses could express a certain will to power Deleuze admires Klossowski and his Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle (as he will write in a letter sent to him on December 19th, 1969) and will retrieve the concept of acceleration of processes of a community of irregulars who confound all codes, thus entwining Klossowski and Nietzsche’s theory of conspiracy with the political riots of the 70’s in France. Their alliance is clearly detected in the talks at the famous meeting of Cerisy-la-Salle in July 1972 where Klossowski defines the fragment entitled The Strong of the Future - 9  - as the «heart of conspiracy». After he has finished reading the fragment he poses a question wondering what Nietzschean comportment we would adopt in relation to the current upheavals - namely youth poverty, revolutionary riots, clashes between the adverse forces - “no longer from the point of view of power, or potency, but from the perspective of the vicious circle, which is a manifestation of the nihilist judgment passed upon all acting.” (CV, 38)
Klossowski, choosing the comportment of the nihilist judgment, reaffirms Nietzsche’s parodistic behaviour on the economic planetary planning scenario and again he reminds an attentive audience - Deleuze, Lyotard, Derrida, Calasso and Nancy - the thought of eternal return: “As I have insisted, this thought, as the theme of Nietzsche’s highest contemplation, becomes the instrument of a conspiracy. It is from this stage that the god of the vicious circle can truly be considered the blossoming of a delusion. The question that I now pose is whether delusory or deranged behaviour, in this sense, when confronted with reality, can become in any way efficacious, or if, more generally, any deranged comportment might be said to constitute an efficient resistance in the face of a determined adverse force.” (CV, 38)) According to Klossowski, Nietzsche moves from the position of the biological contemplative observer of the law of the Eternal Return to the one of the strong political watcher, thus building - employing Deleuze and Guattari terminology - a real war machine so to be able to transform the Eternal Return into a conspiracy which should subvert the current domination of the levelled industrialized man. But why should such conspiracy be delirious? For at least two reasons: the first one because the double parody of the current social model and of its simulacrum subverts all codes, as a consequence of the nihilist judgment passed upon all acting. The second reason is linked to Deleuze and Guattari’s interpretation of the post-68 revolutionary riots: “Delirium is the general matrix of every unconscious social investment. Every unconscious investment mobilizes a delirious interplay of disinvestments, of counterinvestments, of overinvestments”. (AO, 277) Similarly Klossowski's delirium - the radical departing from the established path - coincides with the delirious polarity in Anti-OEdipus: if every social investment is delirious, the same will be for a no longer secret conspiracy plotted by idle urban dissidents whose aim justifies and realizes itself through the same means of manifestation. The question at this stage is about fulfillment: can the schizo-delirious approach be incisive both in the revolutionary riots of the ‘70s and on any other future moment to come, as the law of the Vicious Circle seems to suggest? In Klossowski words the question is: does the schizo delirious process simply represent the current version of the Vicious Circle or are we in front of a general peremptory coherent identity between Process, Circle and Return?
Second portrait of the revolutionary: the Deleuzian rhizomatic nomad
Following the words of Anti-Oedipus we portray a quite canonical image of the schizo-delirious revolutionary man: “... a schizo-revolutionary type or pole that follows the lines of escape of desire; breaches the wall and causes flows to move; assembles its machines and its groups-in-fusion in the enclaves or at the periphery—proceeding in an inverse fashion from that of the other pole: I am not your kind, I belong eternally to the inferior race, I am a beast, a black.” (AO, 277) But in other writings Deleuze’s position is less reassuring: “Militant revolutionaries cannot be concerned with delinquency, deviance, and madness — not as educators or reformers, but as those who can read the face of their proper difference only in such mirrors.” (DI, 201) The subversive is then a prismatic simulacrum who collects various points of view: the criminal’s or the diverse and fool man’s and is forced to elaborate the different aspects in which he mirrors his diversity: himself, his marginality, the phantasmal world he belongs to and the rest of the social body, reaching a deformed singularity which self-affirms differently from what the false counter-identity of a presumed antagonistic vocation would do, once compared to «respectable people». Differently from Nietzsche the rhizomatic is not nihilist, he appreciates the revolution as an accelerated event of transvaluation of all values, and provided that he accepts the register of Nietzsche’s corrosive parody, he will revolve it in positive looking for «new ways». This new rhizomatic politics is very different from the more traditional one of the communist and socialist movements in the XIX and XX century. To evaluate such difference let us read the conspiracy notion as interpreted by Klossowski and Deleuze: “There is a topic which Klossowski addressed, I believe, at the same time that he was addressing the loss of identity, namely, the topic of singularity, by which he means the “non-identical”. A conspiracy, if one understands Klossowski’s thinking, is a community of singularities. The question, then, configured in term of the political (understood either in its contemporary or ancient sense) is this: how are we to conceive of a community of singularities?” (CV, 46). Here, for the first time in history, one could locate a new way of being revolutionary, a strategy of ways, of non-identities: an overturning of the basic concepts of revolution as an expression of organization of a social group, in favour of a heuristic insurrectional. A revolution which does not recognize useful any of the previous revolutionary models, and whose final aim is not gaining power. As Deleuze said, “the so-called society is a community of regularities or more precisely, a certain selective process which retains select singularities and regularises them. In order to maintain the proper functioning of society it selects for regularisation, to use the language of psychoanalysis, what might be called paranoiac singularities. But a conspiracy - this would be a community of singularities of another type, which would not be regularised, but which would enter into new connections, and in this sense, would be revolutionary.” (CV 46, 47) Here lies the real “heart” of the fragment The Strong of the Future and of Deleuze’s Nomad Thought. With the eyes of the book Anti-OEdipus the great process of regularization is the same great process of the Western oikonomia which allows the rational functioning of a highly numbered community of market-subjugated singularities: “... the human species… articulates itself, through production, in order to maintain itself at the level of humanity, [and] can only do so through the absurdity of a total reduction of its moral resources achieved through work itself.” (CV,37) What remains open is the way singularities can be linked among them, we mean «connections» and not «institutions». The selective criterion of the Eternal Return - if the perspective is the extreme bifurcation of discrete productions of non-identities from macro-repetitions of homogenous identities - is possible only on the basis of a double selection of human types: the essential - seen as «mass-value» in relation to the mercantile society, and the surplus - seen as «waste-value», an impersonal and singularized-plusvalue apt to form societies and groups (CV, 47). According to Deleuze the «surplus men» “are motionless, and the nomadic adventure begins when they seek to stay in the same place by escaping the codes.” (DI, 259) The nomad is defined by Deleuze as a mobile centre of resistance, an enchanted traveller with inconceivable horizons, a motionless traveller on collective bodies. The last big problem to face now is the following: both gregarious and unassimilated ones live and fight in a demoralizing unjust macro-scenario. How is it possible to weave the net of light self-organized bounds in the existing massive-unifying social structure? Will such a net be able to support the various connections among diversities in future times?
to be continued...
Speculating Freedom: Addiction, Control and Rescriptive Subjectivity in the Work of William S. Burroughs
Jose Rosales - ON THE END OF HISTORY & THE DEATH OF DESIRE (NOTES ON TIME AND NEGATIVITY IN BATAILLE’S ‘LETTRE Á X.’)
Jose Rosales - BERGSONIAN SCIENCE-FICTION: KODWO ESHUN, GILLES DELEUZE, & THINKING THE REALITY OF TIME
Obsolete Capitalism - THE STRONG OF THE FUTURE. NIETZSCHE’S ACCELERATIONIST FRAGMENT IN DELEUZE AND GUATTARI’S ANTI-OEDIPUS
Obsolete Capitalism - Acceleration, Revolution and Money in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-OEdipus (Part 1)
Obsolete Capitalism - Acceleration, Revolution and Money in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-OEdipus (Part 2)
Obsolete Capitalism: Acceleration, Revolution and Money in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-OEdipus (Part 3)
Obsolete Capitalism - Acceleration, Revolution and Money in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-OEdipus (Part 4)
Obsolete Capitalism: Acceleration, Revolution and Money in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-OEdipus (Part 5)
Steven Craig Hickman - David Roden and the Posthuman Dilemma: Anti-Essentialism and the Question of Humanity
Steven Craig Hickman - The Carnival of Globalisation: Hyperstition, Surveillance, and the Empire of Reason
Steven Craig Hickman - Shaviro On The Neoliberal Strategy: Transgression and Accelerationist Aesthetics
Steven Craig Hickman - Hyperstition: Technorevisionism – Influencing, Modifying and Updating Reality
Terence Blake - CONCEPTS OUT OF THE SHADOWS: Notes on Deleuze and Guattari’s “What is Philosophy?” (2)
Terence Blake - GUATTARI’S LINES OF FLIGHT (2): transversal vs transferential approaches to the reading contract
Himanshu Damle - Games and Virtual Environments: Playing in the Dark. Could These be Havens for Criminal Networks?
Himanshu Damle - Hegelian Marxism of Lukács: Philosophy as Systematization of Ideology and Politics as Manipulation of Ideology.
Nick Land - The unconscious is not an aspirational unity but an operative swarm, a population of 'preindividual and prepersonal singularities'