/lit/ - Literature

>>16061848
Your desire for so-called "consistency" is just reactionary internalized fascism acting through you. You haven't understood the radical approach.

>>16062057
>You haven't understood the radical approach
Then explain atleast a bit.

>>16061848
As far as I can tell they haven't unequivocally stated in this passage that either one of these stances is morally superior to the other, they're lining up an apparent problem which they're going to address

>Must we invoke in the one case a thirst for justice, a just ideological position, as well as a correct and just view; and in the other case a blindness, the result of an ideological deception or mystification?
>Revolutionaries often forget, or do not like to recognize, that one wants and makes revolution out of desire, not duty. Here as elsewhere, the concept of ideology is an execrable concept that hides the real problems, which are always of an organizational nature."
the wording of this passage suggests that this claim is thoroughly unsatisfying to the problem. They lay out

>How different is the socialist that preaches equality, justice and freedom to the reactionary that fights for his own self interests of "racial superiority" his own values and morals when they both are making social investments of desire as full bodies?

Here's the difference, they lay it out in chapter 2:
>We define the reactionary unconscious investment as the investment that conforms to the interest of the dominant class, but operates on its own account, according to the terms of desire, through the segregative use of the conjunctive syntheses from which Oedipus is derived: "I am of the superior race."
>The revolutionary unconscious investment is such that desire, still in its own mode, cuts across the interest of the dominated, exploited classes, and causes flows to move that are capable of breaking apart both the segregations and their Oedipal applications -- flows capable of hallucinating history, reanimating the races in delirium, of setting continents ablaze. "No, I am not of your kind, I am the outsider and the deterritorialized."
These are both forms of the investment of desire, on the one hand the reactionary investment which segregates the subject from some undifferentiated, inchoate mass in favor of a particular kind of being, and on the other the revolutionary investment which permits the subject identification with any kind of being (or all of them, or none of them, each in turn)

>>16062212
It's all very clear if you go back through the material.

>>16061848
>why do many of those who have or should have an objective revolutionary interest maintain a preconscious investment of a reactionary type?

Because they do NOT have a revolutionary interest, any sort of revolution would be against their best interests as they have lived and experienced their lives. Then academics come along and say that people are thinking "wrong" and that they need to be educated into thinking the way the academics do.

https://thebahiyablog.blogspot.com/2015/04/happiness-kicks-butt.html

>>16063671

>>16063531
>The revolutionary unconscious investment is such that desire, still in its own mode, cuts across the interest of the dominated, exploited classes, and causes flows to move that are capable of breaking apart both the segregations and their Oedipal applications -- flows capable of hallucinating history, reanimating the races in delirium, of setting continents ablaze. "No, I am not of your kind, I am the outsider and the deterritorialized."
The "revolutionary unconscious investment" sounds suspiciously like how US-aligned Color Revolutionary would spin themselves. Who's really aligned with the dominant power here?

>>16063785
spooks can adopt whatever rhetoric they think works, ultimately they're still conforming to the interests of the ULTIMATE dominant class

>>16063840
>>16063785
do you guys have anything going on here other than a vague feeling of smug correctness I can work with?

>>16063891
What do you mean? It appears to me that Deleuze's concept of revolutionary vs. reactionary unconscious investment and emphasis on free-flowing desire basically creates an undifferentiated subject no fixed identity that engages in lifestylist "revolutionism" without really achieving any concrete goal (that would be reactionary unconscious investment), i.e. American-influence Leftism.

>>16061848
well, for starters the reactionary is allowed to be 100% conscious of what he is doing and why he's doing it. that's why the global elite are absolutely and purely conscious that they're working in unison for their own self-interest as a class. it's the servile classes that need to fight through a minefield of false consciousness traps to reach a position that truly benefits them alone

>>16063785
it's actually the opposite, because your average woke left-liberal is morbidly obsessed with labeling and grievance-based rent-seeking. true deterritorialization would be something like "black muslim trans national socialists fighting for a christian neotraditionalist patchwork syndicalist state with maoist features"

>>16064225
>true deterritorialization would be something like "black muslim trans national socialists fighting for a christian neotraditionalist patchwork syndicalist state with maoist features"
So Twitter politics?

>>16064077
I think you're forgetting that these are two essentially impersonal forces that exist on two ends of an axis.
> there again it is a question of an intense potential for investment and counterinvestment in the unconscious. (...) The nomadic and polyvocal use of the conjunctive syntheses is in opposition to the segregative and biunivocal use. Delirium has something like two poles, racist and racial, paranoiac-segregative and schizonomadic. And between the two, ever so many subtle, uncertain shiftings where the unconscious itself oscillates between its reactionary charge and its revolutionary potential.

The paranoiac-segregative use of conjunction (or reactionary investment) is something like the phrase "I am this because I am not this, nor this, nor this, nor this...", schizonomadic us (or revolutionary investment) is more like "I am this I am this I am this ..."

Any given subject is given to any combination of these at any time -- either a revolutionary group achieving a concrete goal or a "lifestylist" who compulsively detaches from some identity or ideology once it's unfashionable and re-attaches to the next.

>>16063671
>"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" -- so asks the Last Man, and blinks.
>The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.
>"We have discovered happiness" -- say the Last Men, and they blink.

>>16064347
no, because twitter is totally focused on policing the boundaries between ever more baroque microcategories

>>16064774

>>16063531
>The revolutionary unconscious investment is such that desire, still in its own mode, cuts across the interest of the dominated, exploited classes, and causes flows to move that are capable of breaking apart both the segregations and their Oedipal applications -- flows capable of hallucinating history, reanimating the races in delirium, of setting continents ablaze. "No, I am not of your kind, I am the outsider and the deterritorialized."
From this defenition i still dont see how it would eventually stop someone from doing fascism and labelling it as revolutionary by deleuzean terms, judging by this all it would take was to make some nietzschean type arguments, breaking or deterretorializing any contemporary social codes agaisnt it using his jargon and you would have your pseudo white nationalism on the deleuzean side.

>>16064190
But how is it even clear that exists an objective "class interest" when people can desire everything and make investments on all sorts of social codes?
How could you say that a worker's revolution would be in favour of a class self interest when you clearly have working class people that desire to live humble or christian or buddhist type lifes? If we go down this pipe it would very quickly lead to the problems of representation that Deleuze also bashes on.
Honestly the more i think about this the more i see the question of "how could the people desire their own self repression" as incoherent and stupid to make on deleuzean terms. How can one not be victim of self repression when all that one can desire is social invesments on a full body?
How could this even be possible when you live in a world where you have all kinds of different crazy people that get arounsed by flag, nationalisms to religious castration to even masochistic dudes who enjoy getting their balls crushed for sexual release. Making this reactionary vs revolutionary binary seems dumb as you can fairly easily switch and twist these terms as they rely on concepts that are more often than not politically and philosophically empty.

>>16064774
>The paranoiac-segregative use of conjunction (or reactionary investment) is something like the phrase "I am this because I am not this, nor this, nor this, nor this...", schizonomadic us (or revolutionary investment) is more like "I am this I am this I am this ..."
To enumerate a list of "I am X's" also implies a collection of at least some "I am not-X's", I think.

>>16065758
>From this defenition i still dont see how it would eventually stop someone from doing fascism and labelling it as revolutionary by deleuzean terms, judging by this all it would take was to make some nietzschean type arguments, breaking or deterretorializing any contemporary social codes agaisnt it using his jargon and you would have your pseudo white nationalism on the deleuzean side.
For example, just re-interpret:
>The revolutionary unconscious investment is such that desire, still in its own mode, cuts across the interest of the dominated, exploited classes, and causes flows to move that are capable of breaking apart both the segregations and their Oedipal applications -- flows capable of hallucinating history, reanimating the races in delirium, of setting continents ablaze. "No, I am not of your kind, I am the outsider and the deterritorialized."

>Making this reactionary vs revolutionary binary seems dumb as you can fairly easily switch and twist these terms as they rely on concepts that are more often than not politically and philosophically empty.
Hitler is still living rent-free inside everyone's head in the West, especially in France where the question of Nazi collaboration was important it is necessary to issue customary denunciations of fascism.

>>16065758
>But how is it even clear that exists an objective "class interest" when people can desire everything and make investments on all sorts of social codes?

I think their point is that the status of desire is always ambivalent under capitalism. At one hand, capitalism is the socio-economic system that deteritiorializes desire, destroys all kinds of identities and superstitions in favor of new lines of production, on the other hand, it has to create (or recuperate, in some instances even revive) certain symbolic identities or escapist fantasies that sustain it (family, religion, state etc).

>How could you say that a worker's revolution would be in favour of a class self interest when you clearly have working class people that desire to live humble or christian or buddhist type lifes?
It would be in favor, because it would "explode" their molar identities, whose sole function is to subordinate them. Just because today's predominant investment is molar, it doesnt mean they have no revolutionary potential. They just substitute escapism for line of flights. For example, if proles stopped justifying their miserable lives by appeal to family values or religion and started mobilizing in work places, they would follow the lines of deteritorialization. But today there is no possibility for that, because revolutionary-theoretical apparatus is more interested in moralizing than in actual mobilization. Escapism is the last option when there are no other alternatives.

>>16066334
I like your points but for some reason i still dont fully believe it. I believe that the desire to break capitalism is a social invesment backed up by other desires and invesments aswell.
Why would a worker want to have better working hours, standards and power over his workplace if not for the invesment in other social circles, having free time and conditions to spend with friends, family, pursue other aspirations and interests he might have in arts and sciences etc. In a historical sense people formed unions in europe to defend these invesments from capital imo.
How can you be so sure that it is in their favor when you are potencially outright blowing up the very things they cared for, that gave their lifes more meaning? How can you say they are being oppressed if their desire and happiest state of life is living as slaves of capitalism in some perspective and under some social fetish?
Wouldnt the break of these molar identities not only castrate capitalism but even the desire to fight capitalism itself in the end?

bumo

>>16067078
I dont think proles have to give up spirituality, they just have to change how its used. Im phoneposting rn, so I cant quote marx, but he said that predominant function of religinion e.g. is to help people cope with shitty conditions of capitalism. On the other hand, he said that for authentic spirituality to exist, people have to be comfortable with their material conditions (wiki marx on religion for the quote about religion). Proles dont have to give up spirituality, its just that the function has to change from reactive-pacifying, to active.