/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13567858]

how is deleuze an accelerationist if acceleration of capital is a dialectical negation of difference when difference is deleuze's highest good?

[Anonymous No.13567896]

>So what is the solution? Which is the revolutionary path? Psychoanalysis is of little help, entertaining as it does the most intimate of relations with money, and recording—while refusing to recognize it—an entire system of economic-monetary dependences at the heart of the desire of every subject it treats. Psychoanalysis constitutes for its part a gigantic enterprise of absorption of surplus value. But which is the revolutionary path? Is there one?—To withdraw from the world market, as Samir Amin advises Third World countries to do, in a curious revival of the fascist "economic solution"? Or might it be to go in the opposite direction? To go still further, that is, in the movement of the market, of decoding and deterritorialization? For perhaps the flows are not yet deterritorialized enough, not decoded enough, from the viewpoint of a theory and a practice of a highly schizophrenic character. Not to withdraw from the process, but to go further, to "accelerate the process," as Nietzsche put it: in this matter, the truth is that we haven't seen anything yet.
From Anti-Oedipus

[Anonymous No.13567900]

because people who read him that way read the capacity for difference-production as a process of breaking down the ossified same (i.e. deracination), and they read it as progressive

it's like the dialectic of enlightenment, it eventually stops being particular deracinations or destructions of particular "traditional" bodies/institutions/ways of thought and becomes a process of deracination in general, that can be applied to anything, including recursively to itself to shear away any cruft that might still hold it back, until nothing is left except deracination deracinating itself

at the end of the day it's just taking the frankfurt reading of hegel, which is also weber's and heidegger's (et al.) reading of hegel, and juxtaposing it in your mind's eye to a recursively self-modifying algorithm and going "Whoooaa it's like reason is an AI dude, guess I'm a Hegelian for a NEW AGE!" it's all about the appeal of that initial sophomoric allegory, plus postmodern suburban cynicism has a trope of embracing the evil spooky machine instead of hopelessly resisting it

[Anonymous No.13568515]

Bump

[Anonymous No.13568542]

>>13567896
what did he mean by recording?

[Anonymous No.13569826]

>>13567900
>that way
what way?

[Anonymous No.13569911]

>>13568542
>If we wish to have some idea of the forces that the body without organs exerts later on in the uninterrupted process, we must first establish a parallel between desiring-production and social production. We intend such a parallel to be regarded as merely phenomenological: we are here drawing no conclusions whatsoever as to the nature and the relationship of the two productions, nor does the parallel we are about to establish provide any sort of a priori answer to the question whether desiring-production and social production are really two separate and distinct productions. Its one purpose is to point out the fact that the forms of social production, like those of desiring-production, involve an unengendered nonproductive attitude, an element of antiproduction coupled with the process, a full body that functions as a socius. This socius may be the body of the earth, that of the tyrant, or capital. This is the body that Marx is referring to when he says that it is not the product of labor, but rather appears as its natural or divine presupposition. In fact, it does not restrict itself merely to opposing productive forces in and of themselves. It falls back on (il se rabat sur) * all production, constituting a surface over which the forces and agents of production are distributed, thereby appropriating for itself all surplus production and arrogating to itself both the whole and the parts of the process, which now seem to emanate from it as a quasi cause. Forces and agents come to represent a miraculous form of its own power: they appear to be "miraculated" (miracules) by it. In a word, the socius as a full body forms a surface where all production is recorded, whereupon the entire process appears to emanate from this recording surface. Society con-structs its own delirium by recording the process of production; but it is not a conscious delirium, or rather is a true consciousness of a false movement, a true perception of an apparent objective movement, a true perception of the movement that is produced on the recording surface.

[Anonymous No.13569918]

>>13567858
What were some of Delueze's predictions that came true?

[Anonymous No.13569927]

>>13569918
http://www.technoccult.net/2014/05/30/what-buzzfeed-learned-from-deleuze-and-guattari/

[Anonymous No.13569930]

>>13567858
He's not. Why would you think he's like that? The highjacking of his work isn't justifing calling it like that.

[Anonymous No.13569933]

>>13569930
see
>>13567896

[Anonymous No.13569969]

>>13569927
Fair.
I think it aptly defines the rise of the hipster, the soiboy, and the instagram thot.
When the next teleology here? The endgame of accelerated capital?
Some sort of full neo-feudalism where capital is in full ownership of identity/will?

[Anonymous No.13569992]

>>13569933
So it doesn't exactly relate to Deleuze, it's about Nietsche rather...

[Anonymous No.13570021]

>>13569992
It doesn't relate to Deleuze? Deleuze (or Guattari) wrote that, he quoted Nietzsche because he fucking loved Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.13570053]

>>13567900
>including recursively to itself to shear away any cruft that might still hold it back, until nothing is left except deracination deracinating itself

klages was right

[Anonymous No.13570054]

>>13570021
Guattari? Maybe. It does seem to me that Deleuze didn't want to address difference (it appeared a branded concept already), it would have been some kind a static, pseud-schizoid move towards validating reference work, making things all the more difficult to make a movement/image visible.

[Anonymous No.13570345]

>>13570054
Maybe? What do you mean maybe? Do you think Deleuze and Guattari were publishing other people's work under their name? Have you read the Capitalism and Schizophrenia series? (Have you read Difference and Repetition?)

[Anonymous No.13571218]

>>13570345
he means maybe guattari, or maybe he means maybe deleuze. i was about to get mad at your post for being retarded but now i think about it im not sure what he is saying either. only i know you are more wrong than i am.

[Anonymous No.13571364]

why did he appropriate schizophrenia while secretly hating the mentally ill?

[Anonymous No.13572667]

>>13567858
Deleuze would despise land and accelerationism, a fundametal misreading of his stuff

[Anonymous No.13572823]

>>13568542
its a term they use a lot in Anti Oedipus that basically means society inscribing values upon the individual

[Anonymous No.13572843]

>>13571218
>only i know you are more wrong than i am
cool story mysticanon
>>13572823
the individual records himself upon the socius, you have it backwards

[Anonymous No.13572845]

>>13572667
Deleuze encouraged the misreading of philosophers though, that was the whole point of the buggery analogy

[Anonymous No.13573448]

>>13571364
He didnt understand schizophrenia and didnt even want to understand it, he just wanted to shoehorn it into post-war French social criticism and blame capitalism for it.
Almost all these people are charlatans. Guattari is worse than Deleuze in this regard, being a total hypocrite when it comes to how he lived and what he politically claimed to believe in.

[Anonymous No.13573466]

>>13573448
>blame capitalism for it.
its like you didnt even read him

>Guattari is worse than Deleuze in this regard, being a total hypocrite when it comes to how he lived and what he politically claimed to believe in.
interested

[Anonymous No.13573493]

>>13573466
http://www.critical-theory.com/deleuze-guattari-biography/

>Demands a free love life but also sabotages otehr people's lovelife because love is capitalistic'.
>Has several kids whom he abandons because "fatherhood is fascistic", but also cries like a little bitch when his own mommy dies
>Very authoritarian personality even though he decries the most benign things as fascist
It's a good thing critical theory is dead, these people deserve to be cast into oblivion.

[Anonymous No.13573555]

>>13569927
That was really good. I'll have to give these pervy Frenchman a try.

[based and schizopilled/cringe (...) No.13573824]

>>13569918
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in