/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21941232]

Is Deleuze's thought reconcilable with the right? Or is it just a waste of time to try and do that?

[Anonymous No.21941257]

>>21941232
>being this deleuzional

[Anonymous No.21941276]

Badiou makes the argument in "Deleuze: The Clamour of Being" that his thought is mischaracterized as a celebration of multiplicity when the real focus of his philosophy is Univocity or the One. Due to this, some believe that there is a sort of proto-fascism within Deleuze. So maybe that's a good place to start.

[Anonymous No.21941294]

why did he do it bros?

[Anonymous No.21941296]

>>21941232
That 'being a leftist has nothing to do with the state' isn't a right-wing libertarian account on leftism, but an ethical one. Leftism is 'Being against being-overdeterminative nature', and right-wing is grounded in Being. The Right is intrinsically deficient, reactionary and intelectually retarded. That the left is characterized by the word 'left' just mean that what is in the side of the 'right' is afraid of what the left is, that is essentially the reality of abstraction/movement/becoming.

There is nothing right-wing in Deleuze's thought; even if there are many excessively weary ---if not whatchfull--- passages in his work, that are closer to stoic apathy than right-wing brain-rot.

(If you believe Nick Land is also a right-winger, you are a nigger. Land's right-wingism is purely strategic because of his buthurt with lib-dem instrumental wokeism).

[Anonymous No.21941306]

>>21941296
I hate niggers.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.21941318]

Absolutely but you have to pick and choose his concepts and affirm things he explicitly denies, for example i believe and agree with his conception of the cancerous body without organs, except I believe that the state and techno-capital as a cancerous body is actually a Good thing, desirable.

When his thought is political, you just need to apply and affirm it in ways he wouldn’t necessarily, things like his conception of the primacy of difference or univocity are a-political and can be utilized in your right wing political model. Whether he likes it or not it’s pretty easy to absorb choice pieces out of deleuze into Hegel’s model for example.

[Anonymous No.21941374]

>>21941232
His thought could be used for basically anything. I like him more as a writer than a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.21941391]

>>21941232
that dude prolly a real lover of nice cocks and good balls

[Anonymous No.21941397]

>>21941374
There are few authors that engage with Deleuze's style (and one of the two guides to Difference & Repetition has an entire section about that). I think that is something that people who doesn't read philosophy should be aware when reading Deleuze, like >>21941318, so they don't get caught in the 'Deleuze was a right-winger because he was not a FCP militant; ergo, univocity and the primacy of difference are a-political'.

[Anonymous No.21941404]

>>21941397
Moreover, the 'Deleuze is anti-politics' is a myth propelled by pro-communist marxists grounded on Lukacs critique on Nietzsche, and can be summarized as: 'X author is a-political because he isn't amenable to marxian categories' - where "'marxian categories' = militant communist categories =/= marx's own philosophical categories"

[Anonymous No.21941449]

>>21941397
He didn't say he was right-wing, he said that you can interpret his work in a right wing manner.

[Anonymous No.21941635]

there is no reason to reconcile with the right, they are dishonest, their only point is to dishonestly maintain an order that favors them individually
just a waste of time

[Anonymous No.21941642]

>>21941232
It's a waste of time for the left as well.

[Anonymous No.21941857]

>>21941296
the very reason there is so much gatekeeping in academia is why the institution needs to be done away with

[Anonymous No.21941860]

>>21941635
good, we don't need you

[Anonymous No.21941891]

It obviously depends on what you mean by right-wing. I personally think trying to organise all political thought into two categories like this is complete brain-rot.

That being said there are Deleuzians on places like counter-currents which just basically take Deleuze up at his most Nietzschean which may appeal to you.

[Anonymous No.21941926]

>>21941232
The Deleuze-Guattari-Land filiation leads to apparent ring-wing conclusions, and similarly you could use the Nietzsche-Bataille-Deleuze connection, again through Land, to reach ring-wing viewpoints through the lens of dark enlightenment / neo-reactionary thought, with the help of Hoppe, Moldbug and the like. You could even sprinkle a zest of Zapffe and Cioran to ward off enthusiast naysayers.

Now is this a fruitless enterprise? Most likely, at least I'm pretty sure Deleuze himself would view your intentions as disingenuous. Ideological extrapolation of the authors I mentioned is practically impossible past a certain point lest you make some egregious leaps in logic and judgement. I would advise you to examine why exactly you wish to instrumentalize Deleuze for such pathetic means and confine yourself to the pitiful shackles of political ideology. Rise above.

[Anonymous No.21941948]

>>21941232
Deleuze was a pedophile, a pseud who killed himself
Hitler was a pedophile, a pseud who killed himself.

[Anonymous No.21941955]

>>21941948
Now that's some high-level projecting right there anon. Being a pedophile isn't the end of the world you know, you can get help for that. Just don't touch any kids alright?

[Anonymous No.21941957]

>>21941955
> Being a pedophile isn't the end of the world you know
I think law enforcement needs to confiscate your computer, and I'm willing to make a few calls

[Anonymous No.21941981]

>>21941948
>Deleuze was a pedophile, a pseud who killed himself
Based.
>Hitler was a pedophile, a pseud who killed himself
LIES SLANDER AND DEFAMATION

[Anonymous No.21942328]

>>21941232