Marinade o' Conceptuale

The only thing that interests me in philosophy is concept creation.

Fortunately, everything in philosophy relates to the creation of concepts - I experience no constriction. In reading Deleuze, I make everything he says relate to his ideas of concept creation... I see those ideas as the way of reading all else. Deleuze's ontology of difference, his ontology of the " and," along with every other thematization of Deleuze's work that has been proposed are useful to me only because I see in them potential tools for making new concepts.

I want to back track a little bit through Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus to pick out some ideas which relate to the discussion we've begun about the nature of critique and which support some of the ideas I've previously explored regarding the way that concept creation offers some alternative to critique and may be a basis for a form of political resistance which has yet to be deployed within the workings of social assemblages, ( desiring machines.)

Please bear with me - this is going to take more than one post. I hope that my point of departure is not too idiosyncratic, ( or just plain idiotic.) We'll have to see.

Deleuze and Guattari claim that both capitalism and desiring-production operate through decoded and deterrritorialized flows, but if this is so, then why is capitalism not a desiring-production? Why has the enormous burst of energy and production and capability witnessed in capitalist production not also been a riotous and joyous outburst of human happiness?

"Once it is said that capitalism works on the basis of decoded flows as
such, how is it that it is infinitely further removed from desiring-production
than were the primitive or even the barbarian systems, which nonetheless code
and overcode the flows? Once it is said that desiring-production is itself
a decoded and deterritorialized production, how do we explain that capitalism,
with its axiomatic, its statistics, performs an infinitely vaster repression of
this production than do the preceding regimes, which nonetheless did not lack
the necessary repressive means?" Anti-Oedipus, page
335-336

Capitalist production not only does not work in concert with desire in the furtherance of desire, but extinguishes desire, submerges it, forgets its importance, and this extinguishment of desire has been true of revolutionaries, who for this reason among others do not truly offer an alternative to capitalist production.

" 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." Anti-Oedipus, page
344

What is called to attention here by Deleuze and Guattari is not only the submersion of desire, but also conceptual structures which make this submersion seem irrelevant or trivial. The postive task of their work comes to be the challenge of these conceptual structures which have served to ensnare even the most intrepid revolutionaries of the past:

" If Reich, at the very moment he raised the most profound of
questions--"Why did the masses desire fascism?" --was content to answer by
invoking the ideological, the subjective, the irrational, the negative, and the
inhibited, it was because he remained the prisoner of derived concepts that made
him fall short of the materialist psychiatry he dreamed of, that prevented him
from seeing how desire was part of the infrastructure, and that confined him in
the duality of the objective and subjective. ( Consequently, psychoanalysis was
consigned to the analysis of the subjective, as defined by ideology.)" Anti-Oedipus, pages 344-345