Viva Las Concept
I want to approach these questions while continuing on in trying to explain why I think that Deleuze and Guattari’s strategy of resistance requires a saturation of the social field by concept creation.
I have to try, very briefly, to indicate Deleuze and Guattari’s understanding that the social field in which our resistance is to be enacted is almost entirely unlike the one in the nineteenth century in which Marx theorized resistance:
“In comparison to the capitalist State, the socialist States are children—but children who learned something from their father concerning the axiomatizing role of the State. But the socialist States have more trouble stopping unexpected flow leakage except by direct violence. What on the contrary can be called the co-opting power of capitalism can be explained by the fact that its axiomatic is not more flexible, but wider and more englobing. In such a system no one escapes participation in the activity of antiproduction that drives the entire productive system. ‘ But it is not only those who man and supply the military machine who are engaged in an anti-human enterprise. The same can be said in varying degrees of many millions of other workers who produce, and create wants for, goods and services which no one needs. And so interdependent are the various sectors and branches of the economy that nearly everyone is involved in one way or another in these anti-human activities: the farmer supplying food to troops fighting in Vietnam, the tool and die makers turning out the intricate machinery needed for a new automobile model, the manufacturers of paper and ink and TV sets whose products are used to control the minds of the people, and so on and so on.’( Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, page 344.) […] The definition of surplus value must be modified in terms of the machinic surplus value of constant capital, which distinguishes itself from the human surplus value of variable capital and from the nonmeasurable nature of this aggregate of surplus value of flux.”– Anti-Oedipus, pages 236,237.
This fantastic hallucinatory and horrifying admixture of production and anti-production leads Deleuze and Guattari to pose these questions:
“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 one 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 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.” Anti-Oedipus, pages 239-240.
I am pushing toward a direct linking of the ideas of concept creation and what it means to “ go still further, in the movement of the market, of decoding and deterritorialization” to accelerate these processes…