Towards a new land: to dismantle and to reconstruct the mechanism
It follows that the greatest mistake for a revolutionary is to think that revolution will coincide with himself, with his own name in History. Indeed, those who make revolution fail are individuals that attribute ends to it, that perform sudden stops or that allow it to continue in a vacuum – “betrayals don’t wait their turn, but are there from the very start” (AE, 379). Conversely, the lucid revolutionaries, who notice the presence of groups which overtake the goals chosen by their closed set, with that level of awareness have either to prevent the formation of negative sovereignties – by creating a sort of new revolutionary anthropology – subtracting from developing sovereign nuclei the stability and the point of equilibrium through the creation of insurgent obliquely un-centred communities. This is the sense of the “overturned sovereignty” claimed by Deleuze and Guattari. Drift/bifurcation or subtraction/imbalance, these are the two “insurrectional” tasks that have to be prepared for revolution, rather than opposing and resisting to the point of equilibrium of sedition, that is, a blind idea of return. Alternatively, if we conceive the “seditious” as an individual that stands outside his ego, we have to regard him as a hollow object, whose purpose is to connect himself to “revolutionary” processes pre-existent to his effort and his thought. As for other coeval behaviours, this connection could function as a positive, accelerating and non-inhibiting catalysation. The reaction and the subsequent fusion, though, do not induce the individual to remain unaltered in his stability, but instead the accelerating catalytic process radically transforms it. The accelerating factor of the catalytic reaction, then, affects both fields: the collective revolutionary process and the individual de-subjecting process – in this regard, Foucault remarks that “one has to dispense with the constituent subject, to get rid of the subject itself” (PK, 117). If desire lives because it does not have an aim, returning to Deleuze and Guattari, it generates effects of acceleration of the revolutionary process in a materialistic sense and not in an ideological one, where ‘ideology’ means the political process driven by party officials who are revolution professionals. There cannot be “creation” if we repeat the same ideological rituals of previous revolutions, of which we still preserve the idle forms lacking any propulsive dynamism. We ought to prevent the serialization of insurrection and its “mono and macro” form. Indeed, as Klossowski writes, “if the meaning of all eminent creation is to break the gregarious habits that always direct existing beings toward ends that are useful exclusively to the oppressive regime of mediocrity - then in the experimental domain to create is to do violence to what exists, and thus to the integrity of beings. Every creation of a new type must provoke a state of insecurity: creation ceases to be a game at the margins of reality; henceforth, the creator will not re-produce, but will itself produce the real” (NVC, 129). Deleuze and Guattari hold a similar stance – “we are claiming the famous rights to laziness, to non-productivity, to dream and fantasy production, once again we are quite pleased, since we haven't stopped saying the opposite, and that desiring-production produces the real” (AE, 380). Every production of reality is in fact a crack, a breach into the social body, but such fracture happens only “by means of a desire without aim or cause that charted it and sided with it. While the schiz is possible without the order of causes, it becomes real only by means of something of another order: Desire, the desert-desire, the revolutionary investment of desire. And that is indeed what undermines capitalism: where will the revolution come from, and in what form within the exploited masses? It is like death—where, when? It will be a decoded flow, a de-territorialized flow that runs too far and cuts too sharply, thereby escaping from the axiomatic of capitalism” (AE, 378). Not only this production of Reality in the desert of the sub-reality of monetary circuiting undermines capitalism, but it also nullifies, as a primary target, the theory of state or any theory of institutions deriving from revolutionary struggles, because schizo-analysis – as the thought of Nietzsche, Klossowski and Foucault – does not rigorously offer “any political programme”, not for a group, nor for a party, nor for masses, because this would be all unfair and irrational. (AE 437) The authors of the Anti-Œdipus, as well as the sappers of the Rhizosphere are all aware of the negative, violent and brutal task of schizo-analysis – as they are aware of the genealogy, of the archive, of the philosophy of the future and of the Vicious Circle: “de-familiarizing, de-œdipalizing, de-castrating; undoing theater, dream, and fantasy; decoding, de-territorializing – a terrible curettage, a malevolent activity” (AE, 381). All this Destroy, Destroy primarily and essentially indicates to free from any obstacle the “process”, to accelerate the process, to accelerate and to destroy, since the process to be accelerated is, as we have mentioned, “the process of desiring-production, following its molecular lines of escape” (AE, 381). And we can overlook if someone more or less recently has confused the “molecular escape” with the “molar production”, or if he has interpreted going “even further away in market movements” as following in a conformist way the commercial strategy of disarticulation of existing entities since the process is unique in nature, or if someone has believed that we ought to accelerate the rush of turbo-capitalism so that it would crash at the first bifurcation, or – even worse – if someone exchanged the desire for goods consumption and for self-repression, with the impulsive desire of production of Reality, aimed at modifying what exists and at liberating the differences. Let us say it here, once and for all: the capitalist process of decoding produces infinite abstract quantities – money and its pair of repetitive and spectral syntheses, credit and debit, driven and controlled by the systemic Axiomatics of immanence; the schizophrenic process of decoding produces, instead, particles of power that are non-evident, radiating and immeasurable – desire, manipulated by impulses, that is, by desiring-machines. These are nothing but differences in regime, not in nature: indeed the two aspects of the process have contact but do not confuse one with the other. The schizo-nomad remains always at the boundary of capitalism: it represents its inherent tendency brought to fulfillment as well as its exterminating angel (AE, 35). However, desiring production – impulsive or concealed – and social production – monetarised and abstract – are the two differences that have been the object of study of the materialist psychiatry of Deleuze and Guattari. They represent the “way of life” or the “Reality” that we desire: Feasible Reality vs. Artificial Reality.
click here TO READ MORE
click here TO READ MORE
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento