domenica 27 dicembre 2015

E.2.6. Let’s drop all masks: Nietzsche galore! - P. IX - Excerpt from the essay «Money, Revolution and Acceleration in Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus», Obsolete Capitalism Free Press/Rizosphere, 2016

Let’s drop all masks: Nietzsche galore!

To answer the molecular questions 2 and 3 - respectively about a possible misquotation and the meaning of the phrase “we haven't seen anything yet- we need to explain the notion of flow and clarify the relationship between desire, libido and unconscious. With «flow» Deleuze and Guattari mean «process»: “This process is what we call a  flow.  But, again,  flow is an everyday, unqualified notion that we needed. It can be a flow of words, a flow of ideas, a flow of shit, a flow of money. It can be a financial mechanism or a schizophrenic machine: it surpasses all duality(DI, 218); as far as the relationship between desire, libido and unconscious is concerned Deleuze describes their origin as such: “Guattari early on had the intuition that the unconscious is directly related to a whole social field, both economic and political, rather than the mythical and familial grid traditionally deployed by psychoanalysis. It is indeed a question of libido as such, as the essence of desire and sexuality: but now it invests and disinvests flows of every kind as they trickle through the social field, and it effects cuts in these flows, stoppages, leaks, and retentions. To be sure, it does not operate in a manifest way, as do the objective interests of consciousness or the chains of historical causality. It deploys a latent desire coextensive with the social field, entailing ruptures in causality and the emergence of singularities, sticking points as well as leaks(DI, 193)
Deleuze consciously chooses to side with Nietzsche and uses him against Marx and Freud. According to Deleuze, capitalism is based on flows but what really matter is the organization of power which he defines as the unity of desire and the economic infrastructure (DI, 262, 263). Here lies the essential criticism to the orthodox marxism and its ideological pretensions to put the desire-phenomenon on the superstructure. The Party itself is criticized by the two philosophers who see it as the new organization for a repressive power (DI, 263) refusing its definition of avant- garde external mechanism of synthesis classified as such since Lenin times. (ID, 266). There is a double refusal of, on one hand, the traditional division between infrastructure and superstructure as theorized by Marx, where the economic structure expresses the relations of production; and on the other, of the Leninist theory of the Party seen as proletarian guide and «political class consciousness» which in other words is the refusal of an analytic machine external to the working class and the revolutionary processd. This could be the reason why it is exactly in the accelerationist passage that we meet the «conceptual persona» of Nietzsche; according to Deleuze and Guattari in fact Nietzsche may be seen as the master of the generalized disintegration of codes. Considering the triad Marx, Freud and Nietzsche as the contemporary western thought fathers, we can read a clear rejection of the first two in Deleuze and Guattari’s words: “... for our part, we prefer not to participate in any effort consistent with a Freudo-Marxist perspective. And this for two reasons. The first is that, in the end, a Freudo-Marxist effort proceeds in general from a return to origins, or more specifically to the sacred texts: the sacred texts of Freud, the sacred texts of Marx. Our point of departure must be completely different: we refer not to sacred texts that must be, to a greater or lesser extent, interpreted, but to the situation as is, the situation of the bureaucratic apparatus in psychoanalysis, which is an effort to subvert these apparatuses.(...) Secondly, what separates us from any Freudo-Marxist effort is that such projects seek primarily to reconcile two economies: political economy and libidinal or desiring economy. (...) Our point of view is on the contrary that there is but one economy and that the problem of a real anti-psychoanalytical analysis [a synonym of schizoanalysis that Deleuze and Guattari started using after the Anti- Œdipus] is to show how unconscious desire invests the forms of this economy. It is economy itself that is political economy and desiring economy.(ID, 275) After a few months from the release of the volume Anti-Œdipus, at the conference in Cerisy-la-Salle (July 1972), entitled «Nietzsche aujourd’hui?» in his speech Nomadic Thought Deleuze asserts that faced with the way in which our societies come uncoded, codes leaking away on every side, Nietzsche does not try to perform a re-coding.” (ID, 253) and clearly explains his siding with Nietzsche: “(...) if one examines not the letter of Marx or Freud, but the becoming of Marxism and the becoming of Freudianism, we see, paradoxically, Marxists and Freudians engaged in an attempt to recode Marx and Freud: in the case of Marxism, you have a re-coding by the State ("the State has made you ill, the State will cure you" — this cannot be the same State); and in the case of Freudianism, you have a re-coding by the family (you fall ill from the family and recover through the family — this is not the same family). What at the horizon of our culture in fact constitutes Marxism and psychoanalysis as those two fundamental bureaucracies, the one public, the other private, is their effort to recode as best they can precisely that which on the horizon ceaselessly tends to come uncoded. This is not at all what Nietzsche is about. His problem is elsewhere. For Nietzsche, it is about getting something through in every past, present, and future code, something which does not and will not let itself be re- coded.(ID, 252). This «something» that is about getting something but will not let itself be re-coded is the expression of the unconscious produced by the primary pulsion of the individual. 


Nessun commento:

Posta un commento