/lit/ - Literature

>>9626251
>rise the Marxism out of your system
Good point. You're right and I should qualify this.

D&G were influenced by Marxism but to my mind the portrait of capital they present (and the goals of schizoanalysis) transform Freudo-Marxism by internalization. Which is why both Badiou and Zizek admire Deleuze, dislike Guattari and seem to lament the influence Guattari had on C&S.

So yes, they were Marxists, it's true. But they're also (now) patron saints of acceleration, which is now drifting towards something that could be called Right Marxism (or futurism), and as such isn't really the left-Marxism of old.

If people schizo-accelerate/whatever *into* it, then...that's what I mean. Marxism as it was practiced before them (or "through" them) was of a qualitatively different kind than before.

>We have not at all minimized the importance of preconscious investments of class or interest, which are based in the infrastructure itself. But we attach all the more importance to them as they are the index in the infrastructure of a libidinal investment of another nature, and that can coincide as well as clash with them. Which is merely a way to pose the question, "How can the revolution be betrayed?" -once it has been said that betrayals don't wait their turn, but are there from the very start (the maintenance of paranoiac unconscious investments in revolutionary groups). And if we put forward desire as a revolutionary agency, it is because we believe that capitalist society can endure many manifestations of interest, but not one manifestation of desire, which would be enough to make its fundamental structures explode, even at the kindergarten level.

>No political program will be elaborated within the framework of schizoanalysis. Finally, schizoanalysis is something that does not claim to be speaking for anything or anyone...we are still too competent; we would like to speak in the name of an absolute incompetence...

>so what is the relationship between schizoanalysis and politics on the one hand, and between schizoanalysis and psychoanalysis on the other? Everything revolves around desiring-machines and the production of desire. Schizoanalysis as such does not raise the problem of the nature of the socius to come out of the revolution; it does not claim to be identical with the revolution itself.

>For the new earth ("In truth, the earth will one day become a place of healing'') is not to be found in the neurotic or perverse reterritorializations that arrest the process or assign it goals; it is no more behind than ahead, it coincides with the completion of the process of desiring-production, this process that is always and already complete as it proceeds, and as long as it proceeds.

If you would, talk about DeLanda's critique tho, that will probably be more helpful. Basically I should have just said they weren't Freudo-Marxists.
>which is obviously perfectly fucking obvious to everyone

Also posting industrial scapes b/c why not.

Are there any anti-environmentalist philosophers?