i'm a little drunk so i hope this all makes sense...
> Does this imply some sort of
> 'lack'...or loss...well, I don't see that it has to, I don't see how a
> blockage is, unless valued as a lack, necassarily in any way a lack. That
> may well be why if the 'blockage' is seen as ok, ('fine'), then what is
> in AO can be taken back. It is not about arguing whether a revolution is
> necassary but of thinking thriough what that revolution might entail _iff_
> you already think if is necassary.
> in that sense I think the question of whether D&G show the necessity for a
> 'revolutionary stance' is redundant, it cannot be shown but only felt, and
> if you don't feel that it is necassary then the tools provided in AO won't
> seem necassary either. It won't work for you, it won't begin to operate
> produce. In that case it may be best to simply ignore it, to drop it.
on reflection, before and after this thread, my point has never been that
"things are fine" or that d&g's ideas of lines of flight and becomings
aren't productive, perhaps even necessary... what i distrust is posing it
in terms of revolution: that, to me, suggests bad conscience. to amplify
this: by associating these experimental programs with "revolution" on one
hand, and by giving these experiments a sort of natural imperative, on the
other ( hey! the rocks are deterritorializing... why aren't you?!) they
become less interesting or persuasive. they start to slide into the
category of "the improvers of mankind". "why haven't you been becoming?
_how_ can you hold on to that stratified territory? shame on you!!" -- this
seems to me a disasterous and somewhat absurd state of affairs! not least
because it gives way to much control to your stratified little self, who can
suddenly "choose" a becoming, or "choose to follow a line of flight" --
becoming, lines of flight: these carry us away, unbidden. they are at the
limit, they cross the limits. they desolate and destroy us. we cannot
"choose" them in the name of a revolutionary spirit... we cannot sit and
read and resolve to "become" more. it's a vast, inhuman wave that breaks
(on) us. becoming or following a line of flight is not about just becoming
more liberal or tolerant, more open-minded, less fascist, less
authoritarian: forget the cop in your head !! -- becoming isn't human, it
doesn't wear masks of power. it comes regardless of "you". it has nothing
to do with "revolution". it has to do with the unknown. d&g's
"revolutionary politics" are just a reterritorialization, a comforting
return to familiar pastures... they have much more interesting things to
say. [hey! i'm a little drunker than i thought... oops!]
> as to alienation. mmm...is this a concept much at work in D&G do you
actually, no, i don't think it is there... but it seems to remain common
currency nonetheless... a puzzle? perhaps. i don't know: i think that the
talk of "liberating" desire sends people onto an identity politics/"we're
all so alienated" crying jag, ...forgetting that desire is pre-personal,
inhuman, intense multiplicity... what does the unconscious know about
> - in fact, the idea
> of a 'moral' marxism is always, it seems to me, only one side of a much
> richer and much more radically set of strategies that can be inspired by
> marxism and there is a strong current of an anti-humanist/anti-moralistic
absolutely. a current that d&g tap with great results...
> There is a passage of marx where he gives one of his elusive hints
> as to what it might be like in a communist society, and in this he speaks
> the person acting and producing 'freely', doing one thing in the morning
> another in the afternoon 'as they see fit', without being within a
> structure of abstract labour. Personally that sort of autonomist vision
> appeals to me since it seems to best express the productive attitude.
> Unfortunately it seems to be only really exemplified within capitalist
> society in terms of the bohemian artist-producer.
i know the passage well. but it has lost its appeal for me somewhere along
the line... i was going to say "sadly" but i don't know if it is sad or
joyful? it seems too utopian for me to consider now. as a sort of
bourgeois fantasy of the ideal state of man: a little wood chopping, a
little reading... it sounds great to me too! but it is just a fantasy. it
never has nor will be. to me, it's part of a socialist imaginary: the world
as a moral place. but morality is just our dream...
> i realise this response doesn't really 'answer' the questions/problems
> you're posing but there you go... ;-) i'll stop because of length more
> any other reason cos otherwise i could ramble on far too long.
you should ramble... rambling, too, is a line of flight: you never end up
where you expect...
- - - - -
old, old web stuff:
new web stuff: coming soon!!
- - - - -
"Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to
remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats
and our police to see that our papers are in
order. At least spare us their morality when
we write." - Michel Foucault