So Maxwell says Anti-Oedipus is crypto-fascist, while Foucault described it as the key to anti-fascist living. Who is right?This is intriguing,
Nick Land was trying to do Deleuze ‘without the Bergsonianism’; while reading I wondered, is it possible to do Nick Land without the Deleuzianism? Given Deleuze’s extravagant popularity in 2018 I am perhaps alone in wishing for this, but some of the flouncy neologisms, conceptual personae and overstuffed syntax, imported from Capitalism & Schizophrenia, wore on my nerves. But then I began to wonder if Nick Land isn’t encumbered by the Deleuzo-Guattarian theoretical lexicon, but instead the rational telos of these faddish techniques. The more of Fanged Noumena you read, the more apparent it becomes that the libidinal event horizon of schizoanalysis, rhizomatics, creating the Body without Organs--whatever you want to call it--is this cryptofascist cosmic libertarianism. This is the most honest expression of Deleuze that I can find, the most sincere & rigorous elaboration of his philosophy; Fanged Noumena is the only real heir to Anti-Oedipus, even more so than the retrograde timidity of A Thousand Plateaus. In fact, Nick Land without Deleuze is not the problem; Deleuze without Nick Land is the problem. To my mind, Accelerationism is the elephant graveyard of schizo-politics, the crash landing of vitalism in a dead world. Nick Land is the werewolf-other under the latex mask of avuncular & benevolent biopunk sycophants.
Invite him to Dissensus, Version.Here's "Maxwell" on Anti-Oedipus.
5/5: I loved this the first time I read it. Hated it the second time. On the third I realize that, at least, it is worth reading three times. I’m caught in a love triangle between Deleuze (and his deformed #accelerationism brood) and their antagonists in the socialist tradition of dialectical...www.goodreads.com