[Marxism] Out of this World by Peter Hallward

David Powers cyborgk at gmail.com
Mon Sep 25 08:08:26 MDT 2006


I think your take on D & G is a bit unfair ... Manuel de Landa has in
his recent work made a pretty good case for Deleuze's materialism, and
relevance as a philosopher who was attuned to recent developments in
science, ion areas like chaos theory, complexity, and emergent systems
and behaviors. Unfortunately, de Landa totally misunderstands Marxism
and dismisses the most vulgar version of it, but that is another story
- my point is that I believe one coud certainly find some very useful
tools in D & G for analyzing how capitalism works in an age of
networks, post-fordism, and flexible/precarious labor.

Anyway, I can understand how the more "literary" style of D & G can be
offputting - there is much poetry in their works, and indeed fiction -
and their anarchism might be a little offputting to some Marxists.
They present philosophy as seperate from both art and science, but
having a kinship with both - thus, those who wish to take from their
work analytical concepts may be frustrated with the huge weight given
to aesthetics, and to the overly artistic presentation. However, as an
artist myself, they have some very interesting things to say on the
"formalist" side of artistic production, that no other theorists have
really dealt with (save perhaps Adorno and Benjamin).

Anyway, understanding the fictional aspect of their works, I enjoy
their books, and believe many of their concepts are articulated in a
fairly rigorous way, and could be useful to someone doing research in
the area of political economy.

~David

On 9/24/06, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Gilles Deleuze was one of the most original and influential French
> >philosophers of the last century. This book aims to make sense of
> >his fundamental project in the clearest possible terms, by engaging
> >with the central idea that informs virtually all his work: his
> >equation of being and creativity. It explores the various ways in
> >which, in order to affirm an unlimited creative power, Deleuze
> >proceeds to dissolve whatever might restrict or mediate its
> >expression, including the organisms, objects, representations,
> >identities, and relations that this power generates along the way.
> >
> >   Rather than a theorist of material complexity or relational
> > difference, Out of this World argues that Deleuze is better read as
> > a spiritual and extra-worldly philosopher.
>
> I have some trouble understanding why Deleuze and Guattari are such
> big favorites with some of my younger friends. My friend Catherine
> who works in the Dean of Studies office at Barnard was wild about
> Derrida when I first met her four years ago. She started showing more
> of an interest in Marxism after Derrida did. But she is not reading
> the 18th Brumaire. She is reading Bataille, Deleuze/Guattari and
> Simone Weil. My guess is that a lot of people from her milieu feel a
> certain nostalgia for the counterculture of the 1960's and in a funny
> sort of way, Deleuza/Guattari take that nostalgia and cater to it but
> in an ultrasophisticated manner. They wouldn't bother with Paul
> Goodman and Charles Reich, this crowd. But French and Italian
> theorists who write in a highly allusive and self-referential manner:
> Like wow, man!
>
> full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/fascism.htm
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>




More information about the Marxism mailing list