Is this book worth reading from a right-wing perspective? I know Nick Land is really into it but he's sort of a weirdo so I'm not sure that's reason enough to read it.
>>8068673
I'm actually quite surprised Nick Land advocated it, what was his reason?
>>8068673
It's not worth reading at all. It's shit.
>>8068680
Almost his entire philosophy is rooted in Deleuzianism, I'm not sure what the exact reasons are but he mentions it constantly.
>>8068684
Strange, I'm not overly familiar with Land outside memes and never seen any connection
>>8068680
breh his entire philosophy is rooted in it
the CCRU was set up to interpret leftist theory from a non-leftist perspective
>>8068699
I was under the impression Land was still leftist during his Warwick days. Was he always non-leftist or did his switch just occur earlier than I had thought?
>>8068712
while other members of the CCRU were leftist he was not
>“It was pretty obvious that a theoretically Left-leaning critique could be maintained quite happily but it wasn't ever going to get anywhere,” says Plant.
>“If there was going to be scope for any kind of....not ‘resistance,’ but any kind of discrepancy in the global consensus, then it was going to have to come from somewhere else.”
>>8068712
this is a good read on the subject
http://energyflashbysimonreynolds.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/renegade-academia-cybernetic-culture.html
>she recalls finding it "spooky that Nick Land and all these people spoke as one. You could not get 20 of my postgrad students in a room and have them agree with me. I find that scary--that messianic quality, like they've got the message"...A lot of what they say reminds me of tripping experiences, where you have that feeling that everything coheres and makes sense."
seems like fun
Land likes deluze because rizomatic thinking
Deluze and maybe Derrida are worth a read at least their best. Fuckult you can skip unless you want to know the enemy zeitgeist of everything being political totalitarian thinking
>>8070211
Why Derrida?
the basic argument comes from Zizek, actually. the idea is that the idea of the "Nietzschean subject" who, recognizing the fact of his own simulacral existence as an epiphenomenon of desiring machines, gives himself over to desiring production, swinging fully to the schizophrenic side of things, and passing rapidly through "a series of states," ever re-inventing his subjectivity and ego, conjuring an endless series of new identities. capitalism is the mode of production you get when desiring-production on a macroscopic scale swings in this direction, when subjectivity itself becomes another commodity. this is why schizophrenia is capitalism's "limit," in the mathematical sense: it is a mode of production (and therefore a "scheme" or "machination" of desiring-production) which always approaches the absolute fluidity of the Nietzschean subject, but always retains that quantum of paranoia which prevents total destabilization of ideology, culture, etc, never quite breaching the line into absolute schizophrenia, which, by the way, may in fact be enjoyed at the individual level. so rather than schizorevolution, you end up with a kind of schizofascism, with everyone's subject-transformation revolving around and perpetuating the mode of production which lubricates it.
>>8070561
tl;dr: capitalism makes the kind of schizophrenic self-reinvention largely advocated for in anti-oedipus possible on an unprecedented scale by commodifying identity.
>>8070561
>>8070569
I don't know if it is because I am familiar with the concepts and authors or if you're good at summing up, but I like how well you explained it.
Still, people keep mentioning that Zizek misrepresents D&G's project. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that Zizek describes a movement between identities, a delirium of masks so to speak. D&G seem to emphasize, if I understood correctly, not an endless production of identities, but an openness that prevents any rigid identity from blocking the movement of desire. Of course this is very complicated in practice because as relatively normal humans we tend to function with and through identities, but nonetheless it is still different from fetishizing identity fluidity and making it a goal in itself.
It's essential charlatan-core, pretty educational read if you ask me
>>8068673
Read it, but only with Apocalypse du désir as a commentary on it.
