Foucalt declared this, after Deluze's first works. But whether it was meant as a joke or not, it's not important here.
I think so, and I'll explain why. Read and then please call me on my bullshit.
This century is becoming deleuzian, but not in the way Foucalt or Deleuze himself might have thought. The Anti-Oedipus talks of a capitalism that sustain himself on the desire of subjects, subjects kept in check, if not actually inscribed in the oedipal triangle. Now when "schizoanalysis" takes the place of psychonalysis, it's mission should be to liberate desire fromm the oedipical strangle till the capitalism which sustains himself on a regulated and "molar" desire should crumble, making place for a new kind of society.
Now as of 2015, psychoanalysis has been discredited over and over again, capitalism did not crumble. It has changed it's face. It has absorbed, made its own the charachteristic of deterritorialization, nomadism. It's less "molar" than ever before, there's no center of economical e political aggregration, it works quite well without a physical or geographical determination. It may very well be called a rhizomathic capitalism.
So what Deleuze (and Guattari) had prophecized happened but not as "desire freeing itself from the capital" but the capital shaping itself to exploit desire in the best way possible.
>>7470035
Foucault was talking about the previous century and not ours I believe, that is to say the XXth century that they were in at the time. It's still an odd declaration. I even heard someone joke about it saying that it would be an insult to Deleuze to call the previous century, filled with catastrophes as it was, a Deleuzian century.
As for your point, you might want to check out Zizek's Organs without Bodies: Deleuze and Consequences or something like that. Basically he calls Deleuze the philosopher of late capitalism, despite Deleuze considering himself a leftist and quite close to marxist thought, so he's quite close to your ideas on the subject.
I'm not that well read in Deleuze, but I'm not convinced that we truly live in a society that moved past all that you are describing or that desire as it should be directed according to Deleuze can be as easily integrated into capitalism as some claim. Yes, capitalism can integrate all sorts of flows that sometimes specifically go against it (whether they're subcultures, anti-establishment movements or traditional values and so on) as well as "queer" desires, but freed desire probably should not limit itself to such things, but go for things which cannot be bought or sold. Of course, capitalism will get the rest, but it will nonetheless be of less value than the perpetual striving of the American Dream, despite all the new products available today. Or maybe you took all of this into account and I didn't understand it fully?
I suppose there's also the point that Zizek makes about free trade being counteracted by anti-immigration walls popping up all over the place, although I'm not sure if this is truly an anti-rhizomatic point.
>>7471184
>I'm not that well read in Deleuze
That explains your post...
>>7471496
Enlighten me then please, I plan on reading more of him and wish to avoid the mistakes of my current reading.
>>7471502
How much of Marx have you read? And can you separate Marx's work from Engels? This would be useful if you are going to read Deleuze without letting Zizek fuck up your conception of Deleuze's connections to Marx.
Sidenote on Zizek in general: don't take him to be an actual communist, or representative of communist history/thought in general.
>>7471527
> How much of Marx have you read?
Not much to be honest, just the Manifesto and parts of Capital. I haven't read any Engels so I don't know if my perception of Marxism (fueled by many sources who are not Marx and Engels, to be fair) differs from the actual thing.
I wasn't agreeing with Zizek in my post, just saying that OP's post reminded me of the book. So, in short, what is Deleuze's relation to Marx? And what about the rest of my post, is that wrong as well (it wouldn't surprise me if it was, but I'd like to know how and why)?
>>7471541
>the Manifesto
>I haven't read any Engels
>>7471560
I've mostly been working on Nietzsche, Bergson and Spinoza in order to approach Deleuze. Marxism is on my to-do list. I'm well aware of the Communist Manifesto's context and problems and of Engels' influence, I just haven't gotten to the proper works yet. Could you communicate through something more substantial than ironic greentext?
Analyticfag who has been interested in Deleuze for a long time here: what do I need before I read the D? Obviously, some Marx as mentioned in the thread and some Nietzsche I guess. Anything else? I've read a bit of Foucault here and there if that means anything.
>>7471583
Well it depends, Deleuze has many sources from all sort of domains so it helps to be familiar with the history of continental philsophy at least so you understand his references in a general sense. Knowing about psychoanalysis helps as well. Since you have an analytic background you might like his stuff on Russell and Frege (in The Logic of Sense). Also, his critique of the intension/extension concepts from What is Philosophy? was mindblowing for me, but then again I'm not that familiar with analytic philosophy. Someone on here mentioned that it is a growing trend to critique logic from a sort of metaphysical position within analytic philosophy (so probably still within logic, rather than against logic in general) and that's sort of what Deleuze does.
>>7471627
Aw shit I'll be grabbing up his logic stuff first then. My undergrad university emphasized history of philosophy/pluralisitc stuff as opposed to staying strictly analytic (I just focused on that myself) so I have a basic to decent grasp of all the bigwigs Deleuze likes (Nietzsche, Spinoza, etc).
Not sure what you mean by critique logic from a metaphysical position but modal logics are nothing but metaphysics and people fight about them all day. Logic and ontology is another thing in analytic metaphysics I guess (metaphysical basis of quantification and all that jazz).
>>7471639
>Aw shit I'll be grabbing up his logic stuff first then
Just be prepared for the fact that he writes in a continental style, mixing all sorts of ideas. For example, The Logic of Sense doesn't deal just with logic as it is presented in the analytic tradition, but mixes in stuff from psychology, literature and continental philosophy, among other things. It makes for an interesting, albeit difficult and at times confusing read. The payoff is worth it though imo, Deleuze's books constantly make me go from "what the hell is he talking about?" to "this is the most brilliant thing I've ever read" from one paragraph to the next.
>it works quite well without a physical or geographical determination
What are you talking about? The mass of total social capital is mediated through concrete production of commodities utilizing huge amounts of fixed capital and highly exploited labor in developing countries. Capitalism isn't about all the hoopla you just wrote--its:
M-C(M-mp; M-lp)...P...C'-M'.M and so on and on and on and on...
>>7471654
>from "what the hell is he talking about?" to "this is the most brilliant thing I've ever read" from one paragraph to the next
This is one of the true experiences of reading Deleuze.
