Guattari has a nuanced view of capitalism. While it functions as a system of control, capturing desires and rechanneling them into addictive cycles of consumption, it also operates in deterritorializing ways, breaking down traditional structures and creating new possibilities. However, I expressed skepticism about the emancipatory potential of this process, noting that capitalism simultaneously decodes desires while finding new ways to addict us to pleasure, status, and consumption. This makes capitalism a particularly resilient and insidious system.
I provided a personal example to illustrate capitalism’s capacity to co-opt the image of even its most revolutionary opponents, recalling a moment from my high school years when I noticed a store at the mall selling overpriced Che Guevara T-shirts. I’d explored just enough anarchist and socialist thought by that point that the contradiction struck me deeply, transforming the mall into a prison, making me feel trapped in a system where even the most radical symbols could not escape commodification. This was a formative memory, underscoring how capitalism absorbs and neutralizes radical political movements by converting them into marketable identities.
I extend this critique to social media, describing it as a space where activism risks being similarly captured and commodified. Although online platforms allow for the spread of radical ideas, they also feed corporate ad revenues and algorithmic systems designed to maintain user engagement. I find it lamentable that so much energy is wasted in symbolic, digital expressions of activism that fail to translate into material, local action. Social media isolates us behind our screens, distracting us from organizing against tangible issues like rising rents and stagnant wages in our own communities. While social media offers the semblance of global solidarity, it frequently renders users powerless to enact real change, content to virtue signal.
We went deep into Guattari and Deleuze’s philosophical framework, particularly their notions of desiring machines and machinic processes. They sought to expand Marxist analysis of material conditions by incorporating the idea of a libidinal economy—recognizing how desires are captured, redirected, and exploited under capitalism. I discussed the importance of understanding desire as productive rather than simply as a lack (as in Lacanian psychoanalysis). This perspective reveals how capitalism not only exploits pre-existing desires but actively generates new ones to sustain itself. Social media amplifies this process of libidinal capture, intensifying alienation and complicating efforts to imagine alternatives.
Despite these challenges, I do see liberatory potential in the notion of desiring machines. While desires are often canalized and captured, they also retain the capacity to disrupt and unleash novel forces. D & G invite us into a dynamic understanding of subjectivity as fluid and constantly reconstituted through interactions with machinic assemblages. This is an alternative to structuralist frameworks, such as Lacan’s, which conceive of subjects as imprisoned within the symbolic order. Symbolic systems as understood in structuralism imply a kind of social solipsism, severing humans from nature and embedding them within culturally enclosed frameworks.
We then discuss the question of scale in autopoiesis, emphasizing the relational dynamics through which parts are bound together in a process of mutual self-production. Francisco Varela resisted extending the concept of autopoiesis beyond cellular and organismic levels. This despite the productive use sociologists made by applying the concept to social systems. Guattari appropriates aspects of the idea of autopoietic machines because it allows him to emphasize how machines—far from being composed of isolated parts—are bound up in processes of mutual transformation and production. Guattari’s use of the lock-and-key example exemplifies how relational interactions between machine components transform both elements, thus making Varela’s distinction between autopoietic and allopoietic systems problematic. Machines in Guattari’s sense include any process of production. Varela’s distinction between organizational closure and energetic openness stems from his desire to resist reduction of living organisms to mere input-output devices. For Varela, “information” is never pre-given, waiting out in the environment to be processed; rather, what counts as salient information is relative to each organism’s organizational form. Guattari’s critique of this distinction insists that organisms are perpetually transformed by their material and energetic relations with their environments. This blurs the line between organization and structure, semiosis and materiality.
Guattari also points out that autopoiesis, as traditionally defined, lacks key features of living systems, such as the fact that they are born, die, and survive through evolutionary lineages. I linked this to Evan Thompson’s argument that self-production logically precedes reproduction, which he marshals as a form of resistance to neo-Darwinian reductions of life to a selfish gene algorithm. But prioritizing autopoiesis risks neglecting the heterogenetic evolutionary horizons of living beings (which need not be genetically reductionist but involve formal and final causes and factors operating at multiple scales).
I found Guattari’s concept of “abstract machines” resonant with Whitehead’s idea of “propositions.” Abstract machines, for Guattari, exist at a virtual level between the material and symbolic, enabling transitions across biological, social, aesthetic, and technological domains. They do not unify these domains into a universal framework but rather act as transversals, connecting them without erasing their distinctiveness. These abstract machines, like Whitehead’s propositions, engage the actual world while revealing latent virtual possibilities, bridging the realms of actuality and potentiality.
There is no way to recover the notion of universal truth derived from Enlightenment thinking. Instead, I argue we need a participatory re-imagination of knowledge, where truth is seen as an event of shared discovery rather than an autonomous subject’s internal representation of a fixed environment. I express some worry about Guattari’s embrace of “ontological relativity,” suggesting instead the phrase “ontological relationality,” which preserves the idea of truth as relational rather than relative. Truth is not eternally fixed but momentarily arises within specific contexts and is always mediated through participatory processes that involve mutual transformation. Truth must be rooted in particular struggles and relational contexts, resisting abstraction while remaining a powerful motivator for collective action. I think we need to an incarnational relation to truth—where truth becomes concretized and personalized in unique contexts. This can help us recover truth’s relevance without succumbing to ideological totality. Guattari’s idea of “constellations of Universes of value” is an apt metaphor for a truth that is temporally and contextually situated. Like constellations, such universes of value vary from different perspectives and evolve over time, preventing them from solidifying into abstract universals. This process of ongoing heterogenesis must remain active and materially engaged to avoid becoming a merely symbolic exercise.
Guattari offers an alternative to Heidegger’s deterministic framing of technology as “enframing” and reducing all of nature to a “standing reserve.” Guattari’s perspective highlights the singularity and precariousness of machinic processes, thus avoiding determinism (Heidegger’s “malefic destiny”). Machines, for Guattari, are not a homogenous essence but singular processes that function through contingent relationships and precarious assemblages. Various assemblages of machines can function to deterritorialize as much as to reterritorialize subjectivities. This is a more politically effective and realistic approach to technology that avoids Heidegger’s tendencies toward nostalgic authenticity cosplay.
I appreciate how Guattari’s thinking can unsettle dominant scientific paradigms by emphasizing the participatory, mediated nature of knowledge. I am reminded of Donna Haraway’s statement that “it matters what ideas we think ideas with,” which underscores the importance of bringing Guattari’s insights into conversation with scientific disciplines like biology, ecology, and technology.
Your output (both volume and quality) astounds me.
Thanks for this conversation. It helped motivate me to finally draft something that's been on my mind for a while about the usage of Schizophrenia in Deleuze and Guattari's work. TLDR: by today's diagnostic criteria I'm pretty sure they are actually talking about DID, which to my admittedly biased mind, makes a much better foil to critiques of capitalism for a lot of reasons, some of which I outlined in my post.
Fascinating! The way Guattari’s machinic assemblages and Varela’s autopoiesis come together offers such a cool way to think about systems that can sustain themselves while staying open to change.
Guattari has a nuanced view of capitalism. While it functions as a system of control, capturing desires and rechanneling them into addictive cycles of consumption, it also operates in deterritorializing ways, breaking down traditional structures and creating new possibilities. However, I expressed skepticism about the emancipatory potential of this process, noting that capitalism simultaneously decodes desires while finding new ways to addict us to pleasure, status, and consumption. This makes capitalism a particularly resilient and insidious system.
I provided a personal example to illustrate capitalism’s capacity to co-opt the image of even its most revolutionary opponents, recalling a moment from my high school years when I noticed a store at the mall selling overpriced Che Guevara T-shirts. I’d explored just enough anarchist and socialist thought by that point that the contradiction struck me deeply, transforming the mall into a prison, making me feel trapped in a system where even the most radical symbols could not escape commodification. This was a formative memory, underscoring how capitalism absorbs and neutralizes radical political movements by converting them into marketable identities.
I extend this critique to social media, describing it as a space where activism risks being similarly captured and commodified. Although online platforms allow for the spread of radical ideas, they also feed corporate ad revenues and algorithmic systems designed to maintain user engagement. I find it lamentable that so much energy is wasted in symbolic, digital expressions of activism that fail to translate into material, local action. Social media isolates us behind our screens, distracting us from organizing against tangible issues like rising rents and stagnant wages in our own communities. While social media offers the semblance of global solidarity, it frequently renders users powerless to enact real change, content to virtue signal.
We went deep into Guattari and Deleuze’s philosophical framework, particularly their notions of desiring machines and machinic processes. They sought to expand Marxist analysis of material conditions by incorporating the idea of a libidinal economy—recognizing how desires are captured, redirected, and exploited under capitalism. I discussed the importance of understanding desire as productive rather than simply as a lack (as in Lacanian psychoanalysis). This perspective reveals how capitalism not only exploits pre-existing desires but actively generates new ones to sustain itself. Social media amplifies this process of libidinal capture, intensifying alienation and complicating efforts to imagine alternatives.
Despite these challenges, I do see liberatory potential in the notion of desiring machines. While desires are often canalized and captured, they also retain the capacity to disrupt and unleash novel forces. D & G invite us into a dynamic understanding of subjectivity as fluid and constantly reconstituted through interactions with machinic assemblages. This is an alternative to structuralist frameworks, such as Lacan’s, which conceive of subjects as imprisoned within the symbolic order. Symbolic systems as understood in structuralism imply a kind of social solipsism, severing humans from nature and embedding them within culturally enclosed frameworks.
We then discuss the question of scale in autopoiesis, emphasizing the relational dynamics through which parts are bound together in a process of mutual self-production. Francisco Varela resisted extending the concept of autopoiesis beyond cellular and organismic levels. This despite the productive use sociologists made by applying the concept to social systems. Guattari appropriates aspects of the idea of autopoietic machines because it allows him to emphasize how machines—far from being composed of isolated parts—are bound up in processes of mutual transformation and production. Guattari’s use of the lock-and-key example exemplifies how relational interactions between machine components transform both elements, thus making Varela’s distinction between autopoietic and allopoietic systems problematic. Machines in Guattari’s sense include any process of production. Varela’s distinction between organizational closure and energetic openness stems from his desire to resist reduction of living organisms to mere input-output devices. For Varela, “information” is never pre-given, waiting out in the environment to be processed; rather, what counts as salient information is relative to each organism’s organizational form. Guattari’s critique of this distinction insists that organisms are perpetually transformed by their material and energetic relations with their environments. This blurs the line between organization and structure, semiosis and materiality.
Guattari also points out that autopoiesis, as traditionally defined, lacks key features of living systems, such as the fact that they are born, die, and survive through evolutionary lineages. I linked this to Evan Thompson’s argument that self-production logically precedes reproduction, which he marshals as a form of resistance to neo-Darwinian reductions of life to a selfish gene algorithm. But prioritizing autopoiesis risks neglecting the heterogenetic evolutionary horizons of living beings (which need not be genetically reductionist but involve formal and final causes and factors operating at multiple scales).
I found Guattari’s concept of “abstract machines” resonant with Whitehead’s idea of “propositions.” Abstract machines, for Guattari, exist at a virtual level between the material and symbolic, enabling transitions across biological, social, aesthetic, and technological domains. They do not unify these domains into a universal framework but rather act as transversals, connecting them without erasing their distinctiveness. These abstract machines, like Whitehead’s propositions, engage the actual world while revealing latent virtual possibilities, bridging the realms of actuality and potentiality.
There is no way to recover the notion of universal truth derived from Enlightenment thinking. Instead, I argue we need a participatory re-imagination of knowledge, where truth is seen as an event of shared discovery rather than an autonomous subject’s internal representation of a fixed environment. I express some worry about Guattari’s embrace of “ontological relativity,” suggesting instead the phrase “ontological relationality,” which preserves the idea of truth as relational rather than relative. Truth is not eternally fixed but momentarily arises within specific contexts and is always mediated through participatory processes that involve mutual transformation. Truth must be rooted in particular struggles and relational contexts, resisting abstraction while remaining a powerful motivator for collective action. I think we need to an incarnational relation to truth—where truth becomes concretized and personalized in unique contexts. This can help us recover truth’s relevance without succumbing to ideological totality. Guattari’s idea of “constellations of Universes of value” is an apt metaphor for a truth that is temporally and contextually situated. Like constellations, such universes of value vary from different perspectives and evolve over time, preventing them from solidifying into abstract universals. This process of ongoing heterogenesis must remain active and materially engaged to avoid becoming a merely symbolic exercise.
Guattari offers an alternative to Heidegger’s deterministic framing of technology as “enframing” and reducing all of nature to a “standing reserve.” Guattari’s perspective highlights the singularity and precariousness of machinic processes, thus avoiding determinism (Heidegger’s “malefic destiny”). Machines, for Guattari, are not a homogenous essence but singular processes that function through contingent relationships and precarious assemblages. Various assemblages of machines can function to deterritorialize as much as to reterritorialize subjectivities. This is a more politically effective and realistic approach to technology that avoids Heidegger’s tendencies toward nostalgic authenticity cosplay.
I appreciate how Guattari’s thinking can unsettle dominant scientific paradigms by emphasizing the participatory, mediated nature of knowledge. I am reminded of Donna Haraway’s statement that “it matters what ideas we think ideas with,” which underscores the importance of bringing Guattari’s insights into conversation with scientific disciplines like biology, ecology, and technology.
Your output (both volume and quality) astounds me.
Thanks for this conversation. It helped motivate me to finally draft something that's been on my mind for a while about the usage of Schizophrenia in Deleuze and Guattari's work. TLDR: by today's diagnostic criteria I'm pretty sure they are actually talking about DID, which to my admittedly biased mind, makes a much better foil to critiques of capitalism for a lot of reasons, some of which I outlined in my post.
Post here if you are so inclined: https://open.substack.com/pub/onebloomsinging/p/a-case-for-studying-dissociative?r=3yfzn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thanks, Ansa! I look forward to reading your thoughts
Fascinating! The way Guattari’s machinic assemblages and Varela’s autopoiesis come together offers such a cool way to think about systems that can sustain themselves while staying open to change.