with interest that the practice is consistent. Whatever the concept, however
colourful its name (nomadism, assemblage, war machine), and however
remote from familiar concepts – and it is often very remote – we always have
the impression that there is a relationship to Marxism in Deleuze and Guattari’s
conceptual elaboration. Thus, the famous analysis of nomadism with its war
machine (contrasted with the state apparatus), with its smooth or striated
space, has a certain relation, albeit distant, with the Marxist concept of Asiatic
mode of production. The whole issue is the relevance of this relationship, of
the extent of the shift it involves. Marxist concepts are indeed there (not all
of them, of course). But Marx would not recognise them as his offspring.
There are various historical reasons and some contingent biographical
reasons for this proximity. It is difficult for a French philosopher formed in
the immediate post-war period not to have – or have had – a relationship
with Marxism, even if in the form of a critique. It will be recalled that Michel
Foucault burst into tears when he learnt of Stalin’s death – which did not
prevent him from declaring that Marxism was a storm in a teacup. And, if
Pierre Bourdieu refused so vehemently to declare himself a Marxist, it was
doubtless for reasons of proximity. The spectre of Marx haunts French
philosophers – even the greatest of them.
Guattari was a Marxist. For a time, he was a member of the PCF and, for
rather longer, was linked to oppositional left-wing groups: he never denied
this heritage. For his part, Deleuze was not, even if he sometimes gave it to
be understood that he was. In his youth, he was too busy to join the Party,
preferring philosophical work to smoke-filled meetings. In his maturity, he
performed all the tasks of what he called ‘ordinary leftism’, from the Groupe
d’Information sur les Prisons (GIP) to Coluche’s presidential candidacy –
places where (as is well-known) he formed a friendship with Foucault.
However, this is not the main thing: what interests us is conceptual proximity,
not the political opinions of the authors of those concepts.
But, in order to assess this proximity, or this distance, I need a yardstick
or a set of criteria. I need to state what a Marxist in search of a soul mate
expects from a text, in a conjuncture where the erstwhile certainties of diamat
are dead and buried, but where the discourse on the end of grand narratives
is not acceptable either – at least, not for those who call themselves Marxists.
I am, therefore, going to take some risks and propose four Marxist theses or
themes in as strict a sense as possible.
Continuations • 119