Can someone explain Capitalism and Schizophrenia to me? Honestly

>>9560013
something something rhizome something something deterritorialize

It's not that hard
so they basically make analogy to some examples of people who have schizophrenia

and based on certain biased observational things they relate to the idea that the people have schizophrenia is reacting to reality that points towards a certain view of reality that can be argued as an anti-oedipus context and so on

that it is not a hierarchy based reality but one which posits a connect reality with the same connection in all levels

desire-production and so on

>>9560025
Yeah the something sums it good up

File: good up.jpg (3KB, 102x91px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 102x91px

>>9560031

File: Untitled.png (846KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 600x600px

>>9560029
>and so on

>>9560029

Well the Marxist/Freudian capitalist critic seems to somewhat praise capitalism's hierarchical feudal nature, a contempt for neoliberals is also strongly present, which makes the work and its idea of media oppression factorizing schizophrenia oppose itself, or have I misunderstood something?
It's honestly an esoteric and pretentiously eloquent book

>>9560029
Guess I'll just become a BWO and try again

>>9560029

>and so on

I knew it, Zizek is a regular shitposter!

>>9560057
a thousand plateaus is built on the idea of difference and repetition
the schizo serves as a contextual frame of reference, but the various bodies formed by people, towns cities countries economies literature language etc are machines that produces flows, or overflows, and capitalism picks them up and rejoins them, kind of a bigger machine and is fuel by the same thing as it produces

the hierarchical structures of freudian oedipus has the same method as the underlying production of flows, the schizo's bwo would see them the same way

the marxist capitalism is the material evolution
the d and g's capitalism is the sublim bwo, or even owb

>>9560025
this post gave me a flashback to university


unless you're well versed in Freud, lacan, marx,nietzche and deleuze's contemporaries its gibberish


listening to undergraduates discussing deleuze and guattari after one too many shandies is a painful experience

>>9560136
Do people actually want to be well-versed in Freud and Lacan? For what purpose?

>>9560013
Pomo philosophy is like reading buzzfeed clickbait/drumpf btfo articles but with philosophical terms and diagrams, can also be compared to "fun" modern music in which you're supposed to turn your brain off and just follow

>>9560471
there is literally nothing to follow in g and d

>>9560487
>being this thick
You're supposed to start your brain now, anon

>>9560408

for what purpose? to pass any modern humanities program.

>>9560013
Ignore the pseuds in this thread. Capitalism and schizophrenia have desire production in common. Desire is pretty much all human experience insofar as it is practical, that is to say interested (a hungry man will look at an apple differently than a theologian interested in original sin and differently than a painter who wants to capture the intensity of its redness). There's a lot to explain, but basically the plurality of assemblages that make up our world and body ensure that the self is produced somewhere inbetween them (as a result) and therefore the schizo is closer to nature than us ordinary stratified neurotics that have a stronger sense of self. Capitalism insofar as it creates desires makes us more schizo, but it also recreates identities (images, representations) that give the illusion of unity (such as the personal brand of the author: the author may be dead, but his image is a product). In any case, remember that Capitalism&Schizophrenia has two volumes written 8 years apart and having some different (even radically changed) concepts. The BwO in AO ia different and less empirical, less precise than in ATP.

If you are truly interested start with Nietzsche and Philosophy and perhaps Deleuze's many compilations of articles, conferences and interviews or his courses rather than jumping into Anti-Oedipus or ATP.

Not to hijack this thread but this is Deleuze related so I figure might as well ask here.

If I want to jump into Deleuze after reading the Cinema books where should I go? I have an essay collection that spans 1953-1974 so like in terms of should I read anti-oedipus or Difference and Repetition?

>>9560744
difference and repetition is fucking impossible, save it for later. if you are interested in capitalism and schizophrenia, you can just jump into it. there will be a lot of references you won't understand and you won't have as much perspective on deleuze's metaphysics (which he lays out primarily in difference and repetition), but nonetheless reading it will be a valuable experience. if you feel lost, the reader's guide by ian buchanan is online for free.

alternatively, deleuze's philosophical monographs are very readable even if you're not too familiar with the philosophers he writes about (though you should at least have a general notion of what their main ideas are). the monographs are A LOT easier than his original philosophy and provide insights on what he is trying to do in his own thought. his books on spinoza, nietzsche, and bergson are essential to understanding difference and repetition

>>9560814
I guess I'll hit the monographs first then, thanks. I have a pretty thorough critical theory background so I don't feel super lost within deleuze (honestly I feel like we have similar thought processes) and have enough of a background with Hegel to feel confident jumping into Difference and Repetition, so like if "accessibility" were disregarded which would be his most foundational text is what I'm asking I guess?