Ecdofidfodfo

- Mutualist reading of Deleuze & Guattari 

Giles Deleuze was a staunch anti-capitalist, openly antagonistic towards markets (according to)? He drew his theories of surplus from Marxist literature, as well as his theories of mechanical production. 

Felix Guattari was a self described communist who remained active in several organizations throughout his life, including those inspired by Maoism. France, during Deleuze’s time, had long abandoned Proudhonian thought — and yet the similarities between Deleuze and Proudhon are remarkable in several areas previously unexplored by the left. It’s worth a mention though; our project’s goal is not to be the most accurate to Deleuze or to Proudhon (how imaginative would that be)? 

There are criticisms that can and should be made of both of these thinkers — but by using their thought in new and different ways, we can create a resistance previously unexplored by the anti-capitalist majority, and one we believe has real and tangible emancipatory potential.

Upon further inspection, economic authority as the fundamental reterritorializing force of capital, progress being the affirmation of movement (as opposed to negation of falsehood) etc. serve as points of similarity between Deleuze and Guattari and the mutualist realm of thought. Throughout market anarchy’s history, accusations of capitalism have always been thrown out by leftists as a quick debunk of the school.

Through this chapter, beyond existing economic reality, we will explore PJ Proudhon and Gilles Deleuze, establishing a new form of accelerated “capitalism” separate from its pessimistic Landian cousin of Dark Mutualism. Finding concepts of liberation central to Deleuzian creativity, the maximization of agency begins now. The freer the market, the more ravenous the cannibal.

I: Deleuze, Marx and Proudhon See more here

(from reddit):

"Karl Marx was influenced by PJ Proudhon in the sense of an intellectual challenge and rival theorist. They both held their own philosophies and sociological studies. The Poverty of Philosophy tends to be a polemical hit piece that instead of engaging with Proudhon’s words, makes up arguments about what Marx thinks Proudhon believes and proceeds to tear that image apart. Funnily enough in Proudhon’s copy of Poverty of Philosophy he left annotations where he is frustrated by Marx making up ideals he never wrote, as well as noticing that Marx held in some instances the very same views of Proudhon, yet seemingly thought that it’s not what Proudhon thinks. 

I believe his final note on the copy was “It seems Monsieur Marx’s issue is that all of his ideals I have thought of first.”

Rivalry aside we must understand that both figures had much to offer, and that the reason Marx is lauded is because Proudhon’s work have largely been discarded, and there hasn’t been enough effort to translate and disseminate his works, which remain untranslated. Proudhon’s sociology seems to be as rigorous and scientific as Marx’s. In fact Marx used the same methodology of Proudhon, whether he consciously or unconsciously did so cannot be known. 

What I refer to has been attested by French socialists and anarchists like Rene Berthier. Rene isn’t a Mutualist or Proudhonist, he’s a Bakunin Syndicalist, but in his reading of Capital, and the historical record, shows that Marx after criticizing Proudhon set out to do better. After a decade or so he had not come out with much, but at last when he wrote Capital he used the same methodology Proudhon used in his own critique of capitalism, System of Economic Contradiction. By starting with value, going trough the difference components of capitalist industry etc…. Marx “borrowed” the methodology used by Proudhon.

While it may be hard to imagine today, Marx wasn’t always the behemoth he is today in social science and the socialist milieu. Marx became what he is today thanks to the efforts of Engels and the dissemination of Marx’s work and theories into academic institutions. This took years to develop, and it started in Europe shortly after Marx’s death. 

Proudhon was a popular name in the spiraling socialist movement of his day, not among academia per se, but certainly his ideals caught on in France. 

One of the big factions of the Paris Commune were the Proudhon followers, along with Blanquists and neo-Jacobins. The Commune’s federalism, and setting of worker coops, as well as associations of industries was spearheaded by the followers of Proudhon’s work in the Commune. 

The early Syndicalist would also come to their own socialist philosophy via Proudhon. Proudhonian delegates like Henri Tolain at the Brussels and Basel congresses of the International, supporting instead the full collectivisation of land and industry. The Belgian collectivist Cesar de Paepe was not alone in justifying his position on mutualist grounds, explicitly citing the work of Proudhon to argue against Proudhon's erstwhile followers.

Despite Proudhon's opposition to strikes, he still deeply influenced the revolutionary syndicalist movement, whether that means the proto-syndicalists like Hins and Varlin, or the "mature" syndicalists like Fernand Pelloutier. There are of course contradictions here - but they need to be properly explored, as someone like Daniel Colson does, in his article "Proudhon et le syndicalisme révolutionnaire"

Iain McKay has also done thorough and researched work on the influence of Proudhon and Marx on the socialist movement, and clearing up misconceptions.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarcho-proudhon-marx-and-the-paris-commune

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarcho-proudhon-s-constituted-value-and-the-myth-of-labour-notes

The French sociologist Georges Gurvitch has also addressed the issue: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/georges-gurvitch-proudhon-and-marx"