[D-G] Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 63, Issue 1
hwenk at web.de
Thu May 6 03:42:15 PDT 2010
The question you posed, if it is from Negri/Hardt or not,
maybe answerd as followed:
The fierce critic of computers, Weizenbaum, claimed that
the microcomputer "saved" capitalism.
This is in a way true, as the automatization of production and the isolation
of the workers from one another , amplified by the very strong "memory"
effect of programmes, that is, the programmer is absent from the production
and a programme runs "one for all time".
As the computers in production are wholly in the hand of the capitalists,
from their point of view, their possibiltity to "play" with the neccesity of
the present workers and the
times of production and the possibilities of their substitution are very
As programs are even more "esoteric", not or very seldom public discussed
and if very fruitless, the "dangerous" intellutcual work is banned from
direct production to a very large
Therefore, intellectual work is very much pulled to media and to politics.
But here, we have the calamity, that question of power are more and more
decided by property of money or dedictaed to
the power of directing the property of money.
Unfortunately, these tendencies are much more "ignored" and treated in a
very defensive way, in spite to the alternativeless direct profit of all,
especially wage earning people,
of the tremendous quantitative and qualitative progress of production and
consumption by computer technology.
To many "revensionistic" sabotating politicians and even union man
have "let go" the accumulation of capital to this huge amount with very high
So, computer technolgy stays to be a bliss, as the health of people is much
saved, but the question of property and directing them and the fate of the
are very much urgent, than the majority of people dares to think.
Here, he right information could move a lot.
So, let us go ahead with that.
Dr. rer. Nat. Harrald Wenk
From: <deleuze-guattari-request at lists.driftline.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 10:03 PM
To: <deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org>
Subject: Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 63, Issue 1
> Send Deleuze-Guattari mailing list submissions to
> deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> deleuze-guattari-request at lists.driftline.org
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> deleuze-guattari-owner at lists.driftline.org
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Deleuze-Guattari digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: Machines (Mas Que Palabras)
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 23:17:02 -0400
> From: Mas Que Palabras <xavier.buades at gmail.com>
> To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] Machines
> Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
> My impression was that the Unconscious was
> a field wherin machines could connect.
> The Unconscious was like the Internet,
> which is not a machine.
> A machine is useful for the Individual
> when it provides him & her stuffs (qualities and quantities)
> otherwise don't get. At the opposite pole
> you have the Internet as an insuperable inertia
> which it is impossible to think, which is why I think
> I want to stated it was like an Unconscious.
> But the idea of Unconscious is almost
> like religious. Something that you do not
> understand, you send it to the category "Unconscious".
> Deleuze & Guattari strived hard to get everything
> productive (please correct me if wrong ).
> I think labor is a fun, and that there is no fear
> to get payd for doing labor or for not doing it, as Negri is stated
> in Wikkipedia French.
> There's no need to fear that the world will stop spinning on itself.
> If people are paid for not working, something interesting
> will happen. Because people will learn how to play/work.
> No, something which is less evident for me, is what Hardt & Negri
> state in the first chapter of Empire.
> (THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT)
> They are saying, they are uttering, that machines were created to get
> rid of autonomy due to the workers strikes and revolutions. The
> benefit of revolutions hampered by new technologicall devices. If
> someone could justify, or more simply explain the passage to me, he
> and she would be most welcome.
> Honestly, I am even getting to the point of doubting, unsure there's
> an Empire, due to the fact I lack the eyes, the dispositif, the
> post-human eyes to see through it with clarity, clear. Of course it
> would not anymore be called the "eyes". I see one benefit in machines
> to that respect, for the Individuals/Multitudes, in the machines: to
> fashion such eyes.
> My Deep Respect
> Xavier Buades
> 2010/3/24 Sylvie Ruelle
> <<mailto:sylvie_ruelle at sbcglobal.net>sylvie_ruelle at sbcglobal.net>
> I am trying to understand the benefit of machines to individuals? ?I
> see that machines interact with the unconscious, I think.
> Sylvie Ruelle
> Arcata, CA
> <mailto:sylvie_ruelle at sbcglobal.net>sylvie_ruelle at sbcglobal.net
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
> End of Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 63, Issue 1
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari