Chaosophy - autonomous learning

Our two authors have tried, and it's their attempt that we are
discussing here.
I simply said, and will say again, that the proper approach to the
problem seems to me to go through an extremely specific pass: the
place of the object, the function of the drive in a social formation.
Just a remark in regard to the "it works" which is put forward
as an argument in favor of the pertinence of the machine, or the
book in question. Of course it works. And I was going to say that
for me, too, in a certain sense, it works. One may note that any
theoretically invested practice initially has a good chance of working.
This is not a criterion in itself.
Roger Dadoun: The main problem that your book raises IS no
doubt this: how will it work politically, since you acknowledge the
political as a principal "machination." Witness the scope or the
meticulousness with which you dealt with the "socius" and, notably,
its ethnographic, anthropological aspects.
Pierre Clastres: Deleuze and Guattari, the former a philosopher,
the latter a psychoanalyst, are reflecting together on capitalism. In
order to conceive capitalism, they go through schizophrenia, in
which they see the effects and limits of our society. And in order to
conceive schizophrenia, they go through Oedipal psychoanalysis,
but like Attila: in their wal{e, nothing much is left standing.
Between the two, between the description of familialism (the Oedipal
triangle) and the project of schizoanalysis, there is the biggest
chapter in Anti-Oedipus, the third, "Savages, Barbarians, Civilized
Men." This essentially concerns societies that are usually the
ethnologists' object of study. What is ethnology doing here
It ensures the consistency of Deleuze and Guattari's undertalcing,
which is very strong, by shoring up their argument with non-Western
examples (an examination of primitive societies and barbaric
84 /