Zapatistas 1AC

In 1994, a group of indigenous people in Mexico and disgruntled Mexican citizens marched on the government in reaction to NAFTA. They demanded that the state no longer ignore them, and provide for the needs of their people. This declaration of war marked an evental rupture in the fabric of globalization. Nail 12 (Thomas, postdoctoral lecturer in the Philosophy Department at the University of
Denver, Returning to Revolution, ed. Claire Colebrook et al., p 102-103)-jn revolutionary interventions really split political life down the middle and force people to take action or not. For example, the Zapatista Uprising of 1 January 1994 marked out the real limits of political life in Mexico. The day that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, the Zapatistas burst upon a world that denied their existence, as Zapatista scholar John Holloway says. Armed men and women from the indigenous communities took by force seven towns and over 500 privately owned ranches in the state of Chiapas (Holloway and Pelez 1998: 1). From the perspective of Mexican politics and the dominant referents of politicians, corporations, voting citizens and so on, the Zapatistas surely appeared to burst onto the scene from nowhere. The existence of the Zapatistas was thus denitely at the borderline of popular political intelligibility. Who are the Zapatistas, and what is the meaning of their call to revolutionary war on the Mexican government? The First
It is also possible, however, that

Declaration of the Lacandn Jungle was this rst call for the radical deterritorialisation of Mexican politics. To the People of Mexico: We, the men and women, full and free, are conscious that the war that we have declared is our last resort, but also a just one. The dictators are applying an undeclared genocidal war against our people for many years. Therefore we ask for your participation, your decision to support this plan that struggles for work, land, housing, food, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace. We declare that we will not stop ghting until the basic demands of our people have been met by forming a JOIN THE INSURGENT FORCES OF THE ZAPATISTA ARMY OF NATIONAL LIBERATION. General Command of the EZLN, 31 December 1993 (Marcos 2004b: 642) Intervention and the Future Anterior This evental call to popular revolutionary war split political reality in two. On the one side it is still possible to see the January Uprising as a temporary anomalous (although not immediately recuperable) blip of resistance in the prevailing political world; on the other side it is also the first visible manifestation of what will have been the beginning of a revolutionary war for popular and direct democracy across Mexico. But what clearly marks this event as a relative positive deterritorialisation is that when confronted with this evental splitting of the situation, the Mexican people (for the most part) chose to both support the Zapatistas struggle and tolerate the Mexican governments continued existence as a negotiator in the peace accords. Thus without a sufficient popular mobilisation of deterritorialised connections across Mexico, the event remained mostly afrmed in name without a large-scale connection of increasingly deterritorialised elements or building of alternative institutions. This type of political
government of our country that is free and democratic. intervention is perhaps best exemplied in the creation of counter-institutions: institutions that afrm revolutionary struggles like the Zapatistas and want to protect it, but that

the possibility of a specic revolution is acknowledged but ultimately staved off through mediating forms of compromise and representation.
also do so through the struggle for rights, peace accords, negotiations and legal reforms within representational politics. In this case,

And, this form of capitalist political representation constructs infinite debt, so it must engage in infinite war against the planet, and against unknown threats perceived to disrupt the social order. Neoliberal representation constructs machinic enslavement, which commodifies the body and mind, confining us to predefined modes of engagement. Nail 12 (Thomas, postdoctoral lecturer in the Philosophy Department at the University of
Denver, Returning to Revolution, ed. Claire Colebrook et al., p 60-66)-jn An axiom, they say, is an independent or disengaged point that forces unqualified elements into homologous quantitative relations (1994: 130/1378). Axioms are not theoretical propositions, they say, but operative statements that enter as component parts into the assemblages of production, circulation, and consumption (1987: 575/461). That is, Deleuze and Guattari do not mean the word axiomatic as a scientific metaphor; social axiomatics are not derived from scientific, mathematical or logical a xiomatics, 14 but the reverse: the true axiomatic is that of the social machine itself, which takes the place of the old codings and organises all the decoded flows, including the flows of scientific and technical code, for the benefit of the capitalist system and in the service of its ends (see Deleuze and Guattari 1983: 299/251). So whereas codes determine the qualities of flows (types of places, types of goods,
(3.1) Axiomatics Deleuze and Guattari define capitalist representation by its processes of axiomatisation. types of activity) and establish indirect relations (of alliance) between these incommensurable, qualified, mobile, limited codes, and overcodes (as well as topical conjunctions) capture and recode these flows

capitalist axioms establish a strictly economic general equivalence between purely unqualified (decoded) flows. The axiomatic, however, is not the invention of capitalism, s Deleuze and Guattari say, since it is identical with capitalism itself. Rather, capitalism is the offspring or result, which merely ensures the regulation of the axiomatic; it watches over or directs progress toward a saturation of the axiomatic and the corresponding widening of the limits (1983: 300/2523). Capitalist axiomatics create denumerable finite representations of social processes divested of their qualities. Each independent from the others, they are added, subtracted and multiplied to form more or less saturated markets for the generation of wealth. Just like the other political types, two poles also form capitalist distributions. What capitalism continually decodes at one pole, it axiomatises at the other (1983: 2934/246). Deleuze and Guattari give several examples of the decoded flows constituting capitalist axiomatisation. For the free worker, decoding means: (1) the deterritorialisation of the soil through privatisation, (2) the loss of the means of consumption through the dissolution of the family, and the decoding of the worker in favour of the work itself or of the machine (industrial production). For capital it means: (1) the deterritorialisation of wealth through monetary abstraction, (2) the decoding of the flows of production through merchant capital, (3) the decoding of states through financial capital and public debts, and (4) the decoding of the means of production through the formation of industrial capital (1983: 2667/225). While territorial representation implies that qualified pieces of labour correspond to a particular quantum of abstract labour (activity required to create a given artefact), and state exchange introduces the general equivalent of currency formally uniting partial objects (goods and services) whose overcoded value is determined by noncapitalist (imperial or juridical) decisions, neither decode or dequalify exchange to the degree that capitalism does. In Rome, for example, Deleuze and Guattari say, there may have been a privatisation of property, a decoding of money through the formations of great fortunes, the decoding of producers through expropriation and proletarianisation. But despite all these decoded conditions, it did not produce a capitalist economy, but rather reinforced feudal offices and relations in a regime based on slavery (1983: 264/223). Capitalism goes further. At one pole it decodes qualitative
through extra-economic forces (political or juridical), relationships through the privatisation of all aspects of social life, free trade, advertising, freeing of labour and capital, imperialism; and, at the other pole, it axiomatises them as productions for the market. 62

it is crucial not to make the error Slavoj iek and others have made by concluding from this that all decoded flows are necessarily contributions to capitalism (iek 2004: 184). Neither, I argue, should we conclude the opposite: that decoded flows are necessarily revolutionary. The struggle over the assembly of decoded flows is a revolutionary struggle and far from decidable in advance. Revolutionary praxis struggles to unite a consistency of decoded flows, and capitalism struggles to have them bound into a world axiomatic that always opposes the revolutionary potential of decoded flows with new interior limits (Deleuze and Guattari 1983: 2923/246). The details of this struggle are developed at length in Chapter 3. Capitalism is thus constituted by two decoded flows: on the one hand the flow of naked labour, freed from serfdom and able to sell its labour capacity, and on the other hand the pure flow of capital, independent from landed wealth,
Here, however,

that is capable of buying labour. The first has its roots in simple circulation where money develops as means of payment (bills of exchange falling due on a fixed date, which constitute a monetary form of finite debt) (1983: 272/229) and is distributed as income to wage earners for the purchase of products and services. The second, however, is the money inscribed on the balance sheet of the firm and is based on the circulation of drafts rather than money. This second money constitutes what Deleuze and Guattari call the capitalist form of infinite debt. Rather than using preexisting currency as a means of payment, finance capital is an instantaneous creative flow that banks create spontaneously as a debt owing to themselves, a creation ex nihilo that hollows out at one extreme of the full body a negative money (a debt entered as a
liability of the banks), and projects at the other extreme a positive money (a credit granted th e productive economy by the banks), a flow possessing a power of mutation *flux pouvoir mutant+ that does not

This so-called stateless, monetary mass that circulates through foreign exchange and across borders forms a supranational ecumenical organisation in many ways untouched by governmental decisions. For example, ninety-six per cent of money circulated in the United States alone is financial capital. This money does not exist as concrete payment or exchange money but rather as credit or investment money loaned out by banks (to other banks, or other investors) at specific interest rates. How much this investment capital is worth at any given moment depends on an incredibly complex host of speculations, desires, predictions, interest rates, stock prices and so on that no one can predict with total accuracy. At any given time, US banks are required to have no less than three per cent of their total money as payment money to distribute for bank withdrawals. 15 This dualism between types of money the formation of means of payment and the structure of financing, between the management of money and the financing of capitalist accumulation, between exchange money and credit money (Deleuze and Guattari 1983: 271/229) is fundamental to the capitalist system: but how are such unqualified monetary flows then quantified by an axiomatic? It would be a simplistic reading of Deleuze and Guattaris analysis to say that capitalist axiomatics were defined solely by the abstract quantification of decoded flows. In part, this is the case because the quantification of the creative flow of financial capital poses a real difficulty: no one knows exactly where to draw the line on this speculative, nonexistent monetary mass. But what makes the capitalist social field unique is that its quantifications are based on differential conjunctions between flows of unqualified labour and flows of unqualified capital. That is, simple quantity as a variable relation between independent terms (goods and services) has taken upon itself the independence. Denumerable quantification no longer depends on the independent qualities of the terms being exchanged, but is determined independently of these concrete terms. Just as axioms remain independent and disengaged from their social or mathematical demonstrations, so the capitalist market also determines the quantitative value of commodities independently of their qualification; that is, it determines them axiomatically. The capitalist machine thus begins when capital ceases to be a capital of alliance (a variable relation between two qualified terms) to become filiative capital (an independent determination of abstract quantities) where money begets money, or value a surplus value (1983: 269/227). Capitalisms differential conjunctions, as Deleuze and Guattari describe them, are precisely the axiomatisation of this
enter into income and is not assigned to purchases, a pure availability, non-possession and nonwealth. (1983: 282/237) differential relationship, where Dy derives from labor power and constitutes the fluctuation of variable capital, and where Dx derives from capital itself and constit utes the fluctuation of constant capital (the definition of constant capital by no means excludes the possibility of a change in the value of its constituent parts) (1983: 26970/2278). The relation is differential (dy/dx) because both 64 terms are decoded

by measuring (quantifying) these two orders of magnitude, non-existent (unqualified) finance capital and variable (unqualified) labour, in terms of the same analytical unit, Deleuze and Guattari claim that capitalist axiomatics are a pure fiction, a cosmic swindle, as if one were to measure intergalactic or intra-atomic distances in metres and centimeters (1983: 273/230). These cosmic fictions are the basis of an endless accumulation of profit. Unlike a surplus value of code, defined by the difference between labour capacity and the value created by labour capacity, capitalist surplus values of flux are defined by the incommensurability between two flows that are immanent to each other (free capital and free labour). The difference between what labour can do and what it can be sold for is its profit. But by completely decoding labour and capital and axiomatising their incommensurable relation, capitalism is able to generate surplus flux or profit without the limitations created by certain kinds of codes (or qualities). Anything whatever can be axiomatised and circulated on the world market. Under the capitalist axiomatic, according to Deleuze and Guattari, profit accumulation has been unleashed from any external limitations. (3.2) The Dangers of the Axiomatic for Revolutionary Praxis The first danger of axiomatisation is that it harnesses a worldwide war machine that sets out to reorganise the entire world based on the exploitation of planetary resources. War, as Deleuze and Guattari say, clearly follows the same movement as capitalism (1987: 582/466). The growing importance of finance capital in the axiomatic means that the depreciation of existing capital and the formation of new capital take on the speed of a war machine incarnated in the state as models of realisation that actively contribute to the redistributions of the world necessary for the exploitation of maritime
and unqualified. But

and planetary resources . . . The power of war always supersaturates the systems saturations, as its necessary condition [La puissance de guerre venait toujours sursaturer la saturation du systme, et la conditionnait] (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 582/466). States no longer appropriate the war machine but constitute a war machine of which they themselves are only the parts: the worldwide capitalist war machine. As states increase military, technoscientific spending to absorb or compensate for the massive surplus values of corporations, they find their new object in the absolute peace of terror or deterrence , Deleuze and Guattari say. Stateorganised capitalism operates against an unspecified enemy as an organised insecurity. The danger for revolutionary praxis is that this war machine, unlike the state, has no centre that can be overthrown. Capitalist resistance then must take a very different form than the mere capture of the state. Another danger of capitalism is the disappearance of enjoyment as an end, and its replacement with the sole end of abstract wealth and its realisation in forms other than consumption. Where the despotic state had emperors of anti-production to consume surplus, the bourgeois field of immanence has no such external limit and has integrated anti-production inside production itself. It has instituted an unrivalled slavery, an unprecedented subjugation. No longer are there any masters but only slaves commanding other slaves, slaves of the social machine. The bourgeois sets the example, Deleuze and Guattari argue: He
absorbs surplus value for ends that, taken as a whole, have nothing to do with his own enjoyment: more utterly enslaved than the lowest slaves, he is the first servant of the ravenous machine, the beast of the

The social subjection of juridical statism combined with the machinic enslavement of states by the market create a new form of machinic enslavement in which states and capitalists alike are merely parts of a larger social machine that no one is in control of: the capitalist world market. The excessive surpluses are so large they cannot be enjoyed but merely absorbed through other mechanisms.
reproduction of capital, internalization of the infinite debt. I too am a slave these are the new words spoken by the master. (1983: 302/254)

And, this body-mind commodification operates through notions of predictable and limited communication in education which interpellate subjects into neoliberalisms conceptual matrix Lazzarato 8 (Maurizio, researcher at University of Paris I and member of the International
College of Philosophy, The Machine, European institute for progressive cultural policies, trans. Mary ONiell, bilingual lexicographer at Oxford University Press, epilogue to Tausend Maschinen by Gerald Raunig, http://eipcp.net/transversal/1106/lazzarato/en)-jn The capitalist system, through the operation of social subjection, creates and allocates roles and functions; it provides us with a subjectivity and assigns to us a specific process of individuation (via categories such as identity, sex, profession, nationality, etc.). On the one hand, subjection causes us to individuate; it constitutes us as subjects, determined by the specific demands of power. On the other, it attaches each individual to an identity which is a known quantity, fixed and immutable. How does television produce subjection? What role do language and communication play in this process? The subject-function in communication and language is in no way natural: on the contrary, it has to be constructed and imposed. According to Deleuze and Guattari, the subject is neither a precondition of language nor is it the cause of a statement. Deleuze argues that we as
subjects are not what generate the statements in each of us; they are produced by something entirely different, by multiplicities, masses and packs, peo ples and tribes: all collective arrangements which are within us and for which we are vehicles, without knowing precisely what thos e arrangements are. These are what make us speak, and they

There is no subject, only collective arrangements of enunciation which produce statements. The statement is always collective, even when it appears to be expressed by a unique, solitary individual such as the artist.*2+ From these collective arrangements, from the multiplicity of roles which constitute us and for which we are vehicles, the televisual machine extracts a subject which apprehends and indeed feels itself to be the absolute and
are the true drivers of our statements.

individual cause and origin of its expressions, its words and its affects. Television functions through the use of a
small number of established, codified statements, statements of the dominant reality; it also uses a series of prefabricated modes of expression. It then claims to transform these statements and expressions into the statements and expressions of individual subjects themselves. How does it go about doing this? Television succeeds in presenting statements that conform to the dominant reality of capitalism as though they were the statements of individuals, by constructing a machine that interprets their words and their expression; it also puts in place a machine of subjectivation that operates by creating a double of the subject. It encourages you to speak as the subject of enunciation (sujet dnonciation), as though you were the cause and the origin of statements. At the same time, as the subject of the statement (sujet dnonc), you are spoken by this same

you are interviewed on television (whether in a literary discussion programme or a chat show or even on reality TV, you are set up as a subject of enunciation (You the viewer or you the esteemed guest, who are making television). You are then subjected to a machine of interpretation with several constituent parts. First of all, you become dominated by a non-discursive machine designed to interpret, select and standardize and this is before you have even begun to speak. Following developments in the language sciences from linguistics to
machine of communication. If where you talk about your experiences), pragmatics, television takes on all the elements, linguistic and non-linguistic, of enunciation. It does not operate solely on the basis of a few ready-made statements, but also

It uses a certain rhythm, certain gestures, a certain mode of dress, a certain colour scheme, a certain setting for your interview, a certain framing of the image, etc. As soon as you open your mouth, you become the object of the journalists discursive interpretation, the journalist who, assisted by the expert and the scholar, measures the gap which may still exist between your enunciation, your subjectivation, your meaning and the dominant statements, subjectivation and meanings. At the end of the interview, you are the subject of the statement, an
through the selection of a certain lexicon, a certain intonation, a certain speed of delivery, a certain type of behaviour. effect of the semiotics of the machine of communication, believing itself to be a subject of enunciation, feeling itself to be the absolute, individual cause and origin of

Your words are folded over statements and modes of expression which are imposed on you and expected of you. Beneath the folds of your mental reality lies the dominant reality. Without being aware of it, you have slipped into
statements, whereas in reality it is the result of a machinery, no more than the end point in the process.

the statements and expressions of the machine of communication. On television, you are always in danger of being trapped in the dominant meanings and subjectivations, no matter what you say or do. You speak, but you run the risk of saying nothing of what really matters to you. All the enunciative devices in our democratic societies -surveys, marketing, elections, political and union representation, etc. -- represent more or less sophisticated variations on this division of the subject whereby the subject of enunciation must be reflected in the subject of the statement. As a voter, you are called upon to give your views as a subject of enunciation, but you are simultaneously spoken as the subject of the statement since your freedom of expression amounts to nothing more than a choice from among possible options which have already been codified and standardized. The election, like surveys, marketing, and political and union representation, presupposes a consensus on issues on which you havent actually been consu lted. The more you express yourself and speak and the more you interact with the machine of communication, the more you abandon what you actually wanted to say, because the communicational devices disconnect you from your own collective arrangements of enunciation and draw you into other collective arrangements (television, in this instance). Subjection is not a matter of ideology. It does not particularly affect signs, languages or communication, because the economy is a powerful machine of subjectivation. Capitalism itself may be defined, not as a mode of production, but rather as a machine of subjectivation. For Deleuze and Guattari, capital acts as a formidable point of subjectivation that constitutes all human beings as subjects; but some, the capitalists, are subjects of enunciation [+, while others, the proletarians, are subjects of the statement, subjected to the technical machines.*3+ The transformation of a salaried employee into human capital, into an entrepreneur of her/himself, a transformation facilitated by contemporary management techniques, represents the fulfilment of the process of subjectivation and exploitation, since in this case it is the same individual who splits in two. On the one hand, the individual brings
the subjectivation process to its pinnacle, because in all these activities s/he involves the immaterial and cognitive resources of her/his self, while on the other, s/he inclines towards identification, subjectivation and exploitation, given that s/he is both her/his own master and slave, a capitalist and a proletarian, the subject of enunciation and the subject of the statement.

Capitalism renders masses of people inexistent through exploitation and oppression. Your primary obligation is to work to bring the inexistent back into existence Badiou 12 (Alain, philosophy at EGS, The Rebirth of History, p 55-56)-jn
I can summarize all this in a language at once more abstract and simpler.

masses of people have, strictly speaking,

In a world structured by exploitation and oppression no existence. They count for nothing. In today's world nearly
And

all Africans, for example, count for nothing. decisions that decide their fate.

even in our affluent lands the majority of people, the

mass of ordinary workers, basically decide absolutely nothing, have only a fictional voice in the matter of the
Only a simultaneously remote and ubiquitous oligarchy manages to link successive episodes in people 's lives via a

these people, who are present in the world but absent from its meaning and decisions about its future, the inexistent of the world. We shall then say that a change of world is real when an inexistent of the world starts to exist in this same world with maximum intensity. This is exactly what people in the popular rallies in Egypt were saying and are still saying: we used not to exist, but now we exist, and we can determine the history of the country. This subjective fact is endowed with an extraordinary power. The inexistent has arisen. That is why we refer to uprising: people were lying down, submissive; they are getting up, picking themselves up, rising up. This rising is the rising of existence itself: the poor have not become rich; people who were unarmed are not now armed, and so forth. Basically, nothing has changed. What has occurred is restitution of the existence of the inexistent, conditional upon what I call an event. In the knowledge that, unlike
unified parameter - namely, profit, off which that oligarchy lives. Let us call the restitution of the inexistent, the event itself is invariably elusive.

Ya Basta! Enough is enough. Thus, we advocate solidarity with the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. At this junction, we note that the neoliberal economic politics of NAFTA discipline all of our economic engagement towards Mexico. Thus, we take this opportunity to affirm solidarity with the Zapatistas, in favor of a different form of economic engagement, a different pedagogy, beyond neoliberalism. We must use the logic of egalitarianism that undergirds the topic to make an evental demand for solidarity. My partner and I advocate the politics of leading by obeyingor a politics built on mutual governance, which shatters squo representation. Nail 12 (Thomas, postdoctoral lecturer in the Philosophy Department at the University of
Denver, Returning to Revolution, ed. Claire Colebrook et al., p 137-138)-jn opposed to the two dangers of representation and anti-representation, there exists a third type: the participatory body politic. This new body politic is defined by its participatory mutability: the degree to which its conditions are transformed by the participation of the elements and subjects affected by it. I further argued that in order to understand the structure and function of this participatory and revolutionary body politic we need to understand the unique relationship it articulates between three different dimensions: its conditions, elements and kinds of subjects. Representational, anti-representational and participatory political
In the last section I argued that,

bodies each express a different type of relationship between these three dimensions. But this has only been a theoretical development. In this next section I argue that

the

Zapatistas have created a revolutionary and participatory body politic in practice. The two sides of theory and practice thus constitute the strategy I am calling revolutionary participation. Zapatismo presents an interesting case in political theory and practice because it cannot be understood by the political philosophies of liberalism or Marxism. Zapatismo abandons both the notions of sovereign power based on political and juridical representation and the basic tenets of Marxist science, vanguardism, state capture, class struggle and the determination of the economy in the last instance. Marcos and the early EZLN, upon arriving in Chiapas, found that their Marxist, Leninist and Maoist preconceptions were totally inadequate for communicating with the local population and eventually concluded that their original plans for struggle were undemocratic and authoritarian (Ross 2006: 14). But the Zapatistas are not a postmodern revolution in the sense that they merely reject these forms of representation in favour of a spontaneous or speculative leftism. Instead, they have constructed a new kind of body politic based on participation. They call this process mandar obedeciendo, or leading by obeying.25 But what is leading by obeying, and how does it function as a practice of political participation? Perhaps,
the new political morality is constructed in a new space which will not be the taking or retention of power, but the counterweight and opposition which contains and obliges the power to rule by obeying . . . *R+ule by obedience is not within the concepts of political science and it is devalued b y the morality of efficiency which defines the political

The new body politic the Zapatistas invent is thus one whose conditions for social order and inclusion must obey the concrete elements and subjects
activity which we suffer. (Marcos 2004b: 217)

obedient to this same social order. Zapatismo is defined by this reciprocal governance, not by the taking of representative power or the rejection of all political organisation. Leading by obeying thus expresses a political vertigo or participatory feedback loop between the leaders who obey the led, and the led who must lead the leaders and obey. Mandar obedeciendo breaks the traditional political distinction between means and ends; it makes the road by walking.
The process of leading by obeying can be understood as the mutual transformation of three different dimensions: a revolutionary condition, its concrete practices and its form of revolutionary subjectivity.

In fact, we are a part of Zapatismoits a universal movement that operates within any challenge to neoliberalismits time to embrace a new politics. Nail 12 (Thomas, postdoctoral lecturer in the Philosophy Department at the University of
Denver, Returning to Revolution, ed. Claire Colebrook et al., p 139)-jn Zapatismo invents a new condition for social order and inclusion. Like the phenomena of the revolution of 1789, the Paris Commune and the revolution of 1917, Zapatismo is a singular event in the sense that it is irreducible to historically necessary causal chains. In 1994, in Mexico, Zapatismo held no resemblance to any recognisable legal or legitimate political thing within the present state of affairs, that is, no political
As a body politic, representation (party), market representation, linguistic representation (their languages are not spoken or recognised by political representatives) or representation by the local

There was no causal necessity that Zapatismo should have existed, no way it could have been deduced from the domains of rights, commodities or class struggle from which it emerged. From the representational point of view of Mexican politics, the marginalised and unrepresented Zapatistas of Chiapas have no legitimate existence and yet they coexist immanently and heterogeneously within the political arrangement anyway. The singular event of Zapatismo is thus not conditioned on requests for representation like rights, the overthrow of the state, a new market economy or a new ethnic nationalism, but instead takes on its own self-reference or autonomy from within the situation. But the condition of the Zapatistas body politic is also universal in the sense that it is both inclusive and infinite in its consequences. To be Zapatista does not mean that you must be represented by the EZLN or that you must be indigenous, or even from Mexico. But Zapatismo cannot mean anything one wants. Zapatismo means participating in a struggle against neoliberalism and for direct self-management wherever one is and to whatever degree one is capable of. Without a
indigenous leaders (caciques).

prior or immutable condition for exclusion, the Zapatistas have made it clear that

anyone can become a Zapatista to the degree

that they share their struggle. 26 Many around the world have subsequently taken up this universal event where they are (Europe, Asia, North America and so on). So rather than simply affirming their difference and unrepresentability, the Zapatistas have created a singular- absolute event/intervention and given it a specific consistency of its own, heterogeneous to the regimes of political representation. This singular-universality is practically constituted through the creation of Encuentros (international gatherings)27 that aim to include others that
will change the nature of Zapatismo as a social body each time they meet (see Chatterton 2007).

We should recreate debate as a pedagogical space beyond the ideological parameters of neoliberalism. This is the only way to change the worldeach and every instance is key Rodriguez 9 (Arturo, professor in the College of Education at Boise State University, Anticapitalist Analytical Fusion: Science, Pedagogy and Revolution, Journal for Activist Science & Technology Education, volume 1, number 2, pp. 48-58)-jn-gender+disability modified
If the above resembles a rant consider why a string of words that includes political and economic critique and the actual market functions of our global society affect the

The academy turns its nose at work marginally reviewed or constructed as outcry, pedagogy of indignation (Freire, 2004) at how people continue to enslave other people while destroying the last useable resources on the planet. Organic and academy trained intellectuals have given the world their lives, their blood sweat and fears chasing the ether, the unifying principle, in some fields read as truth in an effort to solve the worlds mysteries. And how are they repaid? They are indicted by the FBI, distracted from their work by colleagues who scream bloody murder as they find ways to take solace from the everyday right wing never ending barrage. Is it the argument they are after when they cry foul? Or is it the sign, the symbol of freedom represented by a lifes work in the academy sharing the living experience with students, colleagues, all workers alike managing the living, the breathing and the dying. And what is capitalist schooling at its best marked by the alienating principal: fuck [forget] the [one] guy that helped you graduate that ensured you made it to the next step , the next position on the research/career ladder. Was it truth we were after as we began our doctoral study in the hopes of shedding light on
readers view of this paper. some obscure fact? The mating principles of the mud-wasp or sexuality in the human male, are these black holes in the minds eye as rebellion takes the place of cultural logic and cultural truth? So progressive educators a reflection of the reality that is human destroy the earth and its atmosphere when their pedagogy ensures children learn the science necessary to produce industrial coatings, fertilizer and cyanide without also ensuring they acquire the depth of consciousness necessary to make connections between

why is Marxism such a word of abuse (McLaren & Jaramillo, 2009) even the right can see the fluidity of accepting the changing condition of the system what Lacan refers to as synthome of societies (Lacan, 2006). Radical pedagogy aint for the timid, it is a critical
wearing a gold and diamond ring and the use of cyanide and strip mining for their production. Pushing further,

revolutionary praxis marked by the blood of Zapatistas , Che Guevara and progressive intellectuals organic and academic alike that understand a need for change from gripping tight to the cosmic orgone (Reich, 1973) that does not permit any competing principal or ideology to seep in. The search for truth is not about finding the source of all energy or a catalyzing principal. It is the understanding that humans and objects share relationships, principles that adhere to organizational value and metaphysical conception and oscillations. The gangrene of racism, sexism, fascism and homophobia are human made (McLaren & Jaramillo, 2009) they are the legacy of the left and of the right. What can be done about them is marked by the ways intellectuals enact and participate in their praxis. A critical reflexivity that draws the kite-string of principal between the market need to produce chemicals for consumption like Zyklon B and the necessary day to day Socratic discursive practices doing more than shouting out to father capital in the classroom. Human and environmental devastation are the end result of our social relations
(Rodriguez, 2009)

which includes the needs and whims of markets and of the hyper-

complex systems that are societies as they trade in material and human surplus value. The legacy of
Marx and critical analyses are not the mere Utopic visions of a few stalwart yet antiquated intellectuals (McLaren, 2009) they are an entreaty cultural critique positioning trade consciousness and social amnesia as the culprits on the market stage of global capitalist domination. Critical social theory does not dis-clude what is or what the agent knows or has known, like the conglomerate it promulgates all byproduct of human relations bad and good as actors that contribute to the enslavement of the individual and the

Dissemination, the symbol, the division of units and of labor, the structure of the phenomenon all bear as a derivative of the human and environmental condition of existence markings of each other. All symbols of experience return to the source; that is we humans police ourselves and each other and we free ourselves and each other. Closing Remarks The global market occupies virtually
devastation of the natural environment.

every corner of the struggle for humanity (McLaren & Jaramillo, 2007) children in classrooms are the direct inheritors, as they grow to adulthood of the sort of social and natural environment adults accept. War is class war as those who reap the benefits, profit margins, on a global scale are never those with most at risk ; the soldiers doing the killing in the fields benefit only so far as their use value is justified in controlling the world via the wholesale slaughter of, enemy combatants. These are children and adults in the so called terrorist states who happen to be in the way of cementing capitalist social relationswhether copper, oil, timber or human interests. Furthermore the human life span is far too short for any one human being to have an effect that significantly impacts the world market. We are far beyond the moment where the Molotov cocktail, the baton or a rock thrown by its self can cause the adoption among the human chain of a worldwide position for revolution. Even when riots occur, the 1960s, 1980s or 1990s globally, the market fights individual citizens to a standstill. Hard to throw a rock when you are starving, or when you have to
excavate rubble to recover and then bury your children. And yet the US has been successfully fought to a standstill, in the market by Cuba and Venezuela and at war by Afghanistan and Iraq. Why does a military that possesses the sole surviving global Air Force, Navy and Army continue to make war on people that return fire from horseback using muskets and single shot World War I era munitions? The war begun in 2003 was conceived over ten years prior; in 2009 the US is still at war with according to Gibson, a

Can it be there is more to life and war than production or enslavement? The classrooms as McLaren and Jaramillo relate and as Bencze and Alsop elaborate, were the last truly public domains where students and teachers could engage in a respite from the dominant ideology (2009, 2009). They could take it upon themselves to consider the social relations that exist and their effect on the environment. According to David Hursch, Neo-liberals desire not to intervene in markets and to focus on economic growth, primarily terms of consumption, has both significantly contributed to the environmental problems that we face and to global warming. (2009: p5) The copper canyons in Utah were not put their by
military with no long history of defense no internal defense industry of note, no definable supply lines, no clear chain of command or central leadership (2009). meteors but by mining operations. The depletion of salmon and steelhead in the rivers and streams of California, Oregon and Washington did not happen as a product of the

Human constructed, petrochemicals, positions on the treatment of the environment as things existing solely for the purpose of providing the corporatocracy with surplus value created all of it. Critical educators in and out of the classroom stand as [are] a measure of change as the
ravages of time.

onslaught of neoliberalism continues.

People cause the ravages of time to negatively affect the planet, surplus accumulation whether it is

Yet there is another more insidious form of surplus accumulationit is the toll on students in classrooms across the globe of curricula and pedagogies ensuring students leave classrooms
PCBs in the Hudson, ammonium nitrates at the mouths of the worlds major rivers or the debris from surface and subsurface de tonations of nuclear material.

functionally illiterate. Capable only of reading and acting out the prescribed lives global capitalists have set. Human agency and enslavement result as people live their lives careless to the effect their actions have on the natural environment and each other. Pedagogists in the natural and social sciences do more than share information with their students. They leave a lasting imprint, a seed for enlightenment, which may contribute to the production of knowledge. But, more importantly, offer an alternative to the living currently destroying the planet.

Its a question of resonanceour speech act transversally harmonizes with Zapatismo. Every little action is key to opposing capitalist bureaucratic programming Nail 12 (Thomas, postdoctoral lecturer in the Philosophy Department at the University of
Denver, Returning to Revolution, ed. Claire Colebrook et al., p 165-168)-jn By solidarity I mean the immanent, point-by-point connection between at least two heterogeneous evental sequences (an immanent condition, its concrete elements and its forms of agency). By connection I mean the degree to which a concrete element or singularity is affirmed as a consequence or singularity of both evental conditions. Since merely deciding on the undecidable, as I
Transversal Relays Thus, if solidarity is possible, how does it work? argued in Chapter 3, is insufficient for sustaining the participatory consequences and agents of such a decision, so is merely deciding on the undecidable relation between two

it is necessary, for evental solidarity, to connect at least one consequence or element from one event to at least one consequence or element of another. The more concrete elements of an event that are connected to the elements of another event, the greater the degree of infinity in each event as well as the degree of solidarity between them. In What Is Philosophy? Deleuze and Guattari call this the external neighborhood or exoconsistency of the event. Its transuniversal or transversal relations are secured by the bridges thrown from one *machine+ to another (Deleuze and Guattari 1994: 87/90). This is the piece -bypiece labour of solidarity. But since each revolutionary condition is singular, a connection or transversality between connections cannot mean total identification. Rather, this kind of revolution is constructed piece by piece,
heterogeneous political conditions. Accordingly,

and the places, conditions, and techniques are irreducible to one another (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: Thus two heterogeneous conditions become more or less connected/identified through an unlimited series of concrete political practices that act as noncommunicating relays. This is because for the nomad, according to Deleuze and Guattari, locality is not delimited; the absolute, then, does not appear at a particular place but becomes a non-limited locality; the coupling of the place and the absolute is achieved not in a centered, oriented globalization or universalization but in an infinite succession of local operations. (1987: 475/383) But this infinite succession is not an indefinite delay of solidarity; it is the positive concrete articulation of increasingly greater
190/157). degrees without a totality of absolute unification. As Guillaume Sibertin Blanc puts it, the becoming -minoritarian of everyone can be constructed . . . through a universal process which involves no gushing spontaneity of Life or History . . . but through the blocks of asymmetrical becomings w here a term may become-other thanks to the becoming-other of another term itself connected to an nth in an open series . . . No longer an extensive and quantifiable universality, but on the contrary an intensive and unquantifiable universality, in the sense that subjects become in common in a process where their identitary anchorages are dissipated, to the advantage of that conception and radically constructivist practice of autonomy required by a new minoritarian internationalism. (Sibertin-Blanc 2009: 1345) Just as two different nomadic Bedouin families share

it is possible to say that two or more heterogeneous political conditions participate to a greater or lesser degree in each others conditions to the extent that they share a number of the same concrete consequences or relays. With this definition we are closer to the earlier political meaning of the word nomos as a mode of non-limited distribution than we are with the derivative fifth- or sixth-century Greek definition of nomos as law (loi), to judge (juger) or to govern (gouverner) (Laroche 1949: 256). With this definition it is also possible for one to occupy multiple heterogeneous conditions at once to the degree that a given distribution of bridges of shared commitment crosses transversally multiple political conditions. This is what Deleuze and Guattari call a constructivism, *or+ diagrammatism, operating by the determination of the conditions of the problem and by transversal links between problems: it opposes both the automation of the capitalist
more or less solidarity over some specific practices and thus participate to some extent in the common descent (my italics) of each others families, so

axioms and bureaucratic programming. From this standpoint, when we talk about undecidable propositions, we are not referring to the uncertainty of the results, which is necessarily a part of every system. We are referring, on the contrary, to the coexistence and inseparability of that which the system conjugates, and that which never ceases to escape it following lines of flight that are themselves connectable. (1987: 5901/473) We have now been able finally to answer the question how can one uphold the rights of a micro-analysis (diffusion, heterogeneity, fragmentation) and still allow for some kind of principle of unification that will not turn out to be like the State or the Party, a totalization or a representation? (Deleuze 2006: 1201/1323). The

answer requires a revolutionary body politic to have at least four specific characteristics: singularity, universality, inclusivity and a participatory structure (defined in Chapter 3 and rephrased above). It must be local and determinate with a proper name, absolute and infinite in its consequences, and open to modification by anyone without predefined criteria. Given these four characteristics, I have shown how
Deleuze and Guattari define a collective political body by its nomadic solidarity following Laroche and Khaldun. Laroche defines nomos by its earlier Homeric roots as the open

The forest, pasture, mountain steppe and their inhabitants all express this undivided but clearly heterogeneous kind of distributive unity. Khaldun,
distribution or arrangement of a collective body in an unlimited and inclusive space. then, defines the connections between heterogeneous Bedouin families not by family, state or territory, but by two different axes: common descent and relations of relayed

While groups of common descent never merge entirely, they merge to a greater or lesser degree depending on the concrete relations of group solidarity at a given time. Finally, we reached the definition of nomadic solidarity as the piece-by-piece infinite connection (bridging) of shared concrete actions by two or more heterogeneous political conditions (never merging but becoming more or less transversally identical).
group solidarity.

You should act as a philosopher, and the role of your ballot is to maintain a transformative politics Nail 12 (Thomas, postdoctoral lecturer in the Philosophy Department at the University of
Denver, Returning to Revolution, ed. Claire Colebrook et al., p 8-9)-jn
So, if there are no universal foundations or categories for all political life, as Guattari argues, then the goal of political philosophy changes significantly.

If the role of leadership and critique are forever bound by the question of political foundations, then the alternative task of an engaged political philosopher is to intervene and contribute immanently to political struggles themselves just like anyone else. Or as Subcomandante Marcos says, We had to be honest and tell people that we had not come to lead anything of what might emerge. We came to release a demand, that could unleash others (Marcos 2001c). Or perhaps, as Foucault says of his own philosophical interventions, So, since there has to be an imperative, I would like the one underpinning the theoretical analysis we are attempting to be quite simply a conditional imperative of the kind: if you want to struggle, here are some key points, here are some lines of force, here are some constrictions and blockages. In other words, I would like these imperatives to be no more than tactical pointers. Of course, its up
to me, and those who are working in the same direction, to know on what fields of real forces we need to get our bearings in order to make a tactically effective analysis. But

this is, after all, the circle of struggle and truth, that is to say, precisely, of philosophical practice. (2007: 3) In sum, the aim of the present volume, in addition to the aforementioned three aims, following Marcos, Marx and Foucault, is not to interpret the world, but to transform it by outlining some revolutionary strategies that might unleash something else. Thus the ultimate criterion of success for this book is not that it has simply described the world, but that it will have been useful to those engaged in the present revolutionary task of changing the world.

We should engage in an inter-subjective enactment of the event and reject capitalist subjective constructionskey to ending neoliberalism Nail 10 (Thomas, post-doc at U Denver, A post-neoliberal ecopolitics? Deleuze, Guattari, and
Zapatismo, Philosophy Today, summer, pp. 179-190)-jn Opposed to conditions based on moral and legal norms, and opposed to elements goal orientation and intentional consciousness, Deleuze, Guattari, and the Zapatistas propose the theoretical practice of the abstract machine of collective/ecological autonomy, and the concrete machinic assemblage of community forest
Machinic Personae and the Third Person based on management. But what alternative do they propose to the independent subject who makes ecopolitical decisions? Where one would normally locate an autonomous (human) subject, who is able to independently discern a universal norm or environmental value in order to then apply this norm or policy implication to concrete (natural) elements,

the machinic persona or ecological/collective third person. Without affirming either a dualism between humans (and their values) and nature (and its objects) or affirming an undifferentiated multiplicity of human/ nature machines, machinic personae are, according to
Deleuze, Guattari, and the Zapatistas propose the concept of

specific local operators who intervene in order to establish an immanent connection between specific abstract machines and the concrete political machines that effectuate them (QP 73/75). But herein lies the difficulty: how can an agent of any kind bring about the condition for its own existence? The subject must pre-exist the event in order bring it into being but the event must also pre-exist the subject as the condition under which the subject is a subject-of-the-event. This is the paradox of ecopolitical intervention. Deleuze and Guattaris solution to this problem, however, is to say that both interventions occur simultaneously in the mutual presupposition of the other; problem and solution are co-given, as are humans and nature (QP 75/78; 79/82). So while the first person generally indicates a self-conscious subject of enunciation who makes decisions on a natural set of objects independent from it, and the second person designates the projection of the first, the third person persona indicates an indefinite groupsubject always in co-given adaptation with the milieu. In A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari say, We believe . . . that the third person indefinite, HE, THEY, implies no indetermination from this point of view; it ties the
Deleuze and Guattari,

statement to a collective agencement , as its necessary condition, rather than to a subject of the enunciation. Blanchot is correct in saying that ONE and HEone is dying, he is unhappyin no way take the place of the subject, but instead do away with any subject in favor of an agencement of the haecceity type that carries or brings out the event insofar as it is unformed and incapable of being effectuated by persons (something happens to them that they can only get a grip on again by letting go of their ability to say I). The HE does not represent a subject but rather makes a diagram of an agencement. (MP 324/265) Thus, opposed to the indetermination of a pure potential machinic multiplicity, or the representational first person of enunciation (based on contemplation, reflection, and communication), third person personae are indefinite in the sense that they are not persons independent from the event, who look on, judge, and make decisions about how it should proceed, but they are determinate in the sense that they effectuate or make a diagram of the event, immanent only to the necessary condition of the collective assemblage. They are not subjects of experience, rational reflection, discourse, representation, or creativity in-itself, but are rather subjects expressive of an ecological and machinic consistency. As an event that rejects the dualism between political
struggle and ecological affect and affirms the collective third person of ecopolitical self-management, the Zapatistas effect machinic personae. Consider the figure of what the

Unlike any European vernacular/colonial language, Tojolabal (the native language of many Zapatistas) features an intersubjective correlation between first and third persons, that is, a code devoid of direct and indirect object, instead structured in the correlation between subjects.34 One of the implications of this, as Walter D. Mignolo observes, is that the Zapatistas do not engage in acts of representation, but engage instead in intersubjective enactements.35 When compa say I, You, or They, these are not features of an ego or consciousness, but features of an evental consistency that expresses their entire affective or ecological situation. First and second persons still function, but only as derivative features of a more primary third person that effectuates an event. Conflicts and agreements still take place between specific Is and Yous but only as conflicts and agreements of the event they effectuate: not outside it, or upon it, but within and through it. Because, as Subcomandante Marcos says, here in the EZLN the mistakes are conjugated in the first person singular and the achievements in the third person plural. 36 Additionally, consider the compas use of black masks and bandanas to create a particular but indefinite group-subject. While Marcos has given several different reasons for these masks over the years, from making sure no one tries to become the leader,37 to portraying Mexicos covering up of its real Mexico,3 8 the collective practice of masking has produced a very specific kind of subjectivity, immanent not to consciousness or experience but to the event or abstract machine of Zapatismo itself that includes the chickens, the stones, and everything in their affective territory. The practice of collective masking in Zapatsimo is hostile to both vanguardism and individuals who make free decisions about the situation, and instead creates a third person or compa who speaks as a Zapatista through the masked anonymous (a-nomos) ecology of Zapatismo. Rather than affirm a pure alterity or potential for transformation as such, found in the face of a Thou39 against a representational I/You opposition, the Zapatistas propose instead an indefinite but determinate third person of the event. By covering their faces as a political action, the Zapatistas are able to create
Zapatistas call the compa (short for compaera/os: partner, comrade).

a unique political anonymity (open to anyone/anything, and yet unambiguously against neoliberalism) that rejects both liberal and critical models of subjectivity, in favor of a subject of the evental ecology itself. Conclusion Beyond representation and critique, I have shown how the theoretical and practical insights of Deleuze, Guattari, and the
Zapatistas offer a compelling post-neoliberal ecopolitical vision based on machinic ecology and ecological self-management. While much of environmental scholarship on Deleuze and Guattari has aimed at affirming a machinic ecology of multiplicities, each connecting to the other in a cosmic web of non-dualistic interconnection (the Earth or Mechanosphere), I have proposed instead that their most significant con tribution to ecopolitics is rather their machinic eco-logic composed of three different types of machines: the abstract machine, the concrete machinic assemblage, and the machinic persona. These three structural elements work through a process of expression and affection demonstrated in the three practices of Zapatista forest management: autonomy, community management, and third person agency. Based on their shared rejection of

the Zapatistas not only critique these institutions of representational politics but have also worked hard to develop an alternative theory and practice instead based on ecopolitical autonomy, self-management, and group subjectivity aimed at spreading forms of self-government or self-management that are possible [in Chiapas], in a wayto other places, as Marcos says.40 Since eco-power has replaced much of the grass roots environmentalism
state politics, capitalist economics, and normative subjectivity, Deleuze, Guattari, and of the 60s and 70s, the Zapatistas have had to invent a new kind of ecological politics. By directly taking control over their local forests and resources and defending them democratically, they are proposing a new ecopolitical strategy irreducible to the present neo-liberal conjuncture. But while a more rigorous cartography of Zapatismo cannot be elaborated in the space of this essay, I hope that I have been able to show, at least in an introductory way, the importance of undertaking such an analysis of some of the new political experimentations that are posing alternatives to the ecological devastation we face today.

The appeal to static meaning through language buttresses Capital vote aff to create yourself as a new subjectivity outside the cognitive coordinates of capitalism OSullivan 10 (Simon, Senior Lecturer in Art History/Visual Culture in the Department of Visual
Cultures at Goldsmiths College, Guattaris Aesthetic Paradigm: From the Folding of the Finite/Infinite Relation to Schizoanalytic Metamodelisation, Deleuze Studies 4.2, pp. 256-286)jn
At the very beginning of The New Aesthetic Paradigm Guattari makes the important point that art, considered as a separate autonomous activity, is a relatively recent development in our world and that before this it was part of what we might call the general practices of life and of living. This is, as Guattari points out, difficult to appreciate as the past is invariably understood from the perspective and also the logics and interests of the present. Although specific instances of contemporary art might then be part of the aesthetic paradigm, the notion of art in general can stymie access to the latter in that it reduces aesthetic

the aesthetic paradigm might be thought of as an expanded field of creative life practices that are not necessarily restricted to what is typically considered art, and, as such, this paradigm certainly has something in common with previous or premodern paradigms. We are not, however, fully within this expanded aesthetic paradigm, but rather experience and produce the latter through a number of distinct practices each of which operates as an interface between the finite and infinite. Such practices, which include science, technology, philosophy, art and human affairs, are involved in their own distinct explorations and experiments (100). They conduct their local enquiries following their own logics and using their own particular means. With art it is the finitude of the sensible material that becomes a support for the production of affects and percepts which tend to become more eccentred with respect to performed structures and coordinates (1001). Art involves a finite assemblage that presents the infinite to us in a specifically different and singular manner in contra distinction to the more typical assemblages that surround us on a day-to-day basis. In fact, this metabolism of the infinite might be figured as moving in two directions: from the finite to the infinite but also as a movement from infinity to the passage of time (101). In passing it is worth noting that this movement is also transversal in another sense, in that a mutation in one practice or particular area of life can have effects on another. As opposed to a thinker like Badiou, for whom an events effect is solely vertical as it were, here the event of the finite presenting the infinite/the infinite becoming embodied in the finite is horizontal, working across milieus. This is to map out an immanent field of events (or infinite/finite interfaces) without a supplementary dimension above or behind them. I will return to this below. As we shall see, the aesthetic paradigm, which is implied in art practice though not fully realised, has a particular privileged role to play in the production of subjectivity in our contemporary world. Aesthetics in general, however, or what Guattari calls a dimension of creativity in a nascent state, is also characteristic of pre-capitalist societies that are involved in the production of polysemic, animistic, transindividual subjectivity (aspects of which can also be found in our time in the worlds of infancy, madness, amorous passion and artistic creation) (101). Guattari describes this first type of territorialised Assemb lage as follows: Polyphonic spatial strata, often concentric, appear to attract and colonise all the levels of alterity that in other respects they engender. In relation to them, objects constitute themselves in transversal, vibratory position, conferring on them a soul, a becoming ancestral, animal, vegetal, cosmic. These objectitiessubjectities are led to work for themselves, to incarnate themselves as an animist nucleus: they
practice to a specialism. In a first definition then,

This then is a protoaesthetic paradigm in which the distinctions of subject-object have yet to be fixed and reified, a
overlap each other, and invade each other to become collective entities half-thing, half-soul, half-man, half-beast, machine and flux, matter and sign. . . (102) world of strange mutually implicated beings cohering around objects and practices (in Machinic Heterogenesis Guattari presents a case study, following Marc Auge, of just such a complex practice in the voodoo

in which the spheres of exteriority are not radically separated from the interior, but rather implicated in a general folding that is also a reciprocal fold of the infinite and the finite (102). As Guattari remarks: *h+ere there is no effort bearing on material forms that does not bring forth immaterial entities. Inversely, every drive towards a deterritorialised infinity is accompanied by a movement of folding onto terrritorialised limits . . . (103). The second kind of deterritorialised
object/ritual/belief of Legba *46+).4 It is also a world Assemblage

the capitalist regime proper involves an ordering and reduction of the first. It erects a

transcendent autonomised pole of reference over and above what we might call the multiplicity of worlds evident in the previous regime (103). This is the instalment of dualisms or binary oppositions each of which necessarily involves the setting up of a privileged term. This might involve fixing a transcendent Truth, or notion of the Good, the Beautiful and so forth, but crucially it is also the implementation of Capital as ordering principle of lived life and the concomitant reduction of heterogenetic multiplicity to the principle of exchange. This then is a flattening (exchange principle) and also a hierarchisation (with Capital at the apex). We might say that such a regime is one that subjects its people (albeit a subjection often masked by slogans invoking individual freedom and the possibilities of participation: Nikes just do it! and the like). In technical terms, it involves a segmentation of the infinite movement of deterritorialisation (the latter, as argued in Anti-Oedipus, being the determining factor of capitalism in so far as capitalism is desire) that is accompanied by a reterritorialisation (again, following Anti-Oedipus, this capture might be thought as the second moment of capitalism the capture, or siphoning off of surplus value from the flows of desire) (103).5 In this Assemblage then, [t]he valorisation which, in the preceding illustration, was polyphonic and rhizomatic, becomes bipolarised (103). Here subjectivity is under the rule of the transcendent enunciator, held in a constant state of lack, debt, procrastination and so forth
can, and (104).

Immanence is captured by a transcendent apparatus and , as such, subjectivity is

standardised through the neutralisation of difference. 6 The above two Assemblages cannot be reduced to specific epochs for they invariably do, co-exist within the same period (for example, animist beliefs and practices co-exist with advanced capitalism in the hyper-modern culture of Japan). Likewise, the third Assemblage is present within our own although only in an embryonic state. It bears some relation to the first, but crucially does not involve a simple return (if this were ever a real possibility), but, we might say, a return that is itself coloured by its passage through the second Assemblage. Certainly, the third Assemblage, the aesthetic paradigm proper, has in common with the first that the interiority of atomised individuated subjects is exploded and that a multiplicity of different regimes and practices are implicated.7 However the difference between first and third is important. As Guattari remarks: One does not fall back from the regime of reductionist transcendence onto the reterritorialisation of the movement of infinity in finite modes. The general (and relative) aestheticisation of the diverse Universes of value leads to a different type of reenchantment of the expressive modalities of subjectivity. Magic, mystery and the demonic will no longer emanate, as before, from the same totemic aura. Existential Territories become diversified, heterogenised. (105) This affirmation of difference is then not animist in the sense of the first paradigm. It is not, we might say, a return to a pre-individual subjectivity composed of a-personal strata. For, as Guattari goes on to say: The decisive threshold constituting this new aesthetic paradigm lies in the aptitude of these processes of creation to auto-affirm themselves as existential nuclei, autopoietic machines (106). Difference, or alterity, is then cohered together rather than dispersed as in the first Assemblage. I will be returning below to the crucial question of how this existential stickiness takes place, but we can note here
that it involves the invention of mutant coordinates (106). Indeed, ultimately, it is arts capacity to engender unprecedented, unforeseen and unthinkable qualities of being through the invention of such different coordinates that gives it a privileged place within the third Assemblage (106). As Duchamp once remarked (and as qu oted by Guattari):

art is a road that leads

towards regions which are not governed by time and space (101). It is also important to remember that, as noted above, this third
Assemblage will be marked by its passage through the second. In fact, I would argue it involves an implementation of sorts of the strategies of the second albeit with a significantly different orientation and for different ends: whereas there is a general over-coding in the second, here there is the instalment of local coding or singular points of organisation. We might usefully turn to the late writings of Foucault at this

Here, subjectivation, or the active production of subjectivity by the subject itself, involves a particular relationship to any outside transcendent
point and insert the diagram of the care of the self into Guattaris aesthetic paradigm.

it involves what we might call a folding-in of transcendence within the subject (or, in Foucaults terms, the application of optional rules to oneself).9 For both Foucault and Guattari it is this folding-in of the outside by the subject on his or her own terms that
In fact,

organiser.

constitutes a freedom of sorts from subjection. It is, as it were, a certain intention and orientation that will also involve a programme (Foucaults technologies of the self/Guattaris metamodelisation) in which the subject, ultimately, assumes its own causality (or in Lacans paradoxical claim becomes a cause of itself). It is here that we can also see the logic of Guattaris interest in the new sciences inasmuch as they
involve a similar reorientation from a transcendent Truth to what Guattari calls operational modelisations that stick as close as possible to immanent empiricism (106). This is the privileging of points of view over any objective and universal Archimedean point. It is also the operating logic of schizoanalysis that itself involves a turn away from the standard and normalising models of psychoanalysis, tied as they are to the second Assemblage (106). It is only a short step from this to Guattaris theory of metamodelisation, understood as a theory of the auto-composition of different models of subjectivity that involves the

this new kind of Assemblage implies a different mode of organisation or crystallisation that draws on the two previous Assemblages: No longer aggregated and territorialised (as in the first illustration of Assemblage) or autonomised and transcendentalised (as in the second), they are now crystallised in singular and dynamic constellations which envelop and make constant use of these two modes of subjective and machinic production (108). The third Assemblage is then a composition of sorts that involves components of both the previous: a folding-in of the transcendence of the second Assemblage that in itself produces autopoietic nuclei around which the fields of alterity of the first Assemblage might crystallise. This is also to fold the outside or infinite within; to produce a relation to ones self that is akin to self -mastery (when the latter is understood also as self-organisation). 10 In this aesthetic paradigm we become the
incorporating, repositioning and implicating of the models of the first and second Assemblages (106). Guattari gives us a succinct description of how

authors of our own subjectivities. This is not however solely the production of separate and isolated monads, for such an autopoietic folding is always accompanied by an allopoietic function in which a given subject maintains lines of connection or multidirectional relays to an outside, including other subjects (114). In fact, each monad is always already ontologically related inasmuch as they are constituted on the same plane of immanence or ground of the first Assemblage. In passing it is worth remarking that the actual political work of locating nontranscendent commonalities within the third Assemblage or, we might say, of developing a politics of singularity must invariably be one of continuous experimentation and testing; it cannot be given in advance as a general, or transcendent rule. To conclude this first section we might then diagram the three Assemblages and their attendant subjectivities thus:11