Add new comment

"the author passes up a ripe opportunity to launch a more rigorous critique of asceticism than either Stirner or Nietzsche alone were able to come up with."

And!? Somehow I ain't impressed by those grand analyses of what previous authors had to say about detached subjects such as "asceticism" or Schreber's Christian-like cosmology (in Anti-Oedipus), as they still fail to problematize issues such as the condition of irrelevance of the individual in the mass-society, or what subverting hierarchies means through a consumerist system. This is where I'd rather lean towards non-academic thinkers of this same period such as Vaneigem, Bonanno and even Debord and Tiqqun. There's something to be said about how Deleuze/Guattari just like several other post-moderns have worked very hard at maintaining philosophy as an inherently-bourgeois practice enclosed within the ivory tower of academia, yet gave much of a shit about how their golden concepts connected or not with the social reality around them.

Also a lot of his stuff was a reformulation of ideas brought by past writers and philosophers of the modern era. The idea of "desiring machines and bodies without organs"... this screams of plagiarism upon pataphysics and the surrealists.