Add new comment

There's nothing subversive in demonstrating how violence is "centrifugal", other than this being a pretty awkward expression. Which is where Deleuze's only subversive character may lie: his hermetic rhetoric. The container, more than the content.

Violence has been for -like- ever a vector of historical change, no matter if it meant retrograde change (the "centrifugal movement of social fluids of becoming", if you'd prefer) or advancement. For the Beothuk it meant the sad fate of an eventual annihilation, and for the Castrists, a successful rise to power and the advancement of a State socialism that Deleuze was perhaps agreeing it.

If your philosopher would have any interest in actual history, he'd know that ancient Egypt would have just ceased to exist around 1660 BC due to the violent invasions by the Hyksos. It used to be a mostly peaceful civilization but was constrained to learn the art of war in order to repel the Middle-Eastern invaders and reassert its rule over the Nile delta. So in that case, the historical development and flourishing of Egyptian culture was due to a prior violent reconquest by what later became the New Kingdom, centered around Thebes that became one of the major contributors to ancient science and literature in this part of the Mediterranean, where our early Greek philosophers -much lauded by our modern and post-modern Euro-centric philosophy schools- received their teachings.