Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15


Cross-apply 1ac Stearns and Blake 13 this specifically assumes their Tumino 11 card
which is really just a secondary source Zizek card capitalism is on face schizophrenic
but is really paranoiac capitalism

Perm do both

Their simplistic conceptualization of capitalism as an economic system masks its true
reality Capitalism is a territorial system that has taken over the entire socius. One
shouldnt attack the free market, instead we must problematize the conversion of the
human to the material
Deleuze and Guattari 1972 Gilles, French philosopher, political analyst. Felix, French philosopher, political analyst. Anti-Oedipus. Pgs. 262-
263. PWoods.

In the territorial or even the despotic machine, social economic reproduction is never independent of
human reproduction, of the social form of this reproduction. The family is therefore an open praxis, a strategy that is
coextensive with the social field; the relations of filiation and alliance are determinant, or rather "determined as dominant." As a matter of fact,
what is marked or inscribed on the socius-directly-is the producers (or nonproducers) according to the standing of their family or their standing
inside the family. The reproduction process is not directly economic, but passes by way of the non-economic
factors of kinship. This is truenot only with respect to the territorial machine, and to local groups that determine the place of each
member in social economic reproduction, according to one's status from the standpoint of the alliances and the filiations, but also with
respect to the despotic machine, which adds the relations of the new alliance and direct filiation to the
old alliance and filiations(whence the role of the sovereign's family in despotic overcoding, and that of the "dynasty"-whatever its
mutations, its indecisions-which are inscribed under the same category of new alliance). The process by no means remains the
same in the capitalist system." Representation no longer relates to a distinct object, but to productive
activity itself. The socius as full body has become directly economic as capital-money; it does not
tolerate any other preconditions. What is inscribed or marked is no longer the producers or nonproducers, but the forces and
means of production as abstract quantities that become effectively concrete in their becoming related or their conjunction: labor capacity or
capital, constant capital or variable capital, capital of filiation or capital of alliance. Capital has taken upon itself the relations of
alliance and filiation. There ensues a privatization of the family according to which the family ceases to
give its social form to economic reproduction: it is as though disinvested, placed outside the field; in the
language of Aristotle, The family is now simply the form of human matter or material that finds itself
subordinated to the autonomous social form of economic reproduction, and that comes to take the
place assigned it by the latter. That is to say that the elements of production and anti-production are not
reproduced in the same way as humans themselves, but find in them a simple material that the form of
economic reproduction pre organizes in a mode that is entirely distinct from the form this material has
as human reproduction. Precisely because it is privatized, placed outside the field, the form of the
material or the form of human reproduction begets people whom one can readily assume to be all equal
in relation to one another; but inside the field itself, the form of social economic reproduction has
already preformed the form of the material so as to engender, there where they are needed, the
capitalist as a function derived from capital, and the worker as a function derived from labor capacity,
etc., in such a way that the family finds itself countersected by the order of classes.(In this sense,
indeed, segregation is the only origin of equality'').

No net benefit to the alt the entire aff is an observation of capitalism through a
historical materialist lens

Creates Line of destruction Gives a direction for how to start the movement to
become rhizomatic, the idea of a specific direction kills the potential of the line of
flight making it a potential-less line of destruction also turns the PIK/PIC

Capitalism only functions by pushing its absolute limit of schizophrenia away: making the
limit concrete and saturating its axiomatic will destroy capitalism from the inside
Deleuze and Guattari 1972 (Gilles and Felix; Anti-Oedipus) 249-250

Hence capital differentiates itself from any other socius or full body, inasmuch as capital itself figures as
a directly economic instance, and falls back on production without interposing extra-economic factors
that would be inscribed in the form of a code. With the advent of capitalism the full body becomes truly
naked, as does the worker himself who is attached to this full body.In thissense the anti-production
apparatus ceases to be transcendent, and pervades all production and becomes coextensive with
it.Thirdly,as a result of these developed conditions involving the destruction of all codes within a becoming
concrete, the absence of limits takes on a new meaning. This absence no longer simply designates the
unlimited abstract quantity, but the effective absence of any limit or end for the differential relation
where the abstract becomes something concrete.Concerning capitalism, we maintain that it both does and does
not have an exterior limit: it has an exterior limit that is schizophrenia, that is, the absolute decoding of
flows, but it functions only by pushing back and exorcising this limit. And it also has, yet does not have,
interior limits: it has interior limits under the specific conditions of capitalist production and circulation,
that is, in capital itself, but it functions only by reproducing and widening these limits on an always
vaster scale.The strength of capitalism indeed resides in the fact that its axiomatic is never saturated,
that it is always capable of adding a new axiom to the previous ones. Capitalism defines a field of
immanence and never ceases to fully occupy this field. But this deterritorialized field finds itself
determined by an axiomatic, in contrast to the territorial field determined by primitive codes.
Differential relations of such a nature as to be filled by surplus value; an absence of exterior limits that it
is "filled" by the widening of internal limits; and the effusion of anti-production within production so as
to be filled by the absorption of surplus value-these constitute the three aspects of capitalism's immanent axiomatic. And
monetarization everywhere comes to fill the abyss of capitalist immanence, introducing there, as Schmitt
says, "a deformation, a convulsion, an explosion-in a word, a movement of extreme violence."

Case extension(s)/overview
The concepts of navigation and plotting the ocean via the state are just means of the
state to striate the ocean, but this is futile as the smooth will always deterritorialize
itself but when it becomes smooth again it is used in order to further subjugate the
sedentary people(s). Whenever the state comes to appropriate the nomadic war-
machine, war becomes the only object of the war-machine to the point where peace
becomes an end to later free the potential for war. The states infiltration of the ocean
utilizes its smooth space in order to imprison and destroy anything that doesnt give
itself to the state. This inevitably creates fascism which removes all of our freedoms in
order to control us and repress our desires to give power to capitalism and the state.
Thats why we practice Nomadology in order to make everything equal and overthrow
hierarchies and the oppression inherent to them. Our aff surpasses the normative
standards of good because our action only opens up the possibility for good things in
the future, this cant be tied to one static method of resistance as that gets coopted by
the state, so we constantly flee in order to find new ways to combat the state.

1. There is no teleological solvency the line of flight isnt something that begins
or ends, it simply continues
2. There is no specific method of resistance.
3. About 4-5 mins of the aff are specific to solvency we place everything on a
plane of consistency, meaning that we break down hierarchies of domination,
this is done via Nomadology
1. Fascism is the root cause of human rights violations the repression of your
own/others desire is the reason that human rights violations exist in the first
place, once we understand that there is no need to repress/control desire(s) we
move past hr vios
2. Well impact turn this, cross-apply 1ac Deleuze and Guattari 72 the more
oppression there is the more resistance there will be, we use this as a
springboard to facilitate deterritorialization of ourselves as well as aid the
escape of others
3. This ev says the state will be replaced by warlords we destroy hierarchies in
favor of equality AKA the plane of consistency/BwO/Becoming-imperceptible

1. No warrant for why the states inevitable just because they can say that
doesnt make it true
2. Irrelevant we constantly combat the state even if that means that we dont
completely destroy doesnt mean that we shouldnt try
3. Doesnt assume the paradigm shift post aff
4. Even if the state is inevitable we constantly flee from its control

Advocacy leaves people on land
1. We dont go live on the oceans no one gets left on land
2. Deleuze and Guattari 72 answer this well we are always freeing others and
deterritorialize ourselves
1. He concedes that even if Nomadology is futile you must continue to fight
2. This card flows aff he says: It is not yet time to abandon work that so deeply
challenges our intellectual habits as does that of Deleuze and Guattari
3. Cross-apply our answers to cap here he talks about how DnG have begun to
be a becoming-commodified, we break down systems of capital meaning this is


1. This is ev is terrible, its nothing but unwarranted assertions he just throws
words around that are completely in meaning
2. Deleuze and Guattari dont want the actual city destroyed its the arborescent
hierarchies of the city that are bad
3. This actually flows aff this talks about the FASCIST POL POT we actively resist
fascism on the micro and macro level meaning we solve for this in the future
4. Pol pot was a leader keyword: leader we reject the hierarchies of the state
in exchange for Nomadology, our entire aff especially Mischke 10 and our DnG
87 ev based on the plane of consistency is really good about this, we are
horizontal agglomerations AKA no state, no hierarchies

1. Empirically disproven things like the Arab spring didnt have specific
methods of resistance to remove oppressive leaders
2. We continuously posit the war-machine against the state because the state
cant be destroyed, we have one recourse: to constantly flee the state and its
teleological action(s)
Negri 2002
Antonio, French terrorist, philosopher. On Gilles Deleuze & Flix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus.
Translated by Charles T. Wolfe. An earlier version of this essay appeared in Chimeres 17 (Paris, Fall 1992). It is printed in Graduate Faculty Philosophy
Journal, Volume 18, Number 2, 1995, in honor of the late Felix Guattari. Hacked from it is printed form and publicized by korotonomedya in May 2002.

Pragmatics and micropolitics constitute themselves in nomadology. This means that the horizon
of war is bounded by pragmatic powers. The historical world, constituted into geology of action, is drawn forth from a genealogy of morals, in the literal sense of
the term, a tireless, ceaseless one. Produced from conflictual arborescences, subjectivities are nomads, that is, they
are free and dynamic. As one knows, subjectivities organize themselves through machinic
arrayments-as war machines. War machines represent the molecular fabric of the human
universe. Ethics, politics, and the sciences of spirit become one and the same thing here : war
machines interpret its project, they constitute the human world, by effecting the discrimination
between desire and anti-desire, between freedom and necessity. And these are once again rhizomes and arborescences-but endowed
with meaning. It is choice in war which determines the meaning of historicity. But what is meaning, on
this completely immanent horizon, on this absolutely non-teleological scene? It is the expression
of desire, it is the enunciation and organization of desire as event, as discrimination vis a vis any
transcendence, as hostility to any blocking of becoming. Politically, the war machine defines itself as positivity because it
posits itself against the State. Deleuze-Guattari reinvent the sciences of spirit, while attacking the last vestiges of historicism, of Hegelianism and of their conception of an
objective spirit sublating itself in the State. Faced with the State, and faced in particular with the State of mature
capitalism, the molecular order spontaneously organizes a molar apparatus, it necessarily
becomes a counter-power: society against the State, or better still, much better, the set of
desiring subjectivities and their infinite arborescences, on the nomadic rhythm of their
appearances, against any fixed, centralizing and castrating machine. In reality, it is only from the pragmatic point of view that one
may apprehend and appreciate subjectivity and the meaning of historicity. The point of view which upholds nomadology is a genuine "philosophy of praxis". To be nomadic in the order of fixed and produced
history means to permanently produce these machinic arrayments and arrayments of enunciation, which open onto new rhizomatic arborescences, and which purely and simply constitute the real. Politics
thus becomes a setting into place of micro-arrayments, a construction of molecular networks,
which allow desire to deploy itself, and, by a permanent movement, make it the matter of
pragmatics. Pragmatics in micro-politics, and of micro-politics, is the only operational point of view of historicity: pragmatics as praxis of desire, micro-politics as terrain of subjectivity, ceaselessly
travelled and to be travelled indefinitely. This alternation of points of view and this convergence of constructive
determinations are never at rest. The goal of the molar order is to absorb the force of desire and
to reshape the apparatuses towards the sole end of blocking the pragmatic flux of the
molecular: the molar is by definition the ontological obstacle of the molecular. On the other hand,
molecular flux is elusive, it perpetually seeks to upset the apparatuses of blockage and open the
way to historicity. But what is the revolution? It is making an event out of this infinite process. The
political line of A Thousand Plateaus is that which brings the molecular apparatus of desires to resist the molar order, to avoid it, to circumnavigate it, to flee it. The State cannot be
reformed or destroyed : the only possible way of destroying it is to flee it. A line of flight,
organized by the creativity of desire, by the infinite molecular movement of subjects, by a
pragmatics which is reinvented at every instant. The revolution is the ontological event of
refusal and the actualization of its infinite potentiality.

1. This ev is specific to the movie Fight Club, I love this movie, but just because
Tyler Durden(read: Jacks schizoid tendencies) cant deterritorialize well doesnt
mean the aff cant
2. Cross-apply our Deleuze and Guattari 87 ev to this we specifically state that we
gradually dislodge ourselves from the system, allowing us to properly
deterritorialize and avoid turning into a line of death

The political has already been ceded The state neglects the populous and is
determined to maintain its biopolitical sovereignty the authoritarians already took
Gilbert 9 Jeremy, Deleuzian scholar. Deleuzian Politics? A Survey and Some Suggestions. Pgs. 10-33, PWoods.

The key question which emerges here is one of the most vexed and contentious in the field of studies of
Deleuzian politics: namely, Deleuze and Guattaris attitude to democracy. While it is quite possible to read in their work an advocacy of that plural
radical democracy which Laclau and Mouffe have also famously advocated, it is equally possible to read in Deleuze an aristocratic distaste
for democracy which he shares with Nietzsche and much of the philosophical tradition. This is the reading offered by Phillipe Mengue, and it is not difficult to understand his
argument. Democracy necessarily implies government by majorities, and as we have seen, majority is, for
Deleuze and Guattari, a wholly negative term.Deleuzes express distaste for opinion, for discussion, his consistent emphasis on the
value of the new, the creative and the different, all seem to bespeak an avant-gardism which is
ultimately inimical to any politics of popular sovereignty. On the other hand, as Paul Patton has argued in response to Mengue, most of Deleuzes anti-
democratic statements can easily be read as expressions of distaste with the inadequacy of actually-
existing liberal democracy, informed by the desire for a becoming-democratic which would exceed the
self-evident limitations of current arrangements. Taking this further, I would argue that if any mode of self-government emerges
as implicitly desirable from the perspective developed by Deleuze and Guattari, then it would clearly be one which was
both democratic and pluralistic without being subject to the existing limitations of representative liberal
democracy.Deleuzes earlier work may occasionally be characterised by a Nietzschean aristocratic tone. However, where he expresses anti-democratic sentiments in his work with Guattari, these only ever seem to
spring from a commitment to that Marxian tradition which understands liberal democratic forms to be
deeply imbricated with processes of capitalist exploitation. When weighing up the legacy of this
tradition today, it is worth reflecting that the degradation of actually existing democracy under
neoliberal conditions in recent decades, especially in the years since the fall of the Berlin wall, has lent
much weight to the hypothesis that a democratic politics which has no anti-capitalist dimension can
only ultimately fail, as the individualisation of the social sphere and the corporate control of politics
progressively undermine the effectiveness of public institutions.Fromsuch a perspective, the problems with existing
forms of representative democracy are several.Firstly, in ceding legislative sovereignty to elected bodies for
several years at a time, they rely on the artificial stabilisation of majorities of opinion along party lines
which do not actually express the complexity of popular desires in any meaningful way. While it is clearly true that democracy as such
necessarily demands the temporary organisation of molarities for the purpose of taking collective decisions, the existing set of relationships between individuals and parties does not enable these molarities to emerge with sufficient intensity to effect major change: for example,
despite the vehemence of anti-war opinion in the UK in 2003, the government was effectively at liberty
to pursue the invasion of Iraq, safe in the knowledge that this intensity would disperse before the next
general election.At the same time, these relationships do not enable the emergence of sites of engagement and
deliberation which would enable new ideas and practices to emerge, simply delegating political
engagement to a class of professional politicians, journalists, and policy-specialists whose job is not to
innovate, invent and transform existing relations of power, but to maintain them, and the arrangements
which express them. Most crucially, they do not enable the new forms of collective becoming which a
more participatory, decentralised, molecular democracy would facilitate, preventing any meaningful
institutional expression of those new forms of dynamic, mobile, cosmopolitan collectivity which
globalisation makes possible.Instead they seek to actualize that potential only in the politically ineffectual
forms of a universalized liberalism or banal forms of multiculturalism, two complementary grids which
are imposed upon global flows within the parameters of either the nation state or legalistic supra-
national institutions. The drive to find new forms of participative democracy which characterises the leading-edge of contemporary socialist practice, and which has informed not only the politics of the social forum movement but more broadly the
entire history of radical democratic demands (including, for example, the Chartists demand for annual parliaments, or the Bolshevik cry for all power to the soviets), surely expresses just this desire for democratic forms not stymied by the apparatuses of majority and individualization