Toward Freedom

by félix guattari and gilles deleuze

The differences do not pass between the individual and the collective, for we seeno duality between these two types of problem: there is no subject of enunciation, but every proper name is collective, every assemblage is alreadycollective. neither do the differences pass between the natural and the artificialsince they both belong to the machine and interchange there. nor between thespontaneous and the organized, since the only question is one of modes of organization. nor between the segmentary and the centralized, sincecentralization is itself an organization which rests on a form of rigid segmentarity.the effective differences pass between the lines, even though they are allimmanent to one another, all entangled in one another. this is why the question of schizoanalysis or pragmatics, micropolitics itself, never consists in interpreting,but merely in asking what are your lines, individual or group, and what are thedangers on each.what are your rigid segments, your binary and overcoding machines? for eventhese are not given to you ready-made; we are not simply divided up bybinary machines of class, sex, or age: there are others which weconstantly shift, invent without realizing it. and what are the dangers if weblow up these segments too quickly? wouldn't this kill the organism itself,the organism which possesses its own binary machines, even in its nervesand its brain?what are your supple lines, what are your fluxes and thresholds? which isyour set of relative deterritorializations and correlative reterritorializations?and the distribution of black holes: which are the black holes of each oneof us, where a beast lurks or a microfascism thrives?what are your lines of flight, where the fluxes are combined, where thethresholds reach a point of adjacence and rupture? are they still tolerable,or are they already caught up in a machine of destruction and self-destruction which would reconstitute a molar fascism? it may happen thatan assemblage of desire and of enunciation is reduced to its most rigidlines, its devices of power. there are assemblages which have only thesesorts of lines. but other dangers stalk each of them, more supple andviscous dangers, of which each of us alone is judge, as long as there isstill time. the question "how is it that desire can desire its own repression?"does not give rise to real theoretical difficulty, but to many practicaldifficulties each time. there is desire as soon as there is a machine or "body without organs." but there are bodies without organs like hardenedempty envelopes, because their organic components have been blown uptoo quickly and too violently, an "overdose." there are bodies withoutorgans which are cancerous and fascist, in black holes or machines of

abolition. how can desire outmaneuver all that by managing its plane of immanence and of consistence which each time runs up against thesedangers?there is no general prescription. we have done with all globalizing concepts. evenconcepts are haecceities, events. what is interesting about concepts like desire,or machine, or assemblage is that they only have value in their variables, and inthe maximum of variables which they allow. we are not for concepts as big ashollow teeth, THE law, THE master, THE rebel. we are not here to keep the tallyof the dead and the victims of history, the martyrdom of the gulags, and to drawthe conclusion that "the revolution is impossible, but we thinkers must think theimpossible since the impossible only exists through our thought!" it seems to usthat there would never have been the tiniest gulag if the victims had kept up thesame discourse as those who weep over them today. the victims would have hadto think and live in a quite different way to give substance to those who weep intheir name, and who think in their name, and who give lessons in their name. itwas their life force which impelled them, not their bitterness; their sobriety, nottheir ambition; their anorexia, not their huge appetites, as zola would have said.we have set out to write a book of life, not of accounts, or of the tribunal even of the people or of pure thought. the question of a revolution has never beenutopian spontaneity versus state organization. when we challenge the model of the state apparatus or of the party organization that is modeled on the conquestof that apparatus, we do not, however, fall into the grotesque alternatives: either that of appealing to a state of nature, to a spontaneous dynamic, or that of becoming the self-styled lucid thinker of an impossible revolution, whose veryimpossibility is such a source of pleasure. the question has always beenorganizational, not at all ideological: is an organization possible which is notmodelled on the apparatus of the state, even to prefigure the state to come?perhaps a war-machine with its lines of flight? in order to oppose the war-machine to the state apparatus in every assemblage -- even a musical or literaryone -- it would be necessary to evaluate the degree of proximity to this or thatpole. but how would a war machine, in any domain whatever, become modern,and how would it ward off its own fascist dangers, when confronted by thetotalitarian dangers of the state, its own dangers of destruction in comparisonwith the conservation of the state? in a certain way it is very simple, this happenson its own and every day. the mistake would be to say: there is a globalizingstate, the master of its plans and extending its traps; and then, a force of resistance which will adopt the form of the state even if it entails betraying us, or else which will fall into local spontaneous or partial struggles, even if it entailsbeing suffocated and beaten every time. the most centralized state is not at allthe master of its plans, it is also an experimenter, it performs injections, it isunable to look into the future: the economists of the state declare themselvesincapable of predicting the increase in a monetary mass. american politics isforced to proceed by empirical injections, not at all by apodictic programs. what asad and sham game is played by those who speak of a supremely cunningmaster, in order to present the image of themselves as rigorous, incorruptible,