e-flux Conversations has been closed to new contributions and will remain online as an archive. Check out our new platform for short-form writing, e-flux Notes.

e-flux conversations

Félix Guattari on Revolutionary Organization

At the website of the journal Salvage, philosopher Andrew Ryder strives to rescue Félix Guattari from the austere confines of academia, arguing that his work was rooted in and remains useful for revolutionary organizing. As Ryder writes, Guattari sought to rework Marxist revolutionary thought to make it more relevant to the anti-racist, queer, and countercultural movements that emerged in the 1970s and '80s. Guattari has also strongly influenced contemporary decolonial thought, especially the work of Jasbir K. Puar and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. Check out an excerpt from Ryder’s piece:

There is a common tendency to read Anti-Oedipus as an uncritical celebration of anarchic, undisciplined activity and romantic excess. For example, Alain Badiou and other French Maoists of this period called them ‘anarcho-desirers.’ However, a close reading of the book counters this impression, particularly in light of Guattari’s lifelong activities. Deleuze and Guattari do not call for hyper-individualism. Rather, they called for a new type of revolutionary group that could effectively counter recuperation by the capitalist state. In contrast to the contemporary doxa, which some have called ‘anarcho-liberalism’ – an emphasis on local struggles, modest demands, unstable structures, and proceduralism – Deleuze and Guattari always insisted on the need for organisation, and the ultimate goal of a new society. As Deleuze wrote in a preface to Guattari’s writings, published the same year as Anti-Oedipus: ‘Clearly, a revolutionary machine cannot remain satisfied with local and occasional struggles: it has to be at the same time super-centralised and super-desiring.’ This emphasis is explicit in a later book by the two authors, A Thousand Plateaus. There Deleuze and Guattari define their problem as ‘that of smashing capitalism, of redefining socialism, of constituting a war machine capable of countering the world war machine by other means.’ They stipulate that this war machine will avoid ‘the war of extermination’ and ‘the peace of generalised terror,’ but rather proceed toward ‘revolutionary movement.’ Guillaume Sibertin-Blanc describes this problematic as ‘neo-Leninist.’ He emphasises Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of the socialist ‘war machine’ by its distinction from state organs. In this regard, their viewpoint demands collective organisation from below, without emulating prior authorities. This war machine would emerge from situated experience, but would also refuse any limitation to a single sphere of struggle – the social, economic, and cultural would be practically intertwined.

Image of Félix Guattari via The Funambulist.

There is a big problem with neo-Leninism - it doesn’t understand Leninism. The notions of “collective organisation from below” and military organisation which isn’t a (workers) state army or in the process of becoming a workers state army is facile, a loser in the real world and likely to be proposed by defeatists who don’t want to see the revolutionary proletariat win.
See the works of Lenin on this. From “What is to be done?” to “State and Revolution” and all his works on the civil war, it is clear that it is vital to organise the revolutionary armed forces centrally and with scientific military direction. The Russian Civil War would have been lost by the Bolsheviks if it wasn’t for Lenin’s and the Central Committee’s outstanding organisational work and military direction, from the CENTRE. See Evan Maudsley’s excellent book on the Russian Civil War (Maudsley is not a communist, but the book’s coverage is brilliant, and paints a clear picture of an unbelievably desperate struggle for the Bolsheviks to prevail against White Guard slaughter, the invasion by 14 imperial powers and constant outbreaks of treachery, as former comrades and leaders switched sides.)
Of course, Moscow’s next war against imperialism, against Hitler’s European war machine, was even tougher and required even more fierce state control, coercion, discipline, overall military brilliance, military planning and even greater mass heroism. Again, it had to be centrally organised with military discipline and intense effort, bravery and preparedness to carry on, no matter what reverses. It did not help that no one, including Stalin, was up to Lenin’s genius, and some stupid revisionist mistakes were made along the way, but final victory was achieved. See Alexander Werth’s massive history “Russia at War” (available on Kindle).
And for a trench level view see “Penalty Strike!” by Alexander Pyl’cyn (also available on Kindle), about his experiences as a Red Army officer in a penal battalion - a very eye-opening and inspirational book showing what a massive COMMUNIST victory was achieved by the Red Army.
By all means, local initiative should be encouraged to provide tactical insights into what is required in that local theatre of operations - but central direction and strategic thinking remains vital to win the day.
When people talk about neo-Leninism, I think they are just running away from Leninism and Bolshevik traditions of revolutionary struggle because they have been intimidated away from real Marxism (under imperialist Cold War and post-Gorbachev liquidation of the USSR ideological pressure) in favour of anti-Soviet politics, such as reformism, anarchism and Trotskyism.
But to win the class struggle means winning the battle for the party-led dictatorship of the proletariat - anything else will be a half-way house in danger of leading the masses into a Salvador Allende/Chile 1973 death-trap or is so feeble in its grasp of Leninism that it is ready to give up, like the Sandinistas did - or like the idiot revisionist-idealist Gorbachev.