Reading Anti-Oedipus + Capital #3: The passive syntheses of desire as the general formula of Capital
I love you Ian Buchanan
The passive synthesis
The passive synthesis combines three different operations:
The synthesis of connection: mobilizes the Libido as withdrawal energy.
The synthesis of disjunction(recording): mobilizes the Numen as detachment energy.
The synthesis of conjunction: mobilizes Voluptas as residual energy.
Deleuze defines the passive synthesis in Difference and Repetition as: “It is not carried out by the mind, but occurs in the mind which contemplates, prior to all memory and all reflection.” (DR, pg. 71). Passive synthesis implies the synthetic ability to constitute the sensate organism and the capacity to receive sensation.
Marx’s general formula of Capital, Primitive Accumulation, and the Passive Synthesis
Deleuze and Guattari would relate Marx’s general formula of Capital (MCM’) to the passive syntheses. Money-capital —the first M— is liquidity and freedom of choice. Commodity-capital —the C— is the concretization of the capital invested in a particular commodity in view of profit; this is the choice that Money-capital made. Money-capital+—the second M’— is expanded liquidity and more far-reaching freedom of choice.
Historically, we can say, in the first stage(MC), money-capital sets in motion an array of activities that convert raw materials into commodities through human labour and sells the commodities. In the second stage(CM’), sets itself free from its dependency of material objects and labour into “ financial deals in banking, insurance, derivatives, bond trading and lately the exploitation of intellectual property.” (Reader’s Guide AO, pg. 55).
The three syntheses of desire(connective, disjunctive, and conjunctive syntheses) correspond to the three stages of the MCM’. The first synthesis of desire —the connective synthesis— refers to money-capital; the initial primitive accumulation of money through machinery and labour-power; freedom of choice. The second synthesis of desire —the disjunctive synthesis— refers to the commodity-capital; the expenditure of the money-capital; closed decision. The third synthesis of desire —the conjunctive synthesis— refers to money-capital+; the setting free of money-capital again; more freedom of choice.
The connective synthesis sets the flows in motion by connecting continuous flows of libido with partial objects that interrupt the flow(just like the workers get their means of production from them in the stage of primitive accumulation of capital) and draw sustenance from it. “Desire causes the current to flow, itself flows in turn, and breaks the flow.” (AO, pg. 5). Desire is equivalent to capital in the connective synthesis; it owns the means of production but lacks the workers. So what does it do? As, said earlier, desire does the same as the primitive accumulation of capital, it re-organizes the body(by, for example, taking the land from the serfs and giving it to the capitalists) and sheers the organs from their power, just like the workers are alienated. This is why Deleuze and Guattari say that desiring-machines make us into an organism; the synthesis of connection rearrange our organs into a new a design of its own making. Basically, the primitive accumulation gave rise to something greater than itself, that being the capitalist class — the connective synthesis gave to rise to something than itself, that being the organized body. “This is the body that Marx is referring to when he says that it is not the product of labor, but rather appears as its natural or divine presupposition” (AO. pg, 10). Now we can move onto the disjunctive synthesis.
The disjunctive synthesis is the Body Without Organs. Deleuze and Guattari argue that the primitive accumulation not only led to the capitalist class, but also that which arrogates all of the worker’s productive power, that being Capital. The disjunctive synthesis corresponds to the C stage of the MCM’, when Capital(The BwO) invests in desiring-machines(input-output combinations. In the attraction/repulsion relation of the Body Without Organs and the desiring-machines, the BwO is capital in its liquid state and the desiring-machines is capital in its invested and bound state. It is this relation that constitutes the genealogy of desire. The synthesis of disjunction is how the subject differentiates itself from sheer matter and the BwO through oscillating between an “either/or” judgment, that, in the capitalist, is always ‘Will it produce surplus-value, or not?’. Social differentiation is a good example of the disjunctive synthesis, as it presupposes the existence of Capital, or the BwO. The disjunctive synthesis expresses a law of distribution or inscription, as opposed to the law of production and combination of the connective synthesis. Let’s move onto the conjunctive synthesis.
The conjunctive synthesis takes place as the residual of the interaction between the production and combination of the desiring-machines in the connective synthesis and the distribution or recording of the BwO in the disjunctive synthesis, in the subject’s unconscious. The subject suffers by the tension created by the free and fixed state of desire, that arose from the synthesis of connection and disjunction, and unconsciously tries to reconcile this tension by the production of another machine: the celibate machine. It’s a misrecognition; a placeholder representation that hides the real process of desiring: the intercourse between connective synthesis and disjunctive synthesis. The subject misrecognizes himself as a production of this third productive machine: a "conjunctive synthesis of consummation in the form of a wonderstruck 'So that's what it was!’” (AO. pg, 18).
Finally, it is important to mention that the passive synthesis are all happening at the same time in the virtual realm.