1. Dwarfism: Inside every social machine there are desiring machines that make it up, or inside every apparatus there are technologies that make it up, or inside every organization there are organs that make it up – neither of these sides are self-enclosed. Imagine pluralizing your liver as a metropolis or unifying every human in orgasm right now (cf. Amélie, Gulliver’s Travels, and Lilliputian hallucinations aka Alice in Wonderland Syndrome).
The dwarfism of desire as a correlate to its gigantism. Sexuality and the desiring-machines are one and the same inasmuch as these machines are present and operating in the social machines, in their field, their formation, their functioning. Desiring-machines are the nonhuman sex, the molecular machinic elements, their arrangements and their syntheses, without which there would be neither a human sex specifically determined in the large aggregates, nor a human sexuality capable of investing these aggregates. In a few sentences Marx, who is nonetheless so miserly and reticent where sexuality is concerned, exploded something that will hold Freud and all of psychoanalysis forever captive: the anthropomorphic representation of sex! —Deleuze & Guattari 1977. Anti-Oedipus. p294.
2. Levels of the House: We have the office on the first floor, the bedroom and bathroom on the second, the toys in the attic, and the maiden locked in the tower – but on every floor work is happening. The distinction of formal and real subsumption of society under capitalism may be irreducible to successive historical periods, but rather be like the floors of a house. Formal subsumption of society under capitalism is the condition wherein the factory is the highest expression of social production because it is the site of surplus production – the factory within society. Real subsumption of society under capitalism is the condition wherein all of society becomes a moment in capitalist production – the social factory. Formally domestic labor is unpaid work but really all labor is tending toward working off the clock (homework economy). Formally unproductive labor does not generate surplus value but really all human activity is tending toward its autovalorization (passive income, videogames, amateurization, mindless compulsion to excessive trivial pursuits). Formally private life is exploited to reproduce labor capacity (eating, sleeping, etc.) and dominated by exchange principle (leisure purchases) but really all free time is tending toward unpaid labor time (the designer’s eyes are peeled, a cocktail napkin ensures your edge) and thus wage theft. Formally the affective laborer (airline attendant) indicates unnecessary work fabulated to buoy an economy that’s outsourced its manufacturing (for dirt cheap labor with underdeveloped labor laws) but really all flexible personalities are tending toward the necessity of structural unemployment as protection of work that’s become playtime (your boss is your friend, your co-workers your family, pizza-candy-videogame Fridays, ‘you better keep up-to-the-minute with pop trends but don’t use that internet to read encyclopedias or international news’). Outside the walls of the factory, barracks, prison, clinic, school, or home their various logics of discipline, medicalization, and control have leaked and unfolded over all of society. The pressure to produce a surplus becomes safely conscious only in those things relegated to frivolous or fanciful – the serious obsessions with hijackings and hostages are the price paid for making more sweets and toys than concrete, steal, or food while over a billion human souls reside in sprawling mega-slums. Free choice is healthy and sustainable: liberal or conservative, pharmaceuticals or insurance, candy or toys! Have you been a good young girl, Santa?
3. Co-becoming of the Couple: Bourgeois monogamy and its mythos (exposed in the 19c. literary trilogy of adultery tragedies Effi Briest, Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary) that underlies the institution of marriage consecrates another secret. His & Hers Métiers. Of course, one of you might be more successful or make more money than the other, but beware runner-up that your darling techniques and tools, rhythms and terrains, might lose their verve and mysteriously dry up, fading with them your sea legs. Years later you might be heard saying, ‘by golly! we both love mechanics’. What I have is yours and what I am is yours. Turning to the affirmative now. What love letter however poetically customized and ciphered for the other’s heart, could compare to the unspeakable interchange of craft and calling. Surely, Braque and Picasso’s greatest accomplishment.