国家装置与战争机器（State Apparatus and War Machines） 德勒兹于 1979–1980 年在巴黎 Vincennes/Paris 8 开设的研讨班，共 13 讲。 格式：每段 ZH（中译，默认色）/ FR（法文原文，灰色）/ EN（英译，蓝色）。 本页：Lecture 04，共 129 段。 来源：Purdue「The Deleuze Seminars」Wayback 存档；英译参照 Purdue content-en。

S’appuyant sur les travaux de la séance précédente, sur la possibilité de faire coexister au sein d’un champ social des formations sociales extrêmement diverses et de les définir à travers la marchandise des « processus machiniques », Deleuze propose d’envisager l’évolution du concept de travail et de temps de travail depuis les formations primitives de l’échange jusqu’à la formation étatique de l’échange.

We spoke more exactly of the State apparatus, no longer as a social formation or state society; we spoke of the apparatus of capture, another process. We spoke of war machines, we spoke of … etc. [Deleuze does not finish] And we had outlined this social field where, then, when social formations are no longer related to modes of production that they would be supposed…. er… that they would be assumed to suppose, but are related to the processes that they envelop, the very idea of a coexistence of all the formations in the social field seemed to us to be… to be verified, to be established. This is where I am asking if there are any points … or else if I might continue …, but I believe there are some points.

4ème séance, 27 novembre 1979

That is, in fact, he explains, afterwards, that the city of Paris had widths for the rails, finally the gauge was at 1 meter 30 and that the rail network gauge was at 1 meter 40, and that it's on this point that all the resistance occurred and up to the present. And he says that it is only now, that is, currently [late 1979], that the network of Les Halles has just connected the train system to the metro system, with the resistance ending; that is, what had started several centuries ago, but, by and large, particularly during the time of the French Revolution, that is, the struggle between Paris and the State, has now ended with the junction of the RER in Les Halles with the metro.

Je dis, quant à la prochaine fois, hein, la prochaine fois, que, sur le souhait de plusieurs de ceux qui travaillaient l'année dernière, qui voulaient que nous fassions une séance restreinte, non pas du tout dans le but d'exclure qui que ce soit, au contraire, bien au contraire, euh… mais parce qu'on reviendra sur certaines notions qu'on avait développées la proch… l'année dernière et, comme on les supposera connues, ce sera comme une espèce de séance qui ne peut intéresser, je crois, réellement, qui ne peut être suivie que par ceux qui ont fait le travail l'année dernière. Alors, les autres, s'ils le veulent bien, je leur donne rendez-vous la semaine d'après. A charge de revanche, par contre, à des séances [1 :00] “précurseurs” qui seront que pour ceux… [Rires]…Voilà. Je ne vois pas comment, mais… Bien.

Concerning our next meeting, I am saying, eh, next time, that at the request of many of those who were working with me last year, who wanted us to do a restricted session, not at all for the purpose of excluding anyone, on the contrary, quite the contrary, uh … but because we will come back to certain notions that we had developed the next year… uh, last year and, as we will assume they are familiar, this will be like a kind of session that really cannot be of interest, I believe, which can only be followed by those who did the work last year. So, the others, if they want, I’ll meet them the week after, a way of returning the favor, on the other hand, for “precursor” sessions which will be only for those … [Laughter] … There you go. I don’t see how, but … Fine.

Quelques étudiants : [Propos inaudibles]

Building from the previous session, on the possibility of coexistence within a social field of extremely diverse social formations and of defining these through the commodity of “machinic processes,” Deleuze emphasizes the importance of Braudel's research on relations of city and State form. He recalls the different processes coming into play (e.g., warding off-anticipation), and continuing to explore the possibilities of exchange between primitive groups, he cautions against including certain elements (e.g., stockpiling, currency, markets, regime of labor) not yet available to these groups, proper only to the State form. Deleuze proposes to consider the development of the concept of labor and labor-time, distinct from the primitive formations of exchange, in the State formation of exchange. In this process, he develops the concept of “the utility of the last object” from economic marginalist theory, with distinctions between the “limit” and “thresholds”, and the concept of “the last” provides a means of understanding the movement within social groups to maintain or be required to transform the group “assemblage” in relation to the “last object” obtained in the exchange. Considering how objects exchanged may be compared under the theory of labor-value, Deleuze discovers in the classroom a student who can speak about these issues from the perspective of accountancy. While the student prepares to develop some comments, Deleuze considers the marginalists' theory of evaluation and trial and error in contrast to advocates of labor-value. In short, the “last” in the sense of marginal does not mean “ultimate”, but really “second to last”, since the “last” as ultimate would be the first in the other assemblage, leading Deleuze to conclude that while the limit is what is anticipated, the threshold is what is warded off. Seeking additional proof of this series of exchange, Deleuze turns to the student in accountancy, and the recording ends as the student's inaudible presen...

Deleuze : Là-dessus, la dernière fois, nous avions un peu avancé, pas beaucoup, sur…, dans la voie d'un thème dont nous avions besoin, à savoir la possibilité de concevoir une coexistence dans un champ social, une coexistence et un empiétement de formations sociales très diverses. Et l'on s'était donné comme hypothèse la possibilité de définir les diverses formations sociales par des processus que l'on appelait par commodité des “processus machiniques”, et l'on avait dégagé la [2 :00] coexistence et l'interpénétration de ces processus. Alors, l'on n'avait tenté non plus du tout, maintenant, de parler de sociétés, par exemple, primitives en tant que formations sociales, mais l'on avait dégagé un processus qui, sans doute, apparaissait dans les sociétés dites primitives, mais apparaissait aussi ailleurs et où, ce processus, on l'appelait “d'anticipation-conjuration”.

Deleuze: About that, the last time, we had made some progress, not much, regarding …, following the traces of a topic that we needed, namely the possibility of conceiving of a coexistence in a social field, a coexistence and an encroachment of very diverse social formations. And we assumed as a hypothesis the possibility of defining the various social formations by processes which we conveniently called “machinic processes”, and we had identified the coexistence and the interpenetration of these processes. So, no attempt had been made at all now to speak of societies, for example, primitive insofar as being social formations, but we had identified a process which, no doubt, appeared in so-called primitive societies, but was also appearing elsewhere and where this process was called “anticipation-conjuration”.

On parlait plus exactement d'appareil d'État, non plus comme formation sociale ou société étatique, on parlait d'appareil de capture, un autre processus. On parlait de machines de guerre, on parlait de… etc. [Deleuze ne termine pas] Et on avait dessiné ce champ social où, alors, lorsque les formations sociales sont rapportées non plus à des modes de production qu'elles seraient supposées…. euh… qu'elles seraient censées supposer, mais sont rapportées [3 :00] aux processus qu'elles enveloppent, l'idée même d'une coexistence de toutes les formations dans le champ social nous paraissait se… se… se vérifier, se fonder. C'est là-dessus que je demande s'il y a des points… ou bien si je continue…, mais je crois qu'il y a des points…

Deleuze: … and I think they must be from the school of [Fernand] Braudel, right?… I was saying: it is really Braudel who, it seems to me, at least in France, launched this extremely deep study into the at once polemical and competitive relationships between the city and the State which really constitutes something fundamental in the history of Europe, right? Braudel is surely correct in saying, in Asia, it did not happen like that because, in Asia, there is a subordination …, in the history of Asia, there is a much more direct and fundamental subordination of the city to the “State” form. But, in Europe, there was a kind of wavering, right, and really, I believe for the birth of capitalism, it’s a huge problem to wonder about, in fact, with all kinds of data, who outlined the formation of capitalism according to the “city” form.[2]

Une étudiante : [Inaudible]

Some students: [Inaudible]

Deleuze : Quoi? Oui, oui. Dis. Dis. Oui

Deleuze: What? Yes, yes. Go ahead, talk. Yes.

L'étudiante : C'est sur la ville et l'État.

A student: [Inaudible]

Deleuze : Ah, sur la ville et l'État. On avait vu en effet, je le rappelle, que dans ces formations sociales, nous avions éprouvé le besoin de distinguer la forme “ville” et la forme “État”, parce que ça nous semblait très important historiquement de comprendre, par exemple, pourquoi le capitalisme était passé par la forme “État”, alors que la forme “ville”, à ses débuts, lui avait donné [4 :00] tant de chances et tant d'occurrences. [Pause] Qu'est-ce qui se passe? Et l'on avait essayé de distinguer la forme “ville” et la forme “État”, quelle que soit la concurrence entre les deux, quelle que soit la manière dont la forme “État” allait plus tard s'emparer de la forme “ville”. On avait essayé de distinguer, là aussi, deux processus très différents en définissant la forme “ville” par la constitution d'instruments de polarisation au sein d'un réseau, toute ville renvoyant à d'autres villes, tandis que la forme “État” nous paraissait renvoyer à des systèmes très, très différents, des systèmes de résonance que l'on avait essayé de… de distinguer justement des instruments de polarisation.[1] Alors, c'est là-dessus que tu voulais ajouter quelque chose.