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 12，共 133 段。 来源：Purdue「The Deleuze Seminars」Wayback 存档；英译参照 Purdue content-en。
Sur la base de l’analyse des quatre critères axiomatiques lors de la séance précédente, — adjonction ou retrait d’axiomes ; saturation ou limite des axiomes — Deleuze continue de les développer avec des exemples concrets. Il s'agit notamment d'une section du Capital de Marx (livre III) et des travaux de Robert Linhart, Samir Amin et James Burnham afin de parler du Brésil contemporain, ainsi que d’autres régions du monde, en termes des vicissitudes du capital, en particulier la production pour le capital par opposition à la production pour elle-même.
It is under its “variable capital” aspect that the extortion of surplus value by capital takes place. Constant capital is the part of capital represented by raw materials and means of production. If it is true that constant capital proportionally tends to outweigh variable capital, what does that mean? Notice already — which is an essential remark, otherwise… one cannot understand Marx’s thesis at all — that does not prevent the “variable capital” part and the surplus value which depends on it from absolutely increasing as capital grows, … grows as capitalism develops. [For] variable capital and surplus value, the more capital develops, the more it [the variable capital part] absolutely increases. But what tends to decrease is the relative importance of variable capital in relation to constant capital, that is: the more capital develops … the more capitalism develops, the more the share of constant capital tends to prevail over variable capital. So, “the tendency of the rate of profit to fall”, what does this Marxist notion mean? It means, as the “constant capital” part of capital prevails relatively, well, although the mass of surplus value increases absolutely, it decreases relatively.
Séminaire du 18 mars 1980
Based analysis of two of the four axiomatic criteria — adjunction or withdrawal of axioms; saturation or limit of axioms –, Deleuze develops these with concrete examples regarding the assimilation of politics and the axiomatic. First reviewing material covered for the adjunction-withdrawal criterion, he reviews the second, saturation criterion, with reference to Marx's Capital, book III, regarding what kind of limits might be attributed to capitalism, emphasizing the irony of capitalism's very special limit which is immanent, experienced internally to the system. His reading of Marx has him attribute this to a contradiction within capital generally, and this immanent limit is at once produced by the system, which the system seems to reach and yet which recedes constantly, irreversibly. Referring to works by Robert Linhart and Samir Amin, he discusses contemporary Brazil at length (and several other countries) to illustrate these overlapping topics, particularly the immanent limit. Considering the third criterion, the axiomatic of politics or models of realization, he develops two notions, homogeneity and isomorphy in terms of modern States, and specifically to so-called “central States”, in which the axiomatic is centered (referring to what Braudel calls “world-economy” (économie-monde), and to James Burnham on advanced homogenization of capitalist and socialist-bureaucratic States). Suggesting a second bipolarity (East-West), then a third (North-South), Deleuze distinguishes the “mode of production”, linked to the status of variable capital, from the “relation of production”, and then he develops a typology (and examples) of States in relation to capital: central States (wealth security in capital) in contrast to social-bureaucratic States (wealth security in the economic plan); Third World States in terms of their affinity regarding capital (to either of the two preceding models), outlining the characteristics for these peripheral States and the complex interre...
Appareils de Capture et Machines de Guerre
Deleuze: … [As for] my categories … He wants a chair? … Pass him a chair.
Co-transcription : Annabelle Dufourcq et Mariana Carrasco Berge (avec le soutien du College of Liberal Arts, Purdue University) ; transcription augmentée, Charles J. Stivale
A student: I am trying to find a chair …
Deleuze : …[Quant à] mes rubriques… Il veut une chaise ? … Passe-lui une chaise.
Deleuze: Good. Yes, yes.[1] We saw the last time, here, a first large heading — you would almost have to conceive them as insertable headings (rubriques à tiroirs), that is, you can add things, you can, you could create others, perhaps, but at that point, you are intervening — the first heading which we looked at from the point of view of this parallel or this assimilation “politics-axiomatic situation”, this is like a global political problem really … namely the situations of “addition” or “withdrawal of axioms”. And these two poles “addition-withdrawal of axioms” allowed me to define a first bipolarity, a first bipolarity of the “State” form, of the “State” form in the modern sense. And these two poles of the modern State were “totalitarian State-social democratic State” depending on whether the tendency to restrict axioms manifested itself or, on the contrary, the tendency always to add them did so, and this varied from place to place.[2] So, in that, I suppose that, unless there are some things… I almost dreamed earlier that you would complete this with some concrete examples, so I was saying: the current case of Brazil seems to me exemplary, in fact, because it exists as if in a suspended state. Are they going to choose a kind of social democratic line with the addition of axioms? Are they going to maintain the “reduction of axioms” totalitarian line? etc. Fine, sometimes it's: one tendency asserts itself here, but there, the other tendency asserts itself.
Un étudiant : Je demande une chaise…
Deleuze: Isn’t there an extra chair somewhere? Well no…
Deleuze : Il n'y a pas une chaise qui traine ? Ben non…
Deleuze: Yeah. But ultimately, it can be even more … even more simply explained by a series, … by an arithmetic series. I mean: one, plus a half, plus a quarter, plus an eighth, etc., etc., which has a limit and, at the same time, that limit is immanent, precisely in the sense that, the closer you come to the limit, the further the limit recedes.
Un étudiant : Ben non ? [Pause] Mais ce n'est pas normal.
A student: Well, no? [Pause] But that’s not normal.
Deleuze : Bon. Oui… Oui.[1] On a vu la dernière fois, là, une première grande rubrique – presque il faudrait que vous les conceviez comme des rubriques à tiroirs, c'est-à-dire vous pouvez ajouter des choses, vous pouvez, vous pourriez en fabriquer d'autres, peut-être, mais, à ce moment-là, vous intervenez – la première rubrique qu'on a vue du point de vue de ce parallèle ou de cette assimilation « situation politique/axiomatique », c'est un problème politique comme mondial, quoi… à savoir les situations de « adjonction » ou de « retrait d'axiomes ». Et ces deux pôles « adjonction/retrait d'axiomes » me permettaient de définir une première bipolarité, une première bipolarité de la forme « État », de la forme « État » au sens moderne. Et ces deux pôles de l'État moderne, c'était « État totalitaire » – [1 :00] « État social-démocrate » suivant que la tendance à la restriction des axiomes se manifestait, ou au contraire la tendance à en ajouter toujours, et ça variait d'après les lieux.[2] Donc ça je suppose que, à moins qu'il y ait des choses… Presque je rêvais que tantôt vous gonfliez ça avec des exemples concrets, alors je disais : le cas du Brésil actuellement, il me paraît exemplaire, en effet, parce qu'il est comme en état de suspens. Est-ce qu'on va choisir une espèce de ligne social-démocrate avec adjonction d'axiomes ? Est-ce qu'on va maintenir la ligne totalitaire « diminution d'axiomes » ? etc. Bon, parfois c'est : ici, telle tendance s'affirme, là, l'autre tendance s'affirme.
What is this contradiction? In a very beautiful page, Marx states it very, very simply; he says: well, at the same time … at once, at the same time … at the same time, it is capitalism which invents the idea of producing in order to produce. Capitalist production is a production in order to produce; it is a production that takes itself as an end, and why does this belong to capitalism? There, our previous analyses almost prevent us from needing to repeat the letter of the … Marx's pages because, if it is true that capitalism works with – in relation to previous or other formations –, if it is true that capitalism works with literally decoded flows, it goes without saying that, at that point, capitalism releases flows of production for the sake of production. Decoded production is “to produce in order to produce”.
Or cette première bipolarité d'État « État totalitaire-État social-démocrate » me paraissait répondre [2 :00] au rapport « marché intérieur-marché extérieur ». La tendance à restreindre les axiomes où l'État totalitaire apparait fondamentalement lorsqu'il s'agit d'organiser l'effondrement du marché intérieur ou de affirmer le primat exclusif du secteur externe ; et la tendance sociale-démocrate tend à s'affirmer à prévaloir lorsqu'il s'agit de constituer un marché intérieur et de le mettre en rapport avec le marché extérieur. Bien, c'est donc autour du pôle de… non, de la relation « marché intérieur-marché extérieur », je crois, que l'on pourrait rendre compte des alternances « État totalitaire-État social-démocrate » ou si vous préférez, « adjonction d'axiomes-soustraction d'axiomes ». Voilà, bon, ça on l'avait vu.