The two sides of the body without organs are, therefore, the side on
which the mass phenomenon and the paranoiac investment correspond-
ing to it are organized on a microscopic scale, and the other side on
which, on a submicroscopic scale, the molecular phenomena and their
schizophrenic investment are arranged.
At one of the poles the
large aggregates, the large forms of gregariousness, do not prevent the
flight that carries them along, and they oppose to it the paranoiac
investment only as an "escape in advance of the escape." But at the
other pole, the schizophrenic escape itself does not merely consist in
withdrawing from the social, in living on the fringe: it causes the social
to take flight through the multiplicity of holes that eag away at it and
penetrate it, always coupled directly to it, everywhere setting the
molecular charges that will explode what must explode, make fall what
must fall, make escape what must escape, at each point ensuring the
conversion of schizophrenia as a process into an effectively revolution-
ary force. For what is the schizo, if not first of all the one who can no
longer bear "all that": money, the stock market, the death forces,
Nijinsky said—values, morals, homelands, religions, and private certi-
tudes? There is a whole world of difference between the schizo and the
revolutionary: the difference between the one who escapes, and the one
who knows how to make what he is escaping escape, collapsing a filthy
drainage pipe, causing a deluge to break loose, liberating a flow,
resecting a schiz. The schizo is not revolutionary, but the schizophrenic
process
Now Oedipus appears to be a relatively innocent thing, a private
kind of thing to be treated in the analyst's omce. But we ask precisely
what type of unconscious social investment Oedipus presupposes, since
psychoanalysis does not invent Oedipus; psychoanalysis is content to
live off Oedipus, to develop and promote it, and to give it a marketable
medical form. Inasmuch as the paranoiac investment enslaves desiring-
production, it is very important for it that the limit of this production be
displaced, and that it pass to the interior of the socius, as a limit between
two molar aggregates, the social aggregate of departure and the familial
subaggregate of arrival that supposedly corresponds to it, in such a way
that desire is caught in the trap of a familial psychic repression that
comes to double the weight of social repression. The paranoiac applies
his delirium to the family—and to his own family—but it is first of all a
delirium of races, ranks, classes, and universal history. In short, Oedipus
implies within the unconscious itself an entire reactionary and paranoiac
investment of the social field that acts as an oedipalizing factor, and that
can fuel as well as counteract the preconscious investments. From the
standpoint of schizoanalysis, the analysis of Oedipus therefore consists
tracing back from the son's confused feelings to the delirious ideas or
the lines of investment of the parents, of their internalized representa-
tives and their substitutes: not in order to attain the whole of a family,
which is never more than a locus of application and reproduction, but in
order to attain the social and political units of libidinal investment. With
the result that all familialist psychoanalysis—with the psychoanalyst at
the fore—warrants a schizoanalysis. Only one way to spend time on the
couch: schizoanalyze the psychoanalyst.
It appears, however, that the oscillation is not equal, and that as a
rule the schizoid pole is potential in relation to the actual paranoiac pok
(how can we count on art and science except as potentialities, since their
actuality is easily controlled by the formations of sovereignty?). This
results from the fact that the two poles of unconscious libidinal
investment do not maintain the same relationship, nor the same form of
relationship, with the preconscious investments of interest. On the one
hand, in fact, the investment of interest fundamentally conceals the
paranoiac investment of desire, and reinforces it as much as it conceals
it: it covers over the irrational character of the paranoiac investment
under an existing order of interests, of causes and means, of aims and
reasons; or else the investment of interest itself gives rise to and creates
those interests that rationalize the paranoiac investment; or yet again, an
effectively revolutionary preconscious investment fully maintains a
paranoiac investment at the level of the libido, to the extent that the new
socius continues to subordinate the entire production of desire in the
name of the higher interests of the revolution and the inevitable
sequences of causality.
