Deleuze and Guattari’s critique of the fascist collapse of capitalism, on the artifice of capital and the apparatuses of capture it constitutes, as well as how that plane of immanence relates to fascist structures of desire, requires entering into a sort of articulatory process where the distinctions lost to fascism are evoked but not taken as paradigmatic, one makes a maneuver around rather than retreating, one does not claim the victories of fascism but rather renews them as defeat. The means by which this can be done, the critical tools to this, lie in the machines of desire that structure this flow, the binary flows and binary operation of machines, the mixtures and assemblages that are necessary for fascism as well as antifascism.
Antifascism requires that it oppose fascism: while this much is obvious on its surface, as Deleuze notes, there is a means by which surface is considered the greatest of depths, the surface of the body in fact being the deepest reaches of internality. Internality is enveloped by the body, is a boundary only passable through the select machines of contact (largely the various orifices of the body) or perhaps through the skin as a membrane, but specifically then in a sort of osmosis, a means of passing through a barrier that defines depth. The depth of the body lies in its surface. The outward depth that is constituted by internality is the border at which one finds the skin, one finds the definition of the body. The importance of this as a paradigm is that it presents a means of probing singularity and depth as vocabularies adjacent to the body while not exiting it, emphasizing the topological character of the body while also giving it an additional depth, dimensionality, the viscera of internality structured by sense, by phenomena. To return to antifascism, antifascism must be realized not merely as a politics in itself, but a politics of opposition: on its surface, the most basic requirement but also the most necessary one is the opposition to fascism that defines antifascist action. This, however, means that the limit upon antifascist politics is in the same way in this depth: it can only be insofar as there is a limit, as far as there is a body of antifascism against fascism.
This is not to create an ontology where fascism begets antifascism: the means by which fascism creates artifice of opposition through apparent-depths within itself, through the creation of a surfaced other, the collapsing into horizontality, into planar encounter, leads to the means by which one institutes Oedipal structures of desire, of violence, of hierarchy. Assemblage, as a term in the parlance of Deleuze, requires certain flows, requires nodes to be established in relation to one another. Out of a mixture, a state of affairs, the fascist gaze may in fact differentiate as it pleases, without regard for that which it implies, that which it requires. Deleuze, in discussing Diogenes, posits that the Cynicism of Diogenes lies in the sort of antipathy that leads to what some would refer to as a complete nihilism: gluttony, public masturbation, the lack of a prohibitionary structure around incest. These are mixings of bodies, and they can be produced by the fascist impetus, they may in turn flow through fascist structures of desire, into the creation of a fascist body at its most extreme ends.
In turn, one must ascribe the structures of irony and, moreover, humor to the way in which this operation of collapse occurs. It is through depth, differentiation within mixture, that the body gains internality. It is, in capitalism, in fascism, through a turn of the individual and moreover the subjectivizing of the individual that the body is formed. It acquires this depth through this structure, moreover, out of a process of mixture that has lost all differentiation, that has ceased to meaningfully be anything other than a mixture. Rhizomes contain nodes related to one another, it is post-structural; mixture is the nonsense of sense, the apprehended nonsensical, it is able to be poured into the body. This is the process by which the individual is structured. As an apparent-individual is encountered, the detachment of irony and the horizontality of humor engages said individual, folding them past their limit, into a pure investment that can then restructure and reinforce the body of fascism.
Nietzsche, often heavy on the fascist mind, has been read as anything but a nihilist, as an advocate for the creation of one’s own meaning as an overman, and thus for the process by which one creates the individual other, the individualized collective other, an other only recognizable through the fascist structuring of the body. In this way, Nietzsche is affirming a supposed singularity of meaning in fascist investment. However, this requires accepting the singularity posited, it requires accepting a construction of Nietzschean thought that does not meaningfully engage with the ways in which Nietzsche eludes process, in which reading Nietzsche imparts a certain impetus toward deconstruction even against his own wishes. The same is true of Heidegger, such that the Heideggerian account of time, of the present, provides the best means by which to elude presentism, to force the future into the past and the past into the future, to effectively turn fascism against itself, to create and describe the contradictions necessary for fascist ideology.
In this way, Antifascism is nonsense applied to the sense of fascism. Fascism attempts to make sense of antifascism, of anticapitalism, of meaningful divestment from the capitalist structure of the individual, but it fails specifically because these are the only means by which it can create limits, the only depths it has the ability to plunge to, the only way in which fascism can understand singularity. Rather than the generality and particularity of difference and repetition, a description allowing endlessness and infinitude, fascism requires a sense of eternality, which in itself requires past and future, requires a means by which to ground itself. The Heideggerian self is one formed by past toward a future, realized in the present: in this way, the fascist present is constructed, through a Dasein that requires the Western Civilized concept of self, through the structuring of colonialism and capitalism. It cannot be without this, it cannot meaningfully come to be except in its own telling of itself.
Even capitalism requires this, it requires a way backwards and forwards, it spreads out across a plane of immanence but there is always a relationality, a state of affairs within that plane that proscribes a certain response by capital, that stretches back in apparent infinity and structures the means forward, horizontal in all directions but, humorously, with no depth. Humor precludes depth, it instead lies in horizontality, in the way that past and future preclude present, are constitutive of present but never part of the present, the paradoxical lack of a present necessary to speak of it. Sense, here, is proof of a present but also of the necessity of an imagined past and future. Conversely, it is proof of the past and future that does away with the need for a present. Either all is present, or nothing is. This is the means by which we arrive at the defiance of presence captured in language, in structure, according to Derrida: rather than a historical process of the hunt, an experience of the hunt, deconstruction lies in the lack of a hunt, in hunting-after, in the continual escape of meaning that itself is meaning. Contradiction is not only invited, but vital.
Particularity allows for a framework that allows depth, allows its repetition, allows the differentiation of depths, allows for variance without opening the absolute in a way that fascism does. The way in which one structures antifascism is a necessary nonsense in contradiction to sense, it is apprehended by the structures of sense laid out by fascism, by the apparatuses of capture that constitute fascist encounter. The way that logic flows through fascism requires the rebuilding of the subject in every individual, a coloniality of encounter that requires not only an external, but a creation of the internal in order to create limits on the self. In liberal notions of postcolonialism, the postcolonial state of affairs is one that required colonialism rather than is merely produced by it: it creates stages of development mired in the colonial encounter and now described by a colonial vocabulary. Even the notion of culture such that it can be apprehended by colonial dominance is constructed, is a means by which to change mixtures of bodies in an idealized vocabulary of colonial capture, of colonial encounter. Moving toward a model of difference and repetition, one in which repetition constitutes both the repetition in itself and the act of difference, is one that allows for the depth of the body, of internality, without requiring a colonial body to refer to, without requiring the structures of sex, gender, race, so on.
Mixture can only enter subjectivity through certain articulations: through prohibition, through a flowing into the carved-out depth of a subject, the subject itself carved through the prohibitions for-themselves, prohibitions that are specifically created for the sake of violence. Deleuze does not wish to completely totalize all prohibitions as violent, and in fact the greatest violence of capitalism lies in how it proscribes violation into its own prohibitions. Prohibitory structures of capital are in fact directions by which to violate these prohibitions. The means in which racism, coloniality, homophobia, sexual violence, abuse, all constitute violations that are in fact required to structure the prohibitory depth, prohibitory limit, are structured in sense, in a series of claims and exceptions where the exceptions are in fact more structurally important than the original prohibition itself.
By realizing the violence that goes into shaping these Oedipal structures, these prohibitions that are in fact articulations of hegemony, of hierarchy, one can move into a consideration of bodies that does not require the subject, the individual, as a violent marker of mixture. It allows for an encountering process that creates far less harm, is predicated on far less violence, than the structures that came before it. Antifascism is nonsensical insofar as it defies the sense of fascist structure, as it defies the means of what is permitted even as God has been laid dead before us. Rejecting the striations of the individual, the differentiation of the individual in the Body without Organs such that this mixture is striated by fascist foldings of desire, fascist constructions of depth, one can meaningfully create not just an alternative capitalism, but an anticapitalism, depths not reliant upon the horizontal structure of capitalist assemblages of encounter. Rather than a reactionary assemblage redoubled, reversed, it is meaningfully a new means of apprehending mixture.