A series of irresolvable aporias riddle the works of Deleuze and Guattari, most of which ought be called into question to understand the cogency of the analysis advanced by the authors. Deleuze and Guattari write in a direct response to positions of potentiality and its impacts on the molecularity of the individually atomized ego that was formulated by psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. The attempts made to demonstrate the beneficiality the creation of lines of flights and the removal of striation via rhizomatic politics runs into a series of pragmatic and theoretical hurdles that damage the revolutionary capacity of their work as a theory of escape.
The first apparent problem is the correlation between striation and deterritorialization-even Deleuze and Guattari indicate that reterritorialization is an instantaneous process by which the sign and the signified creates the signifier-the firstness of the original symbol may be able to be altered but the method in which it becomes the signifier is one that is entirely depended on the intrinsic characteristics of individuality. The embracement of symbolic functionality and the attempts to indicate that the politics of becoming allow individuals to shed their signified is deeply problematic-ignoring the ramification of the sign-itself in relation to the signifier and assuming that all that is real is the signified is a common detriment to Post-Modernism that Deleuze and Guattari’s’ vacuous theorization is not immune to. The rhizomatic politics of becoming only succeed in attempting to create the politics of becoming while immortalizing the existence of the signified in such a method to allow the rampant reterritorialization by those with control to the methods of power-this replicates rampant capitalism in methods that guarantee an expansion of its destructive capacity while also underwriting the attempts of Deleuze and Guattari to resolve the way in which the libidinal economy captures the production of desire itself.
Politics situated specifically in an attempt to achieve a plane of immanence, such as those of Deleuze and Guattari are uniquely problematic because of the justifications that can be levied to create this mythical location of utopia. The attempt to argue for a specific ontological interpretation of the world in opposed to another is in itself an irresolvable instance of paradox, especially the one that is advanced by Deleuze and Guattari, their politics justify some form of sovereignty to generate the lackthereof; the methodology of this political strategy and position is one that culminates in a war against all in the attempt to achieve absolute equality and the removal of all instances of molecular and molar striation only results in the ultimate justification for the very powers that Deleuze and Guattari seek to unset.
The very method in which these politics are attempted destroy the possibility and potentiality for reshaping methods of molar and molecular oppression without the massive erasure of bodies viewed as other within the currently existing strata of power dynamics-the way in which bodies are codified directly transitions to their ability to “become”, thus ensuring that Deleuze and Guattari is a theory that culminates in the self defeating catharsis of reinventing the system it attempted to supplant in a more deadly and insidiously oppressive manifestation.