Alex Taek-Gwang Lee: Was Lenin Deleuzo-Guattarian?

Organized by the Department of Contemporary Continental Philosophy, Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences

Detailed information

Invitation pdf

Alex Taek-Gwang Lee (Kyung Hee University, South KoreaThursday): Was Lenin Deleuzo-Guattarian?

Abstract
I think Deleuze and Guattari’s theoretical contribution to Marxism is their analysis of theI think Deleuze and Guattari’s theoretical contribution to Marxism is their analysis of theState. Their concept of the Urstaat challenges traditional Marxist narratives, influenced byEngels, by arguing that the State does not emerge progressively from economicdevelopment but exists as a universal apparatus of capture, structuring all social formations.Their discussion of the Urstaat can be seen as both a homage to Lenin’s State andRevolution and a radical innovation that reconfigures the Marxist theory of the State. LikeLenin, Deleuze and Guattari recognize that the State is not a neutral apparatus but aninstrument of domination that perpetuates class hierarchies. Lenin famously argued that theproletarian revolution must dismantle the bourgeois state apparatus, replacing it with adictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional form before the eventual withering away ofthe State under communism. However, Deleuze and Guattari depart from Lenin’sframework by rejecting the idea that the State emerges historically as a necessary outcomeof economic development. Instead, they argue that the Urstaat exists as a universalorganizing principle that captures and restructures social formations across differenthistorical periods. For them, the State is not a secondary effect of class struggle but a pre-existing mechanism that ensures the subjugation of productive forces. This challengesLenin’s assumption that the proletarian State could be a temporary means to overcomeclass domination. Deleuze and Guattari suggest that all state formations, including socialistones, risk perpetuating the very mechanisms of control they seek to abolish. Their critiquealso expands on Lenin’s concerns by incorporating anthropological and geopoliticalanalyses, particularly through their engagement with Wittfogel’s Oriental Despotism. Byexamining the persistence of despotic state structures across different historical andeconomic contexts, they argue that even the most revolutionary state formations may stilloperate within the axiomatic of the Urstaat, reinforcing hierarchical power rather thandismantling it. This innovation transforms Lenin’s analysis by moving beyond the question ofstate seizure toward an understanding of becoming-revolutionary as a means of escapingcapture altogether. Rather than seeing the State as a byproduct of class struggle, theyposition it as a pre-existing force that overcodes and territorializes societies, ensuring theirsubordination to centralized power. This reconfiguration of state theory critiques historicalmaterialism’s evolutionary assumptions and offers an alternative understanding of power,particularly under capitalism. Building on Pierre Clastres’ critique of the State, Deleuze andGuattari argue that even so-called primitive societies are not pre-state formations butactively resist state capture. Their discussion of the Asiatic Mode of Production—developedthrough Wittfogel’s analysis of hydraulic societies—further illustrates how despotic statesdid not emerge from economic necessity but rather as pre-existing structures that maintainthemselves through control over infrastructure and labour. Deleuze and Guattari extendWittfogel’s critique to argue that the modern capitalist State inherits these despoticfeatures, functioning as an apparatus that perpetuates centralized control while adapting todifferent socio-economic conditions. Even within capitalist development, remnants of theUrstaat persist, demonstrating that state power is not overcome but reconfigured. This talkwill also explore the political implications of the Urstaat for revolutionary movements.Deleuze and Guattari reject traditional Leftist strategies focused on seizing state power.Instead, they advocate becoming-revolutionary, a minoritarian, planetary politics thatescapes state capture rather than reinforcing it. By rethinking revolution beyond the Partyand the proletarian State, their work offers an alternative to orthodox Marxist-Leninist (orStalinist) frameworks, challenging how we conceptualize political struggle in globalcapitalism today.