There are curious similarities between Bataille’s formation of the General Economy and Deleuze’s territorial representation that comes from the historical movement of the Barbaric to the imperial. This “progressive” movement requires an overcoding in the heterogenous direction. For Deleuze and Guatarri, Capitalism presents a downward direction back towards the Barbaric. The “upward” movement is a leap from to the voice from graphism.” The “leap” upward is the impiralist formation overimposing a “system of writing” (p.202) to the antiquated graphism – hieroglyphics. For D&G, this movement isn’t necessary liberating. Writing doesn’t become more complicated neither. The upward movement is repressive and transcending. It is repressive towards the affective use of the senses.
For Bataille, the homogeneous elements are the productive, day to day operation needed for the heterogenous to develop. What I see is D&G’s disjunctive synthesis as ‘already there.’ They play with the understanding of “developed” as in finished, achieved, or “now I can really work on myself.” The imperial formation is headed towards a developed status but only with the homogenous formation in place. And what better way to maintain the productive economy but with the previous barbaric formation. Imposed onto it, is another coded intensity that is directed away from the mouth and into the eye.
The reason why it’s repressive is because one requires the use of “extrapolation.” The disjunctive synthesis has to inscript or record the excluded and representational with some form of connective synthesis. This is essentially distribution. Yes, what pairs value to object (i.e. money with product), is not the same that distributes them. Here, we must use the paralogisms presented us by Deleuze and Guattari. The paralogisms (of fallacy) of the connective synthesis is whether we use complete, detachable objects or partial, detached objects. One of them requires extrapolation, transcendence and attend to the Oedipal concerns imposed by social repression. The other is immanent, non-representational, and attend to our desires.
Does money lose it’s ambiguous status or does it win unambiguous. THis is the question that D&G poses as a question and Bataille sort of answers it. The Productive economy, being horizontal, can jump to another horizontal chain by extrapolation. This is what Deleuze and Guratrri would call illegitimate use of the connective synthesis because now the subject which was built out of the same productive chains. The “developed” chain is what would be refer to as the heterogenous movement of the upward direction but whereas Bataille would see it as vertical, it could start our horizontal. It isn’t until growth become depended on the productive elements on the homogenous chian that it starts to compound on itself. This is how subjects end up taking credit for productive codes and attributing them for themselves.
What Deleuze and Guatarri differ is the formation of the sovereign. The sovereign for D&G forces codes into a new kind of space when they extrapolate. The notion of capitalism that it brings out the competitive drives is somewhat true. This is before capitalism reterritorializes developed codes back to their productive ones. It is capitalism itself that subjects must compete with. This was brought about by the sovereign forcing productive codes into a competitive space. Bataille has a similar view of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice where quotes see’s Marx. Subjects compete with themselves as a kind of “measuring-up” as described by Nietzsche. This is because codes (productive codes) can compare values, that is, objects come to a partial and detached with each codes they are assigned. Money looses ambiguous statues. But the sovereign invented a new kind of spaces that forces productive codes to non-comparable spaces. This is when codes must now compete with themselves instead of assigning equal and comparative value.
All that I’ve described is the upward movement. This is the productive surface cross-pollinating with the developed, disjunctive surface that transcends itself as a complete object.