Communism has nothing to do with the collectivist barbarism that has come into existence. Communism is the most intense experience of subjectivity, the maximization of the processes of singularization – individuation which represent the capability potential of our collective stock. No universality of man can be extracted from the naked abstraction of social value.
Communism no longer has anything to do with any of this [blind, reductionist collectivism]. It is a matter rather of manifesting the singular as multiplicity, mobility, spatio-temporal variability and creativity. That today is the only value on the basis of which one can reconstruct work. A work which no longer is crystallized in the form of private property, which does not consider the instruments of production as ends in themselves, but as means for attaining the happiness of singularity and its expansion in machinic rhizomes – abstract and/or concrete. A work which refuses hierarchical command and which in doing so poses the problem of power, clarifies the functions of deception and exploitation in society, and refuses all compromise, all mediation between its own existence and productivity. (All of which implies redefining the concept of work as the transformations and arrangements of production within the frame of immediate liberation efforts.) New modalities of collective subjectivity themselves bring together these qualities and these desires which change relative to productivity. The new production of subjectivity conceives of power from this point on solely as an horizon of the collective liberation of singularities and as work oriented toward that end – in other words, as self-valorization and self-production of singularities.
[skip over the beginning section on ‘the marginal question’, though it critiques Schmitt’s ally/enemy]
…Human goals and the values of desire must from this point on orient and characterize production. Not the reverse. During this period, the production of liberation became the foremost goal. It will probably take some time before one can grasp the full significance of what was then at stake. To repeat, it had nothing at all to do with utopianism, but with the intrinsic reality of that historical period’s social movement. It was probably the women’s movement, with its extraordinary power of development, which, after 1968, most advanced the new synthesis of the concept of production and of social liberation. For the first time, with that degree of lucidity, production for profit and work for the reproduction of the species were overturned, revolutionized on the basis of the most extreme singularity, that of the total conception of the child and of generating a new softness to life.
But this incredible experience was also a symbol: the revolution was understood as an optimization of singularities, as the beginning of a mobilization against the disaster of the current situation and its forms of command. The corporeality of liberation became primary. Insurrection of bodies as an expression of subjectivity, as incarnating the materiality of desires and of needs, as promising in the future the impossibility of separating the collective character of economic development from the singularity of its ends. Insurrection of bodies, meaning the successful liberation of those immense productive forces which humanity, up to this point, only turned against itself. 1968 represents the subjective side of production; this is an interpretation, on a large scale, of its social texture, which displaces the previous political problematics onto the terrain of representation considered as a singular project of liberation.
-Guattari and Negri, New Lines of Alliance, New Spaces of Liberty, p43-6