Ontology of desire and politics in Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari

In this study, we seek a reading way of Deleuze and Guattari?s Anti-Oedipus on the axis of concept of desiring-production and of desiring-machines. To begin with first chapter we have consentrated on the critics of negative concepts of desire which produce the reactive assumptions of desire that necessarily requires critics of desire understandings called ?traditional logic of desire? in Anti-Oedipus and which codifies desire to ?law?, ?lack? and ?negation?. In this context, the constitution of traditional logic of desire begins with that replacing desire on the side of ?acquiring? as Plato has showed in Symposium. The role of psychoanalysis in turn with its relationship by means of capitalism progresses with constitution of Oedipus and production of ?structures? in which is broke off whole social relationship of desire. That denying the logics based on reactive, law and code which envelope desiring-production, Deleuze and Guattari try to think desire as a machinic connection process which penetrates to whole social field via ?schizoanalysis as a production of conceptual creation of their owns. When we come to close philosophical geneaology of such a thinking way, then we would observe that the concepts borrowed from Nietzsche, Spinoza and Bergson have been synthesised with some transformation in order to compose a productive logic of desire. Especially the concepts as components of desiring-production that ?affirmation? by Nietzcshe, ?virtual? by Bergson and ?immanence by Spinoza have been becoming the active parts of an ontology of desire. The axis of ?ontology of difference? sets us thinking that the game between difference and repetition is a necessary variant of an affirmative ontology of desire. That relations composed through machinic connections in the planes which desiring-production actualizes itself constitute the connections and relations of desire with ?multiplicity?. Therefore, the concept of multiplicity must be considered as an immediate, heterogeneous, irreducible and creative which is beyond the dialecticts of One and Mutiple. On the other hand we have been confronting the concept of machine in a context which exceeds the technological images of machine. Machine is a connection and arranging connection process in its relationship with bodies, social fluxes, sexualities. Desiring-machines have been examined in its assymetrical relationship with Body without Organs as one of the most unique conceptual creation in Anti-Oedipus. Desire can not be reduced to categories as ?need?, satisfaction? or ?pleasure?, it is productive, a productive assemblage. Therefore there is neither a given object to desire nor a subject dominates the process of desiring. Desire actualizes via connection in the fluxes. Politics of desire emerges with sczhizoanalysis of organisation pushed it desire if desiring its own repression which made desire a reactive desire. Now, we are on the plane of the unconscious investment of desire and this plane enables to distinguish between the paranoid and schizophrenic investment of desire. But, the difference between them includes no dualism or dichotomy. Everywhere we can see the convergence and divergence of molar-paranoid and schizophrenic lines. Ontology of desire uses the conjuntion ?and? as an immanent, horizontal, machinic connection style which is breaking off the mod of ?is? based on ?metaphysics of presence?. Conjunction ?and? brings with it that thinking way of a molecular synthesis which is no longer dialectical. Desire and ontology and poltics and?