/anime_backup/ - Old Anime board

This show's conclusion still baffles me.

Organize the Lux proletariat against the Class before it's too late.

Does anyone have a Marxist or Deleuzian analysis of this. Am I going insane or is the city called Lukács, the two groups (body without)Organ and Lacan? Constant reference to The Spectacle? The Class? Everyone is losing body parts to technology? Something about will to power?

There seems to be something there but I'm not quite grasping it and all I can find directly about the show are reddit teenagers saying nihilism = meaningless.

https://miguelcabrera.org/2009/06/04/will-to-power-on-deleuze%C2%B4s-thought/#:~:text=To%20interpret%20will%20to%20power,drives%20are%20to%20be%20understood.
> In paragraph 13 of Beyond Good and Evil (1973), he remarks that we should beware of superfluous teleological principles such as the drive to self-preservation. His own principle is more general, encompassing the drive to self-preservation but also the drive to self-destruction or self-overcoming: A living thing desires above all to vent its strength—life as such is will to power—self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent consequences of it’

>Deleuze comments that ‘Nietzsche criticises Darwin for interpreting evolution and chance within evolution in an entirely reactive way. He admires Lamarck because Lamarck foretold the existence of a truly active plastic force, primary in relation to adaptations: a force of metamorphosis

https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA287182730&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=15225321&p=LitRC&sw=w
>Roughly forty-five years after this compelling, if heavy-handed, Marxist critique, Deleuze and Guattari appropriate a crucial concept from Worringer's life-philosophically inflected writing, namely, "inorganic life," in order to theorize the resistance to global capitalism. Through a close reading of Worringer, I pose the following critical question: How can a concept that was once condemned from a Marxist perspective as an ideologically suspect "flight from reality" later be, mutatis mutandis, celebrated as a revolutionary "line of flight"? In critically reading the concept of inorganic life in Worringer via Lukacs, I want to anticipate how exactly Deleuze and Guattari appropriate this concept, and to what end–indeed, to what dead end–they seem to do so. I do not mean to imply that Lukacsian Marxism is the "orthodox" version of Marxist thought, thereby taking Deleuze and Guattari to task with the same reductionism that Lukacs himself might have employed. Rather I aim to show how the discursive history of inorganic life implicates the intersection of Marxism and modernist aesthetics in the reading of Worringer's, Lukacs's, and Deleuze and Guattari's texts. My reading thus suggests that Deleuze and Guattari do not inherit a fixed, stable concept of inorganic life, but rather a concept that, since its "invention" by Worringer, has rhetorically figured its own instability at the expense of its claim to reality, to history. If Deleuze and Guattari mobilize such an ahistorical aesthetic concept into a Marxist project, then I question whether the vitality they attribute to inorganic life in their text does not ultimately coincide with the Worringerian deadness of a conceptual and historical impasse.

https://www.lacan.com/zizsanctuary.html
>Deleuze's remobilization of the old humanist- idealist topic of regressing from the "reified" result to its process of production is telltale here. Is Deleuze's oscillation between the two models (becoming as the impassive effect; becoming as the generative process) not homologous to the oscillation, in the Marxist tradition, between the two models of "reification?" First, there is the model according to which reification/fetishization misperceives properties belonging to an object insofar as this object is part of a socio-symbolic link, as its immediate "natural" properties (as if products are "in themselves" commodities); then, there is the more radical young Lukacs (et al.) notion according to which "objective" reality as such is something "reified," a fetishized outcome of some concealed subjective process of production. So, in exact parallel to Deleuze, at the first level, we should not confuse an object's social properties with its immediate natural properties (in the case of a commodity, its exchange-value with its material properties that satisfy our needs). In the same way, we should not perceive (or reduce) an immaterial virtual affect linked to a bodily cause to one of the body's material properties. Then, at the second level, we should conceive objective reality itself as the result of the social productive process - in the same way that, for Deleuze, actual being is the result of the virtual process of becoming.

>>427
Have Yoshi survive and succeed in starting a civil war, which ends with a faction winning and holding complete control over the city. In order to maintain power and prevent another war, they keep a powerful military force, which is what they will use to defend against the Class and eventually invande and settle the surface. The revitalized people of Lux replace the stagnant people of the surface (who will probably upload themselves into a virtual world or something as a response) and civilization resumes its evolution. From watching this show twice, this is what I gather Yoshi's ultimate plan was, given that he knew the conditions of the surface people, the Class and Lux.

As the ending of the show stands, the robot-tree-people might or might not evolve into full cyborgs and eventually go to the surface. The blue-haired guy was crazy and seemed to have only intended to destroy everything, but then why make the robots and his own feet grow roots when the fighting was over? Maybe he really wanted throw the fate of humanity wholly to evolution, whatever evolution might look like for robots with human heads and roots.