Are Deleuze and Guattari worth reading if I'm a Maoist? I only ask...

Sounds perfect for the average Maoist then.

You are conflating North American Maoists with the rest of the world's. Not an honest move, to say the least.

It's like portraying the "typical anarchist" as a stinking pot smoking American black bloc fag.

Yes. Everyone should read them, D&G also suggest going with little context and background(something about Deleuze suggesting to make your own canon or something like that).
I would like to know which organizations are involved with their theories. The ones in Latin America sure as fuck aren't. Oh, and if like them and want more search for Suely Rolnik.

...

What does this even mean?

You make it sound like Scientology or something, where reading gets you to a higher plane of being or understanding. You are reading theories, and taking them as facts in lieu of common sense. Ideology is not a healthy replacement for rational thinking. When you reach the mountain top, grasshopper, there is only a steep decline afterwards and only room for one up there on the peak. Technology will force communism upon humanity for both good and bad and it is unstoppable. If you live long enough you will see no cab drivers, no truckers, no cashiers and no teachers. You will get your monthly stipend for without it the machines will have no purpose. So, deal with your anger and your unhappy parents. Stop fetishistic fantasies that completely omit the realities of the law of large numbers and how little people want authoritarians ruling over them, especially you down the road. Common sense and what works out for the most people is the only solution that does end in destruction. Some will be born with nothing and no hope, but machines may help them. You virtue signaling your intellectual capacities for internalizing theories of those long dead from another time and economic situation is not a reality which will get you anywhere.

...

Just read Badiou. His critique of D&G is bretty gud.

*Kantian

Read as much theory as possible, user.

D&G are SJW's on acid and only worth reading when taking that into account.

Deleuze got humiliated by Lacan, being his pet student and personal lackey, even having to pay Lacan for this privilege, under the guise of it all being theraphy. When he got the hang of how much of a tool he was, he developed a theory about how being a retard is actually liberating.

Maoism is trash user but there is some good Deleuzian maoist who combine Samir Amin with D&G here:
moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/

D&G were both anti IDpol and anti democrasy with all it's manifestations for once you mongoloids read something before talking you tankeies kill yourselves you worthless red fash muke tier stalin cock sucking faggots.

That's Guattari, not Deleuze, and he was supposed to take Lacan place after his death. You just read that shitty article about D&G life and dismissed both, didn't you?
Read Chaosmosis and Three Ecologies if Anti-Oedipus triggers you. They aren't hard texts nor too weird and they both deal with politics and subjectivity while dismissing what would be Identity Politics.

I can't understand a thing of what Deleuze was babbling about for the life of me, but Nick Land was a D&G fanboy during his druggy period and he is a pretty interesting guy so I guess it's worth it.

Also this guy might be high on meth but he has a point when he says that reading isn't such a big deal. Just download Anti-Oepidus on libgen, read the first few pages and see what you want to make out of it.

Their theory of society being nothing but a humungous testicle crushing device matches perfectly with SJW's. Idpol is heavily ironic term when used people who envision politics as based purely in doctrinal identification and which I therefor can't take seriously when used in retroactive claiming of people who have nothing to do with the Holla Forums circlejerk.

I'd rather have your word, so go ahead and explain, preferably with a personal substantiation of the book that indicates you have an understanding of it and not merely an as is memorization.

Would Roo like Deleuze?

This is only true on the surface. Their ontology and entry points of social critique are in deep solidarity with the presuppositions of idpol and populists, not to mention the market itself.

Maoism is so spooked lmao

yes, Deloose and Gitarooman are worth reading. Foundational theorist for a lot of contemporary thought, and they are a lot better than those they influenced

Also, drop the ideology man. I'm not going to shit on you for being a Maoist, but it is pretty immature to determine what you read from a point of ideology first

Everything is worth reading. Even if you disagree, you will be better at critizing them from a Maoist standpoint.

Yes.

Nah, South Park is pretty overrated

kek

Damn, I'm tempted

Explain why.

Moufawad-Paul is a hack.