Reading REaD Dye

 
Red Dionysus is not a political party, organization, front or army. Red Dionysus is a corpus, a political body, an acting force. It is an acting force which only represents itself as unified. Red Dionysus is a fictive subject-- the production of a desire for an identity, an individuality. If this fiction represents itself as an author, it is a matter of a fiction authoring itself-- for only through its production does it become real; incorporated.
The Red Dye is not the blood of the revolution, but a signifier for the blood , a simulation. In turn, the blood is a signifier with a signified, but clearly lacking a referent , not that we have failed to see the blood , we've failed to see the revolution. The Dye acknowledges the depth of its falsehood, it presence as an absent force, the structured absence of the revolution. Further Dye is not an object, rather the active to dye, to stain, in a system of reification, it is always the action which is lost to the objectities. It is Dye which is organized into images and letters but self-conscious -- never forgetting in its productive-consumption that it is a matter of paper and ink-- desiring that in the consumptive-production of the other as reader it will be re-membered that reading itself is a matter of actively producing a relationship with the material basis of that production (the signifier paper and ink makes the material grounds of production its referent) actively producing a relationship with paper and ink, producing a subjectivity in the tension between the socius and the producer-as-reader's relation to it's object.
Today, as our only redemption lies in passive consumption in which we have objectified pleasure, in the consumption of overdetermined codes, redemption through consumption becomes the consumption of redemption. Shopping is the Eucharist of Spectacular Captialism-- through the appropriation of codified products, the buyer becomes one with the transcendental signifier of capitalist phallocentric power. Object and trademark are the bread and wine, dislocated signifiers lacking any signified, much less a referent. If everything has been reduced to mere signs to the extent that the signs themselves must call on higher and higher orders of representation merely to signify their own existensense, then the proper reasction is not to simply re-assert the referent, but also to re-present the materiality of the signifier. The referent can be immaterial, just as the signified always is, but the signifier is necessarily immanent. Here.
For Dionysus the wine is the source of disruptive power, not an arbitrary signifier, but a trace, spilled wine is a mark, a demarcation of memory and of acting force. Blood for Dionysus is not a lost signified of wine--the blood of the revolution, of salvation, but a referent in itself to the material grounds for signification, of production. Wine is the disruption of logic and 		representation, undermining the regimes of positivism, repression, inactivity. Wine changes the perception and forces the drunken to re-establish their relation to objects, to take a new position in relation to them, to remember the grounds of both subject and object's production in the phenomenon of desire. If wine is a dye, a stain, it is not an arbitrary.linguistic sign, but a trace. A stain in the clothes of the dancers which recalls the festival, the political moment when the principium individuationis dissolves. Wine is not a tool of forgetting, but of the whole Dionysion phenomenon of tearing apart and re-membering of the political body of the socius, of mind and body, theory and practice, subject and object. This is the core of the productive dialectics which are discourse, which do not rely on the fixity of any meaning, of any sign. If this seems suspiciously bourgeois to you, I'll cite Marx's words which declare that, "communism as completed naturalism is humanism, as completed humanism is naturalism. It is the genuine resolution of the antagonism between man and nature and man and man. It is the true resolution of the conflict between existence and essence, objectification and self- affirmation, freedom and necessity, individual and species. It is the riddle of history solved and knows itself as this solution"
Even while REaD Dye is a text, it is a project to overcome the regime of writing-- the repressive power of the text not only opposed to the logos, but also textual deconstructionists happy enough in their tenured position for deconstruction to remain signified as radical. But like the signs it critiques a radial sign without a signified is meaningless unless it has a referent: radical action. While we acknowledge that radical theory is radical action, to borrow a phrase from a conversation between Deleuze (who said it) and Foucault (who heard him say it) it is a partial action-- and even while we love the partial as production, this time it is simply not enough. Certainly the division between theory and practice must be broken down from both sides, we ironically find we have to turn Deconstruction on its head"It is not enough that thought should seek to realize itself; reality must also strive towards thought."
REaD Dye from the title on demands an active reader willing to acknowledge the act of reading as a productive practice. And a reader willing to acknowledge the necessity to act on reading imbedded within the polyvalent title REaD Dye, RAD, RED, READY, the preponderance to action which comes with useful knowledge.
Red Dionysus seeks a revolution without subject or ideology. A revolution based on desire-- Desire overcoming need, revealing need as a production and not as a basis for desire. A revolution without a subject is not a production divorced from subjectivity-- but rather sees the subject of history as the subject for history-- inhistoricis, in production.

It contradicts the liberal moral rights of the subject as the foundation of a revolution. Every revolution actively violates these rights in the production of the revolution itself, people die. Rights, morality are not the grounds of any revolutionary action, but rather the suppression of action, and thus necessarily revolutionary action as well. Desire is the only actual basis for revolutionary action, the desire for the freedom of desire. Desire is the liberating force of the socius, just as the socius must become the material grounds of desire.
We seek not to liberate the subject, the liberation of the subject has always been the liberation of the bourgeois individual. Nor do we seek the liberation of the state, the liberation of the state has always been the liberation of the bureaucratic system. We seek the liberation of the socius, of societies production-- culture. Along with culture comes the subject-- but not the individual, rather the character, the subject as fiction, not as a reified subject in capitalist production, but the character of the body which is the acting force of production, desiring-production.
Specific situations must become the material basis of radical theory, and radical theory must become a real weapon for the the historical production of resistance and revolution. History here becomes not a teleological project, based on a nihilistic-determinism, but rather a game of craps, and Dionysus has always been good with dice. There is the giddy moment when the dice are in the air, and then they fall. To win at such a game one must turn risk into a weapon, relinquish the utopian need for mastery, and in doing so become a master. One must create a winning throw from the throws of chance and cunning of history. As Artaud said: "There is a risk involved, but in the present circumstances, I believe it is a risk worth running. I do not believe we have managed to revitalize the world which we live in, and I do not believe it is worth the trouble of clinging to; but I do propose something to get us out of our maramous, instead of continuing to complain about it, and about the boredom, inertia, and stupidity of everything.". We couldn't agree more.