It's been a while since I've read Anti-Oedipus, but I had a thought about the distinction made between machine and mechanism and how it relates to some of the criticism I've been reading. I've recently read Bourdieu's essays on "The Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field" and "The Family Spirit" (in Practical Reason). Bourdieu uses the term "habitus" to describe a state of the subject that, in D&G's terms, might be called "mechanized machine." He proceeds to delineate how our desires (desiring-machines) have been constructed (mechanized) in their unconscious relationship to the "field of power." This is an inadequate introduction to Bourdieu's work, but I want to get at a more general concern: why is it that a movement as liberating as desire (machinic) must be used so often to expose mechanisms? It seems like no one can make a statement anymore without first locating the socially constructed presuppositions. It may be interesting to study how desire has created mechanisms within the critique of mechanism - and this is almost returning to Bourdieu's original project. Writing this post has made me realize the necessity of ATP in the course of D&G's thought. I think it is what deconstructive reading could be if it didn't ally itself so closely with a social agenda.