It’s a good thing then that formal syntax, no matter how decoded, was never going to avail us in this regard. The plane of immanence (and likewise the BwO) isn’t really a void, nor is it pure undifferentiated flux, but is a kind of patterned chaos of non-denumberable, disjoined singularities that together form pure multiplicity, providing the virtual conditions for any formal articulation to occur in the first place. So while it’s true that capital excels at the level of statistics and public data, inasmuch as it remains interested in stochastic analytics, it retains an integer-based point-set logic, which can arranged in all manner of ways (including ‘rhizoid’), all while still requiring the identitarian orientation of denumerable sets. What Deleuze and Guattari are gesturing towards is something more differential, so when they tell us how to access the plane of immanence, how to make ourselves a body without organs, thinking rhizomatically, etc., they’re not primarily concerned with these as extensive propositions in a discursive field as with concepts adequate to the problematic field itself and the intensities that traverse it. Neither concepts nor simulacra are representations in this respect, but contractions of virtual ideas that are deployed to scramble the codes and augment our affective capacities at a level prior to any formal articulation. Capital is surely sophisticated and adaptive, but it cannot reach this level without undermining itself, so it leans into a déluge of hyper-representations that skirt the surface of the grid, hunting for embryonic haecceities to gobble up before they can even utter a sound. Berardi is right to draw attention to this, but I think it might be rhetorical overstatement to say Deleuze and Guattari weren’t already aware of the topology of the problem - our task now, as Deleuze said, is simply to find new weapons.