DeLanda is right to propose assemblages as opposed both to isolated individuals and to internally determined totalities. But he doesn’t say anything useful about the genesis of these assemblages. I think they need to be understood affectively, and the question of how they are able to endure needs to be posed instead of just assumed. I think that Whitehead’s much-criticized (or all-too-easily-ignored, as I have been guilty of in the past) distinction between actual entities/occasions, on the one hand, and the societies or enduring objects composed of these entities, on the other, would be a good way to address these issues. The question of genesis via affective ties might also be addressed with the help of Tarde, on the one hand, and of Simondon’s ideas of individuation and the transpersonal on the other. (Individuation as opposed to conatus; and transversal connections between individuals and groups as opposed to either isolated substances or differences without positive terms). The question of transpersonal individuation also leads to the question of intermediate-level affective groups (intermediate between individuals/couples and large social forms) which Jameson only sees addressed by Fourier and Sartre. This might also provide a link between my focus on Whitehead, and my interest in “communism” in Eastern European film (the porno gang, for instance) and in questions of “economy” (as opposed to politics) (e.g. in The Age of Aesthetics).