This article seeks to expose some of the themes addressed in Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus, especially those in which the authors use Marx’s work as a starting point for their own theses. I first present the thesis of history as mere contingency, defended by the authors from a new examination of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. I show how the authors choose some fragments of Marx’s work to support an anti-dialectical thesis, contrary to Marx’s, although they do not (...) elaborate a critique of the German philosopher. In the second place, I present the authors’ thesis with respect to the nature of capital and its development, making use of their reading of the law of tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Here too, the selective recourse to Marx results in an abandonment of the labor theory of value, with the thesis of machinic surplus value. This thesis contributes to the new ontology proposed by the authors, which dissolves the categories of subject and object, while equating and homogenizing all that exists, flattening the diversity of the social world. Finally, I critique the design of revolution proposed by the authors in close connection with their new ontology. (shrink)