Clarifying for Anti-Oedipus. Unlike eros, desire is pre-oedipal, anarchic, and creative. Psychoanalysis works upon desire to fashion it into an oedipal structure because an oedipal structure is conducive to a capitalist society, and psychoanalysis is a repressive ideological apparatus of capitalism. The family structure is taken for granted as the necessary, universal, and foundational normative structure from which all other relationships to the world derive and can be reduced to in psychoanalytic interpretation. One is deemed healthy (or neurotic) to the extent to which one adapts themselves to this capitalist familial structure. Those who do not adapt themselves are mad (or psychotic).
Guattari proposes that the intolerable double binds of capitalism are schizophrenogenic--they drive people to madness. This claim may be supported by the increased rates of psychotic patients in contemporary clinics. From his work at the La Borde clinic, Guattari learned a deep respect for madness; he stops just short of fetishizing it for its revolutionary potential, but insists that he takes schizophrenics as a poetic metaphor for political revolutionaries to be inspired by, and not as a literal model to aspire to.
I appreciated the critique that Laing's "antipsychiatry" simply substitutes a kinder, gentler, and loving father figure for the repressive authoritarian one.
He's more of an anarchist polemicist than he is a philosopher. He doesn't provide arguments so much as write manifestos. His hatred of oedipal psychoanalytic machines is matched with his hatred of leftist political party machines. For him, queer and trans people exhibit the potential to become revolutionaries so long as they do not crystallize themselves into stable identity categories (a stable identity is the effect of a repression of desire's creative force).
What Guattari affirms is still unclear to me. On the one hand, it appears that the only way to remain true to desire is to seek, at any moment, to become something other than what one presently is (hence the emphasis on "lines of flight" from the nascent fascism of habit, structure, organization, and identity; hence, becoming-schizo, becoming-woman, becoming-plant, becoming-animal). On the other hand, collective revolutionary forces should actively struggle against the repressive forces which seek to colonize desire and produce relationships of mastery and subjugation. But by what means can revolutionary collectives motivated by desire assert themselves if they are seeking to become no one, except by continual escape? On the one hand, this looks like a continual retreat from power rather than an advance. But such a conclusion fails to remember the power of entropy--a power which either remains grows or remains the same (at least in a closed system), but never shrinks. So, the abandonment of grand political projects for "lifestyle anarchism"? This conclusion risks eliding Guattari's emphasis on building a revolutionary collective oppositional force. At the same time, and on his own terms, his grand revolutionary project of freeing collective desire might fall prey to "fascism." A bit of a pickle to commit oneself to a long-term project that aims to align oneself and others entirely in accordance with chaos, with the slippery and anarchic immediatism of desire. Does this not constitute for itself a habit of its own? And if it does, then must it be said that all habits lead to fascism? I don't entirely understand. I would imagine this is where the concept of "chaosmos" might be clarifying, but it's not in this book and appears to have been developed after these interviews.
More generally, one can doubt that following desire will lead people towards a greater liberation than repressing desire does.