this was more gay than I expected

"and this is my contention – Anti-Oedipus needs to be understood also as a psychoanalytic text, not just an attack on psychoanalysis" (156)"The book was very much concerned with the emotional damages caused by a particular formation of capitalism – in everyone. It consistently searched for a language to articulate how economic conditions and processes shaped individual selves. But simultaneously, Deleuze and Guattari were continually rethinking how to talk about selves in the first place" (160)"The contention put forward in Anti-Oedipus, then, was that desire was roiling continuously, in everyone, beyond and below all ideology. Yet, as Deleuze and Guattari also noted – and here again they were building on Reich’s idea that people could be both rebellious and conformist – that roiling desire could, at any moment, go in either revolutionary-“schizophrenizing” or fascistic-paranoid directions (or both at the same time)." (164)"It was Klein, not Reich, who gave Deleuze and Guattari the kind of imagery they needed for making vivid the constant natural-cum-mechanical flux they thought best described daily life." (166)"The kind of analysis Deleuze and Guattari were asking for (they called it “schizoanalysis” not because they romanticized madness – a misunderstanding they continually had to refute – but in order to call attention to the craziness in the world that required assessment as much as or more than individual craziness) took its sense of ethical clarity not least from a consideration of the lessons of colonialism and anticolonial struggles" (168)"Deleuze and Guattari unabashedly recommended that everyone could benefit from “becoming-homosexual” or “becoming-woman.” This was a much more radical – or, simply, queerer – conceptualization of sexuality than was being envisioned by some of the sex rights movements emerging at the time." (173)"For, “as soon as one breaks the personalogical framework of Oedipal sexuality, ... a transsexuality is established in connection with the social field, that is to say with a multiplicity of material flows and semiotic flows. The entire individual libidinal economy, closed in on itself, is put in question."" (173)