/lit/ - Literature

Would like to know what is the modern agreement people have on Anti-Oedipus and D&G's later works.
How do psychologists and philosophers think of their takes on this sort of universal history D&G present with desiring-production and desire defined not as a lack but something "postive" or "productive"? Why both Deleuze and Foucault would grow to regard Anti-Oedipus as a failure later in life?

And also how useful are these theories about making of lines of flight and inclusive disjunctions that while appear (to my opinion) very useful for creative means they seem not that great when trying to apply in large scale politics and some structures of society.

And one can look at Guattari's life for this, how mad he went on with his ideas of being anti-family and even condemning monogamous relations as "capitalistic" creating almost authoritarian mindset group that would send a "kamikaze" to destroy any couple that would form inside his circles. Also how much of a bad father and how strict he was to his first kid to force him to read and write at a super young age just to then completely dropping them off, letting them develop health problems from lack of oversight. And how for a man that wanted to be done away with family concepts he freaked out with the death of his mother and repeated multiple times ‘I am an orphan'.
And these remarks dont seem to be exclusive to Guattari as during this time the hippie movement that was also very popular in western countries also had various people forming these communities of "free love" promising all sorts of emancipation that ended up in disaster, and people would either pull out and go back to the "norm" or would have these cases domestic violence, substance abuse and childreen being poorly taken care of.

Would also like to know what is your opinion on how this whole phenomenon changed the left and their goals. I would say that D&G's popularity brought a paranoiac crusade agaisnt anything they would deem as "capitalistic" or "bourgeoisie" in the left, creating this new vision of a pseudo utopian hippie society that is so different and incompatible with people and current norms that made these movements drop out of popularity and become these poorly unorganized movements that are either always on the defence and everytime they come to put something foward they bring these giant scopes that scare everyone off and very little is done.

Been reading Anti-Oedipus lately and came across the distinction between ground "revolutionay" fantasy and "individualist" fantasy:

"The two kinds of fantasy, or rather the two
regimes, are therefore distinguished according to whether the social production of
"goods" imposes its rule on desire through the intermediary of an ego whose
fictional unity is guaranteed by the goods themselves, or whether the
desiring-production of affects imposes its rule on institutions whose elements are
no longer anything but drives."

And this got me wondering on the fuck does one know his desire is appealing to an ego and not his desiring-machines? Given that this is supposed to appeal to marxist like ideals i still dont know how it stops the justification of certain actions. I can see myself as a "partial-object" and have desire to exploit other partial-object/subject machines or some notion of power without thinking of myself as a unified subject seperate from other machines.
I think the distinction that Michel Foucault makes on normalising power and repressive power and how they affect the identity of the person is much more clean and accurate despite not being made to appeal to marxist ideals. Instead of this assumption that there are some basic "true-self" desires that arent compatible with this "inner fascist" lifestyle.

Am i getting this right? Can somone who has read this book check with me if im getting full of bullshit?