I unfortunately cover to cover read and engaged with these authors far too much in my competitive debate career.
I repeat, they are all full of shit. Their “criticism of him” is not even close to on base. They literally advocate for “Schizoanalysis”. Everyone claims that they critique everyone else in this field. “Critique” in the sense of “your mostly right but made a few mistakes” instead of being like “I’m pretty sure that young children don’t want to fuck their mom and kill their dad” (oedipus complex, which Deleuze and Guattari think is real)
It’s telling that their attempted psychiatric hospital was an epic fail, that Deleuze famously said guattari told him to “write stupid shit”, and Deleuze ends up flinging him self out of a window in an apparent suicide later.
From what little I know, their use of schizophrenia is different from how we use it now, and when they refer to the schizophrenic they mean someone who doesn’t systematize and abstract things in order to make sense of the world like most people, so they want to try and use something like this state of mind to observe things as they are rather than reducing them into constituent parts and abstracting their function like we tend to do when analyzing, hence schizoanalysis. I think that’s a neat idea, lmk if I’m misreading.