Well, it's not for everyone. The people that do this historically generally find it a necessity. Artists, poets, writers, film-makers, prophets are not concerned with "why" or any sort of eodipalization or dialectic rationalization for being creative. They are concerned with becoming lost in the creative processes - in abstracting material processes (molar and molecular) - suspending the material processes into pure intensities, speeds and thresholds in a smooth space - pure abstractions - and out of temporal (corporeal) necessity giving them a tangible form once again. In other words, they are concerned with assemblages. For instance, the starry night sky and the glittering snow on the ground, flashing blues and cold purples. The orientation of the crystal structure in the ice with relation to the eye (this determines the color of the reflected light) becomes a variable that loosely coincides with the age of of a star - a "red giant" or a "white dwarf" (which determines it's color in the sky). A construction of angles becomes interchangeable with duration. The artist is concerned with spilling these assemblages (the night sky and the ice) onto one another through a rigorous, disciplined, yet ambiguous ('poetic') use of association (what Deleuze and Guattari call a Haecceity). In still other words, it is simply a way of moving the perspective - a little shift in perspective that frames both stars and moonlit ice in the same picture. This creative activity. This poetics tends toward multiplicities - heterogeneity. It frees the earth from the grips of the current regime of signs. Nitzsche writes, "let there be lightness.". N's spirit of gravity is his arch enemy. This is the oppressive regime (in his time, the church) that tends toward homogeneity. This is a type of death. An embalmment of the earth - an earth full of caskets and gravediggers - funerals and legacy's. The artist finds a new way to see the world out of necessity. The creative act is always an act of escape - a line of flight - it is always first. They are always on the line, following material flows, inside Borge's Labyrinths, unintelligible, moving - a blur in the desert. They occupy a smooth space, alogical. "Why" is a rational question. It is a question one might ask after the fact. It is social and historical. It may fight fascist tendencies, politically. It may increase evolution. It may create social chaos (as in Heliogablius). It may testify to a higher power, in the case of the martyrs. It may get the artist or prophet excommunicated or killed. In each time, in each place, the why's and where-fors will be different. The goal is to move - to make yourself a becoming and the whole world a becoming. All social, political, dialectical effects and explanations are residual.

@Wayfarer

Deleuze and Guattari were influenced by Marx and his contemporaries, yeah. I don't believe calling them Marxist is accurate though. They were always interested in becoming, movement, being nomadic, a mongolian, a war machine, a foreigner in one's own country - melieu thinkers, decentered, a vector always in the middle of two points, a particle on the line, never a topographical map, Go players rather than chess players. Anti-Oedipal, poly vocal. The primary forces that drive their work are not political, but cosmic. They are interested in the potential bound up within matter, or what they might call the deterittorializing force of all matter. They are Spinozist's interested in sorcery. They want to make atomic bombs in their backyard by writing books. It's happened before. It happens all the time.

There are forces of oppression, which can be called political. The state can simply be understood as an apparatus of capture. The creative act, if done well, is (especially these days) a criminal activity. "One must look in forbidden places for wisdom." "One who breaks old tablets and writes new ones will be persecuted." - Nietzsche. They usually write about politics from this point of view. Nietzsche calls for a new man to succeed the Last Man - The man that desires his own death. Deleuze and Guattari are no different here. They call for a de-humanization of human-kind. Make the human extra-terrestrial. Destroy the familiar face. Make human-kind create. Deterritorialize the earth and de-populate the people.

"I no longer have any secrets, having lost my face, form and matter. I am now no more than a line. I have become capable of loving, not with an abstract, universal love, but a love I shall choose, and that shall choose me, blindly, my double, just as selfless as I [because I'm lost in the activity of creation, no future and no past, imperceptible on the line of flight in the void]. One has been saved by and for love, by abandoning love and self. Now one is no more than an abstract line, like an arrow crossing the void. Absolute Deterritorialization. One has become like everybody / the whole world, but in a way that can become like everybody / the whole world. One has painted the world on oneself, not oneself on the world. It should not be said that the genius is an extraordinary person, nor that everybody has genius. The genius is someone who knows how to make everybody / the whole world a becoming (Ulysses, perhaps: Joyce's failed ambition, Pound's near-success). One has entered becomings-animal, becomings-molecular, and finally becoming's imperceptible. 'I was off the dispensing end of the relief roll forever. The heady villainous feeling continued ... I will try to be a correct animal though, and if you throw me a bone with enough meat on it I may even lick your hand.' Why such a despairing tone? Does not the line of rupture or true line of flight have its own danger, one worse than the others? Time to die." - Deleuze and Guattari, A thousand Plateaus

Edit:

Is your response itself liberating or tyrannical? Is it a type of policing - an enforcement of laws about conduct on forums, or philosophy, or language etc.? Did you feel compelled to write your response to liberate the readers from majority conceptions of "language", "liberation" and "tyranny"? It all seems very oppressive - a mere act of communication - a blockage of creative flows - in particular, writing.

"Forming grammatically correct sentences is for the normal individual the prerequisite for any submission to social laws... The unity of language is fundamentally political. There is no mother tongue, only a power takeover by a dominant language that advances along a broad front, and at times swoops down on diverse centers simultaneously... The scientific enterprise [linguistics] of extracting constants and constant relations is always coupled with the political enterprise of imposing them on speakers and transmitting order words. [e.g. Chomsky's 'tree variables']" (Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, "Postulates of Linguistics")

"[Major languages] would be defined by the power of constants. [Minor languages] would be defined by the power of variation." (Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, "Postulates of Linguistics")

"Subtract and place in variation. Remove and place in variation; a single operation. Minor languages ... are characterized by a sobriety and variation that are like a minor treatment of the standard language. The problem is not the distinction between a major and minor language, it is one of a becoming. It is a question not of reterritorializing on a dialect but of deterritorializing the major language. Black Americans do not oppose Black to English, they transform the American English that is their own language into Black English. Minor languages only exist in relation to a major language and are also investments of that language for the purpose of making it minor. One must find the minor language, the dialect, on the basis on which one can make one's own major language minor. That is the strength of authors termed "minor", who are in fact the greatest, the only greats: Having to conquer one's own language, in other words, to attain that sobriety in the use of a major language, in order to place it in a state of continuous variation. It is in one's own language that one is bilingual or multilingual. Use the minor language to send the major language racing. Minor authors are foreigner's in their own tongue." (Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, "Postulates of Linguistics")

I think the idea here is to use the order-word - the dominant, major usages of words - the words that are used in mass media ('royal' science, politicians, mother-father etc) that communicate death sentences - to flee, to create a positive line of flight that is revolutionary and creative. One should use the regime of signs to create new ideas - to be revolutionary. How does one make the vocabulary of blockage in everyday language into a mode of passage?

William Falukner's The Sound and the Fury presents a relationship between this major and minor - authoritarian and minoritarian struggle and achieves "continuous variation." In the second chapter when Quentin (a southerner) is in the North at Harvard's campus, the prose breaks down into seemingly dadaist, 'run-on' sentences at times. The punctuation - the cadence of his writing - vaporizes like the odor of crumbled leaves or gasoline, leaving only residual piles under trees or stains on leather jackets. The prose itself, muddled piles of printed language that somehow make sense, left during moments of Quentin's anxiety under the ticking clocks and refrains of that northern town. The distinctions between his broken pocket watch, with its minute and hour hands exposed to the elements (because of a missing glass covering), and the birds perched on his open window vaporize. The town with its wet roads, glimmering windows and greasy scents planted in the country side begin to look more and more like the nickel in the dirty palm of a little girl she was helping. This book, in my opinion, (by no means the only example) achieves this "continuous variation" of a minor language. The book, in it's sobriety and simplicity - its verbal asceticism with a "touch of herb and pure water" (Deleuze, Guattari) manages to create a potentially infinite array of relationships depending on how one treats the variables and which constants one decides make variables and vice versa.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, a word of caution from our friends:

"It is certainly not by using a minor language as a dialect that one becomes revolutionary; rather, by using a number of minority elements, by connecting, conjugating them, one invents a specific, unforeseen autonomous becoming." (Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, "Postulates of Linguistics")