To the Party Leader, party members are a means of production.
To the War Machine State, soldiers are a means of production.
“One never escapes the economy of war” — Jacques Derrida
The "Leadership" of the Union, the Party, and the State traffic in the same fundamentally fictional myths of futurity. Each relies upon the apparition of (class) struggle to maintain ownership of the means of production.
If the war machine does not have war as its object, then what is its object? Deleuze and Guattari face this question at the end of the nomadology treatise. They come to the following, curious qualification: that there are two types of war, one “real,” and the other only the “pure Idea” of war: “the distinction between absolute war as Idea and real wars seems to us to be of great importance....The pure Idea is not that of the abstract elimination of the adversary but that of a war machine that does not have war as its object and that only entertains a potential or supplementary synthetic relation with war” (ATP 420). It is important to understand how Deleuze and Guattari are using the term “Idea” here. It does not refer to Plato’s eidos, but to a non-positive condition of existence of the war machine: “an Idea, something real and nonactual” (ATP 420).
- Robert P. Marzec, The War Machine and Capitalism: Notes Toward a Nomadology of the Imperceptible
The "Leadership" of the "Movement" sees the Movement itself as another form of capital.