I want to figure out how to pivot an entire movement essentially toward an Imperial brand of Socialism oriented around a politics that applies a Deleuzo-Nietzschean transvaluation to overcome the residues of liberalism in communist discourse and facilitate an authoritarian realism to serve as a point of connection between the aspects of the Far Right that can mature beyond their fetish for racialism and the Far Left that can mature beyond their anarchic tendencies. "Authoritarian realism" is a term I use to refer to the realization that political orders are necessarily structured around authorities which innovate and regulate social practices.

As for the Deleuzo-Nietzschean transvaluation, I see this occuring by pointing out art and cultural/political discourse which engages in the complementary processes of founding "goodness" in a radical self-affirmation of aesthetic experience and a conception of authenticity as exclusively emergent within creative encounters with situations of contemplation and activity which lack already governing methodologies for how one should respond. This opens us up to a transvaluative identification with the antihero of American Imperialism, where the dark "coolness" of creativity and willpower can aesthetically overthrow the righteous hysteria of bourgeois liberal sentiments.

I'm pretty much happy to have as much socialism as possible, but the extent of that possibility is dependent upon the structure of institutional power relations within society. Overthrowing the bourgeois will require an alliance between Organised Labor and the Military that subordinates itself to either an actual or potential formally executive governing faction that can extract strategic and geopolitical advantages from such an alliance. Hence my assertion that a cultural and moral reckoning with and embrace of Imperialism is of central importance.

I don’t think that classes arent necessarily in conflict with one another, and that they can symbiotically interact, the question is what semiotic framework enframes their political coordination or lack thereof. As for why there must be a ruling class, this is necessitated by the realities of how semiotic systems and innovations are distributed through social orders. A centralized socio-semotic structure is implied by the relationship of attentionality and disciplinarity to our apprehension of meaning.

Also, I am advocating the integration of the economy into the state apparatus, and therefore presiding over a corporation would become and explicitly delegated role from central authority. The capitalist incentive structure which rewards profitability over all else would therefore be subordinated to a discretionary assessment of value that could express itself in myriad alternative metrics to dollar-value. One example of an alternative conceptualization for how value could become measured is being developed by the metacurrency project guys and their holochain organization. I suggest you Google them and have a look through their work if such a thing interests you.

Also, there will always be a ruling class, the question is who. Liberalism relies upon the false consciousness of the working class less and less, class antagonism is only proliferating, the martial class however would be enabled by an alliance with the working class to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Italian Facism, Leninist Russia and Maoist China are all examples of this potentiality, however none of them underwent the cultural revolution that would facilitate class consciousness which reflected the institutional reality (Italian Fascism failed to transcend religiously mediated identity, Leninism/Stalinism and Maoism failed to recognize the ruling class as a distinct class from the proletariat).