Ben:

Even though I am often at odds with the RCP, I think they are at least right to raise the danger of fascism and put it on the table. We can argue about its nature or how impending it is, but I agree the question is serious and worthy of more discussion.

As for your position. You say:

Query to Ben:

> What about the Christian fundamentalists who are
> largely running the Pentagon? What about the
> purges of the CIA?

You answer:

"What about them? What do these things prove? Different sections of the bourgeoisie will have squabbles with one another. It is fine to be aware of these squabbles but we should be careful not to exaggerate their significance. The main thing to keep in mind -- is that the bourgeoisie is united by its common class interest -- and this common class interest requires keeping society running in a smooth and stable way.

"Fascism is notoriously unstable. Bourgeois class
interests are better served (under present circumstances) by a system that keeps the majority of the population complacent and under the illusion that they live in a 'democracy'."

-----

My Point:

You belittle these divisions by referring to them as 'squabbles' that are more or less around all the time, while the class unity of the bourgeosie is fundamental. I think we need to look at each period of history concretely, in its own context first.

It's true that the bourgeosie prefers stability and, in most cases, bourgeois democratic forms of rule to mask their armed power--both the hangman and the priest, as Lenin said. They need both.

But I think you're missing two important points.

Part of the argument in the ruling circles at this point is precisely on the need for stability. the anti-Bush folks believe his unilateralist approach is bringing great instabilty to the world.

Which leads to the second point.

These 'squabbles' are taking place, not only within the US ruling class, but on a world scale. In the past, it was mainly between rival national bourgeosies, even if the bourgeosies in question spread their tentacles wide and had offices and plants in many countries.

But I would argue that there is something new on the rise, ie, a truly global capitalist class-in-the making, a force with no national loyalties. This rising global force finds itself in sharp conflict--not with every section of the US bourgeosie, since it has local representatives, here and in other countries--but mainly which the Bush hegemonists who still believe that this is their 'unipolarar moment,' rather than the more realistic view that this is a multipolar world.

This is why the like of Soros and other globalists worked so hard to defeat Bush, precisely because they see him and his particular sector of class forces, as a threat to the global stability they crave.

To defeat their effort to unseat him, Bush & Co. rallied the Christian Zionist right, which is now demanding advances on its own agenda, and posing threats to stability, both at home and abroad.

Therein lies the fascist danger. Not ready for a full fledged takeover imminently, but a danger we need to defeat nonetheless.

In brief, I think this is not the time to stress the 'unity' of the bourgeois' and to minimize their so-called 'squabbles.' A much different course and way of seeing thing is required at this time in our history.