There are two aspects to the question. First, there's the ruling elite that Dan writes about (the Clump), the one that's currently led by the Bushists. But I was also talking about the ruling class, a larger group that controls the means of production and other non-human wealth (finance, etc.) and thus indirectly rules human wealth (i.e., us) economically and usually politically.
Within the capitalist class, there are competing elites, usually represented by their intellectual servants ("think tanks"). There's the far-sighted types who look to preserve order, property, and stable profits over the long haul, the class interests of the bourgeoisie. They're more multilateral, seeking inter-imperialist unity, while seeking a balance between the use of power and legitimacy ("soft power"). On the other hand, there are those that are narrowly greedy ("particularistic"), seeking benefits for themselves and their cronies. The classic case was General Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire (who looted his country for his own personal benefit while millions starved), though the Bushists seem to be similar. There are several major elites or blocs and their coalitions are always shifting. Elites sometimes exchange members. When the chips are down, they all unite to defend their class and the "game" itself.
My friend was -- in effect -- arguing that the currently dominated elite is actually hurting the collective and long-term interests of the capitalist class, while not just hurting the working classes and other dominated groups but possibly also gaining at the expense of other capitalists. (I can't speak for my friend, so I'm extrapolating.)
My feeling is that instead it's "high stakes gamble," where the Clump of Bush is hoping for a big victory not just for their in-group but for their class as a whole. In some ways, it's a response to (1) the social crisis of the 1960s/1970s in the US and the economic crisis arising from the profit rate's fall after the 1960s; (2) the general failure to reverse these crises sufficiently for capitalist purposes, the incomplete return to the "good old days" of the 1950s, when Men were Men, Women were Women, What's good for Biz is good for the USA, and those freaks feared Joe McCarthy; and (3) the growing political success of the hard-right of the Reaganites and their Bushite successors.
Given their increased power -- represented more in the media and other dominant institutions than in the electorate -- they hope to "roll back" a generation of "progressive changes" (many of them instituted by more liberal representatives of the ruling class, such as Nixon) to create a new capitalist utopia, even better than the 1950s.
If the high-stakes gamble fails, on the other hand, we may see a large and growing grass-roots movement in the US, akin to those of the 1930s and 1960s.
Jim
------------------
Dan writes:
I prefer to frame what is going on in a simplistic meta-context.
There is a Clump of people who want to rule the world and control all
its resources, including its people (except themselves).
Governments, including the US government and the United Nations, get in
the way of the Clump's progress.
Anything that destroys governments or waylays them from performing their
missions is a plus -- and a goal -- to the Clump.
This meta-view helps to explain some of the Clump's major successes:
assassinations and their cover-ups; the dumbing down of the once grand
University of California by Reagan; the whimsical fondness for dictators
as well as the subsequent stern hatred of them; the usurpation of the
vote, as in Florida and elsewhere; the purchasing and corrupting of both
political parties; the giving of the health care system to the same
people who poison the air, soil, water and food; the pulverizing of the
welfare safety net by Clinton; the destruction of peace, armament and
environmental treaties by the current placeholders; the suckering of
peaceful people into an anti-war-against Iraq stance and away from the
global privatization which is the ultimate goal of the Clump; setting
citizens against one another (like overtaxed middle class sober factory
workers against impoverished black kids in East LA on CIA-supplied
crack); and, of course, the current success at deballing the United
Nations.
The tragedy of 9/11 was too goddam much fun for the Clump.
I'm for getting rid of the outmoded and easily corrupted
representational form of democracy, trashing everything in the
Constitution between the Preamble and the Bill of Rights, -- except for
the line, "all other powers reside with the people" -- and starting over
without input from the Clump, their lawyers or gunsils. One person, one
vote, every day, every hour on the Internet. Direct democracy is
do-able.
--------------------------------
I had written:
Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend who's been on the left for
about 55 years. He suggested that Bush's war may actually be against the
collective interests of the ruling class, the product of a small clique
within that class.
I suggested instead that it was an example of playing high-stakes poker:
if the Bushwackers win (e.g., Iraq doesn't turn into a major quagmire)
it could be a big victory for them and for their class -- but that the
odds against that result were quite steep.
