CB: Take the "classic" Marxist definition of fascism, which mentions the rule of the most reactionary, chauvinist, etc _section_ of finance capital. That seems to imply a divided, not unified ruling class. Then , the Popular Front which centrally sought to ally with the non-reactionary sectors of the ruling class to carryout defensive war against the reactionary sections. This "classic" conception doesn't seem to picture the ruling class as a _unified_ meta -entity, but rather as very much divided.
Henry Ford sort of handpicked Hitler for Germany. Eventually, this divided him from the Roosevelt section of the ruling class.
That was during that period in which there was much potential for revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.
Speculative discourse: in periods without revolutionary potential, whatever factions of the ruling class in constant shift, _relative to the working class_, these factions are closer to each other and united ( and the working class is internally more divided against itself than against their rulers) They are conscious and united on their need to be united in relation to the working class. Otherwise, there is potential for revolution.
The main point is unity or division of one class must be defined relative to it relation to the other class, not in terms of one class abstracted from the other class.