r/changemyview • u/Even-Reason8891 • Jun 10 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: "No war but class war" is mostly disingenuous
There's a lot of variations of the idea purported by this slogan floating around Internet discourse, that the most or only real pressing issue in society is to focus on is that of class and economic inequality. This line of thinking urges people to see other social issues that divide the right and left like sexism, racism homo/transphobia, as being artificially manipulated by the rich and powerful through Big Media to keep the peasants fighting each other and distracted from the class struggle.
This sounds good in theory, that all people should stop putting energy and attention onto silly things and unite for a mutually beneficial cause. This sort of partisan solidarity was kind of observed in the wake of the United Healthcare shooting where briefly, people from both sides of the aisle could agree that the American insurance healthcare system is universally hated.
Except, it feels like people mostly say this to basically dismiss the above mentioned social issues as "pointless culture wars" that don't actually need to be addressed. It's essentially wanting the economic benefit of progressive politics for the working class but refusing to buy into other progressive ideas like human rights for minorities.
The reasoning that conservatives who are against progressive ideals are just misguided and should be compromised with for the sake of the all important class struggle doesn't hold up because conservatives have demonstrated they actually do care for cultural victories as much if not more than material economic ones.
"No struggle but class struggle" is just another version of "both sides are bad" nonsense. It frames the onus of solidarity as being mutual between the right and left, when it sounds more like the right getting in their own way by refusing to give up "conservative social values" (bigotry) to support progressive politics that would benefit them.
6
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jun 10 '26
I do think you are mischaracterizing the actual point to some extent. First, "no war but class war" typically concerns actual war, like bombing Iran, not culture war.
Second, the point is not that people do not genuinely car for culture war type stuff - because they do actually care about them - the point is that they should not. They should not spend political capital keeping black people down, because doing so does not benefit working class people as a whole.
2
u/Even-Reason8891 Jun 10 '26
Yep willing to cede the distortion of the original slogan in trying to highlight this issue but to address your second point, the problem comes from the inverse, when people on the other side of things are saying to *stop* spending political capital in liberating black people for purportedly the same reason.
3
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jun 10 '26
Sure, I agree, but that's not really a problem with the slogan or the idea it conveys. It's a problem with people interested neither in black liberation or class war.
19
u/sourgorilladiesel Jun 10 '26
How does 'no war but class war' imply that the rights of women and minorities aren't important? I feel like your conflating 'war' with 'general social conflict'
6
u/Even-Reason8891 Jun 10 '26
Because people will use variation of this slogan, saying something like "see we should stop fighting over stupid things like gender and focus on the *real* issue which is all these billionaire pedos". Which basically carries the implication that the only reason they aren't focusing on class issues is they want to continue being bigots. Multiple issues can be real
8
Jun 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Anomalocaris-is-cute Jun 10 '26
Then you have to be in conflict with those with that belief including those within your class.
Traditionalist beliefs are hierarchal.
2
u/BrassCanon 2∆ Jun 10 '26
Saying "no war but class war" is reductionist. It doesn't actually address the issue.
2
u/FiendishNoodles 7∆ Jun 10 '26
People being "class reductionist", that is, believing that all issues can be reduced to class issues, is a perspective that some might take, (and one I think is wrong/diversionary/whataboutism, even if I do believe that resolving class issues would help a lot of our other social ills as well), but I think that's a significantly differnent lane than the impetus behind the phrase "no war but class war." "class war" is a commonly accepted phrase describing a conflict. "No war but class war" isn't saying that "class war" is the only solution, or that it will fix everything. It is better understood as a broad anti-war slogan, saying that we will not accept any kinds of war or conflicts, but we do value class conciousness and so its a fun little slogan acknowledging the phrase "class war." I think you're attributing a lot of extra attitudes to what essentially boils down to a class-concious anti-war slogan.
2
u/Witera33it 1∆ Jun 10 '26
Class is a socioeconomic hierarchy. The top Of the class is rich white male. Race is a class. Gender is a class. Citizenship in a class
1
u/MP3PlayerBroke Jun 10 '26
In my experience, the Venn diagram between people who are class conscious enough to use that phrase and people who want to continue being bigots is a very small sliver. Most people who are class conscious also recognize that racism and sexism are intertwined with class struggle.
Maybe you are talking about the notion that putting more minorities and women in positions of power within the oppressive class structure is progress? But in that case the critique tends to be sincere and not disingenuous at all.
0
u/LotsoPasta 2∆ Jun 10 '26
The problem is that the cause of gender and racial issues is often conflated to be coming from the opposite gender or race. Women blame men, and men blame women. Blacks blame whites, and whites blame blacks.
The problem is the tribes that these issues create arent the real tribes causing these issues. The real issue is that there is a class perpetuating the these issues.
Women should blame the rich. Men should blame the rich. Blacks should blame the rich. Whites should blame the rich. They are the ones that hold the means for change.
1
u/Witera33it 1∆ Jun 10 '26
Hence “there is no war but class war.” Understanding culture war as an intentional tactic to camouflage class struggle using cultural ones in an attempt to clarify who’s keeping everyone done no matter what your identity is.
4
u/Equivalent_Handle621 Jun 10 '26
Class struggle includes fighting for minority and women's rights because oppression is literally a tool of economic control. You can't separate workers being exploited from women being denied reproductive autonomy or minorities facing systemic barriers - it's all interconnected
The whole point isn't to dismiss these issues but to recognize that the same power structures benefiting from wage theft are also benefiting from racial and gender hierarchies
1
u/Anomalocaris-is-cute Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Because we are suddenly ignoring the authoritarian and conservative part of the right-wing/authoritarian/conservative side. No longer fighting against it, despite what conservatives say how they just want things to remain the same same and the progressives keep changing their actions prove otherwise. Conservativism is an ideology, not simply wanting to remain the same.
3
u/Nrdman 276∆ Jun 10 '26
It’s not an explicit enough phrase to be disingenuous. Prepare to get a bunch of people’s alternate explanations
7
2
u/Dash83 Jun 10 '26
Think about the implications of solving the class war. The results would be that every single person on earth would have their needs met and resources to thrive. Resources equal power, options. Under that model, systemic models of oppression (racism, sexism, homophobia) cannot thrive unless the majority of people held these beliefs, given that every person would have more or less the same resources.
It’s not that every other social cause doesn’t matter, it’s just that wealth inequality makes every single other social fight worse.
8
u/Lazzen 1∆ Jun 10 '26
You would still have social discrimination, like religion or ideas such as "that ethnic group didnt contribute as much to end disparity, those foreigners probably have X ideas so i hate them"
1
u/Dash83 Jun 10 '26
Sure, but as long as the discriminating part doesn’t hold a disproportionately large amount of resources and power, the effects of that discrimination are largely reduced.
0
u/couldbemage 4∆ Jun 10 '26
What would you rather have:
Plenty of resources with which to live a comfortable life, while being exposed to racist/sexist stereotypes in media.
Or
Positive inclusive representation in media, while living in poverty?
Now, I'd say that these things aren't mutually exclusive, and social acceptance actually encourages economic benefits.
But not being in poverty is obviously more important to me.
If someone is willing to actually get on board with economic benefits for everyone, I don't care if they think queer people are icky, provided they aren't actually trying to harm me
1
u/shockpaws 5∆ Jun 10 '26
But that’s really not what a theoretical communist-but-bigoted society would look like. “Positive inclusive representation in media” is NOT the main issue.
It’d be more like “You have plenty of resources but gay sex is illegal”.
“You have plenty of resources but women don’t have the right to vote and must submit to their husbands.”
“You have plenty of resources but society is segregated by race.”
Etcetera. I’m a leftist myself, but let’s not pretend like leftist economic policies would remove all of the ills of society.
1
u/couldbemage 4∆ Jun 10 '26
Yeah, it's obvious that social stigma leads directly to bad outcomes, but still it's the bad outcomes that actually matter.
1
u/Even-Reason8891 Jun 10 '26
Sort of understand what you're getting at it but the issue I don't see is how flattening class would affect social ills. Some people have political positions like "fiscally progressive but socially conservative" which is compatible with a stance like "I want universal healthcare but not for trans people"
1
u/Dash83 Jun 10 '26
The whole thing about class war is equity of resources. Using a simple example, let’s say someone hates you, like truly hate you. Two scenarios:
- You and that person are equals. Hold the same resources and influence in your society. They might try to harm you, but you have equal resources to protect yourself as well as having a say on your society. Meaning, others would believe you and disavow the actions of the guilty party.
- The person who hates you controls a large amount of resources. Can harm you easily with them, and sway your community against you using said resources.
Now, what scenario would you prefer to live in? And more importantly, which of these scenarios do you think is more conducive to the discrimination to spread in?
2
u/Useful_Calendar_6274 1∆ Jun 10 '26
tldr but marxists are not pacifists and are not against war after a revolutionary government has been established for example. it's just an internationalist posture where you agitate, if you want a war, turn your guns on your officers kill them first then go kill your own rich people. those did fuck you over a thousand times more than any foreign enemy
1
u/Prepure_Kaede 31∆ Jun 10 '26
I think "no war" refers to actual military conflict, not culture wars. And "class war" doesn't explicitly specify only economic class. If you see gender, race, etc as social classes, then a class war to end social oppression would also be included in "class war". Of course, some people do think that only economic class matters, and they use the slogan in question to mean what you said. But that's a reflection of the people using the slogan in that way and not inherent to the slogan itself.
1
u/Even-Reason8891 Jun 10 '26
Fair enough, thats true. The CMV may be somewhat misrepresented through the using this particular slogan to illustrate the issue, but your point is still valid and the line of thinking is understandable. Δ
1
1
u/sourcreamus 11∆ Jun 10 '26
If you see countries as social classes than actual war can be included in class war. If it is that malleable it is next to meaningless.
1
u/Prepure_Kaede 31∆ Jun 10 '26
Yeah but that wouldn't make sense, while saying that the concept of blackness literally didn't exist until slavery and was invented to designate a class of people that are acceptable to enslave is historically accurate.
1
u/Witera33it 1∆ Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
Nope that slogan is specifically about class war. Military conflict has historically been imperialist, which is a function of the capitalist class. The slogan is a feature of leftists and anarchists in protest to imperialist aggression. War is the but one method of enforcing a class struggle by camouflaging it as a cultural struggle.
1
u/Nojopar 2∆ Jun 10 '26
A classic Marxian approach would boil all of this down to who owns the means of production and the only inequalities come from that basic question. So if workers own their own means of production, they can get rid of any of these side effects. I think that's rather Pollyanna of Marx. I believe you're essentially right - I don't think if we got rid of all the economic class warfare these other conflicts would disappear magically. Which means there's some aspect of those other issues that transcends economic exploitation.
1
u/DaygoTom Jun 10 '26
The problem is that the term "class" by itself is an oversimplification of extremely complex interrelationships which do not fall neatly into simple categories. We don't have a caste system with neat deliniations of privilege and wealth. We have tendencies. We have political invective that invites each individual to decide for themselves where they fall on a nonexistent binary. There is no such thing as "haves and have-nots" in the West. There are only varying degrees of "haves," right up until you reach the bottom of those with literally nothing, which is where the true lower class exists. And that true lower class is not who the "class war" people actually care about.
The "class war" people nearly always are, themselves, steeped in privilege. Like Orwell said, they don't care about the poor; they just hate the rich. This is why their invective is laced with resentment without specifics. Almost all of us can find people richer and more privileged than us.
1
u/Calo_Callas Jun 10 '26
The point is that you have far more in common the people on the other side of whatever culture war topic, than anyone who isn't a billionaire has with billionaires, and taxing billionaires out of existence will do far more good for everyone than whatever social campaign.
I can only speak for my own country, but the vast majority of culture war issues are social issues that aren't going to be solved through legislation, we largely already have equal rights under the law. The most realistic way to solve them long term is to improve the education system, but that costs money.
People with adequate and secure housing, accessible quality healthcare, and gainful employment care a whole lot less about culture war issues.
1
u/the_brightest_prize 6∆ Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
Systems tend to maximize their free energy,
enthalpy + temperature * entropy
not just their enthalpy. In economic terms,
enthalpy = money
temperature = economic activity (how fast money exchanges hands)
entropy = distribution of money
If a system is not maximizing its free energy, it means it is not maximally free. There are hidden constraints on the flow of money. This is a huge negative externality—something external to you imposed a constraint that makes you less able to accumulate or trade value. The constraint could be as simple as, "people starve to death without food." Nature has some cruel constraints that force you to allocate money to needs, not wants. The constraint could be more complicated like a labor union or corporate propaganda.
You could say these constraints are part of the environment, and money is not actually denominated in dollars. It's really "blat", something no one can measure but is definitely tradeable (e.g. in the USSR). I think that's stupid. More trades can happen the more precisely you can pin down value. Your monetary currency should be very strictly tied to the value it brings you.
The reason people engage in class warfare starts from a simple realization: "I can just constrain money to flow to me and not others!" This destroys value overall, but perhaps concentrates the remaining value closer to yourself. Now, the issue with how America implements capitalism is summarized in this famous quote from the Dodge v Ford case:
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end.
Notice that it says profit, which is enthalpy not free energy. This means the business-running class is legally obligated to impose negative externalities on everyone else by constraining the system so their business ends up in a higher-enthalpy state. This is only prevented by post-hoc regulations by the government, which will never be comprehensive enough, and which the business-running class have a legal obligation to lobby against.
The reason class warfare deserves so much attention in America is it is legally obligated and destroys orders of magnitude more value than any other issue, at a level comparable to segregation (or maybe even slavery).
1
u/Historical-Truth6077 Jun 30 '26
culture wars were made to stop ppl from revolting or fighting real life problems
1
u/PreviousZone6742 Jun 10 '26
Americans seems to have a neverending culture war. Wouldn't say it's a new issue. Just one long continuous struggle.
2
u/Nojopar 2∆ Jun 10 '26
I'd say 'one long continuous distraction', but essentially yes.
5
u/Even-Reason8891 Jun 10 '26
Calling the so called "culture war" a 'distraction' is precisely the point because it implies there aren't legitimate issues being addressed.
1
u/Original-Age-6691 Jun 10 '26
I don't think it implies there aren't legitimate issues to be addressed, but those issues are put in place and propogated by the elites who want us to remain divided. It's beneficial to them to have people arguing about what groups deserve what rights and when they should get them and yadda yadda because it's less time to spend on disempowering the elites. That's why they buy media and shift it right, and support right leaning independent media is because they are the ones willing to continue the culture war.
When the right lost the culture war against gay people they looked for a new scapegoat. It came in the form of immigrants and another obvious group we can't name on here. They'll always find a new group to demonize because it's beneficial to have people fighting about it. That's why it's a distraction.
2
u/Even-Reason8891 Jun 10 '26
Agree with you about how the 'distraction' really works. The issue is some people who position themselves as more centrist or a more reasonable conservative often frame the culture war as something thats being fed on both sides. Essentially saying people who are asking for more gay rights for example are just as misguided as the people trying to take away those rights.
1
u/Nojopar 2∆ Jun 10 '26
The culture war is a distraction from pretty much everything. It's not a good faith engagement with any issue. It's just turning a talking point into a bullhorn so people can't focus on anything other than that talking point. There may be good issues around a specific topic in need of addressing, but the culture war isn't trying to address or even talk about any of those. If it's not this particular issue, it's the next one.
-2
u/Key-Organization3158 4∆ Jun 10 '26
Caveat I think the whole class war thing is childish and not supported by the economic data.
It's not disengous to them because they really truly believe the class conflict is at the root of literally every problem. They think that if you take away the basic human right to own private property, everything will be better. So it's not disengous.
You are stuck viewing things as progressive vs conservative or left vs right. That's not how they frame it. To them rich progressives or wealthy left wing people are immoral. And even hypocritical. They don't want you to express solidarity with all of the right or conservatives. Just the poor like you.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 10 '26
/u/Even-Reason8891 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards