Division of people into groups is a device designed to better understand "what it is we might be." The idea that the word "class" is pejorative or without value, follows an emotional response which stems from a confusion of mind that muddles "what it is we might be," with "what it is we would like to be." This muddle is even further distressed by "what it is we should be," and "why aren't we what we want to be." It's a tapestry, I'd argue, a muddle in consciousness, and I have to admit that more often than is healthy. I too hear P.F. Sloan's 1965 "Eve of Destruction." And less often than I'd like, do I hear B. Dylan's 1962 "Blowing in the Wind." But maybe I am just old, decrepit and unable to multitask.
"What it is we would like to be" and "what it is we are," are two very different things. And this same distinction can be made between "what it is we would like to be" and "what it is we can be." The phrase "class warfare" is no more than an understanding of these differences that places access to power as a prime determinant of 'status,' a word most simply defined as 'position relative to others,' and in the world of plenty 'position relative to others' is more often measured through income level. Consequently, the argument goes, different interests, or classes, fight for power. And here it's worth noting that the word 'fight' in no way resembles 'compete on level playing field.' The further to the right or left of a political spectrum a person goes, the more likely that person is to denounce this understanding in favor of what I will call "a class of oneness." A thoroughly mawkish political model that has fallen to chaos and bloodshed many more times than once, and too often rears it's ugly head when plenty is threatened. So, it's worth glancing through all lyrics of La Marseillaise, while humming J. Lennon's "All you need is love."