Sorry, but for a just world, you need a class war. The rich & powerful need the system to oppress almost everyone on the planet so they can continue to profit. No class war would be great, but they are already fighting it, and we will never be free of it until we win.
Musk & Bezos, if you could ever get them in a room, would have no patience to hear you out. They are committed to the notion that they are special and you are a worthless peon because they have all of the money & power and you don't. They would rage at you for even suggesting a change that makes the peons less poor, because they don't think we "deserve" it. They think we need them to rule us.
They have to think this way, because it's the only way they can maintain their position and not be crushed by the guilt.
I read it as the reverse initially. Thought it was a classic Lemmy take for what looked like a newspaper article. Why- who- how could someone know about the culture war and the class war and draw this conclusion? (Ed: she doesn't know about the class war, see below)
Or maybe it's a bait title and the body makes a completely different point, that's probably the reason I'm looking at a picture of the title right now and not reading the whole article.
Edit 2: It's actually a kinda muddled argument she's making. She's using "class war" not in the sense a marxist might use, but to describe something a populist party would do, which is turning public anger towards a specific demographic to justify their political actions. She doesn't want Labour to alienate the richer parts of its voter base by "bashing the most wealthy" or "punishing the rich". But she doesn't show that Labour would actually message it like that, just that they have plans that would tax wealthier people more, which seems perfectly Labour-like and not something they would need special messaging to justify. So if Labour wants to pivot away from a culture war and towards actual left-wing policy, that's not "starting a class war".