By its nature, warfare is fought between opposing groups with distinct characteristics. We have seen many successful campaigns taken by one race to significantly weaken another or by one culture to significantly weaken another. The stronger country or race or culture is typically self-sufficient, and damage to the opposing force does not have significant negative impacts on the stronger country. If Israel eliminates Palestine, for example, their biggest consequence is international repercussions, and not direct effects of the act itself.
The fight between labor and capital, by contrast, is not so simple. Workers are in a natural state of competition with each other for jobs. That is, workers do not benefit from an additional worker, yet they do benefit from an additional employer. Employers in the same industry are also in a natural state of competition with one another while benefiting from additional laborers. Russia can bomb Ukraine to weaken it, but if a laborer destroys capital, they directly harm their own class as well. It's easy for laborers to agree on talking points, but they can't take significant direct action against employers without harming themselves. Hence, the difficult task of laborers who wish to rebel is to align with near 100% agreement and replace the employers whilst not damaging them to the point that laborers are out of work.
While this is theoretically possible, the division between labor and capital is only one of many ways in which the battle lines can be drawn. Even if US laborers agree to rebel, they can be replaced with Mexican laborers or Canadian laborers. Demanding too much can cause employers to move overseas, and preventing this requires alliances across country borders. Yet at any given time, US laborers might be at odds with Mexican laborers, or white laborers with black laborers, etc. Because of this difficulty, most of this conflict must be solved with negotiations rather than war.
The nearest parallel is probably the relationships between men and women, though there are some differences. It's technically possible to enslave women through superior force. However, a balanced gender ratio is still ideal for an efficient society, as is both groups contributing. So while men and women may argue over their roles or form groups in supposed opposition to each other, both groups typically end up either on equal footing or with respective duties and benefits. An extreme case would be the Taliban, which puts harsh restrictions on everyone but must allow women enough minor freedoms as needed to raise children. Compare this to settler vs native conflicts, where the natives would often just be wiped out. It's telling that in modern society, the groups with the harshest gender restrictions are those that care little about efficiency and don't follow logical game theory.
All this is to say, I don't think we'll be getting a lot of Marxist revolutions any time soon, and I'd be surprised if the global oligarchs from each country could actually agree on anything long enough to take over the world together.
