Whataboutism: A Marxist critique of hegemonic narratives
Critics of whataboutism often accuse it of nihilism, relativism, or a lack of moral courage to take a “just” position. But this critique, I argue, conflates whataboutism with a far more pernicious stance: what I would call “sowhatism.” Sowhatism denies the relevance or importance of facts altogether. When confronted with the suffering of 40,000 Palestinians, the response is a nihilistic “So what?” It dismisses any moral or political consequence. By contrast, whataboutism does not deny facts but rather interrogates their relevance and contextual framing within a broader narrative.
Marxist theory provides a powerful lens for understanding this dynamic. Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony explains how dominant groups maintain power by establishing their worldview as common sense, naturalizing their “truths” as universal and unquestionable. Whataboutism challenges this hegemony by exposing its inconsistencies, questioning whose interests are served by certain narratives, and demanding the application of universal standards—an essential step in demystifying power.
Jean Baudrillard’s analysis of simulacra and hyperreality adds another dimension to this critique. According to Baudrillard, hegemonic narratives operate by replacing reality with representations that become “more real than real”—a hyperreality that shapes public perception and neutralizes dissent. Whataboutism disrupts this hyperreal order by questioning the framing and selective construction of reality. For example, it exposes how media coverage disproportionately amplifies some injustices while erasing others, revealing that the narrative of universal morality often serves as a simulation designed to legitimize imperial power.
Michel Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge further illuminates the stakes of this critique. Foucault argued that power is embedded in the production of knowledge, which shapes what is seen as true or false, just or unjust. Hegemonic narratives are not merely ideological constructs but practices that produce and regulate knowledge, defining the terms of debate. Whataboutism resists this regulatory function, demanding accountability for how knowledge is produced and whose interests it serves. By questioning the coherence of dominant narratives, whataboutism undermines the mechanisms by which power sustains itself under the guise of objectivity and neutrality.
The weaponization of whataboutism: Silencing dissent
However, precisely because of its potential to destabilize hegemonic narratives, whataboutism has been vilified and reduced to a rhetorical fallacy in mainstream discourse. The term “whataboutism” has acquired overwhelmingly negative connotations, serving as a convenient mechanism to dismiss critical arguments outright. When confronted with inconsistencies or double standards, the proponents of the hegemonic narrative label such critiques as whataboutism to discredit and silence dissent. This dismissal often occurs without any serious attempt to engage with the substance of the argument, thereby reinforcing the hegemonic discourse and shielding it from scrutiny.
Whataboutism, properly used, is not moral relativism but a critique of selective outrage that reinforces hegemony. It highlights how the ruling class uses moral condemnation strategically, often to discredit resistance or justify imperialism. For instance, the hegemonic narrative declares, “Invading an independent member state of the United Nations is a reproachable action.” Whataboutism asks: “Is this principle consistently applied? If so, why were NATO bombings in Yugoslavia or the invasions of Iraq and Libya not universally condemned?” In doing so, whataboutism seeks clarity on whether the proclaimed standards are universal—or tools of selective enforcement by hegemonic powers.
A recent example further illustrates this selective application of moral outrage. Earlier this year, the United Nations formally recognized the massacre of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995 as genocide. This recognition is undeniably a step toward justice for one of the most heinous crimes of the late 20th century. But what about the Armenian genocide of 1915–1916, when an estimated 1.2 million Armenian Christians were systematically killed during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Over a century later, acknowledgment of this genocide remains uneven, with some major powers still hesitant to recognize it officially due to geopolitical considerations.
And what about more recent atrocities, such as the systematic killing of ethnic Darfuri people in Sudan from 2003 to 2005, where an estimated 200,000 people were killed and millions displaced? These events, while acknowledged to varying degrees, have not received the same level of international response or condemnation. The uneven treatment of such atrocities demonstrates the strategic use of moral narratives, with some atrocities spotlighted to align with the interests of powerful states while others are marginalized or ignored.
This framing aligns with Marx’s emphasis on exposing the ideological superstructure that legitimizes exploitation and domination. Ideologies, as Marx explained, do not arise neutrally; they are shaped by the material interests of the ruling class. The critique of whataboutism as a rhetorical fallacy often serves to delegitimize dissent, silencing those who challenge the dominant narrative’s contradictions.
Furthermore, whataboutism functions as a form of dialectical critique. Derrida’s deconstructionist insight that meaning arises from differences—binary oppositions like good/evil or just/unjust—resonates with this approach. The hegemonic narrative defines these binaries within social and historical contexts that reflect ruling-class interests. Whataboutism, much like Marxist critique, destabilizes these oppositions by revealing their constructed and contingent nature.
In the current era of declining Western hegemony, the resurgence of whataboutism reflects broader struggles over ideological dominance. As the unipolar order fragments, demands for accountability and universal application of norms grow louder. Whataboutism insists that the standards used to condemn some actions—like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—be equally applied to the actions of NATO or the United States. This is not nihilism but a revolutionary demand for consistency that exposes the duplicity of imperialist powers.
Ultimately, whataboutism, when wielded consciously, can serve as a tool for unveiling the class interests embedded in hegemonic narratives. By dismissing it as a rhetorical fallacy, hegemonic forces reveal their unwillingness to confront the contradictions within their own discourse. In exposing the simulation of moral universality (Baudrillard), challenging the regulatory practices of knowledge production (Foucault), and confronting the ideological apparatus of exploitation (Marx), whataboutism resists the ideological apparatus that naturalizes exploitation and war. It challenges us to imagine a world where universal principles are not mere instruments of domination but foundations for genuine justice.
From deconstruction to action: The left’s challenge
The critique of whataboutism is not merely an academic or rhetorical exercise; it has profound implications for the contemporary left. By challenging hegemonic narratives, whataboutism—properly deployed—can serve as a critical tool for the left to reclaim political influence and moral authority. As Boris Kagarlitsky argues in The Long Retreat, the left has ceded much of its power by aligning with bourgeois and identity-centric frameworks, abandoning a principled, class-based politics. To reverse this trend, the left must embrace the role of questioning hegemonic ideologies as part of a broader strategy to reassert itself in the global political arena.
Nancy Fraser underscores the urgency of this task in light of escalating geopolitical tensions, intensifying militarism, and the fragmentation of the global working class. The current context, marked by a declining US hegemony, an ambivalent rising China, and Russia’s leadership in forming a BRICS counter-bloc, calls for a renewed proletarian internationalism.
The left cannot afford to uncritically align with the narratives of any hegemonic power, nor can it remain silent in the face of contradictions. Questioning the selective application of universal principles—an act often derided as whataboutism—is essential for dismantling the ideological superstructures that justify exploitation and war. This form of critique, far from being nihilistic, is foundational for constructing a new internationalist politics that prioritizes solidarity over divisions of race, gender, and nationality.
While the critique of hegemonic ideology through whataboutism is essential for exposing contradictions, it is only the first step. The left’s task is not merely to analyse or critique but to act, to transform society. As Nancy Fraser argues, the global working class must unite across borders to forge a new proletarian internationalism capable of addressing the divisions of race, gender, and nationality, as well as the imperial rivalries of today. This requires a principled and courageous stance, even when it runs counter to hegemonic narratives.
History offers a stark reminder of the importance of a principled stance through Lenin’s position during World War I. Faced with the overwhelming nationalist fervour of the time, even among socialists, Lenin took a courageous and deeply unpopular position. He declared that “proletarians have no Fatherland” and called for the defeat of imperialist governments, including his own. This radical stance, embodied in the Zimmerwald movement, was rejected by many within the international socialist movement. Yet, though deeply unpopular at first, Lenin’s position laid the groundwork for the revolutions of 1917, proving that the courage to reject hegemonic narratives is often the precursor to mass political transformation.
This principle resonates with Georg Lukács’s assertion that Marxist dialectics is always a revolutionary dialectic. For Lukács, the central problem of Marxist dialectics is not merely to interpret or critique reality but to change it. Whataboutism, when deployed consciously, embodies this revolutionary dialectic by seeking not only to deconstruct the ideological superstructure but also to open possibilities for transformative action. It calls out the hypocrisies of imperialist powers while pointing toward a consistent, universal standard that could underpin a genuinely just and equitable international order.
Lenin’s insistence on class solidarity over national allegiance highlights the transformative potential of rejecting hegemonic ideologies, even when such positions are initially marginalized. The left today must draw from this example, asserting class-based principles that transcend the competing imperialisms of the contemporary geopolitical order. By embracing this revolutionary dialectic, the left can go beyond dismantling hegemonic narratives to build an alternative vision of solidarity and justice. This involves uniting transnational movements against imperialism and militarism, exposing the corporate and state powers that fuel conflict, and creating the conditions for global class solidarity. Only through this transformative praxis can the left reclaim its moral and political authority, reasserting itself as a force for systemic change in an unstable and fragmented world.
This means not only challenging the dominant powers of the West but also critically engaging with other rising powers like China and Russia, which often present themselves as alternatives to US hegemony but remain deeply enmeshed in the logic of imperialism and capitalism. A renewed proletarian internationalism must therefore be both anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist, capable of building cross-border solidarity to resist war and exploitation.
In linking the critique of hegemonic narratives to the practical challenges facing the left, whataboutism becomes more than a rhetorical device—it becomes a weapon for dismantling the ideological structures that sustain exploitation and domination. By rejecting the dismissal of critical arguments as mere “whataboutism,” the left can reclaim its tradition of principled opposition to war, imperialism, and inequality, offering a vision for a world that prioritizes justice, peace, and solidarity over power and profit.