using violence to liberate people from sweatshops, unsafe mines, and grinding poverty isn't the same as using violence to impose those things on people. the idea that violence is morally repugnant regardless of context is a belief that every oppressor throughout history would love for the oppressed to hold
Posts like these don't really understand what exploitation is or how exploitation works and how it's different to chattel slavery.
Exploitation happens when there's somebody in a bad situation without any good choices, and you give them a bad choice, and they take the bad choice because it's the least bad choice they have. When someone is facing starvation and homelessness, you offer them a shitty terrible dangerous demeaning job, because they don't have any better choice. Perhaps you could give them a better, safer, better paying job, but that would make you less money, and they don't have any better choices than your bad job, so you don't need to offer them a good job.
Blowing up their place of work and denying them their shitty job doesn't grant them a good job. These are people stuck with the terrible choice between either a dangerous, demeaning, low paying job, or starvation, poverty and homelessness.
They do not benefit from you choosing starvation and homelessness for them on their behalf.
The solution is to offer them better choices.
There's a very retributive angle to the mindset, one more focused on the catharsis of destroying what is bad without considering how to create something that is good. You can't cross that bridge when you get to it - you take away the thing that was oppressing someone but keeping them alive, they're not going to sit around and wait for you to give them something better!
This isn't some academic abstract either, it's explicitly why things such as crime crackdowns and international interventions routinely fail. 'Liberate' is a word that's doing a tremendous amount of work in these contexts.
