“Violent revolution never works” “Violence is never the answer” Yet it’s somehow always okay for the oppressor to enact violence? The oppressor is somehow always able to get away with causing destruction, death, grief, and pain? It’s acceptable for the oppressor to commit violence, but never when the oppressed fight back?
Here’s an idea: maybe if oppressors, colonizers, and the like stopped subjecting others to unspeakable levels of violence, no one would have any reason to retaliate.
Y’all would rather mourn the deaths of hypothetical people lost to the revolution rather than the people currently dying under imperialism and genocide. As if revolution is something that spawns out of nowhere, rather than it being the result of an already crumbling system. Revolution doesn’t happen with societies and systems that are functioning, that are helping people, and I think that’s what’s confusing y’all the most.
You’re not being personally affected by the system as of right now, so why on earth would we change it?
"To turn away from revolution on the pretext of avoiding sacrifice is in fact tantamount to forcing the people to accept lifelong slavery to capital and to tolerate cruel exploitation and oppression, unbearable maltreatment and humiliation, enormous suffering and victimization for ever. It can be said that the acute pain experienced at a revolutionary turning point is always much easier to endure than the chronic pain caused by the cancer of the old society."
- THE GREAT ANTI-IMPERIALIST REVOLUTIONARY CAUSE OF THE ASIAN, AFRICAN AND LATIN-AMERICAN PEOPLES IS INVINCIBLE, The Treatise Published on the Occasion of the First Anniversary of the Death of Che Guevara in Battle, in the Eighth Issue of Tricontinental, Theoretical Organ of the Organization of Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, October 8, 1968
