Unless youre an anarchist you still believe in a state to fend off your revolution and build the productive forces... This necessitates some level of violence as all States are used for the oppression of one class against another
Except under socialism its the majority oppressing the minority (of capitalists, embittered white guardists, royalists titans of industry, ceos and slumlords)
The great American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote about the difficulty that most Americans have in accepting revolutionary violence. In Listen, Yankee: The Revolution in Cuba, Mills wrote as if a Cuban revolutionary were speaking to an American. In response to American outrage over the pictures of the revolutionaries summarily executing five or six hundred supporters of the dictator Batista without “a fair trial,” the Cuban says:
This was war. During the Batista regime, thousands of our people were murdered….So what would you expect? Maybe in easy moral terms, no killing is excusable….But however immoral the purposes and the results of killing are quite different in different places and at different times. Because you see it does matter who is getting killed and why. But whether you think so or not, you certainly have no grounds for talking about injustice: Who gave any trial to the people of Hiroshima? Well, this, too, was a war. Remember, too, Yankee, that morals are easy to come by sitting in your quiet suburbs away from it all protected from it all. Morals are easy to say out [sic] when you’re rich and strong and all the unpleasantnesses of the world are hidden from youÂby distance, by amusements, by your own indifference, by your own private way of life.[46]
I think Mark Twain put this the most convincingly.
There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
Also I don't think it's possible or makes any sense for the marginalized and deprived to "oppress" the advantaged. I wouldn't say that's what oppression means. Combat them? Sure. But oppression has a downward dynamic to it.
What does anti authoritarianism even mean?
Unless youre an anarchist you still believe in a state to fend off your revolution and build the productive forces... This necessitates some level of violence as all States are used for the oppression of one class against another
Except under socialism its the majority oppressing the minority (of capitalists, embittered white guardists, royalists titans of industry, ceos and slumlords)
The great American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote about the difficulty that most Americans have in accepting revolutionary violence. In Listen, Yankee: The Revolution in Cuba, Mills wrote as if a Cuban revolutionary were speaking to an American. In response to American outrage over the pictures of the revolutionaries summarily executing five or six hundred supporters of the dictator Batista without “a fair trial,” the Cuban says:
I think Mark Twain put this the most convincingly.
Also I don't think it's possible or makes any sense for the marginalized and deprived to "oppress" the advantaged. I wouldn't say that's what oppression means. Combat them? Sure. But oppression has a downward dynamic to it.