This sentiment, whoever says it, is basically why I consider pacifists to be immoral fundamentally. The only exception I would give to this is if you live in some utopia where violence and oppression, etc. no longer exists. If you live anywhere in the real world as it exists and you scoff at the violence required to end the oppression of you or others (and unless you're goddamn Jeff Bezos, you are oppressed to some degree. Don't get it twisted. His only master is capital, whom he serves, and it serves him in turn. Capital personified, etc.) then you de facto, by default, accept the violence and oppression done to you or others. You're either a person with morals bordering on immoral, imo, or simply a coward, which is effectively the same in this case. This doesn't mean "go lynch landlords!" Individual actions like that, while fun to revel in, will achieve little in the grand scheme. But it does mean you have to perceive the world for what it is: one class, capitalists, oppressing another class, labor, whom they exploit. Of course it's more complicated when you consider imperialism and its remaining/ongoing horrors, but, when boiled down to the essence of the thing, if you perceive yourself as an oppressed laborer and exploited and you know this is true and worse for others yet refuse to accept that only overwhelming violence can end such a violent system... then you're foolish, immoral, or a coward.
"Non-violent" protest has been retconned into history by liberals (capitalists or those serving them) for the obvious goal of making it taboo, making it "feel bad," like you're the one who's angry, overly passionate, out of bounds if you ever have the audacity to suggest that those who would and do use police and military against the workers of the world are justified just because they have stamped their actions with approval from the state... which they head and control.
And I wanna make it clear that my intention isn't to just be antagonistic or a keyboard warrior. There is a nobleness in the hearts of those who truly wish and want to believe the world can change without violence. That's what draws you, in the end, to the moral side of things. But much like men like John Brown saw a long time ago, what capitalists do and what they justify is so abhorrent that it is only correct and moral to respond in kind to their violence against thousands and billions of people with violence against their individual bodies. Liberals love their little trolley problem. This is really the ultimate and easiest trolley problem. Kill a few thousand capitalists to spare the world. They see it the other way around. Kill billions to give them comfort. Even if you feel bad, and you definitely shouldn't relish in death lest you become soulless personifications of capital yourself, you can't let it dissuade you from doing the ultimately moral action- or at least stepping aside so others can.
This feels kinda cringe, but whatever, I'm launching it into space and subjecting everyone to it.
This sentiment, whoever says it, is basically why I consider pacifists to be immoral fundamentally. The only exception I would give to this is if you live in some utopia where violence and oppression, etc. no longer exists. If you live anywhere in the real world as it exists and you scoff at the violence required to end the oppression of you or others (and unless you're goddamn Jeff Bezos, you are oppressed to some degree. Don't get it twisted. His only master is capital, whom he serves, and it serves him in turn. Capital personified, etc.) then you de facto, by default, accept the violence and oppression done to you or others. You're either a person with morals bordering on immoral, imo, or simply a coward, which is effectively the same in this case. This doesn't mean "go lynch landlords!" Individual actions like that, while fun to revel in, will achieve little in the grand scheme. But it does mean you have to perceive the world for what it is: one class, capitalists, oppressing another class, labor, whom they exploit. Of course it's more complicated when you consider imperialism and its remaining/ongoing horrors, but, when boiled down to the essence of the thing, if you perceive yourself as an oppressed laborer and exploited and you know this is true and worse for others yet refuse to accept that only overwhelming violence can end such a violent system... then you're foolish, immoral, or a coward.
"Non-violent" protest has been retconned into history by liberals (capitalists or those serving them) for the obvious goal of making it taboo, making it "feel bad," like you're the one who's angry, overly passionate, out of bounds if you ever have the audacity to suggest that those who would and do use police and military against the workers of the world are justified just because they have stamped their actions with approval from the state... which they head and control.
And I wanna make it clear that my intention isn't to just be antagonistic or a keyboard warrior. There is a nobleness in the hearts of those who truly wish and want to believe the world can change without violence. That's what draws you, in the end, to the moral side of things. But much like men like John Brown saw a long time ago, what capitalists do and what they justify is so abhorrent that it is only correct and moral to respond in kind to their violence against thousands and billions of people with violence against their individual bodies. Liberals love their little trolley problem. This is really the ultimate and easiest trolley problem. Kill a few thousand capitalists to spare the world. They see it the other way around. Kill billions to give them comfort. Even if you feel bad, and you definitely shouldn't relish in death lest you become soulless personifications of capital yourself, you can't let it dissuade you from doing the ultimately moral action- or at least stepping aside so others can.
This feels kinda cringe, but whatever, I'm launching it into space and subjecting everyone to it.