MattsAlt

With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. How could they be the initiators, if they themselves are the result of violence? How could they be the sponsors of something objective whose objective inauguration called forth their existence as oppressed? There would be no oppressed had there been no prior of violence to establish their subjugation.

And it is clear that in the colonial countries the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The starving peasant, outside the class system is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays. For him there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization a simply a question of relative strength.

Get this into your head: if violence were only a thing of the future, if exploitation and oppression never existed on earth, perhaps displays of nonviolence might relieve the conflict. But if the entire regime, even your nonviolent thoughts, is governed by a thousand-year old oppression, your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressors.

You live in the US, how are you not being bribed to think the way you do?

You're such a redditor

It's also kinda hard to have 99% of people dislike China if 18% of the global population lives there and is very satisfied with their government, not even counting anyone in Russia, other parts of Asia and the Pacific, Central and South America, or Africa.

You're really showing whose opinions you actually care about. A bunch of propagandized to the brim, comfortable Americans, Canadians, and Europeans

Time for you to go make friends with the fascists and shitlibs who share your opinions I guess