Waiting for nonviolent, nondestructive forms of liberation is often cruel towards the victims. Violence is not necessarily the right answer, but it is often enough to earn any decent person that description.

At the same time, violence which is poorly thought out can victimize many, many more people. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” applies to both sides of this argument. If both act in such a way as causes harm towards the oppressed, but in the hopes of alleviating it, why is one decent and one not?

People who believe only in nonviolent actions are fools who cause immense harm, and in modern bourgeois democracies, are by far the majority of fools screwing the oppressed over. But people who use violence without a serious and feasible plan for how it can actually overthrow, help overthrow, lead to overthrowing, or at least seriously hinder the oppressors are also fools who cause immense harm in the same exact way.

Choose violence, choose nonviolence, choose a mixture of both; whatever you choose, choose the most effective one you can figure.

I don’t blame people for rolling the dice and failing. But I might blame someone for playing the lottery and failing. At some point, a failure to genuinely analyze one’s actions and plans and route to success is, itself, a moral failure.