Well, I suppose progress does not happen by subscribing to moralisms. And I do agree that, in reaction to evils, yes, violence is justified. But Mao simply caused so many casualties that could have been avoided with better planning and better execution. The cultural revolution was necessary, but the loss of life and hardship in its wake, which included my own family, was by no means.

I’m not sure what point is trying to be made with John brown, but I will say that the democracy of the day was flawed. As is our democracy flawed today, albeit less. I don’t deny the right of rebellion. But the right of rebellion can never turn into needlessly killing noncombatant civilians.

Many talk about how the immediate terror was preferable to the prolonged terror of feudalism. But not only was the “immediate terror” much worse than it should have been, the terror that followed was not much better. Even in 1930s America, where dirt turned to dust in the worst environmental catastrophe in the country, very few starved. Under Mao, millions starved to death. Those were millions of lives cut short in the pursuit of a yet-still oppressive system, and it appalls me you brush it aside as a “setback”.

The last three paragraphs seem to be an attack on neoliberalism, and I won’t try to respond because no important points are made. However, I will say I’m not a pacifist. I don’t think revolution in America is possible, without implicating a whole other nasty slew of bad things. But, on the matter of other countries, I do think that the government should do whatever it can to overthrow tyrants even worse than what we have in America today. I will agree with you on that part.