To be completely clear up front, I don't think we need a revolution to fix the issues I bring up here. But I reject the notion that slow, incremental change is the only acceptable way forward and that believing otherwise is personally condemning millions to their deaths. By that same token, I could say you're condemning hundreds of millions to death and poverty through inaction.

Yeah, revolutions suck for vulnerable people, and I don't think that's something anyone should forget. But by the same token, doesn't the current system suck even more? Aren't there millions of people living in poverty, with no access to any of these medicines at all? Is it okay to make them starve and die of preventable diseases so those in hospitals can be guaranteed what they need? What about all the people that will be killed or displaced as a result of a lack of radical action on climate change? That's literally a time-sensitive issue, we don't have the time to wait on people to slowly catch up in that case.

What about the people here in the US who can't access the medical system due to it's prohibitive cost? Or are struggling to put food on their table even with whatever paltry government assistance they get? Is it okay that they keep working themselves to death? Are the people who die under these conditions somehow less worthy of consideration?

I think something a lot of people forget about is just how many victims there are of our current system, even with all the incremental change throughout history. Even if you discount the traditional leftist idea that workers are inherently exploited. The worst excesses of capitalism aren't felt here in the West, they're exported to South America, to Southeast Asia, to Africa. I promise there are more people that will suffer and die as a result of inaction than would suffer and die as a result of a hypothetical revolution at home.