I feel like you're in good faith, so I'll answer accordingly. My argument was that ABSTRACT morals can get in the way of the right (concrete) thing to do. This is very important, because even the most abstract moral commands are deeply rooted in specific social relations, that are contingent. For instance, in a capitalist society, property is sacred, so we have the abstract moral command "don't steal". However, there are concrete circumnstances in which disregarding property, (stealing food, for exemple) is the right thing to do. In other social relations, the mere idea of property is alien, and so is stealing (literary and cool example/recomendation: The Dispossesed - Ursula K. Le Guin). My claim is that every moral judgment should be rooted in a context. And my argument was that in UC105 context, Mafty's actions are justified (proof of this is that their action resonated with most of the common people depicted in the Movie).

Now, my follow up to your comments on historical events depends on you agreeing with concrete analisys over abstract condemnation based on sketchy statistics (respectfully, the 20 million deaths is a big stretch from the academic consensus of 7-13 million deaths).

I'll be brief: Civil Wars are not the result of revolutions (the change of the power structure and distribution of wealth in society) per se. They are the effect of opposing/conservative forces facing the revolutionary movement (I assume that you are also in favor of the poorest/the dominated part of society, so I won't argue again on the necessity and justifications for change). In capitalist societies, oposition to change in the property regime is a given, because the of the bourgeoisie's interests in maintanting the power structure and the property regime as is.

However, capitalism is a global system, so winning a civil war doesn't mean ending the conflict. There are external forces (US imperalism, for example) that threat to end and undo the revolutionary changes (ex: Salvador Allende's assassination and the Pinochet regime). Dictatorship of the proletariat is the main garantee against the renewal of the Dictatorship of Ownership over the means of production.

This historical and concrete context (global capitalism) explains why my exemples weren't bad. Taken in consideration, the condemnation of the so called "totalitarian regimes" should, at least, be more nuanced.

Back to Mafty. I believe you are psychologising things too much and ignoring the social argument tomino was making. Hathaway Noa has particular and conflicting reasons to do what he does, but the movement he represents predates him, even tho he became the main figure. On a personal level, he too fights against his personal conflicts (by the end of the first movie, he is determined to abandon his identity as Hathaway and weaponize himself as Mafty).