The goal of the revolution is to achieve the people's rights
The goal of the revolution is to achieve the people's rights, but during the course of the revolution, we must stress military power - and the two are mutually contradictory.
Sun Yat-sen, father of a new China, speaks with candor and sorrow: “The goal of the revolution is to achieve the people’s rights, but during the course of the revolution, we must stress military power—and the two are mutually contradictory.” Here lies the paradox of all upheaval. The people’s rights are the fruit, but the sword is the plow; and though the sword may break the ground, it also threatens to cut down the very harvest it seeks to grow.
The meaning is sharp and tragic. Revolution is born from the cry of the oppressed, demanding liberty, justice, and dignity. Yet to bring down tyrants, the oppressed must take up arms, and in doing so, risk becoming what they hate. Military power is necessary to overthrow chains, yet it can easily forge new ones. Thus, Sun reminds us that revolution is never pure: its aim is noble, but its means are dangerous, and often they war against each other.
History offers countless confirmations. Consider the French Revolution, which began with cries of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Yet soon, to defend itself against enemies within and without, it birthed the Reign of Terror. Military and political power consumed the revolutionaries, and the rights of the people—the very treasure they sought—were trampled beneath the guillotine. What was meant as liberation became blood and fear, showing the very contradiction Sun Yat-sen warns against.
Sun spoke from his own struggle. In leading the Chinese people against dynastic decay and foreign oppression, he knew that without force of arms, the dream of freedom was impossible. Yet he also feared that soldiers, once enthroned, would forget the people’s cause and cling only to power. His warning was not abstract but painfully real: the revolution must be won by armies, but if armies are not restrained, the victory of the people becomes the birth of a new tyranny.
Therefore, let the seeker of justice learn this hard lesson: the rights of the people are fragile, easily overshadowed by the thunder of cannons. The sword may open the gates of freedom, but only wisdom, humility, and vigilance can keep those gates from closing again. Let every revolution remember that the end is greater than the means, and that military power, though necessary, must bow to the higher law of liberty. For if it does not, then the revolution devours itself, and the people’s dream turns to ash.
TTHa Dinh Tuan Tu
This makes me question the nature of power itself. If achieving rights depends on military strength, doesn’t that mean those rights are always at risk of being overpowered again later? Maybe Sun Yat-sen was hinting that true freedom requires more than just victory — it needs a moral transformation within society. But can such change ever come through force alone?
KLkhanh linh
I’m struck by how self-aware this quote is. It doesn’t glorify revolution but exposes its internal contradiction. What fascinates me is the honesty: acknowledging that the pursuit of justice can require methods that temporarily suppress it. Do you think leaders should be transparent about this moral tradeoff, or would that risk weakening the cause and discouraging followers?
PVVu Tran Phuong Vy
This quote feels so relevant even now — it’s the eternal struggle between principle and pragmatism. A revolution must defend itself, but at what cost? If power and rights can’t coexist during transformation, does that mean revolutions are doomed to fail their ideals? I’d love to hear a perspective on whether it’s possible to maintain moral integrity in the heat of armed conflict.
TTBui Tan Thanh
Reading this, I can’t help but think of modern revolutions that began with noble intentions but ended up creating new forms of oppression. Maybe Sun Yat-sen was warning us that violence, even when justified, can poison the outcome. But if peaceful reform isn’t an option under tyranny, what alternatives exist? Is there such a thing as a moral revolution?
BBau
I find this statement brutally honest. It acknowledges that revolutions aren’t pure; they’re messy, conflicted, and often self-defeating. It makes me wonder — is it inevitable that the means of gaining power corrupt the ideals that inspired the fight in the first place? Can a movement focused on equality and liberty survive once it becomes dependent on force and hierarchy?