I actually agree with your opinion, sorry if it wasn't clear :) I was just pointing out that, generally speaking, many movements who were "fighting for our oppressed fellow man" were in fact produced not by the oppressed, but by dissenting elements of the oppressing classes. Not all of them, of course.
Ahh, I didn't understand. I couldn't figure out where "the opposite is true" was supposed to apply.
How do you tell when a movement was produced by the oppressed, but where the strongest and most influential voice that the oppressing class hears is from a dissenting member of that class? Given how quickly Luther's views spread, it can't be that he was the only one who didn't like the actions of the Catholic church.
I still feel that you're walking into a trap. If a member of the oppressed class become notable and influential, then that person's work could be recast as a way to achieve personal power and thereby become part of an oppressing class. If so, then oppression is perpetual until we figure out how to make 7 billion people be equally notable and influential.
How does a dissenting element of the oppressing class ever leave that class?
