Personally, I handle it like this: Killing people is never right, but it isn't always the best decision to do "the right" thing. The right thing, morally, would have been, to collectively not create a system that has CEOs and billionaires. Just like, the ideal revolution would only depose and take the power from the ruling classes and would have no need for terror. But it's usually impossible to follow a completely ideal situation.

I think the distinction is important, mainly because the enjoyment of revenge for revenge's sake and violence for violence's sake is pretty real and can become very dangerous to the success of revolutionary action. So it is good to remind yourself of the ideal situation (no killing), as to curb any excesses if at all possible. It does not mean you cannot go against those ideals - in the end, ideals are trumped by material reality and its necessities.

Yeah, my comment was worded poorly. What I meant to say was that I hate the general idea of just killing everyone who stands in the way of societal progress. I don't want that to become the default option.

Do you think killing for example Hitler would've changed anything? He just was some random guy who joined an already existing movement (and even without that movement ww2 was inevitable after the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain). They'd just have picked someone else to lead it

Do you think killing Putin would change anything? He put complete loyalists everywhere, if he's gone his political line will continue.

These are systematical issues, you can't fix them as long as a large majority of those who have power to change anything (in a democracy thankfully that's everyone who's eligible for voting) simply accept it.

Side note: In the USA's recent election ~32% voted for the Republicans and ~32% for the Democrats while over a third just didn't care at all. That's not how you get something to change in a democracy!