On the "Oppressed" hating the "Oppressor," and other anti-political stupidities

Comment published on New York Times online blog in response to op-ed essay, "If we silence hate speech, we silence resistance," 8/10/18:

Once again, a claim that hating "the oppressor" is justified and not the same as the hatred of the oppressed.  

Both sides get it horribly wrong when they define hatred in terms of "who" does it to whom. That is how "oppression" itself is usually defined now, and it is mistaken. If it is a matter of who, and not what, then banned can be all kinds of criticism, and not banned can be real hatreds.

Anyone remember Nazism? It was built upon hatred of a demographic group on the supposition that they were "privileged" (often true) and so "oppressors". It is a meaningless claim, and it does not help to substitute the "ruling class" as Stalinism and Maoism did. In Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the entire middle class was murdered under this same logic run riot.  

In America, most racism is black hatred of whites. This is no surprise: every kind of social pathology more affects the more vulnerable and "oppressed" themselves. Many Black people routinely think and talk about "white people" as their presumptive oppressors. (For its part, white racism is mostly driven by fears of crime.  Of course, no such fear justifies any hatred; indeed, rarely do explanations justify; different questions--and temporalities--are involved).  This blocks both strategic political unity on the liberal left, and substantive and useful social analysis.  The question is not one of blame but one of strategy: what is to be done?

Does anyone hear the word capitalism? It is oppressive to many, but is not a conspiracy of the rich. Change needs not dulling hatred but creativity.  

Liberal politics after 1968 focused on groups, and identity, pride, speech policing. Oppression equates with being offended in a managerial moralism befitting corporate quiescence.