There are ways to survive without doing that. Most will do that though, because they already are. The oppressed would rather exploit each other than the system, because of the few that made the news, it didn't go very well. For those that didn't, enforcement apparatus was well-paid.
Then by OPs logic it would follow that the oppressed are only in that position because they are weak. (e.g. not temporarily disenfranchised revolutionaries) If they were "strong" they would be in the oppressors position.
Is water good or bad? Are you drowning, or thirsty? Maybe you're swimming. Maybe it's in water where raw sewage or chemical waste is dumped. Maybe it's pristine and you accidentally swallow some, but now you have cholera because an infected animal eliminated in that spot. Maybe it's full of microplastics.
Instead, maybe you can picture life questions as one of those color picker sliders, and the slider can move infinitely in any direction.
I searched for a post but couldn't find it now, and it's too bad because it addresses exactly this mindset, but basically talked about how liberalism boils everything down to a zero sum game, among the general populace.
Somehow, the masses never develop enough unity to take that zero sum game to the ultrawealthy and global corporations.
You and I see the world very differently. You see money as strength; I see it as a tool, a means to an end. Nonetheless, a coalition may be beneficial.
Yeah but if it's a universal truth then it transcends all categories. The stronger nation topples the weaker while the bully dominates others in the schoolyard. Therefore any semblance of egalitarianism or equality is artificial and sustained only by the threat of force. This force only exists if there are enough intelligent and strong people in the society that also agree to the social contract in enough numbers that it won't collapse or be conquered by an outside force. (e.g. Brute force is all that matters)