When you are right, you cannot be too radical; When you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.

The aphorism argues that the moral correctness of a cause—not the label “radical” or “conservative”—should determine how boldly one acts. If a position is just, then vigorous, even disruptive action is warranted; if a position is unjust or mistaken, then “conservatism” (restraint, caution, preservation of the status quo) cannot redeem it. The line also critiques the tendency to treat moderation as inherently virtuous: it implies that moderation can be complicity when the status quo is wrong, while “radicalism” can be principled when it aims at justice. In civil-rights terms, it frames nonviolent direct action as justified “radical” pressure in service of right.