> Integrated over time You buried the lede. Death per unit time is extremely important. And yes, huge numbers died of starvation as the result of revolutionary

> Integrated over time You buried the lede. Death per unit time is extremely important. And yes, huge numbers died of starvation as the result of revolutionary, utopian (and insane and nonsensical) policies. But the starvation deaths were the direct result of the violence and insanity. The two cannot be decoupled. So, I certainly would "count" them. I think most people would. Is there an argument about how the deaths per unit time went down in those countries post-revolution? > many of those who died post-revolution would never have even had the chance to be born I'm not ceding this point, but hypothetically, by your logic, these were just bonus lives whose horrible ends shouldn't count? > Tens of millions of people die of easily preventable deaths Yes, this is the default state of nature and thus humanity. Violent, cataclysmic revolution is almost never the best (or even a good) solution. There are limited examples of success, but what sane person would bet their life on it? I think, fundamentally, the problem with violent revolution is that its leaders are most often ideological zealots who are ill-equipped to lead a nation. They tend to think the same tools that gained them power (violence) will yield effective results in governance. Or, and I think this is a more likely explanation, they are probably just sociopathic, power-crazed murderers.