>>66714
>Can we morally condemn socialist revolutionaries, given that their fellow countrymen were starving to death?
Yes. That their ideas wouldn't work was clear from the beginning, because their ideas are shit. Look at the kind of utopian bullshit they wrote. The socialist revolutionaries were detached from reality and it shouldn't have taken Mises to make them aware of it. After Mises showed categorically that socialism cannot work, they have even less of an excuse that they couldn't have known better. But of course, they never use that excuse. Might be their ego at work; talk about irony. At least I have never heard of a high-ranking socialist who defected after he has figured out that the socialist utopia is simply unachievable, for economic reasons. Ignorance can be an excuse, but not when you will it.
There's also the fact that socialist revolutionaries almost never had strong moral sentiments. There are some exceptions, like Orwell and maybe Marcos, but they are just that: Exceptions. It's not just a cliché that socialist revolutions tend to be extraordinarily brutal, and it's common knowledge that the aftermath is often even worse. You cannot tell me that someone who genuinely loves his people, who starts a revolution because he is so outraged at the injustice around him, would concentrate his efforts on stripping "class enemies" naked and showcasing them on butcher hooks, or ripping families apart and sending the unruly members away to be "reeducated". That they interpret this as the good doesn't make it so. Interpreting evil as good is precisely wherein evil lies.