Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even though it is true, it is dwarfed in magnitude by the repression in the communist world. From 1789 to the first Empire was only 15 years; to the Thermidorean Reaction even shorter. > The French revolution was attempting to terrorise a political ellite. That's a very generous interpretation. It's certainly what Robespierre would say, sure, but it's just as much what Lenin would say.
We are talking about 4 orders of magnitude differences, of a third of the population in some country. It’s not a matter of a few years. I am not trying to defend the French revolution, which actions were the antithesis of the values it pretended to promote. But for all its horrors, the french revolution wasn’t in the business of mass slaughtering its own population.
The French Revolution was strangled in its crib while it's mass killing was still accelerating, and it's leaders themselves killed en massé by counterrevolutionaries; it wasn't in business very long for that reason, a fact that future revolutionaries were keenly aware of and eager to avoid.
The stated ideology of the 1790s Paris Commune might be more attractive to modern democratic capitalists than that of the Bolsheviks, et al.,, but the main reason that the former has less of a history of violence than the latter is that they lost very early on in their program of exterminating an ever-expanding list of perceived enemies of the revolution, not some greater humanitarianism.