Yeah, I kind of agree with you. You made some pretty convincing points. I do want to note some stuff, though.

I've mainly heard 'victims of communism' about the imperialism from these communist states. In the case of the Holodomor, the Ukranians had their grain taken by the Soviet Union as a means of control and collectivisation, this is directly tied to communism. It is the victims themselves who say it was communism, it is quite difficult to prove them wrong when that's what they say about their own history.

I think you can die to economic systems, such as homelessness being solely responsible by capitalism, but I also understand your point that you can apply it to anything, like the police, infrastructure, or even bad weather. Hence, my initial question was how an economic system can kill. Capitalism can also directly kill, such as corporations in Africa, like Coca-Cola and Nestle, killing unionists and deliberately starving towns.

But with communism, it's a little bit different. Communism (like any revolution) requires death. It's a part of it. Communist governments like the Soviets and China killed dissenters and their opposition deliberately and regularly. Later they each performed genocides, and both were imperialistic in doing so. They say it was for the sake of communism.

Still, they existed. They were communists. They killed to create communism. They kill for communism. They were the leaders of communism and were the most successful at implementing it. It doesn't matter if they weren't your version of communism or whatever definitions you want to use -- People died, that's the end of it. Perhaps we can say 'victims of communism' as communism is dead and gone. History is written by the victor, as you know.

You can argue saying, 'That wasn't real communism!' but at that point you're arguing over nothing. It's the same as 'guns don't kill people.' -- It detracts from the point. It's not about the gun; it's about the purpose of the gun, which is to kill. Once you start going into 'what-ifs' when it comes to history, then I think your argument is nonexistent, what if an asteroid hits? It's pointless.

But we're also arguing semantics and trying to apply something tangible to intangible systems, and we're both biased. This is not going to get us anywhere.

Though, at the risk of being off-topic, do you know anything about Capitalism's eventual takeover of Feudalism? I've discovered this topic recently, and it's quite interesting. So too is a divine economy, basically it's indulgence, but with mutual prayer as opposed to money-to-prayer.