Yes, and a million starving men will kill the people keeping all the bread so they can eat.
Brilliant, I suppose that's why famines are so often accompanied by redistribution of wealth, once the rich have been killed so the poor can eat. Inequality plummets after famines, what with all of those dead elites. /s
The Russian revolution, for example, was directly caused by the lack of food in Russian cities,
The actual conditions of food availability had been considerably worse without murmur of revolution, numerous times before. And quite a few times after, for that matter. Much of the initial unrest was because of the prospect of rationing was the final irritant in a weak government's loss of popularity, not because people were starving. Furthermore, the strata most likely to experience anything resembling actual starvation was the peasantry, which was largely indifferent to the prospect of revolution, and would end up as a primary support base for the counterrevolutionaries in the years to come.
and the revolutions of 1848-1849 were in part caused by the hungry forties.
Insofar as they caused economic distress by increasing food prices. Insofar as actual starvation is concerned, no. There's a reason why the Communist Manifesto, itself written during the Revolutions of 48, mentions the lack of revolutionary potential of the peasantry, who would've been the most food insecure of the classes.
As we all know, Ireland was utterly lacking in peasant uprisings before the Potato Blight.
That the greatest period of starvation in Ireland's modern history, during a period of continent-wide unrest had one rebellion with two deaths might suggest that starvation is not the revolutionary impetus you think it is.
The food wasn't there, because some ~90% of the conscripts sent off to WW1 were peasants, in a system that was already in a very precarious position regarding labor and backwards technology being unable to compensate for shortages of labor. Not only that, but WW1 resulted also in the massive buy-up of horses, also key to peasant life and agricultural production. Even in peacetime it was noted that rural peasantry were malnourished, even by the low standards of the Russian working class, and the situation did not improve during the wartime years.
... land-reformers who split with another, more radical socialist party, and who had only marginal support from the peasantry after 1907? How... revolutionary?
Oh great, increased car payments are just an expression of the human desire not to starve too.
Not ignorance so much as "still not getting what I'm saying".
Yes, but if the peasantry, who are objectively in a worse food situation than the urban proletariat, are starving, according to your hunger-based analysis of revolutionary impetus, they should be immensely revolutionary. Yet history shows, time and time again, that this is not the case - and Marx, living during the Revolutions of '48 you claim were driven by hunger, himself noted the lack of revolutionary sentiment in the peasantry. If starvation was what caused men to rise up and kill their superiors to feed themselves, the starving should be at the forefront - yet the most starving demographic of the period did not rise up. Marx, largely correctly, connected this with the unique interests of the peasantry as a class - starvation had nothing to do with revolution.