Is it acceptable if people perish to implement your ideal worldview, if so, why?

Malcolm X said that if you do not demand your liberty, you do not deserve it. If you adhere only to peaceful means of demanding your liberty, then all your oppressors would need to do is physically resist your demands and you will be stopped because you submitted to non-violence. He did specifically say that force should always be the final option in struggles for liberty, but it should still be kept as an option. He pointed out that it was absurd to believe the people of India used no violence in their struggle against their oppression under British rule. That point holds merit. 

Others believe it is immoral if violence or death come along with any struggle for freedom, or any political agendas, and those who employ those means are criminals. 

Then there are those who believe that nothing will get done if force isn't used to institute their agenda. The Khmere rouge used a slogan to warn those who dared defy them. They said " if I kill you, it won't matter to the rest of the country or the world". This specifies that the Khmer rouge, and other dictatorial entities have no regard for the sanctity of life, and they fully accept that some people may be terminated, or must be terminated to institute their agenda. 

If you have an ideal worldview in which it is acceptable to you if people die to institute this ideal, can you convincingly justify why it is acceptable for this to happen for the betterment of humankind rather than only justifying it for the sake of implementing the ideal that you just happen to like best?