They called themselves socialistic. If they aren't who was ever? Then the big difference between capitalism and socialism would be that the first existed for real.

But basically I don't really believe in socialism or capitalism.

I rather try to think in categories like:
- centrally planned economy vs. market economy
- democracy vs. tyranny
- welfare vs. inequal
- conservative vs. liberal
- corrupt vs. transparent and lawful
- majority voting (favors two parties) vs. proportional voting (favors many parties)
- ...

For example China would be an inequal, conservative tyranny with a corruption problem and an interesting mixture of central planning and market economy. Denmark would be a conservative, lawful, welfare democracy. Italy might be a corrupt, inequal, multi-party democracy with a slight tendency to be conservative. ...

This way one is not stuck all the time to decide between capitalism and socialism when for example China kind of proves that you can even combine both in one country (at least officially). China - the capitalistic, socialistic market economy people's republic. Sounds crazy but neverteless exists.

i did not post "You're proving my argument." you're quoting the wrong person.

as for using empty chinese GLASS towers for nuclear war... what the flying russian times are you smoking?!? i'm quite convinced you're a troll now. have fun "arguing" with the monkey guy.

Probably every country had big scale hunger.
Early 30th - is a time of Great Depression, millions of people were jobless and malnourished.
Fast googling "country" hunger 1933:

German chancellor Heinrich Brüning (30 March 1930 – 30 May 1932) got a nickname "The Hunger Chancellor"
http://historicalpassages.blogspot.ru/2011/04/1929-1933-four-fateful-years-1.html
Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_marches
France http://www.britishpathe.com/video/la-marche-des-chomeurs-aka-hunger-march-to-paris/query/France
Spain https://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historiacocina.com%2Fpaises%2Farticulos%2Fhambre1900.htm
UShttp://depts.washington.edu/depress/hunger_marches.shtml

Yes, USSR had more deaths.
Reasons:
After communists took power Russia was swarmed from every direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War this attack ended in 1920
Poland attacked Russia and annexed some land
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War ended in 1921
China in 1929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_conflict_%281929%29

People, which were intended to work on fields served in army, living from eating stored food.
There were crop failures in 1932 and 1934, and you get the idea.
Low production, stocked food eaten, embargo against USSR, so it couldn't purchase food elsewhere.
Looks like it isn't fault of policies, just an antisoviet propaganda.

I figured it out. You work here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

Both. Look at the "discussion" between us - me - backed up by links information. You - links to hysterical press. "Putin and gulags, how awful of him". There are no secret prisons in Russia like gulag anymore, USA uses dozens of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site Oh, right, "Bargaining with russian nationalist". Yeah. "We are good by default".
So annoying. Much pissing me off.
It's because I was called "paid troll" 4 or 5 times already. It's annoying, to be honest. "You are troll", and disregarding everything I said.
Because Medvedev is in the same team with Putin, he's a nominal figure. For example, let's take Germany, I don't even know name of their president - Merkel is person in power; Medvedev was the "german president".
Gorbachev<>Putin is kind of unfair - too big difference in population and different GDP statistic due to changes in formulas.
Stalin<>Putin even more so. During Stalin's years assumed longevity on birth went from 44 years to 68. Incarcerated people, though...

Technically, you can do comparison, I don't doubt that Putin would win. Russia was a donor, which subsidized peripheral republics, From top of my head, Ukraine was 30% of population and 15% of GDP. Uzbekistan/Tajikistan still have their budgets by 30-40% filled by migrants working in Russia and sending money to their families.
When they became independent, Russia was "well, between buying goods from independent China or independent Tajikistan I will choose cheaper option" - so these "countries" went to shit, to the level of Chinese workers, without benefits China has - enormous amount of workers, money, educated people.