Asklemmy

That idea alone is sort of impossible. There is no pure communist or pure capitalist economy. Hell even capitalism is one balanced region between four points of varying qualities: authoritarian vs libertarian, and market driven vs planned economy. Communism is an authoritarian planned economy.

One of the first economic rules is that it is impossible to have a pure economy. Purely market driven or purely planned. The closer an economy gets to it the more it all falls apart. Right wing totalitarianism is the closest thing to an opposite of communism, and it absolutely sucks. Several former Soviet nations went that way after the fall. They became so anti-communist that they had to become totalitarian regimes (pseudo democracy where there is an election, but only one party, with only one candidate, because they illegalized all opposition). RWT is as destructive to economies as communism was. I admit that perceptions of how communism performed is filled with controversy and misinformation on every side. But no matter how you slice it, communism failed mostly because it placed duty to community above basic needs like food and shelter. Or, more correctly, managers of production had no incentive to perform their best, so they performed at lower and lower levels until the whole economy was so depressed that it could not feed everyone while food was spoiling in the fields unharvested.

There is a reason why China switched to a capitalist economy, even though they still call themselves communist the way Burger King calls themselves "King."

How many were killed by the UK, US, France etc?

Under Churchill millions of Indians died in the Bengal famine
There was the Madras famine before that, which is less known.
British rule killed millions of Indians.

USAmerica caused the genocide in Guatemala. Carpet bombed Vietnam, Laos, Korea etc.
Couped Chile
The war on terror stuff
The Indonesian massacre on anti-capitalists or neutrals

Tried to threaten India during the Bangladeshi independence movement, by sending ships with nuclear weapons.
The U S S R sent its nuclear submarines to create a stalemate.

The capitalist country tried to threaten us with atomic weapons and the communist nation helped us get a stalemate and stable existence using their own.

France arranging coups in African nations.

Why stop at those who died under rule of Stalin, why not compare the deaths caused by capitalist nations in their conquests to defend freedom and democracy and educate the brown and black people?

Only one country has used atomic bombs on civillian towns, that too twice.
The main countries that have a 'No first use policy' are U S S R(past), India and China.

Aren't the communists and socialists the decent ones there?
You can say that it is a superficial move for propaganda. If so, why didn't the other major countries do the same?
It indeed shows a difference in policy.