This is just boilerplate postmodernism, and you're not even doing it right.

First off, of happiness and value is so subjective, then how can you admonish this supposed extermination? Maybe that was just how they found value and happiness. Maybe your perception of this supposed extermination is just subjective. Your own hippie logic is self-defeating.

Secondly, yes, I do want someone else to decide what I'm worth, it's called democracy. In fact, it's the basis of pretty much every honour system in the world. I'm not some narcissistic dictator who thinks the world owes me its praise and approval. If I do not prove myself sufficient in my deeds, and if I do not live in a way as to find virtue and decency that others may enjoy, then I am not honourable. The only reason people buy into this pathetic and predatory notion of individualism is because they’re up to something. They’re looking to get away with some sneaky or underhanded thing. It’s the morality of perverts and layabouts.

Thirdly, this famine nonsense is a tired old antisemitic conspiracy theory that only people in the English speaking world still believes. It's been debunked over and over again.

Since you cannot bother to research things, I will simply quote how I have already addressed this:

“The Soviet Union starved millions of people to death in the Ukraine in the 1930s. The people were not allowed to grow their own food, and what was produced on Kolkhoz collective farms was taken for Moscow and other centers of Soviet authority.”

Perhaps this is indeed what happened. However, there might be some other avenues to explore.

First one being how the US issued a gold blockade on the Soviet Union in 1925, forcing them to pay for all their imports with grain. Seems like a somewhat arbitrary thing to do unless you were intentionally looking to cause a famine within a country you regard as a foreign enemy.

Source: Economist Nikolai Starikov, University of St. Petersburg

Second one might be the cycles of drought that caused numerous famines dating all the way back to the 1800s.

Source: Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931–1933 by Mark Tauger, Department of History, West Virginia University

Fourthly, capitalism is what puts people in the role of the victim. It's progressive liberals who are the whiny and politically correct crybabies. Marxism is when working class people learn how to fight back, it's when you stop being a victim and actually do see how you have power as an individual, provided you organise with others.

There is plenty of competition in Marxism, but it's not capitalists placing bets using other peoples' livelihoods and money, instead it's workers who compete to achieve. Honour competitions were massively popular in the Soviet Union, and people enjoyed them a great deal, because instead of being punished for losing, you got rewarded for winning. In capitalist competition, your "prize" is to continue to exist, and your loss is unemployment and destitution. So it's not a real contest, it's just social Darwinism.

If you had the Olympics, and everyone who lost were shot at the end of the contest, this would not be competition. It would be misery. That's what capitalism calls competition, it's not rewards for winning, it's punishment for losing. Obviously no one can improve and get better if they are always punished like that, it just creates monopolies like Amazon and Google.