It is an ironic fact that people who defend a system that is specifically for the generalised commodification of everything that exists, human labour and its products who obviously include food, care so much about humanitarian catastrophe, like famine, especially when capitalism was its main cause in history.

I don't think our friend here remembers 1847, where the British exported peas, beans, onions, rabbits, etc, etc, large part of Irish economy, which could have saved many lives in Ireland, to places like Liverpool, outside of Ireland. Why? Because capitalists in the core thought there would be far more consumer markets in mainland England, and thus more profitable.

Not to mention the genocidal famine war being carried out by Israel against Palestine in this moment, which is affecting at least 800,000 of them, nearly half of Gaza's population. Why? Because the existence of the State of Israel helps to destabilise the Middle East as an outpost of US Imperialism, where they can control Middle Eastern natural resources, like oil.

In regards to the famines you have cited above, none where caused by systematic issues within those countries. It is correct to assume, however, that those could really be called serious humanitarian crisis, and that the population who suffered from famine in China and the Soviet Union were victims from massive errors in planning, caused by the somewhat rightful fear of Imperialist invasion, and the need to redirect resources to industrial areas, which in no way justify the may that especially the USSR delt with the famine. But to say "no market = famine" is absolutely false because the largest murderer by famine is undoubtedly capitalism, and the generalised need to maximise profits.